Stop Blaming Vatican II

[AlNg]

The Hayes Code was mostly undermined by early 60s.

Why did the Roman Catholic churches stop supporting the Legion of Decency after Vatican II ?
the oath to support decent movies was taken every year before Vatican II since 1933:
“I condemn all indecent and immoral motion pictures, and those which glorify crime or criminals. I promise to do all that I can to strengthen public opinion against the production of indecent and immoral films, and to unite with all who protest against them. I acknowledge my obligation to form a right conscience about pictures that are dangerous to my moral life. I pledge myself to remain away from them. I promise, further, to stay away altogether from places of amusement which show them as a matter of policy.”
Since Vatican II, do Catholics have to stay away from movies that engage in profanity and blasphemy and the use of the Holy name of Our Lord in vain?
Or has this been changed since Vatican II and now Catholics are fine going to PG-13 rated movies where the name of J-sus is used in vain?

 

[AlNg]

• Pope Paul did not say it was a result of the Council.

Can you kindly tell us what did Vatican II do to prevent the ensuing " days of clouds, of storms, of darkness, of searching, of uncertainty" and what did Vatican II do to prevent the smoke of Satan from entering into the Catholic Church?

 

[Motherwit]

commenter:

• Pope Paul did not say it was a result of the Council.

Can you kindly tell us what did Vatican II do to prevent the ensuing " days of clouds, of storms, of darkness, of searching, of uncertainty" and what did Vatican II do to prevent the smoke of Satan from entering into the Catholic Church?

Would you be of the belief that before Vatican II there was never any blemish, sin or scandal in the Church?

 

[Tolle_Lege]

Vatican II

 

[MarkRome]

After reading multiple comments blaming Vatican II for myriad “problems” in the Church, whether it is church decorations, the words used at Mass, or no longer signing pledges not to see indecent movies, it seems that many are “majoring in the minors”. If anyone is “focusing on the temporal” it appears to me that the anti-VII crowd is leading that charge.

These types of squabbles remind me of what Paul wrote to the Colossians in Col 2:16-17, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”

As someone who came into the church less than a decade ago, I just shake my head when I hear what people are upset about.

I am also reminded of Paul’s commands here:

“And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.” (Col 3:14-15)

 

[commenter]

commenter:

• Pope Paul did not say it was a result of the Council.

Can you kindly tell us what did Vatican II do to prevent the ensuing " days of clouds, of storms, of darkness, of searching, of uncertainty" and what did Vatican II do to prevent the smoke of Satan from entering into the Catholic Church?

• This thread should focus on the documents of V2, the only thing the Council had control over.
• The dissenters who did damage to the Church in the 1970s were educated and promoted to powerful positions under Pius 11, Pius 12. A lot was building up, out of sight.
• The Secular tidal wave that hit the Church also hit countries with few Catholics.
• Could Pius 12,V2, and Protestant leaders have done a better job of preparing for the tidal wave? Maybe. V2 did address some things (read the documents on the Media, Laity, etc). But they didn’t know exactly where and how secularism would hit.
• The documents themselves encourage us to assess the problems of 2020, and respond to them applying Catholic principles. Obsession over what V2 or Pius 12 might have done isn’t helpful.

 

[Crusader13]

Well then you’re missing the point of why people are so upset. In actuality, most Catholics that are critical of the fruits of VII are not concerned with the temporal, but the spiritual.

And in all fairness you haven’t really argued in favor of why VII is so great and essential for our faith.

You above comments only touch on part of the issue. Living in harmony with one another, does not me we compromise what we know to be true. We don’t put the truths of Salvation aside, in order to give everyone a seat at the table.

If the Church and Scripture both say that there is one Lord, one Faith and one baptism. We don’t go around telling non-Catholics, there are privileged and non-privileged routes to Heaven. We don’t diminish the necessity of the Catholic faith, in order to make other religions feel just as important and necessary.

VII didn’t open the door for non-Catholics to convert, it simply made them feel there was no need to convert, because the Church is no longer the sole route to Heaven, it’s merely one path among many.

 

[Crusader13]

This thread should focus on the documents of V2,

They have been. I’ve given an example of why the documents are constantly twisted to fit an ideology that doesn’t support traditional Catholic teachings.

If a non-Catholic asks “do I need to believe in Jesus in order to get to Heaven?”

And if the first words a Catholic replies with are “Not necessarily, because Vatican II says…”

Then you’ve already sowed doubt as to why the Church is even necessary.

 

[Crusader13]

You’re implying that to be upset at the loss faith due to poor catechetical instruction by clergy and laity, is to be overly emotional?

Since you wish to talk about the documents themselves, let’s discuss Lumen gentium 16. Anyone who is in full support of VII and all it’s goodness, I’m curious to get your point of view on what this section means, in light of the entire context of that document.

What do you think the clergy were trying to say with this paragraph and what does it mean for members of Islam, Judaism and non-believers in God?

 

[MarkRome]

And in all fairness you haven’t really argued in favor of why VII is so great and essential for our faith.

Read the 4 constitutions of the council. The Church was closed off, defensive, and had little ecumenism because they were still reacting like it was the Protestant Reformation. Besides this thread isn’t about the benefits of VII but to argue that you shouldn’t keep blaming VII.

