Vatican 2 is the reason I'm alive!

[tafan2]

Oh, there is plenty of room for criticism of the post Counciliar Church in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. You asked earlier why the Church did not “gradually phase things in”. The progressives of the time would say they did. But by any historical standard, many of the changes were a sudden tsunami. Why did the Church move so quickly? I think that is very complicated. The radicals wanted to move as fast as possible while they had the opportunity. Indeed, there had been liturgical reforms going on for a couple of decades, a new missal was issued in 1962. It certainly had not gone far enough in their mind. Paul VI wanted to implement the desires of Vatican II in a timely fashion. He was probably correct. Just look at the mass. The extent of the changes in the OF compared to the EF, one could not have gotten from point A (1962 missal) to point B (Paul VI’s missal) over a long period. It would have been interrupted somewhere in the middle. Maybe that would have been better, who knows.

 

[angel12]

Maybe so, but why is Pope John XXIII a canonized saint?

Canonization speaks to the holiness of a person’s life. Are you saying he wasn’t a holy man?

 

[Dougbro1]

No, I’m not. IMO he is a really great choice to be a canonized saint. I think my question might have had a rhetorical edge to it. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

"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…

I can’t help but notice all these saints were formed by the pre-Vatican II church.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Well, he died just after the end of Vatican II. He lived most of his life before Vatican II! So I’m not sure that demonstrates the fruit of Vatican II.

 

[tafan2]

Yea, but that is greatly influence by the fact that Vatican II was only 55 years ago. If you look at the age of someone who was formed post Vatican II, they would only be 60 years old now. So not that many people have died and have had 5 years have passed since their death, plus the time for all of the investigations, beatification, canonization, etc. So it might be noticeable, but I think probably doesn’t tell us too much.

 

[Dougbro1]

All the same, it’s not impossible for someone with post-Vatican 2 formation to become a saint, even a canonized one. My formation and the formation of countless other good Catholics has been post-Vatican 2. That’s not saying a lot from your perspective, as you don’t exactly know me, other than online, nor do you know my family, but there are people like that.

 

[ralfyman]

FWIW, from “VATICAN COUNCIL II: LIGHT FOR THE CHURCH AND FOR THE MODERN WORLD”:

Vatican II, affirmed John Paul II, “remains the fundamental event of the life of the contemporary Church; fundamental for the deepening of the richness given to them by Christ; fundamental for the fecundal contact with the contemporary world in a prospective of evangelization and of dialogue on every level with all men of attentive consciences”(24).

 

[edwest211]

Pope Paul VI had to deal with the radicals regarding priestly celibacy in 1967.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis.html

 

[Emeraldlady]

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…

I can’t help but notice all these saints were formed by the pre-Vatican II church.

Not really relevant since most of the highest profile priestly predators were also formed by the pre VII Church. One Fr Gerald Fitzgerald began a whole new order of Priests in 1947 called the Servants of the Paraclete specifically devoted to the healing of peodphile Priests. That was until in discussions with Pope Paul VI during Vatican II he expressed the view that the condition couldn’t be treated.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

One Fr Gerald Fitzgerald began a whole new order of Priests in 1947 called the Servants of the Paraclete specifically devoted to the healing of peodphile Priests. That was until in discussions with Pope Paul VI during Vatican II he expressed the view that the condition couldn’t be treated.

Makes you wonder why after VII they removed, “deliver us from the spirit of fornication” from many prayers, such as the Litany of the Saints and the Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus.

 

[Divine3]

The Servants of the Paraclete do not work just with priests who have the sickness of pedophilia. The statement made gives a faulty representation of the beneficial works of the late Fr. Fitzgerald and how he worked with priests. You might like to view their link. http://www.theservants.org

 

[tafan2]

Not really relevant since most of the highest profile priestly predators were also formed by the pre VII Church

Some, not most.

 

[tafan2]

One Fr Gerald Fitzgerald began a whole new order of Priests in 1947 called the Servants of the Paraclete specifically devoted to the healing of peodphile Priests.

