Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter loyola_rambler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I certainly can’t take the poll because, for me, the correct answer is not given. Vatican II is the 22nd Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. It modified how the Church works and sees herself in the Modern world. The results of Vatican II have ranged from very good (the reestablishment of the diaconate as a permanent order, the understanding of the role of modern communications and the Church) to pretty bad (primarily in the area of catechesis which, while not directly covered by Vatican II certainly suffered as a result of Vatican II and which has a long-range effect on the average pew-potato Catholic). Most of what Vatican II called for has yet to be implemented – and that is consistent with the previous councils of the Church. Consider that the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope St. Pius V was rejected in France for nearly 100 years before the adopted it!

Deacon Ed
 
As I understand it, Vatican II was an ecumenical council… :yawn: not a pastoral council. It doesn’t carry the weight of authority of a pastoral council… IE. … The Council of Nicea, the Council of Trent… etc.
 
I still remember during the year or so before Vatican Council II, praying for the Holy Spirit to work in the Council.

From the standpoint of working at correcting error and furthering the “re-unification” and healing of Christian division, it was an incredibly significant event. From the standpoint of “Renewal” in the
Church, I believe the Catholic Charismatic Renewal was a result of praying for the coming of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

I believe it did “Open the Windows” for a “fresh breath” of the Holy Spirit"

I believe abuses occurred because there was not uniform support of the implementation of the decisions and some used it to attempt to “re-create the church”. For some of us, it may have helped to “rescue us.”

I hate to think where the Church might be today if it were not for Vatican II.
 
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!!
[/quote]

I second your AMEN.

And while i’m at it, im rather tired of all the “how dare you”'s that ive been seeing in my short time here–this is a forum boys and girls… People are allowed to voice their opinions and you are allowed to respectfully disagree, give evidence, whatever… but all this indignace–as if the people behind the posts are really mean natured, heartless and uncatholic is just…well, just not nice and likely not on target at all.

Also, while im ranting—“wretched liberals” ???
I am so glad to see that the Catholic Answers forums have discovered the root of all evil. it is the wretched liberals. Liberal is not a bad word, my friends, and i would bet that most of you DO in fact have some liberal views, be they social, economic, or religous. so lets not try to paint everyone that falls in that category with one brush. if you have a problem with a certain view, list that specifically. pshew… enough for now.
God bless!
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
There’s a “thread” that wouldn’t get very far before it got banned… but very interesting proposal.:hmmm:Besides it was already tried on a thread called " fruits of V2" and it’s CLOSED now!!
 
Deacon Ed:
Well, I certainly can’t take the poll because, for me, the correct answer is not given. Vatican II is the 22nd Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. It modified how the Church works and sees herself in the Modern world. The results of Vatican II have ranged from very good (the reestablishment of the diaconate as a permanent order, the understanding of the role of modern communications and the Church) to pretty bad (primarily in the area of catechesis which, while not directly covered by Vatican II certainly suffered as a result of Vatican II and which has a long-range effect on the average pew-potato Catholic). Most of what Vatican II called for has yet to be implemented – and that is consistent with the previous councils of the Church. Consider that the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope St. Pius V was rejected in France for nearly 100 years before the adopted it!

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Why is the institution of the (non-celibate) permenant diaconate a good thing? :confused:
 
Matt16_18,
If you don’t believe Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, then you will have not problem with Vatican II. However, even if you do, it is possible, as far as I have read, to reconcile the council to the teaching of the Church that “outside the Church there is absolutely no salvation for mortals”. God bless.
 
The first poll choice is the closest one I was to but I didn’t vote for it. I wish there was a poll choice along the lines of this" Change everything back to the way it was in 1600 or possibly 1250. In 1959 the modernists ha already inflitrated the CHurch and had been there for 20-30 years. Remember just 10 years after 1959 we had the New Mass come in.
 
