I thank the commentator who brought up this question on one of my articles.
Pray for me I pray for you.
Does this website sugar Coat Vatican II? Do many bishops sugar coat Vatican II?
This is a good question.
My response would be some questions in return, then a reply.
Sometimes the first person to pose a question seems superior in the argument, until the question is return full force.
Does supporting pre-Vatican II rituals and circumstances sugar coat them? I mean is there anything negative you can say about post-Vatican II Catholicism that was not already present in pre-Vatican II Catholicism? (I mean if you sit back and really think about how human beings act – was Vatican II, in itself, a reason for bad things or just broken human nature)
Strong faith can withstand trails. Thus, if the faith was strong before Vatican II, and Vatican II was a trial (I don’t think so but for the sake of the argument just pretend), why was there a decline in the Church in the Western World?
We cannot say there was a decline in Africa or Asia as post Vatican II saw a great increase in numbers of faithful.
Many time people have spoken to me and said, ‘how can you defend Vatican II after you see just how much damage it caused.’ I would here like to pose a another question in turn respectively. Can you claim that the mass was said more piously before Vatican II? I think this would be a hard argument to make. We cannot take the most pious pre-Vatican II priest and compare it to the most silly post Vatican II priest. That is not fair. Did most priest pre-Vatican II really have deep comprehension to what they were saying? Did the faithful? Were rubrics followed more closely?
Yes, there needs to be mystery, but is the mystery is not about the language but the sacrament.
In a previous post, I have discussed if defending Vatican II denies a crisis in the faith. (linked here) It details how those who defend Vatican II sometimes hold that the decline was not caused by Vatican II but by other factors. I would like to return to this article and a quote made there from Ven. F. Sheen.
“The tensions that developed after the Council are not surprising to those who know the whole history of the Church. It is a historical fact that whenever there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit as in a general council of the Church, there is always an extra show of force by the anti-Spirit or the demonic. Even at the beginning, immediately after Pentecost and the descent of the Spirit upon the apostles, there began a persecution and the murder of Stephen. If a general council did not provoke the spirit of turbulence, one might almost doubt the operation of the third Person of the Trinity over the assembly.” Treasure in Clay by Bishop Sheen. (https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-fulton-sheen-support-vatican-ii)
We have to remember that 50 years in the eyes of the Church since Vatican II is really not that long. For example, it was a lot longer after Pentecost were the Apostles persecuted and killed. All throughout, Catholic history councils have caused divisions and separations in their wake. Why? Because so many have been called to settle disputed topics. When they close, many of the opposing side simply leave the Church and start or continue on with their own beliefs. I am not going into the history here, because I think this can be easily taken for granted or researched on your own.
That is the whole point. The more I see opposition to Vatican II, which was validly taught by the ordinary magisterium of the Church in line with Peter’s successor – thus requiring religious assent, the more I want to see it in a good light because I know opposition will move the church in the wrong direction. If there was less opposition I would be tempted to think it might need improving.
We can be certain about this. We are dealing with an ecumenical council, which taught at the level of the ordinary magisterium. It can not be undone, revised or edited in any way. (see this article)
(That links Bishop Barron. As a side note, many times I have been told after referencing Bishop Barron about all his other errors and sins as a reason to disregard other things he says. That is an invalid argument. Luther believed in many Catholic doctrines also like Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, that does not make them wrong because Luther got other things incorrect. The correctness of someone in one area does not make their correctness in another right or wrong)
I honestly believe that anyone how disagrees with me, most likely does so in good faith. Why else would you be reading a website on religious topics of this nature?
Yet, I firmly hold that because the last 5 Popes have been Pro-Vatican II in there missions to the world we also should give the Pro-Vatican II life and mission a place in our lives. If the Popes are wrong, does that matter? On the day of judgment we will be able to say, the Pope said to implement Vatican II – that is what we did with our lives!
I want to share that joy with everyone. So please pray for me. I pray for you.