So is Vatican II misunderstood and misapplied?

[Michie]

I'll be the first to tell you that had it not been for Vatican II I very much doubt I'd be Catholic.

I read a comment on the traditional forum about being for Vatican II properly understood the way the Council Fathers intended.

What does that mean?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Here's what Bl. Paul VI (Vatican II Pope) warned about during the time of the council:

Dangers and Their Remedy

The Church itself is being engulfed and shaken by this tidal wave of change, for however much men may be committed to the Church, they are deeply affected by the climate of the world. They run the risk of becoming confused, bewildered and alarmed, and this is a state of affairs which strikes at the very roots of the Church. It drives many people to adopt the most outlandish views. They imagine that the Church should abdicate its proper role, and adopt an entirely new and unprecedented mode of existence. Modernism might be cited as an example. This is an error which is still making its appearance under various new guises, wholly inconsistent with any genuine religious expression. It is surely an attempt on the part of secular philosophies and secular trends to vitiate the true teaching and discipline of the Church of Christ.

An effective remedy is needed if all these dangers, which are prevalent in many quarters, are to be obviated, and We believe that such a remedy is to be found in an increased self-awareness on the part of the Church. The Church must get a clearer idea of what it really is in the mind of Jesus Christ as recorded and preserved in Sacred Scripture and in Apostolic Tradition, and interpreted and explained by the tradition of the Church under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Provided we implore the aid of the Spirit and show Him a ready obedience, He will certainly never fail to redeem Christ's promise: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.'' (l4)

27. The same could be said of the errors we see circulating within the Church itself and to which people are exposed who have only a partial understanding of the Church and its mission, and who do not pay close enough attention to divine revelation and the Church's Christ-given authority to teach.

(Read more)

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Also during Pope Paul VI's pontificate, the Vatican lamented the abuses that arose from the misinterpretation of Vatican II. Here's the letter that was issued which lists the errors: SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH - Regarding some sentences and errors arising from the interpretation of the decrees of the Second Vatican Council

 

[MikeK]

So is Vatican II misunderstood and misapplied?

Yes, usually by Catholics who identify themselves with terms like liberal, conservative, traditionalist, or progressive.

 

[Erose]

Personally I think everyone who misunderstands Vatican 2 are folks that have never read the documents but decided to let others tell them what was done at V2.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Davidnic]

Vatican II is very beautiful. And a reverently done NO is a great mass. Vatican II has been misunderstood on many fronts. Those are not usually the fronts that lead converts to the faith. Usually the misunderstandings drive people away.

John XXIII made Vatican II knowing that any renewal of the Church needed to be done by a re-connection with the Tradition and the Magisterium. He based the council on two things...Aggiornamento and Resourcement. Or, translated: Bringing to date and a return to original sources. That the Church could not bow to modernism but She could represent the eternal truths to the modern world by remaining faithful to Her essence. He knew that Aggiornomento (Bringing up to date) without Resourcement (returning to original sources) would be modernism, already declared wrong, and a rudderless ship. Only to being faithful to Herself could the Church find the modern presentation of the Truth. Not to please the world, but to carry out Her role in Salvation.

Vatican II first had authentic expression in how it is carried out by Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. All men who were there and now have the guidance of the Holy Spirit in carrying forth the true spirit of the Council and not some false wishlist. And Pope Francis is fulfilling more of it with enhanced Collegiality.

Councils take decades to implement and there are bumps. And those bumps are people thinking the council justifies leaving original sources for modernism. It also has issues with people who see any Aggiornamento (bringing up to date) as a problem.
We see this with clown masses, liturgical abuses and trying to rewrite the Sacraments on one end and refusal of religious freedom and valid Liturgical changes on the other end.

So many people try to implement the council while ignoring one of the two main concepts behind it. This leads to problems.

 

[longhair75]

I was there for some of the changes from Vatican II. I was in one of the last group of altar boys to learn the Latin responses, and I was at the Church when Mr S and Mr. B brought in the temporary altar that faced the congregation. I remember that there was overall a pretty positive reaction to the most obvious changes. Monsignor O did not like them, but knowing him made that easy to understand.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

There were challenges that the church needed to deal with so the council we're easily justified.

The puzzling thing however is exactly why we needed to change it all at once.
Why turn the celebrating priests position?
Why leave out Latin entirely or at least that's the long run effect of the pastoral turn over.
Why remove the altar rail etc ?

I have a hard time understanding why we needed a new church so to speak.

Removing Latin in and of itself should've been enough.
This going 4 miles instead of 1 must have been alarming to those who lived at the time and still is to some of us today...

 

[Michie]

I need to find some reading on the topic. What do you mean David, about the misunderstood parts being the parts that would not draw converts?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

There's a book I read years ago, I think it's just called The Council. It is a cliff notes version of what went on during the whole process. It might not apply to this OP, but it's pretty interesting. Kinda of a behind the scenes account.

 

[Davidnic]

I need to find some reading on the topic. What do you mean David, about the misunderstood parts being the parts that would not draw converts?

What I mean by: "Those are not usually the fronts that lead converts to the faith. Usually the misunderstandings drive people away. "

Is that the openness and vibrancy of the vernacular and the clear outreach and accessibility brought by Vatican II draws converts. It hands them the Church like handing the Christ child and says, "You are holding the Truth, it will only grow"

So as a convert who thinks, very possibly quite rightly I think, that without VCII you would not be here...do not think that the Council has be improperly carried out and because of that the Church is not what you have been taught. And that it is rather something else that you would not love.

