Vatican II was a good thing

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mro said:
Dude God hates extravagance and riches… Need I refer you to the vows of poverty many people in our Church take… Read the parable of the rich young man… Read how the disciples sold everything they had before they started their ministries and travels…

No I think our Churches should be simple, basic, and plain… God knows what’s in our hearts Simon… God doesn’t want us to be worshiping in Gold plated Churches and Chapels… Keep it simple man 👍
Click to expand...
Dude, read the commands of the Lord how to build the the ark of the covenant and the Temple.

The Temple was acceptable enough for Christ to teach there.

There’s nothing complex about giving the Lord your best.

While we’re reading these passages, we can flip all the way back to the sacrifice of Cain. Simple, yes. Acceptable, no.
 
Hadrianus said:
I’d say the problem is that the Council itself was a colossal waste of time which distracted the Church from more serious issues. For example. the Pill was introduced in July of 1960 and it took 8 years before Rome commented on it. By that time moral theologians and bishops,acting on the assumption that it was to be approved, all over the world had told people it was okay.
First to alter the mass radically, so that people who believed that what was once so sacred it had to be in an ancient language and that the host could only be touched by the priests, indeed even the sacred vessels were not to be handled by the laity, could become casual and feelgoody . Then abolish the eucharistic fast, suppress Friday abstinence from being under pain of mortal sin to whatever you felt like (1966) let nuns abandon their habits etc, and then when all was talk of change and new freedoms, suddenly condemn the Birth Control pill which to a generation which worshiped medicine, seemed like something harmless a doctor prescribed, was a recipe for psychological disorientation on a cosmic scale.
As Peter Berger the sociologist said “CS Lewis’ Screwtape couldn’t have done a better job.”

It is no accident that the most disaffected generation of Catholics is that of the 45 -70 year olds who lived through all the confusion. This phenomenon is apparent all over the Western world. It is interesting when one talks to them, because they do have a genuine nostalgia for the Old Mass, the Nuns, etc and they are often shocked by just how lax the average modern Catholic parish is. but their faith is lost and for them that was another time and a different world.

I have no doubt that some reforms were needed; but the way in which they were handled was just about the worst possible.
Click to expand...
Great post Hadrianus. :clapping:
 
pilots13 said:
Bravo to this statement!

On Vatican II, I think it was a great thing. It helped push the Church out of the 1500’s and into the 1900’s. I pray I’ll see a Vatican III within my life time to help push the Church into the 21st century. Between the social and moral issues that simply didn’t exist in the 1960’s (or were fairly new topics at the time), to the growing gap between the Church and the younger generations, to the global society we now live in which was in it’s infancy 50 years ago. I hope we will be able to have a council, and a Pope as open minded as John XXIII and Paul VI to continue pushing Christ’s Church forward.
Click to expand...
What does this even mean? It pushed the Church out of the 1500’s?
 
pilots13 said:
Bravo to this statement!

On Vatican II, I think it was a great thing. It helped push the Church out of the 1500’s and into the 1900’s. I pray I’ll see a Vatican III within my life time to help push the Church into the 21st century. Between the social and moral issues that simply didn’t exist in the 1960’s (or were fairly new topics at the time), to the growing gap between the Church and the younger generations, to the global society we now live in which was in it’s infancy 50 years ago. I hope we will be able to have a council, and a Pope as open minded as John XXIII and Paul VI to continue pushing Christ’s Church forward.
Click to expand...
What on God’s earth does this mean?
 
Carrying on, I don’t really want to go into the whole of the history of church architecture, but suffice to say, starting with the catacombs where some of the first masses were offered at the beginning of the Catholic Church, the faithful decorated the walls with paintings of the Trinity, Our Lady, the Saints, etc. Throughout the ensuing centuries we as artists have given our best, primarily for the greater glory of God. Secondly, rather than the idea of imagery and the order of churches being there to help the illiterate in understanding what’s going on, it is for us all, as human beings, who are inherently forgetful, to act as constant reminders of where we are and where we are supposed to get to. To say we are more knowledgeable or different today than mankind was 1000 or 2000 years ago smacks of arrogance. Thirdly, the church is the house of God and as such should afford the very, very best of our gifts to Him. I like the comment above and very seasonal about the (gold), frankincense and myrrh. I’m not saying God doesn’t know what is in our hearts, He does, but tell me this, why then did God instruct Moses to make the ark of the covenant out of the very best wood and to be covered inside and out with gold, decorated with Cherubim, etc, etc. I say again, read Exodus and explain to me why God didn’t just ask for it to be made as a simple, plain wooden box, because after all, it doesn’t really matter, God knows what is in our hearts. One more point. To argue that our churches should be simple, basic and plain, as a Catholic Englishman, I see clearly what Henry VIII did to our churches and abbeys and the “plain and simple thereafter” in what most became Protestant churches. We have a rich Catholic heritage and tradition where our churches were beautifully decorative, not for our material wealth, but for our spiritual edification. And so I say there WAS dreadful iconoclasm going on in our Church after VII, along with a lot of other things, but that’s another story.
Happy Advent
Simon
 
