Was Vatican II a bad thing?

[mathematoons]

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?

 

[chrisb]

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?

Grace and Peace,

Do you think this was a ‘top-down’ collapse within the Roman Catholic Church or do you think this was a ‘bottom-up’ collapse within the Laity?

If it was somehow a ‘top-down’ collapse then it stands to reason that we can point to the deteriorization that manifested more rapidly after Vatican II but if you see it as more of a ‘bottom-up’ collapse like I slow erosion of faithfulness among the Laity which then effected the Clergy it would be something else and we’d have to ‘stop’ blaming and start accepting part of the blame.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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?

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

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?

hermunetic of countinuty Scroll down till you see “The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago.” (about half way down) and read the rest of the address from there. Pope Benedict couldn’t have said it better.

 

[JimmytheButcher]

Vatican II is a beautiful thing.

Tonight as I sat after Vespers reading some of St. Thomas Aquinas, I came upon a passage that echos a line from one of the constitutions.

St. Thomas was writing in regards specifically to true devotion to the Eucharist. And, he says that we must do all we can to not use superstition in our devotion. One of the things spoken of (either in the commentary alongside it or Thomas’ text itself I cannot remember) is the need remove the superstitious notion of thinking of the Last Supper as sacrament and the Crucifixion as sacrament. He also was writing that we need to eliminate the superstition that Communion is more sacrament than the consecration of Sacrifice of the Altar itself. He continues to speak about how the consecration is true sacrament and the communion is the employment of that sacrament.

It was in a text written by an archabbot in the 1920’s. He went on to lament that many of his brethren particularly in the Benedictine world no longer see the Eucharist in the Catholic way, but in a way of superstition often by linking it with in words by saying ‘The Lord’s Supper’. Another example of superstition (I offer) is considering the actions of the Christ in a moralistic mindset rather in terms of Theology. (An example of superstition in this way would be ‘It is important to be a good person’ as superior to ‘It is important to taste and see God’. Another example I am thinking of would be that the Liturgy of the Word is a sacrament and more important than the Eucharist… something I have heard echoed from venerable pulpits. Another superstition is one I cull directly from one of the reformers and the most famous early-20th century commenter on the Breviary, where he speaks of the holy Mass as entirely ineffectual if it is not in the common tongue.)

Much of this is paraphrased and inexact as I have only passed over it once.

But, I can say this. There was a great wrestling going in the monastic communities over this and that. Much of it has proved quite poisionous to the faith of the individual. There is a line in one of the constitutions that calls for an end to those things that taste of superstition. I have been troubled by this line from Vatican II for more than a couple of years now.

Then I read a line where he spoke of long hard thought is difficult and fruitful. Suddenly, this constitution is seen as more penetrating and knowing. There is much superstition that is still being practiced in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass… Methinks of the selectively edited Lectionary and Responsorial texts fashioned to sound and intrepret in ways ambigious. But, what do I know?

Mary is beautiful.
And, the council will bear fruit.
But before a tree might fruit it must show forth the flower.
Flos Mariae.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Vatican II itself was definitely a good thing. The problem was that a lot of laity, clergy, and religious wanted Vatican II to be something that it was not.

Now, I’m really no expert in all the 16 documents that Vatican II produced. But, I think basically, the Church needed to offer Mass in the native languages of people. In the same strain, the Church originally adopted Latin as the language of the Church because everyone spoke it. Because of the Roman Empire and Europe. Before Latin became official I’m sure there were plenty of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic Masses, etc. Whatever the Egyptian language used to be.

Anyways, the point is, a lot of people might have been lost by the Church, or would not have been gained by the Church if we kept Latin just for the sake of tradition. Some traditions don’t matter as much as saving souls. Other traditions will always be traditions.

From what I gather, a lot of people thought that Vatican II was the Church basically following the same line as society was. The Catholic Church was going to modernize its views alongside the sexual revolution. By the grace of the Holy Spirit and all the Saints the Church was protected from adopting false doctrines/ teachings. But, obviously a lot of other Churches did just that, they accepted female clergy, contraception, actively gay clergy, gay marriage, etc. And, I’m not going to name names, we all know that plenty of Churches did that. Well, not the Catholic Church.

