Confused about Vatican II

[Monica4316]

Hello, I’m hoping to ask my priest what he thinks about this but I also wanted to ask here.

My understanding is that Vatican II was a pastoral council, it did not try to change the Church’s doctrines or start a “new church”, and that many things we see today are not the result of the Council but are the result of misinterpretation of this Council. I believe that Pope Benedict is trying to help us understand the correct interpretation and also returning various traditions to the Church (like Pope John Paul II did with the Rosary when it was largely forgotten). My understanding of the Pope’s view is that we should see the Council in continuity with Tradition, not separated from it. I agree with the Pope and my view is more theologically conservative than liberal in this way. I also read about some of the Pope’s views of the liturgy and it seems he likes the Latin Mass and tradiitonal music as well as reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

I am in teachers college and taking a class about Catholicism so I can teach in Catholic schools. I like the class, but today I got a little confused when the professor was talking about Vatican II. She described it as changing many corrupt practices in the Church, making the Church more modern, accessible, relateable, etc… and based on my impression, making the Church more modern was seen as a good thing. She also said that before VII Catholics were discouraged from reading the Bible, receiving Communion very rarely (I always supposed this was because of the Jansenist heresy???), is more open to other faiths, less centralized on Rome, etc. She also spoke in favour of having a variety of musical instruments in the Mass like guitars and such are fine. (I know there have been many debates about guitars in Mass in these threads… I’ll just say that there are various opinions on this… my opinion is the same as Pope Benedict’s: ceciliaschola.org/notes/benedictonmusic.html ). Then, the professor said how the current Pope is trying to take the Church backwards. I dont know if she meant that as a good or a bad thing, but she described the changes after VII as good.

During this class, I got very confused because it seemed like we were all talking about different churches… I was even doubting my conversion because it was no longer clear to me if the Catholic Church is like I see it, or the way my professor described. I spoke to her after class and we kind of found common ground, I explained that Im not against VII, I just support the Pope’s interpretation of it. But see I believe if the Pope’s interpretation was implemented, the Church and the liturgy would look very different than today and it wouldn’t completely resemble the Church my professor was describing as the “Vatican II Church”.

I haven’t been Catholic for very long and maybe I am just missing something… I wanted to get others’ opinion here… would you say that Pope Benedict is moving the Church in a more theologically conservative direction? (in terms of the liturgy, some traditional practices, etc). And am I correct in the way I understand his interpretation of the Council? Furthermore… can I be confident in my interpretation of the Council and the Church if it coincides with that of the Pope?

Thank you

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Your interpretation is right on. It’s what Benedict calls the hermeneutic of continuity. Your teacher, on the hand, is doing the very thing you noted above: claiming all sorts of things are what “Vatican II” calls for, when they’re clearly not. For example, find where the Second Vatican Council called for guitar Masses. It didn’t. In fact, it said,

1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
So sacred music, like Gregorian chant and polyphony is to be used. Guitar music isn’t intrinsically sacred (that’s the very appeal of it - it’s popular, worldly music).

I think people can legitimately defend guitar Masses being good - there’s a debate to be had there - but when they try and claim “Vatican II says so,” they’re ignorant or lying.

That’s the general trend I’ve gotten from the way you’re describing this. Pope Benedict, who was actually AT Vatican II and helped write some of the documents, says it means x, and your teacher (without any apparent qualifications) says he’s wrong. Who do you think we should believe?

 

[Monica4316]

I wanted to clarify one of my sentences that I typed up incorrectly…

She also said that before VII Catholics were discouraged from reading the Bible, receiving Communion very rarely (I always supposed this was because of the Jansenist heresy???), is more open to other faiths, less centralized on Rome, etc

.

the part in bold refers to the professor’s comments on the post-VII Church, not on pre-VII Church.

 

[Monica4316]

Your interpretation is right on. It’s what Benedict calls the hermeneutic of continuity. Your teacher, on the hand, is doing the very thing you noted above: claiming all sorts of things are what “Vatican II” calls for, when they’re clearly not. For example, find where the Second Vatican Council called for guitar Masses. It didn’t. In fact, it said,

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
So sacred music, like Gregorian chant and polyphony is to be used. Guitar music isn’t intrinsically sacred (that’s the very appeal of it - it’s popular, worldly music).

