Vatican 2 is the reason I'm alive!

[tafan2]

That’s kind of the point though–the same people that came up with Vatican II also devastated the vineyard afterward

It was the same point, but you mistake it a bit. These are not people who “came up with Vatican II”. These are all people who came up before Vatican II. Whenever I hear people blame everything on Vatican II (which I had a tendency to do at one time), I always want to point out that many of the people who brought on the problems were formed before Vatican II. There has to be something a little off beforehand. It’s just not logical to lay the blame on Vatican II.

 

[Genesis315]

It’s true, Vatican II was a project of some that were formed beforehand–the problem is, they weren’t trying to simply hand on what they received beforehand, but to update it and change it where possible. But Vatican II itself also had a deleterious effect on its participants. As the article showed, bishops came home from it inspired to take pastoral actions they wouldn’t have dreamed of doing otherwise, actions which ultimately did more harm then good.

Vatican II didn’t start the fire, but it certainly was an accelerant.

 

[tafan2]

Vatican II didn’t start the fire, but it certainly was an accelerant.

Yes, in a sense this is true. It was, as I said, (mis)used as a means. But a proper interpretation of it and a proper implementation certainly started taking root in the 90s and '00s. In some places, thankfully where I live, I believe it has finally started flourishing. I believe St John Paul II was showing the way even while he was the Archbishop of Krakow.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

So, it was a form of re-education camp for the bishops?

 

[Emeraldlady]

It’s true, Vatican II was a project of some that were formed beforehand–the problem is, they weren’t trying to simply hand on what they received beforehand, but to update it and change it where possible. But Vatican II itself also had a deleterious effect on its participants. As the article showed, bishops came home from it inspired to take pastoral actions they wouldn’t have dreamed of doing otherwise, actions which ultimately did more harm then good.

Vatican II didn’t start the fire, but it certainly was an accelerant.

Really you are too invested in the cult of anti VII propaganda. Those types have their own agenda and it is not the good of the Church and the faithful. The Council was not the idea of modernist innovators but of wise holy prophets including then Bishop Wojtyla. Pope St JPII was one of the Bishops who drafted early versions of a number of the VII documents. It’s just so mistaken to say the Council came out of bad judgement or something like that.

One of Pope JPII’s first addresses was to the US bishops:

On the opening day of the Council John XXIII made the following statement: ‘The Greatest concern of the ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of the Christian faith should be more effectively guarded and taught.” This explains Pope John’s inspiration; this was what the new Pentecost was to be; this was why the Bishops of the Church - in the greatest manifestation of collegiality in the history of the world – were called together, ‘so that the sacred deposit of faith should he more effectively guarded and taught’ (5 October 1979).

I’m from a family that produced loads of Priests and religious sisters and I recall the anecdotes especially about the concerns of institutionalised nuns prior to VII. The environment had grown to be unnatural and toxic and not conducive to the vocation. It isn’t really a surprise that after VII the pendulum swung to the other side but that is now coming back to balance.

One day the true history of VII will be written for future generations and the extremist factions both progressives and traditionalists will fade into irrelevance.