And, now that 2012 will be 50 years after the Vatican II council started, I think the Church is finally getting itself on a sound footing again. A lot more people realize that the Church isn’t going to change *.

Finally, Vatican I happened in 1870, Vatican II started in 1962. I think we’ve probably got well over 50 more years before the next council. Obviously I could be wrong. Personally, I just think the Church doesn’t want that kind of confusion for some time to come. I’m pretty sure that Vatican II was one of the most, if not the most turbulent ecumenical council in Church history. IMHO.*

 

[MartyrForJesus]

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?

Wow, first time I have heard someone on this forum not having liberal RCIA instructors!

The Second Vatican Council was a good thing. The post-Vatican II ‘spirit of Vatican II’ effect was absolutely disastrous.

 

[Trishie]

People may have interpreted Vatican 2 incorrectly or too liberally in some ways. There are a lot of factors affecting Catholics in times subsequent to Vatican 2,
but always we must trust the words of Jesus to our first pope and to all who follow him:

I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.** And I am with you always, to the end of time**.” Matthew 28:18-20

Jesus promised, “I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit comes He will lead you to the complete truth…All He tells you will be taken from what is mine.”
“You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and then you will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but indeed…to the ends of the earth.” [John 16:8-9, 12-13, 15]

My Mum used to say, of children, “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.” And there has been a bit of that in interpretation of Vatican 2. Nevertheless we trust in Jesus regarding the teachings that came out of Vatican 2

 

[BornAgain2010]

Ive always wondered about that. I would say Vatican II is very important. However, for those that dont or didnt follow those sorts of things, and for the uninvolved or those not “in the know”, it does more harm than good (due to confusion) and can be very frustrating to try and study.

I myself havent read any of it, but my Priest explained the main gist to me and I agree with almost all of it.

 

[Dale_M]

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

Its likely that the majority of married Catholics of child-bearing years contracepted even back in 1968. Certainly, Pope Paul’s encyclical Humanae Vitae which reflected on contraception, was greeted with vocal disagreement from laity, priests and even bishops. Heck, two months after the release of Humanae Vitae the Canadian bishops collectively declared that the provisions on contraception were not morally binding on Catholics.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I’m still trying to understand what the purpose of Vatican II was to start with. A pastoral council.Hmmm. What does that really mean? Probably not what ‘the spirit of Vatican II’ has done to the church. The consequences are definitely questionable. I think we will have a more clear picture in a few decades about what has really happened and why.

 

[markomalley]

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?

Vatican II: not a bad thing. I, personally, think that some of the documents could have been written a bit more clearly, but that’s just a matter of personal taste.

The real “Vatican II” problem was not with the issuances from that council. The real problem was “the spirit of Vatican II” that ensued afterwards.

I was literally just a wee tot when the council happened, so I can’t speak first hand about attitudes before and after. But it appears to me that a lot of people appropriated the term “Vatican II” to justify all sorts of deviance and heresy. So-called “experts” used their positions of authority (both informal and formal) to make radical changes…and then claiming that Vatican II justified those changes.

Such radical changes would not have been possible had the Church not been plagued by the heresy of modernism (as defined by Pius X) for decades prior to the Council. The modernists condemned by Pius X in Pascendi were positioned perfectly to informally make the “reforms” that the council “meant to” make.

Remember, in a pre-Internet era, access to the documents, themselves, Not out of secrecy, but out of inaccessibility. Prior to the late 90s, in order to read Lumen Gentium, you would have to first, go to a Catholic bookstore (and pray that they stocked actual Church documents there), pay hard earned cash money for the document, and then take the time to study it. Never mind being able to study the footnotes (i.e., reading the earlier documents referenced). If you wished to read the earlier documents, you would need to repeat that exercise for each referenced document. And some of those references are pretty thick and, by the way, pretty pricey.

As an example, there are umpteen sources for the Summa Theologica available on line. Prior to the Internet, if you wanted your own copy, you’d have to shell out big bucks for a five volume set (even now, it’s over $150). How many lay people are going to do that?

People were much more inclined to “leave it to the experts” because they did not have much of a choice. And as a result, they were led down a primrose path.

 

[markomalley]

I’m still trying to understand what the purpose of Vatican II was to start with. A pastoral council.Hmmm. What does that really mean?

