D
Dsivanish
Guest
I was born in 1970 and raised in the Church, so I’ve only ever known post Vatican 2 and I don’t know why so many people seem to not like it. What did it change?
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Summary of what changed:
In addition to this there were so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” changes that weren’t directly caused by Vatican II, but just came from people’s attitudes thinking we should change all sorts of things.
These types of changes included
In addition to this there were so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” changes that weren’t directly caused by Vatican II, but just came from people’s attitudes thinking we should change all sorts of things.
These types of changes included
- changes in the architecture and decoration/ art of Catholic churches, including renovating old churches to try to make them look more “modern” as well as building new churches that were very different from traditional designed ones;
- changes in the forms of prayer that were encouraged or trendy or considered acceptable in individual parishes; scripture and charismatic prayer were “in”, Marian devotion and novenas were “out”;
- an attitude that women priests, and married priests in the Latin Church, would probably soon be permitted, and also a lot of clergy and religious who quit their vocations;
- less focus on sin, the Devil, Hell, and supernatural aspects of the Catholic faith;
- a very fluffy catechesis of young people focusing heavily on “loving one another” and “building a relationship with Jesus” and not on teaching the actual teachings, rules, history etc of the Church;
- a great emphasis on social justice, sometimes to the point where it overshadowed every other Catholic activity.
Last edited:
T
ThomasMT
Guest
That is an impressively concise summary.
S
stpurl
Guest
Let’s just say that free will comes into place here, and that with God, He can ‘will’ to allow evil to occur even though He is neither the author of evil nor does He wish evil.
The most we can say is that He can take evil and bring good out of it. 50 years post Vatican 2 is like a couple of years in an ‘average person’s’ life; 50 x 40 equal 2000 years, and 2 x 40 would equal an 80 year old. We can’t really expect to have much of an idea of the long term impact. For all we know, 200 years from now this 50 year period will be looked on as a ‘50-year-war’ in the church between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, with the ‘heterodox’ having an appearance of ‘winning’ just prior to the smack down. For a comparison, look at the 4th/5th century Arian heresy. Just about every bishop and prelate embraced heresy, and it looked as the orthodox view would disappear. Instead, it was the other way around.
Now I am not saying Vatican 2 was unorthodox or evil or that it will ‘disappear’. But a lot of people also claim that Vatican 2 changed fundamental teaching, and that the Latin Mass was abrogated and IT will disappear, etc. Etc. IOW, they are arguing the other way, that the last 30 plus years (since Pope St. John Paul and then later Benedict XVI ‘released the Latin Mass’ and clarified some of the things that ‘went off the rails’) are the ‘aberration’ and that if we just go back and are even MORE thorough in the ‘spirit of Vatican 2” we will bring about the Age of Aquarius and world peace and social justice by completely rejecting all the ‘old tradition’.
The most we can say is that He can take evil and bring good out of it. 50 years post Vatican 2 is like a couple of years in an ‘average person’s’ life; 50 x 40 equal 2000 years, and 2 x 40 would equal an 80 year old. We can’t really expect to have much of an idea of the long term impact. For all we know, 200 years from now this 50 year period will be looked on as a ‘50-year-war’ in the church between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, with the ‘heterodox’ having an appearance of ‘winning’ just prior to the smack down. For a comparison, look at the 4th/5th century Arian heresy. Just about every bishop and prelate embraced heresy, and it looked as the orthodox view would disappear. Instead, it was the other way around.
Now I am not saying Vatican 2 was unorthodox or evil or that it will ‘disappear’. But a lot of people also claim that Vatican 2 changed fundamental teaching, and that the Latin Mass was abrogated and IT will disappear, etc. Etc. IOW, they are arguing the other way, that the last 30 plus years (since Pope St. John Paul and then later Benedict XVI ‘released the Latin Mass’ and clarified some of the things that ‘went off the rails’) are the ‘aberration’ and that if we just go back and are even MORE thorough in the ‘spirit of Vatican 2” we will bring about the Age of Aquarius and world peace and social justice by completely rejecting all the ‘old tradition’.
D
Dovekin
Guest
These are rather exterior descriptions of what has changed, while the changes sought were spiritual. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the changes sound bewildering without answering the why.