I think people can legitimately defend guitar Masses being good - there’s a debate to be had there - but when they try and claim “Vatican II says so,” they’re ignorant or lying.

That’s the general trend I’ve gotten from the way you’re describing this. Pope Benedict, who was actually AT Vatican II and helped write some of the documents, says it means x, and your teacher (without any apparent qualifications) says he’s wrong. Who do you think we should believe?

Thanks for the reply

I’m actually kind of discouraged with this class… I like it overall, I agree with most things that the professor says (for example about religious education and how we should keep the faith in Catholic schools) - and she also seems like a really nice person - but there are some topics that come up in the class that are explained differently than what I was taught. Also, there seems to be a widespread disagreement about some Church teachings among the other students. I’ve never been in this situation before because the majority of my Catholic friends are very strong Catholics.

I’m glad the Pope talked about the hermeneutic of continuity…he seems like a great theologian and imo he’s leading the Church according to where it should go. It’s confusing when other Catholics disagree on that.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Thanks for the reply

I’m actually kind of discouraged with this class… I like it overall, I agree with most things that the professor says (for example about religious education and how we should keep the faith in Catholic schools) - and she also seems like a really nice person - but there are some topics that come up in the class that are explained differently than what I was taught. Also, there seems to be a widespread disagreement about some Church teachings among the other students. I’ve never been in this situation before because the majority of my Catholic friends are very strong Catholics.

I’m glad the Pope talked about the hermeneutic of continuity…he seems like a great theologian and imo he’s leading the Church according to where it should go. It’s confusing when other Catholics disagree on that.

As strange as this is, the class may need you as much as you need the class. It sounds like you’ve got a pretty solid grasp on what’s true. Recognize that the state of Catholic catechesis in this country was abysmal for a few decades after Vatican II (another one of those “reforms” VII never asked for), so many people disagree with the Church without even realizing it, or without knowing what the Church’s position (and reasoning) is. Because many of these people were likely brought up “Catholic,” they think that whatever they believe or heard is the Catholic position, so they’re worse off in some ways than you, who are at least a blank slate. And of course, pray for your classmates and teacher. In the meantime, you might want to find a solid priest to take on as a spiritual guide, and open up to him about the sort of problems you’ve been having.

 

[cajun2core]

A couple of clarifications about what your teacher said. There was a time when the laity was not encouraged to read the bible. Some priest may have even discouraged it because of the thought that you had to be very knowledgeable about the bible to read it correctly. In the past few decades Catholics have been encouraged to read the bible more.

There was also a time when the communion fast was much longer. At one time, it was three hours and before that it was from midnight. It was often just a practical reason why people did not receive communion more often. My mother tells the story of people fainting during mass because they had not eaten since midnight or before.

 

[thistle]

A couple of clarifications about what your teacher said. There was a time when the laity was not encouraged to read the bible. Some priest may have even discouraged it because of the thought that you had to be very knowledgeable about the bible to read it correctly. In the past few decades Catholics have been encouraged to read the bible more.

There was also a time when the communion fast was much longer. At one time, it was three hours and before that it was from midnight. It was often just a practical reason why people did not receive communion more often. My mother tells the story of people fainting during mass because they had not eaten since midnight or before.

The laity were never discouraged from reading the Bible.
In the earlier Church days hardly anyone actually knew how to read. Literacy was not high.
Then when the Bible was translated into English many translations were bad translations and those are what the laity were advised to avoid reading.

As for previously having a longer fast before that is anyway a matter of discipline and not doctrine. Disciplines can be changed.
Frankly, people fainting at Mass is something I find hard to believe. If I go to bed at 10pm and wake up at 8am and go to Mass at 10am I don’t feel like fainting.

