Fruits of Vatican II?

Question

I am struggling with several issues that stem directly from Vatican II and it's documents.

I had finished reading the Council of Florence as well Council of Trent, et al. before I tackled Vatican II, thinking it better to go in chronological order.

I have found myself at a major quandry. Frankly some of the documents in VII are...suspect. There is alot of ambiguity within said text. Then upon looking at the condition of the Church since the implementation of Vatican II--simply deplorable and if I look back at Florence, Trent, Nicene it seems that Vatican II 'chucked' many of the sacred traditions. The history since VII has bore no possible GOOD fruit from what I see. Could someone assist me and show me what good has come from Vatican II?

Secondly, do I have to follow the Vatican II documents? Reason I ask; is that there is no doctrinal declaration; though there is a pastoral declaration. Help, please!

There has been mention of of what I would suppose is 'ecumenical' dialogue that has been brought forth as far as VII. However, prior to Vatican II; the stance has been emphatically "Outside the Church there is no salvation". Though I understand that isn't always the actual institution of the RCC; that there are other means of salvation for those not "Catholic"--Why have 'dialogue' with Muslims, Jews when there is very little common ground.

Is ecumenical dialogue that 'common ground' or is it 'this is Our Faith, step this way....?'

Okay. The Mass, yes. However isn't the Mass for God, not us? The Council of Trent documents show implicitly that the Mass that I have known (post Vatican II of course) is not the Mass that "The Mass for all time".

The fact that it is in venecular (native language) and no longer in Latin has the reverence, beauty been lost?

I will speak to my priest. I would be interested in what he has to say. But I wanted other Catholics responses--Thank you.

Answer 1

According to the "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II" (113 pages) by Kenneth C. Jones, what you ask is contained in this summary about the fruits of Vatican II.

In studying the lives of the saints, such as the Cure of Ars, Padre Pio, St Francis, The visionaries of Fatima, I have come to the conclusion that they would be at odds with the popular mainstream version of what the Catholic Church is today.
They would give up their lives to proclaim the Catholic Church as the pillar of Truth. A group of Franciscans did just that around 1219, they paid the price of martyrdom for going into a moroccan mosque and evangelizing for Christ. They were Brothers Berardo, Ortho, Pietro, Accurso and Aduto.
Looking back at this with Vatican II eyes, should we have told these Franciscans that they should have had a conversation with these Muslims and reasoned with them and find common ground so they could create ecumenical bridges?

The Fatima visionaries, just children themselves, were threatened with death for not revealing the secret that Our Lady told them. That is faith! Yes the faith seems to be found in the humble of heart.

Vatican II made the Church become "modern" whatever that means because there are always changes coming around that will outdate it if it goes at whatever whim modernity steers it.
Truth cannot change, it always is and was and ever shall be.

The modern church has redefined this and has substituted Truth with dialogue. Vatican II has done a great injustice in categorizing the Catholic Church as one of many ways to salvation. This alone would make us heretics. In its decree on ecumenism, it states "It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

From my understanding on the history of the Church, Jesus Christ established the Church, not churches.
What would be the point of Jesus coming to this earth and sacrificing himself if all were allowed to go as they please and believe whatever they want to believe? After all, we now say that all religions have some truth in them and because of this they all have the means of salvation.

Council of Florence, Bull “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives …”

This line of thinking is the kind that I believe Christ would be preaching because He did not say that all religons are equal, He said to go out and proclaim the gospel to all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Many protestant sects deny this very command.

I have come to conclude that the Catholic Church is undergoing a time of trial. It has become inverted, eclipsed by a giant impostor, an impostor that will seduce, mislead, dilute, confuse its people and become a friend to the world.

Pope Paul VI himself said in 1972 that "through some fissure, the smoke of satan has entered the Temple of God".(Pope Paul VI, Discourse of June 29, 1972, Documentation catholique, 1972 col.658)

Indeed the most obvious symptom of this illness is in the Mass itself. It is no longer termed "The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass", instead, it is a banquet, a celebration of a meal a commuity gathering, or its just the Mass or Teen Mass, Rock Mass , Clown Mass, etc...
The new mass '" Novus Ordo" was never meant to be the rule, only an option. Priests were not meant to face the people, but somehow it happened. Latin was never meant to be obliterated from the Mass, yet most Catholics have never heard latin spoken or sung in their churches.
Communion in the hand was introduced as an "option" in 1977 by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, now it is practiced as if it was the rule. This contributes to the 70+% of American Catholics not believing in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

According to our Priests, Vatican II should be followed. If we follow a blind man that is lost, do we not also become lost and eventually fall into the pit?

You are right in saying that it is not a doctrinal declaration.
If these Priests would just follow the proven teachings of the church, along with emulating the lives of the saints, they would not be led astray, they would also not lead their flocks astray, whose souls they are responsible for.

Answer 2

I can't say that I've read any of these documents comprehensively; only viewed small exerpts in magazines and reports and so on.
But an important thought comees to mind. You're being too academic about your faith. The Catholic Church is exactly that, a church where the children of God commune. It's being run more like a mutinational corporation and that's dispicable. So many good catholics are now being classed together with growing fanatics bordering on that of some islamic fundamentalist thought. I would say re-read these documents again, but pray before your do. Pray seriously and acceptingly and let the holy spirit guide you through these complex issues that trouble you so. I guarantee if you ask God to help you understand your faith better, he will reply with a resounding "LETS GET STARTED THEN!" Good luck my dear, and God bless. Dont' lose your faith because of dogma.

