Vatican II : Take Another Look?

  • Thread starter Thread starter I_Believe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

I_Believe

Guest
We have those who think VII was questionable, and we have those who think it’s a step forward. Fair enough.

Some think we, as catholics, are better off today, and some feel we lost some of what we had before VII.

Instead of beating that poor dead horse again, say we try this.
For those who lean against VII, what, if anything, do you see as any positive results of VII ?

Same with those who are ok with VII, except, what do you feel, if anything, are any negative results of VII ?

The whole point is, through some non-biased opinions, we may find some common ground. Could be interesting.

Perhaps begin your reply by stating which way you lean.( VII vs pre-VII.) No need to defend your position 😉
 
Okay.

First of all, I am one of those Catholics who believe that, generally speaking, Vatican II should have never happened. But I will not deny that there was no positive outcomes.

I think the sanctioning of mixed marriages being valid was a good thing; sometimes you just can’t help if you’re in love with a non-catholic.

And…yeah. That’s pretty much it. Besides that, I can’t possibly think of any other beneficial outcomes of Vatican II.
 
I think that, for the most part, there’s nothing wrong with Vatican II. However, there is much wrong with how it has been implemented. It seems that Vatican II was, at the time, perceived as a removing of shackles, and a new feeling of “freedom” that borders on theological hedonism. This was never the intent of anything in Vatican II, however.

One thing I’ve often wondered about though, is the change from the Priest facing the tabernacle, the same as the rest of the faithful, to the priest with his back to the tabernacle, facing the opposite direction as the rest of the faithful. It never made sense to me. It just seems like he’s backwards. I realize that he is acting in persona Christe, but he’s offering the eternal sacrifice to God. Just as Christ did. Facing God, as it were.

(Of course my view on this is through the lens of history books, since I only swam the Tiber last year.)
 
Vatican II, in and of itself, was a huge blessing for The Holy Mother Church. I am, however, aware of the incredibly dumb way in which things were disseminated to the layity and it makes me sad. Now that I am older and can actually read the documents myself, all I see is the workings of the Holy Spirit all over the place.
I will also tell you that I think I am very blessed to be a member of the parish I am in - we have, as a parish, taken a year to highlight and read documents from Vatican II (called 'unpacking the workings of the Holy Spirit). Being given the opportunity to actually learn what the Church taught and discerned has opened my eyes.
 
I am in the camp that believes that Vatican II needed to happen, for the Church to be relevant in its message for the times. This is what Pope John XXIII believed, and I do too. This does not mean change the teaching of the Church, just change the way we communicate. It’s the same thing that there are differences in how we relate and communicate to people today, is different than 100 years ago.

I am also in the camp that at a minimum, implementation is incomplete, and there are some good things from which bad things came, and those need to be corrected. For example, I think vernacular is good, but the bad that sprang is that we lost the Latin, and because it’s in vernacular it’s easier to abuse the Church’s prayers. So I hope it gets tuned - having people pray the rosary all through Mass because they don’t understand what’s being said isn’t go great either.

This instability does not concern me that much, as I believe that any Council creates a time of about 50-100 years for the ripple effects to be smoothed out. The Church moves slowly, it is the Holy Spirit’s way. Don’t worry - we are on the winning side!
 
LSK said:
Vatican II, in and of itself, was a huge blessing for The Holy Mother Church. I am, however, aware of the incredibly dumb way in which things were disseminated to the layity and it makes me sad. Now that I am older and can actually read the documents myself, all I see is the workings of the Holy Spirit all over the place.
I will also tell you that I think I am very blessed to be a member of the parish I am in - we have, as a parish, taken a year to highlight and read documents from Vatican II (called 'unpacking the workings of the Holy Spirit). Being given the opportunity to actually learn what the Church taught and discerned has opened my eyes.
Click to expand...
Since you and members of your Church read the Vatican Document On Religious Liberty, I would be interested in your comments on this article and to the question: Is the document on Religious Liberty new doctrine?
catholicrestoration.org/library/v2_condemned1_p1.htm
 
