Vatican II = Progressive Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicanne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholicanne

Guest
(I hope I put this in the right forum)

I don’t know much about Vatican II so I guess this is why I am asking this question. The church I work at considers themselves “progressive” and I remember during the interview they told me that they were a Vatican II church and they had no intention of going back.

Is it just me or did they misinterpret the whole idea of Vatican II? My understanding of Vatican II is that is wasn’t meant to be a wedge between traditional and progressive Catholic, it was meant to make the church more accessible to everyone, right? The priest at the church I work at is known for giving homilies of the acceptance of women priests and gay marriage. I know this is not in keeping with the teachings of the church and I suppose that is the root of my question. Vatican II wasn’t a license for priests to preach whatever they wanted. The church I work at has obviously misinterpreted the spirit of Vatican II, right?

And before you ask, yes, the bishop knows about the priest and no, there are no plans to replace him.
 
Yes, they have missed what Vatican II was/is…and have added their own version of what they believe to be a “spirit of Vatican II”. During the second Vatican Council, many folks had hopes of what it would “change”. When such did not change, people began this idea that “well, what they meant was [insert personal opinion here]…in the “spirit of Vatican II”…”.

What these “progressives” refues to do is actually read all the documents from Vatican II. To truly get a sense of this so-called “spirit of Vatican II”, one needs to actualyl read all the documents and not add or subtract from them.
 
The church I work at has obviously misinterpreted the spirit of Vatican II, right?
Yes. Completely and utterly. Vatican II did not and does not give any one license to preach heresy.
And before you ask, yes, the bishop knows about the priest and no, there are no plans to replace him.
Then go higher. The bishop is not the last recourse. If there is a pastor that is shouting for women’s ordination, etc., and the bishop refuses to act to silence him or remove him from ministry then first, pray, pray and pray some more, and secondly, contact Rome.
 
Yes, they have missed what Vatican II was/is…and have added their own version of what they believe to be a “spirit of Vatican II”. During the second Vatican Council, many folks had hopes of what it would “change”. When such did not change, people began this idea that “well, what they meant was [insert personal opinion here]…in the “spirit of Vatican II”…”.

What these “progressives” refues to do is actually read all the documents from Vatican II. To truly get a sense of this so-called “spirit of Vatican II”, one needs to actualyl read all the documents and not add or subtract from them.
That makes sense. The really sad part is that the church I work at has very low attendance. The parishioners left in droves when the priest was installed 3 years ago. The church I attend as my spiritual home is a Dominican church with a very traditional feel to it and it’s always packed! I have been praying for the church I work at that hopefully they will come to the realization that Catholics want true Catholicism, not some “version” of it. Thank you for making that clear for me!
 
That makes sense. The really sad part is that the church I work at has very low attendance. The parishioners left in droves when the priest was installed 3 years ago. The church I attend as my spiritual home is a Dominican church with a very traditional feel to it and it’s always packed!
I would say that’s a heartening sign in these times. Thank God.
 
(I hope I put this in the right forum)

I don’t know much about Vatican II so I guess this is why I am asking this question. The church I work at considers themselves “progressive” and I remember during the interview they told me that they were a Vatican II church and they had no intention of going back.

Is it just me or did they misinterpret the whole idea of Vatican II? My understanding of Vatican II is that is wasn’t meant to be a wedge between traditional and progressive Catholic, it was meant to make the church more accessible to everyone, right? The priest at the church I work at is known for giving homilies of the acceptance of women priests and gay marriage. I know this is not in keeping with the teachings of the church and I suppose that is the root of my question. Vatican II wasn’t a license for priests to preach whatever they wanted. The church I work at has obviously misinterpreted the spirit of Vatican II, right?

And before you ask, yes, the bishop knows about the priest and no, there are no plans to replace him.
The priest is what would technically be called “in heresy”, though there’s no Inquisition these days. More’s the pity. While I doubt burning such folks at the stake is required at all, giving them a good scare couldn’t hurt! 😉

But on to the larger issue you raise:

Vatican II: The Church faces the modern world - destroyed by two World Wars, communism, and moral decline - head on, with a prophetic message of hope.

“Spirit of Vatican II”: Some self-appointed “experts” decide to interpret the Vatican II documents as they like, picking out selected texts and ignoring the others.

This has been going on since St. Paul found that people were misinterpreting his teachings as a license for sin (Romans 6). It’s been going on since Marcion decided to pick and choose what parts of Scripture he would follow. It’s been going on since Martin Luther deleted seven books from the Bible, and led half of Western Christendom into a schism that is only beginning to heal now.

The Church has decided to handle this crisis as calmly as possible; and given the hysterical behaviour of some other “world religions”, I think history - and more importantly, God - will vindicate it. 👍
 
If someone is using Vatican II as a wedge to divide, they are using it incorrectly.

