The Fruits of Vatican II

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t mean to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me what the New Evangelization even is? I’ve been hearing the words my whole life, but because I wasn’t around (at least not in any sentient state) before Vatican II, IDK what’s the difference between New Evangelization and the “Old Evangelization” that they presumably had before. I’d also hope that at some point we can stop calling things that have been around for 50+ years “new”. How about just calling it “evangelization”.

As for “fruits of Vatican II”, I like the faster canonizations, and I liked many of the hymns and songs and musical styles that other people on the forum seem to largely dislike so I won’t “go there”. I also liked that I didn’t get as much pushback when I wanted to marry a Protestant as I probably would have gotten before Vatican II, and that Mass and church participation are not as stiff and “formal” as they used to be. These are of course the good fruits. I’m not listing the bad fruits, of which there were also a good many.

 

[StudentMI]

I wish I could like your post more than once.

If you haven’t yet, read The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story by Roberto de Mattei. The politicking he goes into behind the scenes is alarming.

And for a balance read The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: A Counterpoint for the History of the Council by Agostino Marchetto.

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t mean to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me what the New Evangelization even is? I’ve been hearing the words my whole life, but because I wasn’t around (at least not in any sentient state) before Vatican II, IDK what’s the difference between New Evangelization and the “Old Evangelization” that they presumably had before. I’d also hope that at some point we can stop calling things that have been around for 50+ years “new”. How about just calling it “evangelization”.

The original intent, as I understand it, is better descried as “re-evangelization” rather than some new kind of evangelization. It basically means re-Christianizing what was once Christendom. Like many such phrases in the Church today, it has become a buzzword that is often repeated, but has led to little concrete action or fruit.

 

[TMC]

I would say the realignment of EENS (and teachings on salvation generally), the encouragement of ecumenism (and related condemnation of religious discrimination and intolerance), and the rediscovery of the value of collegiality (including the importance and involvement of the lay faithful).

 

[commenter]

The Council had been credited or blamed for many good or bad things that were already in process or would have happened anyway. Many documents simply described how the Church had already changed by 1960, for instance on Laity, Media, Education, etc. Since WW2 ecumenism was (quietly) on the way up, people were much more aware of anti Semitism.

In the 1970s people went overboard praising V2 for everything good, now they go to opposite extreme. The same secular tidal wave that hit society and the Church after V2 also hit Protestant denominations that had no Council.
The only document that really brought about change was the document on Liturgy.

 

[acanonlawyer]

OK so speed of canonization. Good catch.

On the subject of speed, I think faster handling of annulments is an improvement.

What do you think is the relationship between Vatican II, properly speaking, and these two processes? I’m not seeing one…

Dan

 

[jack63]

What three things would you name as the greatest fruits of Vatican II?

Perhaps you are asking this question too soon. Below is an article that talks about Vatican II and Pope Francis. Pope Francis said that “it takes about 100 years to fully receive a council”. I don’t agree that it is fair or relevant to look at the world and the church immediately after Vatican II to evaluate Vatican II.

From the article

I believe that the opposition to Francis is rooted in a flawed understanding of the post-conciliar era and, more specifically, where we are in the process of receiving the council. Francis, just last month, in an interview with Italian daily Avvenire , noted that it takes about 100 years to fully receive a council, and he is right. Some people thought that process was completed, and that they had mastered all the riddles of the Catholic faith in the post-conciliar age. They are very upset that their assumptions and some of their conclusions have been challenged.

Criticism of Pope Francis rooted in misunderstanding of Vatican II

Distinctly Catholic: Part 1 of a three-part series discussing the theologies of the papacies of Pope Paul VI and Pope Francis, who is facing unprecedented opposition.

www.ncronline.org

 

[PennyinCanada]

I can’t name 3. My friend from Sicily who had English as a second language was very happy to have the Mass in English. I would have thought she was comfortable with Latin but I guess when you’re sitting in a pew with a few kids, all English would make a lot of sense.

 

[JSRG]

The Council had been credited or blamed for many good or bad things that were already in process or would have happened anyway. Many documents simply described how the Church had already changed by 1960, for instance on Laity, Media, Education, etc. Since WW2 ecumenism was (quietly) on the way up, people were much more aware of anti Semitism.

In the 1970s people went overboard praising V2 for everything good, now they go to opposite extreme. The same secular tidal wave that hit society and the Church after V2 also hit Protestant denominations that had no Council.
The only document that really brought about change was the document on Liturgy.

This. Vatican II gets blame for things that were already happening anyway and would have gone on with or without a council. I suppose we can’t know for sure what would have happened in a hypothetical alternate world where there was no council, or where the council did things differently… but the fact we’re seeing these same basic effects among the non-Catholic denominations is a strong indication it was occurring independent of the council.

I do very much like the fact the mass was made available in the vernacular. That’s a big positive for me from the council. Now, I question whether they should have changed as many other things in the mass as they did (quite frankly I think just keeping it the same but doing it in the vernacular language would have been sufficient), though some of those changes actually came after Vatican II and thus can only be indirectly attributed to it. Still, I do think the switch to the vernacular was long overdue.

 

[godisgood77]

1. The evolution of the Mass and creation of the Ordinary Form - created a significant increase in participation by those who attend.
2. The emphasis on a return to the sources… and de-emphasizing of the ornate and a magnification of the preferential option for the poor
3. A start to breaking down the major issue of clericalism

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

This. Vatican II gets blame for things that were already happening anyway and would have gone on with or without a council.

