Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 2   [ 26 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:54 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2456
Religion: Catholic
Not meant to bait click or cause a ruckus.

I saw a video challenging people to come up with answers and it was just an onslaught of bashing.

But seriously?

_________________
Everything in the universe has its being not only from God but also toward God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:11 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 9:23 am
Posts: 19438
Location: NYC area
Religion: Catholic
It completed the unfinished business of Vatican I, which was interrupted by the Franco-Prussian War. Vat I had finalized Papal Infallibility, and the relationship between Faith & Reason. They had not addressed the nature of the Church, which Vat 2 did in Lumen Gentium. They also hadn't finished episcopal collegiality (which seems like it's still be debated today).

_________________
A modern day Shunamite woman. (2 Kgs. 4:26)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:07 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:33 am
Posts: 4191
Religion: Catholic
Vat II also exposed the spiritual void and heretical thought of many who had worked their way into the priesthood and hierarchy (and would continue to do so for several more years). The council became an excuse many needed to "reform" a Church that didn't need reforming. As such we have seen the separation of the sheep and the goats (and will continue to do so for a few more years).

We are experiencing a type of "Good Friday" right now that many of us want to blame on Vat II. But, in reality that council wasn't the problem and our "Easter" will be here in a few more years.

And yes, I really do believe what I have described is a fruit of the council.

_________________
"So mercifully blessed to be free from the ravages of intelligence." - Taken from Time Bandits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:01 pm 
Offline
Criminally Insane Cucumber
Criminally Insane Cucumber
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:20 pm
Posts: 33874
Location: The countertop
Religion: The True One
Church Affiliations: OblSB
I can't think of anything that isn't a kind of unintended consequence in the sense that Peetem invokes.

_________________
Suscipe me secundum eloquium tuum, et vivam: et non confundas me ab exspectatione mea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:41 pm 
Offline
Handmaids of the Lord
Handmaids of the Lord
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:47 am
Posts: 8445
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Third Order Lay Carmelite
Peetem wrote:
Vat II also exposed the spiritual void and heretical thought of many who had worked their way into the priesthood and hierarchy (and would continue to do so for several more years). The council became an excuse many needed to "reform" a Church that didn't need reforming. As such we have seen the separation of the sheep and the goats (and will continue to do so for a few more years).

We are experiencing a type of "Good Friday" right now that many of us want to blame on Vat II. But, in reality that council wasn't the problem and our "Easter" will be here in a few more years.

And yes, I really do believe what I have described is a fruit of the council.


Thank you for your insightful response!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:00 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2456
Religion: Catholic
gherkin wrote:
I can't think of anything that isn't a kind of unintended consequence in the sense that Peetem invokes.


What about the way in which the Church decided to evangelize? Could one say it lead more people to the Church?

_________________
Everything in the universe has its being not only from God but also toward God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:19 am 
Offline
Criminally Insane Cucumber
Criminally Insane Cucumber
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:20 pm
Posts: 33874
Location: The countertop
Religion: The True One
Church Affiliations: OblSB
?????????????????????????????????????????????????

There's a lot going on there. Do you think that the Church was not evangelizing before Vatican II? Do you think the post-Vatican II "evangelization" is really successful in any way? (If so, why is nobody in church?)

This is sort of like the notion that Vatican II taught the universal call to holiness. Lots of people seem to think (a) that was something new, that we needed Vatican II for (it wasn't, and we didn't) and (b) it made some positive impact (just take a look at mass attendance and other such measures of personal piety and you can see it didn't). By any measure, Vatican II was a complete and utter pastoral disaster. It made everything much worse. There is nothing about it worth salvaging. As a totally failed pastoral council, it is time Vatican II was officially forgotten.

_________________
Suscipe me secundum eloquium tuum, et vivam: et non confundas me ab exspectatione mea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:13 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 7:04 pm
Posts: 566
Location: Arkansas Ozarks
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th KofC
Vatican II was unnecessary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:12 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11123
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
gherkin wrote:
?????????????????????????????????????????????????

There's a lot going on there. Do you think that the Church was not evangelizing before Vatican II? Do you think the post-Vatican II "evangelization" is really successful in any way? (If so, why is nobody in church?)