jam070406 said:
What does this even mean? It pushed the Church out of the 1500’s?
Click to expand...
Council of Trent evil, the Second Vatican Council good or rather the iconoclastic, Protestant, ‘spirit of Vatican II,’ which has symbolized what the Council is in the Church today for many people.
 
H.E. Bishop Athanasius Schnieder has called for a Papal Syllabus on Vatican Council II for the very reasons that are being argued about in this thread. What would seem to be most beneficial for the Church and the Faithful would be a redress of the Documents from the Council and a clear direction of what was, and was not decreed in them. Clear, concise teaching on the Council would correct much of the license that those who used somewhat ambiguous language within certain documents to persue their own agendas.
I believe that has been the mission of H.H. Pope Benedict, and Blessed John Paul II. We are beginning to see a reigning in of the excesses that were committed in the “spirit” of Vatican Council II.

Reference: catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/vatican-ii-%e2%80%93-bishop-schneiders-call-for-a-syllabus-of-errors/
 
Dirt, I disagree with Bishop Schneider’s call.
How can it be that 2600 Bishops/Cardinals who discussed the documents extensively, researching documents from previous Magisterium’s teachings, and voting upon them in V-II, would not know what the interpretation is? Anyone can see these multiple references in the scores of footnotes attached to every document. Indeed, I have researched some of them personally to see where they arrived at their teaching.

A better article than the blog link you posted, would be to read the one published in Rome’s L’Osservatore Romano last week. It is rather lengthly, but it makes reference to another important instruction from the CDW called Donum Veritatis which deals with dissent from Magisterial teaching. Excellent presentations, both of them! Just a brief excerpt below describing both assent and dissent.

Assent Owed to the Magisterium

The Second Vatican Council did not define any dogma, in the sense that it proposed no doctrine with a definitive act. However, even if the Magisterium proposes a teaching without directly invoking the charism of infallibility, it does not follow that such a teaching is therefore to be considered “fallible” – in the sense that what is proposed is somehow a “provisional doctrine” or just an “authoritative opinion”. Every authentic expression of the Magisterium must be received for what it truly is: a teaching given by Pastors who, in the apostolic succession, speak with the “charism of truth” (Dei Verbum, n. 8), “endowed with the authority of Christ” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25), “and by the light of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).

This charism, this authority and this light were certainly present at the Second Vatican Council; to deny this to the entire episcopate gathered to teach the universal Church cum Petro and sub Petro, would be to deny something of the very essence of the Church (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 24 June 1973, nn. 2-5).

**Nature of Dissent **
  1. Dissent has different aspects. In its most radical form, it aims at changing the Church following a model of protest which takes its inspiration from political society. More frequently, it is asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible.
  2. Dissent is generally defended by various arguments, two of which are more basic in character. The first lies in the order of hermeneutics. The documents of the Magisterium, it is said, reflect nothing more than a debatable theology. The second takes theological pluralism sometimes to the point of a relativism which calls the integrity of the faith into question. Here the interventions of the Magisterium would have their origin in one theology among many theologies, while no particular theology, however, could presume to claim universal normative status. In opposition to and in competition with the authentic magisterium, there thus arises a kind of “parallel magisterium” of theologians.
As to the “parallel magisterium”, it can cause great spiritual harm by opposing itself to the Magisterium of the Pastors. Indeed, when dissent succeeds in extending its influence to the point of **shaping a common opinion, it tends to become the rule of conduct. This cannot but seriously trouble the People of God and lead to contempt for true authority. **
Source
 
Sirach2 said:
How can it be that 2600 Bishops/Cardinals who discussed the documents extensively, researching documents from previous Magisterium’s teachings, and voting upon them in V-II, would not know what the interpretation is?

Apart from academic interest, is this a fruitful way to analyse the question?

We know that bishops have had quite divergent interpretations - the diversity of current liturgical practice establishes the fact beyond any question.

We also know not all of these practices have been licit. We know this because of the number of documents from Rome over the past 30 years correcting them.

