Purpose of Vatican II

[Mary1973]

I was a pre-teen/teen during the years of Vatican II . I have to say I find this council and what happened afterwards to be quite fascinating. I try to read about it whenever I can and try to understand how the changes came about.

I recently read *The Rhine Flows into the Tiber * by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen which is supposedly a true and accurate account. This is what I found the most interesting in his book. He said the main purpose of the council was to reinvigorate the church in Europe.

So, here’s my question: since that doesn’t seem to have worked, does that mean that the changes should not have occured? I am sure we could debate this for decades. All I know is that the Church was thriving before Vatican II and now it is struggling.

 

[chris_ZA]

Brilliant question

I am also interested in exactly what the purpose of the Council was. If we can understand the purpose as well the events or factors that motivated the Holy Father to call the council together and why the Council Fathers implemented the reforms they did then we will be able to assess whether the Council achieved its aims and whether those aims are good for the Church. That will help us to have a clear idea of what we as individuals can do about the current crisis in the Faith.

The answers that I have heard are as follows. These are gross generalisations, but I think define the arguments:

From Modernists during very airy-fairy slide shows: A rejuvenation , second spring, second pentecost, dawning of the Age of Aquarius was needed (Okay, Okay I made that last one up) to free us from our medieval past and update the church.

Judgement on the Council - A great success. They feel that ground is now being lost for some inexplicable reason to young orthodox conservatives/traditionalists.

From Conservatives: The council didn’t teach anything new dogmatically (True) but merely tried to express this in a new way that modern man could understand.

Judgement on the Council - Modernists used the council to justify changes that the Council did not envisage or sanction. Just implement the Council as it should be and all will be Okey Dokey. A good deal of truth in this but it ignores a number of real innovations especially in the field of religious liberty for one.

From Traditionalists: The purpose was to make certain Marian beliefs Dogma (Mary Mediatrix of All Graces), restate Orthodox Catholic teaching, make a few minor changes to the Mass eg. Move the Final blessing to after the Last Gospel etc. If they really believed this they were about as naive as you can be and you can see why the modernists made mincemeat out of them.

Judgement on the Council - Unmittigated disaster. They have impressive statistics on their side. Decline in Vocations, mass attendance etc. in fact decline in everything except confusion. Their core belief is that everything was OK in the 50’s. If it was why the massive collapse just 10 years later? They tend to believe that a return to all things pre-Vatican II will solve all the problems. Just as naive as they were during the Council.

From the Fringe
Council was called by Judeo-freemasonic-communist-alien Anti-Pope (John XXIII to you and me) (Okay,Okay I made the alien part up -but only that) to hand over the Catholic Church to Satan. We are living through the Great Apostacy. The End-is-Nigh we can do nothing.

Just in case I get accused of not nailing my colours to the mast. I am a Trad although I have not yet heard a convincing explanation that covers both why the Council did what it did and why the faithful followed so eagerly and what we need to do to fix the Church or at least ourselves.

Chris in South Africa

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I guess the question to ask is if the decline in vocations and other things seen as negative would have happened even if there wasn’t a Council? The purpose I believe of the Council was to introduce the world to the Church and for the Church to address how it was going to relate to the new and modern world. A world of new technology, medicine, communications. The intent was not to modernize the Church. Many of the proposed changes to the liturgy were being studied well before and during the time of Pius IX to Pius XII. Who himself even considered Calling a council. The world was changing and the Church needed to decide how it was going to respond to those changes, not necessarly conform to those changes.

 

[Trevelyan]

Thus wrote Pope Leo XIII:
“There can be no doubt that the decisions of the Holy See or those of General Councils … are by themselves and by their very nature obligatory on all the faithful.”

and Pope Pius IX:
“…the Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Spirit … it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what must be believed…”

and Cardinal Newman:
“[what a] General Council speaks is the word of God.”

