Post Vatican II

[prolifeteenager]

Recently I found out that before the second Vatican council Catholics were against ecumenism. For instance, things that were protestant, including music and the King James Bible were strictly forbidden. Now, post vatican II we see protestant songs being sung at mass and some catholics even use a King James Bible. How is this okay? I get the point of ecumenism is to find the lost sheep and bring them the truth, but I think Catholics are losing the beauty of our own traditions when we settle for the traditions of those who were once considered heretics. Jesus said to love your enemy but now those who pit themselves against us are considered our brothers. I know there are many catholics who are into the charismatic movement for instance, but this sounds like heresy to me. I feel like we water down the faith when we settle for traditions that are heretical. I think modernism has effected the church more than we realize and we have lost many traditions that were once long held. Thoughts?

I don’t mean any disrespect here either. I am truly curious.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually, before Vatican II there was much hatred between Catholics and Protestants, which was not what Christ intended.

Vatican II sought to heal the divisions and although we still see some anti-Catholicism from Protestants, we see far less anti-non-Catholics from our own members.

Lets not reopen another war, throwing terms like heretics around.

As far as Catholics using the King James Bible, the New Testament has few differences and those that exists, The major difference is the Old Testament, which is based on the Hebrew Version, where the Catholic Bible is based on the Green Septuagint version.

Either way, I grew up in the Pre-Vatican II Church, and never want to return to where we couldn’t even step inside a Protestant Church.

To follow Christ means more than following the culture of the religion. It means loving God and people as He did.

Jim

 

[prolifeteenager]

Actually, before Vatican II there was much hatred between Catholics and Protestants, which was not what Christ intended.

Vatican II sought to heal the divisions and although we still see some anti-Catholicism from Protestants, we see far less anti-non-Catholics from our own members.

Lets not reopen another war, throwing terms like heretics around.

As far as Catholics using the King James Bible, the New Testament has few differences and those that exists, The major difference is the Old Testament, which is based on the Hebrew Version, where the Catholic Bible is based on the Green Septuagint version.

Either way, I grew up in the Pre-Vatican II Church, and never want to return to where we couldn’t even step inside a Protestant Church.

To follow Christ means more than following the culture of the religion. It means loving God and people as He did.

Jim

I don’t mean to incite harsh feelings by using the word “heratics”. It is the technical term though and shines light on the reality. I am not wanting anyone to feel angry toward protestants. I was speaking more about protecting Catholicism.

Also, the major differences between the two bibles is that the protestants removed 7 books from the bible. I think that is a big deal.

 

[Beryllos]

… I feel like we water down the faith when we settle for traditions that are heretical. I think modernism has effected the church more than we realize and we have lost many traditions that were once long held…

I don’t see how the faith has been watered down, or that we have lost anything. What is missing for you?

 

[Beryllos]

Also, the major differences between the two bibles is that the protestants removed 7 books from the bible. I think that is a big deal.

That doesn’t mean Catholics need to stop reading those books for the sake of ecumenism.

By the way, I sometimes refer to the King James version to compare the style and phrasing. There is a lot to like about it.

 

[collegeathlete]

Now, post vatican II we see protestant songs being sung at mass

I see absolutely no issue with this, provided they contain nothing that contradicts what we believe as Catholics. God can do great things through anyone. All truth has a home in the Catholic Church which we believe has the fullness of truth.

Our former Pope actually has some pretty great things to say about “Protestant music”

For me an unforgettable experience was the Bach concert that Leonard Bernstein conducted in Munich after the sudden death of Karl Richter. I was sitting next to the Lutheran Bishop Hanselmann. When the last note of one of the great Thomas-Kantor-Cantatas triumphantly faded away, we looked at each other spontaneously and right then we said: “Anyone who has heard this, knows that the faith is true”. The music had such an extraordinary force of reality that we realized, no longer by deduction, but by the impact on our hearts, that it could not have originated from nothingness, but could only have come to be through the power of the Truth that became real in the composer’s inspiration.

some catholics even use a King James Bible.