Given the diversity of practices, and given that not all of the practices were licit, if we follow your line of enquiry, we must ask whether a number of bishops knew the interpretations and disobeyed them, or whether a number of bsihops misinterpreted them due to insufficient clarity, ambiguity, wishful thinking, mistaken priorities, or any other error in judgment that human minds fall prey to.

But again, need we engage in this enquiry at all? Will it promote unity? Is it not better to focus on the way we want our worship to look, to sound, and then take steps to make it happen?

If we do this, then it seems the answer to the question posed in this thread will be “yes.”
Click to expand...
 
Quote from Warrention:
Apart from academic interest, is this a fruitful way to analyse the question? What question are you talking about?

We know that bishops have had quite divergent interpretations - the diversity of current liturgical practice establishes the fact beyond any question.
Each Bishop has authority to regulate his own diocese, and that will certainly vary among them. For example, some people are not required to attend mass on certain holy days, whereas other bishops do not give dispensation. We obey.

We also know not all of these practices have been licit. We know this because of the number of documents from Rome over the past 30 years correcting them.
Are you forgetting that the Council gave specific authority for a brief period of experimentation? It was curtailed after about three years, but the remnants of those “trials” continued in some places. Hence, the R.S. was put in place to curb the practices which got out of hand. It is however, WRONG to say that it was illicit, initially.

Given the diversity of practices, and given that not all of the practices were licit [see above paragraph], if we follow your line of enquiry, we must ask whether a number of bishops knew the interpretations and disobeyed them, or whether a number of bsihops misinterpreted them due to insufficient clarity, ambiguity, wishful thinking, mistaken priorities, or any other error in judgment that human minds fall prey to.
I suppose you would need to ask the bishops before making such a judgment. They ALWAYS have recourse to the Holy See for clarification, and also the CDWDS.

But again, need we engage in this enquiry at all? Will it promote unity? Is it not better to focus on the way we want our worship to look, to sound, and then take steps to make it happen?
We? And that means whom? I see far too much proselytizing from the laity who attempt to tell the Church and other Catholics how it “should be done.” Shouldn’t it be the reverse?

If we do this, then it seems the answer to the question posed in this thread will be “yes.”
I still don’t know what the question is because I have not read the whole thread, just the OP. :confused:
 
Sirach2 said:
Dirt, I disagree with Bishop Schneider’s call.
How can it be that 2600 Bishops/Cardinals who discussed the documents extensively, researching documents from previous Magisterium’s teachings, and voting upon them in V-II, would not know what the interpretation is? Anyone can see these multiple references in the scores of footnotes attached to every document. Indeed, I have researched some of them personally to see where they arrived at their teaching.

A better article than the blog link you posted, would be to read the one published in Rome’s L’Osservatore Romano last week. It is rather lengthly, but it makes reference to another important instruction from the CDW called Donum Veritatis which deals with dissent from Magisterial teaching. Excellent presentations, both of them! Just a brief excerpt below describing both assent and dissent.
Click to expand...
You mis interpret what the Bishop is asking the Holy Father for: a sylabus to end the excesses and falsehoods perpetrated in the “Spirit” of Vatican Council II. Nowhere in Bishop Schnieder’s comments did he, or i, question the validity of the Council Documents. What He questions are the liberties that some have taken while hiding behind the “spirit” of Vatican Council II. One cannot deny that there have been excesses and liberties taken, and if one wants to point to Obiedience to the Magesterium, I am all for it. Hold all to the Letter of the Documents, without additions and “spirit” addendums.
 
40.png
Dirt:
You misinterpret what the Bishop is asking the Holy Father for: a sylabus to end the excesses and falsehoods perpetrated in the “Spirit” of Vatican Council II. Nowhere in Bishop Schnieder’s comments did he, or i, question the validity of the Council Documents.
Click to expand...
I fail to grasp that the Magisterium was not clear, in light of all the Church history that went behind the forming of each document.

For instance, the Church clearly and unambiguously teaches that holy communion may be received in two manners. Bishop Schneider falls into the category described in my post about dissent, where he has written a book to show that CITH is wrong and the only preferable method is COTH. He is a very poor example of leadership, which should embrace the universal teaching of the College of Bishops. No, he stands apart in a “parallel magisterium,” leading the laity to “hold contempt for lawful authority.” (Taken from document Donum Veritatis)
What He questions are the liberties that some have taken while hiding behind the “spirit” of Vatican Council II. One cannot deny that there have been excesses and liberties taken, and if one wants to point to Obiedience to the Magesterium, I am all for it. Hold all to the Letter of the Documents, without additions and “spirit” addendums.
Click to expand...
If so, then he should act within his Office as Bishop among Bishops, rather than stir up the faithful that his position is the only correct one. Writing a book tells me he has gone too far, rather than work within the system.

