EO/OO view of Vatican II?

I don’t think I have ever seen a forum post (there could be one, idk) on how the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches view Vatican II and the changes that were made to the liturgy. I figured the Orthodox probably have a better understanding of a council over the protestant communities. This is not meant to be a debate, just peaked my curiosity.

I’ve never seen an Orthodox have a favorable opinion of any of the changes brought on by Vatican II.

I’ve never heard an opinion one way or another (the RCC is generally not on the COC’s radar, and I’ve never heard any other OO talk about, either, other than recognizing that it was a thing that happened that caused some changes in the way the RCC does things), but I’m going to guess that if there is one it’s probably not very positive. The Latin Church had a venerable liturgy and in the wake of Vatican II turned it into something that even many of its own communicants don’t like. It stands to reason that the Orthodox, who are very serious about keeping the rites and liturgies of our Church unchanged since the days of our fathers, would not like tampering with liturgy on principle, though again since it concerns a communion other than our own, any opinion that you do find (if you find one) doesn’t really amount to much.

I don’t think I’ve heard of anything either

Well it depends on who is being asked. A Catholic who lived before Vatican II might not agree and yet another prior to Vatican II might have no issues. at all. I was born after 1965,so the current liturgy is all have known my whole life,so I cannot say it was better before or it stinks.

My apologies. I did not mean to say or even imply that it stinks or should be judged negatively in comparison to what came before it. My only point is that many Catholics (both those born before VII and after) seem to have various problems with it (and, you’re right, many don’t), so the Orthodox appraisal would likely take an even lesser view of the changes that created this situation, as we are very much against changes being made to the liturgy in general.

I am very much supportive of the liturgy being celebrated in the vernacular. Every other “fruit” of Vatican II that I’ve seen, I’m not impressed with.

It is okay,no apologies needed. I understand what you meant. I just stating not all Catholics today have an issue with it. I for one cannot say either way, I was not around to witness the former liturgies. I hear it was much better and so on,but again…I do not know anything other than Vatican II. Yes Orthodox have beautiful liturgies.

Care to elaborate? Not starting a fight here,but I am curious. Thanks

Have you ever been to a Latin Tridentine Mass? If not, maybe the best way to get what he means is to go experience that. After all, it would be an experience of the pre-Vatican II liturgy. It is one thing for someone to tell you what they don’t like, it is another to experience the difference. You might not come to the same conclusion, but I would still say experience is the best way to learn about something.

Yes, I thought I was going to be called out on that one (and rightly so). I had forgotten about the vernacular being a part of Vatican II, but it had been too long to edit my post.

If by the “fruits of Vatican II” we are only referring to the liturgy as it has been celebrated in many (most?) Latin parishes post-Council, I would agree that there is little that would appeal to the Orthodox other than the introduction of vernacular and perhaps a more explicit epiclesis. But if we are looking at the fruits of the Council more generally I can think of several things off the top of my head that I would think the Orthodox would appreciate:
[LIST]
*]Formal recognition that the Eastern Rites are of equal dignity to the Latin Rites
*]Formal recognition that the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome have a right to govern themselves as Sister Churches of the Latin Church
*]A renewed emphasis on the wider Latin theological tradition, not just Scholasticism, including a renewed emphasis on the Eastern Fathers (as seen in the post-Vatican II Catechism)
*]Renewed emphasis on the Church as a “hospital for sinners” - a very Eastern concept
[/LIST]
[LIST]
*]Renewed emphasis on collegiality: the Pope governs the Church with his brother bishops and not apart from them
[/LIST]

You generally won’t find many friends amongst the Orthodox when it comes to your Eastern Catholics, no matter what the elevation of their status.

Other than that what the council said is of very little interest to the Orthodox, from those I’ve spoken to on the subject. They/we are far more concerned with what it does and how it is produced. This is a division I frequently see in Orthodox/Roman dialogue: you put forward what your church says, and we look more at what your church does. Not necessarily saying one side is wrong or not, just stating what I’ve seen as the situation.

It depends on one’s view of ecumenism. Those who are enamored with ecumenism tend to be approving of the Second Vatican Council, and those who are not will certainly disagree with the council’s baptismal theology.

Even further past the mass, baptism etc, the exclusiveness of the Catholic Church being taught in the ecumenical light of V-II brought a nuance in learned behavior. In this sense I understand a good deal of the traditional thinking as I seen the change in the Church.

The best I’ve heard from an EO regarding VII was, “yeah, we didn’t have to worry about any of that.” :slight_smile:

This is a somewhat weak analogy, but I think it may be helpful anyhow: asking an Orthodox which is better, pre-VII Catholicism or post-VII Catholicism, is a little bit like asking a Catholic which is better, Anglicanism or Lutheranism? Not that a Catholic can’t have an opinion on that, but generally we would say "Well neither of them are Catholic (in communion with Rome) so … "

I think from an ecumenical perspective we can have something of an opinion - which one is closer to a Church we can see ourselves uniting with.

VII did make some important changes. The use of the vernacular, some de-emphasis on the pope. But it also included some things we find troubling, basically tossing out the Tridentine mass in favour of one that was seen as “easier”, among others.

Is the church before or after preferable? Not really in this case, but who is to say the Catholic Church won’t have a future council that does change how we view it.

I think Vatican I, with the addition of Papal Infallibility as a new Dogma now required for belief by all Catholics, would be a bigger issue compared to Vatican II since it is a new additional hurdle standing in the way of unification between Orthodox & Catholic Churches.

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.