 

[Monica4316]

As strange as this is, the class may need you as much as you need the class. It sounds like you’ve got a pretty solid grasp on what’s true. Recognize that the state of Catholic catechesis in this country was abysmal for a few decades after Vatican II (another one of those “reforms” VII never asked for), so many people disagree with the Church without even realizing it, or without knowing what the Church’s position (and reasoning) is. Because many of these people were likely brought up “Catholic,” they think that whatever they believe or heard is the Catholic position, so they’re worse off in some ways than you, who are at least a blank slate. And of course, pray for your classmates and teacher. In the meantime, you might want to find a solid priest to take on as a spiritual guide, and open up to him about the sort of problems you’ve been having.

thanks for the advice I live in Canada but probably the situation here is similar to that of the United States. I go to an FSSP parish and I’ve been considering speaking to the priest there because he seems very knowledgeable and when I spoke to him in the past about some things it really helped me.

A couple of clarifications about what your teacher said. There was a time when the laity was not encouraged to read the bible. Some priest may have even discouraged it because of the thought that you had to be very knowledgeable about the bible to read it correctly. In the past few decades Catholics have been encouraged to read the bible more.

There was also a time when the communion fast was much longer. At one time, it was three hours and before that it was from midnight. It was often just a practical reason why people did not receive communion more often. My mother tells the story of people fainting during mass because they had not eaten since midnight or before.

thanks for the clarification…

I know that in some of the Eastern rites, the fast is from midnight… I try to fast 3 hours (but this is simply my own decision because it helps me to focus on the Mass, I know the Church teaching is 1 hour).

In a way though I feel that we have gone from one extreme to another… if in the past, peopel rarely received Communion, today many people receive Communion with no preparation and no Confession. Of course the perfect solution is to receive Communion often (as the Church encourages us to) but in a state of grace and with preparation.

I read somewhere that Popes prior to VII, such as Pope Pius X, encouraged frequent Communion that is why I thought maybe infrequent Communion was the result of the Jansenist heresy or another incorrect teaching. In any case, it was not the official Church teaching from what i’ve read at least… ?

 

[edwest2]

I was there before and after Vatican II. We had a Bible. We were not discouraged from reading it. We had Religion Class in my Catholic school. We had the Baltimore Catechism. We also had a book titled: Lives of the Saints. In the back of our Church, there were about 100 booklets dealing with every aspect of living your life as a Catholic. They were free or available for a small donation. We received a monthly Catholic magazine at our home.

Anyone who says the Church became more “modern” after Vatican II is simply wrong. Most of the changes in the Church people think were a result of Vatican II were not even suggested by Vatican II.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1451

Pope John Paul II and now, Pope Benedict, have and are turning things around. Certain dissenters inside and outside the Church caused certain problems which are being addressed.

I hope you find this information helpful

Peace,
Ed

 

[Monica4316]

The laity were never discouraged from reading the Bible.
In the earlier Church days hardly anyone actually knew how to read. Literacy was not high.
Then when the Bible was translated into English many translations were bad translations and those are what the laity were advised to avoid reading.

As for previously having a longer fast before that is anyway a matter of discipline and not doctrine. Disciplines can be changed.
Frankly, people fainting at Mass is something I find hard to believe. If I go to bed at 10pm and wake up at 8am and go to Mass at 10am I don’t feel like fainting.

I was there before and after Vatican II. We had a Bible. We were not discouraged from reading it. We had Religion Class in my Catholic school. We had the Baltimore Catechism. We also had a book titled: Lives of the Saints. In the back of our Church, there were about 100 booklets dealing with every aspect of living your life as a Catholic. They were free or available for a small donation. We received a monthly Catholic magazine at our home.

Anyone who says the Church became more “modern” after Vatican II is simply wrong. Most of the changes in the Church people think were a result of Vatican II were not even suggested by Vatican II.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1451

Pope John Paul II and now, Pope Benedict, have and are turning things around. Certain dissenters inside and outside the Church caused certain problems which are being addressed.

I hope you find this information helpful

Peace,
Ed

thanks for sharing this

I’ve only been Catholic for a couple years and I was not born yet prior to Vatican II but based on other people’s descriptions, this is how I came to understood the Church also. I actually like many aspects of pre-VII Catholicism… (which is also today’s Catholicism, or should be, because we shouldn’t throw away our traditions).

Do you mean the type of booklets that are often sold in Catholic stores? they’re usually by TAN publishers. I have a few of those and they have all been very helpful

God bless

 

[Wowbagger]

Everything Belloc Fan said is true. I just want to put a gloss on it.