Catholics using a KJV? I can’t say I’ve encountered that in my life. Most Catholics probably have a New American Bible, or some variation of that.

I get the point of ecumenism is to find the lost sheep and bring them the truth, but I think Catholics are losing the beauty of our own traditions when we settle for the traditions of those who were once considered heretics.

There is truth found outside the visible borders of the Catholic Church that ought to have a home within it. I’m reminded of something John Henry Newman said. When confronted with the argument that something is false because it is found in paganism, he replied with something to the effect that, rather, it is true because it is found in the Church.

Many wholesome Catholic traditions are “baptized” pagan traditions. The great St. Thomas Aquinas helped the Church “baptize” the thought of Aristotle.

Jesus said to love your enemy but now those who pit themselves against us are considered our brothers.

I take it you haven’t met many Protestants, which if you are a teenager and live in a predominantly Catholic area is perhaps understandable. As a former Lutheran I can tell you that most are sincere.

I know there are many catholics who are into the charismatic movement for instance, but this sounds like heresy to me.

Heresy is a specific term used in specific instances. Don’t casually throw that around in a context where it doesn’t belong. In any event multiple Popes have had very positive things to say about the charismatic movement.

I don’t mean any disrespect here either. I am truly curious.

You seemed genuine.

 

[pianistclare]

Evangelizing and spreading the truth of our faith involves getting to know people where they are. You can’t correct or advise if you don’t know what they believe.
Nothing about watering down.
Remember, the Apostles were the first evangelizers. Thank God they did!
We should never write off people. Give the Holy Spirit a chance, eh?

 

[GLam8833]

The Vatican II opened the way for
the Mass to be said in the Vernacular
or the Language of the People. Also
it emphasizes the importance of the
Laity, as for the Charismatic movement,
why WOULDN’T the Holy Spirit feel
at Home in the Catholic Church??

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I don’t mean to incite harsh feelings by using the word “heratics”. It is the technical term though and shines light on the reality. I am not wanting anyone to feel angry toward protestants. I was speaking more about protecting Catholicism.

Also, the major differences between the two bibles is that the protestants removed 7 books from the bible. I think that is a big deal.

Catholicism doesn’t need protecting, it survives because God will’s it to. God is a lot more powerful than we are.

Also, the Protestants didn’t remove 7 books from the Bible. They use the Hebrew translation of the Old Testament, where the Catholic Church uses the Greek Septuagint, which has 7 more books than the Hebrew version.

We use the Septuagint, which was used by the early Church. It was for Greek speaking Jews going back 150 years before Christ, and it contains 80% of the OT references in the New Testament.

Jim

 

[prolifeteenager]

Catholicism doesn’t need protecting, it survives because God will’s it to. God is a lot more powerful than we are.

Jim

If it didn’t need protecting why did Jesus give it to Peter?

I guess I can see that the whole attitude of the church has changed. When I go to Latin Masses, the divinity of Christ is magnified and there is a sense of awe. I think many people have a different feeling when they go to a mass said in the vernacular. Im not saying a mass said in the vernacular is less holy, but the style of the latin mass is more spiritually alive (with the smells and bells and such). I wonder if this is why 45% of Catholic do not believe in the real presence these days. Sometimes I feel like the english mass is suppose to make us feel like Jesus is our buddy instead of our Holy God, while the latin mass feels like it is celebration for a king and loving God. I rarely see people dress respectfully for mass anymore. Im not judging them, but I feel bad for God. He deserves to be glorified in every way.

I know I am going against the current with this threat but I am really wondering about this. It seems so apparent, yet it is often misconstrued when I try to explain it.