Deacon Ed:
Vatican II is the 22nd Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Huh? I thought it was the XXI ecumenical council. Which one am I missing?
  1. Nicea I
  2. Constantinople I
  3. Ephesus
  4. Chalcedon
  5. Constantinople II
  6. Constantinople III
  7. Nicea II
  8. Constantinople IV
  9. Lateran I
  10. Lateran II
  11. Lateran III
  12. Lateran IV
  13. Lyons I
  14. Lyons II
  15. Vienne
  16. Constance
  17. Florence
  18. Lateran V
  19. Trent
  20. Vatican I
  21. Vatican II
 
I’m a mixed bag on Vatican II. The one half of the mix is the half that grew up being told fairy tales of this liberal, revolutionary council that changed so many things around and really reoriented Catholic teaching (these tales being told by the “progressives,” for lack of a better word, who were looking to justify their positions), but later got older and read the documents of the council for himself; I remember that my first impression was, “This was a pretty conservative council.”

The other half, though, realizes that the conservative born after Vatican II doesn’t realize that some of what he believes would have been considered progressive at the time of the council. Karl Rahner, S.J., whose theology was quite influential in the council (along with Yves Congar, et al.), had actually been silenced by his order for a while because of his ideas. Suppressed to driving the thought of a council seems to be a pretty big turnaround in so short a time. Admittedly, saints have been burned at the stake, but it must at least lead one to question.

So while I give assent to the teachings of the Magisterium, I still get nagging questions as to the council’s teachings on religious freedom and EENS (I don’t want to argue them - AT ALL - because they’re already different threads, but I will mention why they bother me). Ever since Constantine, the flow of Catholic thought seems to have been favorable towards coercion. One can cite many a Church Father or pope who will tell you that it is perfectly okay to force someone to convert. At the time of the Reformation, one main beef of the Anabaptists was that Catholics believed in coercion. The Syllabus of Errors required Catholics to use their political power to promote Catholicism (I don’t know the exact scope of the wording, but I was taught that Kennedy was essentially disobeying the Syllabus in promising to keep religion out of politics). Then Vatican II rolls around and we’re taught the exact opposite. EENS isn’t quite that extreme, because it seems inherently much more open to interpretation. But its vehement defenders here can quote at least a pope or two in favor of a strict interpretation. But Vatican II’s is very loose, and I’m not informed enough to know if that presents as much a conflict with the previous Magisterium as religious freedom does. Anyway, those are the issues that still tug at the back of my mind when pondering Vatican II.
 
Andreas Pope John XIII was hoping for a deepening of missionary activities, to convert more to Catholicism in order to save their souls. Somehow the words of Christ to go and teach all nations became “go and dialogue” with all nations. Ecuminism, erroneously became interpreted as accepting all religions. Now I would suppose a good apologist has to dialogue with other religions in order to teach them but to accept them without showing them the error of their faith should not be the outcome nor do I think it was the intention of Catholic Ecuminism.
 
One frequently cited principle of Vatican II is subsidiarity, see the above quote from Sacrosanctam Concilium that “competent territorial authority” should decide how much vernacular language should be used in liturgy in each territory. In retrospect it might have been better to hold on to centralization for some things. ICEL and such seem a direct result of a poor application of the principle of subsidiarity. Individual dioceses and episcopal conferences made so many unique and sudden liturgical changes that many people immediately felt a great sense of loss. Also, as has been frequently noted on this forum, liturgucal abuses became the trendsetters of change in some areas when careful, cautious implementation might have had better results. I don’t look to the pre-Vatican II era nostalgically, I think most of the changes we have now were coming, but they could have been implemented better if there had been more centralization in Rome rather than in episcopal conferences and individual dioceses.
 
Deacon Ed:
Well, I certainly can’t take the poll because, for me, the correct answer is not given. Vatican II is the 22nd Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. It modified how the Church works and sees herself in the Modern world. The results of Vatican II have ranged from very good (the reestablishment of the diaconate as a permanent order, the understanding of the role of modern communications and the Church) to pretty bad (primarily in the area of catechesis which, while not directly covered by Vatican II certainly suffered as a result of Vatican II and which has a long-range effect on the average pew-potato Catholic). Most of what Vatican II called for has yet to be implemented – and that is consistent with the previous councils of the Church. Consider that the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope St. Pius V was rejected in France for nearly 100 years before the adopted it!

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
WHere do you get the information for the last sentence?
 