Before Vatican The Church meant the hierarchy. The most critical change came in Lumen Gentium: “God planned to assemble in the holy Church all those who would believe in Christ.“ The Church as the People of God opened up new vistas for Catholics. The Holy Spirit was not restricted to clergy and religious, but lives in each of us. This was not something new, but a new emphasis on what we have always taught.
Liturgy became the action of all the people, not just of the priest. Vernacular, the language of the people, replaced the Latin taught to the clergy. Vernacular, the language spoken in each country, replaced Latin, the language of the Pope in Rome.
Catechesis shifted from historic religious experiences and rituals to more present, interpersonal activity. The Eucharist was seen less as the presence of a far off God, and more as Christ acting in the midst of our prayer. Love, the greatest of virtues, was taught as the way God lives among us.
A significant group of people did not accept, or did not learn, the new ways of expressing the faith. Some fought to retain the old ways. Sometimes they ridiculed the way things were done. Not unusual when change comes or when things they valued were replaced by what they did not understand.
The Spirit of Vatican II is real. As a child I prayed for a new Pentecost, for the Holy Spirit to come to the Church. It has always been the Spirit guiding us, both in our mistakes and excesses and in our corrections. JP2 and Benedict were both present at the Council, and were even responsible for some of the shifts in emphasis even then. Their guidance has led to the Spirit’s greater role in the Church.
Before Vatican The Church meant the hierarchy. The most critical change came in Lumen Gentium: “God planned to assemble in the holy Church all those who would believe in Christ.“ The Church as the People of God opened up new vistas for Catholics. The Holy Spirit was not restricted to clergy and religious, but lives in each of us. This was not something new, but a new emphasis on what we have always taught.
Liturgy became the action of all the people, not just of the priest. Vernacular, the language of the people, replaced the Latin taught to the clergy. Vernacular, the language spoken in each country, replaced Latin, the language of the Pope in Rome.
Catechesis shifted from historic religious experiences and rituals to more present, interpersonal activity. The Eucharist was seen less as the presence of a far off God, and more as Christ acting in the midst of our prayer. Love, the greatest of virtues, was taught as the way God lives among us.
A significant group of people did not accept, or did not learn, the new ways of expressing the faith. Some fought to retain the old ways. Sometimes they ridiculed the way things were done. Not unusual when change comes or when things they valued were replaced by what they did not understand.
The Spirit of Vatican II is real. As a child I prayed for a new Pentecost, for the Holy Spirit to come to the Church. It has always been the Spirit guiding us, both in our mistakes and excesses and in our corrections. JP2 and Benedict were both present at the Council, and were even responsible for some of the shifts in emphasis even then. Their guidance has led to the Spirit’s greater role in the Church.
Last edited:
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
Before I joined CAF I had never met Catholics who had a problem with Vatican II, and I had never even heard of sedevacantism. I still think the V2 nonconformists are disproportionately magnified in the internet rather than in real life.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
They’re on the Internet a lot because they have trouble finding like-minded people in real life.
Most people aren’t that “into” Catholicism and its history to be that concerned about something that happened years before most of them were born.
Last edited:
U
umamibella
Guest
Where I am the biggest change was the Mass. I remember as a child after Mass, everyone gathering around discussing what the new changes would mean.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, you can easily reference the ongoing debate concerning the use of capital punishment, which has about a 2,000 year history.
And adding to this very recognizable movement of the Holy Spirit was the growing desire for a whole Christian unity (ecumenism) that had begun in 1910 between Protestants and Anglicans with well wishes sent from the Catholic Church. Story here.
That sense that God cannot be happy with the continued disunity among Christians had a growing urgency for resolution. That movement is ongoing but the fact that we see whole Anglican parishes coming back to unity with the Catholic Church through the various Ordinariates. it almost makes me teary with amazement.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
In the last 70 years there have been many changes - both to the Church and in society. Television became widespread in the mid to late 1950’s, and became the primary method of influencing public opinions. It has been said by many that Vietnam was the first war fought on live televison - well, not exactly live, but with battle scenes conveyed through the multitude of reporters and photographers, particularly motion photographers.
