Was Vatican II a bad thing?

[sw85]

Can an Ecumenical Council that is called by and guided by the Holy Spirit be a bad thing?

If so then why stop at Vatican II?

I don’t believe that Vatican II taught any errors. It was nevertheless unnecessary and a disaster for the Church.

Likewise, I don’t believe John XXIII or Paul VI were heretics – but I do believe they were terrible popes whose ineffectual governance of the Church resulted in its impregnation with the spirit of Protestantism (a condition that persists to this day). I believe Paul VI himself admitted to being an ineffective pope.

We are required to believe in the teaching authority of the Church. Their teaching ability, on the other hand, we are free to question. The total and really quite unprecedented collapse of vocations, the moral integrity of the laity, and the ecclesiastical discipline of the priests and bishops, in the postconciliar age cannot really be attributed to anything but Vatican II, or at least the “spirit of Vatican II” which the council itself released and which no one has done anything to reign in since then.

I have read before that Vatican II was regarded by John XXIII as experimental. If so, it is clear that the experiment has failed. It should be repudiated, at least in part.

 

[gregtr]

Vatican II was a Council for the “intelligentsia”, so to speak. It was the most verbal Council in history, at a time when hardly anybody was going to read all of even one of those documents. It claimed to be a reaching out to the world, but what it ended up doing was the opposite.

 

[JaMc]

I don’t believe that Vatican II taught any errors. It was nevertheless unnecessary and a disaster for the Church.

Likewise, I don’t believe John XXIII or Paul VI were heretics – but I do believe they were terrible popes whose ineffectual governance of the Church resulted in its impregnation with the spirit of Protestantism (a condition that persists to this day). I believe Paul VI himself admitted to being an ineffective pope.

We are required to believe in the teaching authority of the Church. Their teaching ability, on the other hand, we are free to question. The total and really quite unprecedented collapse of vocations, the moral integrity of the laity, and the ecclesiastical discipline of the priests and bishops, in the postconciliar age cannot really be attributed to anything but Vatican II, or at least the “spirit of Vatican II” which the council itself released and which no one has done anything to reign in since then.

I have read before that Vatican II was regarded by John XXIII as experimental. If so, it is clear that the experiment has failed. It should be repudiated, at least in part.

I don’t think John XXIII intended it to go as far as it did. Otherwise, why would he have revised the Missal (Missal of 1962), if he was just going to revamp the entire Mass in a couple of years anyway?

I also think it was extremely ill-timed - “liberalizing” the Church at the same time society in general is going down the toilet, and just when the Mainline Protestants were going from being a bunch of conservative, uptight, “Colonel Blimp”-type WASPS to the liberal wasteland they are now. Vatican II, when this was all going on, made it look like the Catholic Church was on the same bandwagon. By the time Pope Paul VI realized what was going on, and issued Humanae Vitae, in an attempt to clear things up, at least partially, it was too late. The “spirit of Vatican II” had become a juggernaut, and plowed straight through the Pope and Humanae Vitae. John Paul II made some attempts to address the more egregious abuses, but it didn’t seem to be a priority of his Papacy. Fortunately, Benedict XVI is now making a concerted effort to “clean things up.” Hopefully, he will succeed.

I think, maybe, a “Vatican III”, to go back through and take a good, hard look at what parts of Vatican II succeeded and what parts failed would be in order. Maybe this will be something that could come from the SSPX talks?

In the end, I think the overall (albeit unintended) result of Vatican II was to alienate traditionalists, encourage the liberals who were “chomping at the bit” to go down the same road as the mainline Protestants, and do absolutely nothing to stop the “rank and file” from following the rest of society out of pews and onto the couch Sunday Mornings.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think John XXIII intended it to go as far as it did.

Probably not as he did not sign a single document of the council. And supposedly he made no long term accommodation plans for all the bishops in the world and observers at the council.

I think, maybe, a “Vatican III”, to go back through and take a good, hard look at what parts of Vatican II succeeded and what parts failed would be in order.

If so, hopefully using the Latin originals.

 

[tskrobacz]

Why approach it from such a dualistic perspective … e.g. good vs bad? As the Holy Spirit guides her church surely we must believe that the wisdom of Vatican II will take centuries to make manifest. We should not attempt to assess it’s results with only 50 short years between us and the council.