This is sort of like the notion that Vatican II taught the universal call to holiness. Lots of people seem to think (a) that was something new, that we needed Vatican II for (it wasn't, and we didn't) and (b) it made some positive impact (just take a look at mass attendance and other such measures of personal piety and you can see it didn't). By any measure, Vatican II was a complete and utter pastoral disaster. It made everything much worse. There is nothing about it worth salvaging. As a totally failed pastoral council, it is time Vatican II was officially forgotten.


I really wish you would stop beating around the bush and just answer the question.

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:03 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2456
Religion: Catholic
gherkin wrote:
?????????????????????????????????????????????????

There's a lot going on there. Do you think that the Church was not evangelizing before Vatican II? Do you think the post-Vatican II "evangelization" is really successful in any way? (If so, why is nobody in church?)

This is sort of like the notion that Vatican II taught the universal call to holiness. Lots of people seem to think (a) that was something new, that we needed Vatican II for (it wasn't, and we didn't) and (b) it made some positive impact (just take a look at mass attendance and other such measures of personal piety and you can see it didn't). By any measure, Vatican II was a complete and utter pastoral disaster. It made everything much worse. There is nothing about it worth salvaging. As a totally failed pastoral council, it is time Vatican II was officially forgotten.


A question with a question......Ok.

But it's a start.

Certainly, evangelization before Vatican 2 was a thing; it had to be, given what we know. Whether all evangelization is equal and effective for all time is a hoot of a topic. One in which I doubt I possess the neurons to thoroughly unpack.

There are just too many moving pieces to lump it all on V2 and I find it untenable once you break it into a thousand pieces of cause and effect.

It seems to quickly assume that many of the issues would cease to exist or be much less. Not too long ago, I heard a priest (traditionalist mind you) speak of some of the problems that plague the more traditionalists parishes in higher numbers than NO parishes (Porn, anti-semitism, pride, scrupulosity, susceptible to be easily scandaled, etc.). It's harder to see how V2 has anything to do with these sorts of disorders/sins. And that doesn't include the higher concentration of conspiracy theorists, nationalist types, and people who believe dwarfs are a curse from God. The real weird ones are a minority for sure, but the point is that they seem to find a home in more TLM parishes. Why?

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, I just think this is a monster of a topic and I don't necessarily buy into "it's all V2's fault".

_________________
Everything in the universe has its being not only from God but also toward God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:53 pm 
Offline
Prodigal Son of Thunder
Prodigal Son of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:54 am
Posts: 40471
Location: Ithilien
Religion: Dunedain Catholic
Church Affiliations: AWC, CSB, UIGSE-FSE (FNE)
I don't think you have to blame everything on V2 but it's clear from what followed that V2 didn't help. Ergo,...

_________________
Formerly Bagheera

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the King." (1 Peter 2:17)
Federation of North-American Explorers - North Star Group - How You Can Help


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:41 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6675
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
Dominic wrote:
Could one say it lead more people to the Church?


All data I've seen shows a decline, except Africa maybe? And I am talking about conversions as well as attendance.

Dominic wrote:
There are just too many moving pieces to lump it all on V2


Everyone should start with what “lump it all” means.

Vatican II didn’t invent sins or errors, so in this sense it’s not a direct or first cause.

If we move to the liturgy, it phrases things in certain ways that can easily be interpreted as minor reforms all the way to rewriting the missal. Is it the cause of the objective inferiority of the New Mass? Not directly, as it didn’t tell anyone to butcher the Offertory and whitewash churches. It opened some doors though.

What about the strange way it presents religious liberty? Or claiming that loving God and neighbor is the greatest commandment?

Imprecision and muddy wording effects theology, which finds its way to the seminary, then to the priests, then to the parish, schools, and universities. The parish priest isn’t going to give a homily detailing an excessively anthropocentric theology of God and man. But his erroneous beliefs will affect everything he says and does regardless (homilies, liturgy). The same might go for Catholic educators.

Then we get priests downplaying prayer and penance, saying salvation is possible outside the Church, obsession with corporal works of mercy over the spiritual ones, anthropocentric Masses that don’t treat holy things as sacred, etc.

Whose fault is that? Well, it all existed before the council. So, the council is not directly at fault. But it seems the council failed in its pastoral goal of representing Catholicism to the so-called modern world. So, I think Vatican II failed to protect us from some things by its wording of certain theological points and pastoral initiatives. In this way it can be blamed for failing its pastoral mission, but in another sense, it can’t be blamed as a direct cause of sins and errors.

