Stop Blaming Vatican II

[MarkRome]

So, what was required for salvation in the old testament? Sacrifices couldn’t take away the sin.

 

[Crusader13]

Salvation hadn’t come yet in the old covenant. That’s why God promised to send them a savior! It was Jesus, His Son.

That’s why it was important for both Jews and Gentiles to except Jesus. Because there was no other way for salvation.

Abraham looked ahead and saw this day. That’s why Jesus criticized the Jewish hierarchy by telling them that if they were truly of their father Abraham, they would also rejoice and be glad to see Jesus. But they weren’t.

 

[Crusader13]

Yes. The animal sacrifices were atonement for the sins of the individuals. However, they were insufficient to atone for the breaking of the covenant with God.

Which the only way to save them from transgressing the covenant was by sending Jesus. That allowed for Heaven to be opened up for everyone who believed in His Son and is baptized.

 

[MarkRome]

So, Gentiles had no possibility to be saved?

 

[MarkRome]

Salvation hadn’t come yet in the old covenant.

Salvation was given to those who were in the Bosom of Abraham after Christ came. And what did someone have to do to go to the Bosom of Abraham to await the Savior? Only Jews there?

 

[MarkRome]

That’s right. So, we have both Jews and Gentiles awaiting their eternal rewards. Yet, the Gentile didn’t know Christ, didn’t have circumcision, didn’t have baptism, didn’t have sacrifices, didn’t keep the 613 Jewish commandments. So, I wonder, then, how could they have been saved? Better yet, what does that say about those who don’t know Christ in our day and age. Hmm…

 

[Crusader13]

There’s a big difference between not knowing Jesus and preaching against Jesus.

Jesus preached to the souls in Abraham’s bosom. We aren’t told how many, who they are or the ratio of Jews to Gentiles.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that Jesus is necessary for salvation.

You asked me earlier why do we preach to the nations. I said so they can enter the Kingdom and left it at that.

But, we must preach to the nations, because every person is born under the power of sin. In order to enter the Kingdom we must be born again. That’s how we enter the covenant with Jesus.

In order to stay in the covenant, we must not break the covenant by sinning and if we do, we must seek forgiveness through confession.

We must also partake of the Eucharist. Why? Jesus is the new Passover lamb. What was every Jew required to do at the Passover; eat the lamb. Jesus tells us, unless you eat the flesh, you have no life in you.

Simply put, you’re either in the Kingdom or you’re not. There is no neutral ground. If we don’t preach to the nations, we leave them outside of the Kingdom.

 

[MarkRome]

There’s a big difference between not knowing Jesus and preaching against Jesus.

Absolutely right. I’ve already mentioned not rejecting Jesus. But the big caveat is, you and I can’t judge someone’s heart, only God can.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that Jesus is necessary for salvation.

Really shows me you don’t read what I write or are putting words into my mouth. And because of that, I feel like this is unproductive. God bless.

 

[MarkRome]

I cannot know the state of invincible ignorance for anyone, whether in Papua New Guinea or New York City. All I know is that the Church leaves open the possibility that people outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church can be saved. But this is a FAR cry from some saying that the Church, because of Vatican II, teaches that all religions are a path to salvation.

 

[Crusader13]

I’m not trying to be sarcastic. I just don’t understand your position. You already stated that there is a difference in having never heard of Jesus vs the outright rejection of Him.

Crusader13:

There’s a big difference between not knowing Jesus and preaching against Jesus.

Absolutely right. I’ve already mentioned not rejecting Jesus. But the big caveat is, you and I can’t judge someone’s heart, only God can.

Yet, listen to the rest of Bp. Barron’s reply.

“Christ is the privileged route to Heaven… However, Vatican II clearly teaches a person outside the explicit Christian faith can be saved. Now they are saved though the grace of Christ, indirectly received. So the grace is coming from Christ, but it might be received according to your conscience. So if you’re following your conscience sincerely, Or in your case you’re following the law. Yeah you can be saved…”

You don’t have to judge someone’s heart to take them at face value. Therefore, it’s no secret what Ben Shapiro believes regarding his faith as a Jew.

