How has Vatican II helped the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter jasonjessica09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You know what’s ironic? In our part of the world, the OF of the Mass is considered already old fashion and boring by a number of young people. We lost a lot of them to evangelical ecclesial communities.
 
choliks said:
You know what’s ironic? In our part of the world, the OF of the Mass is considered already old fashion and boring by a number of young people. We lost a lot of them to evangelical ecclesial communities.
Click to expand...
LOL! That is true. I can sympathize with how they feel - but in my case, it led me to going more often to the EF.
 
Would it be fair to say that these are the essential positions:

Neo-Conservative: The problem with the Vatican 2 documents is how they’re interpreted. The O.F. can be said as reverently as the old mass and without the novelties.

Liberal-Progressive: Both the N.O and the V2 documents are fine and, indeed, don’t go far enough. Vatican 2 was a breakthrough. The novelties have historical precedents.
**
Traditionalist:** The documents of Vatican 2 and the New Mass have been a disaster for the Church. They are not in line with Tradition. They should both be abrogated.
 
choliks said:
You know what’s ironic? In our part of the world, the OF of the Mass is considered already old fashion and boring by a number of young people. We lost a lot of them to evangelical ecclesial communities.
Click to expand...
The priest that taught our class on Christian Prayer said that the young people are being drawn to the TLM because it plays on all the senses. AND because it’s “different” from what their parents did.
 
ljsedivy said:
Statistician Kirk Hadaway and a research team counted** cars in the parking lot **over a period of Several months. His finding: Americans over-report their actual church
Attendance by a marked degree by almost twice as much as actual.
Click to expand...
Does this mean they were under-reported when almost everyone walked to Church? 🙂
 
PhilOSophia said:
Would it be fair to say that these are the essential positions:

Neo-Conservative: The problem with the Vatican 2 documents is how they’re interpreted. The O.F. can be said as reverently as the old mass and without the novelties.

Liberal-Progressive: Both the N.O and the V2 documents are fine and, indeed, don’t go far enough. Vatican 2 was a breakthrough. The novelties have historical precedents.
**
Traditionalist:** The documents of Vatican 2 and the New Mass have been a disaster for the Church. They are not in line with Tradition. They should both be abrogated.
Click to expand...
no. not quite.
 
So why was the liturgical abuse tolerated after Vatican II? For example, Vatican II never stated that the priest should face the people. Why do we still do this?
 
Thaelros said:
So if I’m understanding this whole situation correctly… The Vatican II documents were perfectly fine, but because of their ambiguity in some aspects (perhaps the extremist liberals intended for this to occur, ahem Bugnini), some heretics in the Church took advantage of the “spirit of Vatican II” atmosphere and brought about an abuse of the liturgy and catechism classes in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. As a result of this abuse, we now have Christian rock music prevalent among many parishes (I have read that Vatican II specifically states that the Gregorian Chant should be the primary form), altar girls, a mass apostasy, a lack of proper education among many pockets of the Catholic community in the West, etc.
Click to expand...
That’s correct. The real problems occurred in the period after the Council, which is now being used as a scapegoat.

The attack on Catholic Higher Education - 1967

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511fea1sb5.asp

and its effects in 2010

catholicnewsagency.com/news/outgoing-cua-president-laments-confusion-about-catholic-identity-in-higher-education/

The Church issues Humanae Vitae in 1968. The reaction?

"On July 29, 1968, a crescendo of suspense was broken and Pope Paul VI publicly issued his long-awaited encyclical Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth).

In the encyclical, the Holy Father courageously reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that, in the words of the encyclical, “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of new life” (No. 11).

"It caused a firestorm.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

"Among Catholic laity, Humanae Vitae was also greeted with consternation. A Gallup survey done less than a month after the encyclical was promulgated showed that of those Catholics who had heard of it, only 28% agreed with the Pope’s teaching. Fifty-four percent disagreed with the Pope explicitly; others refused to assent.

"Even among bishops, the encyclical was often received with what could hardly be described as an ardent embrace in obedience and faith. On Sept. 27, 1968, the bishops of Canada, united in plenary assembly at St. Boniface in Winnipeg, Manitoba, issued a declaration on Humanae Vitae that has come to be known as the Winnipeg Statement.
"
"Oddly enough, the statement does not use the term “contraception” even once, substituting instead the euphemism “any positive intervention that would prevent the transmission of human life” (No. 8). Still, the statement seems to be headed in the right direction, as it acknowledges the magisterium’s right to pronounce itself on the question of the responsible regulation of births, along with the duty of the faithful to form their consciences according to that teaching.

