Pope Francis emphasizes that Second Vatican Council is the work of the Holy Spirit [CWN]

[gentle_atheist]

The Church is obsessed with Vatican II. Why? As far as I’m concerned, Vatican II brought nothing productive. The Church has been in crisis since Vatican II. Why can’t the hierarchy just admit that the implementation of Vatican II was a disaster?

The Church needs to be honest and admit that the springtime promised by Vatican II never happened. In fact, Vatican II brought a deep, dark winter.

This crisis in the Church will end only when we return to tradition.

It all depends on what you expected Vatican 2 to accomplish.

My impression is that JP2 felt that everything was going just swimmingly.

 

[sennincatholic]

I want to go back. Back to full churches. Back to full monasteries and convents. Back to full seminaries. Back to reverent liturgies. Back to good catechesis. If that makes me a fool then so be it.

I am in Cameroon(in Africa) and we have full churches…full monasteries and convents…full seminaries…reverent liturgies and good catechesis…
So my friend…WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Do not put the blame of what your seeing going wrong in the churches around you on the Vat II council…the problem…as Benedict XVI said in February 2013 is that the media distorted the real sense of Vat II and unfortunately most people saw Vat II as it was presented by the media and not what it realy was intended to be by the church fathers in 1962…and Vat II has been wrongly implemented in many churches but things are now going back to the way the real Vat II intended the church to be.Vat II didnt substract or add any church dogmas…please dont misinterprete Pope Francis’ words.

 

[ProVobis]

The Holy See wanted Bellarmine’s catechism to be translated. There was a translation of Bellarmine’s catechism being used in Boston. The US Bishops felt that it did not fit the American culture. My take is that the Vatican did not know that this catechism was already translated into English and had been tried in the USA.

We used the Baltimore Catechism when I was attending schools in the U.K. as well. And my Polish parents, though they didn’t care much for English, nevertheless did like that we were taught this catechism. They learned a lot themselves.

 

[Brendan]

I want to go back. Back to full churches. Back to full monasteries and convents. Back to full seminaries. Back to reverent liturgies. Back to good catechesis. If that makes me a fool then so be it.

But that, by definition, IS forward, not backward.

The ‘backward’ movement of the Church are the Call to Actions, the Voice of the Faithful’s, all those who teach against the Church.

"Forward, by definition, is progress towards a goal. In the Church, that goal can only be God and the vision of the Church found in the Spirit.

So any movement away from that is, by definition, backward. THEY are the ones who seek to ‘roll back the clock’, roll it back to the 70’s.

Those who seek to enact that vision of Vatican II that is actually reflected in the documents, one that is in accord with the traditions of the Church, what that does not seek a break of continuity (in goal or in effect). Those are the true ‘progressives’, as that is the true progress that can be made. Everything else is regression…

 

[Brendan]

The Baltimore Catechism was very good. The only problem is that it was rejected by the Vatican. Most people don’t know this.

Are you sure that it was actually rejected, as in the action of rejection. My understanding was that it was never submitted for approval in the same manner as "Forming Consciences’ was never submitted by the USCCB for Vatican approval. Neither were required to be submitted.

It seems that the Baltimore Catechism, as a restatement of (as opposed to translation of) +Bellarmines work, would much more akin to the USCCB published Compendium to the CCC

 

[Saints_Alive]

We don’t want them full of people who don’t belong there, which is what we had for more than 100 years. We want convents, monasteries, friaries, priories, seminaries that are faithful to the vision and charism of the founders, not those what existed between 1850 and 1990, which were a deviation from the original. We want religious houses where their is equity as there was during the early days of religious life, where there is respect for the dignity of the religious, as there was in the beginning, where there is fraternity and not clericalism.

Better hightail it over to the UK and screen these folks

cvcomment.org/2013/04/16/ordinations-to-priesthood-in-england-and-wales-now-higher-than-the-1950s/

"But if we add together the diocesan and Ordinariate ordinations for 2012, we have a figure of 52 — higher than the 1950s, which some look back to nostalgically as an era of vigorous Catholicism."

 

[McCall1981]

But that, by definition, IS forward, not backward.

The ‘backward’ movement of the Church are the Call to Actions, the Voice of the Faithful’s, all those who teach against the Church.

"Forward, by definition, is progress towards a goal. In the Church, that goal can only be God and the vision of the Church found in the Spirit.

So any movement away from that is, by definition, backward. THEY are the ones who seek to ‘roll back the clock’, roll it back to the 70’s.

