Vatican II…Reforming Council or Large Mistake?

03 Thursday Aug 2017

FILE PHOTO OF PRIEST CELEBRATING MASS

The Second Vatican Council is a subject of much debate in the Church of today. Many Catholics embrace the “reforms” of the Council, while others staunchly appose it. Many Novus Ordo attendees embrace it, as their form of the Mass sprang from the aftermath of Vatican II. Some groups like the Sedevacantists condemn the Council as man-made error. Which one is true? Is the truth set in between these positions, or is one correct and the other wrong? Thoughts?

10 thoughts on “Vatican II…Reforming Council or Large Mistake?”

Steve Brown said:

Friday, 4 August 2017 at 1:32 am

If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth. –Holden Caulfield

LikeLike
Steven said:

Friday, 4 August 2017 at 1:34 am

This will be an over-simplification, but if Vatican 2 was a robber council or some heretical mistake, then the Church has been overthrown except in fringe quarters such as SSPX. Vatican 2 irreversibly transformed the Catholic Church, and even much-celebrated popes such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI were “Vatican 2-ized” Catholics. I think mistakes were made, such as abolishing the Latin Mass until more recently. I think we have to accept that the Church does develop and change over time, and like it or not Vatican 2 was a catalytic event which influenced the direction of the Church’s development. If the Catholic faith were only maintained by fringe groups, then the whole idea of a Catholic Church is a sham, in my opinion. We either have to be honest about the fact that historically the Church evolves and changes, and acknowledge that Vatican 2 has been a radical example of this, or get out and go somewhere else like Orthodoxy, if we can’t accept it.

LikeLiked by 3 people
- Patrick E. Devens said:
  
  Tuesday, 8 August 2017 at 6:39 pm
  
  Steven, I whole heartedly agree with you here. I believe V2 was a serious mistake on the part of the Church. The changes made to the Mass…the “ecumenical” movement…It all seems to be a way of warming up to Protestants as “buddies” instead of attempting to convert them.
  
  LikeLike
  - Steven said:
    
    Wednesday, 9 August 2017 at 9:56 pm
    
    Patrick, I appreciate your enthusiasm but I think you may have misunderstood my point. I affirm Vatican 2 as a legitimate development within the Catholic Church and I believe in the long run we’re better off because of it. There were some post-V2 excesses and horrendous liturgical abuse by erring clergy, but the abuses do not define the council or negate its overall good. Likewise I think the wholesale suppression of the old Latin Mass was a mistake by the heirarchy, but the current Mass is certainly a treasure that many non-Catholics envy. Some diocese post-V2 have suffered due to erring clergy while others have done well (my own being an example of the good). The Church at large has taken a more ecumenical direction which I think is good, and the Catholic faith hasn’t been compromised by syncretism. The Church’s modern ecumenical attitude has enabled it to better engage other Christians around them and I believe it’s lead to conversions that may not have otherwise occurred. To deny proper ecumenism is to deny the obvious reality that the Holy Spirit is active among our baptized brethren of other ecclesial communities; this doesn’t mean we don’t pray for their conversion or engage them on matters of doctrine. But it does mean we can put down our defenses and recognize other Christians and humbly recognize the Holy Spirit’s saving work among others. I don’t see the mass defection of Catholics among our ranks as a byproduct of this, as history is never as simple as we wish it were.
    
    I think much of the problems we see in the Church that are blamed by some on Vatican 2 are really the effects of widespread secularism and laxity on part of the Church who got too used to being culturally and politically dominant (or at least very popularly accepted). I don’t believe for a minute that things would be better if Vatican 2 had never happened. Too often I think online radical traditionalists promote the idea of a mythical bygone golden age of Catholicism that V2 came along and wrecked. If V2 had never occurred, I’d be willing to bet that we would still be facing much of the same problems.
    
    As for me, you’ll see no sympathy from me toward radical traditionalists. I know they’ll accuse me of modernism or liberalism or whatever else may work to dismiss me, but I could care less what stupid things they accuse me of. Attacks against me and bellicose huffing and puffing about how I don’t understand Tradition are just the signs of bullies who’ve got little useful things to say.
    
    To me there’s a healthy form of traditionalism which prefers and promotes the old Mass and ascetic disciplines that have been neglected since V2, but which acknowledges the current authority of the Church and the legitimacy of a council the vast majority of the Church acknowledges (including every post-V2 pope and saint).
    
