How has Vatican II helped the Church

[Big_Feet]

Wherever I go, there I am.



Not considering myself a permanent fixture in any geographic location, I am merely a Catholic, not a Catholic of X diocese. Tomorrow might find me across the country. Or in 10 years, having never left the city limits of my current location. Who knows.

Your question has what purpose?

I believe it was a sarcastic answer to your previous sarcastic response to the OP.

Sarcasm takes us nowhere good fast.

 

[James924]

what would have happened to the Church if Vatican II had not occurred just as it had?

This is an important question and I submit that we should approach it the same way we approach a science experiment. If the council hadn’t happened, lets agree that the average parish would look like a traditional parish (TLM, well formed priests, etc). The great thing for our experiment is that many small traditionalist communities/parishes DO exist to observe today. They are living in the same world you are, those of them who are old enough lived through the same sexual revolution, all the isms, etc etc… so the answer to the question "what would have happened if… is “whatever the traditionalist parishes/communities look like.” Thats the answer. In other words, mass attendance would be high, politically in correct truths of our catholic faith would be preached, catholic would have more than 2.5 kids per couple, understanding of/belief in the real presence would be where it should be, etc etc etc. The question you asked is the ultimate argument in favor of traditionalism.

 

[nickybr38]

This is an important question and I submit that we should approach it the same way we approach a science experiment. If the council hadn’t happened, lets agree that the average parish would look like a traditional parish (TLM, well formed priests, etc). The great thing for our experiment is that many small traditionalist communities/parishes DO exist to observe today. They are living in the same world you are, those of them who are old enough lived through the same sexual revolution, all the isms, etc etc… so the answer to the question "what would have happened if… is “whatever the traditionalist parishes/communities look like.” Thats the answer. In other words, mass attendance would be high, politically in correct truths of our catholic faith would be preached, catholic would have more than 2.5 kids per couple, understanding of/belief in the real presence would be where it should be, etc etc etc. The question you asked is the ultimate argument in favor of traditionalism.

It’s not for me to know. I’m a new convert. I will say this though, things being as they are now have allowed people to come into the Church that wouldn’t have come in had parishes still looked traditional. How can you say that’s a bad thing?

Things being as they are now have allowed people to stay who would have run away otherwise. Whether or not they are ‘true’ Catholics, cafeteria Catholics, lukewarm, cold or otherwise Catholics, the fact that they are still within the Church where they may hear truth is good.

One thing we have to understand is that we cannot see all, we cannot know all and we cannot know what is best.

Really what did Vatican II teach that is objectionable?

Isn’t it really how people INTERPRET Vatican II that is the problem? Not what actually happened within the council?

I just think we need to be careful not to think we know better then the Holy Spirit.

 

[Lamafacaja]

The answer is I don’t know. We’ve had a lot of very bad years, but God draws straight with crooked lines, so we’ll have to trust Him and wait and see what happens.

Do you ever think it’s like a reverberation of the OT story of the Tower of Babel? I wonder about that. Everyone was building the tower, speaking the same language (like it was in the old days with the Latin), and them bam! They all get knocked down, they’re all speaking different languages… I don’t know maybe that’s wrong, but it seems to me like maybe it’s that way…

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

Well, it did restore the order of Consecrated Virgins living in the world, thus giving me a possible vocation other than default singlehood.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Wherever I go, there I am.



Not considering myself a permanent fixture in any geographic location, I am merely a Catholic, not a Catholic of X diocese. Tomorrow might find me across the country. Or in 10 years, having never left the city limits of my current location. Who knows.

Your question has what purpose?

I wanted to go live there. Catechesis here is mediocre at best, we have had a major upswing in vocations in the last few years but nothing like where you are, and we have some major problems with irreverence. I figure if I could visit I could see what you’re doing right and bring some of that holy mojo back to NOLA.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well, it did restore the order of Consecrated Virgins living in the world, thus giving me a possible vocation other than default singlehood.

You are correct. This is a great resource yet to be tapped. It is a shame that there are extremely few of these women.

 

[Big_Feet]

The wake of it, though I do not know if it was a direct result of VII specificly, the perminant diaconate was re-opened as well.

 

[Thomas_Francis]

The wake of it, though I do not know if it was a direct result of VII specificly, the perminant diaconate was re-opened as well.

This too is stained because of poor catechesis, hardly any remain continent.

 

[Luvtosew]

Don’t forget about the changes in the US society as well in the 60’s, hippy and drugs started and free love, that affected all the Churches I think, meaning I just don’t think everything can be blamed on Vatican II, I for one like the English Mass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

There are many things come in the name of Vatican II that are, in themselves, good. But there are many things come in the name of Vatican II that are, at best, extremely suspect and, at worst, even dangerous. I think the challenge now is becoming identifying the bad to come in the Council’s name and destroying it before it does more harm. We were in a cultural nutty at the time of Vatican II, which is extremely unfortunate. I believe that this current generation of young priests and seminarians will be the first one to correctly interpret and begin the true implementation of the true goals of the Council. When you really start to connect the Council to the WHOLE history and life of the Church, that is when everything starts to make sense. Vatican II did not “sing a new Church into being,” as the saying goes. That is romantic and severely deluded thinking. When you speak to some people, you almost begin to think that the Church began in 1965.

