Is the Church better off because of Vatican II? I think so.
Is the Church better off because of Vatican II? I think so.
Absolutely. The Second Vatican Council was a very good council for the church and brought about renewal even though there were some who used it (poorly) to make their own changes to the church (and which fortunately are being corrected).
I couldn’t check any of the boxes, because they do not express what I believe, either collectively or individually.
One of the best fruits of the Council is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is wonderful. One source for all our believes as Catholics with everything explained, plenty of references for those who want more.
Is the Church better off because of Vatican II? Yes.
Is it better off because of how VII has been Implemented, and the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II”? I doubt it.
I dont have any experience of the pre-concilar Church (being a 24 year-old convert), but I think that in many ways that we have thrown the Baby out with the bathwater. I have read the documents, and have not seen the Change implemented as it was anticipated in those documents, but instead have seen Change implemented with the excuse “cause the council said so” … In other words, no actual document asked for the change, but Changes were made because Change was percieved to be the order of the day.
That is the way that I see it. In many ways, I feel that I am missing something of my catholicism in the post-concilar flux but because of the Church being what she is, Ihave no doubt that the Baby will be brought back in in time for another Bath. May I live to see it and May the Pope live to a Hundred.
I believe so, too. The Mass in the vernacular is beautiful, when done according to the rubrics, which I believe it is most of the time. I have lived in both pre and post vatican 2 , and I wouldn’t go back to the way it was.
I’m sure this post of mine will be slammed, but here goes. The aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II 1962-1965) has been an unmitigated disaster! I would ask anyone in this forum to show me the “positive fruits” of the post-Vatican Church.
Let me see if I can give it a try:
I could go on for another two to three years on this topic. However, I would urge all to read Ken Jones’s book, “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators.” It shows how we were a growing, vibrant and dynamic Church up until 1965, then crashed with unbelievable speed.
BTW: I am not a schismatic or sedavacantest. I am not a member of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI or any other group. Just a Roman Catholic who loves his faith and his Church. But a blind man could see what we have become and wonder outloud, “Quo Vadis, Rome?”
I don’t see this in the documents of Vatican II but the implementation stressed encouragement of the saint over a safety net for the sinner. The emphasis switched from rules to suggestions and encouragement. This supports the committed one in his spiritual growth, but fails to protect the smoldering wick and bent reed. They are left to go their way with the admonition* “Do the best you can,”* but no firm boundaries.
For example - the participation at mass is much better, but attendance is much poorer. Are those who no longer attend as well off spiritually as when they attended under fear of sin?
Gee, I wish I had seen this thread before I started one in Liturgy about Vatican II.
All the points brought up by Latin Mass Only are valid. But I do wonder: would some of these changes have happened with or without Vatican II. For example, the drop in vocations. In the 60’s, the entire culture of the Western world was turned topsy-turvey. I often wonder: was this the result of Vatican II or was the Church just another victim of this world view?
I do think that the Church today is too wishy-washy. The priests never seem to talk about sin anymore. My brother told me when he was a kid (he’s 61), if you missed Sunday Mass, your name was printed in the bulletin! And when Father or Sister said to do something, you did it!
Ah, the road to hell and all that.
If I can with all due respect express my view(I will hold to my constitutional right of freedom of speech here).
I disagree that the church is better off now than before Vatican II. I would think otherwise, except for the following facts: How many priests, nuns and seminarians have LEFT their state of life now, compared to before vatican II? Before Vatican II the seminaries were all full to capacity. Since the liberal nuns kicked the habit, how many new vocation are there in the old religious orders: few. Much less people beleive now in the real precence Of Jesus Christ in the Eucahrist, as compared to before vatican II.
Vatican II as John XXIII intended it to be was good. However, it became a liberal forum and by the time the council ended, a little after, Pope Paul VI made the statement: “through some crack, the smoke of satan has entered the church.” Then came the so called diabolical “spirit” of vatican II, and what some liberals wished it said, over to what it actually says.
In conclusion, let not people now interpret me as saying Vatican II was bad, wrong, etc., etc., in a convenient twist of my words. That is NOT what I have written here! I do believe in the foot of the letter of the actual documents of Vatican II which are far from liberal, and in our Holy Father who is good. What I am saying is that the facts and figures speak for themselves here, and well, because the documents were interpreted wrongly by liberals, the church sufrfered, and the numbers stae the dismal state of afairs of our church now, especially in the catholic Church in the USA, in which it seems anything goes, all is fine, and there is never any problem(relativism). Though this is not the case in countries such as Mexico, Spain, Portugal. etc., where the catholics there at least have the humility to obey the Holy See.
