How has Vatican II helped the Church

[floresco]

Oops. Oh well, hope my post doesn’t get me suspended.

I suggest apologizing. Being a moderator is really hard and people are always complaining about them. Forums like this could not run without moderators. We should be grateful to them and we should pray for them.

 

[Dragonslayer]

I suggest apologizing. Being a moderator is really hard and people are always complaining about them. Forums like this could not run without moderators. We should be grateful to them and we should pray for them.

To all the moderators on this forum who I have offended with my previous question, I sincerely & humbly apologize. Looks like I am no longer able to edit the troublesome post so please feel free to delete it immediately so that other eyes are not corrupted. I have also said a little prayer for you all.

To floresco and all the other post police, I thank you for pointing out the error of my ways. I am trying to think of suitable penance as I type this.

 

[floresco]

To floresco and all the other post police, I thank you for pointing out the error of my ways. I am trying to think of suitable penance as I type this.

You surprised me. I thought you would go with the “suck-up” angle instead of the “post police” one.

 

[Tridentinum]

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.

Yeah, that’s easy to understand.

 

[TrueLight]

You surprised me. I thought you would go with the “suck-up” angle instead of the “post police” one.

Yes me too.

 

[triumphguy]

Yeah, that’s easy to understand.

How about Pope Benedict’s position?

That Vatican II is a continuation of, and informed by all previous Councils.

 

[mattkubes]

How about Pope Benedict’s position?

That Vatican II is a continuation of, and informed by all previous Councils.

Fine, but his position would appear to be more nuanced than just that:

“Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. …] The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.”

 

[Abu]

Without the fatuous cant, Fr Brian Harrison correctly identifies the demeaning of the papacy by those still opposing Vatican II and adrift in their own little world.

rtforum.org/lt/lt44.html
Fr Brian Harrison
“By ‘traditionalist’ I mean that wing of the Church which is generally critical not only of the manifold violations of official Catholic doctrine, worship and discipline which have plagued the Church since Vatican Council II, but also of the officially introduced changes themselves…… Traditionalists, it must be remembered, are by definition those who have to a large extent lost confidence in the post-conciliar papacy, because of what they see as its aberrations from Sacred Tradition.”

 

[Tridentinum]

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.].

You’re post is quite offensive, to say that traditionalists are stubbornly conservative and narrow minded. I think you should do some research into why the SSPX (who I am guessing you are mainly referring to) actually exists, and what they stand for. Contrary to the popular opinion on this forum, the SSPX are not “Schismatics who hate everything post-Vatican II for the sake of hating”. They have reasons for criticizing, you just have to research what.

 

[Schism_hater]

Vatican II did not allow the reception of the precious blood. This was an indult given to some countries that expired over 15 years ago. Many diocese are now rightly restricting this practice as people think they are getting more graces be receving both when they are not. Receving the precious blood was ALWAYS allowed for a grave reason. (i.e. you have a sever medical reason)

The Vat II council and post-council documents most certainly did expand the practice of reception of the Chalice by the Laity, and it is not true that “people” think they are recieving more graces when receiving both (a small minority may believe that). First of all, there is Grace, there are not “graces”. Second, most people understand that in receiving both they are being faithful to Christ’s teaching: “Drink, all of you.”

 

[Schism_hater]

The reforms began in 1948 if not before. They first were manifested in 1955 with the Holy Week reforms and then in 1962 with the addition of St. Joseph in the Canon itself. (Each of these changes had already brought on some controversy.) Bugnini, first hired by Pius XII, was the apparent architect of these reforms, and as he was rehired by Paul VI after being fired by John XXIII, probably would have continued with the reforms even without Vatican II. Just saying.

All that is true. By saying “associated reforms” I was trying to include the whole movement, and especially that part of it associated with “ressourcement”, the greatest thing that happened to the Catholic Church in modern times.

 

[mattkubes]

and especially that part of it associated with “ressourcement”, the greatest [sic] thing that happened to the Catholic Church in modern times.

Luckily antiquarianism had already been condemned by that point in time. It has proven to be a disaster, and usually one that was based on poor scholarship and some sort of faulty liturgical archaeology.

 

[Dragonslayer]

You surprised me. I thought you would go with the “suck-up” angle instead of the “post police” one.

Yeah, that could’ve worked.

