Vatican II

[loyola_rambler]

Matt16_18:

I challenge those that hold the anti-Vatican II position to start a thread where they quote from a document of Vatican II and prove that it teaches heresy.

It is impossible to meet this challenge, and that is why I don’t pay much attention to those who whine about Vatican II.

Ecumenical Councils are protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error on matters of faith and morals.

Yeah, but He can’t protect them from whiners who think they went too far, nor from whiners who think they didn’t go far enough. The only problem with Vatican II IMHO is that it wasn’t well-explained to the laity when it happened, the clergy didn’t wait for the USCC to send out good explanations, and the nuns were teaching things that weren’t put together with the amount of thought, reflection and feedback that a good curriculum should get before it’s introduced. So in the end, I don’t think enough people really understand what any of it means, nor how it comes together and integrates with our theologic traditions.

 

[BayCityRickL]

I agree with Loyola Rambler that the Council was not explained well enough. Since 1965, I’ve never seen a parish adult education program that was even a read-through of the council documents.

It seems that the ‘fathers’ of the council came back and acted like their work was done, whereas it seems like it was just beginning.

I guess the biggest admission of the hierarchy at the Council was that the laity did not simply ‘belong’ to the Church, it IS the Church.

I think the most refreshing thing about changes in the Mass was when the priest turned around to face the congregation and when the Mass was translated into English.

Then the guitar music came in and we had “hootenany” Masses and it seems that something had been lost. And, it seems that quality control was lost.

To this day, I don’t think that liturgical music has lived up to its potential for enhancing the worship experience. There’s only one popular melody for the Lord’s prayer, for example, which, musically speaking, is just sort of a ditty of a melody. That situation is just sort of a general dumbing-down of the Mass.

I attended Mass every day in elementary school and I don’t recall being confused about anything in the Latin Mass. When the Mass “went” to English after 1965, the quality and solemnity seemed to wane very quickly.

I don’t see the range of theological concepts from the Council being exploited in music, to enhance worship, to promote knowlege of the mysteries of the faith, to get us closer to Jesus, etc.

 

[PXseeker]

Vatican II was the best thing that ever happened to the Church. We’ve only barely begun to initiate all of the changes needed to bring …[the Catholic church]…into the modern era!

Ecumenical with a capital **E **. Brought more Christians closer together than we’ve been in centuries. Too bad John died before the work was over.

Peace,
John

 

[davidv]

Salvo:

Just so’s you all know, I’m the ONLY one who voted for the 3rd choice. But I’ll have to post a qualification: Vatican II did NOT of course do away with the Tridentine Mass. That was done in complete OPPOSITION to the Vatican II proclamations in Sacrosanctum Concillium saying Latin was to REMAIN the language of the mass and Gregorian chant to REMAIN the liturgical music.

Why these were not abided by is anyone’s guess. I have my suspicions.

The actual document does not express that (emphasis is mine):

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

1. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

 

[Matt16_18]

loyola rambler:

The only problem with Vatican II IMHO is that it wasn’t well-explained to the laity when it happened, the clergy didn’t wait for the USCC to send out good explanations, and the nuns were teaching things that weren’t put together with the amount of thought, reflection and feedback that a good curriculum should get before it’s introduced. So in the end, I don’t think enough people really understand what any of it means, nor how it comes together and integrates with our theologic traditions.

If this is your opinion, then your poll should focus on the poor implementation of the teachings of Vatican II, and not on Vatican II itself.

 

[loyola_rambler]

The poll is just to gauge everyone’s feelings on it because reading through these threads is very difficult when you can’t tell what people really feel about the Council itself. The discussion can flesh out the rest of the details.

 

[Andyz]

I think there should be Vatican III and correct the errors that have did damage to the church.

Andyz
Knight of Columbus

 

[oat_soda]

Vatican II documents must be interpreted in the light of tradition. I don’t think anyone can say that the post vatican II church is better off then the pre vatican II church. Some of the documents are very vague because they were written in a very positive manner where as every other council was to refute a heresy.