    Then there’s pathological traditionalism which I’ve only encountered online so far, wherein disgruntled and highly vocal people bash V2 and the post conciliar Church as if it committed apostasy and left only a vocal minority to be vanguards of the true faith. I have no problem with healthy traditionalism and I think we need a good dose of it, but I see pathological traditionalism as bitter poison to the soul. What point is there in being Catholic if we believe the majority of the Church, including clergy, are in a state of systemic error because of a heretical church-wide council (not a mere local or regional council)? Given the vast support for V2 by the majority of the laity and clergy, and post-V2 saints, who is a tiny minority to say V2 was a mistake?The ‘faithful remnant’ fundamentalist mentality has no legitimate place in Catholicism; leave that junk to the KJV-only Baptists (who most Baptists make fun of).
    
    Discern for yourself where you stand, and be in no rush to form one opinion or another; you’re young and have much room to grow like the rest of us. Stay close to Mary and pray often 🙂
    
    LikeLike
    - Patrick E. Devens said:
      
      Thursday, 10 August 2017 at 3:37 pm
      
      Thanks for the reply, Stephen. I admire the fact that you have taken the time to represent your point clearly, unlike many others I have spoken with, who simply wish to put the Traditional Mass in the closet.
      
      One question I have though is why is the Novus Ordo a “treasure”? Why was it necessary to create it at all? Compared to the Traditional Mass, the Novus Ordo is a world of difference. The Novus Ordo focuses on the priest, placing him face-to-face with the people, instead of leading his congregation to face God. Many Novus Ordo priests walk around the sanctuary casually, with few signs of reverence for the Sacrament of the Altar. The way the Novus Ordo begins resembles a casual meet-and-greet. The New Mass itself was helped put together by several Protestant ministers. That alone gives me reason to regard it cautiously.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
      - Steven said:
        
        Thursday, 10 August 2017 at 6:35 pm
        
        Patrick, I wish I could competently answer the full scope of your reply but unfortunately I cannot. However, I’ll give it the good ol’ college try. Regarding the treasure of the current Mass, I speak from the perspective of someone who grew up in a low-church evangelical setting for much of my life. I knew nothing of the conflicts within Catholicism over Latin Mass and Novus Ordo, and when I went to a Novus Ordo Mass I felt like I had entered the threshold of heaven. Perhaps Latin Mass goers are not impressed with the current Mass, but I think much of that is relative, a matter of perspective. It also varies according to parish. I live in a diocese where the bishop keeps a tight reign over liturgical discipline, so Novus Ordo Mass in my area tends to be done well. There’s one parish in particular that does an especially beautiful Mass according to the current rubrics (and they offer Latin Mass also). Let’s also not forget the age-old sacraments of the Church which are the true treasure of the Mass regardless of the rubrics. When I was a Lutheran and attended a parish whose divine worship service was very comparable to the Novus Ordo (and very reverently executed), I still secretly envied the sacramental assurance of Catholics in the face of the history of the church, whereas I felt at times that ours (Lutherans) was a little less sure.
        
        To add a different perspective, some Catholic old-timers can attest to the fact that prior to the new Mass, the old Mass could often be performed just as poorly and haphazardly as the current Mass. I think it has much to do with the piety of the priest and the laity of a parish and not so much the Mass itself. That said, both Masses are quite valid, both are beautiful when executed well, and I think both should be readily available within the Church.
        
        As far as the ad orientum controversy goes, it’s not something I get too wrapped up in, but I also haven’t studied it. It just never really concerned me. My view of liturgy is that there’s plenty of room for variance so long as it’s reverent, conveys proper theology, and worthily celebrates the sacraments. I know some more hardcore traditionalists may contest the theology of the Novus Ordo but that’s something I will not entertain.
        
        Hope that helps 🙂
        
        LikeLike
Steve Brown said:

Friday, 4 August 2017 at 1:58 am

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way. –Charles Dickens

LikeLike
quiavideruntoculi said:

Saturday, 5 August 2017 at 1:05 pm

It was a mistake. There is no Catholicism apart from the Sacred Tradition, and V2 and the V2 popes (including the not-so-great JP II and Benedict the Spineless) gave free rein to persons of hereticising tendencies, which has ultimately given us Satan’s poodle Bergoglio and the Joy of Shagging.

Councils can err. This one erred. It contained no dogmatic teaching apart from what it repeated from the preceding magisterium.

We are in a bad place, but don’t lose sleep over it. Do not be led astray by innovations.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- Patrick E. Devens said:
  
  Tuesday, 8 August 2017 at 6:42 pm
  
  Good points, Q. I’ve published past articles dissecting the Decree on Ecumenism on my personal blog. I was stunned when I learned that Paul VI used the help of several Protestant ministers to draft the “New Mass”.
  
  LikeLike
  - quiavideruntoculi said:
    
    Thursday, 10 August 2017 at 7:44 pm
    
    God bless you, Patrick.
    
    LikeLike