Has Vatican II caused more trouble than good?

First off, I would like to say that I recognize the Second Vatican Council as inspired and guided by the Paraclete. But, my question is, have misinterpratations of V2 caused more trouble than the actual Council has fixed?

Short answer- yes.

Long answer- yes. Vatican II opened the door for all sorts of misinterpretations that call established doctrines into question, and individualize the faith.

That was a short but excellent post. Your last sentence said it all.

Bl John XXIII had good intentions, but calling a council in the 1960’s was exactly NOT what the Church really needed, although no one could have imagined what would happen.

One of these days, our descendants will look back on this era and see the Church of the latter part of the 20th century as “funny”, but will see that she righted herself, and it will be further proof of her divine guidance.

Actually, I believe good days are just ahead. We may have to endure a physical persecution first, but the clouds are beginning to break.

If you read the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerick, she desribes the current crisis to a T. She describes invalid masses, the rise of Protestantism, the apostacy of the Bishop, and much more. But she also desribes what is just around the corner - a gloriious resurrection of the Church that she describes as nothing short of miraculous.

Well the flatus of Satan when the windows where flung open to let air in is less potent by Papa Benny’s air fresheners :wink:

I don’t think we can blame it on Vatican II, but on society in general and on Catholics trying to straddle the fence by having a foot in the world and not understanding they are loosing thier toe hold on heaven.

Problems were coming, problems were there, but the victory is already won. What Vatican II did was expose the bad fruit that was already there, so people like JPII and PB XVI could start the job of pruning and sometimes pruning hurts.:ouch:and it takes time on a 2000 year-old vine. But fresh new fruit is already beginning to show.


I** don’t **believe the documents on Ecumenism or Religious Liberty were misinterpreted.
I do believe the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was misinterpreted.

Come on where do you get all that from? What apostacy of a Bishop and what bishop? Invalid masses?
It is difficult to relate prophesy of any kind to this particular time.

The only valid interpretation of Vatican II is interpretation in the light of Tradition. Ecumenical Councils build on the deposit of faith and previous teachings rather then change them. If one interprets the documents of Vatican II in such a way that makes them appear as forces of change in terms of doctrine, then that is an erroneous interpretation.

I don’t think that the Second Vatican Council was the problem, but the time in which it occured. Bl. John XXIII called it, and God did His best to deliver what was needed, but the climate in which the teachings were promulgated were sufficiently heterodox that it practically caused a chain reaction of modernist invalidity. The documents on ecumenism and religious freedom were seized upon by moral subjectivists seeking a means to blunt the edge of two-edged sword of truth and call into question the black and white nature of the Christian faith. By extension, they used the documents on the liturgy to damage the external sign of faith that separated the Catholic Church from all other manner of schismatic or heretical offshoots, in a sense making it one choice among many, instead of the only true choice.

Agreed. :thumbsup:

I disagree.

We had the 1960’s. The era that made the current societal norm of “Mirror worship is OK”

And in that context, you didn’t think that V2 would be misinterpreted? Heck, in that environment, Trent would be misinterpreted!

If there was no V2, I’m sure the dissenters would have taken Trent: Canons of Justification, Canon I and interpreted it like the protestants view it: Sola fide.

Make sure you’re reading those in their context and not from a certain book on Catholic prophecies by a Mr. Yves Dupont. Concerning invalid Masses, there is a section in his book where it appears she is talking about Catholic Masses–being invalid but those in good faith who desire the graces receive them. If we put these in context, we see she is speaking specifically of Anglicans and Protestant communities, not Catholic ones or even pseudo-Catholic ones, if you believe in such a thing (as many sedevacantists do).

Anyway, concerning the OP, anyone who’s read the history of Councils knows the aftermath is usually rough–Bishop Fulton Sheen explains in his autobiography that Vatican II was a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but like in previous instances, such outpouring is usually met with an outpouring of demonic spirit.

Now, we see this in the history of other Councils–as St. Gregory of Nazianzen said:

“To tell the truth, I am convinced that every assembly of bishops is to be avoided, for I have never experienced a happy ending to any council; not even the abolition of abuses …”

Likewise, St. Basil speaks of the “shocking confusion and disorder” and the “incessant chatter” that filled the Church after councils.

And these two saints were speaking of Councils we now consider to be foundations of our faith!

If they were interpreted as at variance with Scripture and Tradition, they were. As Pius XII explains,

“It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.”

The problem is, both liberal and traditionalist theologians alike have abandoned this traditional principle, and have gone out of their way to do the exact opposite–to try and prove that the doctrine of the living Magisterium is not found in those places. :frowning:

And yet still, to add to the confusion, there are folks mimicking those described by St. Basil:

“And now the very vindication of orthodoxy is looked upon in some quarters as an opportunity for mutual attack; and men conceal their private ill-will and pretend that their hostility is all for the sake of the truth.”

St. Catherine of Siena in her Dialogue describes a similar situation, where certain individuals were sowing seeds of dissension and separating themselves from lawful authority, while claiming to only be doing so to defend truth.

Meanwhile, instead of striving to prove continuity and unity, as Pius XII commanded, individuals continue their endless war and “fratricidal quarrels.” “All the while unbelievers laugh; men of weak faith are shaken; faith is uncertain; [and] souls are drenched in ignorance.” (St. Basil).


The thread of this topic is: Has Vatican II caused more trouble than good?
The question left by the OP is have misinterpratations of V2 caused more trouble than the actual Council has fixed?
Two different questions.

The fruit of the council, versus the fruit of Western European, American hijacking of the council thourgh misinterpretations are two different things.

I propose that some of what has happened here has happened IN SPITE of the council, not as a result of it!

Local biases can also easily prevail. Things going on in Africa, Asia and South America today may in fact be the fruit of vernacular litugies made more accessible to local peoples. My forebearers who recieved Christianity from papal missionaries Ss Cyril & Methodius, can attest, sometimes a little vernacular, for example, goes a long way.

But to those who wish to demonstrate the decline of the west starting with V2, I say back up. Look at history.

V1 - ever so ***RIGHTLY!] ***venerated by so very many traditionalists did not stem the tide or stop the course of sickness in the West that lead to WWI, WW2, Facism in Italy or Nazism in Catholic Bavaria.

I don’t want to offer false dichotomy, but is it fair enough to say that sometimes, in the wake of a good Ecumenical Council, VERY BAD things still happen?

I understood the OP’s question. This question is not uncommon when changes are made no matter what the involve. IMHO It is the question that should always be asked prior to implementing any “new”, “improved” or “modernized” rules.

I agree. Both are not the same.

I’ve seen protestants misinterpret the Bible and form all kinds of heresies “based on the Bible” spit I guess, using this standard set by the OP, the Bible has caused more trouble than good :slight_smile:

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.