Those who seek to enact that vision of Vatican II that is actually reflected in the documents, one that is in accord with the traditions of the Church, what that does not seek a break of continuity (in goal or in effect). Those are the true ‘progressives’, as that is the true progress that can be made. Everything else is regression…

I couldn’t agree with you more here, that this is the actual truth.

However, the problems are that:

1. I don’t think Pope Francis actually meant it this way
2. even if he did mean it the way you’re taking it, the vast majority of people are going to take this the other way, that “Call to Actions, the Voice of the Faithful’s, all those who teach against the Church” are the forward way, and orthodoxy is backwards

(This being said, if you can convince me that Pope Francis actually meant what you’re saying here, I would be ecstatic )

 

[McCall1981]

I found this explanation of Pope Francis’ sermon to be rather insightful.

catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1072

Thank you for posting this Br. JR.

I certainly hope that this is what Pope Francis meant

 

[Dempsey1919]

I am in Cameroon(in Africa) and we have full churches…full monasteries and convents…full seminaries…reverent liturgies and good catechesis…
So my friend…WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You are in Cameroon. I am in England. And my eyes don’t lie. I see the empty churches. I see seminaries closing. I received poor catechesis.

Your situation in Africa is completely different. I admire the Church in Africa. I wish the Church in England would follow Africa’s example.

But here’s the bottom line: The Catholic Church in Europe is dying. And it’s fair to say that the implementation of Vatican II caused a lot of the problems we Europeans experience.

 

[JaMc]

I think some of it has to do with the timing of the Council, being that it happened right before “the 60’s”. All the other “social change” going on at that time lead to the liberal side abusing the Council towards their own agenda, which then lead to the Traditionalist side rejecting it outright (I know its an oversimplification). I bet if the council had happened in the fifties or forties the results would have been somewhat different.

I think that was probably a big part of it. When the Episcopalians, ECLA Lutherans, and other “mainline” Protestants were ditching traditional moral teachings, some people thought the Catholic Church was jumping on the same bandwagon. By the time Paul VI realized what was going on and issued Humanae Vitae, the “Spirit of Vatican II” had become a runaway train.

In addition to the timing, the Vatican II documents were written in an “academic” manner that, while containing thorough scholarly analysis, can easily be taken out of context and twisted to suit a contrary agenda. In other words, it took teachings that were presented previously as “black and white,” and re-presented them as “grey.”

Finally, the Vatican expected too much from people. I believe they actually thought that, if something were made optional rather than mandatory, or alternatives offered, but with the reason for it thoroughly explained, people would still do it. In fact, people take the path of least resistance and, if they don’t have to do it, many won’t. Abstinence of meat on Fridays is a perfect example: The Church says, after explaining the reason for the practice in the first place, “therefore, you don’t have to abstain on meat on Fridays if you substitute another act of penance,” but all people hear is “you don’t have to abstain from meat on Fridays.”

 

[Armor_of_Light]

I was thinking something similar either yesterday or today…has there even been such difficulty over any other Council in the history of the Church? Honest question.

I have tried to ask this same question.

Got attacked.

 

[Dempsey1919]

the Vatican II documents were written in an “academic” manner that, while containing thorough scholarly analysis, can easily be taken out of context and twisted to suit a contrary agenda. In other words, it took teachings that were presented previously as “black and white,” and re-presented them as “grey.”

Great post!

The documents were deliberately written that way. They were written so that multiple interpretations are possible. The neo-modernist peritus are responsible for this.

We need a syllabus of errors for Vatican II. We need new documents to enforce a traditional interpretation of the Vatican II documents.

 

[McCall1981]

Finally, the Vatican expected too much from people.

Good point, I’ve kind of had this thought before, but I’ve never really been able to put it into words.

 

[Lucky7]

We need a syllabus of errors for Vatican II. We need new documents to enforce a traditional interpretation of the Vatican II documents.

The more I read about this, the more I think you are correct…even if a bunch of other posters are on your case. Your issue is the implementation of Vatican II, not Vatican II itself.

I have no issue with the Pope saying too many of us are resisting the Holy Spirit acting in Vatican II. However, along with that correction, he has to recognize the issues, the confusion, the abuses and make sure they are known, owned and corrected. Unless he said more in the rest of his homily, I don’t see that critical part of the solution.

 

[JReducation]

The Church is obsessed with Vatican II. Why? As far as I’m concerned, Vatican II brought nothing productive. The Church has been in crisis since Vatican II. Why can’t the hierarchy just admit that the implementation of Vatican II was a disaster?

