What affect has Vatican II had on the Catholic Church?

[blaiselfd5]

Division is the key word here. I understand the reasonings for so many people feeling like Vatican II has hurt catholicism. What i don’t understand is how so many people have been divided over the subject. I bring up the scenerio of a bunch of friends of mine. We all believe in One True Holy Apostolic church…yet i feel divided between them. And it simply because of Vatican II.

Why is it that we can’t all agree that VII, whether we agree with what took place or not, was called upon by God through JPII our then pope? When a football coach makes a controversial call, not all teamates agree with it, but they don’t question him, and they stick together by carrying out his orders.

I am only 27 and never knew the church before VII. I feel deeply drawn to the extreme conservative ways of the church then, and the way churches were “respected” more. What i mean by that is there were no rock bands during mass, people don’t talk in church imediately after mass, no clapping in church, stuff like that. Even though i feel drawn to the old mass, i could NEVER ridicule our church today. Its different then back then, but its still our church, and i believe God has led us to where we are today.

 

[At_Trent]

That’s funny. Most of the hatred I have seen has NOT been from mainstream Catholics

Yea, but you see it on the forums. What % of Roman Catholics actually post on forums ? And what % of those post on controversial topics ?

 

[Lycorth]

Actually, it’s Humanae Vitae. This was the turning point. The cause for the Sexual Revolution and the excuse for all of the attacks on the family and the distorted view of human sexuality that followed and was accelerated by the media:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

How did we get to this point? The Pill, followed by the Hippies, followed by lawyers and judges that helped to legalize sin, including abortion.

God bless,
Ed

Ah, thanks - indeed, this sheds much light on things, especially the amount of selfish dissent that followed this encyclical and the havoc caused in Western civilization.

 

[CradleCath]

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.

The encyclical Humani Generis was written in 1950 & yes, it spoke of the dissidents in the Church. Do you perhaps mean Humanae Vitae (“Of Human Life”)…an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI and promulgated in 1968?

The truth is Pope John XXIII called the council in response to the European dissident “intellectuals”. He was the eternal optimist, sure that he could make them happy.

The Young Turk of Vatican II—and pet of the progressive Catholic media of the time—was Hans Küng. A Swiss-born, movie-star-handsome priest whom Pope John XXIII had made a peritus, or theological adviser, to the council. His follower, Karl Rahner, was also made a peritus. The Belgian Dominican priest, Edward Schillebeeckx,
& Yves Congar, who called for a ‘collegial’ Papacy and rejected the idea of Vicar of Christ were all insidiously working to form a “new Church”. John Courtney Murray, Henri de Lubac, Teilhard de Chardin,
were teaching & writing heresy & good Pope John thought that he could fix it all with a council.

He couldn’t make them happy & had no idea of the manipulation they were capable of, or the influence they had on the worldwide clergy.

It was Cardinal Manning of Westminster, at the time of the First Vatican Council, who said,
"to convoke a General Council, except when absolutely demanded by necessity is to tempt God." I agree. Vatican II should never have happened.

 

[ChurchTorch]

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.

That’s a very refreshing post. I am the first to forget that there WERE some positive fruits stemming from VC2, some of which you mentioned.

In my own opinion, had VC2 not come along there would have been genuine schism in (at least) the USA and it would likely have spread from there. I think the far larger piece would have been at odds with some things the Church did at the time. Great! says the “traditionalist.” The Church would have been smaller in the USA but it would have been purified!

I don’t think it would have played out that way. I think the Holy See would have negotiated a humongous version of the “Truce of 1968” in about 1972 in order to piece the two chunks back together. That would have driven some of the more orthodox Catholics out of the Church, most likely over to Eastern Orthodoxy, further weakening the Catholic Church in the USA.

The Church in the USA today would be in FAR worse shape. What would be left of it at least. That’s my personal opinion.

Sometimes we need to try to think a bit deeper on some of these profoundly difficult issues.

 

[ChurchTorch]

Maybe, but not too much. There was and still is a lot of hatred for the Traditional Roman Church, and what she stood for, both in and out of the Church… You only have to look to some of the posts on this forum to see that.

That sounds like Protestant denomination to be honest…

 

[MIKE46]

That’s a very refreshing post. I am the first to forget that there WERE some positive fruits stemming from VC2, some of which you mentioned.

In my own opinion, had VC2 not come along there would have been genuine schism in (at least) the USA and it would likely have spread from there. I think the far larger piece would have been at odds with some things the Church did at the time. Great! says the “traditionalist.” The Church would have been smaller in the USA but it would have been purified!