"But then, No. 26 makes its appearance, in which all of the above is thrown to the winds:

“Counselors may meet others who, accepting the teaching of the Holy Father, find that because of particular circumstances they are involved in what seems to them a clear conflict of duties, e.g., the reconciling of conjugal love and responsible parenthood with the education of children already born or with the health of the mother. In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that, whoever honestly chooses that course that seems right to him does so in good conscience” (italics added).

“In other words, the Canadian bishops affirmed that Catholics may in good conscience choose to disregard Humanae’s Vitae’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception (found in the encyclical’s No.14).”

Source: regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/imprimir.phtml?se=362&ca=967&te=707&id=21122&opcion=1

Vatican II did nothing to support the euphemism “spirit of Vatican II”:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Peace,
Ed
 
ProVobis said:
Does this mean they were under-reported when almost everyone walked to Church? 🙂
Click to expand...
A-ha! Good point - LOL!

If you think of it, though, don’t you think people would “puff up” their mass attendance? It’s kind of like putting your real weight down when getting a new driver’s license - LOL! Sometimes people really do interiorly believe something that is not reality. Ever notice how you always look fatter in pictures? LOL! Yeah, in our own minds, we look a whole lot better in real life (probably because the mirror isn’t full length - LOL)
 
PhilOSophia,#159
Would it be fair to say that these are the essential positions:
Neo-Conservative: The problem with the Vatican 2 documents is how they’re interpreted. The O.F. can be said as reverently as the old mass and without the novelties.
Liberal-Progressive: Both the N.O and the V2 documents are fine and, indeed, don’t go far enough. Vatican 2 was a breakthrough. The novelties have historical precedents.
Traditionalist: The documents of Vatican 2 and the New Mass have been a disaster for the Church. They are not in line with Tradition. They should both be abrogated
Click to expand...
Such a concoction is useless. Using political terms exacerbates confusion and bamboozles. The Popes don’t use such terms. Faithful and dissenting are the normal and correct terms.

The facts are that Vatican II has been dogmatic and pastoral as have other Councils, and Christ’s Supreme Vicars have consistently affirmed this.

“Traditionalist” does describe those individuals who pursue their own prejudices and dissent as they choose. A faithful or traditional Catholic assents to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.
 
Essentially, the good points of Vatican II were parts in which it just reiterated previous church teaching. Unfortunately, much of that reiteration was done in ambiguous language. Why the need to repeat many of the same things in language that can easily be misinterpreted? You’ll have to ask the people who were responsible.

As far as how it has helped the Church, I think it has made it more obvious than ever who is truly Catholic and who is not. Because of Vatican II, many so-called Catholics have been bold enough to show their true colors while still proclaiming themselves to be part of the one, true Church. Now it’s just time to do a little house cleaning! I’d recommend a few excommunications to start. 😉
 
Abu said:
“Traditionalist” does describe those individuals who pursue their own prejudices and dissent as they choose.
Click to expand...
Traditionalists adhere to the traditions as they were articulated by the Church itself at an earlier point in time. Therefore, what you are calling personal prejudice is also the Church’s prejudice. Unless, of course, one takes the position that the Church’s tradition has somehow changed. A “changing tradition” is something of an oxymoron.
 
Leon_Bloy said:
What about orders founded only decades before Vatican II? Surely they were still living their founders’ charisms…

Also, Vatican II never told religious orders to drop their habits.

Sadly, whatever V2 did or didn’t say, nobody can challenge the obvious evidence that most of the large and older religious orders - especially female ones - were catastrophically decimated in the years following the Council. 😦
Click to expand...
Religious life was decimated after Vatican 2, but not by Vatican 2.
 
Exsilivm #169
Traditionalists adhere to the traditions as they were articulated by the Church itself at an earlier point in time. Therefore, what you are calling personal prejudice is also the Church’s prejudice. Unless, of course, one takes the position that the Church’s tradition has somehow changed. A “changing tradition” is something of an oxymoron.
Click to expand...
There is no “earlier point in time” at one’s selfist choice. By demeaning the Popes one does not follow “tradition” or “Tradition”:
“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).

Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).

In keeping with the political terms used in post #167, Traditionalist = stubbornly conservative and narrow-minded, and this would be true for all of those who demean what the Holy Father wrote in 1985, above, whereas traditionalism = adherence to tradition.

Whether a Catholic participates in the Extraordinary Form or the Ordinary Form of the Mass the essentials are to assent to all dogma and doctrine, to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium which “are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.” Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Vatican II, 10.].
 
First chance I’ve had to read all the posts.

How come the first few posters (who btw were critical of VII) are listed as banned or suspended?
 
Dragonslayer said:
First chance I’ve had to read all the posts.

How come the first few posters (who btw were critical of VII) are listed as banned or suspended?
Click to expand...
One of the forum rules is
Judgments by the Moderators can be discussed with the Moderators via private messaging but not on the board itself. Decisions of the Moderators may be appealed to the Administrator.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top