Is There A Good Book on Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Danquayle76
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Danquayle76

Guest
Vatican II was such an important council, but I really don’t know much about what actually happened at the Council and what the documents say. I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations on books that describe what happened at the Council. Or do I actually have to go read the documents produced by the council?
 
Besides the documents themselves, “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” gives a fairly even-handed commentary about the Council events themselves.
 
Danquayle76 said:
Vatican II was such an important council, but I really don’t know much about what actually happened at the Council and what the documents say. I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations on books that describe what happened at the Council. Or do I actually have to go read the documents produced by the council?
Click to expand...
Trojan Horse in the City of God is a great read insofar as you’d want to read about the after-effects of the Council — von Hildebrand makes the point that it was not Vatican II but the things done falsely in the name of Vatican II which caused the identity crisis in the Latin Rite.
 
Danquayle76 said:
Or do I actually have to go read the documents produced by the council?
Click to expand...
Yes, you do. Naturally these are too long. My experience is that to understand any document the best start is to make a structured reference-able table of contents. down to the paragraph level. While you finish it, you will have some overall view.

Commentaries are always biased, the only realable is the comments of the Magisterium (Popes, Apostolic See) itself.
 
Danquayle76 said:
Vatican II was such an important council, but I really don’t know much about what actually happened at the Council and what the documents say. I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations on books that describe what happened at the Council. Or do I actually have to go read the documents produced by the council?
Click to expand...
Here you will find all the Vatican II documents:

ewtn.com/library/councils/v2all.htm
 
The Rhine Flows into the Tiber (as previously mentioned)
Iota Unum
The works of Michael Davies (R.I.P.)
 
Danquayle76 said:
Vatican II was such an important council, but I really don’t know much about what actually happened at the Council and what the documents say. I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations on books that describe what happened at the Council. Or do I actually have to go read the documents produced by the council?
Click to expand...
I’d also like to add that I’d be careful about reading the documents of Vatican II. In the past, most laity did not have access to these sorts of church documents. You are not expected to know them and they are meant to be used by the clergy to direct the faithful.
In general, it is not healthy for the laity to try and discuss the council or attempt to conclude truths from it. It is better to allow the Magisterial authority to discern, define, teach etc.
For the laity, I think it is important to have a grasp on what the council actually was/is and how it fist in to the Church as a whole (tradition). The acts of the Church must always be put in the context of tradition. If not, it would be falling into the same trap as the “scripture alone” error. How can one take a book, regard it as truth, and interpret it however they think it should be without considering what it is and where it came from? It baffles me, yet this is what people do.
Many laity don’t know if it was pastoral, directive, speculative etc. The books I"d recommend reading would be those that explain this. Also, keep yourself attentive to the Holy Father and what he is saying about the council…Sooner or later the reality and truth of what this council really IS will be made known.
 
I say, when in doubt, go right to the source😉

I have read the four constitutions. I did so over the course of a couple of months, prayerfully and in chunks. I found that the way the documents were set up, I could read and prayfully contemplate one section each day. It also helped that I worked for the church and had a quite a few priests at my disposal to ask questions. 😃
 
Chen_Zhen said:
**I’d also like to add that I’d be careful about reading the documents of Vatican II. In the past, most laity did not have access to these sorts of church documents. You are not expected to know them and they are meant to be used by the clergy to direct the faithful. **
In general, it is not healthy for the laity to try and discuss the council or attempt to conclude truths from it. It is better to allow the Magisterial authority to discern, define, teach etc.
For the laity, I think it is important to have a grasp on what the council actually was/is and how it fist in to the Church as a whole (tradition). The acts of the Church must always be put in the context of tradition. If not, it would be falling into the same trap as the “scripture alone” error. How can one take a book, regard it as truth, and interpret it however they think it should be without considering what it is and where it came from? It baffles me, yet this is what people do.
Many laity don’t know if it was pastoral, directive, speculative etc. The books I"d recommend reading would be those that explain this. Also, keep yourself attentive to the Holy Father and what he is saying about the council…Sooner or later the reality and truth of what this council really IS will be made known.
Click to expand...
I totally disagree with that. In my opinion everyone should be encouraged to read all Church documents.
 
Danquayle76 said:
Bah, I don’t like you.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about to answer this, but this is important.

As Aristotle said to Alexander the Great: there is no king’s way to the mathematics.

Naturally, one can be excellent ‘ist’ in kings’s way, it is sufficient to read the Mein Kampf or similar pamphlet from a prominent ‘ist’ to know everything necessary.