V-II was a pastoral council, in that it defined no major doctrines. However, V-II did make some doctrinal clarifications. These clarifications included a great deal on the proper role of the laity, and some very enlightening discussions on the Catholic Church’s orientation towards schismatic Christian sects like Protestantism. So some of the things your teacher described – the greater opening to ecumenism, the greater respect for the lay faithful and their role as “laborers in the vineyard” (to use Pope JPII’s metaphor from Christfideles Laici) – did come about partly because of Vatican II’s good work.

V-II also altered a number of Church disciplines (practices and customs that are mandatory in the moment, but changeable at the discretion of the wider Church). V-II shortened the Eucharistic fast and authorized Mass in the local language. It reformed the liturgical calendar and the liturgy of the hours. It was closely linked to the promulgation of a completely new rite, the Novus Ordo, with its simpler and more flexible form compared to the rather Byzantine (literally!) Tridentine rite. So some of the other things your teacher described – the English Mass being the big one. The promulgation of the Novus Ordo also created the opportunity for fresh music to be infused into the Christian tradition, in new styles, so, in a very real way, V-II is partly responsible for that “guitar music” you hear nowadays. (Unfortunately, the bulk of what was produced post-Vatican-II was some of the worst Church music ever composed – but that’s not the Council’s fault!)

Then there were some simple pastoral documents, which emphasized certain areas of Catholic teaching in order to reverse certain corruptions that had sprung up in the centuries since Trent. V-II included some valuable discussions on the interpretation of Scripture by Catholics, and a powerful re-emphasis on the centrality of the sacraments. This helped push along the shift in mainstream Catholic thought away from simple Biblical literalism, and worked against the Jansenists, who still held sway in large portions of the Church.

So, yeah, Vatican II was an ecumenical council, and, yeah, it effected some tectonic shifts in Church culture and avenues of theological inquiry. There is some truth in what your teacher’s saying.

But a cult of “progressives” who wanted to overthrow the Church and all Her doctrines were disappointed with the actual results of Vatican II, so they took a few choice quotes, combined them with the cultural zeitgeist of the sexual revolution and the radical sixties, and ran with them. They believed V-II heralded the beginning of a new age for the Church, where the lay faithful would rule it democratically (!) and nobody would have to follow any doctrines but what felt good to their ill-informed “consciences,” and darn if they were going to let the fact that V-II suggested nothing of the sort stop them. This was called “The Spirit of Vatican II,” and it led to the vocations crisis, the collapse of female religious orders, the capture of the seminaries by radical homosexuals (some of whom later proved to be pedophiles – another story entirely), the iconoclastic attacks on Church art and architecture and even the Sacraments themselves, countless blasphemies and sacrileges in the dark days of the 1970s, the implosion of American Catholic loyalty to the Papacy, the end of decent Catholic religious education in this country, and – above all else, greatest of a thousand great depredations! – the hymn “On Eagle’s Wings.”

More mildly, the “Spirit of Vatican II” was the force behind the removal of altar rails and the reception of communion in the hand rather than the mouth. These were legitimate changes in Church disciplines (unlike the other demands of this crowd), but they were not suggested by the Council, and, in my opinion, were very bad ideas.

Benedict XVI, I would argue, has demonstrated clear understanding of the actual documents and intent of Vatican II than the entire “Spirit of Vatican II” crowd combined. He’s bringing back a little bit of what was too-hastily destroyed in the heady aftermath of the Council. He’s only “turning back the clock” to “pre-Concilar days” to people who either never understood what the Council meant or are in willful denial about what the Council said in order to further their own agendas.

 

[Edmundus1581]

The laity were never discouraged from reading the Bible.
In the earlier Church days hardly anyone actually knew how to read. Literacy was not high.
Then when the Bible was translated into English many translations were bad translations and those are what the laity were advised to avoid reading.

As for previously having a longer fast before that is anyway a matter of discipline and not doctrine. Disciplines can be changed.
Frankly, people fainting at Mass is something I find hard to believe. If I go to bed at 10pm and wake up at 8am and go to Mass at 10am I don’t feel like fainting.

My parish priest told us that he saw this happen to a child at her first communion, in Ireland in the 1950’s. At that time, the fast was from both food and water. Because of fainting, the girl was unable to receive her first communion at that mass.