When people begin to worship the Council, that is when we land ourselves in a mess. And yes, I sincerely do believe that some, nay, many people, at least a very vocal minority, do indeed worship the Council, at least in practice. When the Council becomes THE Church to someone rather than a tool that the Church uses, we get into a disgusting mess. I think the Council itself BEGS to be a tool rather than an idol, but when we have deluded interpretations of it and ideologues telling us, “Vatican II sez! Vatican II sezzz!!!,” then you just have to stop and say, “Hm Jimbob… can you show me where it says that? What document and paragraph?” Very often you’re met with a blank stare and half-open mouth for ten seconds followed by, “Uhh, what?”

Has Vatican II been catastrophically implemented in most cases? I’d say so.

Do we have to continue down that path? No.

What is going to save us? The current crop of young priests, seminarians, sisters and brothers, and the most committed young lay faithful. We are for the most part unencumbered by the ideologues of our parents’ and grandparents’ generations. It is true that, at least for the time being, we will have less clerics and religious in the Church, at least in the Western world. However, when an interested Catholic of my generation has “Sacrosanctum Concilium” or any of the other documents of the Council thrown in front of his face and is told to read, he has very few preconceived notions, and certainly none of them that his parents and grandparents had. So in most ways, Vatican II’s implementation has been catastrophic. However, sometimes I do think that perhaps God had planned that so that there would be a period of “purified thinking,” so to speak, after a few generations. So perhaps this craze of interpretation and implementation has been a necessary part of our Church history, something that we can look to in 25 or 50 years to be able to respond, “We will never make such mistakes ever again.”

I think that in the future, we will be able to look at the 1960s through about 2010 as a “lesson period” of the Church. I also think that in the future, we will be able to truly see the true fruits of Vatican II, unhindered by immature and ridiculous archaeologistic-“what we think the early Church was like, because everyone knows that it was just so terrific! to be an early Christian in the catacombs”-Church development hating-ism.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Don’t forget about the changes in the US society as well in the 60’s, hippy and drugs started and free love, that affected all the Churches I think, meaning I just don’t think everything can be blamed on Vatican II, I for one like the English Mass.

This, madam, is the crux of the whole problem. The problem is not Vatican II. The problem is a stupid culturally-informed interpretation and secular expectation of Vatican II, and I don’t think this is a harsh statement at all.

I believe we are in a test as a Church right now.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I believe we are in a test as a Church right now.

We are always being “tested”. That is what being human is all about.
Sometimes we win the battle, sometimes we don’t,
and that’s when God, if I let Him,
picks me up, dusts me off, and helps me try again.

Every council of the Church has helped the Church.
I am not blind to many of the problems that we have seen arise in the past 50 years, but VII or not, we would still have problems. There were problems prior to VII, that was one of the reasons for calling it in the first place.

I think we need to be very careful about saying a council was “good” or “bad”.
It is what it is.
What we need to do is look at what we did wrong, find the things we did right, and move forward.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

This, madam, is the crux of the whole problem. The problem is not Vatican II. The problem is a stupid culturally-informed interpretation and secular expectation of Vatican II, and I don’t think this is a harsh statement at all.

I believe we are in a test as a Church right now.

I agree. I don’t think it was Vatican II as it was the “spirit” of Vatican II. Which was however someone wanted to interpret that “spirit.”

 

[YoungTradCath]

We are always being “tested”. That is what being human is all about.
Sometimes we win the battle, sometimes we don’t,
and that’s when God, if I let Him,
picks me up, dusts me off, and helps me try again.

Every council of the Church has helped the Church.
I am not blind to many of the problems that we have seen arise in the past 50 years, but VII or not, we would still have problems. There were problems prior to VII, that was one of the reasons for calling it in the first place.

I think we need to be very careful about saying a council was “good” or “bad”.
It is what it is.
What we need to do is look at what we did wrong, find the things we did right, and move forward.

Correct, but we are being tested now more than ever. Our Church used to be triumphant in the Western world. The Church has never been perfect, and I do not mean to say so, but our Church used to have extreme clout with governments and with the secular society. But then came along the so-called “Enlightenment.” That accelerated the secular movement and gave it the strength it has today. Our Church is being challenged in a way She has not been challenged since before the reign of Constantine. I think a lot of this can be blamed on complacency and not looking towards the future. I also think that Vatican II gave us the ability to once again look towards the future. At the same time, the cultural challenges surrounding Vatican II perverted the Council’s implementation into a grotesque monster, a caricature of its true essence. And thus, most of what Vatican II has called for has been plundered and pillaged and replaced by something else. It is sad to say that instead of living in the “Springtime” envisioned by the Council, we are now in the middle of a death of Catholicism in the West. And as much as I hate the thought of that, it is true, but we will come out of it, that much I am sure of. And we are on the cusp, I think, of solving the problems concerning the interpretation and implementation of Vatican II. We have all of this “new stuff” in the name of the Council, some good, some horrible. But the $64,000 question is: to what end? I think that vision is what we have lost.

