How has Vatican II helped the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter jasonjessica09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike30 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Great post, Mike. Thanks. I do agree with you on all points.

I recall that Bishop Schneider wants to re-visit the documents of V2 and get a more well-defined writing of such. I do have all the documents but reading them is quite labor-some. I am not the type of mind they are written for. They are heady.
 
I will say that it was Lumen Gentium that has put bishops on par with the pope (seemingly??). So you are right that they don’t feel the need to follow Rome. If that were the case we would have our communion rails and receive our Lord on the tongue while kneeling and listen to Gregorian chant. But who follows the pope’s lead any more?
 
ljsedivy said:
I will say that it was Lumen Gentium that has put bishops on par with the pope (seemingly??). So you are right that they don’t feel the need to follow Rome. If that were the case we would have our communion rails and receive our Lord on the tongue while kneeling and listen to Gregorian chant. But who follows the pope’s lead any more?
Click to expand...
This is one of the things I find most disturbing. The fact that disobedient bishops are allowed to stay in their posts.
 
triumphguy said:
Religious life was decimated after Vatican 2, but not by Vatican 2.
Click to expand...
Sheesh! How many times have I said that! You are completely right, and I completely agree… as I thought I had said several times. The Council is not to blame. People “doing their own thing” using it as an excuse were/are. :rolleyes:
 
In response to our moderator’s wise mandate to stay on topic:

One particular thing I appreciate that was done three years after V2 by Pope Paul VI was the revision of the Enchiridion of Indulgences. It clarified everything without changing the basic rules of how it works, while simplifying much about it in a great way. For example, in the old days a person’s blessed rosary or medal had to be specifically ‘indulgenced’ by a priest with the proper faculties, and then somebody else who borrowed your blessed/indulgenced rosary would not gain the indulgences, since it was not their rosary. But now any blessed rosary or blessed object carries a partial indulgence, even if you give it away freely to somebody (not sell it). Great stuff.

It makes me laugh - but then I stop, because what they think is sad and harmful - to hear people say "but Vatican II ‘got rid’ of indulgences!’
 
Leon_Bloy said:
Sheesh! How many times have I said that! You are completely right, and I completely agree… as I thought I had said several times. The Council is not to blame. People “doing their own thing” using it as an excuse were/are. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Correct. It was people not the council itself.

I think the main good of the council was to get people fired up for the faith and for the laity to realize they need to be more active outside the church in helping people to come to full knowledge of the Catholic faith. Unless I am mistaken. But that’s what I have gotten from it from the little reading I was able to do. I have many books waiting for me to devour. I want to really understand what it really was and not what some people interpreted it to be.

All the changes in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass were not in any documents. It was the actions of certain people that went ahead and ripped out communion rails and telling the priests to face the people (rubrics do not call for this). I don’t know how all the raunchy music got let in but that’s a topic for another thread.
 
ljsedivy said:
Correct. It was people not the council itself.

I think the main good of the council was to get people fired up for the faith and for the laity to realize they need to be more active outside the church in helping people to come to full knowledge of the Catholic faith. Unless I am mistaken. But that’s what I have gotten from it from the little reading I was able to do. I have many books waiting for me to devour. I want to really understand what it really was and not what some people interpreted it to be.

All the changes in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass were not in any documents. It was the actions of certain people that went ahead and ripped out communion rails and telling the priests to face the people (rubrics do not call for this). I don’t know how all the raunchy music got let in but that’s a topic for another thread.
Click to expand...
Very insightful and I agree with a lot of what you said here. We must live out our Faith and not leave it to the clergy alone. The clergy help and instruct us on how to do that (and always have) but I think the faithful needed a good nudge, although we could use more guidance. This nudge seemed to be taken by many to be a free-for-all, but the Council cannot be blamed as many try to affirm. Catechesis on the Council can be blamed, but not the Council itself. To me, that’s like telling the Holy Ghost that He got everyone off kilter…
 
TrueLight said:
This is one of the things I find most disturbing. The fact that disobedient bishops are allowed to stay in their posts.
Click to expand...
The Church tends not to sack bishops in case as they, as successors to the Apostles, go off and found their own churches.

I think an Australian one was ‘asked to step down’, recently.

Why have the upsetting changes occurred since Vatican 2? Because a great many Catholics, including clergy, want them. That’s the elephant in the room.
 
So why has the Vatican allowed these liturgical abuses to run rampant? A lack of gregorian chant in most churches, facing the people, receiving the Eucharist in the hands without kneeling, etc.
 
Thaelros said:
So why has the Vatican allowed these liturgical abuses to run rampant? A lack of gregorian chant in most churches, facing the people, receiving the Eucharist in the hands without kneeling, etc.
Click to expand...
Probably because what you list are not “abuses”, but valid options to be used at the discretion of the local ordinary.
 
Thaelros said:
Why are these variations tolerated if they were not mandated in Vatican II? :ehh:
Click to expand...
Maybe because the Holy See sees that in some places these things may have value and have been the things that have brought more people into the fold? 🤷

I don’t know the answer, and until the Holy See says otherwise the things you listed are valid options. It is what it is.

I don’t have to like it, but I do have to accept it.
 
