What is Vatican II and why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reuben_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reuben_J

Guest
I just want to get your (name removed by moderator)ut. Vatican II document is a heavy read so any thought on it is welcome.

Thanks.
 
“For me the Second Vatican Council has always been – in a particular fashion during these years of my pontificate – the constant reference point of every pastoral action, with conscious commitment to translate its directives into concrete, faithful action, at the level of every Church and of the whole Church” (Pope John Paul II, 25 January 1985 )
 
Among the documents there is a statement as to the purpose and reasons for convening the council. Unfortunately I cannot find that after searching. The documents themselves are easily available.
 
Last edited:
Pope St John XXIII’s opening speech lays out the reasons and SPIRIT of VII…I know many people speak with derogatory words and tones when talking about the SPIRIT of the council, but I’m not afraid of it and it is real.


Here is my favorite passage:
  1. It often happens, as we have learned in the daily exercise of the apostolic ministry, that, not without offense to Our ears, the voices of people are brought to Us who, although burning with religious fervor, nevertheless do not think things through with enough discretion and prudence of judgement. These people see only ruin and calamity in the present conditions of human society. They keep repeating that our times, if compared to past centuries, have been getting worse. And they act as if they have nothing to learn from history, which is the teacher of life, and as if at the time of past Councils everything went favorably and correctly with respect to Christian doctrine, morality, and the Church’s proper freedom. We believe We must quite disagree with these prophets of doom who are always forecasting disaster, as if the end of the world were at hand.“
 
Last edited:
Another passage from the opening speech of Pope St John XXIII:

“But at the present time, the spouse of Christ prefers to use the medicine of mercy rather than the weapons of severity; and, she thinks she meets today’s needs by explaining the validity of her doctrine more fully rather than by condemning.“

Sounds so currently familiar. And after close to 60 years. Still working out the details.
 
Vatican II, while presenting timeless truths in many places, is also dated somewhat in its approach and more significantly in the circumstances it was applying them to (see the first footnote of Gaudium et Spes where this is explicitly stated: "Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. ")

In its approach, we can only look to St. John XXIII speech. He did not want to condemn error because “people by themselves seem to begin to condemn them.” Also, when explaining the reason for Vatican II’s unique approach, he noted that there were not doctrinal controversies within the Church at the time–everything was well settled.

Obviously, things have changed a very great deal since then. While at the time the unprecedented vitality of the Church and world even looking like it was going in the right direction gave good reason to ignore the “prophets of doom.” None of that is true now.

Unfortunately, many of our prelates are stuck in that optimistic time period still and seem unable to evaluate things differently, but they are slowly coming around, especially those who have come up in the less fruitful times after the Council.
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
Obviously, things have changed a very great deal since then. While at the time the unprecedented vitality of the Church and world even looking like it was going in the right direction gave good reason to ignore the “prophets of doom.” None of that is true now.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I agree… there are prophets of doom in the Church hierarchy that talk about signs of the end times and how things are getting constantly worse… prelates as high as the College of Cardinals and some Bishops…as recently as a month or so ago… I don’t think much has changed in that attitude.
 
Code: 
 One fundamental question is why did this council occur then? Why not fifty years
before? Or why not now instead? I think it occurred then because the world was undergoing immense changes by then. The Church had to respond to them in some way. If the council occurred now, for example, it would have occurred in the midst of galloping changes without preparation.
I think that in some ways, the Council was a great success. In other ways, so, far, the Church has not yet been sufficiently renewed on the whole. For example, there have been disastrous events in families that the Church addresses inadequately so far, and of course there has been the sexual revolution that began in the 1960s. However, I believe, the renewal called for by Vatican II will occur more fully in years to come, and then it can be said that it was a great blessing for the Catholic faith.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, @mdgspencer. Your post does attempt to answer the thread as to why (the Council was convened).

Councils were usually convened for a reason. More than fifty years since, and much has been said about Vatican II. Probably many of the commentaries have missed out on the why the Council was called. I think without appreciating the reasons why, we therefore find it difficult to understand the changes brought about by Vatican II.

If we believe that the Church is led by the Holy Spirit, was the Spirit at play at Vatican II? Or was it was just merely human arguments by some clergy and scholars of the Church?

Or are we too young today and would not know what really was Vatican II and why it was convened?
 
Last edited:
“Prophets of doom”. Was Pope St. John XXIII not alluding to the fact that God would not abandon His Church and thus God will therefore renew and strengthen His Church?
 
Last edited:
On her live show, Mother Angelica presented guests and interest about things like Our Lady of Garabandal and Our Lady of Akita. This viewpoint might seem to counter what Blessed John XXIII said while opening the council. But she did much to correct those in the Church who read Vatican II with rupture of Tradition. Some might call her a prophet of doom. However, her response to the Holy Spirit edified the Church.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top