Vatican 2 is the reason I'm alive!

[Genesis315]

For whatever reason, Vatican II led to an exodus from the clergy and religious and an immediate drop in vocations. (The pews also began emptying; I know many laity from that era that quietly just stopped going to church–and not because they followed the ways of the world). I’m sure there are various reasons, but no doubt many such clergy thought they were building their house on an unshakeable rock that all of sudden seemed to be turning to mush all around them. I can see how that would cause some to lose faith at least to a degree that it wasn’t something worth making such a profound sacrifice for.

I’m glad God can bring good out of evil.

 

[Emeraldlady]

(The pews also began emptying; I know many laity from that era that quietly just stopped going to church–and not because they followed the ways of the world).

I have such a different experience. If I mention my family name in Australian Catholic circles it’s instantly recognisable. We contributed so many bodies to the Church but Vatican II didn’t shake their faith though despite changes and confusion. I’ve learnt from this site that some Catholics would call our family heretics for submitting to papal authority. meh. Ok.

 

[Divine3]

Vatican two was given to us by the Holy Spirit, a needed work of God. How it was implemented in different countries and dioceses is a different story. The fact that some bishops would not agree to give approval to pope Paul’s …Mother of the Church…is a pretty sad example of some bishops during vat ll…you will need to research that reality.

 

[Genesis315]

Vatican two was given to us by the Holy Spirit, a needed work of God. How it was implemented in different countries and dioceses is a different story.

Vatican II was the project of a gathering of bishops. Those very same bishops implemented it in their dioceses. Both “stories” had the same authors. Given the lack of fruits, it is hard to see the Holy Spirit’s inspiration–rather we see His protection that we didn’t totally shipwreck.

 

[tafan2]

Though I might suggest another reason for pro gratia laisizations around that time. Vatican II put great emphasis on right intention, full freedom and spiritual and human maturity as characteristics of valid ordination. Prior to VII lots of males went to minor seminaries for education at the age of 12 at their parents wishes. It happened quite a bit that it wasn’t a ‘fully free’ decision in the way we understand it now, to proceed to ordination. It was possibly in this environment where different emphasis was put on priestly formation that the ‘favour’ of laizication was granted to men ordained prior to the new emphasis and who were struggling without the grace of true vocation.

IMO you are certainly on to something. I really do not like the terminology of “pardon”. Years ago a priest ordained around 1970 gave me his take on why it happened. He had gone through the seminary in the starting in the early 60s. He said that they were often told that the requirement for celibacy was going to be removed. Many of his class mates fully expected to be ordained and then be allowed to be married. Apparently this was common both in Europe and North America. When Paul VI did not remove the requirement for celibacy, a lot of younger priests were very upset. Many of them request laicizations, and he speculated that Paul VI thought it only fair that they be granted due to the fact they had been mislead in the seminaries.

 

[tafan2]

@Dougbro1 , almost everyone around can name historical events that lead to their being alive. Some of these events are good, some are bad. For myself, I see no way my parents would have met without WWII occurring. That does not mean I am happy that Hilter came along. I can name a couple of good historical events (more local in nature) that also led to my existence.
We are here because God created us. We are part of His plan. One does not have to favor every historical event that leads to our existence. I am not saying Vatican II was bad, I certainly think it was a good thing. But it also lead to a lot of confusion we are just now getting past. Look at it all objectively, don’t think about it relative to yourself.

 

[Dovekin]

I’m sure there are various reasons, but no doubt many such clergy thought they were building their house on an unshakeable rock that all of sudden seemed to be turning to mush all around them.

I always read this metaphor with the parable of the Sower. Seeds have difficulty growing in rocky soil. They do better in rich soil. The post V2 era was a shift from “unshakeable rock” that we build on to rich soil in which we can grow. That can be very disconcerting, especially if you are a builder, not a farmer.

That change is what emeraldlady pointed to, “a great emphasis on right intention, full freedom and spiritual and human maturity as characteristics of valid ordination.” While the growth metaphor was always part of seminary training, the emphasis on “unshakeable rock” had become a dominant theme after the French Revolution.

 

[Dougbro1]

Maybe so, but why is Pope John XXIII a canonized saint? Maybe there’s some other good fruit to this that we haven’t seen yet that others may have picked up on. Was this a mistake? Isn’t there a lot of discernment that goes into canonization? I don’t know all the details about this council, I admit, but there were many more things addressed than the way the Mass was said, and a lot of them were good.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

This is what I have suspected. They really screwed up in the early 1960s then, whoever was hinting that celibacy would not be required for priests. I think the same thing was true about the Church allowing artificial birth control. It was hinted at during the 1960s that the Church might change her mind on this. The laity had kind of acted like birth control would be okay, then when Humanae Vitae came out, the horse had already left the barn.
Moral of the story – don’t believe rumors!

 

[YourNameHere]

Something good can come from all things in life. Thanks be to God!

 

[Dougbro1]

EDIT: I realize the proper term is “dispensation” rather than “pardon.” My bad.

