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.
One of the many fruits is that it has reoriented the Church to its original objective reminding the Catholic laity that we must live the gospel in the world. Service in the world as Christians. Archbishop Sheen speaks about this in this great talk: Listen Here
 
Last edited:
These discussions are often very Western centric. Yes the Church has declined in the West… but I wonder, would the Church have exploded, as it has, in Africa if not for Vatican II?
 
I think it’s understandable that our conversation is West centric seeing as this is a USA based website in English. Nothing very unexpected in that. However your point is taken and is a good one. 3 African nations are among the top ten countries on Earth with the most numerous Catholic populations. I believe one is Nigeria, I just need to reread the article to be reminded of the other two. I love that they are sending us missionary priests and excellent bishops. Seems to be only a matter of time before the Holy Spirit chooses an African Pope.
 
Democratic Republic of the Congo was one too, actually maybe the article said which countries would be most Catholic by 2050 (please excuse my memory!..)
 
Angola and Uganda are also expected to be in the top ten, so 4 rather than 3!
 
THe state of Catholicism was not the question and is off topic. The question was what are the fruits of Vatican 2.

If you want a peer reviewed study, attendance at Mass reached its peak in about 1956-1957 and there has been a gradual drop off ever since. Unlike anecdotal information of "large groups leaving after the OF ws introduced, CARA has done studies which simply refute this. The same drop off has been recorded in mainline Protestant churches, which cannot be ascribed to Vatican 2.
 
Considering that the Church rightly or wrongly was seen in many parts of Africa, especially, as an arm of the colonialists, I would suspect not.
 
Back to the topic: fruits of Vatican 2: LOTH and the laity encouraged to pray it; the second half of Vatican 1 being completed, with the role of the bishops better defined. The move to see those baptized into Christ in Protestant churches as our separated brethren, rather than heretics. The deaconate. The schema on the BVM. The universal vocation to sanctity. The relationship with Mulims, and especially, with Jews. The greater influence of the bishops, and the decrease in influence of the Curia. Decree on the apostolate of the laity.
 
One beautiful teaching in the documents of Vatican II on evangelism that impacted me was that when we arrive in a community new to us with the intention of evangelism, we need to remember that the Word is already there waiting to be uncovered. I found that very powerful. The Word is in all creation and all peoples but we need to uncover the Word.

All cultures and communities everywhere have aspects of the Truth within them. Evangelism brings the entire Truth. But we already see the work of Jesus in cultures.

This theology is why the Catholic church has been so successful in aculturation. It is not appropriate to impose an outside culture along with the Gospel. The community can hear the gospel and express the same Truth in their culture in the way that is most appropriate. For example it is very common in many African cultures for Mass to last for 3 hours on a Sunday with a great deal of dancing and praising God as well as prayer. In their own culture these Catholics find that the most appropriate way to express their faith and love of God. Of course as a culture becomes Christianized they will usually abandon or suppress aspects of their culture that conflict with the Gospel.
 
Last edited:
I have to wonder if without Vatican II the Church would have departed from the tradition of Italian popes and choose such an odd, and wonderful choice as the great St. John Paul. If not, that would arguably be the biggest fruit, what with the Catechism, the Theology of the Body, oh, and the fall of Western communism.
 
Great point pnewton, it’s as if the Holy Spirit helped us embrace our identity as a multinational, multicultural, extremely diverse organization :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
 
Last edited:
Again, those were just off the top of my head. The growth of the Church in Africa and Asia is another good fruit of Vatican II. As is a more open dialogue with the Eastern Churches.
 
The Ordinariates are great! But they are not a fruit of V2. In the 1960s and early 70s Anglicanism was drastically different from what it later became. The council never foresaw this trend. Ecumenical commissions were set up that were, and still are, in denial of the impact of secularism.

Pope Benedict bypassed the post Vatican 2 Ecumenical groups, which opposed the Ordinariates.

In a way, the Ordinariates are a fruit of the post, post V2 era.
 