 

[dmar198]

Recently I found out that before the second Vatican council Catholics were against ecumenism. For instance, things that were protestant, including music and the King James Bible were strictly forbidden. Now, post vatican II we see protestant songs being sung at mass and some catholics even use a King James Bible. How is this okay? I get the point of ecumenism is to find the lost sheep and bring them the truth, but I think Catholics are losing the beauty of our own traditions when we settle for the traditions of those who were once considered heretics. Jesus said to love your enemy but now those who pit themselves against us are considered our brothers. I know there are many catholics who are into the charismatic movement for instance, but this sounds like heresy to me. I feel like we water down the faith when we settle for traditions that are heretical. I think modernism has effected the church more than we realize and we have lost many traditions that were once long held. Thoughts?

I don’t mean any disrespect here either. I am truly curious.

A lot of the things you identify as ecumenical we actually quite traditional.

Ecumenical Outreach Before Vatican 2
historyandapologetics.com/2015/11/ecumenical-outreach-before-vatican-2.html

For example, even the Council of Trent indicated that protestants are our brothers. It called them “sons of [the Church’s] womb,” “our common mother.” (Session 18) It also called Protestant groups “the faithful of Christ…by whatsoever name designated” (Session 15 and Session 18) and noted that “[we] all acknowledge the same God and Redeemer.” (Session 13)

Venerable Ignatius Spencer is like the father of ecumenical relations between Catholics and Anglicans, and he was definitely pre-Vatican 2. Pope Leo XIII praised his efforts to promote unity between Catholics and Anglicans in an 1895 encyclical Amantissima Voluntatis, which is itself very ecumenical. So ecumenism is nothing new, it’s actually quite traditional. Read the link I provided for more examples. I thought you might like to know that. Let me know if that helps, please.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

prolifeteenager;

If it didn’t need protecting why did Jesus give it to Peter?

To spread the good news of Jesus Christ.

I guess I can see that the whole attitude of the church has changed. When I go to Latin Masses, the divinity of Christ is magnified and there is a sense of awe.

It’s the same at every Mass, not just Mass celebrated in Latin.

It may be you’re more attracted to the unique Latin Language and this makes you feel more Catholic ?

God doesn’t care what language we use to worship him with.

I think many people have a different feeling when they go to a mass said in the vernacular. Im not saying a mass said in the vernacular is less holy, but the style of the latin mass is more spiritually alive (with the smells and bells and such).

Nonsense. The spirituality of the Mass is the same regardless of the language.

Contemplative’s are awed at Mass because they have Christ in their hearts, and language has nothing to do with it.

I wonder if this is why 45% of Catholic do not believe in the real presence these days. Sometimes I feel like the english mass is suppose to make us feel like Jesus is our buddy instead of our Holy God, while the latin mass feels like it is celebration for a king and loving God. I rarely see people dress respectfully for mass anymore. Im not judging them, but I feel bad for God. He deserves to be glorified in every way.

We glorify God from our hearts, not necessarily in a language not our own.

I know I am going against the current with this threat but I am really wondering about this. It seems so apparent, yet it is often misconstrued when I try to explain it.

I don’t know, but I grew up with the Latin Mass and I’ve attended the Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin at the nearby Benedictine Monastery and in English a the nearby Trappist Monastery. Both are reverent and beautiful, but it was the people present who made it so, not the language used. However, having to translate from Latin to English, is somewhat of a distraction at times, especially where I’m not fluent in Latin.

Either way, you’ll never get this level of reverence at Masses celebrated at the average parish.

Jim

 

[Reuben_J]

Recently I found out that before the second Vatican council Catholics were against ecumenism. For instance, things that were protestant, including music and the King James Bible were strictly forbidden. Now, post vatican II we see protestant songs being sung at mass and some catholics even use a King James Bible. How is this okay? I get the point of ecumenism is to find the lost sheep and bring them the truth, but I think Catholics are losing the beauty of our own traditions when we settle for the traditions of those who were once considered heretics. Jesus said to love your enemy but now those who pit themselves against us are considered our brothers. I know there are many catholics who are into the charismatic movement for instance, but this sounds like heresy to me. I feel like we water down the faith when we settle for traditions that are heretical. I think modernism has effected the church more than we realize and we have lost many traditions that were once long held. Thoughts?