 

[tafan2]

That is exactly correct about birth control. It was expected by most people that it would be allowed. So the immediately protests and negative reactions to Humane Vitae was a result of the surprise. And although all of this happened prior to Vatican II, the seeds (indeed the seedlings) were alive and well prior to the council. The council itself did not go far enough for many in the Church, which is why they immediately started talking about the “Spirit of Vatican II” to justify their overreach. I went through a period when I thought the absurd liturgical abuses, abandonment of Eucharistic devotions, abandonment of the rosary, etc of the the 70s and 80s just had to be a result of Vatican II. A little bit of historical research, talking to people in my parents generation, and putting it all together led me to the opposite conclusion. When a spiritual director finally directed me to read the 4 main documents of the council, I certainly knew the Council was not the problem.

 

[Divine3]

"Given the lack of fruits, it is hard to see the Holy Spirit’s inspiration– "
Many of the great fruits I see are found in the saints that came forth from Vatican II, St. John Paul Il, Mother Theresa, St. John XXIIi, Great teachings on Divine Revelation etc. But also agree the Holy Spirit continues to keep us on the right path…

 

[Dougbro1]

Many of the great fruits I see are found in the saints that came forth from Vatican II, St. John Paul Il, Mother Theresa, St. John XXIIi,

Don’t forget St. Padre Pio

 

[Divine3]

I am sure I forgot others, thanks for the reminder. Padre Pio pray for us.

 

[Dougbro1]

Amen. There are many saints to list, but Padre Pio is one of the most significant, or so I observe from the people I know. I know a lot of people with strong devotions to St. Padre Pio.

 

[Dovekin]

I am not disagreeing, but providing a little more information. Birth control and celibacy both came up at the Council. St Paul VI decided to reserve these issues for further study, rather than let the Council discuss them. A commission on birth control had been set up by John XXIII, and was expanded by Paul VI, I do not know how celibacy was studied. Vatican 2 ended in 1965, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus was issued in 1967, Humanae Vitae in 1968.

There were faithful Catholics on all sides on both issues among the bishops and probably the cardinals. It was not wrong to hold most of those positions, though the situation changed a bit with the encyclicals. Still, none of those who disagreed with the encyclicals were declared heretics or excommunicated. A couple professors were ‘asked’ not to teach Catholic theology, but they remained in good standing with the Church. Some of the more radical who disagreed left the Church on their own.

I do disagree with your remarks on “the Spirit of Vatican 2.” I remember praying for the Council’s success, so that the Holy Spirit “as in a new Pentecost” would come upon the Church. This was very much a part of the Council, and explains a lot of the best that came after: the transition from a shuttered Church enclosing the “Prisoner of the Vatican”, to an emhasis on evangelization and out reach to others. It was the Holy Spirit who inspired the apostles at the first Pentecost, and the same Holy Spirit who inspired many after the Council. I am not sure who inspires the people who dislike the Spirit and the Council.

 

[tafan2]

I do disagree with your remarks on “the Spirit of Vatican 2.” I remember praying for the Council’s success, so that the Holy Spirit “as in a new Pentecost” would come upon the Church. This was very much a part of the Council, and explains a lot of the best that came after: the transition from a shuttered Church enclosing the “Prisoner of the Vatican”, to an emhasis on evangelization and out reach to others. It was the Holy Spirit who inspired the apostles at the first Pentecost, and the same Holy Spirit who inspired many after the Council. I am not sure who inspires the people who dislike the Spirit and the Council.

My term “spirit of Vatican II” has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit inspiring the council’s actions. I do not know if it is Church doctrine or not, but I certainly believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the Council. However, in the 70s and 80s, we were always told we had to accept the “spirt of Vatican II” whenever any new thing came along, typicaly bad things, in the Church. For example, I remember being told explicitly that we no longer had benediction because of the spirit of Vatican II. This was a false spirit of Vatican II. Indeed a council has no spirit. It may have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. If it was, we only have the council documents to tell us about that inspiration, nothing more.

 

[Dovekin]

This was a false spirit of Vatican II. Indeed a council has no spirit. It may have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. If it was, we only have the council documents to tell us about that inspiration, nothing more.

We certainly seem to agree there have been false spirits in the Church. The answer to them is to turn to the Holy Spirit that inspired the Council. Many have done that for many years, picking up the pentecostal calls to evangelize the whole world. Whatever damage has been done by false spirits, it will not be healed by keeping out all spirits.

 

[tafan2]

A couple professors were ‘asked’ not to teach Catholic theology,

From http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c..._con_cfaith_doc_19860725_carlo-curran_en.html

In light of your repeated refusal to accept what the church teaches and in light of its mandate to promote and safeguard the church’s teaching on faith and morals throughout the Catholic world, this Congregation, in agreement with the Congregation for Catholic Education, sees no alternative now but to advise the most reverend chancellor that you will no longer be considered suitable nor eligible to exercise the function of a professor of Catholic theology.

Pretty strong way to “ask” in my opinion.