“All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope.” - ‘General Councils’ Catholic Encyclopaedia (NewAdvent.org)

We are “bound to adhere, with religious submission of mind, to [the] authentic magisterium” of the Church (CIC 753). Which includes, of course, Vatican II.

It wasn’t just a ‘pastoral council’ (there’s no such thing), and it issued 2 dogmatic constitutions (the same as Vatican I).

The Liturgical reform was preceded by a century of Liturgical study, and is in complete conformity with the history and tradition of the Church (not that it’s our place to decide anyway).

Ask yourself: was everything really perfect before Vatican II? Would all the problems in the Church now and ever to come be solved if the Church ‘freezed’ herself at 1950-something? As Cardinal Arinze said: “We don’t live in the Ecclesiastical refrigerator”.

 

[Mary1973]

Trevelyan:

Ask yourself: was everything really perfect before Vatican II? Would all the problems in the Church now and ever to come be solved if the Church ‘freezed’ herself at 1950-something? As Cardinal Arinze said: “We don’t live in the Ecclesiastical refrigerator”.

That’s just it. I don’t know exactly what was going on. I only know what I remember from my own perspective. But can you not agree that the authority of the Pope has been eroded? Has the church been renewed? If not, why not?

 

[James0235]

Trevelyan:

It wasn’t just a ‘pastoral council’ (there’s no such thing), and it issued 2 dogmatic constitutions (the same as Vatican I).

They were Dogmatic Constitutions in name but they are by no means dogmatic. They defined no dogma. They may, in various places, have reiterated previously defined doctrine and dogma but did not define any dogma.

James

 

[James0235]

Trevelyan:

It wasn’t just a ‘pastoral council’ (there’s no such thing), and it issued 2 dogmatic constitutions (the same as Vatican I).

The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one
article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has
repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians,
and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and
tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and
preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent
and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of
the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a
formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the
authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through
the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought.
The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing,
and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that
must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary,
everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium
which is predominantly pastoral in character.
Pope John XXIII’s Address to Open the Council
(empasis added)

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and
under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared
Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the
Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the
greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number
of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world,
even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently
established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four
sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it
was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the
present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and,
nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not
only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but
also the whole human family.
Pope Paul VI’s Address to Last General Meeting
(emphasis added)

James

 

[JNB]

Reading the actual documents on the liturgy from Vatican II, no one will see any wording that Latin is to be abandoned, communion rails stripped away and the priest facing the parishoners. Yes, it called for the liturgy to be reformed, but not in the radical manner we all saw.

Basically, what it called for was a mass with more use of the vernacular, but not the complete abandonmnet of Latin, much less poor translations from Latin into the vernacular. The EWTN mass, or the rare Anglican Use of the Roman Missal is more or less what the council fathers had in mind.

 

[James0235]

JNB:

Basically, what it called for was a mass with more use of the vernacular, but not the complete abandonmnet of Latin, much less poor translations from Latin into the vernacular. The EWTN mass, or the rare Anglican Use of the Roman Missal is more or less what the council fathers had in mind.

I think that all the Council had in mind was actually accomplished in the 1965 Missal. This should be the standard in most parishes with the 1962 Missal also permitted.

While the 1970 Missal, in itself, is not bad if done correctly, it really pales in comparison the 1962 and 1965 Missals.

James

 

[James0235]

JNB:

The EWTN mass, or the rare Anglican Use of the Roman Missal is more or less what the council fathers had in mind.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Anglican Use I would strongly recommend that you check out a few links.

Our Lady of the Atonement Parish

The Pastoral Provision

and if at all possible order the DVD.

James

 

[Iohannes]

Vatican II did three things generally:

1. Mass in the Vernacular(did not call for a new Mass)
2. Dialogue with other faiths.(not Syncretism or indifferentism)
3. Freedom from coersive worship.

There were no anathemae or solemn doctrines proclaimed during the council.