Also, I think everything we’re seeing is a punishment for sin that started with a removal of certain graces. A punishment that was caused by people both before and after the council, continuing to this day. IMO, grace is needed first. E.g. the Fatima messages never said, “do proper catechetics,” it was "prayer and penance." I may be getting off topic, but when people want to blame the council or blame "the culture" I often see a hyper focus on "correct teaching." That's super important, but few talk about prayer and penance with regards to grace. Faith is supernatural after all.


Quote:
The real weird ones are a minority for sure, but the point is that they seem to find a home in more TLM parishes. Why?


I think it’s due to the so-called “trads” reception of certain information/truth, but since there is less than normal grace and hardly any decent leadership in the Church they start to plunge. There are no good Popes to clarify most things, only other so-called trads, maybe their priests. A lot of people are not equipped mentally or spiritually to wade through the crisis. They know something is wrong, in fact, lots of things are wrong. It’s alarming, because the Church is supposed to guide and teach. They scramble to make sense, but they fail.

Whereas, in the Novus Ordo there is also a general lessening of grace, but the intellect accepts more theological errors and liturgical laxity that is perceived as normal Church teaching/ coming from the Church. This is coupled with the perception that everything the Church does is the active will of God. The result is the typical Novus Ordo parish, with too many spewing heresies and treating holy things as common items.

That is the best way I can describe my opinion on this, I know it's not perfect and I am not saying all "trads" or people who go to the Novus Ordo are like this.

Also, if we’re going by anecdotal evidence, then I can certainly give mine. I have been to over 2 dozen parishes across 5 different states. Only 5 of these parishes were “trad.” And these 5 had the most normal, non-problematic priests and laity when compared to their Novus Ordo counterparts. It wasn’t even close.

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2021 4:09 pm 
Offline
Criminally Insane Cucumber
Criminally Insane Cucumber
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:20 pm
Posts: 33874
Location: The countertop
Religion: The True One
Church Affiliations: OblSB
Peregrinator wrote:
I don't think you have to blame everything on V2 but it's clear from what followed that V2 didn't help. Ergo,...

Right. That's what I was trying to say.

_________________
Suscipe me secundum eloquium tuum, et vivam: et non confundas me ab exspectatione mea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:44 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2456
Religion: Catholic
Peregrinator wrote:
I don't think you have to blame everything on V2 but it's clear from what followed that V2 didn't help. Ergo,...


That is certainly different than giving the impression that not a single good thing came from it.

_________________
Everything in the universe has its being not only from God but also toward God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:36 pm 
Offline
Criminally Insane Cucumber
Criminally Insane Cucumber
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:20 pm
Posts: 33874
Location: The countertop
Religion: The True One
Church Affiliations: OblSB
Dominic wrote:
Peregrinator wrote:
I don't think you have to blame everything on V2 but it's clear from what followed that V2 didn't help. Ergo,...


That is certainly different than giving the impression that not a single good thing came from it.

:scratch: The fact that not everything can be blamed on it does not mean that any good came from it.

_________________
Suscipe me secundum eloquium tuum, et vivam: et non confundas me ab exspectatione mea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:18 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11123
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
gherkin wrote:
Dominic wrote:
Peregrinator wrote:
I don't think you have to blame everything on V2 but it's clear from what followed that V2 didn't help. Ergo,...


That is certainly different than giving the impression that not a single good thing came from it.

:scratch: The fact that not everything can be blamed on it does not mean that any good came from it.


Good came from the fall too.

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:15 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 82878
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Even cucumbers can be turned into salad.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:30 am 
Offline
Criminally Insane Cucumber
Criminally Insane Cucumber
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:20 pm
Posts: 33874
Location: The countertop
Religion: The True One
Church Affiliations: OblSB
I agreed with Peetem about that kind of good arising from the Council. Not the salad thing. :swoon :fyi: The 'even from the fall' kind of good. I agree with that.

_________________
Suscipe me secundum eloquium tuum, et vivam: et non confundas me ab exspectatione mea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:09 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:33 am
Posts: 4191
Religion: Catholic
gherkin wrote:
I agreed with Peetem about that kind of good arising from the Council. Not the salad thing. :swoon :fyi: The 'even from the fall' kind of good. I agree with that.


:cloud9:

No, wait....that's wrong.....