 

[jam070406]

Why approach it from such a dualistic perspective … e.g. good vs bad? As the Holy Spirit guides her church surely we must believe that the wisdom of Vatican II will take centuries to make manifest. We should not attempt to assess it’s results with only 50 short years between us and the council.

Because we’d be ignoring the fact that there is a serious crisis of Faith right now.

 

[tskrobacz]

Because we’d be ignoring the fact that there is a serious crisis of Faith right now.

A serious crisis of Faith according to who? That too is a very dualistic perspective that I do not subscribe to.

 

[Cristiano]

One of the volunteers at RCIA told me that the lack of faith among Catholics (I’m thinking of things like the fact that the majority of so-called “Catholics” contracept and miss Mass without guilt) in recent decades is a result of poor catechesis, which happened because of the confusion that resulted from the changes of Vatican II.

Is this true? If so, then doesn’t that mean Vatican II is to blame for the weakening of the Church in the West?

I am the result of the poor catechesis that happened just before, during and after the 2nd Vatican Council. I was growing up during those years and I can tell you that the poor catechesis problem was already there and it was a consequence of the secular culture, in my opinion nothing to do with V2. The problem is also with the idiocy from the secular culture of the time that influenced the interpretation of the V2 documents. I can see how some people could consider some documents as misleading, but the impact of the idiocy from the secular culture was not limited only to some conflicting passages. I think that V2 was necessary and it started barely on time, if the same thing were to happen 20 years earlier things would have probably moved differently but it was war time. However, if V2 were to happen 20 years later, then the “interpretative spirit” of the same documents would have been even more disastrous.

 

[sw85]

I don’t think John XXIII intended it to go as far as it did. Otherwise, why would he have revised the Missal (Missal of 1962), if he was just going to revamp the entire Mass in a couple of years anyway?

I also think it was extremely ill-timed - “liberalizing” the Church at the same time society in general is going down the toilet, and just when the Mainline Protestants were going from being a bunch of conservative, uptight, “Colonel Blimp”-type WASPS to the liberal wasteland they are now. Vatican II, when this was all going on, made it look like the Catholic Church was on the same bandwagon. By the time Pope Paul VI realized what was going on, and issued Humanae Vitae, in an attempt to clear things up, at least partially, it was too late. The “spirit of Vatican II” had become a juggernaut, and plowed straight through the Pope and Humanae Vitae. John Paul II made some attempts to address the more egregious abuses, but it didn’t seem to be a priority of his Papacy. Fortunately, Benedict XVI is now making a concerted effort to “clean things up.” Hopefully, he will succeed.

I think, maybe, a “Vatican III”, to go back through and take a good, hard look at what parts of Vatican II succeeded and what parts failed would be in order. Maybe this will be something that could come from the SSPX talks?

In the end, I think the overall (albeit unintended) result of Vatican II was to alienate traditionalists, encourage the liberals who were “chomping at the bit” to go down the same road as the mainline Protestants, and do absolutely nothing to stop the “rank and file” from following the rest of society out of pews and onto the couch Sunday Mornings.

Of course, I don’t think John XXIII intended for Vatican II to go the direction it did either. There is some evidence (related by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, anyway, take it for what it’s worth) that he intended it to affirm traditional teachings in light of the waxing of the modern zeitgeist. In any event, he was completely ineffective in stopping it and (also if Lefebvre’s account is worthwhile at all) in many ways a dupe of the modernists reformers.

I have less sympathy for Paul VI, who inherited a Church in total rebellion and did practically nothing to stop it. He shouldn’t have been pope. I don’t believe he intended to speed the modernization of the Church along, either, but his incompetence in stopping it was simply appalling, since he had the perspective that his predecessor didn’t. This was no small matter; if recent polls are any indication, the proportion of open heretics among the Catholic laity is north of 50% and (on some issues) around 90%. These are positively millions, perhaps billions, of souls in danger of hellfire because the Church decided to make its peace with the Satanic zeitgeist.

 

[Cristiano]

…I have less sympathy for Paul VI, who inherited a Church in total rebellion and did practically nothing to stop it. He shouldn’t have been pope…

First go and tell the Holy Spirit that He messed up and that He should have waited for your opinion. I also think that maybe you should go and look a little bit more at what Paul VI did, think how the Catholic world would be today without Humane Vitae.

