Response to "Fruits of V2"?


#1

There are some people out there who say that the “Fruits of Vatican 2” show that it was a bad council.

How do you all react to such a statement?
What is your response?

I usually come back with World Youth Day #'s etc.

But the problem is that some of the folks claim that V2 “caused” all the bad things going on (low priest count, sex scandal, etc.) They will not concede that anything else could have led to this things.
What is your response to this allegation?

Thanks for the help/


#2

The second Vatican Council was the 21st ecumenical council in the Church’s history. That means it was directed by the Holy Spirit and that we are bound to the documents that came out of it. There are many people who condemn the council and claim that its fruits show that it was bad and that they do not have to adhere to it. Those people go against the Church and cannot rightly call themselves Catholics.

A lot of the problems that people see coming out of the council don’t actually come from the council. A lot of people are fond of using the council to advance their own causes. These people use terms like the “spirit of Vatican 2” ect. Take the time and read the documents and see what actually came from the council instead of peoples interpreations.

The other large set of problems that arose after the council come from the implementation of what came out of the council, which caused a period of confusion and turmoil. This has been seen after every major council and in some cases like Trent, lasted for many generations. Hope that helps some.


#3

My response is that this conversation will unavoidably lead to a discussion on sedevacantism, which is currently on the list of banned topics.


#4

Read my response to this thread about “Why you love Vatican II”.

In addition, the entire papacy of John Paul II is a fruit of the Second Vatican Council.


#5

[quote=Apologia100]My response is that this conversation will unavoidably lead to a discussion on sedevacantism, which is currently on the list of banned topics.
[/quote]

I understand that fear. And I don’t want this thread closed because, I am searching for info. Please don’t go the direction of the “s-word”.


#6

You need not argue about the fruits of Vatican II. That is a debate you are bound to lose. However, you can argue that the bad fruits do not make it an illegitimate ecumenical council, much as the bad fruits of Constantinople II did not it an illegitimate Council. You can argue that all the Council’s dubious statements which admit of heterodox interpretations can also be interpreted in an orthodox manner, and that it’s not the documents themselves which are in error but the liberals who interpret them in ways which put them in opposition to the previous 1930 years of Catholic teaching (this includes Vatican prelates and possibly the Pope).


#7

Documentation of the bad fruits of the Council:
seattlecatholic.com/article_20031208.html

A theologian grapples with the difficult task of reconciling Vatican II with Tradition and discovers some interesting facts along the way:
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/skel.htm

The proper attitude towards Vatican II:
catholicintl.com/epologetics/Letter_to_Concerned_Patron.asp


#8

[quote=cassman]There are some people out there who say that the “Fruits of Vatican 2” show that it was a bad council.

How do you all react to such a statement?
What is your response?

I usually come back with World Youth Day #'s etc.

[/quote]

When I think of the fruits of Vatican II, World Youth Day is not something I would consider a “good” fruit.

The Pope is suppose to be the holiest man on the planet. He is the Vicar of Christ. He represents Christ on Earth what I saw in Toronto strongly represented a Rolling Stones Concert, not The Vicar of Christ. Scantly clad teenagers screaming “I love the pope” “The pope, he’s my hero” some of those teenager (whom I know personally) do not go to church and have not since stepped foot in a church.

If I compare “The Vicar of Christ” walking amoung the people to
Christ as he walk amoung the multitudes - I do not see any resemblence. I witnessed people (not just people) Catholics shaking his hand like they were greeting Joe Blow. Com 'on should they not have been on their knees kissing the bottom of his robe?

The reverence that is OWED the pope was not there!


#9

[quote=Hananiah]You need not argue about the fruits of Vatican II. That is a debate you are bound to lose.
[/quote]

I think it would be prudent not to claim victory in a debate yet to occur.

The problem with determining the fruits of any event is in showing the cause and effect relationship. The sixties and seventies were rather turbulent times.

I was in the Southern Baptist Convention at the time and we were struggling with a lot of the same issues. For example, seminary theologians were being influence by those who wished to remove the supernatural from the Bible (sound familar).

Compare our changes with what Protestant denominations have experienced, i.e. women ministers, exceptance of contraception, homosexuality permitted. All of their ills occured without a Vatican II council.

I personally blame the all spiritual degeneration in this time period on peolpe smoking pot.


#10

[quote=pnewton]Compare our changes with what Protestant denominations have experienced, i.e. women ministers, exceptance of contraception, homosexuality permitted. All of their ills occured without a Vatican II council.
[/quote]

The Catholic Church has always been the leader, it has always set the standards of Christianity.

Protestant Churches have spent their life trying to prove they are just as “Holy” as the Catholic Church (I know this will rise the hair of any protestant here but it is true.)

So what happens when the morality of The Catholic Church starts to appear open to subjection? When the very foundation of Christianty seems to be cracked, than those who are not so funamentally grounded fall first. So in essence the Protestant Churches are feeling the effect of Vatican II. The Catholic Church would do well to look at what is happening to them because we are not far off.

