What affect has Vatican II had on the Catholic Church?

[Langdell]

I voted “positive,” but that doesn’t really capture my view on the question.

By way of background, I was born in 1959 and therefore have only very vague memories of the traditional Latin mass. What I see in my mind’s eye is a priest facing the altar, with no table between himself and the congregation. I also seem to remember some hubbub when a big, marble, table-like altar was installed in front of the tabernacle in the church we attended.

Anyway, if the OP is using “Vatican II” to mean the ecumenical council itself and its official documents, then it’s hard for me to see it as anything other than positive, since otherwise Christ would be allowing His Church to go seriously astray.

OTOH, if the OP is using “Vatican II” to mean all the changes in various dioceses and parishes that were/are attributed to Vatican II or the “spirit” of Vatican II, then I’d have to say it’s quite a mixture of good and bad.

.

 

[Adeodatus]

Voluntary response polls are inherently biased, as most respondents feel very strongly, and usually negatively. I would look for studies in theological journals

Hilarious. The guy from Steubenville is hedging against an accurate response to the poll.

It’s obvious to anyone with a lick of sense that the effect of VII has all but destroyed the Catholic Church. We should ask the Holy Spirit to help us pick up the pieces.

 

[dang71]

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.

i’ll bet you believe only those attending the EF (such as yourself) are going to heaven. your post is the epitome of pride.

 

[CWBetts]

Hilarious. The guy from Steubenville is hedging against an accurate response to the poll.

It’s obvious to anyone with a lick of sense that the effect of VII has all but destroyed the Catholic Church. We should ask the Holy Spirit to help us pick up the pieces.

My comment can be found in any introductory statistics book.

 

[Layman]

i’ll bet you believe only those attending the EF (such as yourself) are going to heaven. your post is the epitome of pride.

I don’t see how you can infer that from what I said.

What have Vatican II and the subsequent changes added to our faith?

 

[edwest2]

Hilarious. The guy from Steubenville is hedging against an accurate response to the poll.

It’s obvious to anyone with a lick of sense that the effect of VII has all but destroyed the Catholic Church. We should ask the Holy Spirit to help us pick up the pieces.

That is simply not true. I watched what was damaging people of faith as it happened and it certainly wasn’t Vatican II.

God bless,
Ed

 

[At_Trent]

i’ll bet you believe only those attending the EF (such as yourself) are going to heaven. your post is the epitome of pride.

Right or wrong, the forum member answered the question on topic in a honest fashion. Blunt, but honest.

Why do you attack it in a way that offers nothing to the discussion, instead just an ad hominem attack ? I see nothing in his/her post that would lead to your assumption. The part you put in bold does not condemn the Council, but rather points out that there are those who used it as a green light to stray from Tradition.

The Tridentine Mass can’t guarantee the lukewarm attending it a place in Heaven, no more than the OF can destroy the Faith of one strong in it.

 

[At_Trent]

I don’t see how you can infer that from what I said.

What have Vatican II and the subsequent changes added to our faith?

Aw, you posted as I was typing a reply. Anyhow, I applaud your honesty.

 

[CradleCath]

This may help:

catholicexchange.com/2010/03/05/127776/

 

[Rites]

I voted negative. As Layman said, what has Vatican II added to the faith? What have we gained from the Council and its aftermath? Nothing but dissent and confusion. History may prove otherwise, but that’s something I am extremely doubtful of.

I certainly don’t accuse Vatican II of heresy outright, but I fail entirely to see the merit in all these claims of “misinterpretation.” If all this devastation truly is a case of people not reading the texts correctly, then it’s the biggest such happening in history.

Rites

 

[ChurchTorch]

I would not apologize. Though I don’t suggest anyone go running to a traditional chapel not in full communion with Rome…

You don’t understand what I said. Polling is not about hit-and-miss opinions. It’s applied mathematics…

 

[ChurchTorch]

Voluntary response polls are inherently biased, as most respondents feel very strongly, and usually negatively. I would look for studies in theological journals

Not necessarily – but great effort must be made to control the variables of the poll. In this case the population here on CAF is already terribly skewed. I’m not suggesting that’s good or bad with regard to belief but that variable definitely needs to be taken into consideration.

 

[ChurchTorch]

I voted negative. As Layman said, what has Vatican II added to the faith? What have we gained from the Council and its aftermath? Nothing but dissent and confusion. History may prove otherwise, but that’s something I am extremely doubtful of.

I certainly don’t accuse Vatican II of heresy outright, but I fail entirely to see the merit in all these claims of “misinterpretation.” If all this devastation truly is a case of people not reading the texts correctly, then it’s the biggest such happening in history.

Rites

You need to look at this a bit deeper. You have absolutely no idea what would have happened in the Church had VC2 never happened. It’s possible that far worse dissent and apathy would have occurred. I simply don’t know, no one really does.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

That article is SO good that I put it on my “favorites” list. Hope we can discuss it more later.

 

[ChurchTorch]

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.

You clearly do not know how to think in a critical manner and that impacts a great many postings on these forums. You offer your opinion that VC2 is the reason for some problems that may or may not actually exist. They key is that you really don’t know.

Sure you can list items that raise one’s emotions but all that does is take the focus off the real question: What would the Church be like today had VC2 never taken place? You cannot answer that, you can only provide an opinion. We would need to know that in order to truly ascertain the impact of VC2.