For every problem Vatican II gave a vision towards fixing, another problem was put in its place in the name of being “what Vatican II sez,” which is in most cases a false statement. Vatican II gave us many tools to be able to combat the very things people go crazy for, like secularism. The problem is that out of ignorance or cowardice, we succumbed to the very secularism that the Council gave us the weapons to combat. We have the shiny equipment, but we locked it up after the Council and threw away the key. Right now we are desperately trying to find enough TNT to blow the door off the safe, because our enemies are nipping at our feet.

 

[codefro]

If Vatican II hadn’t occurred…

considering the deprivation that our societies (North American societies) have sunk to…

what would have happened to the Church if Vatican II had not occurred just as it had?

I don’t know about all of you but I trust our Lord 100% and I trust that what’s going on is happening just as it needed to for us to ride out the culture we now find ourselves stuck in.

I agree with this. I get the sense that many people are not willing to trust the Lord to have a plan for his holy church.

 

[Alfonsus]

Well, it really kick-started that whole “understand the faith” movement.

Catechesis is better than ever

Vocations to the Priesthood are skyrocketed to the point I don’t know if the seminaries will be able to handle all these men

Reverence is supreme

The governments world-wide recognize the truth of Catholic teaching

The understanding of other religions is such that the RCC now claims over 3/4 of the population of the globe

The Real Presence is 100% unquestioned across the board

And the Jesuits are starting a long-range shooting team to compete in the world F-Class championships.

It’s been super!

Depends where you live. Here in the other side of the world, South East Asia, I can affirm what you said is, more or less, true.

Catechesis is better. Yes, the renewed vigor for catechesis is there. Great resources for catechesis is being created. Apostolates pushing catechesis is popping up.

Vocations up. Well we are exporting our priests to America and Europe

Reverence, well… I think that is something that need to be worked about in big cities. I went to rural, and villages and indeed, reverence is so supreme that I felt ashamed going to the Village church wearing my polo shirt, jeans and snickers. The villagers wear their best clothes in their possession!
But one thing is clear, the statistics of people entering the Church is rising each year after the use of vernacular. Outside of cities, illiterate people is not a rarity. They really appreciate hearing the Liturgy in vernacular.

Regarding the Government, I hope they give better ear to the Church. But our majority is moslem anyway

 

[ProVobis]

That would make sense if indeed the Council had condemned the errors of the world which you speak of, but it didn’t Many council fathers wanted to condemn Communism, Athiesm, Relativism, Liberalism, Modernism, and all of the other tiny “isms” that have some along with that (utilitarianism, consequential, etc) but we refused to do so. (e.g. atheistic communism wasn’t condemned because we didn’t want any offense to the russians to cause them to not allow the schismatic russian orthodox to attend as a sign of ecumenism). Instead we looked at the deprived world full of all of those evil “isms” and said, “hmm, how do can we change ourselves to make them love us more”.

Prior to this, ecumenical councils had always either condemned error or defined dogma. This council did neither. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t valid or legitimate, the pope has the authority to call an ecumenical council and say “now that you’re all here, I’d like to discuss the best pizza toppings…” and it would still be valid and legitimate.

I agree with you that given the “isms” that the world was falling into, it was an opportune time for a council, but my agreement ends when we fail to admit that the opportunity wasn’t used. The world loved the council, read about media coverage sometime. The “ism” filled world loved the council…bad sign…

Good points. There was also some conjecture that ABC would be debated at the council but Pope John took that off the plate by appointing a special committee to discuss this issue. And as we all know whatever came out of these committees was voided by Humanae Vitae.

 

[Alfonsus]

I think we need to think globally.
Let see, statistics in Europe and America may be sunk for now, but revival happened in other part of the world. Talk about South East Asia, South Korea, Africa. We are doing great, we export priests. The vernacular liturgy greatly ushered many people into the Church, at least in Indonesia. I believe the same in Asian countries.

We can only appreciate history in retrospect.
After the great council of Ephesus and Chalcedon, what happened?
We ripped out the unity of the Church, only to found out in 20th century that the Orientals are not monophysite and the Assyrian are not Nestorian… We sign common Christological declaration.

But most of us saw these Council as glorious, without pain and struggle, romantic.
It is easy to calmly say, “oh but they are heretics,” and fail to appreciate the great turmoil the Church must underwent at that time…

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

You are correct. This is a great resource yet to be tapped. It is a shame that there are extremely few of these women.

Maybe if someone would actually mention it as an actual vocation and make it more feasible to discern. Most vocation offices haven’t even heard of it before either. Although, having to actually be a virgin, this is an issue for a lot of women these days.

I don’t even know how this would go over with my priest, considering he’s from the FSSP.