I don’t think it would have played out that way. I think the Holy See would have negotiated a humongous version of the “Truce of 1968” in about 1972 in order to piece the two chunks back together. ** That would have driven some of the more orthodox Catholics out of the Church, most likely over to Eastern Orthodoxy, further weakening the Catholic Church in the USA.**
The Church in the USA today would be in FAR worse shape. What would be left of it at least. That’s my personal opinion.

Sometimes we need to try to think a bit deeper on some of these profoundly difficult issues.

I am not real sure what you mean by orthodox Catholics. Are they those of the Eastern Catholic Churches who returned to the Church from the Orthodox or are they the traditionalists?

As to the eastern Catholics, I would say just from the opinions voiced on the Traditional Forum it would seem that many of them are already much more comfortable with the Orthodox in the first place and are in communion with Rome solely because their particular Church is as opposed to any great deal of loyalty on their part personally. I may be wrong and if I am I apologize, but I have seen way too many posts by eastern Catholics which support the Zoghby Initiative which is incompatible with Roman Catholicism on its face, to believe that there is any great deal of satisfaction with the Roman Church among them.

As to the traditionalists, I don’t think anyone who is truly a traditionalist would ever become Orthodox as the belief systems are too different, despite what some of the more ecmenical minded would have you believe…

Except what is there in name only there is not a whole lot of what is recognizable as Catholicism left in the United States. If you don’t believe me head out to the LA Congress one year and attend the closing Mass. I think you will see what I mean.

 

[ChurchTorch]

I am not real sure what you mean by orthodox Catholics. Are they those of the Eastern Catholic Churches who returned to the Church from the Orthodox or are they the traditionalists?

As to the eastern Catholics, I would say just from the opinions voiced on the Traditional Forum it would seem that many of them are already much more comfortable with the Orthodox in the first place and are in communion with Rome solely because their particular Church is as opposed to any great deal of loyalty on their part personally. I may be wrong and if I am I apologize, but I have seen way too many posts by eastern Catholics which support the Zoghby Initiative which is incompatible with Roman Catholicism on its face, to believe that there is any great deal of satisfaction with the Roman Church among them.

As to the traditionalists, I don’t think anyone who is truly a traditionalist would ever become Orthodox as the belief systems are too different, despite what some of the more ecmenical minded would have you believe…

Except what is there in name only there is not a whole lot of what is recognizable as Catholicism left in the United States. If you don’t believe me head out to the LA Congress one year and attend the closing Mass. I think you will see what I mean.

“orthodox” Catholic = Catholic who follows what the Catholic Church actually teaches. An adjective.

“Orthodox” Christians = Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. A noun.

There is no standard definition of what a “traditionalist” Catholic is. Most I come in contact with a fairly quick to cut and run if things get hot.

The “belief systems” of Catholics and the Orthodox are pretty much the same. :yup:

There is a HUGE, HUGE amount of “what is recognizable as Catholicism left in the United States”!! Even in or perhaps particularly in Los Angeles County. I was at the congress last week to attend the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom as celebrated by Bishop Gerald Dino. Extremely reverent and orthodox!

 

[CWBetts]

Yea, but you see it on the forums. What % of Roman Catholics actually post on forums ? And what % of those post on controversial topics ?

In my parish I have NEVER seen any “hatred” towards Tradition or traditonalists. The sky is not falling.

 

[CradleCath]

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 do not always agree with Layman, but this time he’s absolutely right. BTW., I hope that you can point out in his post, WHERE he said anything about anyone “going to heaven”…himself or others.
I don’t see his PRIDE anywhere in his post either. What I see is a great longing for the TLM., that he has been given a RIGHT to attend.

 

[CWBetts]

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.

What WAS needed though was pastoral direction for the People of God in the turbulent 1960’s. If you take time to read the documents, that what they did. And while no new dogmas were promulgated, the Council reiterated dogmas, and even called for the preservation of the Latin. Save your vitriol for something that deserves it , and not an infallible Council.

 

[donanobis]

This poll also mirrors yours. You might want to include it in your stats.

Standardized vs Flexible

 

[Langdell]

In all seriousness: If Vatican II was so bad, why did Christ allow it?



.

 

[At_Trent]

Why is it that we can’t all agree that VII, whether we agree with what took place or not, was called upon by God through JPII our then pope?