I remember asking my father when I was little “why did the other churches not have saints” his answer was “because they don’t have what it takes to make them, if they did, they’d make them so fast your head would spin”


#11

Things happen very slowly. The good fruits of V2 will be realized in about 100 years and folks will have much praise for it. None of us on this thread will be alive then, but I bet it will be a nice time to behold.


#12

Good point, Deacon Tony. Those who are interested in the slow progress of earlier church councils might enjoy a fascinating historical book about a somewhat obscure diocese in the Flanders somewhat after Trent – and the bishop’s attempt to bring the decrees of the Council of Trent to life in his diocese.

It’s called A Bishop’s Tale: Bishop Mathias Hovius and His Flock, by Craig Harline and Eddy Put. An exceptionally well-written and wonderful book.

Naprous


#13

Thanks for the info. I am originally from New England. Must be why we think the same. God bless


#14

I have yet to meet personally anyone attacking Vatican 2 who can tell me the substance of any of the documents; they haven’t read them, or read them so long ago they can’t even tell me what the documents covered, let alone what they said.

Mandi state:
So in essence the Protestant Churches are feeling the effect of Vatican II.
Say what? The Protestant churches are suffereing from the same set of problems that society, and the Catholic Chuch, have been suffering, and it started long before Vatican 2, and isn’t over yet. Vatican 2 didn’t start the sexual revolution; it was in high gear in the 20’s. Nor did it start the explosion of information; it came after the invention of television. Nor did it put vast numbers of people into colloeges; the GI Bill of WW2 did that. Nor did it start the explosion, nor prompt or spread it, of drug experimentation; that goes back to the beat generation post WW2. Nor did it start Modernism; that has its roots in the French Revolution. In fact, I submit that Modernism is no longer the problem, but its bastard child, Post Modernism. What you are arguing is Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

Hananiah, I don’t agree at all that I am going to lose any argument about the fruits of Vatican 2. You choose to call anything that happened in the Church after Vatican 2 a fruit. It ain’t. You, too are arguing Post Hoc… the dissent that exploded around Humanae Vitae was not the fruit of Vatican 2. That snowball started rolling in earnest in 1930; and the dissent was part and parcel of the youth rebellion in the 60’s, and the freedom of thought brought on by the GI Bill. People already had 15+ years of exposure to higher education, and its attendant liberal thought prior to Vatican 2 starting; by the time Humanae Vitae hit the press, they were working at 20 years. The mindset of the average Catholic in the pew (and the average seminarian, and average newly ordained priest) was being shaped by a society which in turn was being shaped by massive changes in transportation, information technology, and society itself. Kenneth Jones is welcome to his opinions, but he is either myopic, or ill informed as to the status of many things in the Church prior to Vatican 2, or just plainly so prejudiced that he chooses to ignore much of what needed addressing. And maybe the telling point is his age; I was born well before Vatican 2, and the only think I can say is that the more things change, the more they stay the same.


#15

[quote=otm]I have yet to meet personally anyone attacking Vatican 2 who can tell me the substance of any of the documents; they haven’t read them, or read them so long ago they can’t even tell me what the documents covered, let alone what they said.
[/quote]

I have read a few documents of V2 and while at first glance all would appear to be in order and following Catholic teachings but the truth of the matter is that it left holes, and I don’t have to prove that it left holes because the modernist have done that for me. They took V2 and ran (as fast as they could) with it. Read any thread you like on this board and all you will read is sacrilage and abuses starting with the clergy right on down, all in the name of V2. I don’t have to tell you where, all you have to do is read. I’m pesonally horrified and sickened by it. Others think it’s wonderful! That is the fruit of V2!

Say what? The Protestant churches are suffereing from the same set of problems that society, and the Catholic Chuch, have been suffering, and it started long before Vatican 2, and isn’t over yet. Vatican 2 didn’t start the sexual revolution etc. etc.

This is true modernism was setting up long before V2, Our Lady of Fatima said beware, Pope Piux X said beware, Our Lady of Lasalette said “the hand of my Son grows heavy, I fear I can no longer hold it back” we were warned repeatedly before V2 - and after Vatican II it was like the flood gates were released. I know that was not the intention of V2 but never the less it is what happened. How can you have a small handful of clergy teaching Truth, while the rest are reveling in what they are presuming is their new found freedom. The voices against these atrocities were not heard!!!


