"Wer're very Vatican II"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elzee

Guest
An EMHC at our church the other day told me that our parish is ‘very Vatican II’. When I asked her what this meant (partly because she is a very cafeteria-style Catholic and partly because I don’t know a whole lot about Vatcian II) she said it would be too complicated to explain, other than Vatican II changed what should be emphasized.

Can someone tell me what you think this means, or tell me where I can find some easy to understand articles or books on Vatican II - I know the basics like the NO Masss, no head-covereings for women, Mass in native languages, etc., but I dont’ see how these things have introduced a very cafeteria-style view of Catholicism or the lac of reverence I see so much these days. I’d like to know what Vatican II was supposed to accomplish and what really was accomplished (or not). Thank you!
 
People who say their parish follows “Vatican 2” usually have no clue what Vatican 2 was about. It definately did not endorse a “Do what the people want!” atitude of liberalism that’s been so rapant lately. Unfortunately, I’m not learned enough to recommend any documents other then the Vatican 2 documents. Basically what I do in that situation is to hand them my copy of the V2 documents and tell them to point out to me where it says to do this, or that. They can’t, because its not in there.

Josh
 
It probably isn’t a “Vatican II” parish, it’s probably a “Spirit of Vatican II” parish.
 
Many people claiming to be “very Vatican II” are very un-Vatican II. Some have never read the documents, but rely on second-hand information about what the Council said.

In any event, it’s a very vague statement, and threej_lc is right to urge you to ask for documentation.
 
In a nutshell, the purpose of Vatican II was to reaffirm that the laity posses the same call to sainthood as the clergy.

Far too many folks before the council believed that their role was to “pray, pay and obey.” VII called people to see the faith as truly Good News. That Christ came (and left us the church) in order to bring us to the fullness of life. To give us the grace to overcome the limitations of our our weakness and sinfulness and become the human beings He intended us to be!

It was to be a correction from the idea that holiness was defined as a lack of sin to being defined as closeness to God.

What people failed to understand was that this new approach in no way repudiated the established facts about sin and it’s destructive effects, the authority of the hierarchy, the sacramental role of the priesthood, etc. As ever, sin prevents closeness to God. Vatican II, like all church teaching for 2,000 years affirms this strongly.

Personally, the Vatican II documents (I forget the exact titles) ‘Dogmatic Constitution on the Church’ and something "…church in the modern world’ are next on my reading list. That will be handy to pull out and read to the next “Spirit of Vatican II” yahoo I encounter.
 
40.png
Elzee:
An EMHC at our church the other day told me that our parish is ‘very Vatican II’. When I asked her what this meant (partly because she is a very cafeteria-style Catholic and partly because I don’t know a whole lot about Vatcian II) she said it would be too complicated to explain, other than Vatican II changed what should be emphasized.

Can someone tell me what you think this means, or tell me where I can find some easy to understand articles or books on Vatican II - I know the basics like the NO Masss, no head-covereings for women, Mass in native languages, etc., but I dont’ see how these things have introduced a very cafeteria-style view of Catholicism or the lac of reverence I see so much these days. I’d like to know what Vatican II was supposed to accomplish and what really was accomplished (or not). Thank you!
Click to expand...
Tell her that you don’t mind if it’s complicated or long or difficult.

To me, her answer sounds like a dodge. Does she even know what Vatican II is or is she just praising some dubious ‘spirit’ of Vat. II? I doubt she really knows it.

You should just make her explain herself. I have a sneaking suspicion that her answer isn’t going to be too substantiative.
 
40.png
manualman:
In a nutshell, the purpose of Vatican II was to reaffirm that the laity posses the same call to sainthood as the clergy.

Far too many folks before the council believed that their role was to “pray, pay and obey.” VII called people to see the faith as truly Good News. That Christ came (and left us the church) in order to bring us to the fullness of life. To give us the grace to overcome the limitations of our our weakness and sinfulness and become the human beings He intended us to be!

It was to be a correction from the idea that holiness was defined as a lack of sin to being defined as closeness to God.

What people failed to understand was that this new approach in no way repudiated the established facts about sin and it’s destructive effects, the authority of the hierarchy, the sacramental role of the priesthood, etc. As ever, sin prevents closeness to God. Vatican II, like all church teaching for 2,000 years affirms this strongly.

Personally, the Vatican II documents (I forget the exact titles) ‘Dogmatic Constitution on the Church’ and something "…church in the modern world’ are next on my reading list. That will be handy to pull out and read to the next “Spirit of Vatican II” yahoo I encounter.
Click to expand...
Thank you - this summary really helps me a lot. I may try to read the document you reference above, but I have a feeling I would be in over my head at this point.
 
40.png
RobNY:
Tell her that you don’t mind if it’s complicated or long or difficult.