Knowing all of this, one can easily see what he just told Ben Shapiro. Jesus is the privileged route to Heaven, following your conscience is the non-privileged route. So a person can reject Jesus, (which Ben Shapiro absolutely does as a believer in Judaism), and yet he can still be saved by following the law, which is tantamount to following your conscience, which is basically following Jesus, without consciously following Jesus!

One has to ignore his words in order to square his belief that merely following your conscience is sufficient for salvation.

And in all fairness to you, I don’t understand how your above statements are meant as a defense of what he just said.

 

[Socrates92]

Confession might be more popular if it weren’t offered from 3:41-3:54PM every other Saturday in the janitor’s closet.

Hey, at least there’s sanitizer in there…

 

[umamibella]

The Australian Cardinal George Pell on Vatican II and his experiences there.
Yes the same George Pell of recent fame

 

[MarkRome]

One has to be seriously intellectually dishonest, to try and square his words to fit with Catholic teachings and with Scripture.

Now you are just name calling and like I said, I am out. Peace.

 

[Crusader13]

I apologize. I did not mean that as a disparaging remark towards you. Allow me to rephrase that. My point is that, only by ignoring his words can one fail to see what he was insinuating.

Respond if you wish, if not no hard feelings. My intentions in this discussion are not to blame VII for everything. I don’t think Bp. Barron is intentionally undermining the faith.

I do believe his words are a perfect example of how like minded individuals interpret the documents of VII. If one can indirectly receive graces from Christ, without any formal act of faith on their part, then you have rendered any belief in Jesus as unnecessary for salvation.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Interesting but I don’t agree. “The council is actually the reason we are not worse off today.” I have not heard that one before. If the Traditional Mass was not tossed out, the infamous Clown Mass would have still come about, I think not? Also, the common irreverence in the Liturgy in the West would have become the norm?
I do agree that the council did not cause all the world problems. But what the Catholic leadership has been doing in the last 60 years has hurt the Faithful, in my opinion. Since the council, endless disciplines in the Church has been laxed. From annulment requirements, to fasting, to altar girls, etc. Which I think have not served the faithful well. Then there is Ecumenism which done much harm.
The brother stated one of the problems of the Church is that it has “ceased to be relevant.” The Holy Catholic Faith is always relevant no matter what state the world is in. People need something to believe in. Not something that is watered down but something that is true.
Then he said that the lack of “Good preaching at Mass.” is a problem. I don’t think he means about teaching the faithful about sin which I never hear preached. The Priest is not the star of the Mass but rather Jesus Christ Himself who comes down on the altar , offers Himself to God and gives Him self in communion to the faithful. How can that not be relevant?
Then he stated a failure of the Church is" not to connect to ever changing worries anxieties of each generation". Human being’s core nature does not change with each generation. The Gospel is all we need and it does not change with each generation.

 

[Gorgias]

Are we saying that the mass exodus of priests and religious can’t be blamed at all on Vatican II?

Not entirely. I’ve read that two issues in particular led to (some of? much of?) the exodus:

• the teaching that the fullness of Holy Orders resides in bishops (not in all priests). This was part of 2VC (see Lumen gentium #21).
• the lack of an expected change to allow priests to marry. (Since it never happened, it’s not really a “Vatican II” issue, so much as a “we really thought it was going to happen, so we’re disappointed that it didn’t.”)

Poor quality of catechesis --. That has nothing to do with Vatican II?

Baby Boomers were (generally) already catechized prior to the end of of the Council. I don’t know that I’d say that they were particularly amazingly in command of what the Church teaches. They certainly were prone to deviate from Church teachings!

Now… subsequent generations might be just as poorly catechized or even more so! However, I’d posit that this has more to do with the example of their parents (you know… the ones who you seem to be implying were well-catechized, but who stopped going to Sunday Mass anyway?).

It’s puzzling that one can now eat a T-bone steak and ice cream for 6 out of 7 days in Lent and still be considered “fasting” by Catholic standards.

Umm… are you talking about ‘abstinence’ or ‘fasting’?

Besides, these didn’t change because of VCII – St Pope Paul VI changed this in his apostolic constitution Paenitemini in 1966.

Confession might be more popular if it weren’t offered from 3:41-3:54PM every other Saturday in the janitor’s closet.

I’m exaggerating, of course, but the Church hasn’t done a good job of promoting or offering confession.