As to your first point, cajun2core simply observed that an individual priest, or priests, might have discouraged the laity from reading the bible, ie. “Some priest may have even discouraged it because of the thought that you had to be very knowledgeable about the bible to read it correctly.” Possibly Monica’s teacher personally observed that, or has evidence for it. Possibly Monica, in making her post, did not explain the teacher’s position clearly. I suggest you give others the benefit of the doubt, before asserting that it “never” happened.

 

[edwest2]

“tectonic shifts” in Catholic culture? I don’t remember any. The only tectonic shifts were caused by Hippies and radical anarchists who were shouting about burning the country down. They said some of their parents were conformists and hypocrites. Well, I was there, and the Hippies were just as conformist, if not more so. Some were downright ultra-orthodox: hair at regulation length, correct pants, correct dope smoking (gotta have a roach clip) and correct (vulgar) language. Becoming a Hippie or Radical Anarchist suddenly freed a person from any hypocrisy? I don’t think so.

Here is the opening speech to the Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII:

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I don’t recall who printed the booklets in the back of my Church. They were small enough to fit in your shirt pocket. At that time in 1963, God was part of our community. It was outside forces pushing “alternative lifestyles” toward the end of the 1960s that caused some of us to be distracted. To believe people we generally should not have trusted.

Peace,
Ed

 

[cajun2core]

The laity were never discouraged from reading the Bible.
In the earlier Church days hardly anyone actually knew how to read. Literacy was not high.
Then when the Bible was translated into English many translations were bad translations and those are what the laity were advised to avoid reading.

As for previously having a longer fast before that is anyway a matter of discipline and not doctrine. Disciplines can be changed.
Frankly, people fainting at Mass is something I find hard to believe. If I go to bed at 10pm and wake up at 8am and go to Mass at 10am I don’t feel like fainting.

With all due respect, people fainting at mass is true. Granted it may have been 10 year olds who were attending their first communion at 2:00pm and not an adult. Keep in mind this was also before air-conditioning which probably contributed to it.

 

[Monica4316]

**Wowbagger, **

thanks for the explanation I agree that there are some good things about the Council. What do you think about Pope Benedict’s statement that the liturgy should develop “organically”? (which he said is not the case with the Novus Ordo). But it seems that the Pope is fine with the Novus Ordo as long as its done well and reverently.

Concerning receiving Communion in the hand… I’m actually questioning whether this was even done (initially) in obedience to Rome. It’s not from VII and it seems to have come from disobedience, unfortunatley… even though later on it got approved. We should remember that the ‘ordinary way’ or receiving Communion is still on the tongue.

Fr John Hardon and the origin of Communion in the hand:

"We were at concelebrated Mass with the Holy Father, and we were absolutely forbidden to give Communion in the hands. Communion in the hand began…with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody’s permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See. One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for, permission to receive Communion in the hand. I was asked by the bishops’ conference to write a defense of Communion on the tongue, and I can again talk for hours.

"In the very, very early Church, Communion was given in the hands. However, as the faith of the Christians weakened in the Real Presence, by the 5th, 6th centuries Communion on the tongue became mandatory—remained mandatory until the present century. Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.

And the American hierarchy took most—three times, those wanting Communion in the hand kept pushing and pushing. Finally, meantime, I was asked by the vice-president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops to defend Communion on the tongue, which I did. To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

Fr. John Hardon, S.J., November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference
in Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion.

 

[Monica4316]

My parish priest told us that he saw this happen to a child at her first communion, in Ireland in the 1950’s. At that time, the fast was from both food and water. Because of fainting, the girl was unable to receive her first communion at that mass.

As to your first point, cajun2core simply observed that an individual priest, or priests, might have discouraged the laity from reading the bible, ie. “Some priest may have even discouraged it because of the thought that you had to be very knowledgeable about the bible to read it correctly.” Possibly Monica’s teacher personally observed that, or has evidence for it. Possibly Monica, in making her post, did not explain the teacher’s position clearly. I suggest you give others the benefit of the doubt, before asserting that it “never” happened.