You should just make her explain herself. I have a sneaking suspicion that her answer isn’t going to be too substantiative.
Click to expand...
I’d like to, but I’d like to learn a little more myself first so I can discuss it with her from a somewhat knowledgable viewpoint. There must be a tape series by Tim Staples, Fr. Pacwa or somebody on this…I guess I better search for one! If anyone knows of anything, please let me know.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
It probably isn’t a “Vatican II” parish, it’s probably a “Spirit of Vatican II” parish.
Click to expand...
I refer to this so called Spirit of VII as the anti-Spirit of Vatican II. Either way the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, some Bishops appear not to be adequate shepherds for their flocks and do nothing about abuses and sometimes even promote such things…

Some suggested reading: (last one has the VII documents).

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/VAT-2.HTM

ewtn.com/library/Theology/SIPVAT2.HTM

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JJP2VAT2.HTM

ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/FELIVAT2.HTM

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM

Fr. Mitch Pacwa once said that this “spirit” is one that needs to be “exorcised”.

Larry
 
40.png
manualman:
In a nutshell, the purpose of Vatican II was to reaffirm that the laity posses the same call to sainthood as the clergy.

Far too many folks before the council believed that their role was to “pray, pay and obey.” VII called people to see the faith as truly Good News. That Christ came (and left us the church) in order to bring us to the fullness of life. To give us the grace to overcome the limitations of our our weakness and sinfulness and become the human beings He intended us to be!

It was to be a correction from the idea that holiness was defined as a lack of sin to being defined as closeness to God.

What people failed to understand was that this new approach in no way repudiated the established facts about sin and it’s destructive effects, the authority of the hierarchy, the sacramental role of the priesthood, etc. As ever, sin prevents closeness to God. Vatican II, like all church teaching for 2,000 years affirms this strongly.

Personally, the Vatican II documents (I forget the exact titles) ‘Dogmatic Constitution on the Church’ and something "…church in the modern world’ are next on my reading list. That will be handy to pull out and read to the next “Spirit of Vatican II” yahoo I encounter.
Click to expand...
For not having read the documents, IMO you have an excellent grasp on the implications of the Council.

One of the implementations of the Council was to reestablish, particularly among the laity a renewed participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice as opposed to a lot of good but secondary devotional practices. I think that a lot of these practices took such a central place in our lives because we could understand and become immersed in them, whereas the Mass had become something we attended and watched, but were not so totally drawn into as we were in the many and varied devotions.

I know that many complain about the “spirit of Vatican II” but I think there are some very legitimate changes that happened in this spirit as well as a plethora of garbage that really arose out of personal desires and not any true guidance from the Holy Spirit.
I take comfort in the words of a member of the Sanhedrin who said about the Jesus movement that if it was of God it couldn’t be stopped and if it wasn’t it would fail in time. I believe that with some of the worst garbage this is already happening and the Council is only 50 years behind us.
 
Elzee,
Maybe you could say:
Awesome! But wouldn’t be even better if our parish was very “Nicaea I -Constantinople I - Ephesus - Chalcedon - Constantinople II - Constantinople III - Nicaea II - Constantinople IV - Lateran I - Lateran II - Lateran III - Lateran IV - Lyons I- Lyons II – Vienne – Constance - Basle/Ferrara/Florence - Lateran V - Trent -Vatican I – Vatican II”?
Click to expand...
🙂

I guess that would be a little too snarky?

But the point is – why would anyone think that these previous councils don’t apply or shouldn’t inform and guide us today?

You might as well say “our parish is very St. Pius X” or “our parish is very John Paul II” or even “our parish is very June 19th, 1997, at 2:45”.

No, wait, I’m being snarky again, aren’t I? Sorry.😉
 
To Many people saying one is very " Vatican II " is not a compliment ! Vatican II did much damage to the church because it was widely missinterpreted. Those missinterpretations were allowed to grow and damage the church. The only phrase worse than Im very Vat II ,is. I support " The Spirit of Vatican II " you might as well call your self a protestant !Anyone who says that is suspect.
 
Well the truth be known is that Vatican II is not responsible for any of the abuses you see today or the decline in attendance or the lack of reverance or respect during the liturgy…unfortuneatly, we have individuals who now think they are empowered through “the spirit of VII” to become their own Pope and Magisterium…it is such a sad state of affairs.

\
40.png
Elzee:
An EMHC at our church the other day told me that our parish is ‘very Vatican II’. When I asked her what this meant (partly because she is a very cafeteria-style Catholic and partly because I don’t know a whole lot about Vatcian II) she said it would be too complicated to explain, other than Vatican II changed what should be emphasized.

Can someone tell me what you think this means, or tell me where I can find some easy to understand articles or books on Vatican II - I know the basics like the NO Masss, no head-covereings for women, Mass in native languages, etc., but I dont’ see how these things have introduced a very cafeteria-style view of Catholicism or the lac of reverence I see so much these days. I’d like to know what Vatican II was supposed to accomplish and what really was accomplished (or not). Thank you!
Click to expand...
 
Verbum Caro:
Elzee,
Maybe you could say:

🙂

I guess that would be a little too snarky?

But the point is – why would anyone think that these previous councils don’t apply or shouldn’t inform and guide us today?

You might as well say “our parish is very St. Pius X” or “our parish is very John Paul II” or even “our parish is very June 19th, 1997, at 2:45”.

