Perigrina Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 Pope Paul was in an interesting position in the time after the council. He himself did recognize that the Church was in crisis, and he spoke frequently about the need for renewal and greater faithfulness. Yet at the same time, literally simultaneously, he would claim that the "spirit of Vatican II" was an astounding success which was leading the Church to Her greatest renaissance. It seemed sometimes that Pope Paul was unable to understand (or perhaps unwilling) that the "Spirit" of the Council that was allowed to run unchecked was directly connected to the frightening state of the Church at that time. The same address to the Curia that was already quoted talks about this. Pope Benedict said that when the Council was genuinely implemented there was success, but that the rupture of the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" caused problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 The same address to the Curia that was already quoted talks about this. Pope Benedict said that when the Council was genuinely implemented there was success, but that the rupture of the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" caused problems. I agree in principle. The trouble that I see is in finding out what came from the Council which was authentically Catholic and those parts which were not. The problem with the "Spirit of Vatican II", is that those people who were behind it were also, in most cases, involved in drafting the actual documents of the Council. As you know, in a lot of cases they worked very hard to leave their mark in the documents themselves. Subtle sometimes, often in ways that can be interpreted ambiguously, but their influence was in there nonetheless. So in finding a genuine interpretation of the Council, in many cases we have to look deeper than simply where things went off the rails afterwards. We have to look as well at how some people were working well before and during the Council to justify that spirit of rupture that you noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I pray for unity of our Holy Mother Church :amen: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 I agree in principle. The trouble that I see is in finding out what came from the Council which was authentically Catholic and those parts which were not. The problem with the "Spirit of Vatican II", is that those people who were behind it were also, in most cases, involved in drafting the actual documents of the Council. As you know, in a lot of cases they worked very hard to leave their mark in the documents themselves. Subtle sometimes, often in ways that can be interpreted ambiguously, but their influence was in there nonetheless. So in finding a genuine interpretation of the Council, in many cases we have to look deeper than simply where things went off the rails afterwards. We have to look as well at how some people were working well before and during the Council to justify that spirit of rupture that you noted. I think the rule of thumb for genuine interpretation of the Council is look at what the post-conciliar popes have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I think the rule of thumb for genuine interpretation of the Council is look at what the post-conciliar popes have said. I agree that it is valuable to do that. I am not sure it is sufficient though. I mean, Pope Paul and Pope John Paul especially were very much invested in the whole post-VII milieu. I certainly do not hold this against them, but to a certain extent I do not think they always give us an objective analysis. They tend, IMO, to be optimistic even to an excessive degree when it comes to the results of the Council. I do not say they are wrong in general, but I think their perspective, influenced as it was by their participation in the Council, gives us only part of the answer. So my reply is rather prosaic in a sense. Rather than the rule of thumb for interpretation being merely what post-conciliar popes have said, I think the rule for interpretation must always be what the popes and documents said, interpreted always in light of what came before. But I do not mean to imply that you are saying that post conciliar popes are the be all and end all of Catholicism, obviously. I know you do not think that. I simply think that even when it comes to the Council itself, in most cases it is necessary for the entire Church throughout history to speak, rather than merely the Church from 1969 to the present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 It's a fallen spirit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 It's a fallen spirit If you want people to pay attention to what you are saying, you will have to go well beyond pithy one-liners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted July 1, 2014 Author Share Posted July 1, 2014 I agree that it is valuable to do that. I am not sure it is sufficient though. I mean, Pope Paul and Pope John Paul especially were very much invested in the whole post-VII milieu. I certainly do not hold this against them, but to a certain extent I do not think they always give us an objective analysis. They tend, IMO, to be optimistic even to an excessive degree when it comes to the results of the Council. I do not say they are wrong in general, but I think their perspective, influenced as it was by their participation in the Council, gives us only part of the answer. So my reply is rather prosaic in a sense. Rather than the rule of thumb for interpretation being merely what post-conciliar popes have said, I think the rule for interpretation must always be what the popes and documents said, interpreted always in light of what came before. But I do not mean to imply that you are saying that post conciliar popes are the be all and end all of Catholicism, obviously. I know you do not think that. I simply think that even when it comes to the Council itself, in most cases it is necessary for the entire Church throughout history to speak, rather than merely the Church from 1969 to the present. The post-conciliar post did write about the problems involved in implementing the Council properly, but I don't think that much of that is widely known. I agree that an awareness of magisterial teaching preceding the Council helps to interpret it properly. Pope Benedict's warning to avoid rupture is an important key to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 If you want people to pay attention to what you are saying, you will have to go well beyond pithy one-liners. Fifty years into the quagmire and it's getting harder to come up with unique one-liners! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I love reading alternative histories (sci-fi) like 'what if Hitler had won the war' or 'what if Kennedy had lived' so I would like to read a novel about what would have happened if John XXIII had died before calling the Council - and if it had never happened. Theories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I love reading alternative histories (sci-fi) like 'what if Hitler had won the war' or 'what if Kennedy had lived' so I would like to read a novel about what would have happened if John XXIII had died before calling the Council - and if it had never happened. Theories? What would have happened if Vatican II never happened? Catholic world-wide pwnage!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AccountDeleted Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 What would have happened if Vatican II never happened? Catholic world-wide pwnage!! Well, I just wonder. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrysostom Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) I for one would be interested to see what Vatican II would have been had it been held in another decade...say the 90s. or the 40s. Edited July 2, 2014 by chrysostom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) I for one would be interested to speculate theorize what Vatican II would have been had it been held in another decade...say the 90s. or the 40s. If it happened in place of Trent there would be no Protestants Edited July 2, 2014 by mortify ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now