Did any good come out of Vatican II?


#1

Did any good come out of Vatican II? I’m not talking about high-sounding documents and resolutions, I’m talking about the practical consequences of Vatican II.


#2

I think your question too broad and too complex to be answered on a message board. I’m sure books have been written on the subject both for and con. Although, I think we have to take into account cultural factors that were influencing the Church right after Vatican II, at least here in the USA. As to worldwide, I couldn’t say. Sounds like a good writing project for someone interested in the topic.


#3

[quote=Della]I think your question too broad. . . .
[/quote]

Maybe, but this is a ‘poll,’ people do have opinions, and it will be interesting to see just which way the votes go. When one is polled, one isn’t normally expected to write a book.


#4

Over 100 years ago, there were more non-Catholic Christians than Catholics (~47%). Now there are more Catholics (~54%) than non-Catholic Christians. I don’t know if Vatican II was a factor, but I suspect it was.

Furthermore, since my Catholicism has been nothing but that which has been taught since Vatican II, I’d say the sanctification of my soul, the conversion of my wife, and baptism of my wife and kids is pretty “good.”


#5

“… in the work of salvation man can do nothing without the help of God, but unfortunately he is sufficient unto himself to fall or to sin. And precisely because sin as such is a deficiency or the privation of a good, it demands for its production only a defectible and deficient cause according to Scripture: ‘Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in Me.’ God permits this failure to occur, or rather does not prevent it, only because He is sufficiently powerful and good to draw a greater good from it - the manifestation of His mercy or justice.” Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Christian Perfection and Contemplation, pp. 86-7

So you see, the answer to your question will perhaps change as our understanding of what happened changes. But, in the end, God will be glorified.


#6

Read this month’s (May) issue of Inside the Vatican magazine - it has all kinds of older publications by then Cardinal Ratzinger. I read several articles about how he felt about Vatican II. He believes that Vatican II was fine, the implementations were in cases not consistent with the findings of V II and he wants to correct that. But the changes will be gradual over a longer period of time. But there are definitely things to be changed, and some things got changed in the recent update to the GIRM in 2001 (I think that was the right year).


#7

Of course as it is all part of the Great Plan of the Divine, even if I can not see it…

it has certainly change my tepidity and allowed me to truely find God, and hey that is only one person:)


#8
  1. the church is the people of God (ie baptismal priesthood of all believers) and not just priests & religious

  2. eucharist is the source & summit of the christian life

  3. changed the lay belief that we were here to ‘pay, pray & obey’ to a fully developed understanding of the christian life and to understand the tough teachings (eg why contraception is evil)

  4. mass in own language allowed inculturalisation and full participation (hopefully the next english translation of the Mass undertaken by Vox Clara will be better than the current version)


#9

Vatican II finally ended the ignorance of the Roman Catholic Church about the Eastern Catholic Churches. Perhaps someday all of the ECs will stand tall.

Dan L


#10

The seraphic* Catechism of the Catholic Church* was written in response to the Council. Nuff said.


#11

[quote=mercygate]The seraphic* Catechism of the Catholic Church* was written in response to the Council. Nuff said.
[/quote]

Excellent book! Can’t wait for the movie! :smiley:


#12

[quote=itsjustdave1988]Over 100 years ago, there were more non-Catholic Christians than Catholics (~47%). Now there are more Catholics (~54%) than non-Catholic Christians. I don’t know if Vatican II was a factor, but I suspect it was.
[/quote]

More than half of “Catholics” today don’t believe in the True Presence. Prior to Vatican II, more people went to Confession and less people came to receive the Eucharist during Mass. Now, only a minimal number of Catholics go to confession regularly but all receive the Eucharist.

I highly suspect that Vatican II is a factor.


#13

[quote=mike182d]More than half of “Catholics” today don’t believe in the True Presence. Prior to Vatican II, more people went to Confession and less people came to receive the Eucharist during Mass. Now, only a minimal number of Catholics go to confession regularly but all receive the Eucharist.

I highly suspect that Vatican II is a factor.
[/quote]

yep! … and unfortunately the lack of belief in the Real Presence has extended to many priests too.