The detailed and accurate knowledge is not necessity for deeply humble people. But looking for good information and reject the originals for information is wrong.

The some old time popes were possibly right in that time, that average people don’t need to read the Bible. In their time most people were deeply humble. We lost this innocence, and the price is that we are responsible for the misinformation which almost always comes from the prominent ‘ism’
 
Incidentally, there is a good discussion going on about Vatican II on EWTN right now.
 
thistle said:
I totally disagree with that. In my opinion everyone should be encouraged to read all Church documents.
Click to expand...
And then what? Try to make their own conclusions?
People have that privilege, they can have easy access to Church documents, read them and try to understand them.

You say “in my opinion”. That is good to note.

Much of the argument on these forums and in the Church is from laity who read bits and pieces and then form their own opinions. Everyone seems to know all the answers. This is dangerous, it causes division.

The final word is up to the Church, not each person. We can read them, true, but we must submit all of our understanding to the Magisterial authority. Our obedience brings about unity.

What I am saying is not everyone is expected to read and know the documents. Knowledge is a very powerful thing and people must have the ability to draw the proper conclusions.
They can be recommended to some, but most people do not have the leisure time to do so, they have children to raise, jobs to do, etc.
One can read them, but they are not meant to directly teach the faithful. They must be viewed in the context of tradition.
 
The best book anyone can read is The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber. Why? Because the author was objective and cannot be accused of being a “traditional” and biased in what he reported making the “liberals” look bad.

The author simply reported the facts of what went on during the Council.
 
Lormar said:
The best book anyone can read is The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber. Why? Because the author was objective and cannot be accused of being a “traditional” and biased in what he reported making the “liberals” look bad.

The author simply reported the facts of what went on during the Council.
Click to expand...
Fr. Mitch Pacwa was interviewing some guy this week (jun 8, 2011) on EWTN Live and the man addressed the issue of Vatican II. He remarked that you may be distracted about the liberal-conservative influences on the Council, but he suggested looking at the sixteen documents for what they are, the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

I was just searching quickly on the EWTN website for an audio or video copy of the Jun 8 program, but I couldn’t find just that fast. It might be worth search for it yourself for this program’s insights, or look elsewhere on the website for info about Vat II.
 
Crumpy said:
Fr. Mitch Pacwa was interviewing some guy this week (jun 8, 2011) on EWTN Live and the man addressed the issue of Vatican II. He remarked that you may be distracted about the liberal-conservative influences on the Council, but he suggested looking at the sixteen documents for what they are, the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

I was just searching quickly on the EWTN website for an audio or video copy of the Jun 8 program, but I couldn’t find just that fast. It might be worth search for it yourself for this program’s insights, or look elsewhere on the website for info about Vat II.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I’ve read them many times.

The question that was asked was about whether there is a good book on Vatican II. You can do no better than the book I mentioned. It is good to know what went on there.
 
Crumpy said:
Fr. Mitch Pacwa was interviewing some guy this week (jun 8, 2011) on EWTN Live and the man addressed the issue of Vatican II. He remarked that you may be distracted about the liberal-conservative influences on the Council, but he suggested looking at the sixteen documents for what they are, the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

I was just searching quickly on the EWTN website for an audio or video copy of the Jun 8 program, but I couldn’t find just that fast. It might be worth search for it yourself for this program’s insights, or look elsewhere on the website for info about Vat II.
Click to expand...
A good part of the problem is that two different people with two disparate opinions/understandings of exactly what the council meant to say can read the same document and come away with two equally disparate “takes”.

I’ve often wished that Rome would publish a supplement to the Council documents that catalogues/denotes, definitively and once-and-for-all, their proper interpretation(s). Unfortunately, the ambiguity, not only with respect to interpretation of the documents, but in the way the documents themselves were written, persists.

Rome (the popes) has clarified misunderstandings, but most Western bishops’ conferences and/or local bishops have essentially turned a deaf ear and either withheld or incorrectly or incompletely transmitted Rome’s directives. Paul VI allowed, to a certain extent, for a “democatization” of deciding power that formerly had been reserved for Rome proper (e.g. by letting certain European conferences of bishops "vote in–with a 2/3 majority–the illicit practice of communion in the hand).

What we have is practical schism in the Western (read “Euro/AM”) Church, with dissidents, by and large, claiming to have taken all their cues from the conciliar and post-conciliar documents of Vatican II.

Many have argued, and I see their point, that much of the current mess is owed to the fact of lack of oversight in the post-conciliar implementation of the council decisions and content of council documents.**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top