What do people blame Vatican 2 for and why?🤔

[edwest]

In the 1960s, Catholics heard this: “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? All you do is listen to the Pope.”

And I listened to all the Popes from then till now. The authority given to the Pope is not trivial. As the Holy Father, he is to guide the flock. I will take the words of the Pope to heart - always.

 

[fhansen]

I agree, neither the popes or the Church are stupid on this matter. The Holy Spirit would not allow an ecumenical council to fail at all, let alone as miserably as some maintain.

 

[Dovekin]

John XXIII and Vatican 2 unequivocally condemned the errors of the modern world. They opposed war and violence that had plagued the World for most of the last century. Paul VI’s first encyclical, released between sessions of the Council, was a stirring discussion of our need to dialogue with one another. Dialogue was proposed as the alternative to violent confrontation.

This fulfilled some of what Pope John had called for, and laid a firmer foundation for later decrees on ecumenism and interfaith relations. Nostra Aetate on non-Christian religions is a good example; it started by confronting the anti-semitism prevalent in WW2, but ended by accepting whatever is good and true in any place or time, among any people of whatever faith. It chose not to condemn but to dialogue.

That you find this response “underwhelming” probably reflects how successful and important it was. You probably cannot imagine a world where popes were praised for not asking for Jews to be killed. They could be cut out of society, isolated among themselves, but don’t kill them. Now they are elder brothers, God’s chosen people who share a love for God with us.

 

[commenter]

And I should say one of the main reasons why we are in the middle of this confusion is that many people think everything the pope says is an ex cathedra teaching. It’s not catholic to think this way, as it isn’t catholic to despise something he said just because it wasn’t ex cathedra.

I appreciate the research you have done, and contribution to this topic.
Regarding this particular post, you are right to refute both extremes. However we need to be aware of the prevailing climate, dominant temptation, in the West, to challenge or suspect religious authority, whether it be the pope, bishop, pastor, religion teacher.

I’m not denying some err in both directions today, just as some did in the 1950s. We just need to be aware of the CURRENT dominant temptation.

 

[edwest]

“just as some did in the 1950s”???

 

[goout]

People like to blame.
Sinners (all of us) idolize our own personal tastes in worship through both ends of the spectrum.
We idolize our own ways of thinking.
We idolize our own upbringing.
We obsess on the problems of the current age as if they are any worse than Adam and Eve’s shortcomings. Every time has it’s specific problems, and we still respond with skepticism, idolatry, and our own fantasies regarding how it “used to be”.

 

[edwest]

Please, leave me out of the psychotherapy session. History has been recorded.

 

[goout]

Ed, did I single you out? No. You took it personally.

 

[Jimbo]

I think it started happening some time in the 1990s when all the old hippies who were mostly pushing the changes started to age out and new younger people interested in traditions began to take their place.

I grew up in the 80s; going to Catholic School. My father used to refer to the catechism being taught at the time as ‘Be kind to dumb animals’. I just remember it as a time of lessons I didn’t get ‘What would you say to Jesus if you were sitting with him sharing a meal?’ and felt dove banners. Oh so many felt dove banners.

The Church, for whatever reason, abandoned apologetics. I didn’t get that until I was in High School. I did get alot of well meaning relativism.

Looking back, I honestly don’t blame many of those people. The pastor was a good guy, but kind of overwhelmed. The mom’s brought in to teach religion just didn’t have the training, and nothing like the resources we have now. The Nuns we had were a range between bitter traditionalists and whacky new agers.

HS and real catechism/philosophy saved my faith. Then catholic radio hit the scene. Amazing.

To me it shows God is looking out for his Church, no matter how goofy we can get.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

At least you had nuns. I think in grades 1 through 8 in the 70s I had a grand total of 4 nuns, one of whom only taught optional music activities. 3 of the nuns were so old they were past retirement age and they were all in perpetually terrible moods. The fourth nun was a very young new modern nun who caused a scandal by wearing skirts well above the knee along with boots and by dancing in a romantic way with a priest at some parish event. I often wonder if she stayed a nun.

In high school I had a few more nuns but they were mostly so old they literally had one foot in the grave and one of them did die in the middle of the semester. She had obvious dementia and was still teaching, it was kind of painful to sit through her class. It was a blessing, I think, that the Lord took her before she did anything really whack. I did like a couple of the other older nuns who taught Latin and music, and one younger one who seemed to have some sense. I was also rather shocked by the huge number of ex-nuns who were employed as teachers. Seemed like there were more nuns who’d quit and become lay people than nuns who’d stayed in the convent.

 

[Jimbo]

I didn’t have a ton either, probably only a couple more.

I will limit this to just what I experienced, because I don’t want to make broad suggestions when I just don’t have the data. But the convents I knew at the time did seem to have more radical theories regarding things.

I used to half joke that some of the nuns would march past 2 abortion mills to protest martin marietta because they built Tomahawk components.

 

[Dovekin]

I certainly cannot disagree with that sentiment. Words like “insistence” and “avoidance” certainly raise issues to clarify and address. Thankfully, we have excellent magisterial teaching that clarifies what dialogue is about.

My purpose, as in most of my remarks in this thread, was to highlight what I found valuable in in Vatican 2. Too much of the discussion here has been about peripheral issues, like the use of Latin or sexual morality. On those things, Vatican 2 was “underwhelming.” At least 2 major issues in sexual morality was taken off the agenda for Pope Paul to handle on hiis own!

There were issues that were addressed, including human dignity, freedom, war and violence. Not simple “war is anathema” proclamations, but attempts to address the causes, like antisemitism and the demonization of other cultures. Vatican 2 gets blamed for many hings because its strengths are no longer major issues, in part because of what was done.

 

[Dovekin]

Affirming human rights and dialogue as the Council did may have helped fuel the thirst for Glasnost and the need for perestroika, the movements that led to the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union.

We can all come up with hypotheticals about what could have been done. We do not know what kind of a world might have been created. I would rather affirm the teaching of the Council than try to rewrite it. (Although I am sure I have done a bit of rewriting myself.)