December 26th, 2012 - Dirk-631502 said:
Vatican II was necessary and the best thing that ever happened. Unfortunately, it was not properly implemented. I read through some of the documents and they are well written. Most Catholics have never read the documents, so there is a lot of misunderstanding.
Vatican II did NOT abolish the Latin Mass, nor did it abolish Gregorian Chant. The Latin Mass could still be said and Chant still sung in the churches. It took a Motu Proprio by Pope Benedict to clarify this. For those who want to go to the old Latin Mass, check your local diocese. Many cities in the U.S. and a few in Canada now offer the Extraordinary (i.e., Tridentine) Mass. Gregorian Chant is still around, and sacred music is making a slow comeback.
Vatican II itself was not the problem. The implementation was. I recommend reading the original documents.
June 21st, 2012 - John-683886 said:
it is a FACT that Vatican II was a PASTORAL council, not an infallible one. If it were to call itself infallible, then it'd run the risk(s) of anathema with it's many ambiguities. Vatican II seems like it never needed to happen and like a tool for satan to water down God's dear true Church.
October 1st, 2011 - Theresa-414178 said:
Vatican II teachings is why I returned to my Catholic Faith. It is the core of my understanding of love, the world, and spirituality. The good values I have and passed on to my son came from the Vatican II ideals of my early Catholic upbringing in Catholic school.
October 1st, 2011 - Carl-767392 said:
Anyone who blames Vatican II for modern problems either has not read, or does not understand, the documents. Dei Verbum does not endorse limited inspiration. Sancrosanctum Concilium does not call for the removal of Latin from the Liturgy. Nostra Aetate does not place all belief systems on the same level of Truth. The vocations crisis was starting to rear its head in the 1950's and without Optatam Totius, may have been worse. Vatican II was a gift.
September 17th, 2011 - Freddie-714102 said:
creeping modernity, and definitely a pander to the trends of the world at that time. vatican II was obviously a disaster. look what it's done to the church. look at what parishoners wear to church. see how their kids don't even pay attention or even feign respect for the ceremony. thankfully, it's being undone and tradition is coming back.
July 5th, 2011 - Jose-737526 said:
the tragedy of v11 was that the church allowed the misinterpretations to stand, because of her past errors the church allowed the radicals to run rampant our religious orders liberalized ,nuns removed the habit,our nuns today are being corral d back into conformity both male orders and woman's orders are returning to their roots, the men and women who are joining orders are joining traditional orders,monasteries and cloistered orders are alive while the liberal orders are falling apart it is sad because our church in this country was built on the backs of woman,JP11,started the march back to some stability in the church's moral stance, forcing the so called catholic college's to teach doctrine, teachers to sign statements of faith and maintain stander eds you where more likely to lose your faith by giong to a catholis college than anywhere else
March 23rd, 2011 - John-701264 said:
Any one who speaks of the Second Vatican Council.as a disaster Is not shure of his/her particular believes. After the Second World War there was a need for reconcilliation, All of the Councils Documents are rooted in the former councils and it did not denie any of the former councils teaching. Look at all the foot notes which are givin in every document with reference to earlier councils. The call to universal holiness could be seen as a key isue throug the entire whole Council. And that it speaks of reintergration-bringing Chrches together. It also speak of the recogniton of the Jewish people who received the faith first. That they not live up to it is another issue. Blessings. John
September 10th, 2010 - Thomas-620573 said:
Properly implemented, it was a renewal for the Church in line with tradition. The problem was that before the Church came out with the official version of what happened, 30 unofficial books had been written about what happened at the Council and most of them lied, telling the people that Vatican II had gone along with the dissenters and changed the Church's moral teachings on such things as birth control, abortion, premarital sex and the permanence of marriage. These books also falsely reported that everything was now up to the individual's conscience, with no reference to a good, right and informed conscience. Worst of all was the inference that the Mass was now open to all sorts of innovation and that the collegiality of bishops negated the authority of the Pope. In reality none of these changes had taken place and most of the attempts by the dissenters to democratize the Church had been rebuffed. What is needed now is some clear teaching about what the council actually taught, which is all in line with tradition. Comfort can be taken in the historical fact that there have been troubled waters after every council and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as promised, has survived them all. In the end, truth prevails.