#16

Otm:
WHat you are saying only pertains to the USA and to a limited degree the rest of the world. What does the GI bill have to do with the spread of modernism in the Vatican is beyond me? The TV was only popular in the USA before the sixties, the rest of thw world only came to know the TV in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. The ual revolution started with modernism in the 1920’s. This is the working of the Communist and Freemasons whose ultimate aim was the destruction of the One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. The Freemasons have fought for the destruction of Our Holy Mother CHurch for 250 years. The Protestants for 500 years. But we all know who is behind this. As Protestantism started with Luther all this upheaveal against the Church started was started by satan. Vatican II was a time when all these evil spirits of the past rose and changed the CHurch from within.Now we see the insanity that Vatican II hath wrought. Would Pope Saint Pius X have the laity fighting amongst themselves about imports from Protestantism? No he would have put them down… These forums are a testament to the insanity of Vatian II. Look at the Liturgy forum. What are the topics? Let me see.Women lectors,“the great kneeler controversy”,changing the crucifix,liturgical dancers,."to hold or not to hold"your hands during the Pater Noster,women’s church clothing,are we supposted to stand during the Canon,Winnie the Pooh “Mass”,another post about the holding of hands during the Pater noster,is it acceptable to not give out the Precious Blood during Mass,“Life tenn” Mass,where to place the Tabernaclein the church,bored altar servers… These are the abuses posted on this forum from the [size=5]last two days.* This is the fruit of Vatican II.[/size]


#17

If these forums are a fruit of Vatican II, then I shall eat of the fruit.

Being a Protestant import myself and having grown up reading Jack Chick, I am sceptical of conspiracy theories, or maybe I am a Freemason spy?


#18

It was a result of the implementation of Vatican II in America that was linked to liberal social engineering by ideologues, it does not represent authentic, orthodox Catholicism.

The silliness that has overtaken seminaries and the USCCB, the homosexualization, the minimalist liturgical gnosticism, the iconoclastic wreckovation outrages, the lesbianism among some nuns, the theological dissent, the activist liberalism at such places as Notre Dame and Georgetown, the attempts through Liberation Theology to mate Catholicism with socialism or communism, the giddy charismatic prayer meetings, Enneagram seminars, the Protestantization of Catholic worship,“encounter group” theology and liturgy, the “pro-abortion” Catholic celebrity politicians, the gutting of parishes and dioceses, and the near-bankruptcy-inducing sex abuse settlements are all a result of the implementation not the directives of Vatican II.


#19

Mandi & Catholic Eagle: You both need to seperate Vatican 2 from the official implementation of the Decrees, and that from the unofficial implementation of Vatican 2. If you can’t seperate those three things, it will be difficult to have an intelligent discussion of the issue at hand, to wit: there are some people who say the “Fruits of Vatican 2” show it was a bad council.

I say that the true fruits of Vatican 2 include the ecumenical work with both the Orthodx Churches, and the Lutherans. They also include, for example, the change in view of ecclesiology, that the bishops, in union with the Pope, are the direct descendants sacramentally from the Apostles (and I will grant that a few look perhaps more like Judas). The list goes on and on. However, people don’t seem much interested in the official implementation of the Decrees. The focus seems mainly on the unofficial “implementation” of the Decrees; those seem to have the phrase “spirit of Vatican 2” often attached.

I grow weary of people’s inability to distinguish a true abuse (e.g. trying to consecrate invalid matter) from issues of holding hands during the Our Father (see, for example, Chaput’s response). I am as tired of the attacks from the Conservatives as from the Liberals. The Ordo Missae is just fine. I remember the “abuses” i witnessed as a child and teenager of the Tridentine Mass, and some of them were more egregious to me than all the hand holding you can complain about.

Are there still true abuses occuring? Of course. I am neither blind nor deaf. Are they lessening? They appear to be, not as fast as I would have it, but given that the abuses since Vatican 2 have occured for less than 2% of the time the Church has been on the face of the earth, and given they are not, in any sense of the truth, the only abuses that have ever occured in that 2000 years, I find that a bit of perspective helps the attitude. True abuse needs to be rooted out. For the things you don’t like, you might try Christian charity.

ILdoc82: I am not sure what you are referring to by “silliness” overtaking seminaries and the USCCB; can you be more specific? As to many of your other charges, again, the Liberals have taken flight somewhere off the far edge of the earth. I try to seperate out what is truly an implemntation, and what is some liberal’s opinion of what implementation should look like.

The biggest difficulty I have with a number of the respondents within some of these threads is that if Vatican 2 were implemented correctly and fully today, it would still be rejected, because these respondents have a mindset of what the Church looks like, and they consider it immutable. They cannot seperate form and substance; they have the most myopic view of the history of the Church possible, and they appear more interested in feeling holy than in the challenge of being holy. By that, I mean that i get a distinct feeling that “holiness” appears, from their comments, to mean an emotional religious “fix” they get from a certain style of worship. God is much more solemn, profound, awesome, whatever, as a transcendent God than as an imminent God. God is both. Granted that the pendulum has swung too hard in the transcendent quarter, it is not either/or, but both/and.


#20

Otm:
What abuses were there in the TLM when you were growing up. DO you remember them? Give me at least 3 please.


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.