What are the most common misconceptions attributed to the "spirit of Vatican II?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Conciliar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Conciliar

Guest
The Council did away with Latin in the Mass.

Marian devotion is pre-Vatican II. The Council downplayed that.

These are just a couple of common “spirit of Vatican II” misconceptions. What are some of the others you have come acroos?

I am working on a presentation, and your (name removed by moderator)ut would be helpful. Thanks in advance!
 
Here are the fruits of Vatican II that I was was taught in a class for for catechists sponsored by my archdiocese.

Salvation outside the Church can be expected.

What the Pope teaches is not that important.

Personal conscience is the supreme judge on matters of faith and morals.

Jesus was nothing more than a “good man”.

Jesus may have had Mary Magdelene as His wife. So what, He was a “man who had needs”.

Stop capitalizing personal pronouns when refering to God. We no longer need to capitalize He, Him or His.

Besides, God may be a she (note no capitals!).

All people are going to Heaven.

Mortal sin doesn’t really exist.

God did not create anything, even the universe.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is not that important. She may not be very blessed and may not even have been a virgin.

Being a “good” is the most important thing there is. “Good” means you give money to the Archbishiop and communist organizations.

Martin Luther King, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin (!) are contemporary saints. (Stalin is a bit problematic.)

The Church has comnitted the worst attrocities the world has ever known.

Mass attendance is completely optional and up to the individual.

Failure to impoverish yourself for the Archbishop’s annual appeal is the only sin that will keep you out of Heaven.

Women priestesses is what God has in mind.

There is no such thing as heresy or apostasy.

Islam is a religion of peace and has never been opposed the Christianity.(!) All Moslems will go to Heaven. (What is Heaven anyway?)

Heaven does not actually exist. (Hell most certainly does not exist!) The only thing that matters is what we do right now.

I am sure I could come up with a few more, but I am running a bit low on charity at the moment. I feel it is important for me to add that I do not buy any of these lies.
 
Wow! The things I never learned or read in V2 documents! Guess it’s time to go back and read them again.:rolleyes:

I think the one I’ve heard most is the “outlawing” of Latin, and close behind would be “approval of the Masonic religion”.
 
I bet no one could find these statements in any of the official Vatican II documents.

You should be very careful about what you “say came out of Vatican II” without sources to back it up. There were many things that people assumed was implied by Vatican II because they heard the message of modernizing the Church message yet lost the context for that modernization, consistent with the teachings of the early church fathers. Uncoupling the two points has caused for many misinterpretations of what Vatican II said.

Cardnal Ratzinger wrote some good things on the subject - I read them in “God’s Choice” by George Weigel, but they are published elsewhere. I suspect if you do your homework you will find what Vatican II said to be very orthodox; where people took it after, not always so orthodox :confused:
 
awalt said:
I bet no one could find these statements in any of the official Vatican II documents.

You should be very careful about what you “say came out of Vatican II” without sources to back it up. There were many things that people assumed was implied by Vatican II because they heard the message of modernizing the Church message yet lost the context for that modernization, consistent with the teachings of the early church fathers. Uncoupling the two points has caused for many misinterpretations of what Vatican II said.

Cardnal Ratzinger wrote some good things on the subject - I read them in “God’s Choice” by George Weigel, but they are published elsewhere. I suspect if you do your homework you will find what Vatican II said to be very orthodox; where people took it after, not always so orthodox :confused:
Click to expand...
But wait…
Both the OP and the following post speak of the “Spirit” of VII and the fruits.

I think that if someone goes through the actual documents, like Mother Angelica and her sisters did, many would be shocked that none of this is there.
 
rpp said:
Failure to impoverish yourself for the Archbishop’s annual appeal is the only sin that will keep you out of Heaven.
Click to expand...
A-Number one!

The only time our Pastor (God Bless him and give him long life) will talk about money is at this time!
 
Maybe I am missing something, but those didn’t look like fruits to me?

I have a read a number of the documents in their entirety for classes - I don’t don’t recall seeing any of that list. I think I would have remembered too, if I did, as they seem pretty far out there…
 
That is the point…these things were not truly a result of the Council…however, they have been implemented falsely in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
awalt said:
Maybe I am missing something, but those didn’t look like fruits to me?

I have a read a number of the documents in their entirety for classes - I don’t don’t recall seeing any of that list. I think I would have remembered too, if I did, as they seem pretty far out there…
Click to expand...
 
Hehe. I suppose this is a pot-stirring answer, but here is my favorite misconception about it.

“If we throw out everything taught by Vatican II and go back to the way the church was in 1960, we’d be much better off.”

IMO, such an attitude demolishes the authority of ALL ecumenical councils and reduces us to protestants, reliant only on ourselves and our own learning to discern the will of God. Personally, I think Vatican II was as inspired and infallible as any other council and that history will barely mention the chaos that ensued for 50-75 years after the council - just like many of the other importatn councils!
 
rpp said:
Here are the fruits of Vatican II that I was was taught in a class for for catechists sponsored by my archdiocese.

Salvation outside the Church can be expected.

What the Pope teaches is not that important.

Personal conscience is the supreme judge on matters of faith and morals.

Jesus was nothing more than a “good man”.

Jesus may have had Mary Magdelene as His wife. So what, He was a “man who had needs”.

Stop capitalizing personal pronouns when refering to God. We no longer need to capitalize He, Him or His.

Besides, God may be a she (note no capitals!).

All people are going to Heaven.

Mortal sin doesn’t really exist.

