WHY VATICAN II? Ten Reasons for the Council

I understand that for many Catholics, the words "Vatican II" conjure up visions of liturgical madness, rotten catechesis, doctrinal mushiness, and loss of Catholic culture. After all, there has been plenty of that in the West since the close of the Council. But, as I’ve stated here before, those sad realities must not be confused with the real intentions and teachings of the Council, something Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger have spoken about many times. Here, then, are at least ten reasons why the Second Vatican Council took place:

1) To Obey the Holy Spirit: The first reason the Second Vatican Council came about is that Pope John XXIII was called by the Holy Spirit to convene it. It's a good reason, I think...

2) To Preach the Gospel and Teach the Faith: In his opening remarks at the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII stated, "The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously." This is related to a number of the reasons that follow below. Lumen Gentium, possibly the most important document of the Council, opens with these words; "Christ is the Light of nations. Because this is so, this Sacred Synod gathered together in the Holy Spirit eagerly desires, by proclaiming the Gospel to every creature, to bring the light of Christ to all men, a light brightly visible on the countenance of the Church." (LG 1). Giving witness to Jesus Chris and the Gospel was a central goal of the Council.

3) To Finish the Work of Vatican I: The first Vatican Council (1869-70) had planned to address the issues of dogma, Church discipline, the Oriental Churches, missions, and the political/social order. However, it was interrupted by the Franco-German War, and the only topic dealt with was that of papal infallibility. Vatican II continued the work started by Vatican I, especially in the area of ecclesiology.

4) To Address Modernity: Vatican II was the first completed ecumenical council since the Council of Trent in the mid-1500s. The world had changed in dramatic ways in four hundred years, and the Church realized the need to address the many positive and negative realities of modern life. Major issues included technology, political ideologies, economics, non-Western civilization(s), and relations with other Christians and other religions. The Council’s first document, Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), stated: "This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church." (SC 1)

5) To Return to the Sources: One way the Council Fathers went about addressing various topics was by returning to the sources ("resourcement") of the Catholic Faith, especially Scripture and the Church Fathers. The documents of the Council, especially Lumen Gentium, Dei Verbum, and Sacrosanctum Concilium, are rich with Scripture and patristic texts (something that was very striking to me when I read them as a Protestant). This "recovery" resulted, in many ways, in documents filled with a more immediate, pastoral, and personal vocabulary in contrast to the neo-Thomistic, systematic language found in earlier councils. The goal was not anti-Thomist at all; rather, the documents were written with an eye towards non-scholars and even non-Catholics, making Catholic doctrine and teaching accessible to a wide audience.

6a) To Teach a Deeper Ecclesiology: The reemphasis on biblical and patristic texts is very evident in the Council’s teachings on the nature and mission of the Church, especially as found in Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. That document focused on the intimate, familial bond shared by those in the family of God. The Church is described as "a kind of sacrament" (LG 1), a "sign of intimate union with God." There is a strong emphasis on divinization, or deification: "[God’s] plan was to dignify men with a participation in His own divine life" (LG 1), and the human and divine aspects of the Church (see LG 8). None of this was "new," (since there has been no new public revelation since the first century) but the vitality of the language was rather new sounding, even as the doctrine being articulated was ancient and apostolic. The ecclesiology presented by the Council would form the basis for its teachings on ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue.

6b) To Present a Balanced Ecclesiology: The First Vatican Council addressed only papal infallibility in its abbreviated gathering, and so the Second Vatican Council fleshed out its teaching about the structure and hierarchical nature of the Church. The papacy is set within the greater context of the Church, and the proper individual authority of bishops is recognized, as is the necessity of communion with the See of Rome (see LG 19-23). In addition, there is a strong emphasis on the rightful work and role of the laity, whose special vocation it is to build the Kingdom in the secular world.

7) To Highlight the Work of the Laity: The Council made great strides in explaining the specific nature of the work of Catholic laity: "But the laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God. They live in the world, that is, in each and in all of the secular professions and occupations. . . . They are called there by God that by exercising their proper function and led by the spirit of the Gospel they may work for the sanctification of the world from within as a leaven. In this way they may make Christ known to others, especially by the testimony of a life resplendent in faith, hope and charity." (LG 31). Large sections of the Council documents flesh out these teachings in exact terms. Sadly, far too many Catholic lay people mistakenly (or knowingly, in some cases) misunderstand the nature of "ministry," believing it about doing stuff "in the parish." In reality (as I’ve written about in this article), the laity are to work in the secular world. It is a classic case of many folks following the "spirit of Vatican II" instead of what the documents actually teach.