July 3rd, 2010 - Peter-44842 said:
David on Feb 29th aptly quotes Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: 'What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it.'
Dead on, Your Eminence.
Its profound impetus and the richness of the documents confound both nostalgic reactionism and false reform.
March 29th, 2008 - James-94807 said:
It WAS a fantastic opportunity for "Christian unity" and "renewal , community and collegiality" within the Church. The opportunity came and is almost (though not yet completely) gone. We are back to progress at a glacial pace again. One must take hope in Christ's promise to be in and with His Church. He promised to send the Spirit. So . . . we "renewal Catholics" are left with praying for the still-to-be-fulfilled promises of Vatican II. One of these generations (centuries) we will get it more right than we have thus far.
March 11th, 2008 - Gerald-283546 said:
I didn't vote because I agree with both choices 1 and 2. I qualify these brief remarks by saying I have only read 8 of the 16 docs so far, but have read the catechism that resulted cover to cover and several of Cardinal Ratzinger's interviews on the subject.
What I have read so far is consistent with Tradition and merely seeks to reinvigorate the missionary spirit in the Church and get catholics to speak to the issues of the day. It is specifically said that the doctrine of the Council of Trent is reasserted and reaffirmed. However, several of the docs use vague language, at least in English translation, that could be interpreted several ways and this has clearly been exploited by those with a modernist political agenda. Given the spiritual crisis alrerady at work in seminaries in the 50s and 60s according to talks by Fr. Groschel and others, perhaps the resulting misinterpretations of VII might have been forseen?
Ratzinger said in a written interview that from the beginning of the council it was opposed by a faction that claimed to represent the "spirit of the council" but actually represented an "anti-spirit" against what the council fathers really desired. These anti-spirit modernists had their way in many issues during the implementation, and we can see the results: near destruction of the religious life, massive drop in vocations, massive drop in mass attendence, a near total failure in catechisis since 1970, etc. However, Ratzinger also says that if we wish to discover the true Spirit of the Council, we should read the actual Words of the council. Hence my attempt to digest them, and I encourage all Catholics to do the same. Let's read what the Council Fathers actually wrote, not the modernist interpretations we got in the English speaking world, and let's work to implement them. They are the ones sanctioned by the Holy Spirit.
March 2nd, 2008 - Mary-237262 said:
I'm sure there were some good intentions with VII. Maybe these were to united the christian faiths? From what I hear, the churches in Europe are fairly empty now. I know people here are close to their faith, but many catholics I know don't practice and those that do don't know the basic principles of their faith.
February 29th, 2008 - George-166509 said:
Richard couldn't be more wrong. The laity most certainly did participate in the days before Vatican II. There were all kinds of lay organizations back then for men, women, and children, as there are now, but back then these organizations accomplished more because there were more people practicing their faith, and certainly more fervently. Catholics back then were sure of what they believed in---if there had been a Catholic Match back then at least 95% of the members would have answered "yes" to all seven faith questions. If Richard means participating in the liturgy, he should be reminded that today's Catholic participates with his larynx, whereas the pre-Vatican II Catholic participated with his heart.
February 26th, 2008 - Kevin-45953 said:
Robert, not entirely true. Florence was primarily a pastoral council, as was one of the Lateran Councils. The More accurate description would be I think that when Vatican II touched on topics, for the majority of them, they were not relating to any pressing doctrinal issue. With Florence, there was re-union with the Orthodox. While primarily pastoral, it had a direct relation to relevant doctrines. One cannot say the same for Gaudium et Spes.
On issues such as the nature of the episcopacy, they were simply picking up where Vatican I left off (due to the council being interrupted by the affairs of the day).
One could say a lot of the things Vatican II touched upon would've been better served in other formats, whether it be encyclicals, pronouncements of the Holy Office, etc.
I think the entire choice of "properly implemented within tradition" is a pointless choice. We know it wasn't. In truth, we don't know how Vatican II will look when "implemented properly within tradition." About the only thing we can do is draw inference from certain facets of Catholic social teaching from JPII, and the early pontificate of Benedict XVI to draw some ideas, but nothing concrete.
February 26th, 2008 - Robert-131099 said:
You see, Vatican II was the first council in history where she was not responding to a heresy and being on the defensive, but instead of retaliating she took the initiative to make a study of herself and express how she relates to all things in this new century.