#14

[quote=mike182d]More than half of “Catholics” today don’t believe in the True Presence.
[/quote]

One of the problem of the church now days is too many Catholics think you can test orthodoxy based on which box a person checks off on a Gallup poll.


#15

[quote=malcolm_davies]1. the church is the people of God (ie baptismal priesthood of all believers) and not just priests & religious
[/quote]

However, one cannot seperate the heirarchy from the Church. After all, the Catholic Church is one, holy, universal AND apostolic. Without the heirarchy, there is no Eucharist, Sacraments, or Church.

  1. eucharist is the source & summit of the christian life.

Absolutely. Post-Vatican II theology has done a fantastic job elaborating on this point.

  1. changed the lay belief that we were here to ‘pay, pray & obey’ to a fully developed understanding of the christian life and to understand the tough teachings (eg why contraception is evil)

I don’t think that changed for the better at all. Virtually all American Catholics reject the Church’s teaching on contraception and have completely no understanding of it.

It has changed the lay belief of being here to “pay, pray & obey” to “pick and choose what feels good to me.”

  1. mass in own language allowed inculturalisation and full participation (hopefully the next english translation of the Mass undertaken by Vox Clara will be better than the current version)

The whole of the Mass was never intended to be fully in the vernacular and this is stated clearly in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Latin was to be preserved and only those text, which constantly change and are necessary, such as the Liturgy of the Word, may be changed. Removing Latin from the Mass de-universalizes the Catholic Mass. Think about it: how beautiful is it to see people from all races and nations praying in the same tongue? As Latin is not a language spoken by any nation right now, its use promotes a more transcendent atmosphere; it helps one to understand the “other-wordliness” of the Mass. The Mystery of the Sacred Liturgy is unlike anything else in this world. Why have people gone to such great lengths to make it appear as something purely of this world?

The spirit of Vatican II has done more harm than good while the power of Vatican II itself has yet to be realized.


#16

[quote=katherine2]One of the problem of the church now days is too many Catholics think you can test orthodoxy based on which box a person checks off on a Gallup poll.
[/quote]

Through my own personal experience in talking with nominal Catholics, I have no reason to think that the poll is false.


#17

[quote=mike182d]More than half of “Catholics” today don’t believe in the True Presence. Prior to Vatican II, more people went to Confession and less people came to receive the Eucharist during Mass. Now, only a minimal number of Catholics go to confession regularly but all receive the Eucharist.

I highly suspect that Vatican II is a factor.
[/quote]

Oh yeah? Do you happen to have a source? Do you also happen to have a pre-V2 source?


#18

[quote=Pariah Pirana]Oh yeah? Do you happen to have a source? Do you also happen to have a pre-V2 source?
[/quote]

traditio.com/tradlib/polls.txt

As far as pre-V2 sources, I’m lookin’ for some links. I based the latter claim off what a Deacon told me as a positive effect of Vatican II. I’ll try and find something more concrete for you.


#19

[quote=mike182d]More than half of “Catholics” today don’t believe in the True Presence. Prior to Vatican II, more people went to Confession and less people came to receive the Eucharist during Mass. Now, only a minimal number of Catholics go to confession regularly but all receive the Eucharist.

I highly suspect that Vatican II is a factor.
[/quote]

How exactly can the teachings of Vatican II be a factor in Catholics not believing in the real presence? Doesn’t Vatican II (and everything eucharist-related) that has followed stress the real presence? I’ve certainly not read anything that would imply that the bread & wine don’t become the body & blood of Christ.


#20

mike182d,

Perhaps something more reliable than Traditio.com would be nice, as they are highly unreliable source for Catholics.

Here’s an excerpt from Traditio.com

[size=2]the Novus Ordo service is never an option. It is sacrilegious, unCatholic, and not even a Mass, let alone a valid one. (traditio.com/tradlib/faq04.txt)")[/size]
[size=2][/size]

They contend that the Pauline Mass is sacriligious. Yet, Pius VI (Auctorem fidei, 78) condemned the proposition that the Church could have established discipline which can be harmful to the faithful. Thus, Traditio.com resurrects an erroneous proposition already looooong condemned by the Catholic Church.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.