What affect has Vatican II had on the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter blaiselfd5
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s a good question; I’m studying what happened after the Council, and what I mainly see is that we lost many good things that had been kept for years and years before. :(😦
the Church lost part of its identity since Vatican II.
However, I can’t say there aren’t advantages. Lots of good things flourished too since then.
 
This is what I suggest for you to do.

Get yourself a copy of the book “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators” by Kenneth Jones. You will have your answer.
 
Bebekoualy said:
That’s a good question; I’m studying what happened after the Council, and what I mainly see is that we lost many good things that had been kept for years and years before. :(😦
the Church lost part of its identity since Vatican II.
However, I can’t say there aren’t advantages. Lots of good things flourished too since then.
Click to expand...
Like what?
 
Vatican II, was meant to renew our traditions, and for a fresh outpoor of the Holy Spirit. It was never intended for ugly churches, dancing priests, bare sanctuaries (actually, the sanctuary was never supposed to change). What happened, was the times. 'Twas the 60’s. People misinterpreted the council.
 
People did not misinterpret the Council. There were dissidents inside and outside of the Church waiting for some excuse to change things beyond what was recommended. Vatican II is blamed but the real problem for the dissidents was Humanae Generis in 1968.

God bless,
Ed
 
No one here can really say what the impact of VC2 is on the Church. Mainly because we have no clue as to how the Church would be doing today had there never been VC2. Some shallow thinker immediately render the conclusion that everything would be just honky-dory today or at least a heck of a lot better when in reality they do not know.
 
ChurchTorch said:
No one here can really say what the impact of VC2 is on the Church. Mainly because we have no clue as to how the Church would be doing today had there never been VC2. Some shallow thinker immediately render the conclusion that everything would be just honky-dory today or at least a heck of a lot better when in reality they do not know.
Click to expand...
That’s true! I shouldn’t of have made that assumption in my other post…
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.
 
LoyalViews said:
That’s true! I shouldn’t of have made that assumption in my other post…
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.
Click to expand...
I would not apologize. Though I don’t suggest anyone go running to a traditional chapel not in full communion with Rome, it sure seems that those that are not of the “vacant chair” mindset, are indeed holding their own and raising children who know the Faith. The trad family tends to resemble the families of the glory days of the Church in the US, as do the trad clergy.

As our friend Chesterton said,
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.” - Orthodoxy, 1908

And, since H.H. BXVI has given the green light on the EF, many parishes have embraced it. Some clergy couldn’t wait.

I’d also like to point out that on the trad forums, we don’t see the kinds of questions we see on the large mainstream Catholic forums such as this one. Unless it is a Catholic who goes to those forums to ask the sort of questions I speak of.

"Can a priest do this , Can a priest do that " ? “Why are pro-choice politicians given Holy Communion” ?

I don’t think it’s shallow minded at all to offer an opinion after taking a good look around. Witnessing the Faith is to be commended.
 
I have just recently the 4 Constitutions of the Vatican II,
I am a grad student, studying pastoral ministry, and have read them in bits and pieces along the way, but this time I read them (via the Vatican website), slowly, almost prayerfully, over the course of a few weeks.

Growing up, I knew only the post-VII Church, and the reforms were embraced
by my ethnic (Irish-Italian) Catholic family. Actually, none of the people who I knew as a child and teen-ager ever spoke of Mass or the Church pre-VII with any great fondness.
I am a product of when the pendulum swung all the way to the left, with the radical, liberal,
theology and society of the times, and had no formal catechesis in the basic, foundational teachings of the Catholic faith.

I believe that we are starting to see the pendulum swinging over to the the right. The problem is, just like it swung all the way to the left, so it must swing all the way to the right, before it can settle in the middle.

True reform, of any institution, does not happen overnight. I believe that many things that have been done in the “spirit of VII” are wonderful and beautiful additions to our faith,and that there are also many things that have been done in the “spirit of VII”, that have helped to bring about a loss of “Catholic identity”.

I am not sure that, if in my lifetime, I will see the true “Spirit of VII” at work. My guess is that it will be about another 40-50 years before the pendulum finally settles. So for now, all I can do is be as reverent and prayerful as I can be, and be an example to others.
 
I attended Mass before Vatican II and it was beautiful.

To those who want to understand the problems of the period, one needs to look beyond Vatican II to see who the instigators were: the Hippies, the drug dealers and a few judges and lawyers. Those who said OK to adult bookstores, strip clubs and abortion. Catholic identity was attacked by provocateurs whose primary purpose was to lead astray.

A Head Shop opened in my neighborhood in the 1970s. It had underground newspapers and underground comix. The immoral of the story was anarchy, communism, marxism, hate your country, disrespect anyone over 30 and certainly don’t trust them, and throw marriage out the window.