 

[ProVobis]

I also think that maybe you should go and look a little bit more at what Paul VI did, think how the Catholic world would be today without Humane Vitae.

But one can’t look at Humane Vitae without also reading Progressio Populorum, which allowed the use of “conscience” in determining the size of one’s family. I’m not saying there was a contradiction, but many priests (as well as some moral theologians which the Pope had assembled) had been teaching “use your conscience” and that’s all most heard.

 

[Cristiano]

But one can’t look at Humane Vitae without also reading Progressio Populorum, which allowed the use of “conscience” in determining the size of one’s family. I’m not saying there was a contradiction, but many priests (as well as some moral theologians which the Pope had assembled) had been teaching “use your conscience” and that’s all most heard.

What you are saying it is true, but it must be blamed on disobedient priests and not on Paul VI. God gave them free will and reason, are you going to blame God for their sinful choices?

 

[JaMc]

Of course, I don’t think John XXIII intended for Vatican II to go the direction it did either. There is some evidence (related by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, anyway, take it for what it’s worth) that he intended it to affirm traditional teachings in light of the waxing of the modern zeitgeist. In any event, he was completely ineffective in stopping it and (also if Lefebvre’s account is worthwhile at all) in many ways a dupe of the modernists reformers.

I have less sympathy for Paul VI, who inherited a Church in total rebellion and did practically nothing to stop it. He shouldn’t have been pope. I don’t believe he intended to speed the modernization of the Church along, either, but his incompetence in stopping it was simply appalling, since he had the perspective that his predecessor didn’t. This was no small matter; if recent polls are any indication, the proportion of open heretics among the Catholic laity is north of 50% and (on some issues) around 90%. These are positively millions, perhaps billions, of souls in danger of hellfire because the Church decided to make its peace with the Satanic zeitgeist.

I tend to give Paul VI a little bit more benefit of the doubt - I think he was, in many ways, too naive to deal effectively with a lot of what the Pope has do deal with, and didn’t really have a great handle of human nature. Most particularly, he didn’t seem to grasp that, with many, “if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile”, and he relied upon liberal/reformist advisors who had their own agendas. Also, I think he allowed too much change, implemented it too fast, at a time when, given society, people needed some solid stability.

Paul VI said, at one point, the “smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary.” But, he didn’t realize that, by letting the council go as far as it did, he threw open all the doors and windows to “the sanctuary” at a time when the “smoke of Satan” filled the air as though there were a forest fire nearby, or the farmers were burning their fields (those of us who live out west will understand ). I think part of his problem might have been that he had been working in the Vatican so long before being elected Pope that he kind of lost touch with the “real world.” The bottom line is, I think his heart was in the right place, but he didn’t quite have the skills necessary to close Pandora’s Box fast enough once he opened it. I thnk he came to realize what had happened once he saw the reaction to his encyclical, and some of the abuses that were occurring, but, by then, it was too late.

 

[Bookcat]

No it was not a bad thing. But a good thing.

The sins of individuals are not the fault of this Ec. Council.

 

[sw85]

First go and tell the Holy Spirit that He messed up and that He should have waited for your opinion. I also think that maybe you should go and look a little bit more at what Paul VI did, think how the Catholic world would be today without Humane Vitae.

The Holy Spirit protects the Church from error, not incompetence. As I said, I don’t believe Paul VI was a heretic or that he taught error – and this is as far as I am required to believe. The Church does not require me to believe that any particular pope was an effective one.

That said, I did perhaps go too far when I wrote that he should not have been pope and I retract that. Such happens when I pay little attention to what I’m writing. It is not my place to second-guess such decisions.

I tend to give Paul VI a little bit more benefit of the doubt - I think he was, in many ways, too naive to deal effectively with a lot of what the Pope has do deal with, and didn’t really have a great handle of human nature. Most particularly, he didn’t seem to grasp that, with many, “if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile”, and he relied upon liberal/reformist advisors who had their own agendas. Also, I think he allowed too much change, implemented it too fast, at a time when, given society, people needed some solid stability.