Last edited:
V2 gets unfairly criticized, blamed for the tidal wave of secularism that hit the West as a whole, not just the Catholic Church. It also gets blamed for Catholics who later used it to push their own agendas.

But it also gets unfairly praised. Most documents simply reflect development in the decades prior to the 1960s, in the role of laity, media, education, religious orders, etc. Laity were more active in the 1950s than now.

The question is how relevant it is now. The world has changed more since the 1960s to present, than it did between Trent and V2. V2 never foresaw the massive attack on Reason, legal abortion, gay marriage, and the abanonment of dogma by many powerful in the Church.

These are not fruits of V2, but current realities of 2019 we have to deal with.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
The question is how relevant it is now. The world has changed more since the 1960s to present, than it did between Trent and V2. V2 never foresaw the massive attack on Reason, legal abortion, gay marriage, and the abanonment of dogma by many powerful in the Church.

These are not fruits of V2, but current realities of 2019 we have to deal with.
Click to expand...
IMO, sometime this century the Church will inevitably have to call a Third Vatican Council.

It may even happen prior to 2050 with the way things are going.
 
Last edited:
HopkinsReb said:
But the fact that y’all now refer to us as “separated brethren” instead of “heretics” definitely helps with evangelization. Don’t discount how effective the decision to simply be nice to people can be.
Click to expand...
I think Pope Francis’ pectoral cross says it all. For massive numbers of cradle Protestant Christians to be in the dark through no fault of their own about the truths revealed by God and the gifts given to the world through the sacraments of the Church, it is quite fitting to speak about Protestants as separated brethren; these are people who believe in Christ who are in need of guides who can bring them to the fullness of truth. At the same time there are massive numbers of cradle Catholics who have been lost to Christian sectarianism who believe all sorts of strange and false ideas about Christ and salvation itself; thus the need to re-evangelize.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
I agree with comments that from the long term historical perspective the openness on all sides to seeing Truth in each other’s experiences and drawing closer to the fullness of Truth, dates from Vatican II. Especially in written documents stating that fact. Just like any historical period of the church we might debate WHEN actual discussions and concerns started (often decades even centuries before) but we can definitely accept proclamations and documents. The significance is that Church in Her wisdom found it a suitable time to respond formally. The Christian communities may have been open to each other in various ways but (showing clearly the teaching authority of the church) often nothing major can happen without movement and formal response from the Catholic church.

Vatican II produced documents formally opening dialog with the Eastern churches, the mainline Protestant and the non-denominational. I was not born during VII and was not raised Christian. It is definitely confusing as a non-Christian to know there are lots of “flavors” of Christianity. It would be wonderful if our separated brethren could get to a point of reconciling theologically and all the wonderful gifts and expressions of Christianity could be unified. On the part of the Catholic church the Holy Spirit encourages as to be humble and definitely not be unloving or judgmental about other Christians. Although the Church is currently enduring a public humiliation and devastation because we refused to put our house in order, instead harboring the worst kind of evils at the heart of the church. The Truth will out. I’m sure the church surviving (hopefully altered in various suitable ways) the current scandals will be a witness. Triumphalism and self-righteousness should never be qualities of a church.
 
Last edited:
Also, what was the public statement that came out about 20 years ago stating that Lutherans and Catholics were reconciled theologically? Was it acknowledging they had the same beliefs about salvation (?)
 
joyfulandactive said:
Also, what was the public statement that came out about 20 years ago stating that Lutherans and Catholics were reconciled theologically? Was it acknowledging they had the same beliefs about salvation (?)
Click to expand...
This, like most Ecumenical statements, seems less relevant over time. The problem is that parts of Lutheranism have moved on to positions very far from other Lutherans, from current Catholics, and from their own positions of a few decades ago. So agreement on salvation was interesting, a fine addition to theological libraries, but…

In the real world, it’s like one step closer, mean while 3 steps farther apart.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top