At first, no one knew what to make of it. Then, very gradually, over a 40 year period, we are here. If anybody wants to know why, it’s this: kindly, trusting and compassionate Catholics were lied to.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I attended Mass before Vatican II and it was beautiful

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Hi Ed, do you remember hearing any specific comments from older family members or parishioners regarding the new Mass ?
 
Yes. I was in Catholic school at the time and we were told that the priest was facing us and the Mass was in English to better enhance our understanding and participation. We had Latin in high school but it was phased out by the time I graduated in 1973.

Older people did ask questions but our pastor was very accessible and reassured them that the Mass, itself, was unchanged. I lived in a close-knit neighborhood and heard no complaints. My parents didn’t say anything and people went to Church as before. The older parishioners, particularly ladies, would continue to go to pray the rosary. We had devotions as always and Stations of the Cross as always. A little later, the prohibition about eating meat on Friday was lifted but it was understood that we could continue. The character of the people in the Church was greatly affected by the strangers who appeared outside and who encouraged people I knew to try illegal drugs, have sex with their girlfriends and to stop listening to their parents. We were promised a Woodstock Nation that was an illusion. Illegal drugs were cool in the underground press as opposed to dangerous.

I had an encounter with a concerned mom when I was in my mid-teens. She asked me why her son was taking drugs, hanging out with the wrong crowd and stopped listening to her. I didn’t know what to say. I think when all this started in the late 1960s, most people did not know what to make of it. The cover story was: Peace, Love, Stop the War. After that – nothing but hedonism and drug abuse.

God bless,
Ed
 
Thanks for taking time to reply Ed. I was still too young to remember much, but I certainly remember how those who didn’t smoke pot were considered “square”.

No matter how well intended, the Church becoming less strict during those days sure didn’t help. I ran with the wrong crowd and almost lost the Faith, but by God’s grace, never got strung out on drugs, Deo gratias.
 
At_Trent said:
Hi Ed, do you remember hearing any specific comments from older family members or parishioners regarding the new Mass ?
Click to expand...
I’ve known lots of older Catholics, some from the US, some from Europe. I’ve never heard one (apart from the forums) that didn’t think that the post-VII Church was an imrovement. I take that with a grain of salt, however, devoted though I am to the OF, just as I take it with a grain of salt when I hear that the pre-VII Church was perfect, the golden age, etc.

I’ve read in several sources (I think one was Pope Benedict) that the periods after councils were periods of upheaval. When you consider the history of the Church, 50 years really isn’t a lot of time. I agree with the poster that said things would eventually swing to the middle path (probably thus alienating both extremes).
 
There was no need for the Council, no major heresy to address.
There was no need for the ‘reforms’ carried out in its name, either.

If neither had happened we would have lost nothing. The Vat. II council added nothing to our faith and has been used as an excuse to try to mutate it.

Thanks to it and what came after there’re no local TLM to me in the ‘Island of Saints and Scholars’.
Thanks to it and what came after Catholics now have no fear of Hell.
Thanks to it and what came after there’s not much difference between a modern church and a school meeting hall.
Thanks to it and what came after there’s not much difference between a modern Mass and a school meeting. Just add a consecration.

I don’t think even Novus Ordo fans know quite how ignorant the current generation are of their faith. Some call for “more cathecisis” without realisng that it’s a wasteland out there: the ignorant can’t teach the ignorant.

All thanks to Vatican II. It opened a crack in the Church and the wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing burst it wide open.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I’ve known lots of older Catholics, some from the US, some from Europe. I’ve never heard one (apart from the forums) that didn’t think that the post-VII Church was an imrovement. I take that with a grain of salt, however, devoted though I am to the OF, just as I take it with a grain of salt when I hear that the pre-VII Church was perfect, the golden age, etc.

I’ve read in several sources (I think one was Pope Benedict) that the periods after councils were periods of upheaval. When you consider the history of the Church, 50 years really isn’t a lot of time. I agree with the poster that said things would eventually swing to the middle path (probably thus alienating both extremes).
Click to expand...
It is distressing to see superficial observations without specifics and somewhat extremist views.

Pre-Vatican II was not perfect, but we lived – lived – out our faith in our daily lives. The same after. Some people post here as if the Mass was some sort of template that if one item changed then it would damage your faith and you begin behaving differently. That is a falsehood.

Vatican II did not change what Catholics believed, it was outsiders promoting illegal drugs, hedonism and an anti-God and anti-authority lifestyle.

God bless,
Ed
 
Sacrosanctum Concilium was used to wreak havoc on sacred art within our churches and to put an end to beloved pious devotions,
 
blaiselfd5 said:
Results are for research i’m conducting for a paper.
Click to expand...
Voluntary response polls are inherently biased, as most respondents feel very strongly, and usually negatively. I would look for studies in theological journals
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top