Hang on,
VII was called by John XXIII, who died before the close of the Council, and one at his side when he died reported H.H. begged “stop the Council”.

He was followed by Paul VI. Next was pope John Paul. And then John Paul II.

 

[CradleCath]

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

Here you are again, Ed, trying to blame everything that has happened to the Church…low Mass attendance, little belief in the Real Presence, the vast exodus of priests & nuns in the late 60’s-early 70’s, Pederasts ordaining other pederasts…
…on “outside forces”.

What you seem to forget is that, before Vatican II, the world may not have liked us, but they respected us & listened. Actual SERMONS were allowed, sermons that spoke of sin, sermons that spoke out about sex outside of marriage, sermons that stood against artificial contraception & FOR abstinence Sermons that called us to accountability.
I, too, watched what was happening to Catholics during & after the council & it was sad, indeed. Many of us went to Mass expecting guidance about the very issues you mentioned & found instead…sweet, little kumbaya “homilies”.

No outside forces could have brought the 2,000 yr. old Church that Christ created & protects… to it’s knees in 40 years. No, that was an inside job done quite well by Bishops, Cardinals & God help us, we…the laity… let it happen. I have no love for Martin Luther, but could his teachings have reached so many people if our own Church had not been going through a period of corruption?

I truly believe that the turmoil & pain that the Church has gone through these past 10 or so years… learning that our hierarchy had paid out billions of dollars in hush money, watching them bankrupt diocese after diocese to pay off victims of PRIESTS for God’s sake… was a chastisement from God.

"Society is to blame"??? I don’t think so.

 

[Layman]

And what is the penalty for saying the wrong Mass?

Lack of preferment. Being shunned by your superiors. Ructions in your parish if you put forward changing an existing Mass to be more in line with tradition or even with what the Council actually envisaged.

I have a notion it’s easier for a priest to attend, in an official capacity, a Protestant or ecumenical service nowadays than say the old rite. It’s less controversial, even approved.

Priest standing shoulder to shoulder with Anglican vicar at a worship service: OK.
Priest standing shoulder-to-shoulder with SSPX priest at a TLM: Almost unheard of.

Funny old world, innit? Mighty queer how that situation should now be the case. SSPX viewed with deep suspicion while Protestants are actively courted but not converted.

 

[Layman]

What WAS needed though was pastoral direction for the People of God in the turbulent 1960’s. If you take time to read the documents, that what they did. And while no new dogmas were promulgated, the Council reiterated dogmas, and even called for the preservation of the Latin. Save your vitriol for something that deserves it , and not an infallible Council.

If the Council promulgated no new dogma and was pastoral then how can it also be infallible?

I thought only the Pope, when making a statement about dogma, ex-cathedra, and stating that the following statement was to be deemed infallible, had that protection.

 

[FrancisFan516]

Vatican II did not change what Catholics believed,

Perhaps not on paper, but it did open the gate to the Sanctuary allowing priests who could change what parishoners would believe to step up.

 

[CradleCath]

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.

Good post. Anyone who** actually reads the documents **from the council, can see how ambiguous they are. They have loopholes that one can drive a truck through.

 

[Lycorth]

In all seriousness: If Vatican II was so bad, why did Christ allow it?

God’s wisdom is inscrutable but always providential. We will know why the Lord allowed VII and the fallout of it to happen eventually - we must trust that He had some greater purpose in mind.

It’s either that or believe the Council was up to no good. As much as I decry what has become of the Church since VII, I’ll only ascribe ill intent to a tiny minority of the Council at best (for statistics’ sake). Either the Council meant ill or God has some greater goal in mind that we cannot yet perceive.

I tend to speculate to myself that perhaps God allowed what came to pass in order to test our Faith and help it to grow; hard times are good for the soul it is said and perhaps Christendom needed to lose some of the richness and discipline that we took for granted, in order to spur genuine and heartfelt devotion and reverence. When tradition was enjoined upon us, it can be taken for granted after awhile, and spiritual laziness can set in. Perhaps God knew that the Church needed a shaking up, and the future will see our traditions brought back in force and supported by a laity who has learned their value and is clamoring for them?

Perhaps this is our “forty years” of spiritual wandering in the desert?

Speculation, of course, but I choose to try and see hope in all of this.

Funny old world, innit? Mighty queer how that situation should now be the case. SSPX viewed with deep suspicion while Protestants are actively courted but not converted.

Aye, it’s funny indeed. Funny sad, not funny ha-ha.

Evidently, our time of testing and reorientation is not yet to be finished