It’s really just become a buzz word to many people. A great number have not even read the documents nor bothered to interpret them in continuity as the recent popes have repeatedly said needs to be done.

You are correct. The purpose of the Council was to articulate the same Catholic truths in ways that modern man could understand. The purpose was not to change those truths into something else.

It’s sad that these views still persist in some places. 😦
 
(I hope I put this in the right forum)

I don’t know much about Vatican II so I guess this is why I am asking this question. The church I work at considers themselves “progressive” and I remember during the interview they told me that they were a Vatican II church and they had no intention of going back.

Is it just me or did they misinterpret the whole idea of Vatican II? My understanding of Vatican II is that is wasn’t meant to be a wedge between traditional and progressive Catholic, it was meant to make the church more accessible to everyone, right? The priest at the church I work at is known for giving homilies of the acceptance of women priests and gay marriage. I know this is not in keeping with the teachings of the church and I suppose that is the root of my question. Vatican II wasn’t a license for priests to preach whatever they wanted. The church I work at has obviously misinterpreted the spirit of Vatican II, right?

And before you ask, yes, the bishop knows about the priest and no, there are no plans to replace him.
Hi catholicanne:
Vatican II does not equal a progressive catholic if by a progressive catholic is meant one who thinks that the faith of the Church has changed since Vatican II or that one can call into question the articles of the faith. The profession of faith or creed we recite every Sunday is the same profession of faith that has been recited in the Church since the first centuries of christianity. Vatican II did expound on some of the doctrines of the Church such as “Outside the Church, there is no salvation.” I think the spirit of Vatican II can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The priest at the church you work at certainly needs our prayers. From what you say, some of his teaching is certainly contrary to the catholic faith and he is causing a scandal to the flock for which he will have to answer to God one day. He should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church for it appears he doesn’t know or understand the catholic faith.

During this Year of Faith, Pope Benedict XVI will probably be talking a lot about the documents of Vatican II and the catechism.
 
Are we going to have another multi page thread talking about the Catholoic Church and V2 based on hearsay evidence of a wild-hair priest?
Are we going to do that again?
 
(I hope I put this in the right forum)

I don’t know much about Vatican II so I guess this is why I am asking this question. The church I work at considers themselves “progressive” and I remember during the interview they told me that they were a Vatican II church and they had no intention of going back.

Is it just me or did they misinterpret the whole idea of Vatican II? My understanding of Vatican II is that is wasn’t meant to be a wedge between traditional and progressive Catholic, it was meant to make the church more accessible to everyone, right? The priest at the church I work at is known for giving homilies of the acceptance of women priests and gay marriage. I know this is not in keeping with the teachings of the church and I suppose that is the root of my question. Vatican II wasn’t a license for priests to preach whatever they wanted. The church I work at has obviously misinterpreted the spirit of Vatican II, right?

And before you ask, yes, the bishop knows about the priest and no, there are no plans to replace him.
Let’s take this in baby steps.

Q. Is there such thing as a Progressive Catholic?
A. Yes. It’s one who uses a computer to write a book instead of a stylus.

Q. Is a preacher correct in preaching these things?
A. No. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss these things in an academic environment. The pulpit is not a classroom.

Q. Can a bishop remove such a priest?
A. It depends. If he’s a diocesan priest, he can remove him in a heartbeat. If he’s a regular priest, he cannot touch him without the permission of the major superior, nor may the bishop ask the major superior to leave his diocese. The major superior’s authority trumps that of the bishop when it comes to his men. The buildings, ministries and other things, belong to the bishop, but not the men.

Q. If a man is a secular priest, must a bishop remove him from his ministry?
A. No. The Holy See does not interfere with or overrule the rights of bishops and religious superiors.

Q. Can the pope mandate that a priest, regular or secular, be moved?
A. A pope can do so if he wishes to do so. However, popes prefer not to get involved in the day to day issues of dioceses and parishes. It puts them in a compromising position. Also, popes realize that they have the complaint of one person to go on. For them to be fair, they have to engage in an investigation that takes time and a lot of money. Neither of which the Church has a lot of. This time and money do not come out of the Vatican’s resources, but the diocese. Sometimes is better to wait for the next rotation and just transfer someone. It’s usually faster, since rotations take place every summer.