Some do it that way. Generally, they also say “please call the office if you wish to schedule a private time for confession.”

Heck, in the pre-COVID days, many parishes would schedule confession for a half hour or so before Anticipated Mass on Saturdays. I mean, very literally, at a time when folks would already be at church! And yet… hardly anyone took advantage of it.

So, I don’t think we can level this on a paucity of availability of the sacrament – much of this also has to be leveled at us, the faithful, who no longer see the need to go to Confession.

 

[commenter]

Are we saying that the mass exodus of priests and religious can’t be blamed at all on Vatican II?
Poor quality of catechesis --. That has nothing to do with Vatican II?

1. There was a tidal wave of secularism in the late 1960s that hit the West, including Protestant denominations, including countries that had few Catholics. Maybe the Council didn’t prepare us or protect us enough, ok, but not causing the problem. Call it a limited success if you want. Didn’t cause the tidal wave.
2. Most priests and religious who left, and those who stayed but watered down doctrine, were mainly products of the Pius 11 and Pius 12 system. So were the bishops who condoned this. These people grew up with the TLM.
3. I’m not blaming Pope Pius 11 or Pius 12, they were dealing with Depression, a brutal war, Communism, etc. But a lot of problems were building under the radar screen, needed renewal got postponed.
4. There’s an unhealthy fixation on V2, whether by the Left, to glorify it, or by the Right, to demonize it. Better to consider it objectively, but focus more on Evangelism in 2020.

 

[otjm]

don’t see where Vatican II helped to strengthen Catholic family life.

Perhaps the reason you don’t see how Vatican 2 strengthened married life is that you are blaming things on Vatican 2 which have nothing to do with Vatican 2.

The increase in decrees of nullity - which you and I have gone around about elsewhere - are not due to Vatican 2; they are due to Pope John Paul 2 promulgating a new Code of Canon Law. It was the Code which allowed people to bring a case to the tribunal on grounds which the 1917 Code did not address.

For decades, people who had married - often well before V2 and had divorced, either before or after, had no means to bring their case to a tribunal because the grounds from the 1917 Code were very limited. The 1983 Code increased the grounds Which impacted the validity of a marriage.

The result was a flood of cases to the tribunals to resolve. The marriages adjudicated after the change were invalid prior to the change of the Code; but people could not present evidence of it because of the limited grounds the 1917 Code provided.

So there is nothing whatsoever to do with Vatican 2 on the issue.

And by the way, I am always amused when someone drages out the Sheila Rauch Kennedy fiasco. She was not a Catholic, and so it should come as little or no surprise that she had an extremely limited understanding of the theology of marriage which the Catholic Church holds. I could say further about actions subsequent to the case, but it would require commenting on matters best left to those who read to make their own conclusions as to the attitude toward marriage of both parties.

 

[bpd_stl]

In all honesty, I think it’s very difficult to generalise about Vatican II due to its enormous scope except, perhaps, that it was a mixed bag like every other Ecumenical Council.

My sentiments exactly. This was pretty much what I was taught when I was in the seminary.

“Vatican II” is used as a sort of shibboleth within the Church. Sad.

 

[AlNg]

I am always amused when someone drages out the Sheila Rauch Kennedy fiasco. She was not a Catholic, and so it should come as little or no surprise that she had an extremely limited understanding of the theology of marriage which the Catholic Church holds

I am sorry, but the topic of marriage annulments is not amusing. The topic is very hurtful to many people. But it is true that her Catholic husband told her that Catholic annulments were gobbledygook. Perhaps her Catholic husband thought it was an amusing joke.
But let’s see: why was her marriage annulment granted in the first place? But it was only that she persisted and then it was finally overturned? Suppose that she had not persisted?

The increase in decrees of nullity - which you and I have gone around about elsewhere - are not due to Vatican 2; they are due to Pope John Paul 2 promulgating a new Code of Canon Law.

The new Code of Canon Law served the Vatican II vision of the Catholic Church. “When St. John Paul promulgated the new law, the pope said, he wrote that it was the result of an effort “to translate into canonical language … the conciliar ecclesiology,” that is, the Second Vatican Council’s vision of the church, its structure and relation to its members and the world.”