The one who has said it the best here is “latinmassonly”. You hit the nail right on the head. I know however that some relativists will try to argue the facts you state, down. I am sure there are people who still don’t beleive the world is round either, even when the facts are presented. It is not that they don’t know, oh they know, they just wish to not listen. It is called denial, and with regards to what church documents actualy say, it is called disobedience, which I also call a me, me, me, ,me religion instead of a adoration of God religion. It reminds me when I used to teach for a Parrochial Elementary Catholic School, when I had to state that the Church (not I) teaches that remarriage after a civil divorce is a sin. I was labeled as judgemental, ultra conservative, etc.
Let me state to all here in all charity and love: I am not politically correct when it comes to official church teaching, no compramise with official teaching, and I am sorry if being faithful to the Church some feelings have to be hurt. Better to have love and adoration to God, and respect of Him, OVER human respect.:clapping:
Vatican II was much needed and is much abused as usual by one and all. It is not unusual though that Joe 6 pack in the pew always thinks pre-Vatican II was better and the church had nothing to fix in the first place. That has been the norm for every council of the church since the beginning. It usually takes about a century for the dust to settle. We are not even half way through the dust. Cough! It does get pretty thick though and discouraging.
The Vocation crisis along with many other problems were alive and well prior to Vatican II. Sorry folks but it was. On the one hand we had seemingly lots of priests and nun’s. On the other hand we had several totally not fit to be in religious life. Some left and some stayed. The ones who stayed of the not fit kind, continued to make a mockery of the faith then and now. I had 3 members of my own family who jumped the Religious Vocation ship long before Vatican II. 1930’s and 1940’s to be exact. The rupture was already starting and it finally burst in the 1960’s. That was no big surprise to those of us who had been watching the leak for decades before. We do not look back with Rose colored glasses. We lived it.
I loved the Latin Mass then and now. I applaud and love what Vatican II is and what it is still in the process of doing about the ruptures in the church. Those who fall by the way side I pray for. Those who abuse the beauty of the Mass as it is now, I pray for, just as I prayed for those who did the same prior to Vatican II. I follow Christ and His Holy Church. I trust the Holy Spirit to see us through. He always has and He always will. You have His word on it and it does not get any better than that.
I couldn’t check any of the boxes, but I think Vatican II is GREAT!
(And I don’t have any choice, I’m a Catholic - i.e. I am bound to adhere, with religious submission of mind, to the authentic magisterium of the Church)
I consider myself orthodox (small ‘o’), and am loving VII more and more every day.
I do that the church needed to do something in the 60’s, but I don’t think vatican II accomplished those things. In the council of trent the church defined itself as anti-protestant. I think that vatican II should have clearly defined the church as anti-relativistic, since relativism was the growing threat. Instead of doing this, vatican II produced lengthy documents that don’t have really that much to say. Even though they aren’t heretical, they are weak. They remind me of documents put out by the usccb. Although the novus ordo is the official mass of the church presently, I do think there are some problems with it. For instance, it should be mandatory, instead of being an option, to say most of the mass in latin. It should also be mandatory for the priest be facing God(since that’s who’s being sacrificed to), instead of the people, during the liturgy of the eucharist. Also, the priest should not be given so many options in selecting prayers, because this shows the individuality of the priest, instead of showing the unique personality of christ that is working through him.
I totally and completely agree with Latin Mass Only.
I believe the bishops used very imbiguous wording so that for the time being it sounded fine and dandy but for the long run they could take the same words and change them into a more liberal meaning. I hope I am not getting to technical. I know some of you aren’t going to like the next paragraph…here goes!
The Latin Mass was having trouble before Vatican II which is why they were trying to establish a new liturgy. The end result of that liturgy has been catastrophe. The abuses from it are worse than the abuses that were going on pre-Vatican II. I only hope and pray we can go back to our traditions and re-unite holiness and God to our Church where distruction and desicration has taken place.