I don’t mean any disrespect here either. I am truly curious.

It is not so much about things that are Protestant but whether they are right or not. Do they confirm to Catholic belief? If they are antithesis to Catholicism, using them in whatever form is wrong and therefore should be avoided.

If they speak for Catholicism, then why not? Just because others are using them, it does not mean that they are always wrong. Wrong is wrong, right is right, and we should know the difference, not because of the reason that someone else are using them.

I think ultimately it boils down to that. Similarly too, we hear Protestants avoiding things that are Catholic for reason that they are Catholic and not because they truly are against them.

 

[paperwight66]

. I wonder if this is why 45% of Catholic do not believe in the real presence these days. .

Careful with quoting figures like this.

a. You need to quote the name of the survey. Was it done by a reputable and honest organisation?

b.You also need to clarify the size and location of the sample. 45% of a hundred in a small bible-belt town - or a ‘sophisticated’ city area, for that matter can’t be expanded to be 45% of the world population of Catholics.

c. You need to clarify how the sample was selected. For example, was it drawn from people who identified themselves as Catholic because they had been baptised as such, but who didn’t necessarily darken the doors of any church? Were people approached/contacted at random, or were they invited to participate via a magazine article, or tv ad, for instance? Or was the sample drawn from Massgoers as they came out of church.?

d. And possibly the most important of all, you need to quote the exact phrasing of the question. For example, if the survey asked ,‘Do you believe that Jesus is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament?’, even the Pope himself would say no, as the Real Presence is a sacramental Presence, not a physical one.

Unless these questions can be answered, I don’t think ‘statistics’ should be quoted on any subject. Certainly we should not perpetuate urban myths.

 

[prolifeteenager]

Careful with quoting figures like this.

a. You need to quote the name of the survey. Was it done by a reputable and honest organisation?

b.You also need to clarify the size and location of the sample. 45% of a hundred in a small bible-belt town - or a ‘sophisticated’ city area, for that matter can’t be expanded to be 45% of the world population of Catholics.

c. You need to clarify how the sample was selected. For example, was it drawn from people who identified themselves as Catholic because they had been baptised as such, but who didn’t necessarily darken the doors of any church? Were people approached/contacted at random, or were they invited to participate via a magazine article, or tv ad, for instance? Or was the sample drawn from Massgoers as they came out of church.?

d. And possibly the most important of all, you need to quote the exact phrasing of the question. For example, if the survey asked ,‘Do you believe that Jesus is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament?’, even the Pope himself would say no, as the Real Presence is a sacramental Presence, not a physical one.

Unless these questions can be answered, I don’t think ‘statistics’ should be quoted on any subject. Certainly we should not perpetuate urban myths.

I hope you forgive me, it looks like I read it wrong. But Im not sure if the correction is better news. It says 45% of Catholics didn’t know the teaching of consubstantiation. Here is the link if you are interested. uscatholic.org/blog/201305/knowing-believing-and-sometimes-not-knowing-believing-too-27323

It was an article by U.S. Catholic which was citing a 2010 pew forum study.

But also looking at the pie chart there almost 40% of catholics do not believe that Jesus is in the eucharist.

 

[OneSheep]

If it didn’t need protecting why did Jesus give it to Peter?

I guess I can see that the whole attitude of the church has changed. When I go to Latin Masses, the divinity of Christ is magnified and there is a sense of awe. I think many people have a different feeling when they go to a mass said in the vernacular. Im not saying a mass said in the vernacular is less holy, but the style of the latin mass is more spiritually alive (with the smells and bells and such). I wonder if this is why 45% of Catholic do not believe in the real presence these days. Sometimes I feel like the english mass is suppose to make us feel like Jesus is our buddy instead of our Holy God, while the latin mass feels like it is celebration for a king and loving God. I rarely see people dress respectfully for mass anymore. Im not judging them, but I feel bad for God. He deserves to be glorified in every way.

