C
commenter
Guest
The council didn’t cause the devastation of Land o Lakes. But they failed to foresee it. So it was a “missed trend”.
What were the intended goals of Vatican II, and were those goals achieved?
- Status
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
I believe Lumen Gentium is dogmatic. Maybe another one too I’m not positive.
C
commenter
Guest
A plan that is not totally successful is not necessarily a failure. I disagreed with those who credited V2 with everything good, including the invention of the wheel, but let’s not make the opposite error.
There was a lobby already entrenched prior to V2 that misused these documents, bits and pieces taken out of context in the 1970s, to push their own agenda.
The documents have some value now, especially as clarified in encyclicals by St JP 2. One can argue they are over 50 years old now.
There was a lobby already entrenched prior to V2 that misused these documents, bits and pieces taken out of context in the 1970s, to push their own agenda.
The documents have some value now, especially as clarified in encyclicals by St JP 2. One can argue they are over 50 years old now.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
If this was “the whole point,” then it was hugely effective, given the absence of open warfare throughout the world (as we had in WW2), the fall of Communism, etc. Evil forces still “run roughshod” over us, but there are not as many bootprints as there used to be.
C
commenter
Guest
Our posts would have more credibility if they cited something specific in a document of V2 (not your favorite website’s view of V2).
G
Genesis315
Guest
Again,even if Vatican II did not directly cause the calamities that followed, all that shows is its ineffectiveness to accomplish its task. Whether it failed to achieve its goals (assuming of course the best of intentions for the whole collection of bishops) because other people with their own agenda hijacked it or for some other reason, it still failed to achieve its goals.
What successes do you gather from it? (I went through each document earlier–documents I consistently defend as orthodox–and could not see any good fruits having been harvested that would not have been harvested without them, but rather a diminished harvest).
As for the Vatican II documents being over 50 years old, other than the perennial doctrine they repeat which never loses value, they decrease in value the older they get–much lost its value almost immediately. As the Council itself notes of the centerpiece of its pastoral plan, Gaudium et Spes: “Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one.”
The whole point of the Council was to give the Church a pastoral plan for a particular set of transitory circumstances (“the modern world”)–circumstances, as described by Pope John, which have long since passed away and which new ones change in radical and unexpected ways every year. Other Councils, like, say, the First Lateran Council, were out-of-date quickly too. Who would still think to look to that Council for practical application today?
What transitory value Vatican II may have had is gone. Unfortunately, most of our leaders, in the ironic words of Pope Francis, “remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past” (Evangelii Gaudium 94). Pope Francis himself recently said “The tradition does not safeguard the ashes” and criticized those “who want to return to the ashes.” What else is the obstinate clinging to these out-of-date, and failed pastoral approaches of the 60s and 70s?
And yet, our leadership wants to cling to those elements more rigidly than things with permanent value or those other traditions that have proven themselves fruitful over many diverse epochs and circumstances, even if not absolutely irreformable.
What successes do you gather from it? (I went through each document earlier–documents I consistently defend as orthodox–and could not see any good fruits having been harvested that would not have been harvested without them, but rather a diminished harvest).
As for the Vatican II documents being over 50 years old, other than the perennial doctrine they repeat which never loses value, they decrease in value the older they get–much lost its value almost immediately. As the Council itself notes of the centerpiece of its pastoral plan, Gaudium et Spes: “Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one.”
The whole point of the Council was to give the Church a pastoral plan for a particular set of transitory circumstances (“the modern world”)–circumstances, as described by Pope John, which have long since passed away and which new ones change in radical and unexpected ways every year. Other Councils, like, say, the First Lateran Council, were out-of-date quickly too. Who would still think to look to that Council for practical application today?
What transitory value Vatican II may have had is gone. Unfortunately, most of our leaders, in the ironic words of Pope Francis, “remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past” (Evangelii Gaudium 94). Pope Francis himself recently said “The tradition does not safeguard the ashes” and criticized those “who want to return to the ashes.” What else is the obstinate clinging to these out-of-date, and failed pastoral approaches of the 60s and 70s?
And yet, our leadership wants to cling to those elements more rigidly than things with permanent value or those other traditions that have proven themselves fruitful over many diverse epochs and circumstances, even if not absolutely irreformable.
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
Temporal peace is good certainly, but not the measurement of the Church’s mission. And is that even due to the Church’s evangelism or rather the threat of the a nuclear holocaust? The states involved are certainly not more Christian (accept maybe non-Catholic Russia, only because they could only go up and their non-Catholic Christians held-fast to their traditions, despite everything else).
And how is society’s peace with Christ? While there may be less, explicit classical communism (perhaps due to JPII’s Fatima-inspired consecration), society is governed less by the Catholic faith and more by atheistic principles of positivism and relativism than it was prior; the very core of human nature is in confusion. It is less evangelized than it was prior as we have seen with the rise of “nones” (thus the need for the “New Evangelization” we keep hearing about).
Vatican II was supposed to bring in a new springtime.
Last edited:
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
In the 1960’s when my friends and myself smoked POT, strangers didn’t bring it into our community, we went to the city and bought it and brought it back
We, committed the crimes that were happening, i.e. house breaks and such.
Why ? We were all raised before Vatican II and attended Catholic schools, at least until high-school.
What changed was the culture and it changed fast
The Vietnam War taught young people not to trust the government, as it was shown how we were lied to about the war.
Birth control caused the explosion of the sexual revolution.