TrueLight said:
This is one of the things I find most disturbing. The fact that disobedient bishops are allowed to stay in their posts.
Click to expand...
Remember, with the complete rupture between the civil state and the Church, the Church no longer has reliable means to enforce discipline. In the old days, a bishop who refused to follow the traditions of the Church could be arrested and brought before an ecclesiastical tribunal for formal deposition or imprisonment. In extreme cases, they could be executed.
 
RogerDeCourcy #204
The Church tends not to sack bishops in case as they, as successors to the Apostles, go off and found their own churches.
I think an Australian one was ‘asked to step down’, recently.
Click to expand...
There have been several dissenting bishops in Australia since Vatican II. The clique to which Bishop Morris was allied included dissenters like Bishops Robinson and Power who have sullied the faith.

As The Australian’s columnist Christopher Pearson (also a convert to Catholicism) wrote shortly after the story broke, Bishop Morris had already sown consternation in his diocese with his 2006 pastoral letter. Seeking comment on how to respond to a shortage of priestly vocations in the diocese of Toowoomba, the Bishop canvassed possibilities including the ordination of women priests and recognising the validity of Anglican, Lutheran and Uniting Church Orders.

“But as reported in this edition of *The Record *(see stories on pages 6-7) he was actually treated with the utmost delicacy, discretion and respect by two Popes and three Vatican dicasteries. He was given more than ten years to resolve the issues and, remaining immovable, still stubbornly resisted repeated requests for his resignation.”
Editorial: a Bishop that had to go (WA Record)
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
 
Oneofthewomen said:
Maybe because the Holy See sees that in some places these things may have value and have been the things that have brought more people into the fold? 🤷

I don’t know the answer, and until the Holy See says otherwise the things you listed are valid options. It is what it is.

I don’t have to like it, but I do have to accept it.
Click to expand...
Music to the ears right there lol. I agree so much with this.

Also, isn’t that why we have bishops, so the Holy See doesn’t have to directly monitor all these things? I could only imagine the headache St. Peter the Apostle would have if he didn’t have the other Eleven helping him.

But even then, bishops aren’t away of what is going on in every single parish unless they’re informed of it, so they can’t really “tolerate” something that they don’t even know about…

Some bishops do tolerate nonsense, but they will be held accountable for that as they can choose to go against the Councils (though they’ll suffer the consequences of it, but they are free).
 
MariaGoretti88 said:
Music to the ears right there lol. I agree so much with this.

Also, isn’t that why we have bishops, so the Holy See doesn’t have to directly monitor all these things? I could only imagine the headache St. Peter the Apostle would have if he didn’t have the other Eleven helping him.

But even then, bishops aren’t away of what is going on in every single parish unless they’re informed of it, so they can’t really “tolerate” something that they don’t even know about…

Some bishops do tolerate nonsense, but they will be held accountable for that as they can choose to go against the Councils (though they’ll suffer the consequences of it, but they are free).
Click to expand...
The fact that the bishop could not possibly be aware of the day to day activities of the parish was one of the reasons why the early Church had deacons.

From the second to fourth century especially, the deacon was the eyes and ears of the Bishop. It has been said that when the deacon entered the Church, it was as if the Bishop himself were there. The diaconate began to decline after the fifth century and by the tenth century the diaconate was transitional, only for seminarians on their way to entering the priesthood.

Some, especially younger Catholics, are not aware that the permanent diaconate has only been restored and operational for about 45 years and that the permanent diaconate was completely unused for one thousand years prior.

You bring up a good point in your post. Here in Georgia, there are two Bishops for the whole state. The Archbishop of Atlanta cannot possibly know what is going on in an Archdiocese which covers half the state of Georgia.

To a certain extent, only 45 years after its restoration, the Church does not fully understand what the role of the permanent diaconate will be. The Holy Spirit is still guiding the Church here. Perhaps the holy spirit will restore the permanent diaconate to the role of “Eyes and ears of the Bishop” for exactly the reasons you mention. It would certainly be good fruit from Vatican II.

-Tim-
 
Oneofthewomen said:
Maybe because the Holy See sees that in some places these things may have value and have been the things that have brought more people into the fold? 🤷

I don’t know the answer, and until the Holy See says otherwise the things you listed are valid options. It is what it is.

I don’t have to like it, but I do have to accept it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Though I really doubt the variations/options have efficiently encouraged people to become Catholic. Statistically, ever since the years after Vatican II (when these variations sprung into being), mass attendance has dropped, seminary attendance has dropped, etc. Honestly I think these variations have discouraged Catholics into leaving.
 
Thaelros #213
Statistically, ever since the years after Vatican II (when these variations sprung into being), mass attendance has dropped, seminary attendance has dropped, etc. Honestly I think these variations have discouraged Catholics into leaving.
Click to expand...
Post #91 shows, in society, the dissent and confusion before, during and after Vatican II – tilting at windmills won’t help.

Mar-12-2012
Vatican says number of Catholics, priests, bishops worldwide increased
The Vatican said the number of bishops in the world increased from 5,065 to 5,104; the number of priests went from 410,593 to 412,236, increasing everywhere except Europe.

In the last five years, it said, the number of seminarians rose more than 14 percent in Africa, 13 percent in Asia and 12.3 percent in Oceania. Numbers decreased in other regions of the world, particularly Europe, which saw a 10.4 percent drop in the number of seminarians between 2005 and 2010.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1200999.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top