Much has been said, exceedingly incorrectly, that V2 lead to a massive falloff of attendance at Mass; the actual statistics show that started from a peak attendance around 1957 and has had a gradual decline since the; those stating it was all V2’s fault never explain how V2, which had not even been proposed by Pope Pius 12th when he died in 1958 could have occurred.
Further, the same proponents of V2 “caused it all” never explain how V2, which said next to nothing to speak of about the Protestant churches, had the same impact on them, as they have all had the same of greater loss of church attendance on Sundays. (crickets)
The general outline of the Mass is the same between the OF and the EF, with minor changes; there is the penitential beginning, the kyrie, the gloria; on Sunday there is a reading t=from the OT added; an epistle and gospel reading, and a homily (rather than a sermon). While the sermon had no necessity of being tied to the readings and often was not tied, the homily is primarily to open up the readings further.
There is a sanctus, offertory, epiclesis, consecration, prayers after the consecration, agnus dei, , communion; and yet a few years ago someone who preferred the EF said in a post that they were completely lost in the OF. Right.
The Mass, as it had been for early centuries of the Church is now celebrated in the vernacular. And while translations (missals, with Latin on one side and the vernacular on the other side) were available, many reports indicate that a minority of people attending Mass on Sunday had one. I was the only classmate in my grade school class who had one and my youngest brother who also had one when he was old enough to use it does not recall anyone in his class having one. Most people “fulfilled their obligation” and the vast majority of people did not speak Latin, leaving them a rather desultory “being there” for a half hour to 45 minutes. Pre communion fasts from midnight left many not going to Communion on anything approaching eve a sort of regular basis. We now have people who appear to be able to read souls a la Padre Pio, and who comment on all the people coing to Communion in a state of mortal sin. Given that the majority of people at Mass were those raised prior to V2, I find that… interesting?
in short, the Mass has become the primary worship of the community led by the pastor, as opposed to a cleric’s Mass at which all too many put in a presence.
Much has been said, exceedingly incorrectly, that V2 lead to a massive falloff of attendance at Mass; the actual statistics show that started from a peak attendance around 1957 and has had a gradual decline since the; those stating it was all V2’s fault never explain how V2, which had not even been proposed by Pope Pius 12th when he died in 1958 could have occurred.
Further, the same proponents of V2 “caused it all” never explain how V2, which said next to nothing to speak of about the Protestant churches, had the same impact on them, as they have all had the same of greater loss of church attendance on Sundays. (crickets)
The general outline of the Mass is the same between the OF and the EF, with minor changes; there is the penitential beginning, the kyrie, the gloria; on Sunday there is a reading t=from the OT added; an epistle and gospel reading, and a homily (rather than a sermon). While the sermon had no necessity of being tied to the readings and often was not tied, the homily is primarily to open up the readings further.
There is a sanctus, offertory, epiclesis, consecration, prayers after the consecration, agnus dei, , communion; and yet a few years ago someone who preferred the EF said in a post that they were completely lost in the OF. Right.
The Mass, as it had been for early centuries of the Church is now celebrated in the vernacular. And while translations (missals, with Latin on one side and the vernacular on the other side) were available, many reports indicate that a minority of people attending Mass on Sunday had one. I was the only classmate in my grade school class who had one and my youngest brother who also had one when he was old enough to use it does not recall anyone in his class having one. Most people “fulfilled their obligation” and the vast majority of people did not speak Latin, leaving them a rather desultory “being there” for a half hour to 45 minutes. Pre communion fasts from midnight left many not going to Communion on anything approaching eve a sort of regular basis. We now have people who appear to be able to read souls a la Padre Pio, and who comment on all the people coing to Communion in a state of mortal sin. Given that the majority of people at Mass were those raised prior to V2, I find that… interesting?
in short, the Mass has become the primary worship of the community led by the pastor, as opposed to a cleric’s Mass at which all too many put in a presence.
M
Maximian
Guest
Only for a while? I thought they were still in charge!
M
Maximian
Guest
Yes it is, I agree. Congratulations to Tis
M
Maximian
Guest
This is often said but it isn’t true. It was generally celebrated in Greek at first, and then in Latin. These were not, in most parts of the Mediterranean world, vernacular languages.