 

[Marie]

Mary1973:

I was a pre-teen/teen during the years of Vatican II . I have to say I find this council and what happened afterwards to be quite fascinating. I try to read about it whenever I can and try to understand how the changes came about.

All I know is that the Church was thriving before Vatican II and now it is struggling.

Mary,

There were many good reason the church needed the council. One of the reasons was that the pre–Vatican II faith of the laity was largely disregarded. They were defined negatively as,“not the clergy”, and treated almost as bystanders. That was the roll they had and the role they knew. Participation at Mass was more cultural than meaningful. They basically showed up and stood by as they understood little of the Mass except that it was their obligation. The church’s message (read wrongly of course) produced a cultural mentality and little else. The laity’s motto became: If you want to be holy, become a priest or nun. With that as a mindset, the laity grew not so much Holy vocations as cultural vocations. Vocations come from God’s call, not parents choosing. This was something which desperately needed corrected.

At the council, Bishop John J. Wright of Pittsburgh said: “The faithful have been waiting for 400 years for a positive conciliar statement on the place, dignity and vocation of the layman.” He was not wrong. Much of the crisis which followed the council was due to many of these religious vocations having been formed in the Catholic European immigrant style of choosing a child’s vocation. Especially that of the Religious life. It was not pretty, it was not Holy and it produced much bad fruit. After the council, these vocations which were not of God began a systematic self destruction. Not all of those who were inculturated into a vocation of course were bad. Many were called, but few were chosen. Thus the exodus from religious life began. But God did not leave us without good and Holy priests before Vatican II nor since. We just have to put up with some stinkers during the process. I know of three of those cultural vocations. They were my family. I was and am grateful for Vatican II. A painful pruning but in Gods way, a necessary one. It will take generations to build a good and Holy priesthood once more.

Until Vatican II, there was little done to catechize the laity. Little done to call them to learn, to live their faith through adult intellectual formation. Today, many Catholics seem to think that Vatican II was about the role of the laity in the Church as eucharistic ministers, lectors, etc. But it was really about the role of the laity in the world. It was about calling the laity to personal conversion and evangelization. The laity will again produce Holy men and women who are called to serve God. But first they must learn the faith and form the seeds which produce Holy lives in the family and in the world.

 

[Mary1973]

Marie:

Until Vatican II, there was little done to catechize the laity. Little done to call them to learn, to live their faith through adult intellectual formation.

Marie,

Thank you for your explanation. However, you make my point for me. You say one of the purposes of VII was to catechize the laity. Well, guess what! They are not getting catechized! The children who grew up in the 60’s/70’s know less about their faith than those of us who came before.

I agree that the laity should do more but we still need leadership from our priests. So many abdicate their responsibilities and just show up for Mass.

 

[Prometheum_x]

It is not unusual for the period following a council to be somewhat tumultuous. It will take some time for the council itself to be interpreted by the magisterium. . .

 

[Marie]

Mary1973:

Marie,

Thank you for your explanation. However, you make my point for me. You say one of the purposes of VII was to catechize the laity. Well, guess what! They are not getting catechized! The children who grew up in the 60’s/70’s know less about their faith than those of us who came before.

Not quite true dear. Are we not on this board? Are we not seeing the greatest influx and growth of faith knowledge ever in the history of the church in the laity? I know that we are. The sleeping giant of faith is awake. A rude awakening to be sure but they are awake.The glass is not half empty. The glass is half full. God is still in charge and He will continue the education of His childen in His time. I believe you already stated you were a pre-teen/teen during the years of Vatican II. I see more people alive in the faith today than ever I did before the council. The landscape looks frightening to you I am sure. But God is still in His heaven and He will win the battle.

Mary1973:

I agree that the laity should do more but we still need leadership from our priests. So many abdicate their responsibilities and just show up for Mass.

We cannot get leadership from our priests until the ones who have not been teaching the faith are pruned. Fear not! We have many good priests and more coming.