Showing people the good in Vatican II

I have discussed Vatican II with some people, and they claim that we didn’t really “need” it. Also, that we would be better off if it never really happened. So, my question is “How can we show them the good that came out of the council?”

Thanks in advance, God Bless!

By presenting what is attractive. For goodness consists in the end in view concerning the attraction.

According to Saint Bonaventure we say someone is good because of their appearance. We say someone is wise because of their deeds.

It’s very difficult to prove (or disprove) hypothetical historical “what if” scenarios.

I think reading the documents themselves is the best thing to do.

It will take a bit of study and realizing the following:

The Second Vatican Council was important and called for a reason.


It may be difficult to show the laity of my generation any substantial good because we have seen the before and after.
With regards to Our Lady and the main message in 1917 at Fatima, that being, pray and offer sacrifice so the errors of Russia would not spread, the Vatican set in motion a paradox when they agreed to not criticize Communism, the number one Russian error, in any of their official Vatican II documents.

I agree. Reading the documents instead of assuming what they contain is the way to go. They are beautifully written, and afterward, you begin to realize that the problems were more with interpretation and poor implementation. They don’t say anything horrible. I’ve always thought they should have been mandatory for the person in the pew to read. No way to ensure that, I know…but honestly. You can’t provide a good argument without information. Tell folks to read them for themselves, and then…we’ll talk. :slight_smile:

Vatican II enabled me to return home. With mass in English, I can participate in the mass and receive the Eucharist because the mass is in a language I understand, can speak and pray in. Vatican II was a complete blessing, although I understand that misunderstanding parts of Vatican II has caused problems.

Well, that’s how it is for me.

You say “they agreed.” Can you provide a source as to who agreed “to not criticize Communism”?


vincent10395 #1
I have discussed Vatican II with some people, and they claim that we didn’t really “need” it. Also, that we would be better off if it never really happened. So, my question is “How can we show them the good that came out of the council?”

It is vital to know that Pope John XXIII declared in opening Vatican II: “The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously…it is necessary that this certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which the obedience of Faith must be given, be studied thoroughly and explained in the way for which our times are calling. One thing is the deposit of Faith which consists of the truth contained in sacred doctrine, another thing is the manner of presentation, always however with the same meaning and the same sense.” [Pope John XXIII in his opening address to the Council Fathers at Vatican II, *Creed and Catechetics, Msgr E Kevane P 60, 221-222]. The Pope here uses the very words of Vatican I, which in turn came from St Vincent of Lerins.

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).

Vatican II has singularly developed doctrine: identifying dissent by mandating “loyal submission of the will and intellect…to the authentic teaching of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra” (infallibly). (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday 1975, p 213)

Similarly, “collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See The *Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

The Dogmatic Constitution On The Church #8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].

The Declaration on Religious Liberty is a “development of doctrine (which) constitutes a change of emphasis; makes explicit what was explicit, and clarifies former obscurity or ambiguity.” (Fr Brian Harrison, OS).

No I can’t, but Communism wasn’t even mentioned in any of the Vatican II documents.

I’m not an expert on Vatican II. But speaking for ‘Joe Catholic’ in the pews its nice to understand what the priest is saying at Mass. And, from what I hear, now there is more participation of the crowd in the Mass. What I heard about before V2 there was nothing for them to do. So many would just pray the rosary while the priest performed the entire Mass. Still not as much participation as the Eastern rite liturgy though. Had a good talk with a Ukrainian Catholic priest about this.

There is also more ecumenism between other sects of Christianity in the last 50 years. There wasn’t so much dialog between them 50 years ago.

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