There was no doctrine proclaimed nor heresy denounced in V2. Nothing should have changed in the Church after V2. Yet we all know this pastoral (non-doctrinal) document has given the weakness of man the opportunity to let false teachings and confusion creep into the Lords Church. VATICAN 2 CREATED NO NEW DOCTRINE. The softening of what I would consider sacred traditions has hurt immensely ie. meatless Fridays, TLM, veiled women at mass, marrying outside the Church, etc. The fruit of V2 has been fewer Catholics attending mass, fewer believe in the Presence, fewer going to confession, fewer priests, more divorce, more birth control and abortion. We can’t blame society for this. We are a holy people and are outside of this. We are to be in the world but not part of it. If we use this excuse, we have no one to blame but our leaders and ourselves. But V2 needed to happen to separate Gods true children I believe. Who will remain faithful in this age of man pleaser rather than God pleasers? As Jesus told St. Peter at one time, get behind me satan, you are thinking in mans ways and not as Gods ways. How are we thinking now?
 
Vatican II is like a set of highly detailed blueprints for an elaborate, beautiful and sophisticated house. They are filled with good things and traditional messages. The problem is that the builders who came along to build the house started making changes and alterations without consulting the blueprints. They also started making these alterations without a basic knowledge of architecture, engineering and aesthetics because they never learned these subjects adequately in their schools. Fortunately, there are now men who are coming along who have the knowledge and expertise to see that the blueprints are followed. It will take some time before the house is fixed, but it will be fixed.
 
I highly recommend Dietrich vonHildebrand’s Trojan Horse in the City of God with regards to this subject. He talks about noble goals of the Council, and certain areas of Catholicism that had “ossified” and were in need of re-invigoration. He discusses how thesis-antithesis struggles were oftentimes ignoring virtue in the pursuit of truth. He would say that there are some fruits of the Council, but I wouldn’t translate that into a ringing endorsement. VonHildebrand is well-known for his [merited] criticisms of the aftermath of the Council.

It’s a balanced book that many curial officials say needs to be read by anyone and everyone.
 
I am one of those Catholics who believes that Vatican 2 should never happened because there isn’t anything to change that much. I won’t deny that Vatican 2 brought “some” good things, but the irony Vatican 2 brought too many negative things that caused divisions within the church, hierarchy, theology, and now division in liturgy. Though the church now may say Vatican 2 is correct and necessary, take another look on what is happening now in the church. The church is in big messed eventhough they won’t admit it, just look on what is happening here in America, look and search deeply and not just on the surface.

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christus
Instaurare omnia in Christo
 
Well, let me try to point out some positives for Vatican II. One, we learned not to call a Council unless it is in response to a crisis. Two, we learned not to write Council documents in non-scholastic language which is open to ambiguities and various intrepretations.
 
Vatican II? Great council! Just waiting for it to be implemented…
 
The intent of calling the council was good, to open up the Church and communicate the truth of Catholicism to the world, clearly evangelize and catechize.
Not to change it but to present it to more people effectively.

Now we just need to curb all the crazy stuff that people did in trying to implement it and do it correctly. The pantsuit nun dancing around, making a mini homily and giving a heil hitler blessing in my church is sure the heck not in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

I have read 5 of the documents and see no-where some of the stuff we see today. It really seems like something people just grab onto, don’t read and they do what they want with it.

I can see that it is starting to be implemented in the way that we are using more modern means to communicate the faith, which is resulting in more people getting informed and more people understanding the truth of the Catholic faith.
Now we just need to clean up the mess of the last 40 or so years and re-read the documents for what they really mean, not just listen to what people think it means.

God Bless
Scylla
 
40.png
stmaria:
Since you and members of your Church read the Vatican Document On Religious Liberty, I would be interested in your comments on this article and to the question: Is the document on Religious Liberty new doctrine?
catholicrestoration.org/library/v2_condemned1_p1.htm

No - I don’t see how anyone could view Religious Liberty as a new doctrine. Instead, I see it as a development of the great commission to go out and evangelize all nations. To be a teacher of the Faith means just that - to teach - because, as the Catholic Church believes no one comes to Faith except through the will of the Father. Any kind of coercion would be a grave sin.
 
The problem lies not with Vatican II as I see it. The problems that the Church has today are not the result of the Second Vatican Council. I think the problems started as a result of changes in society during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Society’s attitudes towards morals laxed and became more secularised. I think this change affected the Church because many Catholics also adopted this liberal mindset. Dissent and liberalism is a mindset caused by secular influences - not by Vatican II.