I know I am going against the current with this threat but I am really wondering about this. It seems so apparent, yet it is often misconstrued when I try to explain it.

Good Morning!

Jesus is our Holy God… and our Buddy!

First of all, you must be well aware that among teens, you are already “against the current” with a pro-life stance and valuing the mass at all. You are one of us, friend, and you are to be supported in your willingness to be a little different, and in supporting Church tradition and its expression in the wonderful Latin mass. God has blessed you!

I was a teen when Vatican II occurred. For me, it really damaged my faith, I saw the change as making faith itself something unstable. You see, I was finding stability in the rituals and traditions rather than prayer life and relationship. I think that is pretty normal for a teen, we focus on the external rather than the internal.

You are a person who values faith. I ask that you join us in ministry. We are told in our diocese that the first ministry for all of us is the ministry of hospitality. Are we welcoming of all who come to the table? Even if one is welcoming, is it a real welcome, or is it a smile covering a frown?

Here is something to consider: a ministry of hospitality begins in our hearts. Is there something about my fellow Catholic or Christian that I find offensive or contrary to Christian values or standards? If so, here is something applicable. It was told to me by a priest long ago:

“It is not to condemn or condone, but understand”

Jesus’ call to “seek” outnumbers any other call in the Gospel. Seek why it is that people behave and believe a little differently. Try to understand where people are coming from, “Why would I do/say/believe that way?”. If you come up with something that still sounds a little negative, keep seeking. Keep seeking until you find Christ within everyone, even those who do the worst. Start with the easier ones. “Why would I dress that way?” “Why would I not appreciate the True Presence?” Remember Luke 23:34. Oh, and Luke 6:42 is very helpful to me, I have found in my own “seeking” that hypocrisy is the rule rather than the exception, and I am speaking about my own hypocrisy!

GodSpeed!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I hope you forgive me, it looks like I read it wrong. But Im not sure if the correction is better news. It says 45% of Catholics didn’t know the teaching of consubstantiation. Here is the link if you are interested. uscatholic.org/blog/201305/knowing-believing-and-sometimes-not-knowing-believing-too-27323

It was an article by U.S. Catholic which was citing a 2010 pew forum study.

But also looking at the pie chart there almost 40% of catholics do not believe that Jesus is in the eucharist.

This has more to do with the fact that many Catholics were baptized, but never raised in the faith.

Baptism of infants in the Catholic Church for too long was treated as a social event more than a sacrament of faith. The same was true of First Holy Communion and Confirmation, which were often treated as social events.

When I taught Confirmation to high-school students, I was shocked to learn that some of my students were baptized, received First Holy Communion, but had never been to first Confession, nor did they attend Mass on Sundays for most of their lives. The only time their parents took them to Church was on Christmas and Easter and again, more of a social event than an expression of faith.

Today, 60% of marriages fall apart, and the result is that the children of such marriages, don’t go to Mass or attend religious ed classes whatsoever.

So, today, the only valid surveys about what Catholics believe, must be from those who are devote Catholics, not those who only carry the name because they were baptized as infants.

Jim

 

[paperwight66]

It says 45% of Catholics didn’t know the teaching of consubstantiation. .

Ummm…It was probably a slip of the finger, but Catholics believe in TRANsubstantiation, not CON.

 

[prolifeteenager]

Ummm…It was probably a slip of the finger, but Catholics believe in TRANsubstantiation, not CON.

you’re right. It was a typo. I can see Im discrediting my opinion with my silly errors. But my intention is honest.

 

[GLam8833]

There is a video on Youtube about what a
Great Apostasy Vatican II is, citing the fact
that John XXIII’s election was invalid and
that he was actually a Mason planted by
the Free Masons!! I got sick of watching
it and finally turned it off. Just remember
it is ON THIS ROCK(the Pope) Christ
will build His Church!! Matt. 16