Answer 3

Personally I think that the only good Vatican 2 did was made the mass in the local language. Which people can relate. You are correct they got rid of lots of sacred traditions in the name of new church. In the University that I attended (a Jesuit school) in the 60s destroyed a beautiful altar in the name of freedom. When I was there in the 70s they still said mass in open room with just a rug. why because in the name of Vatican 2 all was thrown out the window of the 5th floor.
Was it better??? I still go to mass but when I can I attend some said by priest with some common sense and there are few.
council of Trent set the rules but Vatican wanted to communicate with the people in the process they lost it all! you want to hear the word go to a good minister in your area(again there are few). There was one in Santa Cruz Chip Ingram (you can get him in web broadcast) he is great. He has the word! but he does not have the mass!!

best wishes!

Answer 4

With Vatican II, it was possible to say the mass in the language of people instead of Latine.

I think it is better for people to understand the prayers they are saying and the songs they are singing to feel closer to Christ and God.
If you don't understand Latine, you hardly get what you are pronouncing.

Vatican II seemed also to be the begining of a new "foreign" policy towards other religions, which is a strong factor of peace in today's world.

I think that Vatican II was really adapted to how the world changed.

However I can't answer your other question, I am not an expert. I just give my feeling as a catholic.

Answer 5

If you need to be convinced that Vatican II is valid for the church today, perhaps you need to re-examine the reasons why you are a practicing Roman Catholic. There are a whole bunch of Catholics unfortunately who refused to accept Vatican II and they broke away from the church and are currently in schism. They don't accept the current pope or the previous three or four before him either. Their teachings seem to stop at around 1958 or so and that is that. As for me, I am old fashioned and traditional in many ways but even though I don't understand many of the reasons for Vatican II, I ****CHOOSE**** to submit to the authority of the pope and the magisterium of the church. Sometimes that is very hard...taking the church on faith but since I truly believe that God did found His church with Peter, the first pope, and that the Holy Roman Catholic church is HIS church on earth, I submit. And that is what faith is...a choice. You can choose to believe and ask that God give you the faith necessary, and He will. But you have to make that first step...that blind step in faith! God bless!

Answer 6

From a Protestant perspective, there are things about V2 that brought the RC church back in a direction it should go, but yes, there is also ambiguity.

From a scholarly perspective, you'll have to give an account some day for which set of truth claims you followed, so keep studying those documents. Don't forget to read the Bible for yourself too. Ask God to help you understand what's there.

Answer 7

Wow! Kudos for a very informed study.
Vatican II took the mass to the people. This is probably its biggest and most enduring contribution. It will continue to allow the RC to evangelize into the 21st century.
Vatican II allowed the RC to enter into a series of interfaith dialogues which present the unity of the church in a much strong light.
Vatican II opened the church to the creation of new traditions based on cherished older traditions. This builds ownership.

On a personal note, Vatican II also allowed me to finish my Master's degree.

Answer 8

On a personal note, my mother, a convert to Catholicism from Lutheran, loved it because it paved the way for speaking the Mass in native tongue rather than Latin. It made much better connections with the faithful. The priest went from turning his back to the people, supposedly toward God, to celebrating the Mass with the people of God, in the spirit of Jesus Christ. That is a phenomenal, fundamental shift that some Catholics find hard to take.

On another note, it spelled out that the Catholic Church, through and through is defined by her people and their faith, not its rituals, its dogma, or its male hierarchy.

It attempted to bring the church back to its earliest origins. There's been a conservative backlash ever since, which you probably found occurring in other historic councils, but to my mind it definitely breathed life back into the Catholic faithful for a time. Certainly stirred them up.

This is the layman's perspective, not the technical perspective which you may be much better versed in than I. Thanks for the thought provoking question.

You may want to speak to your pastor and your archdiocese representatives about your misgivings about Vatican II. They are likely to have a different perspective altogether.

Consider reviewing the books by Bill Huebsch on Vatican II.

You'll find plenty of traditionalists that sympathize with you. I don't believe the mass is for God. The mass is of God. The mass was given to us by God, through himself, his son, one and the same Jesus Christ so that the Holy Spirit, again one and the same, can live through us. So that we can hope to be more God-like, better servants.

God is bigger than any one religion. I would caution you NOT to place your beliefs in dogma and doctrine over God. God our father, Jesus Christ his son, would be more likely to speak with Muslims as he spoke with the Samaritan Woman and all accused sinners and people looked down on by the hierarchy.

God's church, God's people (all people not just Catholics or any one religion) are a fractured, untrustworthy, sinful lot. No doubt. But that's how God choose it to be. Ever since that whole "gotta kick 'em out of the Garden of Eden thing". That's the way it has been and will always be until God says "Game Over." Amen. Let it be so. ;-)

Cheers.

Answer 9

Unfortunately, I'd be surprised if you got a serious answer from this. It's a shame that there isn't a "Theology" part of Yahoo Answers. This place is really just a place people go to futiley try and convert people to their way of thinking.

Answer 10

Probably not the ideal place to ask such theologically complex issues. Interesting blog......quite a fascination you have there.