R
romano
Guest
Did any good come out of Vatican II? I’m not talking about high-sounding documents and resolutions, I’m talking about the practical consequences of Vatican II.
Maybe, but this is a ‘poll,’ people do have opinions, and it will be interesting to see just which way the votes go. When one is polled, one isn’t normally expected to write a book.I think your question too broad. . . .
Excellent book! Can’t wait for the movie!The seraphic* Catechism of the Catholic Church* was written in response to the Council. Nuff said.
More than half of “Catholics” today don’t believe in the True Presence. Prior to Vatican II, more people went to Confession and less people came to receive the Eucharist during Mass. Now, only a minimal number of Catholics go to confession regularly but all receive the Eucharist.Over 100 years ago, there were more non-Catholic Christians than Catholics (~47%). Now there are more Catholics (~54%) than non-Catholic Christians. I don’t know if Vatican II was a factor, but I suspect it was.
yep! … and unfortunately the lack of belief in the Real Presence has extended to many priests too.More than half of “Catholics” today don’t believe in the True Presence. Prior to Vatican II, more people went to Confession and less people came to receive the Eucharist during Mass. Now, only a minimal number of Catholics go to confession regularly but all receive the Eucharist.
I highly suspect that Vatican II is a factor.
One of the problem of the church now days is too many Catholics think you can test orthodoxy based on which box a person checks off on a Gallup poll.More than half of “Catholics” today don’t believe in the True Presence.
malcolm_davies said:1. the church is the people of God (ie baptismal priesthood of all believers) and not just priests & religious
Absolutely. Post-Vatican II theology has done a fantastic job elaborating on this point.
- eucharist is the source & summit of the christian life.
I don’t think that changed for the better at all. Virtually all American Catholics reject the Church’s teaching on contraception and have completely no understanding of it.
- changed the lay belief that we were here to ‘pay, pray & obey’ to a fully developed understanding of the christian life and to understand the tough teachings (eg why contraception is evil)
The whole of the Mass was never intended to be fully in the vernacular and this is stated clearly in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Latin was to be preserved and only those text, which constantly change and are necessary, such as the Liturgy of the Word, may be changed. Removing Latin from the Mass de-universalizes the Catholic Mass. Think about it: how beautiful is it to see people from all races and nations praying in the same tongue? As Latin is not a language spoken by any nation right now, its use promotes a more transcendent atmosphere; it helps one to understand the “other-wordliness” of the Mass. The Mystery of the Sacred Liturgy is unlike anything else in this world. Why have people gone to such great lengths to make it appear as something purely of this world?
- mass in own language allowed inculturalisation and full participation (hopefully the next english translation of the Mass undertaken by Vox Clara will be better than the current version)
Through my own personal experience in talking with nominal Catholics, I have no reason to think that the poll is false.One of the problem of the church now days is too many Catholics think you can test orthodoxy based on which box a person checks off on a Gallup poll.
mike182d said:More than half of “Catholics” today don’t believe in the True Presence. Prior to Vatican II, more people went to Confession and less people came to receive the Eucharist during Mass. Now, only a minimal number of Catholics go to confession regularly but all receive the Eucharist.
I highly suspect that Vatican II is a factor.
traditio.com/tradlib/polls.txtOh yeah? Do you happen to have a source? Do you also happen to have a pre-V2 source?
How exactly can the teachings of Vatican II be a factor in Catholics not believing in the real presence? Doesn’t Vatican II (and everything eucharist-related) that has followed stress the real presence? I’ve certainly not read anything that would imply that the bread & wine don’t become the body & blood of Christ.More than half of “Catholics” today don’t believe in the True Presence. Prior to Vatican II, more people went to Confession and less people came to receive the Eucharist during Mass. Now, only a minimal number of Catholics go to confession regularly but all receive the Eucharist.
I highly suspect that Vatican II is a factor.
They contend that the Pauline Mass is sacriligious. Yet, Pius VI (Auctorem fidei, 78) condemned the proposition that the Church could have established discipline which can be harmful to the faithful. Thus, Traditio.com resurrects an erroneous proposition already looooong condemned by the Catholic Church.the Novus Ordo service is never an option. It is sacrilegious, unCatholic, and not even a Mass, let alone a valid one. (traditio.com/tradlib/faq04.txt))