When I go into a “church”…I don’t even know where God is…the tabernacle is a long the side like we are trying to shun or even like we are embarrased by Our Lord…If that’s not an effect of Vatican II, then what is? GOD HELP US! I believe that the Norvus Ordo is valid and I even attend it once in awhile…but I CERTAINLY don’t agree with what goes on.
I have seen that Vatican II had its pros and cons. It is unfortunate that some elements were lost as a result of it. I wish priests had more of choice in if they want to celebrate a Novous Ordo Mass or a Tridentine Mass. I prefer the old music, although some of the new music is good, I do not like hearing guitars, bongo drums, and clapping hands at mass. But each to their own, the Novous Ordo mass is still legitimate. I miss the devotions, such as frequent benediction, the fourty hour devotion, regular novenas and rosary prayer groups. Although it depends on the church, some churches still continue these practices. I am hoping that the new Roman Missal will inspire a revival of these older practices in many Parishes in the United States.
**The Latin Mass was having trouble before Vatican II which is why they were trying to establish a new liturgy. The end result of that liturgy has been catastrophe. The abuses from it are worse than the abuses that were going on pre-Vatican II. I only hope and pray we can go back to our traditions and re-unite holiness and God to our Church where distruction and desicration has taken place. **
Tradcat…may I ask an opinion of your and those who have cited similiar posts?
In the grand scheme of God’s Plan (instead of man’s), is it possible that there were so many abuses in the Latin mass, that the Vatican II direction was taken by the Holy Spirit, not because a new mass was needed, but so that the Latin mass would be taken ‘to the mat’ as it were, so that the Latin Mass would gain it’s austere and preeminent position once again in the future?
It has been brought up in other message boards, for instance, that the liberal bishops and priests are slowly dying off or retiring, and in their place are more conservative ones who are bringing much of our tradition back, and tightening up the catechetical teaching of our young ones.
So is it possible that Vatican II isn’t necessarily as switching of tracks as much as it is a wake up call to see and value what we have almost lost?
I consider it a miracle that the Latin Mass is still around, what with all the agressiveness of trying to get rid of it by the liberals.
John, brother Irish, I wish you had a better selection of choices…so be it. Good to see you here brother Irish. I do not know how long I am going to stay (too much…well never mind), so if this is my only post to you…see ya over at Al Kresta’s Board from time to time. And thanks for recommending this forum to me.
By the by, I don’t know if you know but I have decided to canonically transfer to the Maronites. But, as you know I was raised Latin and am currently Latin, I am a traditionalist. I prefer the traditional aspect of the Roman Church. However, I love VCII. I wish that some things were done differently - especially in regard to the liturgical reforms. However, I dare say that my two favorite reforms are the three year cycle of readings and the desire to get the congregation more involved in participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. My four least favorite are the loss of the singular canonical prayer, the loss of the Last Gospel, the introduction of “holding hands”, and the indult for reception in the hand.
However, I do not buy the argument that the council was “needed” at the time, for the statistics do not bear that out (remember I am only 32 and so wasn’t there to witness first hand).
Your unworthy brother in Christ and by the Grace of God a future Maronite priest,
“This schematism of a before and *after *in the history of the Church, wholly unjustified by the documents of Vatican II, which do nothing but reaffirm the continuity of Catholicism, must be decidedly opposed. There is no ‘pre-’ or ‘post-’ conciliar Church: there is but one, unique Church that walks the path toward the Lord, ever deepening and ever better understanding the treasure of faith that he himself has entrusted to her.”
– Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
That may be true in the USA, but not everywhere. There’s a noticiable upsurge “in vocations on all levels of Religious life (Priests, Brothers, Sisters)” in some parts of the world, particularly in southern africa.
I think that VII had good intentions and it is valid but it had devistating consequences. I think that the liberals used the change to make changes of there own. And the restriction of the latin mass was the worst thing that could ever happen. The latin mass is one of the most beautiful things we have. It is almost two thousand years old and they tried to make it invalid. The statistics only prove that it has not been a good change. For example the number of anullments went up from about 300 to about 50,000. That is not a good sign.
I don’t think that there is going to be a change in the church until there is more of a push for a more traditional way of thinking. Tradition encourages devotion more than the current way of thinking. I think they need to allow more freedom to say the latin mass.
Quo Vadis, Rome?
**[font=Comic Sans MS]Quo Vadis, ROMA… **[/font]
[font=Comic Sans MS][/font]
[font=Comic Sans MS]Shoshana