I just wanted to elaborate on this so it’s more clear what the teacher said is that Catholic lay people were discouraged from reading the Bible because it was feared that they would interpret it incorrectly

this might have been true, but I don’t think it was throughout the whole Church?

also probably they were still able to read their missals which contained the Gospel and other readings… it’s not like they were not allowed to read Scripture… maybe the Church was just reacting against Protestantism where people read the Bible on their own and came up with their own conclusions. Maybe as another poster said, it’s the Protestant versions that were being forbidden here. (because they did and still do contain inaccuracies)

“tectonic shifts” in Catholic culture? I don’t remember any. The only tectonic shifts were caused by Hippies and radical anarchists who were shouting about burning the country down. They said some of their parents were conformists and hypocrites. Well, I was there, and the Hippies were just as conformist, if not more so. Some were downright ultra-orthodox: hair at regulation length, correct pants, correct dope smoking (gotta have a roach clip) and correct (vulgar) language. Becoming a Hippie or Radical Anarchist suddenly freed a person from any hypocrisy? I don’t think so.

Here is the opening speech to the Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII:

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

Peace,
Ed

I’ll take a look at the speech…

I don’t recall who printed the booklets in the back of my Church. They were small enough to fit in your shirt pocket. At that time in 1963, God was part of our community. It was outside forces pushing “alternative lifestyles” toward the end of the 1960s that caused some of us to be distracted. To believe people we generally should not have trusted.

Peace,
Ed

Unfortunately they are still pushing “alternative lifestyles” but it seems now many more Catholics are buying into that

With all due respect, people fainting at mass is true. Granted it may have been 10 year olds who were attending their first communion at 2:00pm and not an adult. Keep in mind this was also before air-conditioning which probably contributed to it.

perhaps

 

[Monica4316]

This is a very different view of the Vatican II council than what many people claim… ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm there’s a statement near the end that hints that in order to achieve unity, everyone should be brought into the Church… sadly many of the modern “ecumenists” have taken that to mean accepting all forms of Christianity (or even different religions) as true

 

[Black_Knight]

I grew up pre Vatican II and yes people fainted and not all of them were kids.

Keep in mind that every day at a Catholic school began with Mass before school began. That meant that we got up and went to Mass without breakfast if we intended to go to communion since the fast was from midnight the night before. Sometimes sugar levels dropped and kids fainted or left complaining that they felt sick, which is understandable. I remember one dear nun who told us not to worry and would give the kids peppermints or other candy to make them feel better.

After Mass we could swing by the school lunchroom where we had simple breakfasts of toast and milk which the lunchroom staff fixed for all who showed up. I know this because my sainted Grandmother was the head of the staff. (Best toast EVER! )

One thing that many folks don’t realize is that both John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI were active participants at the council and helped write some of thee documents and voted on others. They know precisely what the council intended. One of the key ideas was “aggiornamento”, which is defined as “the act of bringing something up to date to meet current needs.” which is what the council sought to do. The concept was to do this while reconnecting the faithful with the Sacred Traditions of the faith.

That’s one reason they have both been so prolific in their writings. In fact, during the council they made some enemies by opposing those who later proved to be proponent of “the spirit of Vatican II”. These good pontiffs knew what the council was all about and what was intended and have worked hard to educate us. Thank God for that!

Were there some crazy things that were what we now know as “the spirit of Vatican II”? Yes indeed! I remember a Mass where a loaf of leavened bread was used and each communicant received a piece intinctured with the Precious Blood. Wrong all day…definitely, but I only saw that once, so someone must have gotten straightened out. (Thank God!)

The Vatican II documents are all on the Vatican site. (The Holy See - Archive - Documents of the II Vatican Council ) If one actually reads them, most of the confusion will disappear.

 

[Black_Knight]

I just wanted to elaborate on this so it’s more clear what the teacher said is that Catholic lay people were discouraged from reading the Bible because it was feared that they would interpret it incorrectly

this might have been true, but I don’t think it was throughout the whole Church?

Couldn’t’ve been Monica. Look at what was in the from of every Bible at that time.

3. Besides ordinary benefits, what do those gain who read portions of the Bible every day?

“A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due to the divine word make a spiritual reading from Sacred Scripture. A plenary indulgence is granted, if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour.” (Enchiridion of Indulgences. Authorized English edition. 1969. Catholic Book Publishers. New York. Page 68. # 50)