The popes from Paul VI to Francis have already said that the implementation has been a disaster. The disaster is the implementation, not the council.

I’m not talking about rejection or not. I’m talking about the response to this particular Council as opposed to the response to others (regardless of whether said response was okay or not). Has there ever been a council LIKE this one with respect to liturgical changes and the like? Was this ecumenical council like others? What were the others? and what was the response like?

The answer to this is YESSS. Chalcedon and Nicea left enough dust to last about 300 years. There are some interesting reflections by the fathers of the time.

My impression is that JP2 felt that everything was going just swimmingly.

Not at all. He was very upset with the pastoral work being done. That’s why he started WYDs. That’s why he had the CCC written. He felt that the catechesis that the Council called for was not properly implemented, especially among the young.

Are you sure that it was actually rejected, as in the action of rejection. My understanding was that it was never submitted for approval in the same manner as "Forming Consciences’ was never submitted by the USCCB for Vatican approval. Neither were required to be submitted.

It seems that the Baltimore Catechism, as a restatement of (as opposed to translation of) +Bellarmines work, would much more akin to the USCCB published Compendium to the CCC

They actually submitted it to the Congregation and they never received the requested approval.

Better hightail it over to the UK and screen these folks

cvcomment.org/2013/04/16/ordinations-to-priesthood-in-england-and-wales-now-higher-than-the-1950s/

"But if we add together the diocesan and Ordinariate ordinations for 2012, we have a figure of 52 — higher than the 1950s, which some look back to nostalgically as an era of vigorous Catholicism."

I’m a little lost here. HELP!!!

 

[SMHW]

Finally, the Vatican expected too much from people. I believe they actually thought that, if something were made optional rather than mandatory, or alternatives offered, but with the reason for it thoroughly explained, people would still do it. In fact, people take the path of least resistance and, if they don’t have to do it, many won’t.

Did the Church expect too much or did the Church think the people ought to be given grown-up responsibility?

Obviously a lot of Catholics did not behave like grown-ups.

 

[Rich_C]

I think that was probably a big part of it. When the Episcopalians, ECLA Lutherans, and other “mainline” Protestants were ditching traditional moral teachings, some people thought the Catholic Church was jumping on the same bandwagon. By the time Paul VI realized what was going on and issued Humanae Vitae, the “Spirit of Vatican II” had become a runaway train.

In addition to the timing, the Vatican II documents were written in an “academic” manner that, while containing thorough scholarly analysis, can easily be taken out of context and twisted to suit a contrary agenda. In other words, it took teachings that were presented previously as “black and white,” and re-presented them as “grey.”

**Finally, the Vatican expected too much from people. I believe they actually thought that, if something were made optional rather than mandatory, or alternatives offered, but with the reason for it thoroughly explained, people would still do it. ** In fact, people take the path of least resistance and, if they don’t have to do it, many won’t. Abstinence of meat on Fridays is a perfect example: The Church says, after explaining the reason for the practice in the first place, “therefore, you don’t have to abstain on meat on Fridays if you substitute another act of penance,” but all people hear is “you don’t have to abstain from meat on Fridays.”

I think you hit the nail on the head, especially the bold.

Pope Paul VI, God bless him, was a great optimist I think.

 

[Rich_C]

Did the Church expect too much or did the Church think the people ought to be given grown-up responsibility?

Obviously a lot of Catholics did not behave like grown-ups.

Before you say that, think about all the times people are shouted down on this forum with the reply, “that’s just an option, the Church doesn’t say we *have *to do that!”

Not saying those doing the shouting are necessarily wrong at all, but by your standard a lot of Catholics on CAF do not behave like grown-ups, and that would includes most of our emminent posters.

 

[SMHW]

Before you say that, think about all the times people are shouted down on this forum with the reply, “that’s just an option, the Church doesn’t say we *have *to do that!”

Not saying those doing the shouting are necessarily wrong at all, but by your standard a lot of Catholics on CAF do not behave like grown-ups, and that would includes most of our emminent posters.

I almost left out the final comment about people acting like gown-ups. (Actually I had typed a lot more but deleted it.) Now I’m wondering if I should delete everything but the first sentence. 75% of the time I decide I should just refrain from posting altogether.

 

[Rich_C]

I almost left out the final comment about people acting like gown-ups. (Actually I had typed a lot more but deleted it.) Now I’m wondering if I should delete everything but the first sentence. 75% of the time I decide I should just refrain from posting altogether.

LOL, I know how you feel.