:nooo:

_________________
"So mercifully blessed to be free from the ravages of intelligence." - Taken from Time Bandits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What good came of Vatican 2?
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:32 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:20 pm
Posts: 2456
Religion: Catholic
Alexandros wrote:
All data I've seen shows a decline, except Africa maybe? And I am talking about conversions as well as attendance.

India and parts of Asia as well. Even in places like China it is said to have a small, but growing population. But yes, it's not the same as it was. But it's also not same world as it was so it's not going to compare easily.
Alexandros wrote:
Everyone should start with what “lump it all” means.

Vatican II didn’t invent sins or errors, so in this sense it’s not a direct or first cause.

If we move to the liturgy, it phrases things in certain ways that can easily be interpreted as minor reforms all the way to rewriting the missal. Is it the cause of the objective inferiority of the New Mass? Not directly, as it didn’t tell anyone to butcher the Offertory and whitewash churches. It opened some doors though.

What about the strange way it presents religious liberty? Or claiming that loving God and neighbor is the greatest commandment?

Imprecision and muddy wording effects theology, which finds its way to the seminary, then to the priests, then to the parish, schools, and universities. The parish priest isn’t going to give a homily detailing an excessively anthropocentric theology of God and man. But his erroneous beliefs will affect everything he says and does regardless (homilies, liturgy). The same might go for Catholic educators.

Then we get priests downplaying prayer and penance, saying salvation is possible outside the Church, obsession with corporal works of mercy over the spiritual ones, anthropocentric Masses that don’t treat holy things as sacred, etc.

Whose fault is that? Well, it all existed before the council. So, the council is not directly at fault. But it seems the council failed in its pastoral goal of representing Catholicism to the so-called modern world. So, I think Vatican II failed to protect us from some things by its wording of certain theological points and pastoral initiatives. In this way it can be blamed for failing its pastoral mission, but in another sense, it can’t be blamed as a direct cause of sins and errors.

Also, I think everything we’re seeing is a punishment for sin that started with a removal of certain graces. A punishment that was caused by people both before and after the council, continuing to this day. IMO, grace is needed first. E.g. the Fatima messages never said, “do proper catechetics,” it was "prayer and penance." I may be getting off topic, but when people want to blame the council or blame "the culture" I often see a hyper focus on "correct teaching." That's super important, but few talk about prayer and penance with regards to grace. Faith is supernatural after all.

The problem I have with this is that it inclines the masses to use ambiguity as a weapon to use against the magisterium. Whereby it's perspicuity or else __________ (fill in the blank). As if what we believe has always been written down so clearly as to not warrant any further discussion. I understand that it's not the same thing to crunch out further details after a Council and quite another to cause confusion. This also reminds me of my protestant days whereby we'd use the argument of the perspicuity of Scripture to show its sole authority.

But yes, if something isn't expressed clearly and causes confusion, further clarity will be needed. In that I think we likely agree.
Alexandros wrote:
I think it’s due to the so-called “trads” reception of certain information/truth, but since there is less than normal grace and hardly any decent leadership in the Church they start to plunge. There are no good Popes to clarify most things, only other so-called trads, maybe their priests. A lot of people are not equipped mentally or spiritually to wade through the crisis. They know something is wrong, in fact, lots of things are wrong. It’s alarming, because the Church is supposed to guide and teach. They scramble to make sense, but they fail.

Whereas, in the Novus Ordo there is also a general lessening of grace, but the intellect accepts more theological errors and liturgical laxity that is perceived as normal Church teaching/ coming from the Church. This is coupled with the perception that everything the Church does is the active will of God. The result is the typical Novus Ordo parish, with too many spewing heresies and treating holy things as common items.

That is the best way I can describe my opinion on this, I know it's not perfect and I am not saying all "trads" or people who go to the Novus Ordo are like this.

Also, if we’re going by anecdotal evidence, then I can certainly give mine. I have been to over 2 dozen parishes across 5 different states. Only 5 of these parishes were “trad.” And these 5 had the most normal, non-problematic priests and laity when compared to their Novus Ordo counterparts. It wasn’t even close.

People also tend to congregate with others that seem to understand. For example, say I see the same thing my more traditionalist friend sees but I am not scandalized as he is. Is the response we have not a choice? There is that reality as well. And it nothing to do with me accepting error or that I'm somehow ok with it all.

_________________
Everything in the universe has its being not only from God but also toward God.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 2   [ 26 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


Jump to: