What fruit do you believe has come from Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joyfulandactive
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joyfulandactive

Guest
I believe my own conversion is a direct result of Vatican II. I was an unbaptised atheist that encountered God through meeting some young adults in 1987 who were part of a Charismatic Catholic youth prayer group that was very devout and orthodox in their beliefs and practice. The prayer group was started by a group of young adults that were members of an intentional lay community. The fact that lay people came together to form a community to live out the faith and evangelize and believe that was their calling, is, as I understand it, a direct response to the documents of Vatican II which emphasized the call to holiness and mission of the entire church, including the laity.

I also believe that the influx of people from especially Protestant denominations is the fruit of Vatican II which invited us to be open to our separated brethren. Many of them in turn were able to use their gifts to reach those in their own denominations and explain the church to them in their own language, so to speak. To untangle theological misconceptions they might have for example. The extremes of western culture in the second half of the twentieth century created a crisis for so many Christian communities and the stability of the church was a boat in our continued very rocky storm.

I know many people have the opinion that Vatican II caused too many changes in the church too fast and meant we lost many Catholics. In some ways I agree (the lack of catechisis for example) however, I think without Vatican II the collapse of the church could have been much worse. Vatican II gave the church the flexibility it needed to cope with the onslaught coming from the 1960s onward. We have learnt so much from our mistakes in the past 50 years and now with this huge crisis in leadership I feel the Holy Spirit is doing an almighty housecleaning and preparation for the future. I know so many Catholics who are in a constant state of openness to deeper conversion, being more and more committed to their faith and more willing to take on tasks such as teaching and evangelizing. I know I have been very blessed with the parishes and communities I have been part of.
 
Last edited:
A subject where fools rush in and angles dare to tread.

Suffice it to say I think the Church has decided to do it, it has been done and many find the changes to be positive. The actual judgement of its fruits I think should be done at a very safe distance some couple of centuries from now by dispassionate scholars.
 
Last edited:
You’d have to admit though, that even the Eastern Orthodox has seen a similar drop. As have protestants. Searching for a simple answer, and a single point of failure I think is futile.

Its just the sign of the times.
 
joyfulandactive said:
…
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church was described by Cardinal Gerhard Müller as “the Council’s primary fruit”.

Also the revised canon law is excellent, which includes that of the eastern Catholic churches sui iuris, has clarified how the Church organizes and governs herself, especially in light of the changes from the Vatican Councils I and II.

The restoration of Eastern Catholic liturgy and sacramental discipline has been a good fruit.

The use of the vernacular language in the Mass. (Before the Mass of St. Pope Paul VI in 1969, the Mass of 1962 was translated to English and used for a time. From the plenary session in April 1964, the bishops of the USA permitted English).
 
Last edited:
With the second Vatican Council the Church sought to structure and present her message in such a way as to reveal God’s light and love to the world in a broader, bolder, fresher, and more open manner than had been done before. She sought to overcome and shirk the more isolationist and defensive mentality that had naturally become the order of the day in different times but was yet inferior to the magnanimous position the Church should find herself in as the benevolent servant of all humankind, understanding while unafraid of the ignorance that would oppose the gospel, the good news she’s been given to share.
 
Last edited:
I would contend, while I’m no expert and didn’t even pay attention to the Church 30 years ago, that it has increased the number of Protestants coming home, improved the understanding of Church teaching among non-Catholics, and opened the doors to better understanding because there’s been some demystifying and opening of doors. I also think more lay people are seriously involved in the study of their faith.

I think there’s a long way to go; it’s far from perfect. I just doubt I’d be here with you (or anywhere) without it.
 
The teachings of Vat II will take centuries to be fully implemented and understood. The effects will be increasingly beneficial. Meanwhile it’s nothing if not myopic to think that Vat II produced the kinds of effects you imply here, even if many people definitely used and abused certain teachings-or the nature of the council as a whole-as a license to justify their own agendas and excesses, generally by ignoring Church teachings incidentally.

But Vat II didn’t precipitate the major upheaval in moral changes, experimentation with human freedom, anti-authoritarianism, hyper-rationalism, or the tendency to question any and all sacred precepts that modern societies underwent in the 20th century; rather it anticipated those changes if anything.

In any case Christianity will continue to shrink to a smaller footprint-both within and outside of the Catholic fold.
 
Last edited:
Most of the bad fruits of VII were a result of liberal bishops hijacking the council and implementing their agenda when the council documents said quite the opposite, and the increasingly liberal secular world in the 60s. The good fruits off the top of my head are “Humanæ Vitæ” and the universal call to holiness.
 
I particularly like the universal call to holiness. Updating the Liturgy of the Hours to make it more widely accessible has benefited untold numbers, particularly laypeople. The restoration of the permanent diaconate and the restoration of the catechumenate are additional fruits.

And while its hard to prove, I think that without the Second Vatican Council, the Church world have faded into irrelevance in the modern world.
 
DavidPeterson said:
That’s the only thing I think you could say is its "greatest " fruit.
Click to expand...
You can’t blame that on Vatican II. The spirit of rebellion was already in the air prior to Vatican II, the influence of music, television and Hollywood revolutionized culture itself; all those nuns and priest that rebelled inside the Church were the same people in the Church prior to Vatican II. Protestant attendance also plummeted at the same rate.

There wa something about Elvis, the Beatles and the horde of other ambassadors of culturechange that impacted generations of Catholics and non Catholics alike through music, movies and entertainment.

Fashion and the spread of secularism plus the gospel of Hollywood has had an impact on the way people dress, think, act and behave. And it was Our Lady of Fatima that predicted that many fashions would come that would offend God.

As far as statistics, the same thing could be said for Jewish synagogue attendance. Most Jews today are atheists compared to 1965.

Vatican II came just at the right time to ride the wave during these perilous times.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
joyfulandactive said:
I know I have been very blessed with the parishes and communities I have been part of.
Click to expand...
Same here @joyfulandactive .

The fruits of the Second Vatican Council - - - - - - - - - Opening the Scriptures more to lay people and to study by theologians , Liturgical reform long overdue , ridding the Church of the “Guetto Mentality” , Ecumenism , furthering of episcopal collegiality , decentralisation , the emphasis on the call to holiness for ALL , dialogue with non-Christians , plus the freedom of whingers about the Council to come on here , whereas their whinging would no doubt have put their words on the Index prior to the Council .
 
David, the lack of vocations is heartbreaking. On the other hand I really do not believe it would have been any different without Vatican II, the pressures outside the church are enormous. Instead I think as a church we have recognized where the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction and we need a balance in all things.

As we have seen, those orders that were able to adapt and yet stay true to Catholic orthodoxy have survived. Other newer orders are growing because of their balance of orthodoxy with an embracing of the charisma the community has been gifted with. In every stage of the church’s life new movements have responded to the needs of the age. I believe that is happening now. I personally know a married couple that were called to found an orthodox lay community 30 years ago, it is still growing and has born tremendous fruit. I also know a woman who founded a new community of sisters which is about 10 years old and has 5 vowed sisters and is absolutely loved by the local bishop. Both communities have tremendous support within the church.

More and more I am encountering incredible people serving the people of God as Catholics.

I 100% agree with the poster who said that Vatican II anticipated the era we are in now. I also believe so many people have recognized how much of our tradition was neglected or ignored that now needs to be reclaimed. All the Christian churches have been rocked in recent decades, those that moved too far from Christ are sadly dying on the vine. But we have been blessed with St. John Paul II and Benedict during this period, the Lord loves us and is caring for us. What seems to be happening now is a huge revelation of darkness in the church that we must address. I wonder if this would have been brought into the light without Vatican II? Also maybe without Vatican II and the confidence we all now have in our baptismal call means we are confident and have faith that the Holy Spirit will see us through.

Maybe without Vatican II the devastation of scandal on the church would have been much worse. Much of the worst abuse happened pre-Vatican II.
 
bobperk said:
Plenty of fruits have come from Vatican II: McCarrick, James Martin, the Chicago priests who got caught in the back seat of a car in Miami a couple months ago, etc. The list is endless
Click to expand...
All that stuff has always been happening in the Church, only today it is coming to light. McCarrick became a priest in 1958, and many abuse cases date to the 1940s. Maciel the founder of the Legionaries had cases brought against him dating to the 1950s—before Vatican II.

All the heresies in the history of Catholic Church that the Hurch had to refute were heresies spread by bad priests and bad bishops. Sex abuse is not a Catholic problem; the Baptist have it just as bad; simply look up www.stopbaptistpredators.org

But sexual abuse among clerics has always been around—they were also dealing with it in the Middle Ages:
https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2...clergy-look-to-medieval-times-says-historian/
 
Last edited:
I disagree with those who describe the laity pre Vatican 2 as passive, less active. Abortion could not have been legalized anywhere Catholics had even a strong minority. Catholic laity banded together in the Legion of Decency and had a significant impact on movies from 1934 to the 1960s.

Laity were far more willing to bring Catholic values into everyday situations: their marriages, childrens schools, politics, etc. What we have since V2 is more laity involved in church activities, and less committed to marriage, to Christian values in the workplace or the Public Square. We are more passive in dealing i with “the World”.
 
Last edited:
My parish is only 15 years old and although of course was built for our current Latin rite Mass form is very traditional in design. The parishioners had a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut into the design. We also just added a new bell tower. Father said to me today that if he’s not getting calls from neighbors complaining about the noise we’re doing it wrong! So the bell tower witnesses to the whole area. Our church is actually not in a residential area before you think our priest was uncharitable! We had to expand the parish hall and add more classrooms too in 2018 as the parish is growing. The school we support is at a neighboring parish.
 
Think of how much worse the state of Catholicism would’ve been without Vat II reforms.

Or can’t we know? Hmm…

Have there been any rigorous, peer-reviewed research studies that followed the scientific method?

That vocations declined during and after the reforms could very easily be nothing more that coincidence.

We can list what we like or don’t like, but we can’t draw any conclusions about what would have happened if …
 
The last two sentences before the last are totally false. I see “Vatican II as scapegoat” brought out time and again.
 
Last edited:
Coincidence? Hardly. I was there as was Pope Benedict.

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top