8) To Encourage Holiness: This is closely related to the previous point about the laity. The Council challenged all Catholics, regardless of their state in life, to be holy (see LG 39-42): "Thus it is evident to everyone, that all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity; by this holiness as such a more human manner of living is promoted in this earthly society" (LG 40). Before the Council, it was common for many Catholics to see the priest as being the "holy" one, while they lived a more mundane, common existence. The Council refuted this idea and showed that marriage and the single life should be filled with the same sort of charity, purity, and holiness as are vocations to the priesthood and religious life.

9) To Facilitate "Active Participation": The Council desired to make the liturgy more accessible for the faithful, helping Catholics to better enter into the Paschal Mystery. acrosanctum Concilium stated: "Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people’ (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism" (SC 14). No one can deny that many horrific abuses of liturgy have occurred in the wake of Vatican II. Yet the Council upheld the use of Latin, Gregorian chant, and the organ, and certainly did not advocate the banal acts sometimes witnessed in Catholic parishes. The Council Fathers understood, however, that these problems would occur if the nature and purpose of the liturgy was not properly understood by priests and laity alike (as is sometimes the case today): "Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it" (SC 14).

10) To Reach Non-Catholics : The Council took important steps in examining the Church’s relationship with non-Catholics. The Council documents rejected indifferentism on the one hand, while avoiding Feeneyism on the other. They recognized that other Christians "in some real way . . are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power" (LG 15) and that "those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God." (LG 16).

This list is hardly exhaustive and the explanations are necessarily brief. Regardless, I think it shows that there were indeed good reasons for the Second Vatican Council, despite what its critics might say.

The road to Hell is paved with good what?

These "reasons" (except for the first, which I doubt) are merely statements of the intent of the council.

When considering some Democrat social program, do we evaluate it by the stated intentions of the Dems or by its actual consequences?

Even stipulating that the Holy Father had good intentions in convening the thing, it was inevitable that it would provide many openings for the enemies of the Church to attack. That was just unavoidable. It is inherent in the nature of an admission that some things need change or reform that the malicious and dishonest will seize and distort it for their own ends.

From down here in the mud and the ignorance, it looks like it would have been better not to create those opportunities. I am unable to discern any good whatsoever that has come from Vat II, while the evil that has come from it is impossible to escape.

One hasd to think how the church would be today if Paul VI was a better leader, and kept the progressives at bay. Vatican II has been disgustingly mis interpted by progressives as a blank check to introduce whatever heresy they wanted, and sadly Pope Paul VI did not adress the Bishops and theologians who led the modernist charge(Paul VI was a progressive himself when he was a Cardinal) in the late 60s when the mess started to get dramatically out of hand. At the end of his pontificate, he finally realised the full extent of the damage done, but it was too late by then.

I would not be surprised if a future Pope finally clearifies Vatican II once and for all, to effectively implement the council. The restoration of the liturgy is in its staring phase, hopefully a future Pope can help speed the process up.

Even stipulating that the Holy Father had good intentions in convening the thing, it was inevitable that it would provide many openings for the enemies of the Church to attack.

With all due respect, you nailed it.

Pope John XXIII (1958-1963)

Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli (1881-1963)

Pope John XXIII summoned the Italian bishops to the Roman Synod of 1959 as an anticipation of the Second Vatican council. In a massive reaffirmation of traditional practice, the pope solemnly confirmed the use of Latin, condemned all attempts at creativity on the part of the celebrant of Holy Mass, ordered Gregorian Chant, and forbade women entry to the altar area.

A year later the pope issued his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia, On Promoting the Study of Latin, as the Church's cultural and religious heritage and as its living language -- universal, immutable, and non-vernacular. He bound bishops to "be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, being eager for innovation, write against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See's will in this regard or interprets it fa1sely." He attributed a very special importance to this document, promulgating it with a solemnity unique in the history of the present century -- in person, in St. Peter's upon the Confession of St. Peter himself, and in the presence of the cardinals and of the Roman clergy.

When he opened the Second Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, Pope John XXIII charged the Council Fathers "that the Sacred Deposit of Christian Doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously [with a] renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in their entirety and preciseness, as they still shine forth in the acts of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council."

In fact, the Second Vatican Council was apparently a great disappointment to the pope. According to Anne Muggeridge, the daughter-in-law of the famous British Catholic convert and journalist Malcolm Muggeridge), in The Desolate City, John Cardinal Heenan of Westminster reported that when, during the rebellious first session of the Council, the pope realized that the papacy had lost control of the process, he attempted to organize a group of bishops to try to force it to an end.

Malcolm Muggeridge, who reported from Rome on the Second Vatican Council for the British Broadcasting Corporation, considered Pope John "politically naive and unduly influenced by the handful of 'liberal' clerics with whom he is in close contact." In a 1985 interview, he gave his assessment of the pope thus:

Really Pope John -- who was built up as a saintly and perfect pope, the good man of our time -- whether consciously or unconsciously, did more damage to the Church than possibly any other individual man had ever done in the whole of its history.... It seemed almost as though Pope John was operating on behalf of the devil without being in any way conscious of it.