Q. Does the Church consider every request from the laity to remove a priest?
A. No. There are secretaries assigned to read the mail going to the bishop or to Rome. Part of their job is to prioritize what the bishop or pope must read first. Some requests never get read, because there are other priorities that come first. A bishop and a pope is just one man and the work day only has four hours. The rest of the day is dedicated to working directly with people, not desk work. Don’t think that you’re being ignored. If your letter arrives on the same day that 25 letters arrive about the Muslims in the Middle East, the Anglican communion, the bishops who must be replaced for whatever reason, requests from religious for permission to have a general chapter, diplomatic letters from heads of state, requests from the different departments in the curia or bishops around the world, you letter will keep moving lower and lower in the stack. It may be assigned to another official to respond or may never get read, because there is no time. It’s a very human system and there are decisions that only a pope can make. A lower ranking official cannot make it. People often get offended, because they believe that they are being ignored.

To ignore is to read your letter and dismiss it. That’s not the case here. This is triage. You must deal with that which affects the world first, then an individual parish, if there is time. Often, such a letter is sent back to the bishop.

There are many human complications here.

The best thing to do is to communicate with the priest, then his superiors and then pray that God will help everyone involved. A note to save you time and energy. If your priest is regular, don’t go to the bishop. Go to his major superior. The bishop’s office is only going to forward your letter to the major superior. In the meantime, your letter can be circulating for two to three weeks. If the priest is a pastor, he has certain canonical rights, regardless of what he preaches. Bishops and religious superiors do not want to find themselves in an ecclesiastical tribunal in a trial, if they can avoid it. Removing a pastor is not as easy as moving an associate. If the chancery tells you that it’s going to do something, be patient. It has to negotiate with the pastor to avoid a trial.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
If they are a Vatican II parish…Then everything taught should be able to be found in **OFFICIAL ** Church documents from the Council itself, or in the Catechism, written since the Council concluded.

Vatican II Documents

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Personally I don’t like applying what are essentially “political” labels to the various groups in the Church…(liberal, conservative, progressive etc.)
It only serves to confuse and divide incorrectly. One is either orthodox or heterodox in a given belief.

Since the pastor says that he is a “progressive” and a “Vatican II” Church…when these questionable items come up, ask him…“Father - that’s interesting, could you give me a reference for that from the Catechism or Council…I’d really like to read more on it”.
See what his response is…

Also, I agree with the earlier poster - the Bishop is not your last option…If this person is teaching error, contact Rome.

Peace
James
 
Benedict XVI has criticized those who attempt to interpret Vatican II using what he calls a “hermeneutic of rupture.” In simple terms, this is the attempt to ignore the rest of church history and doctrine and read only those portions of the Vatican II documents that MIGHT be twistable into what YOU want them to say.

From your limited description, this sounds like it might be the problem with your boss/pastor. If you have the right temperament, consider asking him his thoughts about Benedict’s comments on the “hermeneutic of rupture.” If he turns red and gets angry, you have your answer! 🙂
 
If you have the right temperament, consider asking him his thoughts about Benedict’s comments on the “hermeneutic of rupture.” If he turns red and gets angry, you have your answer! 🙂
The first time I attended the church (during my interview process) the priest told the congregation that the Pope is not holy and he never understood why people kiss his hand. 🤷

Like I said, I have been keeping him in my prayers.
 
Thank you to everyone who responded. I am certainly more aware now of what a “Vatican II” church should be like. I will be praying for the priest at the church I work at and hopefully God will inspire him to read the Catechism this year.
 
Q. Can a bishop remove such a priest?
A. It depends. If he’s a diocesan priest, he can remove him in a heartbeat. If he’s a regular priest, he cannot touch him without the permission of the major superior, nor may the bishop ask the major superior to leave his diocese. The major superior’s authority trumps that of the bishop when it comes to his men. The buildings, ministries and other things, belong to the bishop, but not the men.
Brother, an off topic, technical question. I get it that the major superior is the regular priest’s superior. What I don’t get is why the bishop cannot have a say in which priest serves in a parish. Aren’t the parishes the bishops (so to speak)? Why doesn’t the bishop have any say in who ministers in one of his parishes if a religious order has agreed to take care of the parish?

I know I’m probably wrong in referring to parishes as belonging to the bishop but I am not sure how else to phrase it.
 
Brother, an off topic, technical question. I get it that the major superior is the regular priest’s superior. What I don’t get is why the bishop cannot have a say in which priest serves in a parish. Aren’t the parishes the bishops (so to speak)? Why doesn’t the bishop have any say in who ministers in one of his parishes if a religious order has agreed to take care of the parish?

I know I’m probably wrong in referring to parishes as belonging to the bishop but I am not sure how else to phrase it.
I’ll pitch in if I may. From what I’ve understood, the bishop can only intervene if there’s only an administrative issue in the parish. But the disciplining and welfare of the regular priest assigned to the parish rests on his Superior alone. IIRC, the Council of Trent made that clear.

If I’m wrong, I welcome the correction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top