The Fruits of Vatican II

[otjm]

Fruits of Vatican 2:

1. the use of the vernacular in the two Liturgies of the Church - the Mass and the Liturgy of the hours.
2. the encouragement of the laity to engage in saying the Liturgy of the Hours.
3. The move away from the use of condemnatory language of prior Councils. Christ spoke often of the unwillingness of those who would not accept him in strong language, and there is a place for it., But when asked what the greatest Commandment was he gave two: Love God; Love neighbor. Not exactly the use of condemnatory language. There has been a change from the Holy Office and the condemnations which emanated from there prior to V2, plus the original proposed documents which were rejected, to the positive documents of V2 and the move away from a juridical approach to the Faith to a reflection on the mystery of the Church, Christ’s presence in it through its clergy and laity, the Scriptures, and the sacraments, and most especially through the Eucharist.

And out of that came a resurgence of Eucharistic Adoration, and in particular, Perpetual Adoration.

 

[Maximian]

hey usually start by saying “well the Church says…” and then begin citing VII documents.

Yes, I agree. All too often people talk as if Vatican II superseded all previous teaching, as if chronology is important. Whereas the truths of one council are not less valid because they were promulgated earlier, since God is outside time and so is the Church Triumphant.

 

[Maximian]

I find this is the best answer so far to my question.

I do not share your views but thank you.

In my opinion the vernacular is divisive. I live in a Catholic country with three official languages plus four or five numerous ones (Luxembourg). The vernacular is responsible for the ghettoisation of the faithful. Only at the TLM do you have French, German, Hungarian, Polish, Italian, Japanese, Dutch, Spanish, Luxemborgeoises all worshipping together.

I do appreciate the liturgy of the hours but we didn’t need an ecumenical council for that.

I also think that hell exists and it is cruel to avoid the subject.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Crusader13:

hey usually start by saying “well the Church says…” and then begin citing VII documents.

Yes, I agree. All too often people talk as if Vatican II superseded all previous teaching, as if chronology is important. Whereas the truths of one council are not less valid because they were promulgated earlier, since God is outside time and so is the Church Triumphant.

I don’t find that true at all. All too often people declare that they reject ‘the innovations’ of Vatican II but stay with the Council of Trent and its associated Catechisms. That’s the bigger problem. That we get to just reject the living Church who teaches us today.

 

[Maximian]

they reject ‘the innovations’ of Vatican II but stay with the Council of Trent

There is certainly a tendency among traditionalists to confuse innovations of substance, which absolutely have no place in the Catholic Church, with superficial innovations which, though they should be treated with caution, are not inadmissible.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Go document by document, assume good intentions for each, and the result in every case has, sadly, been the opposite.

That was quite the analysis and collection of insights.

 

[stoplooklisten]

I also think that hell exists and it is cruel to avoid the subject.

Agree. Agree.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I am not going to parse this with you; we both know they did not state any new dogmas, but the Council was Dogmatic when it spoke to further define existing dogmas.

I have no desire to parse about this either. I do agree with you that they spoke of existing dogmas and as I said earlier I do not think or mentioned anything about anyone lying. Have a blessed day.

 

[Maximian]

;That is so strange! Imagine those 2,000 bishops, and the 5 Popes leading us down such a lie? Why the though=t of it… Oh…

The DOGMATIC Constitution on the Church

The DOGMATIC Constitution on Divine Revelation

Yep - it is just pastoral, and not… what?

Sarcasm is an ill-advised technique as is bandying words like “lies”. Are you aware of the following two statements by Pope St Paul VI:

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

"The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Therefore what I don’t understand is what the issue is that so many people seem to have.

I wanted to come back and answer your question for two reasons, I see that you are in RCIA and wanted to say, welcome. There really is no greater place to be than in the Catholic church.

Then as someone else said, it isn’t that any dogmas or doctrines were changed, it is that they, as you said were expressed in a different way, and that different way has led many to misinterpret parts of the documents. The documents are very beautifully written though a few parts have caused misunderstandings. Unfortunately Vatican II over the years has been a very heated topic in the Church and these threads can go around and around here at CAF. That is why I said the best thing to do is to read the catechisms, which will then aid in understanding the Vatican II documents. My priest suggested the Roman Catechism/Trent because it is an easy read, easy to understand and it is the foundation for all other catechisms.
I’ll probably get in trouble for saying this but these CAF forums are not always good Catholic Answers, from myself included.

 

[Glennon_P]

In my opinion the vernacular is divisive. I live in a Catholic country with three official languages plus four or five numerous ones (Luxembourg). The vernacular is responsible for the ghettoisation of the faithful. Only at the TLM do you have French, German, Hungarian, Polish, Italian, Japanese, Dutch, Spanish, Luxemborgeoises all worshipping together.

In the U.S., the same thing happened…a hundred years ago. With the Tridentine Mass. In many cities, you had the Irish parish, the Polish parish, the German parish, the Czech parish, the Italian parish, etc. - sometimes within a few blocks of each other - all attending Mass on Sunday morning.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Fruits of Vatican II ? Well as someone who grew up in the 1950’s before Vatican II, I’ve seen both sides. But anyway here’s what I see as the fruit of Vatican II

1 Contemplative Prayer was brought to the laity where before VII, it was confined mostly to monasteries, convents and some 3rd order groups.

