Do you think Vatican II will ever be reversed?
If so, when and how?
I used to think Vatican II would be overturned eventually but anymore I think that it's just wishful thinking for several reasons which I will list below:

1. It's universally considered an Ecumenical Council.
2. It was hallowed by having 2 saint popes and a blessed directly involved with it or with its implementation, lending an aura of sanctity to the Council itself.
3. Like it or not it's directives and reforms have quite literally inserted themselves into every nook and cranny of the Churches life, everything from sacramental rites, the liturgy,canon law, discipline, the catechism and a basic theological outlook on pretty much everything has been made to conform to Vatican II or a certain, I would say, normative interpretation of it.
4. To overturn Vatican II would put the Church's credibility in question in a big way. You'd have to be willing to say that the Catholic Church completely messed up for the last half century and that these saint popes and their Council were wrong.. Imagine the mess that would bring.

Barring sedevacantism which has its own set of problems a Vatican II and its reforms are here to stay for good, although I do think that decades down the line there will be a little more perspective on the Council and a lot more return to our sacred patrimony. I think we can already see a grassroots revival of authentic traditional Catholicism taking root even though it's largely on the periphery and despised by the majority of bishops and priests schooled in the modernist seminaries of the post conciliar era.

What will happen is that traditional Catholicism will win but it will take time, and unfortunately we will have to live with Vatican II. There will eventually be cross fertilization of the best of the reforms along with the pre conciliar tradition. Whatever was good in the reforms will stay, whatever wasn't will disappear. All this takes time.

A total return to the pre conciliar mindset is never ever going to happen outside a few traditionalist enclaves. The citadel Church of the late 19th to early 20th century is gone forever,we have to let go of hoping for a total return to that.  There can be good to come out of this huge mess but to start we have to accept that the Council is here to stay, it's never going to be abrogated, ever.
Yes, past councils have been overturned/ignored. Once God cleanses the Church of the errors of Russia Vatican II will be overturned. Right now I think we are at the climax of the struggle, where even the hierarchy openly embraces the false mercies of liberation theology, calling Communists closet Christians.
Have the powers at the Vatican ever admitted they were wrong before? I can't see that happening. I can see only a "clarification" or a "new understanding" or a "development of ideas" or a "return to simplicity" or however else they explain any change when circumstances force change.
The strictly "pastoral" canard carries no weight with me, especially considering the supreme authority of the Church has enshrined the ideas found in the Conciliar documents in everything from the new code of canon law, the new Mass, the new Liturgy of the Hours,the new Catechism and the new sacramental rites just to name a few. That something like an official authoritative catechism, a code of canon law or a new liturgy have been intimately and authoritatively bound up with the Council is evidence enough that it was much much more than just "pastoral" at least in practice.

Vatican II is considered an Ecumenical Council like that of Nicea,Trent, Florence or Vatican I. Barring sedevacantism one cannot just choose to consider it optional or in a separate class and worthy to be sifted for orthodoxy by the faithful. It it was an Ecumenical Council ratified by the pope, it's decrees intimately bound up with and written into the very fabric of the Church in the liturgy, the code of canon law and the sacramental rites of the Church it is not optional and it's not pastoral and we are bound as Catholics to accept it. Of course there are endless debates on what is actually meant by accepting or by what "pastoral" means, but the fact remains Vatican II has been treated as something of a blueprint, a Magna Carta for a new and updated Catholicism. That says dogmatic to me, not pastoral no matter what you think Paul VI or Archbishop Lefebrve may have said about the matter.

Of course now to repudiate and overturn the Council would effectively mean attempting to disentangle the Council from the Vhurch, but like I said the Council is now part and parcel of almost every nook and cranny of the Church, not to mention the very architects and implementors of the Council are Saints and Blesseds, lending a mystical aura of sanctity around the Council itself. 

Sorry folks but what has now been know not just as Vatican II but the Council, is here to stay.
(11-02-2014, 02:43 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Sorry folks but what has now been know not just as Vatican II but the Council, is here to stay.

"In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph.  The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world."

As Sister Lucia publicly stated, we are moving towards a great chastisement "with great strides."  As sin increases beyond description, we will start experiencing more and more punishments until we see nations being annihilated.

Then the Church will be renewed, but not until then.  Unfortunately for us, we have to endure this time of great trial.  The battle has begun in earnest, and we are called to stand fast.

There is nothing in Vatican II that would prevent a complete return to the praxis in vogue pre Vatican II.

We must pray for ourselves so that we remain faithful.  Surely a great persecution of the Catholic Church is approaching; the signs are everywhere.
No, I don't.

It will simply become obsolete, irrelevant, and useless. In addition to all the well-known problems, there is the very inconvenient fact that it was somehow meant for the man of "today," "today" being post-WWII Europe and North America. That was the narcissistic generation, the generation that sought to have all things redefined and remade in their image. But, in the end, it was a generation. Already the world has moved far past that generation in so many areas of life. It is only a matter of time before this reaches the level of theology.

In a sense, you could say that they made the mistake of limiting their ideas (typically) to their own generation, their own "today," destined to be somebody else's "yesterday". Then again, I don't think they cared all that much for a perennial interpretation of anything. They were too self-centered for that. Already, just by examining the sheer numbers of vocations to the priesthood, the religious life, Mass attendance, and number of children, we can see that as far as values, beliefs, religious tendencies are concerned, the generation that produced VII for their "today" is very very much "yesterday". The animus against traditional Catholic life in general is reactionary against "today" already. In a few years, VII will have been clarified and explained out of relevance.
The way I see it, we've got two options.

1, We're in end times.

If so, then no use speculating.

2, Pope Benedict XVI laid down the groundwork for a restoration. He talked about a 'Council of the Media' and a hermeneutic of rupture. There's been serious discussion about how the council documents were worded, testimonials to back up claims that it was rushed to appease everyone. There's a lot of faithful novus ordo types who are working hard to combat these errors. If you try really hard you can read them in a traditional light, and that means there's truth in them.

So slowly but surely we will be able to end the spirit of Vatican II. But it's going to need action from the heirarchy, and until this miserable lot are long dead in Hell we're just not gonna get that.
Nope, nor is there any need to do so.  There's a lot of good in the Council and 95% of it isn't problematic.  What will happen is that future popes will issue clarifying documents and state that the Council must be read in light of the hermeneutic of continuity.
In October of 2012 Pope Benedict spoke of "Nostra aetate" and a "weakness" in the text of it. He also commented that other council documents did not address some things which should have been addressed. Naturally referring to a weakness in one text raises questions about others in my opinion.
Text of his speech is here :

There is also another way to approach this subject without calling into question the integrity of the council itself. Richard John Neuhaus pointed the way in this regard that one may argue that the council as an effort to reform the Church was a failure. Other councils have been viewed in this way before:
"We might well ask...whether we should think that the Second Vatican Council failed. It is no secret that some have long since reached that conclusion. A Council may, of course, fail—not in its validity but in its efficacy. Of the twenty-one ecumenical councils recognized by the Church, historians generally view the thirteenth-century councils of Lateran IV and Lyons I and II, along with the fifteenth-century councils of Constance and Basel, and the sixteenth-century Lateran V, as more or less failures in their reforming intentions. At least in the second Christian millennium, a successful council seems to be more the exception than the rule. Our thinking on these matters has been skewed by the remarkable success of the Council of Trent and its implementation by heroic figures such as Charles Borromeo and the Society of Jesus in its earlier fidelity to the charism of Ignatius..."


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)