Vatican II - Was a Good

[philipmarus]

I just read an article in the latest issue of New Oxford Review
entitled “Why the Second Vatican Council was a Good Thing, and is More Important than ever” by John Lamont that came in my mailbox Did anyone read it?

The pertinent section of the article says:

“The internal problems for which the Council was an appropriate remedy were subtler, deeper, and more difficult to discern…problems as ultimately stemming from the influence of nominalism on Catholic thought in the late middle ages, an influence that gave rise to Protestantism, and that in the emergency of contriving a Catholic response to Protestantism was not properly eradicated…”

(NEW OXFORD REVIEW, July-August 2005, P. 35).

The writer goes on to illustrate this by making a comparison between the thought of William of Ockam and St. Thomas Aquinas on basis of seeing religion as obdedience to commands rather happiness and truth.

I was wondering if anyone could explain this to me more and possible refer me to some other resources. I had to re-read the article more than once to get the gist of it.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

I’ll take a whack at it.

Any practicing Catholic knows that our faith isn’t about feeling good. And sometimes we have to accept things that may not make sense to us. God works literally in mysterious ways, so we just have to go where He leads even if it isn’t what we would do.

But with Vatican II, there were a lot of changes and some people really didn’t like them. They wanted to do things as they’d done them before, so they ignored Vatican II and made their own little sect. This is what made them happy. It went against the Pope, but they did it anyway. They felt the pope was just so completely out there that they didn’t have to listen to him anymore. To this day, they still pick and chose what they accept from the pope.

Clearly, their actions were not right. Even if you don’t like it, the pope is in charge of the church and God isn’t going to let him make huge errors that lead most of the church astray. So, for these people, Vatican II was about happiness and what they decided was “truth”, whereas everyone who followed the pope was working from obedience to God’s appointed earthly leader of the church. Not everyone who followed the new ways may have liked it, but they did it anyway.

We are just simple laymen and it isn’t our job to question the authority put before us at every turn. God promised us that He would lead and protect His church. As one of the apologists here said:

Re: How do I know that arguments against the revised rites are false?
In the end, it comes down to whom you trust. For the Catholic, trust must ultimately depend upon Jesus who promised to be with his Church until the end of time and to protect his Church against error in matters of doctrine and morals. Do you trust in Jesus’ ironclad, unconditional promise to protect his Church, or do you trust in certain individuals who have refused to trust in Christ and in his Church over and beyond the limits of their own knowledge and experience?

Hope that helps.

 

[DavidFilmer]

There is no such thing as a “bad” Ecumenical Council. By definition, these are led by the Holy Spirit. The Sprit cannot be “bad,” so neither can the Councils which the Spirit leads.

There can be bad people who misrepresent the Council (prehaps with good intentions). But every Ecumenical Council is, by nature, Good.

 

[Cockney_Clive]

Well said David. And further, actually we are still too close to the events of Vatican II for us to discern all the fruits of that Council. It is only 40 years you know. It has often been observed in the history of the Church that the fruits of some councils take centuries to ripen and then feed the Church.

This is why Our Holy and Wise Father Benedict XVI has said recently that there will be no further Council, no “Vatican III” for some while. Why? Because we haven’t yet tasted of all the fruits from Vatican II. The Holy Spirit is still working over the issues and ripening that fruit.