Vatican II a "Return to the Gospel"

[JesuXPIPassio]

I’m not arguing against Vatican II. I think that the Council in and of itself was a positive step, although some of the consequences of it were horribly contorted.

But, the usual one-minute answer in explaining what the Council was is that it was the Church trying to make a “Return to the Gospel.”

I find this answer extremely hard to swallow. It implies that the pre-Vatican II Church was away from the Gospel. I frankly refuse to ever see the Church of Christ as ever being away from it. Sure, some of its members were away from it, but that’s true of any period, even the Apostolic period (like Judas).

Can anyone clear this up for me? Or am I just giving too much credence to those who give that answer about the Council?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

There is no basis in such a statement. The Church does not teach contrarily to the Gospel and never has. Therefore, there is no need to “return” to what was never deviated from.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I’m not arguing against Vatican II. I think that the Council in and of itself was a positive step, although some of the consequences of it were horribly contorted.

But, the usual one-minute answer in explaining what the Council was is that it was the Church trying to make a “Return to the Gospel.”

I find this answer extremely hard to swallow. It implies that the pre-Vatican II Church was away from the Gospel. I frankly refuse to ever see the Church of Christ as ever being away from it. Sure, some of its members were away from it, but that’s true of any period, even the Apostolic period (like Judas).

Can anyone clear this up for me? Or am I just giving too much credence to those who give that answer about the Council?

The Church saw a need and created the Council.

 

[jimmy]

I’m not arguing against Vatican II. I think that the Council in and of itself was a positive step, although some of the consequences of it were horribly contorted.

But, the usual one-minute answer in explaining what the Council was is that it was the Church trying to make a “Return to the Gospel.”

I find this answer extremely hard to swallow. It implies that the pre-Vatican II Church was away from the Gospel. I frankly refuse to ever see the Church of Christ as ever being away from it. Sure, some of its members were away from it, but that’s true of any period, even the Apostolic period (like Judas).

Can anyone clear this up for me? Or am I just giving too much credence to those who give that answer about the Council?

I can’t be sure but I think the idea of the claim is that the VII councils intent was a return to the sources, a resourcement. It approaches theology using the scriptures and the early church fathers. It does not depend on philosophical understandings of recent centuries.