The Fruits of Vatican II

[commenter]

when the changes began to occur the documents that were cited as their authority for doing so, were the documents of VII.

If you are referring to the 1970s, yeah. But in recent years I rarely see any reference to V2 in my parish or diocese.

The only place I find frequent reference, almost constant revert to V2 is CAF, or similar sites. Almost none the posts I see reference actual recent events in the posters own recent experience. Instead, some posters refer to maybe something in their 1970s parish. Most posts about V2 seem to be taken from 1p5, Rorate, or one those type sites.

Sometimes they attach an article, more often the language in the post sounds exactly like they just read A, or B, or C, even if they don’t mention Peter Kwasniewski, et al.

 

[puer.dei]

My brother told me that with all the new saints in the Church, people tend to forget about the hundreds of older ones.

That’s his personal opinion. I doubt he has any proof.

. I think that there are far too many canonized saints in the Church.

If you don’t want the good examples of these saints, and the lessons in holiness they can teach us, then ignore them. But don’t assume that others “could care less.”

 

[StudentMI]

But in recent years I rarely see any reference to V2 in my parish or diocese.

Thank goodness you didn’t go through the RCIA class I went through. The instructor never stopped talking about Vatican II. But that parish had a track record of shall we say ‘unique’ priests with ‘interesting’ views on things. Two wound up being charged with sex crimes.

 

[commenter]

V2 should be mentioned somewhat, though not used as a vehicle to push private agendas. Perhaps we are moving into the post post Vatican 2 era. You will never convince some people V2 isn’t all good or all bad. Sadly, those liberals and conservatives who are both obsessed with the 1960s and 70s aren’t much help in dealing with the challenges of 2020.

 

[Glennon_P]

You will never convince some people V2 isn’t all good or all bad.

Very, very true.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

A start to breaking down the major issue of clericalism

Perhaps that was the plan, but in many ways there is now more clericalism. Now priests do what they want to an extent in the sanctuary whereas before they followed certain exact “militaristic” procedures. It’s much easier for a cleric to end up imposing his own personality now on liturgy than it was before, many will say “goodmorning” at the beginning for example or do a speech before the final blessing, that would not happen if it was in Latin. There is now more “freedom” for the priest. So I’d say clericalism has actually grown since the council

 

[Jbrady]

There is now more “freedom” for the priest. So I’d say clericalism has actually grown since the council

That would be a rather novel, and totally erroneous, conception of the term “clericalism”. It’s little wonder that it led you to an equally erroneous conclusion.

 

[commenter]

A good fruit would be
… stating that Pre-Conciliar teaching on religious liberty is still binding,

The bishops at V2 had lived through WW2 and the Holocaust. They had seen the rise of totalitarian ideologies not foreseen at Trent, and philosophies hostile to individual human dignity.

They also witnessed the not so good experience of state churches. They saw the need to make more explicit the Church historic teaching on human rights. St. JP2 and Jimmy Carter, among others, utilized this new emphasis on religious (ideological) liberty to confront regimes.

In recent years opponents of V2 have claimed this meant the Church says all religions are equally true(!)
This claim tells more about the 2020 websites than about the 1960s council.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

stating that Pre-Conciliar teaching on religious liberty is still binding,

In recent years opponents of V2 have claimed this meant the Church says all religions are equally true(!)

Yes, agreed that we do have religious liberty to the state governments. That is one of our civil, human rights. The Church taught this prior to Vatican II, also, though the Church has never taught that we have religious liberty to God.

God has always directed man’s worship and continues to do so in the Catholic church.

In my experience it is not always those who do not favor Vatican II that believe or teach that all religions are equal but more of those who strongly favor Vatican II and want to take what they believe it says to an extreme, as we see happening today in many of the ecumenical movements in the Church. It is too bad that civil rights has turned into a belief that all religions are equal or that man can be saved in other religions besides the Catholic church, that has never been true.

Religious liberty is one of the items in the Vatican II documents that many theologians believe needs more clarification in explaining what the Church teaches.

 

[StudentMI]

Religious liberty is one of the items in the Vatican II documents that many theologians believe needs more clarification in explaining what the Church teaches.