The Second Vatican Council was guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot be wrong in matters of faith and morals. However, the liberals who invaded the Church during the 1960’s and 1970’s have used Vatican II to justify their wrongdoings. Vatican II is wrongly is blamed for a lot of abuses. I think Vatican II was essentially an orthodox and conservative Council that was used to justify liberalism, dissent, and heresy. Most Catholics will believe that Vatican II is responsible for these changes because the liberals say that it is. Catholics should actually read the documents for themselves and they will see that the Council DID NOT call for any of these radical changes. More people need to educate themselves. Knowledge of the Council will beat the liberals who use Vatican II to justify anything.
 
Dempsey1919 said:
The problem lies not with Vatican II as I see it. The problems that the Church has today are not the result of the Second Vatican Council. I think the problems started as a result of changes in society during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Society’s attitudes towards morals laxed and became more secularised. I think this change affected the Church because many Catholics also adopted this liberal mindset. Dissent and liberalism is a mindset caused by secular influences - not by Vatican II.

The Second Vatican Council was guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot be wrong in matters of faith and morals. However, the liberals who invaded the Church during the 1960’s and 1970’s have used Vatican II to justify their wrongdoings. Vatican II is wrongly is blamed for a lot of abuses. I think Vatican II was essentially an orthodox and conservative Council that was used to justify liberalism, dissent, and heresy. Most Catholics will believe that Vatican II is responsible for these changes because the liberals say that it is. Catholics should actually read the documents for themselves and they will see that the Council DID NOT call for any of these radical changes. More people need to educate themselves. Knowledge of the Council will beat the liberals who use Vatican II to justify anything.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with this post.👍

I am waiting for the so called “Spirit of Vatican II” to end and the actual implimation of the Council to be implemented.
🤷
 
KathleenElsie said:
I tend to agree with this post.👍

I am waiting for the so called “Spirit of Vatican II” to end and the actual implimation of the Council to be implemented.
🤷
Click to expand...
Can you give an example of what the Council called for to be implemented that hasn’t been implemented?

I hear this alot, but am not sure exactly what it’s supposed to mean.

Thanks - and Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
DustinsDad said:
Can you give an example of what the Council called for to be implemented that hasn’t been implemented?

I hear this alot, but am not sure exactly what it’s supposed to mean.

Thanks - and Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
Click to expand...
Sacrosanctum Concilium, article 36 states that Latin is to be preserved in the latin rites. I don't know about you, but Latin is the last thing you would hear at Mass. Liberals took it out because they thought Vat. II was a council of change, when it really wasn't. They were dissapointed by this outcome, but made the changes anyways. That's what "Spirit of Vat. II" means. The spirit of the council was change. So in order to make changes, you have to say that the council called for it. Why is the mass done versus populum? Where does it say that? Liberals make changes for the sake of change, which leads to deformations.
 
dbacks5439 said:
Sacrosanctum Concilium, article 36 states that Latin is to be preserved in the latin rites. I don’t know about you, but Latin is the last thing you would hear at Mass. Liberals took it out because they thought Vat. II was a council of change, when it really wasn’t. They were dissapointed by this outcome, but made the changes anyways. That’s what “Spirit of Vat. II” means. The spirit of the council was change. So in order to make changes, you have to say that the council called for it. Why is the mass done versus populum? Where does it say that? Liberals make changes for the sake of change, which leads to deformations.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t really call that the “correct implementation” of Vatican II though, I would call that the correct implementation of the Roman Catholic Church up until the late 1960’s. Because technically, the pre-VII liturgy was already the correct implementation of Vatican II, in regards to the liturgy. Other than that the only thing I have trouble with in terms of VII is the reconciliation between Dignitatis Humanae and the decrees on Religious Liberty that came before it. Very hard to do IMHO.
 
dbacks5439 said:
Sacrosanctum Concilium, article 36 states that Latin is to be preserved in the latin rites. I don’t know about you, but Latin is the last thing you would hear at Mass. Liberals took it out because they thought Vat. II was a council of change, when it really wasn’t. They were dissapointed by this outcome, but made the changes anyways. That’s what “Spirit of Vat. II” means. The spirit of the council was change. So in order to make changes, you have to say that the council called for it. Why is the mass done versus populum? Where does it say that? Liberals make changes for the sake of change, which leads to deformations.
Click to expand...
I’m aware of those items - but they be things that need to be UN-implemented since they were never called for in the first place.

What exactly needs to be implemented that hasn’t?

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top