What good has come out of Vatican II?

[bkovacs]

So how could anyone dislike Vatican II as it provided enough ambiguity to please everyone?

It destroyed the traditions of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. So much tradition and beauty thrown out the window, and many of us Catholics deprived of the riches!. And we may never get to experience them in our lifetime. Thanks to all those happy clappy liberals!.

 

[SFD]

[1 Cor 9:22](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Now put that in proper context, Douay-Rheims Bible, First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians, Ch. 10 (I notice you linked to a protestant Bible):

16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. 18 Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? 19 What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing? Or, that the idol is any thing? 20 But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.

16 “Which we bless”… Here the apostle puts them in mind of their partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the sacred mysteries, and becoming thereby one mystical body with Christ. From whence he infers, ver. 21, that they who are made partakers with Christ, by the eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament, must not be made partakers with devils by eating of the meats sacrificed to them.

17 “One bread”… or, as it may be rendered, agreeably both to the Latin and Greek, because the bread is one, all we, being many, are one body, who partake of that one bread. **For it is by our communicating with Christ, and with one another, in this blessed sacrament, that we are formed into one mystical body; and made, as it were, one bread, compounded of many grains of corn, closely united together. **

21 You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. 23 All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify. 24 Let no man seek his own, but that which is another’s. 25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat; asking no question for conscience’ sake.

26 The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof. 27 If any of them that believe not, invite you, and you will be willing to go; eat of any thing that is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. 28 But if any man say: This has been sacrificed to idols, do not eat of it for his sake that told it, and for conscience’ sake. 29 Conscience, I say, not thy own, but the other’s. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thanksgiving, why am I evil spoken of, for that for which I give thanks?

31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Be without offence to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the church of God: 33 As I also in all things please all men, not seeking that which is profitable to myself, but to many, that may be saved.

 

[elts1956]

That (I think), was the problem: too much wiggle room.

You can say that again. The thing I am most resentful of is they (the misguided clergy) got to wiggle and we (the misguided laity) didn’t get to make the rules. Oh yeah, we did that didn’t we and some are still doing it.

 

[pnewton]

Now put that in proper context, Douay-Rheims Bible, First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians, Ch. 10 (I notice you linked to a protestant Bible):

Specifically the King James, but only because that is the only search I have. I do not memorize chapter and verses much any more, so I have to go with what I have. I wish I had a Douay-Rheims or NAB search tool. I always am appreciative of the context being posted, BTW.

 

[jimmy]

I have a question regarding Vatican II that I have not seen addressed in this thread and was hoping that someone could answer it or shed some light on the issue.

Why did modernist, liberal theologians; such as Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, and Karl Rahner; whose writings and/or teachings had previously been condemned or censured by the Holy Office in the days of Pope Pius XII, become prominent and influential in structuring the documents of Vatican II?

This fact alone could be enough to make one suspicious of the intentions of the Council. Was the Council “hijacked” by the Modernists?

Thomas

Actually, these theologians you mention were censured by the Jesuit order, not by Rome. Maybe they were influential because their theology was true. It was the pope who made these men influential. Pope John wrote letters to Henri de Lubac encouraging him to teach and approving of his theology. Popes John and Paul were the ones who gauranteed the rehabilitation of these theologians. It was also Pope Paul who appointed de Lubac as a peritus to the council.

Or were pope John XXIII and pope Paul VI modernists as well? When you use the term modernism you are making a serious accusation. You are making accusations of heresy. It was the pope who accepted the theology of these men. And in fact, our current pope is a follower of the same type of theology. He is what would be called a nouvelle theologian. Pope John Paul II approved of the theology of these men and he had a good friendship with de Lubac. So the last four popes have approved of the theology of these men and Pope Pius XII did not offer any objection to the theology of them.

 

[elts1956]

Actually, these theologians you mention were censured by the Jesuit order, not by Rome. Maybe they were influential because their theology was true. It was the pope who made these men influential. Pope John wrote letters to Henri de Lubac encouraging him to teach and approving of his theology. Popes John and Paul were the ones who gauranteed the rehabilitation of these theologians. It was also Pope Paul who appointed de Lubac as a peritus to the council.

Or were pope John XXIII and pope Paul VI modernists as well? When you use the term modernism you are making a serious accusation. You are making accusations of heresy. It was the pope who accepted the theology of these men. And in fact, our current pope is a follower of the same type of theology. He is what would be called a nouvelle theologian. Pope John Paul II approved of the theology of these men and he had a good friendship with de Lubac. So the last four popes have approved of the theology of these men and Pope Pius XII did not offer any objection to the theology of them.