From Bl John XXIII’s opening address (Italian version here):

The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
So the purpose of the Council was not to define any new doctrine nor to condemn any new heresy, but to relate existing doctrine in a fashion that related to the then current world.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

So the purpose of the Council was not to define any new doctrine nor to condemn any new heresy, but to relate existing doctrine in a fashion that related to the then current world.

Thanks. Yes, this is how I understand it too, relating to the current world. But this is exactly the point that I don’t understand at the same time: has the church not been able to relate to the current world in the past? I doubt it. It seemed to do just fine.That is why I believe that the church ended up as a victim of modernism that plagued the 20th centuty, the belief that the world was suddenly different, the people were different and that a new approach was needed. It opened the door for a lot of confusion, disobedience and even heresy. That is why I am very sceptical about it and can’t see the council as a good thing. But as i said before, time will tell and hopefully we will have a more clear picture one day.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

I think Catholics in the late 20th and early 21st Century are tying themselves in knots making apologia for this Council.

In the 22nd Century they will say: it was a useful poultice to draw out the poison of Modernism in the Church for all to see.

Personally, I think you could just ignore the whole thing and go to the old Mass. I mean, after all the huffing and puffing, it didn’t actually say much that was new and striking. Documents were loosely worded and that is fatal in any document that has to have legal force. Yet others are saying it was a merely pastoral Council anyway

I think the documents have become an idol in themselves. Investigate pre-Vatican 2 spirituality and be surprised.

 

[markomalley]

Thanks. Yes, this is how I understand it too, relating to the current world. But this is exactly the point that I don’t understand at the same time: has the church not been able to relate to the current world in the past? I doubt it. It seemed to do just fine.That is why I believe that the church ended up as a victim of modernism that plagued the 20th centuty, the belief that the world was suddenly different, the people were different and that a new approach was needed. It opened the door for a lot of confusion, disobedience and even heresy. That is why I am very sceptical about it and can’t see the council as a good thing. But as i said before, time will tell and hopefully we will have a more clear picture one day.

Consider Trent. How many truly new doctrines did Trent define? Or did it primarily make clear what was already existing Catholic doctrine?

There was a threat that Trent responded to (a then-modern threat): Protestantism

Granted, there were anathemas pronounced at Trent. But, again, how many of those were simply re-statements of anathemas pronounced earlier?

 

[Melchior_1]

Wow, first time I have heard someone on this forum not having liberal RCIA instructors!.

Comments like this bother me a lot. I know quite a few RCIA instructors* who are excellent people and quite orthodox, but their converts just so happen to not post on message boards. Maybe they should come out with a newsletter.

*I’ve said several times on these boards that I’m a RCIA instructor, and I’m decidedly not “liberal”. If I am, I’d love to see examples of when I showed I was on these boards.

As for the council, the call for consecrated religious to go back to their roots was critically important. That alone makes V2 a great council.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Vatican II is solid. The social period of transition of the 60’s early 70’s, is a result of the problems, which were already a long time in the making, we are just starting the journey to rise above this. Almost 40-years later the USA is starting to “think” abortion might have been a problem. That maybe, just maybe. the CC was right about the “family” all along. Which was a direct debate of Erasmus and Luther.

The fact that change coincided in society, isn’t a connection of the two. Some would like to incorrectly make this connection. Its just more distraction which draws away from the focus of moving foward today.

Peace

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

I’ve heard this Chicken And Egg argument before: ‘Society was going to pot anyway, Catholics went with it, the Council isn’t to blame’. The Council certainly didn’t help. It didn’t affirm anything worthwhile that I can see, nor combatted any serious problem in the Church. Unless its the problem of not having enough folky Masses

The SSPX seem to have a problem with it. I don’t understand the arguments totally but if it affirmed things contrary to doctrine or even seemed to, it needs to be clarified ASAP, maybe within another 40 years

It’s given too much leeway to experimenters to make their novelties and rareities the norm i.e. CITH, Versus Populum, Freedom Of Conscience(?). Try rolling back THOSE in a hurry!

The problem with the Council is that documents like Sacrosanctum Consilium were loosely worded, so you can have a dancing Mass if you can claim it’s local custom.

 

[jam070406]

On any given day there is a discussion on these forums about topics that pertain to Ecumenism. I think VII added much confusion amongst Catholics about the role of the Church and it’s relationship to non-Catholics.