Fr. Brian Harrison has done a great job explaining the teaching and how it conforms to Church tradition.

 

[commenter]

Religious liberty is one of the items in the Vatican II documents that many theologians believe needs more clarification in explaining what the Church teaches.

• V2 has been in ongoing clarification for 55 years
• Even if SSPX, for instance, was allowed to write the text of the Vatican’s Religious Liberty Clarification #16 this year, who’s to say there wouldn’t be a very different Clarification #17 in 2022?
• Heretics won’t be slowed down in the slightest by any “clarification”. In 2020 they are responding to the secular culture.
• What if all the time, money, attention focused on 1960s document wording were redirected to evangelism and prolife?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

V2 has been in ongoing clarification for 55 years

Yes, V2, especially in regards to religious liberty, has been one of the most controversial councils and has been discussed at length for 55 years. Many have tried to clarify it’s documents but unfortunately the ambiquities continue. More than likely it will take a Pope to make a statement clarifying Church teaching.

Even if SSPX, for instance, was allowed to write the text of the Vatican’s Religious Liberty Clarification #16 this year, who’s to say there wouldn’t be a very different Clarification #17 in 2022?

I wasn’t referring to the SSPX at all but other bishops and cardinals though yes that is why a Pope needs to make the clarifications and I am sure God will lead him when the time is right.

 

[TMC]

Many have tried to clarify it’s documents but unfortunately the ambiquities continue.

I have asked many times for an explanation as to what in Vatican II is “unclear,” but I still don’t know. What do you view as unclear?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I have asked many times for an explanation as to what in Vatican II is “unclear,” but I still don’t know. What do you view as unclear?

So, as I just said above in my last post, and have heard good Catholic bishops, sisters and priests and heard my own local N.O. priests say, that in regards to religious liberty and modern ecumenism Vatican 2 documents have some ambiquities and has led many into wrong thinking,

 

[commenter]

that is why a Pope needs to make the clarifications and I am sure God will lead him when the time is right.

Popes have in fact “clarified” ambiguity about Religious Liberty by powerful Encyclicals and other explicit calls to evangelize, specifically to the Catholic Faith. No amount of further papal clarification will satisfy the “we need clarification” Lobby. That’s a permanent thing. The better alternative is to ignore them and focus on the things like prolife.
As long as we keep hyping their lobby, they’ll keep pulling time, money and attention away from 2020 needs.

(I wasn’t thinking specifically of SSPX, just used them as a “for instance”).

 

[Crusader13]

I have asked many times for an explanation as to what in Vatican II is “unclear,” but I still don’t know. What do you view as unclear?

It’s not simply that they are unclear, but their ambiguity allows different interpretations.

For example, I don’t like the language used in Lumen Gentium in reference to salvation. Some people think Jews, Muslims, atheists, non-Catholics/Christians are saved no matter what. And this is the document they point to.

Which is why we get clergy talking about privileged and non privileged routes to Heaven.

 

[whatistrue]

documents have some ambiquities and has led many into wrong thinking,

I too would really like to understand what, specifically, is still ambiguous after all this time and all the clarifications. But all I have heard (when I actually hear anything other than crickets) are ambiguous claims that “there are ambiguities”.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I too would really like to understand what, specifically, is still ambiguous after all this time and all the clarifications. But all I have heard (when I actually hear anything other than crickets) are ambiguous claims that “there are ambiguities”.

Well I didn’t just answer with “there are some ambiquities”. In all charity, I said religious liberty and modern ecumenism.

 

[whatistrue]

Well I didn’t just answer with “there are some ambiquities”.

True. But you did answer with:

So, as I just said above in my last post, and have heard good Catholic bishops, sisters and priests and heard my own local N.O. priests say, that in regards to religious liberty and modern ecumenism Vatican 2 documents have some ambiquities and has led many into wrong thinking,

Which is still ambiguous. What, specifically, has not been adequately clarified yet?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Which is still ambiguous. What, specifically, has not been adequately clarified yet?

In regards to religious liberty, we do not have religious liberty before God but rather civiling as a human right. God has always directed man’s worship.

In regards to modern ecumenism, many have been led to believe that Christ is just one way to salvation and that salvation is found in other religions also.