What has been misunderstood is the length to which things can be changed or have been changed. And that fight drives people away.

So what I mean is do not think that: "I am here because of VCII...what if it has been misapplied and because of that I made the wrong call."

The parts of contention that have been taken to extremes are not the parts that would be involved in that. But they are parts that as you see the fight over them, can sap joy and inhibit growth in the love of the Church and trust in her.

 

[Davidnic]

I need to find some reading on the topic.

Although not only on this topic it does contain a good bit on how VCII has been implemented. I recommend without reservation and at great urging, the book by Archbishop Chaput: Render Unto Caesar: Serving The Nation By Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life

The Archbishop's summary of American Catholic history, including the implementation and role of the council is vital for understanding our History as well as how to properly place Faith and Politics in proportion. You can get a hardcover from amazon I think for a penny plus about 4$ shipping. It is essential for the bookshelf of any American Catholic or anyone who wants to understand Catholicism in America.

 

[Michie]

What I mean by: "Those are not usually the fronts that lead converts to the faith. Usually the misunderstandings drive people away. "

Is that the openness and vibrancy of the vernacular and the clear outreach and accessibility brought by Vatican II draws converts. It hands them the Church like handing the Christ child and says, "You are holding the Truth, it will only grow"

So as a convert who thinks, very possibly quite rightly I think, that without VCII you would not be here...do not think that the Council has be improperly carried out and because of that the Church is not what you have been taught. And that it is rather something else that you would not love.

What has been misunderstood is the length to which things can be changed or have been changed. And that fight drives people away.

So what I mean is do not think that: "I am here because of VCII...what if it has been misapplied and because of that I made the wrong call."

The parts of contention that have been taken to extremes are not the parts that would be involved in that. But they are parts that as you see the fight over them, can sap joy and inhibit growth in the love of the Church and trust in her.

So you obviously knew where I was going with this. Thanks for the clarification because I have been feeling quite adrift lately. The only thing I can compare Vatican II is when Jesus said he did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it. Am I on the right track?

I relate so much more to my Scripture filled background to process and understand the Catholic way of explaining things. Which quite honestly, I
have never adjusted to. I could go on about that and adjusting to Catholic terms and thought but I will leave it at that for now.

 

[Davidnic]

Look at it this way, I use catechetical methods in this day and age that would have been unthinkable 70 years ago. Not just because of technology but people would have scoffed at them. Think of Vatican II as the Church realizes that the modern world speaks a different language and to get to them and get to their hearts they need to take the constant Truth and translate it to that language. It is not a changed Truth, it is a changed presentation.

The Truth never changes. And the old presentations can still work. But some need a presentation that is faithful to the original sources of revelation while speaking to their hearts in this time. The Church has done this over and over. As much as people try to put the two at odds, VCII and Trent are similar in the problems of representation they were facing. Trent had to combat and refute more errors so it had more proclamations. But it was similar in that it was representing the Truth, unchanged, but for a modern world. And oh yes...there was opposition to Trent. The Catholic Counter Reform had detractors.

But the problem is some take VCII to be a blank check. It is not a check of any kind that can draw on and spend the deposit of Faith. But some take it too far on either end. And this causes scandal to the faithful. Now, worries, conversations...debate...these are all natural after a council. So much more in the age of the internet. I mean Lord...if the disputes over Arianism had the internet. They had riots over it on word of mouth.

 

[concretecamper]

People misunderstand VII because they have very little knowledge of Church teaching and of previous Church Councils. Without that knowledge, the gray and ambiguous language of VII will cause confusion.

In reality, part of the blame belongs to the Catholic Church. With the VII documents, it is sometimes what is NOT SAID that is more important than what IS SAID.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

There's a book I read years ago, I think it's just called The Council. It is a cliff notes version of what went on during the whole process. It might not apply to this OP, but it's pretty interesting. Kinda of a behind the scenes account.

A good one to read on the subject is The Ratzinger Report.

 

[Michie]

Lately, I'm realizing just how little I know. Which can make one sway a blade of grass in the wind. I really wish the Church offered more than RCIA and Mystagogia. I would attend more classes if offered. I often find myself dredging through Catholic books that I find an absolute chore to read.

 

[Davidnic]

Lately, I'm realizing just how little I know. Which can make one sway a blade of grass in the wind. I really wish the Church offered more than RCIA and Mystagogia. I would attend more classes if offered. I often find myself dredging through Catholic books that I find an absolute chore to read.

What are your areas of particular concern? I mean I know that's kind of like asking you what don't you know. So the answer is not going to be perfect. But what things that you run into would you like to know more about? Maybe make a list and every week or so post a couple here as questions.

 

[Michie]

That's a good idea. I need to learn more about Vatican II and how it is actually meant to be interpreted. Is there contridictions in Vatican II with Vatican I? Actually, I think a refresher on Church history and more in depth study than I have had previously. I think I get confused by a lot of the legalese and what appear to me, to be loopholes. The typical reply I get is that the Church develops a new understanding of things taught over time. Which to me, seems no different than what Protestants do.

What are your areas of particular concern? I mean I know that's kind of like asking you what don't you know. So the answer is not going to be perfect. But what things that you run into would you like to know more about? Maybe make a list and every week or so post a couple here as questions.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Personally I think everyone who misunderstands Vatican 2 are folks that have never read the documents but decided to let others tell them what was done at V2.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep.
And this also applies to the priests.

A lot of misunderstanding the stated purpose and misapplying it.