Did The Church Start At Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic4Jesus

Guest
There are a lot of Progressive Catholics out there who say that at Vatican II, the Church changed its teachings, renounced her former history and recreated herself anew. The Church didn’t truly know anything about herself or her teachings until Vatican II and that there was a 2nd pentecost at VII that nullified and made void the first Pentecost in 33AD and recreated the Church again for the first time.

This sounds extremely illogical to me, is this claim true? Can the Church really change in that way and has it?
 
Catholic4Jesus said:
There are a lot of Progressive Catholics out there who say that at Vatican II, the Church changed its teachings, renounced her former history and recreated herself anew. The Church didn’t truly know anything about herself or her teachings until Vatican II and that there was a 2nd pentecost at VII that nullified and made void the first Pentecost in 33AD and recreated the Church again for the first time.

This sounds extremely illogical to me, is this claim true? Can the Church really change in that way and has it?
Click to expand...
Who is supposed to be saying this? The Church is always of necessity renewing herself. Her whole being is renewal of life. Christianity is not the only religion or belief system whose founder, being a good man, was killed for being too good; it is, however, essentially unique in that this good man is claimed to have been not merely restored to life, but even restored into a new and never-ending life that transcends both time and space/place. It is the religion of ressurection from the dead into perpetual newness of life.
 
Catholic4Jesus said:
There are a lot of Progressive Catholics out there who say that at Vatican II, the Church changed its teachings, renounced her former history and recreated herself anew. The Church didn’t truly know anything about herself or her teachings until Vatican II and that there was a 2nd pentecost at VII that nullified and made void the first Pentecost in 33AD and recreated the Church again for the first time.

This sounds extremely illogical to me, is this claim true? Can the Church really change in that way and has it?
Click to expand...
The quick answer is that this claim is NOT true. It is the same Church with the same teachings on faith and morals, following the authority of the same councils in the past.

Vatican II was just one council out of many. The reason that the liturgists messed up the liturgy and changed the Church so much was not the fault of Vatican II, it was the fault of the liturgists. If you actually read through Vatican II and a few other important documents (I highly recommend Mediator Dei) you will see that there are teachings in there which most of the Church seems to have ignored. However, fear not, it is the same Church.
 
From what I understand Vatican II helped explain the Church in a different way. Everything is the same except VII gave a deeper way to explain the Church. I am finishing up reading “Called to Communion,” by Pope Benedict and although it is sort of a difficult read it gives a good clear idea of the Church itself. Whenever I hear progressive or liberal or conservative lingo it reminds me of what Pope Benedict says at the end of the book and what St.Paul went through when he was writing to the Corinthians. Pope Benedict writes, “what must we do in order to become, not the party of Paul or Apollo or of Cephas or even a party of Christ, but the Church of Jesus Christ?” This he is referring to when our own ideas, righteousness and opinions get in the way of being right before God and his Church.
 
Ask them to show proof:Where, in the Council documents, does it say that the Church is renouncing its history and its doctrinal and dogmatic teachings?
 
LittleFlower378 said:
From what I understand Vatican II helped explain the Church in a different way. Everything is the same except VII gave a deeper way to explain the Church. I am finishing up reading “Called to Communion,” by Pope Benedict and although it is sort of a difficult read it gives a good clear idea of the Church itself. Whenever I hear progressive or liberal or conservative lingo it reminds me of what Pope Benedict says at the end of the book and what St.Paul went through when he was writing to the Corinthians. Pope Benedict writes, “what must we do in order to become, not the party of Paul or Apollo or of Cephas or even a party of Christ, but the Church of Jesus Christ?”
Click to expand...
👍
 
LittleFlower378 said:
From what I understand Vatican II helped explain the Church in a different way. Everything is the same except VII gave a deeper way to explain the Church. I am finishing up reading “Called to Communion,” by Pope Benedict and although it is sort of a difficult read it gives a good clear idea of the Church itself. Whenever I hear progressive or liberal or conservative lingo it reminds me of what Pope Benedict says at the end of the book and what St.Paul went through when he was writing to the Corinthians. Pope Benedict writes, “what must we do in order to become, not the party of Paul or Apollo or of Cephas or even a party of Christ, but the Church of Jesus Christ?” This he is referring to when our own ideas, righteousness and opinions get in the way of being right before God and his Church.
Click to expand...
That’s a good way to put it. If only the Novus Ordo actually followed it and the other documents completely, that would be nice!!
 
I never heard anyone say or write the things in the original post.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
I never heard anyone say or write the things in the original post.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Same here, except for the change in teachings part. I think many “progressive/liberal” Catholics look to Vatican II as proof that the Church has changed and therefor can change further (ie. gay marriage, female ordination, ABC, etc).

One change I hear is regarding unbaptized babies. They say that doctrine changed regarding this.
 
TimothyH said:
I never heard anyone say or write the things in the original post.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Really? Never once? Blessed are you. I’ve heard two clergymen deride the preconciliar Church as “irrelevant” (or similar words) just since the start of the New Year.
 
sw85 said:
Really? Never once? Blessed are you. I’ve heard two clergymen deride the preconciliar Church as “irrelevant” (or similar words) just since the start of the New Year.
Click to expand...
 
No, it did not but a lot of people sure seem to believe that it did and act like it did. I mean lets be honest, the simple fact that this thread is here is pretty much proof of that.

If you look around, which Council gets quoted the most? Vatican II. Which Popes get quoted the most? The Popes who came after Vatican II. It is almost as if the Church did not truly exist prior to it. Now I realize that Vatican II was extremely important but somehow, ignoring other Councils just doesn’t seem right any more than ignoring the quotes and wisdom of previous Popes.
 
Mike30 said:
No, it did not but a lot of people sure seem to believe that it did and act like it did. I mean lets be honest, the simple fact that this thread is here is pretty much proof of that.

If you look around, which Council gets quoted the most? Vatican II. Which Popes get quoted the most? The Popes who came after Vatican II. It is almost as if the Church did not truly exist prior to it. Now I realize that Vatican II was extremely important but somehow, ignoring other Councils just doesn’t seem right any more than ignoring the quotes and wisdom of previous Popes.
Click to expand...
One the the problems of the Church of the present is that a lot of people failed to take into account the fact that Vatican II was intended to be taken in context of all the other councils before it – that is how all the other councils have been taken, and that is normal. However, for some reason, people took it by itself, and that of course caused all kinds of problems.

A council does not negate the councils before it; it builds upon them.
 
if mass was celebrated the way Vatican II intended, then there wouldn’t be abuses such as the clown mass and also i guaruntee you the SSPX wouldn’t of broken off. but since people took it to mean they could do whatever they want and make up their own mass, we obviously have these problems and now Vatican II has been given a bad name. if most Catholics today went to a mass celebrated according to the rubrics of Vatican II, they would think they were at a Latin mass, because Vatican II just meant to simplify the mass, not completely reform it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top