Okay jimmy fess up. Just WHERE do you find all the info. you post? I always get an education when I read what you write. Modernists, hmmmmmmm. Those who prefer the NO to the TLM have been called that term also. Are we/they heretics? Should I be asking this seriously???

 

[jimmy]

Okay jimmy fess up. Just WHERE do you find all the info. you post? I always get an education when I read what you write. Modernists, hmmmmmmm. Those who prefer the NO to the TLM have been called that term also. Are we/they heretics? Should I be asking this seriously???

Regarding what I said in my post, here is a book about Henri de Lubac which discusses the isses.

Meet Henri de Lubac

Here is a short quote that indicates that it was the Jesuits who silenced him.
The reassurance given by one of the assistants to the general, that they were in a position to defend him against the attacks, would prove to be misleading. Plainly, Father Janssens had been convinced after all by his counselors that the accusations leveled against de Lubac were valid. For now the matter was to remain a secret. But in June of 1950, the thunderbolt struck Fourviere. Five Jesuit Fathers in all were deprived of their authorization to teach. They had to leave Lyons; along with Henri de Lunac, Emile Delaye, Henri Houillard, Alexandre Durand and Pierre Ganne were banished, to mention only those in Fourviere who were affected. [Meet Henri de Lubac, p71]In March 1958, thanks to the persistent efforts of Father Agostino Bea, S.J., the Pope’s confessor, and of the Jesuit Provincial, they managed to bypass the Roman officials and present to the Pope four books by de Lubac, together with a devoted dedicatory letter by the author. Pius XII promptly sent cordial words of thanks and encouraged de Lubac. [ibid,p 80]In December 1958, Cardinal Gerlier brought back from Rome verbal approval for de Lubac to resume lecturing. The Father General now said that he had never removed de Lubac from his professorial chair. In reply to an unofficial inquiry, the Congregation for Seminaries expressed amazement that authorization to teach should be requested for someone who had had it since 1929, without its ever having been withdrawn.[ibid,p80]So you see that Rome was not the one who did it. Pope Pius XII did not censure him. It was the Jesuit order.

According to those who consider de Lubac a heretic you would probably also be a heretic/modernist simply because you follow the VII council and the NO liturgy.The theologians mentioned above are very important in the explanation of contemporary theology. It is almost funny that these people call de Lubac and Congar and etc. liberals and modernists. The same titles could have been applied to St. Thomas Aquinas considering that his approach to theology was not the status quo.

 

[jimmy]

Here is the info on the book from above.

Meet Henri de Lubac, Rudolf Voderholzer. Ignatius Press 2008. Sanfrancisco US.

 

[elts1956]

Regarding what I said in my post, here is a book about Henri de Lubac which discusses the isses.

Meet Henri de Lubac

Here is a short quote that indicates that it was the Jesuits who silenced him.
The reassurance given by one of the assistants to the general, that they were in a position to defend him against the attacks, would prove to be misleading. Plainly, Father Janssens had been convinced after all by his counselors that the accusations leveled against de Lubac were valid. For now the matter was to remain a secret. But in June of 1950, the thunderbolt struck Fourviere. Five Jesuit Fathers in all were deprived of their authorization to teach. They had to leave Lyons; along with Henri de Lunac, Emile Delaye, Henri Houillard, Alexandre Durand and Pierre Ganne were banished, to mention only those in Fourviere who were affected. [Meet Henri de Lubac, p71]In March 1958, thanks to the persistent efforts of Father Agostino Bea, S.J., the Pope’s confessor, and of the Jesuit Provincial, they managed to bypass the Roman officials and present to the Pope four books by de Lubac, together with a devoted dedicatory letter by the author. Pius XII promptly sent cordial words of thanks and encouraged de Lubac. [ibid,p 80]In December 1958, Cardinal Gerlier brought back from Rome verbal approval for de Lubac to resume lecturing. The Father General now said that he had never removed de Lubac from his professorial chair. In reply to an unofficial inquiry, the Congregation for Seminaries expressed amazement that authorization to teach should be requested for someone who had had it since 1929, without its ever having been withdrawn.[ibid,p80]So you see that Rome was not the one who did it. Pope Pius XII did not censure him. It was the Jesuit order.

According to those who consider de Lubac a heretic you would probably also be a heretic/modernist simply because you follow the VII council and the NO liturgy.The theologians mentioned above are very important in the explanation of contemporary theology. It is almost funny that these people call de Lubac and Congar and etc. liberals and modernists. The same titles could have been applied to St. Thomas Aquinas considering that his approach to theology was not the status quo.