 

[Rites]

You need to look at this a bit deeper. You have absolutely no idea what would have happened in the Church had VC2 never happened. It’s possible that far worse dissent and apathy would have occurred. I simply don’t know, no one really does.

Did I claim that I had insight into alternate realities?

You are completely right in that no one truly knows what would have happened had Vatican II not taken place. But the fact is it did happen, and now look at us. There has to be some kind of connection. It is impossible that Vatican II and what went on afterwards are not somehow related. The Council abandoned the Scholastic method, refused to formally condemn anything, and was run by the most liberal “theologians” alive at the time. That alone is enough for me to be suspicious of it.

 

[CWBetts]

Did I claim that I had insight into alternate realities?

You are completely right in that no one truly knows what would have happened had Vatican II not taken place. But the fact is it did happen, and now look at us. There has to be some kind of connection. It is impossible that Vatican II and what went on afterwards are not somehow related. The Council abandoned the Scholastic method, refused to formally condemn anything, and was run by the most liberal “theologians” alive at the time. That alone is enough for me to be suspicious of it.

I think you are confusing precedence with causation. Causation must be proven, and cannot simply be assumed. Let me give you another example. On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by terrorists. That football season, the Superbowl was won by the New England Patriots. Therefore, if the United States would not have been attacked, and there would not have been a renewed sense of patriotism, the Patriots would not have won. I know this is preposterous, but then again is blaming Vatican 2 for things that were going on even before the council convened.

 

[Roy5]

I come from a mixed Catholic-Protestant background. To me Vatican II was very positive, a move forward.

As a child (I am a senior) I recall how Catholics could not even enter a Protestant church (a mortal sin!), how Catholic priests had no association with Protestant clergy, how mixed marriages had to be performed in rectories rather than at the altar, how (in my home village) there was tension whenever there was a bacculaureate (sp?) service at public high school graduations if it were to be held in a Protestant church, etc. The Catholic and Protestant sides of the family lived at peace, but some of both were convinced that those not of their faith were destined to hell. A ridiculous situation. I also recall how the mass was all in Latin, there was no congregational singing, the priests were considered all but infallible, the nuns wore penguin-like habits, women (I have been told) were not permitted on the altar except to clean it, mothers often did not attend the baptism of their own new babies - and we could go on and on.

 Certainly Vatican II helped the image of Catholicism among non-Catholics. A new feeling of Christian fellowship emerged, and it still exists in such organizations as Church Women United, ecumenical soup kitchen efforts, local clergy groups, and such. Unfortunately, there are still some within Catholicism who want to go back to the 'good old days'. I don't recall them as being so good, myself. They were a time of silly bigotry, too much of which still lingers, as CAF proves.

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, and all of God's children.

 

[Rites]

I think you are confusing precedence with causation. Causation must be proven, and cannot simply be assumed. Let me give you another example. On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by terrorists. That football season, the Superbowl was won by the New England Patriots. Therefore, if the United States would not have been attacked, and there would not have been a renewed sense of patriotism, the Patriots would not have won. I know this is preposterous, but then again is blaming Vatican 2 for things that were going on even before the council convened.

I do not claim that Vatican II was the direct cause of the abuses that went on after it. As a matter of fact, I am much more inclined to deny that position outright. The Council definitely didn’t call for the immorality of the clergy or loss of faith among the laity. But the fact that so many dissenters claim it for their support is extremely troubling, not because they are necessarily right in their interpretation of its texts or spirit, but that they are even capable of thinking the way they do about it. If the Council was so good, how is it possible for so many people to use it as a justification for their heresy? No one among the modernists would dare to hold up Trent or Vatican I as their charter for sin. Why is it that Vatican II lends itself so easily and so widely to such disasterous misinterpretation (if indeed that is exclusively what it is)?

Now again, I do not say that it directly caused the abuses carried out in its name, but I still think it quite plausable that the majority of these abuses would not have come about were the Council carried out differently or never convened at all.

 

[CWBetts]

I come from a mixed Catholic-Protestant background. To me Vatican II was very positive, a move forward.

As a child (I am a senior) I recall how Catholics could not even enter a Protestant church (a mortal sin!), how Catholic priests had no association with Protestant clergy, how mixed marriages had to be performed in rectories rather than at the altar, how (in my home village) there was tension whenever there was a bacculaureate (sp?) service at public high school graduations if it were to be held in a Protestant church, etc. The Catholic and Protestant sides of the family lived at peace, but some of both were convinced that those not of their faith were destined to hell. A ridiculous situation. I also recall how the mass was all in Latin, there was no congregational singing, the priests were considered all but infallible, the nuns wore penguin-like habits, women (I have been told) were not permitted on the altar except to clean it, mothers often did not attend the baptism of their own new babies - and we could go on and on.

 Certainly Vatican II helped the image of Catholicism among non-Catholics. A new feeling of Christian fellowship emerged, and it still exists in such organizations as Church Women United, ecumenical soup kitchen efforts, local clergy groups, and such. Unfortunately, there are still some within Catholicism who want to go back to the 'good old days'. I don't recall them as being so good, myself. They were a time of silly bigotry, too much of which still lingers, as CAF proves.

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, and all of God's children.

The only negative you list that I consider a positive are the habits. I wish more religious would wear them.