Is Vatican II irrelevant now?

Michie said:

*You are in the Catholic forum*

Is Vatican II irrelevant now in the seventh year of Francis' pontificate? In one respect, yes; in another, no. Neither explanation is what one might expect at first glance.

Continued below.
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/is-vatican-ii-irrelevant-now

Click to expand...

I just thought of a conundrum that might occur. If the Sedevacantists think the papal office is vacant since VII, what would they do if a future Pope dismissed the teachings of VII. My thought is that he would be lauded as the return of a valid papacy.

tz620q said:

I just thought of a conundrum that might occur. If the Sedevacantists think the papal office is vacant since VII, what would they do if a future Pope dismissed the teachings of VII. My thought is that he would be lauded as the return of a valid papacy.

Click to expand...

The sede isnt vacant, Pope Michael reigns as the rightful prince of the church...

Quite irrelevant. One day, Vatican II will be annulled & suppressed; burning its bosh in St Peter's Square.

tz620q said:

I just thought of a conundrum that might occur. If the Sedevacantists think the papal office is vacant since VII, what would they do if a future Pope dismissed the teachings of VII. My thought is that he would be lauded as the return of a valid papacy.

Click to expand...

Will they do away with Vatican I as well? Where will they stop?

Vatican II neither invoked nor claimed the mantle of infallibility; nor did it bind any doctrine, dogma, or teaching. It merely suggested and prescribed: it didn't force or clarify or define. Even Paul VI said Vatican II bound no new doctrines nor defined any; nor mandated any.

Virgil the Roman said:

Vatican II neither invoked nor claimed the mantle of infallibility; nor did it bind any doctrine, dogma, or teaching. It merely suggested and prescribed: it didn't force or clarify or define. Even Paul VI said Vatican II bound no new doctrines nor defined any; nor mandated any.

Click to expand...

Then the traditional side should have no problem conforming to the "pastoral" changes since they did not change any doctrine, dogma, or teachings. The logical conclusion should be a collective shrug and falling in line with the councils "requests" like 95% of Catholics did.

tz620q said:

Then the traditional side should have no problem conforming to the "pastoral" changes since they did not change any doctrine, dogma, or teachings. The logical conclusion should be a collective shrug and falling in line with the councils "requests" like 95% of Catholics did.

Click to expand...

There were four dogmatic constitutions among the documents of Vatican II. Not that they radically changed any doctrine, but I'm not sure they can just be ripped up. Traditionalists and Modernists are stuck with those documents.

The non-dogmatic parts of Vatican II, not at all claimants to infallibility, can be judged as prudent or not prudent. In other words, we can talk about them and revise them. It may not be best to fall in line with everything, but some of it is actually good. Some of it is really dated too.

The problem with Vatican II is not the council itself, even in it's intentionally vague and double meaninged wording, but the 'spirit' of Vatican II. The 'spirit' foisted on us has been harmful. The liturgical mess still needs a reform of the reform, and I suspect after pope Francis we can have a bit more of that reform. Bring it on. Actually, my parish is bring it on bit by bit. Last Fall we brought back the prayer of St. Michael. This Spring we brought back kneeling for communion. The one they are talking about next is turning the priest around to the right direction again.

Did you know that the new chapel at the University of Nebraska Newman Center in Omaha was built specifically for the priest to face to the East? The altar is up against the East wall so there is no way not to do it that way.

As a former Protestant, and therefore a convert to Catholicism, what the heck difference is the priest facing east, north, south or west going to make to MY CHRISTIAN growth!!

What I expect to hear is sound Christian teaching - not a conservative, politically correct version of the liturgy.

Geez, I hear some garbage about the faults of Vatican II!! I think GOD wanted Pope Paul XXIII to call the Council, and if we don't like it, tough!

chevyontheriver said:

There were four dogmatic constitutions among the documents of Vatican II. Not that they radically changed any doctrine, but I'm not sure they can just be ripped up. Traditionalists and Modernists are stuck with those documents.

The non-dogmatic parts of Vatican II, not at all claimants to infallibility, can be judged as prudent or not prudent. In other words, we can talk about them and revise them. It may not be best to fall in line with everything, but some of it is actually good. Some of it is really dated too.

The problem with Vatican II is not the council itself, even in it's intentionally vague and double meaning wording, but the 'spirit' of Vatican II. The 'spirit' foisted on us has been harmful. The liturgical mess still needs a reform of the reform, and I suspect after pope Francis we can have a bit more of that reform. Bring it on. Actually, my parish is bring it on bit by bit. Last Fall we brought back the prayer of St. Michael. This Spring we brought back kneeling for communion. The one they are talking about next is turning the priest around to the right direction again.

Did you know that the new chapel at the University of Nebraska Newman Center in Omaha was built specifically for the priest to face to the East? The altar is up against the East wall so there is no way not to do it that way.

Click to expand...

That seems a fairly even-handed view. The parish I go to has been somewhat on the tip of that spear (short of the facing east of the priest). Our liturgical minister is also the choir director. So we started by reintroducing the proper entrance and communion antiphons. That was not received well by some but through time has been getting better and better. In one sense, the reciting of a short antiphon followed by a verse sung by the choir or cantor can be learned quickly and sung by the congregation as they go up for communion. So that is a development that was comprehended by VII. We started kneeling for communion about 3 years ago. We reintroduced the 3 strikes to the breast during the confiteor. We sing the Latin responses during Lent and partially during Advent. These are all part of what has been written during or since VII by the Catholic magisterium regarding liturgy. Our reforms actually follow the documents better than the liturgy that is done in most Catholic churches in the U.S. right now. So there is a way of pulling back from the "spirit of VII" without abandoning the documents.

The issue I have with the Traditional movement is that is seems stuck in the past, supporting a single liturgy that was never universal in the whole Catholic church. I feel for those who love the Tridentine liturgy and hope that they find a church that still does this still valid option. But like Luther, Bishop Lefebvre started with a valid criticism and ended in revolt and schism. To me this is the opposite of the true Catholic faith which is broad enough and strong enough to allow diversity of expression while still holding the center on our Catholic beliefs.

Bob Crowley said:

As a former Protestant, and therefore a convert to Catholicism, what the heck difference is the priest facing east, north, south or west going to make to MY CHRISTIAN growth!!

What I expect to hear is sound Christian teaching - not a conservative, politically correct version of the liturgy.

Geez, I hear some garbage about the faults of Vatican II!! I think GOD wanted Pope Paul XXIII to call the Council, and if we don't like it, tough!

Click to expand...

My experience is that sound teaching goes along with liturgical reverence, a fairly strong but not absolute correlation. So the reform of the reform is a good thing if clown masses can be replaced with a priest facing east. That priest, who cares enough about liturgy to do that, well he might have the will and the capacity to deliver a better homily too. Not guaranteed but likely.

Vatican II, you are right, we are stuck with. A lot of people over the years would have liked to rip it up. From both fringes. Instead, it should be looked at from the perspective of the 1985 Synod.