 

[Schism_hater]

Luckily antiquarianism had already been condemned by that point in time. It has proven to be a disaster, and usually one that was based on poor scholarship and some sort of faulty liturgical archaeology.

Ressourcement has nothing to do with “antiquarianism”. Please try to stay on topic.

 

[mattkubes]

Ressourcement has nothing to do with “antiquarianism”. Please try to stay on topic.

Antiquarianism describes a senseless return to the rites and usages of antiquity simply because they are older. Ressourcement, from the French meaning “return to the source” essentially implies the same thing - returning to a “simpler”, often falsely conceived pre-Trent liturgy. It has everything to do with antiquarianism. And it has been a disaster.

 

[Schism_hater]

Antiquarianism describes a senseless return to the rites and usages of antiquity simply because they are older. Ressourcement, from the French meaning “return to the source” essentially implies the same thing - returning to a “simpler”, often falsely conceived pre-Trent liturgy. It has everything to do with antiquarianism. And it has been a disaster.

Thank you, but I’ll stick with the “poor scholarship” (your words) of Yves Cardinal Congar, Henri de Lubac, Fr. Jean Danielou, and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, among others, over the extreme assertions of some guy on the internet.

 

[mattkubes]

Why’d you leave out Hans Küng?

Yes, I think it was absurd to presume that something more “pure” than the TLM or its associated theology could have been mined up in the 1960s. At its best, it was based on faulty scholarship. At its worst, it would seem to have been a denial that centuries’ worth of organic liturgical development was guided by the wisdom of the Holy Ghost.

Oddly enough, that same Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger seemed to recognise this. And much more recently than when he was involved with the Nouvelle Théologie crowd:
“We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication…”

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please return to the original question.

How has Vatican II helped the Church?

The thread is not for posters to air their grievances about Vatican II or whatever else has happened.

Thank you for staying on topic.

 

[Mike30]

Since I got into the Latin Mass about a year and half or so, I have done research about the modern history of it and how Vatican II has effected it.Through my research I have discoverd several different things where Vatican II has had an impact and some of it may not be so good.

So I got this question then:In what ways has Vatican II had a positive impact on the modern church? Cause to be honest I’m not sure what the answer to that question is.

To be honest I’m not sure either. Overall, I would say not much. Yet. But lets look at what has happened, and yes, I know there are many here who will say some things would have happened anyway due to the upheaval in social values of the era. Maybe,maybe not.

One thing that has happened without a doubt is that the faithful have been divided into several different camps, which as a general rule are distrusting of the others and tend to feel that they are the true Catholics and the others have fallen off the tree and moved into heresy or schism. That goes on no matter which particular group you agree with.

Another thing that has happened is that many if not most Catholics feel that if they do not agree with Church teaching it is perfectly all right to ignore that with which you do not agree.

It is now apparently OK for Priests and Bishops to pretty much openly defy the Pope without much fear of retribution. Ditto for the laity.

Our understanding of the Mass itself has become murky and ill defined. Ask any representative sampling and you will get differing answers. That did not use to be the case.

Ecumenism has become, I don’t know what,but it sure doesn’t seem to be what I thought it was, which was dialogue to bring the others back into the Church. Not a blanket acceptance of other Christian beliefs and theology, which is what it appears to be. It seems as if we are either unwilling or ashamed to state the truths about the Church in the fear of offending someone…

Acceptance of non Christian beliefs is another thing. For centuries the Church taught and practiced for the most part, conversion from other faiths to Catholicism. Now everything anyone believes seems to be OK, respected and accepted, regardless of the damage it may cause.

We were always taught in those long ago days that the Church interpreted scripture for us and therefore we were save from the errors that can and often do arise with self interpretation. Now it is not uncommon for Catholics to reject the Churches interpretation if it does not agree with theirs.

I guess the biggest thing was that we saw the Church as a rock, the rock,which would withstand all onslaughts and present a beacon of stability in the world. An unchanging monument to the ultimate truth. Sadly that does not seem to be the case any longer. Maybe had Vatican II been held in another era, things could well have been different, who can say?

Another thing seemed to be that experimentation was encouraged, so that all could find their path. That nw2as something entirely new and unknown at the time.

I don’t know if these things came about as a direct result of Vatican II or not, but the fact remains that they did. Maybe in another 50 or 100 years things will change.

Who knows?

 

[shagun]

I believe that this applies to both inside and outside the liturgical function