No, wait, I’m being snarky again, aren’t I? Sorry.😉
Click to expand...
It might be a little snarky, but it made me smile. 🙂
I think my problem is I see so much of one particular ‘attitude’ at my parish - especially by people in leadership (EWTN is run by the Opus Dei cult (not my words but theirs), the church is run by a bunch of old men who don’t know anything about the real world, there’s no need for the sacrament of Confession, I can follow my own conscience when deciding what to believe or not, it doesn’t matter what church you go to, everyone should be able to receive communion, etc.) that I just don’t know where to start in terms of raising questions and trying to influence a change. When I mentioned I watch EWTN and you would have thought I had leprosy. There are many good things about the parish and our priest is wonderful in so many ways, but there are some key people who have been in leadership positions for years and years - and will continue to be as far as I can see - who have some very unorthodox views and that influence seems to get stronger each year. Education is so poor that no one questions anything that is done or said - they just go along. It’s just very frustrating. I can honestly say that I know only 3 other people (and one isn’t even Catholic…yet) who FULLY believe in the Church’s teachings. Sorry, I got off the topic of my own thread! It’s just very discouraging sometimes.
 
40.png
JOHNYJ:
To Many people saying one is very " Vatican II " is not a compliment ! Vatican II did much damage to the church because it was widely missinterpreted. Those missinterpretations were allowed to grow and damage the church. The only phrase worse than Im very Vat II ,is. I support " The Spirit of Vatican II " you might as well call your self a protestant !Anyone who says that is suspect.
Click to expand...
That attitude is EXACTLY what Satan wants to see. The old snake would love for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater! He gets two batches of hell-recruits out of the deal. The first group decides they get to follow their own conscience independent of the church. The other concludes that the church screwed up at Vatican II and that nothing from it can be trusted. That group unwittingly accepts the same premise as the first group! (That they know better than the Magisterium). Not really two groups after all!

The best bet is to embrace the truth and confront the errors with charitable firmness. If EWTN has no credibility with these folks, use EWTN resources, but only to get at the REAL source of true teaching: the magisterium. Then you can back up your statements with rock solid citations.
 
40.png
Elzee:
Thank you - this summary really helps me a lot. I may try to read the document you reference above, but I have a feeling I would be in over my head at this point.
Click to expand...
Actually, the V2 documents are very readable and understandable. I suggest *Lumen Gentium * (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) and *Gaudium et Spes * (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) for starters.
 
40.png
MaryAgnes:
Actually, the V2 documents are very readable and understandable. I suggest *Lumen Gentium * (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) and *Gaudium et Spes * (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) for starters.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’ve only read Sacrosanctum Concilium and thought it would be too dense for me, but it’s not. If I can grasp it, most people should be able to. I own Vatican II The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents edited by Austin Flannery which may or may not still be in print.

Of course, the *Catechism *also quotes extensively from Vatican II as well. 👍
 
Dr. Bombay:
I agree. I’ve only read Sacrosanctum Concilium and thought it would be too dense for me, but it’s not. If I can grasp it, most people should be able to. I own Vatican II The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents edited by Austin Flannery which may or may not still be in print.

Of course, the *Catechism *also quotes extensively from Vatican II as well. 👍
Click to expand...
It is still in print (both volumns):
Vatican Council II: The Conciliar & Post Conciliar Documents
Vatican Council II: More Post Conciliar Documents (Vatican Collection, V. 2)
The thing I like about volumn 1 is that related Post Concilar documents are grouped with the Conciliar document. It makes it much easier to follow updates and clarifications to the original document.

Volumn 2 is an extenstion of that, but there is no grouping of documents. There needs to be a Volumn 3 released since it is a number of years since Volumn 2 and more related documents probably have been released.

PF
 
Is there a website that has the documents for all of these councils? I’ve read the Vat. II ones and bits and pieces of Vat I and Trent, but nothing else.
Awesome! But wouldn’t be even better if our parish was very “Nicaea I -Constantinople I - Ephesus - Chalcedon - Constantinople II - Constantinople III - Nicaea II - Constantinople IV - Lateran I - Lateran II - Lateran III - Lateran IV - Lyons I- Lyons II – Vienne – Constance - Basle/Ferrara/Florence - Lateran V - Trent -Vatican I – Vatican II”?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Elzee:
An EMHC at our church the other day told me that our parish is ‘very Vatican II’. When I asked her what this meant (partly because she is a very cafeteria-style Catholic and partly because I don’t know a whole lot about Vatcian II) she said it would be too complicated to explain, other than Vatican II changed what should be emphasized. !
Click to expand...
the way to get her to drop the intellectual laziness demonstrated by her condescending comment to you is every time she proposes doing something or teaching something a certain way, which you know to be wrong, ask her innocently to point out the Vatican II document which justifies the practice or teaching. If she can’t or won’t tell you it means just what previously poster says, she and everybody else is too lazy or ignorant or recalcitrant to study what Vatican II really proclaimed and relies instead on invoking “the Spirit of Vatican II” for every dissent, abuse and heresy they promote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top