Like any council, we are subject to it. and unfortunatley it has been interpreted outside the light of tradition, as if it nullified all other councils. Satan somehow seeped into the church and has nearly effectively stopped the transmission of the fullness of truth which the church possesses.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

loyola rambler:

I’m fine with Vatican II. But I think there’s a growing faction in the Church that doesn’t understand that this was a valid ecumenical council…

This may be a rather small quibble, but I wonder if we can really say that there is a growing faction in the Church which rejects Vatican II. It seems to me that there are all sorts of groups which do reject Vatican II, but most of them claim explicitly to be outside communion with Rome (e.g. SSPV, Pius XIII, etc), and even those who claim to be in communion with Rome (e.g. SSPX) are disavowed by Rome Herself. I am skeptical that one can meaningfully claim to be in the Church while rejecting any of the ecumenical councils, and quibbling over whether council X is genuinely ecumenical is not much of an argument in my book when Rome says “X is ecumenical.”

 

[cmom]

If you are a member of the Church you accept all the Councils of the Church, otherwise you are outside looking in, no matter what label you give yourself…

 

[loyola_rambler]

cmom:

If you are a member of the Church you accept all the Councils of the Church, otherwise you are outside looking in, no matter what label you give yourself…

I may agree with you, but then I’m not one who disagrees with the council. The problem is that we can’t consider it healthy that the people with whom we share the pews are so ill-informed of what Vatican II really said that it can deteriorate to the point that they think it needs to be repealed. Looking at the poll results just to this point, it’s clear that the Church did not do a good job disseminating the messages of the of Council and that even well-educated people disagree on what was written and how to implement the changes.

So what do we do to fix it?

 

[hermit]

One of the things we can do to fix it is for the laity to take a bigger role in the church. It won’t be easy because the church has traditionally resisted the laity. They just want us to be obedient sheep.

The laity did play a major role in the early church, it wasn’t until the advent of the regal hierarchy that we lost our say in the church.

I am convinced that if the laity had a greater voice in the church the recent scandals would never have occured and dioceses would not have to declare bankruptcy because of legal fees to protect errant priests.

 

[oat_soda]

I am convinced that if the laity had a greater voice in the church the recent scandals would never have occured and dioceses would not have to declare bankruptcy because of legal fees to protect errant priests.

why would that help? what we need are holy bishops and holy priests and a holy laity. the church can only be run as good as the people are who are running it. take a look at our country. even democracy has it’s flaws- legalized abortion; homo mariage; legal pornography and prostitution;…etc.

 

[Strider]

hermit:

I am convinced that if the laity had a greater voice in the church the recent scandals would never have occured and dioceses would not have to declare bankruptcy because of legal fees to protect errant priests.

I just used this quote as a springboard, I’m not trying to pick on anybody.
I don’t know how many members of this forum were adults when the results of Vatican II were released. I was.
It’s also important to put the event into the context of the times. Several major cultural movements,(civil rights, women’s rights, the Viet Nam war) were putting the country in turmoil. There were rioits in the streets and on college campuses. Part of the ethos of the times was “queston authority!”
When the documents of Vatican II were released, I, as a layman, didn’t have access to any of them, or if I did, I wouldn’t have known how to get them. (Believe it or not, there was no Internet, then)
I showed up for church one Sunday and the beautiful statues were gone. “Vaticfan IImandated it,” Father said. The next weeek, the Communion rail was gone. “Vatican II,” we were told.
Then things started getting really crazy. If you think some of the abuses you read about happening now are bad, you should’ve been around then.
Long story short, my wife & I found oiurselves more angry when we left Mass than when we arrived. Knowing this was wrong, but not much else (typical poorly catechized Catholics), we stopped going to Church for 25 years.
But, if asked during that time what our religion was, we always answered “Catholic.”
We both had a second conversion several years ago, found a good parish and LEARNED OUR FAITH.
Our parish is offering a class on Vtican II beginning this fall.
It was not the council, it was those within the Church (bishops, priests, nuns) and those lay people who colluded with them that caused the problems and fostered the divisions we have now. Organizations like VOTF had their genesis then, and are now barely hanging on.
I see great hope in our youth. They are learning the documents of Vatican II, they want orthodoxy and discipline.
The Holy Spirit did well, many members of the Church, clergy and lay, did not.
The light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming train.
God bless

 

[GrzeszDeL]

hermit:

It won’t be easy because the church has traditionally resisted the laity.