The first printed edition of the “Missale Romanum” lately republished by the Henry Bradshaw Society in two volumes (1899 and 1907), was produced at Milan in 1474. Numerous editions followed, but nothing authoritative appeared until the Council of Trent left in the hands of the pope the charge of seeing to the revision of a Catechism, Breviary, and Missal. This last, committed to the care of Cardinals Scotti and Sirlet with Thomas Goldwell (an Englishman, Bishop of St. Asaph, deprived of his see upon the accession of Elizabeth), and Julius Poggio, was published in 1570. St. Pius V published a Bull on the occasion, still printed at the beginning of the Missal, in which he enjoined that all dioceses and religious orders of the Latin Rite should use the new revision and no other, excepting only such bodies as could prove a prescription of two hundred years. In this way the older orders like the Carthusians and the Dominicans were enabled to retain their ancient liturgical usages, but the new book was accepted throughout the greater part of Europe. A revised edition of the “Missale Romanum” appeared in 1604 accompanied by a brief of Clement VIII in which the pontiff complained among other things that the vetus Itala version of the Scripture which had been retained in the antiphonal passages of the Pian Missal had been replaced, through the unauthorized action of certain printers, by the text of the newly edited Vulgate. Another revision bearing more especially upon the rubrics followed under Urban VIII in 1634.
Click to expand...
Catholic Encylopedia

Incidentally, the Bull by Pius V stating all should use that missal and no other, referred to any other missals then being used. Some groups mis-read this to mean that it could never be changed but it was changed and evolved several times.
 
Vatican II was suppose to address the modern world and so far it has not done a good job of it.

There was a Church Council that have failed, but this does not mean that it was wrong. Lateran V comes to mind.
 
Good Morning Church

I voted it was the greatest thing that has happened to the Church.
My answer is absolutely simple.

Vatican II was the work of the Holy Spirit. He was in charge from beginning to end. God, alone chose Pope John XIII for this task and decided perfectly when he would leave this world and the work of Vatican II and who would take over the task.

The work of the Holy Spirit is PERFECT. It cannot be less than perfect. Which means, Vatican II was the greatest thing that happened to the Church. It cannot be anything else. Only the Holy Spirit knew what was needed in the Church at that time in Salvation history.

He also knew how it would take off. He and He alone leads the Church to ALL TRUTH. In most cases, change requires the pendulum to make a wide swing in both directions before it settles to its normal position. We are seeing the Fruits of Vatican II. We have always seen the Spirit of Vatican II. The Spirit was the Holy Spirit leading and blowing where He wills.

I was a convert to the Church years before Vatican II. Many of you were not born during those times and many of you were too young to remember. It was indeed beautiful in all it’s Latin Splendor. However, much was lacking. Changes were needed. If they weren’t The Holy Spirit would have left things just as they were.
 
Although I attend an indult Tridentine Mass myself, having Mass in the vernacular and some relaxed rules were needed. To see what could have happened if those changes didn’t take place, read this page. It’s translated from a Spanish website, so the English is a bit choppy. I saw the story on Spanish news yesterday, as disputes were taking place. This article was from 2001 though.

translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2001/mar01/010308/038n1est.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsan%2Bpablo%2Batlazalpa%2Btridentina%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8

Shows how a town that only ten years ago was 90% Catholic is only 10% now, due to inroads of Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Mormons, and seemingly exacerbated by the forced pre-Vatican 2 ways by a priest who arrived in 1979 at San Pablo - Atlazalpa, Mexico. According to the article, only 100 people attend Sunday Mass. But from the news story, I think some of these parishoners were defending the Tridentine Mass, as they have a right to do so, but keeping out women who don’t have veils and wear trousers is wrong.
 
oh ok…it turns out that Spanish news story was about 200 parishoners having the Novus Ordo mass inside while 50 Tridentine Mass parishoners were outside. I think it was under orders of the diocese or city, but I do know the city government was involved. It’s a bit sad really, the way both sides seem to treat each other like they’re of a different religion.
 
The original intent and concept was one thing, what came forth is another, the ultimate responsibilty for the implementation and corrections should be the chief Shepherd of the Church.

james
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top