Technology and education changed us. Vatican II, was an attempt to keep us Catholic, but few returned after leaving.
It’s God Himself who’ll feed the people with His mercy. The institutional Church is struggling to remain popular enough not to collapse. It doesn’t look promising from my neck of the woods.
Jim
We, committed the crimes that were happening, i.e. house breaks and such.
Why ? We were all raised before Vatican II and attended Catholic schools, at least until high-school.
What changed was the culture and it changed fast
The Vietnam War taught young people not to trust the government, as it was shown how we were lied to about the war.
Birth control caused the explosion of the sexual revolution.
Technology and education changed us. Vatican II, was an attempt to keep us Catholic, but few returned after leaving.
It’s God Himself who’ll feed the people with His mercy. The institutional Church is struggling to remain popular enough not to collapse. It doesn’t look promising from my neck of the woods.
Jim
E
edwest211
Guest
On the contrary, this is false reasoning. The Land O’ Lakes Statement and those behind it had to tell the Church they were officially cutting ties. The Church has had to deal with this before.
E
edwest211
Guest
False reasoning. Vatican II was to blame for zero problems. You have been flagged for making a totally false statement.
E
edwest211
Guest
You have been flagged for making false and misleading statements.
D
Dovekin
Guest
“The measurement of the Church’s mission” is an obscure concept. Different people choose different things to measure, and none of us know the mind of God.
I opt for a measurement based on “blessed are the poor” “blessed are the peacemakers” etc. i have never heard “blessed are those who attend services weekly” or whatever metric you are using. Maybe you use “blessed are those who mourn.” I would not fault that.
All I had to work with was “make the Church more effective” without any specification, so I chose temporal peace. I rely on John XXIII’s Opening Address which I quoted above: “she spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.”
If you have an alternate opinion of what the Church should be effective at, I would be willing to hear it. Or what the Council meant to be effective at.
P
PatK63
Guest
To finish the work of Vatican I and bring a breath of fresh air into the church. I think it has been very successful!
S
snarflemike
Guest
What does that mean?
P
PatK63
Guest
St. Pope John XXIII said he wanted to open the windows and let fresh air into the church. Now I know not everyone thinks it was good but I lived through it and it is very good. There were mistakes but taken as a whole.
S
snarflemike
Guest
But what does it mean?
P
PatK63
Guest
Well the results was that the mass was to be said in the Vernacular and we would be more open to dialogue and cooperations with people of other faiths. Among other things.
D
Dovekin
Guest
It does not have a single meaning, but encapsulates a variety of ideas.PatK63:
What does that mean?
At its most basic level, it refers to “spring cleaning,” opening the windows after keeping them shut through the winter. It is something everyone does “every year”, but the Church had left undone for a period of years. It is about not locking out the natural goodness of Spring just because we fear the dangers of cold winter air. Maybe getting rid of the dust covering the beauties of the Church.
On another level, it refers to a period of the Church characterized by defensiveness. For 60 years, the Pope was a “prisoner of the Vatican”, besieged by a united Italy. The Church defended a set of values that the world was outgrowing; monarchies ratherthan democracies, political power rather than spiritual, etc.
On yet another level, the Holy Spirit is the wind. The institutional aspects of the Church has grown too dominant, excluding the less predictable charismatic elements. The counter reformation emphasis on excluding the errant had shifted to excluding anything different. The inexplicable and erratic wind, the Holy Spirit, was being called upon to bring fresh life into a rigid institution.
It may mean entirely different things to other people. But these are some of the things conveyed by the image.
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
It seems that post-V2 the Church changed from being a “teacher” to being a “listener.” Now there’s nothing wrong with a teacher listening if it’s done the right way. If students are struggling to grasp a subject, the teacher needs to understand why they are confused so she can find a way to teach them more effectively. But, this should never give the students the power to teach themselves.
We hear often these days that the Church needs to “listen” to people. But unfortunately many Catholics, including clergy at all levels, interpret this as meaning that new revelations can be provided by people and society to correct things that the Church “got wrong.” Also, it is frequently mentioned that we must “listen to the Holy Spirit.” When people say this, they usually mean that the Church should change to be more liberal and progressive, because that’s what the people want. But it would be heretical to claim that the Holy Spirit would suggest something contrary to the Father and Son.
This upcoming “Amazon Synod” working document already reads like a hodgepodge of the worst V2 interpretations. It reads as if New Ways Ministries met with a group of self-ordained “ladypriests” and a few indigenous studies majors from UC Berkeley and every whacky idea they came up with was written down.
We hear often these days that the Church needs to “listen” to people. But unfortunately many Catholics, including clergy at all levels, interpret this as meaning that new revelations can be provided by people and society to correct things that the Church “got wrong.” Also, it is frequently mentioned that we must “listen to the Holy Spirit.” When people say this, they usually mean that the Church should change to be more liberal and progressive, because that’s what the people want. But it would be heretical to claim that the Holy Spirit would suggest something contrary to the Father and Son.
This upcoming “Amazon Synod” working document already reads like a hodgepodge of the worst V2 interpretations. It reads as if New Ways Ministries met with a group of self-ordained “ladypriests” and a few indigenous studies majors from UC Berkeley and every whacky idea they came up with was written down.
E
edwest211
Guest
Well, sometimes, that’s just how it’s done. When Change becomes an idol, and novelty a way of life, such ideas appear. But the Church guides more than anything.
- Status