This sort of thinking indicates just how little the message of Vatican II has taken hold in the Church. The Church cannot resist the laity, because the Church is the laity (see Lumen Gentium). Meanwhile, I agree that our present difficulties would never have gotten to the point they reached if we had a more dynamic lay Church, but I would point out that no Church reforms are needed to achieve this. If the victims would simply have gone to the police instead of agreeing to keep quiet, the problem would have been nipped quickly in the bud. I say this not to blame the victims, but rather to point out that all the empowerment we need has already been given. We are the people of God, all of us, clergy and laity, and it behooves us to act like it.

 

[Gregory_Eric]

Perhaps an aid to understanding Vatican II is to look at the Liturgical Movement leading up to its creation. Just as we look to the early Church Fathers for what Christ meant in scripture we could look at these “Early Vatican II Fathers” for the meaning behind the creation and just where they saw it heading.
I would urge those interested in better understanding why Vatican II was created to look into this site:
mywebpages.comcast.net/enpeters/liturgysacraments.htm
then click on Dom Odo Casel, osb

 

[Guy]

I believe the teachings of Vatican II are solid and true and without error. It is people in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s who misinterpreted Vat II to push their own agenda, and only in the last 10 yrs or so that the teachings of Vat II are truly being taught at the parish level here in the US. The main message of Vat II is that everyone is called to holiness, not just clergy and religious.
Also, Scott Hahn has said that historically with any ecumenical Church council there is a 30 or 40 year period of confusion.

 

[EENS]

I picked the first choice… I don’t know if it’s an “abomination,” but that is closest to what I would have said.

 

[Thomas2]

Hey there guys n gals! If you want to know more about what the V2 documents say, just read them. They are very readable and with a little help from a dictionary, the CCC and a few prayers to the Holy Spirit for understanding, you could be amazed at how much more you know about being a Catholic in the 21st century! Why rely on second-hand information that is so obviously flawed over such an important matter as what the Holy Spirit has said thru the Church for our age?

Now, I’m a convert and V2 and me didn’t meet until the year 1993 or so and basically the only things I heard were some folks blaming all the ills in the world on this thing, so being a completely clueless convert to anything Catholic, I went to the library and got my hands on a copy of the “Documents of V2,” and began reading for myself. It struck me that these documents weren’t anything like what these folks were saying and that they certainly were authored by the Holy Spirit and some of the most beautiful things written that I’d read up to that point in my short reading career of Church documents. I couldn’t believe that these “nice” folks I’d met at Church could be at such odds with what obviously was a Spirit-filled and Spirit-ful bunch of essays! I just didn’t “get it.” I still don’t. But I’m a little better educated about things Catholic then I was then and I’ve learned what the word “heretic” means. Blaming V2 for sin is like saying the Holy Spirit is the Author of evil.

If you want the straight story on these most awesome of documents, please take the time to read what the Spirit has written to the Churches of our age.

There are a few good programs listed at the EWTN website in the audio library. You could also listen to Holy Spirit Radio, the station that is in my neck of the woods for a show called “Catholic Faith and Vatican II” with our own Cardinal Archbishop Justin Rigali talking over the real meaning and purpose of V2. He was there and adds some recollections of his own about how things went. His voice is also very soothing. He does a nice job of explaining things.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

 

[Veronica_Anne]

loyola rambler:

I’m fine with Vatican II. But I think there’s a growing faction in the Church that doesn’t understand that this was a valid ecumenical council and its teachings, writings, and proclamations aren’t negotiable. We can’t go back to what things were just because we didn’t like the change. It is what it is and that’s just the way it is.

Vatican II would NOT have happened if the Holy Spirit did not at least allow it.

My faith leads me to believe that the Holy Spirit is the One who started it.

I am not an ordained priest, much less a bishop, much less a CARDINAL who were the ones chartered by the Holy Spirit to lead His Church.

I’m NOT trying to be coyly humble, here. I’m just stating the facts, Jack!

I HAVE studied all 16 of the documents from the Second Vatican Council… and as time permits, I read the Pope’s encyclicals as they come out.

Whether I agree with what the Council brought to bear as its fruit is totally beside the point for whether it’s valid.

Creeps me out, though, that some Catholics THINK that they can somehow make changes in the Church that are not in line with the Magesterium, as if WE were the Magisterium!!

The Church is NOT a democracy. Thank God!!