I think Vatican II helped weaken church standards and discipline and thus helped laid the groundwork for the homosexual pedophile priest scandal.
I don’t think I agree.
There have been extremely important Councils of the Church, and there have been obscure or ineffective Councils of the Church. But none of them teach heresy.
My own take on Vatican II is that God kept them from teaching anything heretical, as I’m afraid some of the participants hoped and intended. But it was not the kind of major, transformational council that they had hoped for. Not a Council that changed the course of history, such as the Council of Jerusalem, the Council of Nicea, or the Council of Trent.
Important as it has seemed to many in the Church in our day, whether positive or negative, I think it will recede into history as one of those forgotten Councils. It did not teach teach heresy, but it did not teach anything terribly useful, either.
“Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. […] The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.” (Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 1988)
Another translation of same Address:
“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”
No council is, in every jot and tittle of its proceedings, infallible.
Straw man.
The issue is not infallibility of a council.
The destructive stuff came after the council. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.
Of course, actually to analyze both the Council and its aftermath, one would have to do real historical analysis.
And that would take effort.
Nicea was followed by 50 years of chaos. If you had lived in 370 (the same timepoint after Nicea as we are today after Vatican II), you’d have said, the council was disastrous.
But it wasn’t. The aftermath was disastrous, for a time.
What is infallible is not a council but the Church of Jesus Christ whose fullness subsists in the Catholic Church in communion with the bishop of Rome. It is indefectible, even if many bishops and lots of professors and laymen defect. For a time things may seem awful, as they have for a few decades. But already in 1985 with the Ratzinger Report the signs of a reversal of the destruction were at hand.
Be careful, because you can defect from the Church of Christ just as easily from the “Right” as from the “Left.”
Denouncing the entire 2nd Vatican Council as destructive is foolish. If you aren’t careful, you may end up defecting.
So back off, take a deep breath, and, out of love and loyalty for Christ’s Church and her earthly vicars since Vatican II (all of which, to the present, were shaped and formed before the council, with the present Holy Father giving powerful means of upholding continuity with 2000 years of Catholic life), stop shouting that the Council was bad and begin distinguishing between bad fruits of those who dishonestly claimed the Council on their behalf, on the one hand, and the actual fruits, good, worse, better, best that have come from the Council.
Jesus did not want disciples who lack discernment. It’s time to start discerning instead of sweepingly dismissing.
No council is, in every jot and tittle of its proceedings, infallible.
Straw man.
The issue is not infallibility of a council.
The destructive stuff came after the council. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.
Of course, actually to analyze both the Council and its aftermath, one would have to do real historical analysis.
And that would take effort.
Nicea was followed by 50 years of chaos. If you had lived in 370 (the same timepoint after Nicea as we are today after Vatican II), you’d have said, the council was disastrous.
But it wasn’t. The aftermath was disastrous, for a time.
What is infallible is not a council but the Church of Jesus Christ whose fullness subsists in the Catholic Church in communion with the bishop of Rome. It is indefectible, even if many bishops and lots of professors and laymen defect. For a time things may seem awful, as they have for a few decades. But already in 1985 with the Ratzinger Report the signs of a reversal of the destruction were at hand.
Be careful, because you can defect from the Church of Christ just as easily from the “Right” as from the “Left.”
Denouncing the entire 2nd Vatican Council as destructive is foolish. If you aren’t careful, you may end up defecting.
So back off, take a deep breath, and, out of love and loyalty for Christ’s Church and her earthly vicars since Vatican II (all of which, to the present, were shaped and formed before the council, with the present Holy Father giving powerful means of upholding continuity with 2000 years of Catholic life), stop shouting that the Council was bad and begin distinguishing between bad fruits of those who dishonestly claimed the Council on their behalf, on the one hand, and the actual fruits, good, worse, better, best that have come from the Council.
Jesus did not want disciples who lack discernment. It’s time to start discerning instead of sweepingly dismissing.
All mythologies are fallible.
In all honesty, the problems weren’t, at least here, so much with the council, although there are some vagaries and questions. The problems lay with the “spirit of Vatican II” innovations subsequently thrust upon people. While I’m not entirely happy with some of that which came from Vatican II directly, there’s a lot of good there, too. Here, it was seized upon as a moment for change of another sort, in a number of ways. That was, and still is, a tragedy. But not insurmountable.
For later consideration.
The heresy of Modernism was all around. Why'd they ignore it?
The late Fr William Most understood many good things did come out of Vatican 11 as he explains in the article Doctrinal Authority of Vatican II
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LG603.TXT
The Eastern Churches
.... we should not fail to note that the
Churches of the East from the beginning have a
treasury, from which the Western Church took many
things in liturgy, in spiritual tradition, and in
the juridical order. And it is important that
fundamental dogmas about the Trinity and the Word
of God who was incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
were defined in Eastern ecumenical councils.
The inheritance from the Apostles was
accepted in diverse forms and modes. These
things, besides external causes, because of a
lack of mutual understanding and charity, gave
the opportunity for separations.
15.All know with what love the Eastern Christians
conduct the sacred liturgy. In this liturgical
cult they praise Mary ever Virgin in very
beautiful hymns and they honor many Saints,
including Fathers of the universal Church. Since
those Churches, even though separated, have true
sacraments, a certain communication in worship,
in suitable circumstances and with ecclesiastical
approval, is not only possible but to be
encouraged.
In the East there are found the riches of
those spiritual traditions, especially monachism.
Monastic life moved from there to the West.
Let all know that the very rich Eastern
patrimony in liturgy and spirituality should be
venerated, conserved and cherished.
16.To remove all doubt, the Council declares that
the Churches of the East, mindful of the unity of
the whole Church, have the faculty of ruling
themselves according to their proper rules, since
they are more suited for the character of their
faithful.
17.Similar things are to be said about the
diverse theological expressions. It is not
surprising that certain aspects of a revealed
mystery at times are perceived more fittingly and
presented better by one than by the other, in
such a way that theological formulas often are
complementary rather than opposed. We note that
the theological traditions of the East are
excellently rooted in Sacred Scripture. So this
Council declares that all this patrimony,
spiritual, liturgical, disciplinary, and
theological, in the varied traditions pertains to
the full catholicity and apostolicity of the
Church.
18.Considering all these things, this Council
repeats what was said by previous councils and
Popes, namely, that to restore unity or conserve
it, nothing more than what is necessary is
demanded. (Cf.Acts 15.28).
“”Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 1988) “”
Can you provide the actual Vatican document on this?
Read Dominus Iesus because Cardinal Ratzinger
references Vatican 11 many times
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78
The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82
21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.83 Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God’s salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship”84 which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God
(78) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 9; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-847.
(79) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 48.
(80) Cf. St. Cyprian, De catholicae ecclesiae unitate, 6: CCSL 3, 253-254; St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, III, 24, 1: SC 211, 472-474.
(81) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 10.
(82) Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 2. The famous formula extra Ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur is to be interpreted in this sense (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, Cap. 1. De fide catholica: DS 802). Cf. also the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston: DS 3866-3872.
(83) Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 7.
(84) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 18.