The “liberties” were taken by clergy for the most part, and not specifically as directed by their Bishop, although some bishops went beyond their authority with some liberties. That is NOT the fault of Vatican II being unclear. We faithful must remember that Divine Guidance was given only to the hierarchy, and we need to be patient while those endowed with God’s Authority work it all out.

Have you seen all the footnotes in V-II citing previous history and papal leadership? The Conciliars did not just pull ambiguous teachings out the air. I did a count on Lumen Gentium once and it was staggering the amount of research behind it. Maybe I can find it, for I posted it on the forum somewhere.

EDIT: I found it, thanks be to CAF’s wonderful search facility.

There are 499 footnotes to Lumen Gentium consisting of 304 general notes, and the rest are specific to the various chapters, the highest number of 75 cited for Chapter 3, which deals with the hierarchical structure of the Church. The references include statements from former Councils, Church Fathers, Saints, and they do indeed embrace the entire doctrinal teaching of the Church.
 
Sirach2 said:
Each Bishop has authority to regulate his own diocese, and that will certainly vary among them. For example, some people are not required to attend mass on certain holy days, whereas other bishops do not give dispensation. We obey.
Click to expand...
But only within certain parameters.

The whole point of the documents like Bl. John Paul II’s 1998 ad limina to the Northwestern Bishops was that some parameters were not correctly understood.

That is the point behind the “reform of the reform.”

Both that letter and the present discussion are dealing with matters that are ongoing long after the experimentation period you referenced. We may leave aside the question of how there even can be understanding during a period of “experimentation.”

But, whether the misunderstandings were intentional or accidental is not really important to the issue of reform. My point is that we need not “go and ask the bishops” why some of them did certain things or failed to correct others.

Whenever there is a correction, it presupposes an error to correct. Rome has issued corrections.

The question whether V2 was good can be answered based on what Rome, and the rest of the Church by consent, do to reform the liturgy and the spiritual life of all Catholics.

In other words, the history is still being written.
 
Ok, Warrenton, I get it now. 🙂 I couldn’t follow you, since my post was directed solely to Dirt with regard to Bp. Schneider. You lost me with your reply talking about a question.

Of course, Church history is always developing, and I expect that it will continue until Christ’s coming. That’s beyond dispute. What I find reprehensible is that when impetus for “reform” originates from dissent on the part of laity or clergy who believe their way is the only correct one. Lone Rangers do a lot of harm to the Church when they attempt to stir the faithful to embrace their theological views, which are frequently one-sided preferences apart from the real teaching of the Church.

I really liked the article from Rome last week that teaches us what true assent consists of.
 
Sirach2 said:
I fail to grasp that the Magisterium was not clear, in light of all the Church history that went behind the forming of each document.

For instance, the Church clearly and unambiguously teaches that holy communion may be received in two manners. Bishop Schneider falls into the category described in my post about dissent, where he has written a book to show that CITH is wrong and the only preferable method is COTH. He is a very poor example of leadership, which should embrace the universal teaching of the College of Bishops. No, he stands apart in a “parallel magisterium,” leading the laity to “hold contempt for lawful authority.” (Taken from document Donum Veritatis)
How is having an opinion, in any way being dissident? When you go on about how he is a ‘poor leader’, and accuse him of making the laity ‘hold contempt for lawful authority’, I really have to question your credibility on the subject.

If so, then he should act within his Office as Bishop among Bishops, rather than stir up the faithful that his position is the only correct one. Writing a book tells me he has gone too far, rather than work within the system.
**You mean, you must be politically correct and not have an opinion on the subject or you are a ‘dissident’ who ‘stirs up the faithful’. **
Click to expand...
 
Psst, MartyrForJesus …

The document from which I quoted was written by the CDWDS, not me. I simply applied that standard to what I observed. You are free to disagree.

Incidentally, you misunderstand … the scandal that lies in stating his “opinion” as FACT, and the ONLY true way, is contrary to Church teaching which allows TWO ways. Yeah, I would say with respect to this issue alone, he holds a dissident view.
 
Sirach2 said:
Psst, MartyrForJesus …

The document from which I quoted was written by the CDWDS, not me. I simply applied that standard to what I observed. You are free to disagree.

Incidentally, you misunderstand … the scandal that lies in stating his “opinion” as FACT, and the ONLY true way, is contrary to Church teaching which allows TWO ways. Yeah, I would say with respect to this issue alone, he holds a dissident view.
Click to expand...
Well, can you quote where he says his way is the only true way and others are false?

You explained your opinion on the subject and tried to back it up by quoting CDWDS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top