1. The Liturgy of the Hours was opened up to the laity along with reading of Scripture. Again, these were confined to the clergy of the Church.
2. The Permanent Diaconate was opened up to the laity and married men.
3. We stopped looking at non-Catholics as enemies of God, but as children of God, just like we are. It didn’t harm our faith, but enhanced it and for many, we became more knowledgeable about it as we explained to non-Catholics what we believed.
4. People became actively involved in the Mass, rather than just sitting in the pews while the priests and altar boys mumbled off the latin responses quickly and without amplification so we could at least hear them.

Yes, we had French, Irish and Italian churches right down the streets from each other.

As an aside to the thread, as I learned when visiting Lourdes, when Catholics were devote and attended Mass, it required many churches in order to accommodate them all. The priest giving homilies in their ethnic languages was preferred.

 

[otjm]

and that different way has led many to misinterpret parts of the documents.

It would appear that the use of the word “many” is replacing the actuality - there are some people who have problem with the documents; primarily the SSPX. And they are a very small minority of the Church, and as Pope Benedict has said, they are in a doctrinal dispute with the Magisterium.

If there is a theologian alve today who could explain to the SSPX in a clear fashion the continuity of V2 documents with theology prior to V2, it is Pope Benedict, and he has been trying to do that since the four bishops were ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. That he has not explained it to them in a way which clarifies their objections -which the vast majority of the Church does not have - leads to a number of considerations, and I will leave it at that.

And if anyone wants to “read the catechisms” I would suggest they s;tart with the one the Church has, per Pope John Paul 2.

 

[otjm]

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming

As I said in my comment, V2 did not define any new dogma - which is what “proclaiming” means. Whether you like the sarcasm or not, I am still sick and tired of the mantra that it was
“only a pastoral council” which is the defining cry of the ultra right to be dismissive of the entire council.

 

[pnewton]

I would see more value in opinions that one has from their own study if they could first show that they understand the simpler sentence in the first post.

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

I the topic of this thread is misunderstood, meaning that it is a debate on the problems with V2, I think a lot of more complex Church documents might be too much of a stretch. There are plenty of other place to slam on Vatican II, or slam on a pope, or even slam on the Church. Was it too much to ask for one positive thread?

 

[Maximian]

ultra right to

You don’t have to be ultra right to think that Vatican II was a pastoral council.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

there are some people who have problem with the documents; primarily the SSPX.

If there is a theologian alve today who could explain to the SSPX

Archbishop Lefebvre

In all charity, otjm, the documents of Vatican II have been a discussion in the Church for a long time, and amongst many Catholics not just the SSPX.

I have heard Catholics discuss and talk about Vatican II and it’s documents, long before I ever heard of the SSPX.

Also though, in all fairness, to the SSPX, I was not referring to them at all. I do not attend an SSPX chapel, so I do not listen to their priests. I am a little bothered that they are being the target of blame here on many of the posts here at CAF lately because that is not fair. I understand they do have issues with the documents but they are not alone.

And if anyone wants to “read the catechisms” I would suggest they s;tart with the one the Church has, per Pope John Paul 2.

Yes that is a very good catechism also. I am not saying it is not. All I am saying is that my N.O. parish Catholic priest suggested the Catechism of Trent because, it is part of the Church, it is not as long as the most recent one and easier to read and understand and he was right. It is a very good foundation.Pope Benedict 16th, as a Cardinal, called it the most important Catholic Catechism. Many in our parish Bible studies are finding the more recent catechsim long to read. He also said that Saint Pope John Paul II CCC and other catechisms are based from the Catechism of Trent. The two catechsims are not in opposition to each other. They are both part of our Holy Mother Church and teach the same Catholic faith.

God bless

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I am still sick and tired of the mantra that it was
“only a pastoral council” which is the defining cry of the ultra right to be dismissive of the entire council.

I do not know anyone of the ultra right, not even sure what that means, and I am not dismissive of the council. It is part of our Church. It is the 23rd Council of the Catholic Church. It has beautiful documents but I follow what Pope Paul VI said,

There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.

Since he was the Pope I will follow what he says. Not everyone that says it was pastoral is saying it didn’t not discuss, define or strengthen dogmas already in place but it avoided pronouncing in any extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility. it was pastoral in nature as the pope said.

 

[strita]

the new evangelization is the effort to get “fallen away” Catholics to return to the faith. But, tne has fallen into so much misunderstanding that it has failed.

---

In Michigan as a whole, and in my county in particular, 3/4 of the people are totally unchurched. I don’t see anything being done about it – well , except – there’s the “unleash the Gospel” effort in the Arch. of Detroit.

 

[Maximian]

I am not a member of the SSPX,

It’s a bizarre thing that people think that those who attend Mass said by a priest of the SSPX are “members of SSPX “. I often go to a Franciscan mass but nobody suggests Im a franciscan.

The SSPX is a society of priests. They have a few nuns too.