The New Testament, used at Mass, was written in Greek which was also not vernacular. St Peter had to improve his Greek, because it was not his vernacular; that is why his first letter is in good Greek (he had help) whereas the second is not (his Greek had improved enough to write on his own )
B
brown_bear
Guest
I understand that a summary must be concise, and that many things are lost in the synthesis.
However, in my opinion, the magisterium of the Council should not be presented as contradicting the magistries of two previous popes in serious matters.
We would need at least a link for an in-depth analysis of what the two popes actually said with a scientific comparison with the texts of the Council, otherwise there is a kind of comparison between summaries, which is extremely inaccurate: we must trust the summaries, we must trust the comparison, but a faithful must not trust anything other than the Magisterium of the Church.
You understand what the very serious stake is: that when someone says: “The Church continually changes her teachings over the centuries” we find it difficult to defend the Church, if we have just argued that there are serious discontinuities between the magisterium of the popes and the magisterium of the Council V2.
However, in my opinion, the magisterium of the Council should not be presented as contradicting the magistries of two previous popes in serious matters.
We would need at least a link for an in-depth analysis of what the two popes actually said with a scientific comparison with the texts of the Council, otherwise there is a kind of comparison between summaries, which is extremely inaccurate: we must trust the summaries, we must trust the comparison, but a faithful must not trust anything other than the Magisterium of the Church.
You understand what the very serious stake is: that when someone says: “The Church continually changes her teachings over the centuries” we find it difficult to defend the Church, if we have just argued that there are serious discontinuities between the magisterium of the popes and the magisterium of the Council V2.
Last edited:
J
JSRG
Guest
Except when we look at where Paul sent his letters, we see those areas were Greek-speaking areas for the most part. Even the ones that weren’t, like Rome, still would’ve had Greek be at least a somewhat known language.otjm:
This is often said but it isn’t true. It was generally celebrated in Greek at first, and then in Latin. These were not, in most parts of the Mediterranean world, vernacular languages.
It is true that Greek wouldn’t have been the vernacular in Israel. However, that brings us to the next point:
By the time the New Testament (or at least the Gospels) was written and distributed enough to be used regularly in masses, I believe Greek had become the vernacular for the church.
M
Maximian
Guest
Latin is still a somewhat known language
C
commenter
Guest
There is a Latin phrase that means “if something happens, that doesn’t necessarily prove that one thing that happened right before is the cause”.
The decline in RC Church attendance beginning in the 1970s likely has causes from before V2, and broadly across many denominations in many countries that had few Catholics.
In the1970s some people, with good intentions or bad, described the Church of 1960 as a nightmare, and credited V2 with every good idea since the wheel. They watered down catechesis and pushed their private opinions as if 'the Spirit of V2" and denounce you as anti V2 if you didn’t support their agenda. Those people were formed, educated, promoted to powerful positions before V2. Some bishops, formed and promoted in the pre council Church, failed to respond adequately. This says a lot about the pre Council Church.
Some sincere people on the internet now go to opposite extreme, ignore the build up of internal and external problems before V2. It’s not a lot of people. They copy and post ideas from one of the several websites fixated on this.
The decline in RC Church attendance beginning in the 1970s likely has causes from before V2, and broadly across many denominations in many countries that had few Catholics.
In the1970s some people, with good intentions or bad, described the Church of 1960 as a nightmare, and credited V2 with every good idea since the wheel. They watered down catechesis and pushed their private opinions as if 'the Spirit of V2" and denounce you as anti V2 if you didn’t support their agenda. Those people were formed, educated, promoted to powerful positions before V2. Some bishops, formed and promoted in the pre council Church, failed to respond adequately. This says a lot about the pre Council Church.
Some sincere people on the internet now go to opposite extreme, ignore the build up of internal and external problems before V2. It’s not a lot of people. They copy and post ideas from one of the several websites fixated on this.
Last edited:
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
It is . . . the big problem is that those innovations didn’t evaporate in the 1970s, but continue today. There is lasting damage from whatever mindset took root 50-60 years ago, thought its roots were obviously simmering for decades beforehand.
Last edited:
M
MarkRome
Guest
I found this documentary on the council to be very interesting and enlightening. This is a pro-VII documentary and not anti-Vatican II propaganda.
- Status