Paul VI said, at one point, the “smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary.” But, he didn’t realize that, by letting the council go as far as it did, he threw open all the doors and windows to “the sanctuary” at a time when the “smoke of Satan” filled the air as though there were a forest fire nearby, or the farmers were burning their fields (those of us who live out west will understand ). I think part of his problem might have been that he had been working in the Vatican so long before being elected Pope that he kind of lost touch with the “real world.” The bottom line is, I think his heart was in the right place, but he didn’t quite have the skills necessary to close Pandora’s Box fast enough once he opened it. I thnk he came to realize what had happened once he saw the reaction to his encyclical, and some of the abuses that were occurring, but, by then, it was too late.

I could agree with that assessment.

 

[TimothyH]

Vatican II was a Council for the “intelligentsia”, so to speak. It was the most verbal Council in history, at a time when hardly anybody was going to read all of even one of those documents. It claimed to be a reaching out to the world, but what it ended up doing was the opposite.

Many ordnary people read the documents of the council. They were widely reported on by CBS, NBC and ABC news, with analysis and commentary by guests priests and archbishops.

People lined up to get the New York Times, which printed every document the council put out. The newspapers all put out special sections in the center of the paper containing the council documents, and printed them as soon as they were published by the Vatican. Everyone read the documents. Men came home from work and sat on the sofa reading the documents, and talked about them at work. College students argued about them on campus. I’ve heard stories about this from people a generation older than me, one woman who told me that at Fordham university, she stood chair and read one of the documents out loud while a crowd gathered around her.

The documents of the Second Vatican Council are like treasure chests which have hardly been opened, diamond mines which we have barely scratched the surface. To say that hardly anyone was going to read the documents of the council is not accurate, given the facts of what actually happened.

Don’t you people love the Church? Don’t you love the Holy Father? How can you people call the Holy Father Incompetent, or some of the other names I hear him being called here?

-Tim-

 

[Melchior_1]

There will not be a “Vatican III”. While Vatican 1 was happening, they had to halt proceedings due to a war breaking out at the time. They agreed to meet up later to finish, but they never did. Vatican II wasn’t just to address the Church in the world at the time, but also in part convened to finish the job Vatican 1 started. Vatican II closed the door on that, and the Council did not agree to continue their discussions at Vatican II later.

Pope Paul VI steered us through Vatican II. He wrote a landmark encyclical. As an expert in Canon Law, he revised the code. The man deserves our respect.

 

[Warrenton]

Can an Ecumenical Council that is called by and guided by the Holy Spirit be a bad thing?

If so then why stop at Vatican II?

This depends on many variables, and of course on the time frame one chooses to look at.

The comment that something was called and guided by the Holy Ghost presupposes a certain answer, and strikes a note that is very close to superstition.

As we know, the council was called by a pope, attended by bishops, facilitated by staffs, and left to be implemented by other staffs at a later date and time. The staff recommendations were then carried out in numerous parishes all over the world, over the course of half a century. So, where and when in this continuum do we wish to pin down the divine manifestation? At the convocation? At the voting? At the implementation? In a staff meeting? In a parish, busilly destroying its altar, years later?

The question you pose can be answered by analogy. Can we say the destruction of Jerusalem or the Babylonian captivity was bad, though both were predestined and foretold? Naturally. None less than Jeremiah tells us so.

 

[Warrenton]

Don’t you people love the Church? Don’t you love the Holy Father?

If they didn’t, they would not care what happened at Vatican 2, or in its aftermath.

 

[Warrenton]

A serious crisis of Faith according to who? That too is a very dualistic perspective that I do not subscribe to.

Perhaps not, however the precedent is plain.

The Protestant Reformation broke off about half of Europe from the Church.

If we take the present attendance stats from Europe, I believe France is somewhere down about 10%, that’s a ninety percent loss. Maybe it’s not quite that dire, since some of the non-attenders perhaps could be brought back. But it’s a severe loss by any measure, and on a par with the loss of faithful in the 16th century.

If we commence the Reformation at 1517, when Luther nailed the 95 theses to the door of Wittenburg church, then we see that the Church acted within 30 years, when it convened the Council of Trent in 1545.

So, mirabile dictu! the renaissance Church moved at least 20 years faster than today!