Whatever Pope John's disposition was, however, before the second session of the council could open, he died. His last words on his deathbed, as reported by Jean Guitton, the only Catholic layman to serve as a peritus at the Council, were: "Stop the Council; stop the Council." In any case, it is a fact that Pope John signed not one document of the Second Vatican Council.

Lots of folks, politically, yearn for the days of Ozzie and Harriett, when daddy worked, and mom greeted him at the door in an apron.

Could you elaborate? We all realize that television shows aren't real, but in every other instance where I have heard somebody ridicule the '50's mentality, it has been a social liberal, a feminist, or a gay activist ridiculing the concept of families consisting of a father and a mother, with the father working full time and the mother staying at home raising the children (as opposed to warehousing the children in daycare).

I can't believe this is what you mean, but the use of that analogy is like using a buzzword e.g.: homophobe, radical right, patriarchal. It usually tells more about the insulter than the insulted.

Again, I don't think you meant it to denigrate the traditional family, did you?

I don't think the "traditional family" ever really existed, as it seems to in the minds of some.

If you mean an idyllic family, no. If you mean a society where the norm was a mom and a dad, dad working, mom raising the kids (sans apron, pearl necklace, and high-heeled shoes), then I must disagree with you.

Although families have always operated with varying degrees of functionality, the family I just described WAS the norm, and it was the best situation for the children. It should be encouraged, not ridiculed. Most of the kids I grew up with lived in traditional families, I am the head of a traditional family, and I know many traditional families, most of them devout Catholics.

Children raised in traditional families(with exceptions-like anything else) tend to feel more loved, be more secure, and better able to function in relationships as adults. And shouldn't the well-being of children be the number one priority in a family?

I understand that you were using the example as a way to make a point about the Church, but you might want to consider substituting another analogy in the future. That one is always used to excuse divorce, materialistic decisions, homosexual equivilance, etc., so when people hear it, red flags go up.

Statistics of Catholicism’s Decline in the U.S.

source : Source : Index of Leading Catholic Indicators : The Church since Vatican II, by Kenneth C. Jones

* Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.

* Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.

* Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

* Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

* Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven. The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

* Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million – from 4.5 million.

Though the number of U.S. Catholics has risen by 20 million since 1965, Jones’ statistics show that the power of Catholic belief and devotion to the Faith are not nearly what they were.

* Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.

* Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

* Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.

date : 11/1/2003

From down here in the mud and the ignorance

<> Well then, get out of the mud, take a shower, and start educating yourself. There are only, roughly, a nearly infinite number of websites featuring papers, monographs, apologetics, dialogues, explanations ect defending H.M. Church. That is not to mention the actual Documents of the Vatican Council, the Catechism, the Papal Encyclicals, The Curial Documenets, decisions ect.

The Catholic Church exists and that is reason enough for attacks. Satan STILL has not gotten over Incarnation, Calvary and Easter and Pentecost....Ought we just quit?

Mebbe Jesus ought not to have established such a visible Church..I mean, talk about good intentions gone awry...There has been nothing but trouble since Pentecost ('cept for the immeasurable good, but, that needn't be acknowledged).

Impossible to escape the evil issuing from an Ecumenical council? Good Lord, man, you make Barret Robbins seem a rock by comparison. Look, an Ecumenical Council, a good thing, is NOT the source of evil...Sheesh<>

<> LMAO I don't doubt you believe every single word of that post. I just find it very, very funny.

Thanks

Converts, unfortunately, think they know much more than the Pope. Poor ol' Pope John 23rd, who issued a monitum about de Chardin, and issued an Encyclical saying one had to be a member of the Catholic Church to gain salvation, is just some pathetic, politically ignorant, goofball, who was, (unknowingly? gee, thanks Malcolm)in the Devil's employ

The Pope was asking for the Council to be stopped? Who believes such B.S?

If the Pope thought the Council was a renegade enterprise run by liberals he could have withdrawn his consent - that is, IF he wasn't being controlled by Satan....hmmmmmmm, yes, that is IT. The Pope was the Devil's man and he had his liberal buddies gather in a Council in a charade meant to convince us they were going to do good when the plain fact is they were all evil men, or idiots, intent on destroying Tradition and the Catholic Church

The Pope as Tommmy Flanagan, the Saturday Night Live Character who specialised in lying. "Yeah," said Pope John Paul 23rd,"I'll call a Council and I will destroy, I mean, strengthen the Church. And I will be known by everybody as the man who did the most damage in the history of the Church. Yeah, that's the ticket....."<>

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.