Historically, an inaccurate statement. He created it for priests with drug, alcohol , and other psychological problems. He never wanted pedeophiles, tried to end treating them as early as 1950, but bishops kept presurring him to take them. Often lobbied for forced laicization or sent to a lifelong monastical life for the offending priests.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Not really relevant since most of the highest profile priestly predators were also formed by the pre VII Church

Some, not most.

The highest profile offenders like Marcial Maciel and the Boston Globe subjects as well as the first round of offenders at Cheverus High School were all formed in the pre VII Church. However my only point was to respond to the poster who said all the Saints were formed in the pre VII Church meaning it was better than the post VII Church.

 

[Emeraldlady]

The Servants of the Paraclete do not work just with priests who have the sickness of pedophilia. The statement made gives a faulty representation of the beneficial works of the late Fr. Fitzgerald and how he worked with priests. You might like to view their link. http://www.theservants.org

Fair enough. My point though was only to show that these sins are not the product of Vatican II. They were present prior to that time as well.

 

[Divine3]

Understood.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I didn’t say ALL saints. I was responding to the specific list of saints who were referred to as the fruit of Vatican II. That’s all.
I guess we can’t have a discussion here without someone bringing up the abuse crisis as well.

 

[tafan2]

It’s a valid point. And we don’t have to just point out the extreme case of molesters. It was largely the generation of WWII, and the early baby boomers, all formed before V2, who ushered in and cheered on the craziness of the post V2 church. This is a key point in understanding the problems post V2. There was obviously something not quite right pre V2. V2 was a means they used.

 

[Genesis315]

That’s kind of the point though–the same people that came up with Vatican II also devastated the vineyard afterward–it just makes it more apparent that the two cannot really be separated. That being said, it seems participating at Vatican II had a bad effect on some bishops.

As this NYT article from 1964 on US bishops at Vatican II notes

More than one [US bishop] has admitted that he finds himself voting for changes in ecclesiastical practices and doctrinal interpretations he would have deemed totally unacceptable only two years ago.
…
The “progressive” changes wrought in the American hierarchy in the past two years are, of course, due initially to Pope John, who made aggiornamento an acceptable idea as well as a universal word. Yet other factors have played a role. One is the day‐by‐day exposure to new ideas. And a major one is the bishops’ new concept of their own role in the church—the feeling of united responsibility for the universal church, affirmed theologically in the doctrine of collegiality. No longer need the bishops be preoccupied with anticipating the Curia’s communications.

After three sessions of daily meetings with fellow bishops from other lands, a swelling confidence in their own ability to discern the good of the church, the airing of many long pent‐up frustrations and doubts about traditional practices, exposure to the thought of the best and most forward-looking theologians in the Catholic world, the encouragement of two Popes, a groundswell of critical comment from parish priests, nuns and the articulate laity, the comfort of one another’s company, and the privacy afforded in a city where 2,300 other prelates are gathered and one bishop more or less goes unnoticed — with all this, plus the help of the Holy Spirit, which the bishops themselves would put first, the American bishops have found themselves.>

The big problem facing them now is that they are ahead of both their priests and their people. Normally, a hierarchy lags behind the intellectual leaders in the church. Newideas come from below and with great difficulty are recognized by the authorities. This process has been reversed during Vatican II. Now, new ideas have to be presented by the bishops themselves, who will certainly run into many of the same difficulties that traditionally have faced other forerunners.

Vatican II Re‐educates The American Bishops (Published 1964)

J Cogley on role of US prelates and their growing influence in council debates; most now considered 'progressives' and ahead of their priests and people in desire for change; illus

www.nytimes.com

It seems they all got a bit full of themselves while imbibing novel ideas an then came back and imposed this on priests and people who didn’t ask for it, emptying the pews, rectories, and seminaries leaving only a few devout souls and those that were enthusiastic about the novelty.

(bishops understanding the episcopate’s true authority is a good thing, what they did with it was not always so–other parts in the article said the bishops had previously viewed themselves as legates of the Pope until Vatican II–but the Church’s doctrine that they were not legates had been articulated multiple times by the Church during and after Vatican I (1870), not to mention being consistently taught prior)