We don’t go around telling non-Catholics, there are privileged and non-privileged routes to Heaven. We don’t diminish the necessity of the Catholic faith, in order to make other religions feel just as important and necessary.

Vatican II didn’t do that. That’s your spin on the documents. None of what you said came from Vatican II. You are interjecting a lot, which is a large part of the problem for anti-VIIers.

VII didn’t open the door for non-Catholics to convert, it simply made them feel there was no need to convert, because the Church is no longer the sole route to Heaven, it’s merely one path among many.

Sorry, you do not need to be a card-carrying Catholic to attain salvation. That view is unbiblical and unhistorical.

 

[Crusader13]

Vatican II didn’t do that.

Then why do so many Catholics always point to Vatican II as THE definitive documents and council in reference to salvation for non-Catholics?

Sorry, you do not need to be a card-carrying Catholic to attain salvation. That view is unbiblical and unhistorical.

I never said you did and the Church doesn’t say you need to be a “card carrying member” either.

There are other documents prior to VII that are pretty clear in regards to this issue.

So what do you believe the Church says in regards to who can attain salvation outside of baptism and a faith in Jesus Christ?

 

[MarkRome]

Then why do so many Catholics always point to Vatican II as THE definitive documents and council in reference to salvation for non-Catholics?

Not saying Vatican II didn’t address salvation outside the Church, however, it didn’t say what you said.

So what do you believe the Church says in regards to who can attain salvation outside of baptism and a faith in Jesus Christ?

CCC 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

CCC 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

 

[Motherwit]

commenter:

This thread should focus on the documents of V2,

They have been. I’ve given an example of why the documents are constantly twisted to fit an ideology that doesn’t support traditional Catholic teachings.

If a non-Catholic asks “do I need to believe in Jesus in order to get to Heaven?”

And if the first words a Catholic replies with are “Not necessarily, because Vatican II says…”

Then you’ve already sowed doubt as to why the Church is even necessary.

But Scripture records that as well.

Romans 2 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

 

[Crusader13]

You’re merely citing passages of the catechism. It’s when these passages, in conjunction with documents from VII, are misinterpreted that we find ourselves in this debate.

Invincible ignorance is not a sacrament and we know of no saints in Heaven who are there from having invincible ignorance. Because it’s only a possibility and one that we have no way of applying to any one individual.

What does it mean to know that the Church is necessary for salvation? Do we as Catholics know the Church is necessary because we have proof or do we know because we choose to believe?

The problem isn’t that invincible ignorance is a false teaching, because it’s not, the problem arises when people start trying to justify who it applies to and in what context. It’s become so mainstream that too many Catholics believe it is the Church’s answer to how we deal with false religions and why they don’t need to convert. It has become the non-privileged route to Heaven.

That is a fruit of VII.

 

[Crusader13]

The section you quoted, when read in its entirety is speaking of the Jews, who with their knowledge of the law are still going to be judged the same as the Gentiles, who are judged according to the nature of what is written on their hearts without the law.

This distinction between Jews and Gentiles was primarily based upon the Jews being the chosen people of God. The law was given to the Jews, in part because of what transpired when they failed to keep their covenant with God.

Since the law could not save them from their sin, Jesus came as an atonement for sin, which is why we are offered the gift of Salvation. Apart from Jesus there is no Salvation. Yet, the covenant is no longer just for the Jews, it has been given to both Jews and Gentiles. With the command by Jesus to go forth and make disciples of all nations.

How are we made members of the new covenant and therefore allowed to enter the kingdom of Heaven; by baptism.

Why do we need to make disciples of all nations if they are going to be judged apart from the new covenant? Because they are outside of the Kingdom of God. You’re either part of the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Satan. There is no neutral ground.

We need to bring them the good news of Salvation because they don’t have it and it’s a necessity. We don’t leave people in their ignorance and their false religions, because their religions are not salvific.

 

[MarkRome]

So you asked me what I believe and I believe what the Church believes. If I wanted to make up my own religion I would be Protestant.

So, best wishes on your religion. Take care.

 

[Ardent_Fire]

If Catholics hadn’t used Vatican II as an excuse for so many awful things, and if Catholics didn’t act like it’s the only relevant council that exists, where much before it is often dismissed or ignored, then perhaps the council wouldn’t be on the receiving end of so much blame. Just my two cents.

 

[Crusader13]

So you asked me what I believe and I believe what the Church believes. If I wanted to make up my own religion I would be Protestant.

So, best wishes on your religion. Take care.

It’s unfortunate that you felt the need to be antagonistic.

Regardless of whether or not you agree, the fact is, I too believe what the Church has always taught. I do, however, disagree with many of the views that imply that VII was clear in all it’s teachings and the only fault lies with those who criticize it.

 

[MarkRome]

Do you believe Vatican II was a valid ecumenical council?

 

[Crusader13]

Of course it’s a valid council. I’ve never argued nor believed that it wasn’t valid. It’s validity doesn’t make it free from criticism.

In most cases people, I feel, have a justifiable concern when they are told conflicting beliefs about what the Church supposedly teaches, in light of VII.