I agree, but that does not mean Council did not fail. Council might have not been a cause of those things, but Council entirely failed in combating them… at least it seems so now. Also, some things (such as rejection of “Uniatism” and hence Eastern Catholicism for sake of pleasing Eastern Orthodoxy) are wrong in themselves with no external issues causing them, but Council alone which in some cases prioritized sentiments of Ecumenism and feelings of those outside the Church more than of those who remained faithful to the Church. I think that is main problem with Vatican II.

I do very much like the fact the mass was made available in the vernacular.

That is something I agree with. I do not “hate” Latin Mass, and I actually quite like it and see it as reverent, but would that be Mass I would attend when I converted I probably wouldn’t get as much out of it. Implementations of New Mass could have gone better, and some things could have remained in it for sure, but in the end vernacular in the Liturgy is what I am thankful for… not so much for other liturgical changes.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

As an outsider (Eastern Orthodox Christian) I would say that the good fruits of Vatican II were communion in both kinds (which brings the West back into the ancient practice preserved by the East), and allowance of liturgy in the vernacular (although I personally have great affection for Latin and the Latin Mass).

Other than that, I would agree with @Genesis315. In the Orthodox Church a Council is deemed “Orthodox” after it is received by the clergy and faithful, based upon their inner sense of Orthodoxy as handed down to the laity it is either affirmed or rejected. Using that barometer, from an Orthodox perspective Vatican II would be rejected as a “Robber Council” with a subsequent Council being called to correct its multifarious errors.

Cue the Anathamas and let us add the errors of modernism, indifferentism and subjectivism to condemnation on the Sunday of Orthodoxy!

 

[TMC]

Using that barometer, from an Orthodox perspective Vatican II would be rejected as a “Robber Council” with a subsequent Council being called to correct its multifarious errors.

How do you figure? Seems to me that the Council was accepted by the vast majority of both the faithful and the clerics. Do the Orthodox require absolute unanimity?

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

How do you figure? Seems to me that the Council was accepted by the vast majority of both the faithful and the clerics. Do the Orthodox require absolute unanimity?

We see the fruits throughout time and then act accordingly. In matters of faith the Orthodox require unanimity.

What are the fruits of Vatican II throughout time? Have not schisms abounded, confusions multiplied, liturgy lost its reverence, religious and priestly vocations withered, worldliness, corruption and scandal shaken the foundations of the Catholic faith? Has not Sacred Tradition been displaced with modernity’s cold, arrogant cynicism, resulting in an anemic piety amongst the faithful? Has not the spirit of Catholic Church changed infecting not merely the clergy and faithful, but also the Vatican, even unto the Papacy itself, in the form of idolatry (i.e. pachamama), sacrilege, relativism, and subjugation to the powers of this world?

Just the fact that we are having this conversation nearly 70 years thence from the Council should be an indication that “all is not well in the State of Denmark” and neither have the faithful and clergy received the Council without alarm as evidenced by the intense controversy over this topic.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emphasis on pastoral care per Gaudium et Spes. I think one of the saddest things I learned about the pre VII Church was that after WWII, affected veterans had to have faked medical records if they committed suicide due to the (then unknown) effects of PTSD, to be able to have a Catholic funeral and burial. Gaudium et Spes allowed for Priests to exercise pastoral discernment in such cases so that official records didn’t need to reflect a lie.

 

[StudentMI]

That is sad. I haven’t read Gaudium et Spes myself but I keep coming across passages from it in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. It seems very beautiful.

 

[commenter]

JSRG:

Vatican II gets blame for things that were already happening anyway and would have gone on with or without a council.

I agree, but that does not mean Council did not fail. Council might have not been a cause of those things, but Council entirely failed in combating them… at least it seems so now.

Well, ok. I would say it partly failed. It did not foresee the massive assault on Truth, on Reason, on the Natural Law.

But it didn’t cause those problems, not even the internal ones. Consider the massive dissent coordinated by Fr Curran in 1968. Look at the background of him and other signers.

These were not V2 people. They were formed and educated prior to V2, in the era of Pius 11 and Pius 12. The great majority of Masses they had attended were TLM. They were mostly in powerful positions prior to V2. The same is true for other networks of dissent that were in formation before the Council.

A lot was going on below the radar screen.

 

[TMC]

What are the fruits of Vatican II throughout time? Have not schisms abounded, confusions multiplied, liturgy lost its reverence, religious and priestly vocations withered, worldliness, corruption and scandal shaken the foundations of the Catholic faith?

Actually, no. I would disagree with all of those.

Has not Sacred Tradition been displaced with modernity’s cold, arrogant cynicism, resulting in an anemic piety amongst the faithful?

No.

Has not the spirit of Catholic Church changed infecting not merely the clergy and faithful, but also the Vatican, even unto the Papacy itself, in the form of idolatry (i.e. pachamama), sacrilege, relativism, and subjugation to the powers of this world?

Uh, no. It sounds like you have been spending a lot of time on sedvacantist and conspiracy websites.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Well, ok. I would say it partly failed. It did not foresee the massive assault on Truth, on Reason, on the Natural Law.

Yes, partly… I mean while I wouldn’t say it did not fail, changing it to “did not succeed” would bring more clarity. That is what I meant.

These were not V2 people.

I don’t necessarily dispute that, I am just saying that Vatican II did little to solve imminent crisis. Vatican II did not introduce any of Liturgical abuses for example, but not including penalty for not following rubrics in the Missal did not help with that. Vatican II was not the cause of problems, but Council in itself did not contribute to their solution too much either.

 

[commenter]

In the late 60s and 70s there were endless lectures and articles that disparaged the pre Council Church, and credited the Council with the invention of everything good including the wheel. People misused the Council to push private agendas.

None of this refutes the (modest) genuine contributions. There was a needed reaffirmed call to read the Bible, for instance. Changes in media, education and society were taken into account, just as Trent took into account changes in its own century.