God did not create anything, even the universe.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is not that important. She may not be very blessed and may not even have been a virgin.

Being a “good” is the most important thing there is. “Good” means you give money to the Archbishiop and communist organizations.

Martin Luther King, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin (!) are contemporary saints. (Stalin is a bit problematic.)

The Church has comnitted the worst attrocities the world has ever known.

Mass attendance is completely optional and up to the individual.

Failure to impoverish yourself for the Archbishop’s annual appeal is the only sin that will keep you out of Heaven.

Women priestesses is what God has in mind.

There is no such thing as heresy or apostasy.

Islam is a religion of peace and has never been opposed the Christianity.(!) All Moslems will go to Heaven. (What is Heaven anyway?)

Heaven does not actually exist. (Hell most certainly does not exist!) The only thing that matters is what we do right now.

I am sure I could come up with a few more, but I am running a bit low on charity at the moment. I feel it is important for me to add that I do not buy any of these lies.
Click to expand...
Every one of these things I wrote was presented to me as being from vatican II. That is the point. This is what people are saying.

Every one of these things is a theological innovation.

After a my own careful and guided study of all the Vatican II documents, I found support for none of these. At best some are gross distortions but many were just inventions and “innovations”.

Let me repeat, none of this can be found in any of the VCII documents. But many liberal/modernist/cafeteria Catholics falsly claim they are there. People who make these false claims include not just lay people and professional theologians, but nuns, brothers, deacons priests and bishops.

Never for get this important formula.

I + T = H

and

H + I = A.

Where:
I = Innovation
T = Theology
H = Heresy
A = Apostasy
 
manualman said:
Hehe. I suppose this is a pot-stirring answer, but here is my favorite misconception about it.

“If we throw out everything taught by Vatican II and go back to the way the church was in 1960, we’d be much better off.”

IMO, such an attitude demolishes the authority of ALL ecumenical councils and reduces us to protestants, reliant only on ourselves and our own learning to discern the will of God. Personally, I think Vatican II was as inspired and infallible as any other council and that history will barely mention the chaos that ensued for 50-75 years after the council - just like many of the other importatn councils!
Click to expand...
Well, I think that is often said by people who believe what they have been told about what is in the VCII documents. We can throw out the most recent Church Council, VCII about as easily as we can throw out the first Church Council, the Council in Jerusalem as recounted in the Acts of the Apostles.

What needs to happen is a wholsales house-cleaning of al these false spirit-of-Vatican-II wolves. I have read the documents and found it pretty easy reading. I would encourage everyone to pick up a copy or log on to the Vatican website and download them for free.
 
That is the point…these things were not truly a result of the Council…however, they have been implemented falsely in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
Click to expand...
Doh! I get it now, sorry for being a dummy :confused:
 
The most common misconception is that the Novus Ordo was called for by Vatican II
 
For a relatively quick and easily understandable read on the subject, I suggest Ralph McInerny’s “What Went Wrong with Vatican II”. EWTN has the entire text here.

There really is no justification within the documents for many of the problems which have been highlighted by other posts on this thread. Just dissenting theologians looking for an explanation, and apparently the ‘modernizing’ council is an easy target–“oh look how much changed then! we simply must be allowed to do/say/believe this!”
 
My favorite “Spirit” (but not really in there) teachings of Vatican II:

** that there is nothing “special” about being ordained

** that nuns aren’t supposed to wear habits anymore

** that we need to teach “community” instead of doctrine

** that the Baltimore Catechism is no longer valid

** that the Roman Missal is just a “guideline” for how Mass should be celebrated

** that it is wrong to refer to the Mass as a sacrifice when it is really a meal :rolleyes:

** that Adoration (or even genuflection) of the Blessed Sacrament is “old fashioned” and bordering on idolatry

** that it is ok to consider the Bible as errant and even “just” a collection of fables and stories

** the wreckovation of our Churches :mad:

** that one can “keep the Lord’s Day holy” in one’s own way and that includes going to non-Catholic services instead of Mass or just spending time in prayer if that “feels” better
 
Ha…

I have to tell you this comment from a Trendy Nun (habit-less and liberal) where I live, about black vestments and funerals.

Made me laugh a lot when I got told this.

In Reference to a proposed use of Black vestments at a funeral, she replied:

“What about Vatican II and the Resurrection?”
 
Thanks all. I appreciate the posts.

I also like the mistaken claim that the Council somehow watered down the image of the “institutional” Church’s hierchical model. It ends up that the word “hierarchy” and its derivitives appear 25 times in Lumen Gentium alone, and nowhere is it preceded by “no longer.” : )
 
Rach620 said:
For a relatively quick and easily understandable read on the subject, I suggest Ralph McInerny’s “What Went Wrong with Vatican II”. EWTN has the entire text here.
Click to expand...
I just (yesterday) finished reading this book and thought it was very concise. McInerny basically boils down the “crisis” to an issue with authority, beginning with the dissenters (some theologians and such) who misled the lay Catholic with confusing ideas about forming their conscience…that is was okay to disagree with the Church on matters of faith and morals, act contrary to the Church’s teachings, and still remain a Catholic in good standing. The book was very clear, to the point, and very interesting! I highly recommend it.
 
rpp said:
Here are the fruits of Vatican II that I was was taught in a class for for catechists sponsored by my archdiocese.

Salvation outside the Church can be expected.
Click to expand...
Was the pre-Vatican II teaching some form of Feeneyism, insisting that only those within the visible fold of the Catholic Church had any hope of salvation whatsoever?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top