Thanks Jimmy. You must read 24/7. My brain has destructered so I can’t internalize that much info. in one sitting or even several weeks of sitting.

 

[KingAlfred]

Vatican II made the Catholic faith more understandable and accessible to the masses. It modernized Catholicism – a daunting task to which any ancient institution must subject itself if it wants to pass the test of time.

 

[ProVobis]

Or were pope John XXIII and pope Paul VI modernists as well? When you use the term modernism you are making a serious accusation. You are making accusations of heresy. It was the pope who accepted the theology of these men. And in fact, our current pope is a follower of the same type of theology. He is what would be called a nouvelle theologian. Pope John Paul II approved of the theology of these men and he had a good friendship with de Lubac. So the last four popes have approved of the theology of these men and Pope Pius XII did not offer any objection to the theology of them.

I don’t know if this qualifies him as a “modernist” but Pope Paul removed the Index of Forbidden Books. Why do you think he did this?

 

[Jacafamala]

Vatican II made the Catholic faith more understandable and accessible to the masses. It modernized Catholicism – a daunting task to which any ancient institution must subject itself if it wants to pass the test of time.

VII confuses the heck out of me sometimes.

 

[ProVobis]

Vatican II made the Catholic faith more understandable and accessible to the masses.

How? Maybe paraphrasing but does this mean it’s more understandable? Or just adds to confusion?

More accessible to whom exactly? Protestants? Atheists? Muslims?

 

[jimmy]

I don’t know if this qualifies him as a “modernist” but Pope Paul removed the Index of Forbidden Books. Why do you think he did this?

I am not sure why.

 

[ac_claire]

The bishops felt that the council was necessary. Shouldn’t that be good enought for us, as Catholics?

Some of the misinterpretations of the council teachings have been negative, but that culpability is on the individual bishops and pastors who have put their own will and interpreation before that of the Church.

Also remember that misinterpretations and distoritions of Church teaching are nothing new. This has been going on since the dawn of Christianity, with the first heretics and rebels. The New Testaments speaks of these groups and individuals. Vatican II was an official council of the Church, and rejecting it is another form of cafeteria Catholicism. If we can’t trust our bishops, who can we trust? We’ve lost our footing at that point and we have no authority to stand on.

 

[Jacafamala]

The bishops felt that the council was necessary. Shouldn’t that be good enought for us, as Catholics?

Some of the misinterpretations of the council teachings have been negative, but that culpability is on the individual bishops and pastors who have put their own will and interpreation before that of the Church.

Also remember that misinterpretations and distoritions of Church teaching are nothing new. This has been going on since the dawn of Christianity, with the first heretics and rebels. The New Testaments speaks of these groups and individuals. Vatican II was an official council of the Church, and rejecting it is another form of cafeteria Catholicism. If we can’t trust our bishops, who can we trust? We’ve lost our footing at that point and we have no authority to stand on.

I don’t think it’s a matter of rejecting the council, at least not on my part. No, I accept the council. I don’t accept a lot of what came after the council and I’m rather mystified as to why so much really was never set straight and corrected so many years later. What’s the deal with that?

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think it’s a matter of rejecting the council, at least not on my part. No, I accept the council. I don’t accept a lot of what came after the council and I’m rather mystified as to why so much really was never set straight and corrected so many years later. What’s the deal with that?

I am confused about something myself. The last two posters to post atttempted to post positve, as per your OP. So did you really mean that first post or did someone correctly call you out on page one as posting this just to bait people and argue?

 

[I_Believe]

Vatican II made the Catholic faith more understandable and accessible to the masses. It modernized Catholicism – a daunting task to which any ancient institution must subject itself if it wants to pass the test of time.

Please tell me it isn’t your intention to make traditionalists grind the enamel off their teeth by saying what you just said.

Please tell me you don’t embrace modernism.

 

[pnewton]

Please tell me you don’t embrace modernism.

It needs to be added here that modernism as condemned as a heresy is not the same thing as anything modern. The word “modern” is used in many ways, with most not involving heresy.

 

[I_Believe]

It needs to be added here that modernism as condemned as a heresy is not the same thing as anything modern. The word “modern” is used in many ways, with most not involving heresy.

ok, then could you paraphrase that sentence to show me the context ?

“It modernized Catholicism – a daunting task to which any ancient institution must subject itself if it wants to pass the test of time.”