Questions about Vatican II

[marci]

I have some questions about VII and I never seem to be able to get a straight answer. There are plenty of so called “traditional catholic” websites out there that make all kinds of claims, but I don’t know if I can trust them.

Here it goes,

Does VII contradict prior councils (such as Trent) about salvation outside the catholic church?

Did members of other religious faiths take part in the council?

Was the VII council infallible?

Why were the changes in the liturgy made? What was wrong with the mass before?

Why the referenses to “the spirit of VII”? Why weren’t the documents more clear? Wouldn’t the “spirit”, or “intent” be spelled out plainly?

Why did so much craziness (for lack of a better word) break out during the post councicular era? (not sure if that’s a word, sorry)

Finally, Did VII change dogma/doctrine?

I was born in the early 70’s so I never experienced the church pre-VII. Most of my family are traditional, and blame alot of the liturgical abuse, the scandals, the catholic divorce rates, the lack of catholics attending mass regularly, the terrible state of catechism, and anything else one can think of on the VII council.

Please, someone help me with this, because what I have read so far, I find to be alarming to say the least.

PS. Please be as specific as you can, and any advise on books or websites with reliable info. would be great.

God Bless,

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I have some questions about VII and I never seem to be able to get a straight answer. There are plenty of so called “traditional catholic” websites out there that make all kinds of claims, but I don’t know if I can trust them.

I was born in the early 70’s so I never experienced the church pre-VII. Most of my family are traditional, and blame alot of the liturgical abuse, the scandals, the catholic divorce rates, the lack of catholics attending mass regularly, the terrible state of catechism, and anything else one can think of on the VII council.

Please, someone help me with this, because what I have read so far, I find to be alarming to say the least.

PS. Please be as specific as you can, and any advise on books or websites with reliable info. would be great.

God Bless,

Does VII contradict prior councils (such as Trent) about salvation outside the catholic church?

No, it does contradict (corrects) certain false understandings.

Did members of other religious faiths take part in the council?

Yes, they were invited as Observers only.

Was the VII council infallible?

Yes

Why were the changes in the liturgy made? What was wrong with the mass before?

Many changes in the liturgy actually began years and years before the Council. The Council proposed certain change to help the Church be more understood by the world. Certain liturgical “changes” are actually misinterpretations of the Council documents. We are now beginning to see the corrections being made.

Why the referenses to “the spirit of VII”? Why weren’t the documents more clear? Wouldn’t the “spirit”, or “intent” be spelled out plainly?

The Council documents were intended for the whole Catholic Church. They do need to be adapted to each culture and this must be done with great care. In some places this was not the case. The “Spirit” must be understood as the past historical understanding of the Church on certain matters.

Why did so much craziness (for lack of a better word) break out during the post councicular era? (not sure if that’s a word, sorry)

As with any Council if you look back historically. It simply takes time sometimes centuries to properly implement a Council.

Finally, Did VII change dogma/doctrine?

No, no Doctrine or Dogma was defined or changed by Vatican II, As a matter of fact V-II re-states and presents lots of traditional Catholic Doctrine and Dogma, most of the time by quoting and referencing the original Councils and decrees on Doctrines and Dogmas.

 

[trth_skr]

…Why were the changes in the liturgy made? What was wrong with the mass before?

Many changes in the liturgy actually began years and years before the Council. The Council proposed certain change to help the Church be more understood by the world. Certain liturgical “changes” are actually misinterpretations of the Council documents. We are now beginning to see the corrections being made.

I think it is important to note that Vat. II did not mandate creation of a Mass in the venacular.

Br.Rich_SFO:
Why the referenses to “the spirit of VII”? Why weren’t the documents more clear? Wouldn’t the “spirit”, or “intent” be spelled out plainly?

The Council documents were intended for the whole Catholic Church. They do need to be adapted to each culture and this must be done with great care. In some places this was not the case. The “Spirit” must be understood as the past historical understanding of the Church on certain matters.

“The Spirit of Vat. II”, in general, is doing whatever you want, then ascribing it to Vat. II… I.e., the Spirit of Vat. II has nothing to do with Vatican II.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Verbum]

Hi Marci,

Don’t go from hearsay. You can read for yourself the documents of Vatican II, which were all approved by Pope Paul VI. They are easily understandable. Just go to this address :

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM

Verbum

 

[marci]

Does VII contradict prior councils (such as Trent) about salvation outside the catholic church?

No, it does contradict (corrects) certain false understandings.

Does this mean that certain things at Trent were false?

Yes, they were invited as Observers only

 

[vern_humphrey]

Does this mean that certain things at Trent were false?

No. It means there were things not well understood.

Why were they invited to observe?

The Catholic Church is the Church Christ established. We have a duty to all who call themselves Christians.

Why do some say that it was not infallible?

Vatican II produced no new statements that were proclaimed infallibally. Youi cannot point to any point of doctrine and say, “Catholics were not required to believe this before Vatican II, but now as a result of Vatican II, they are required to believe it.”

What was misunderstood about the church at that time by the world?

If “by rhe world” you mean the non-Catholic world, there isn’t room to list them all.

But if you mean what did some Catholics misunderstand, Vatican II was mostly concerned with the nuts-and-bolts of how the Church does it’s business – things like training priests and the relationship between bishops and so on.

 

[johnnycatholic]

Does this mean that certain things at Trent were false?

Why were they invited to observe?

Why do some say that it was not infallible?

What was misunderstood about the church at that time by the world?

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Does this mean that certain things at Trent were false?

No, of course not. But some people misunderstood them.

Why were they invited to observe?

The Church wanted to be more open to Separated Christians to see.

Why do some say that it was not infallible?

You would have to ask them.

What was misunderstood about the church at that time by the world?

The Church after trent tended to be very closed off from the world. John XXIII wanted it to have more influence in the world. Not the other way around.

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Quoted by johnnycatholic:

Recently the Catholic, Lutheran, and Methodist churches all came to a consensus on faith and works. I guess we were all talking about the same thing all along. Anyway, now three major Christian churches are not only unified on a major sticking point, but we all have this chunk of Christ’s truth ironed out. We’ve made headway with the Jewish and Muslim communities (although the radicals are out to make our current pope the villain) and thought we were doing well with the Anglicans until they decided to go insane.

I must politely disagree. The Catholics, Lutherans and Methodist churches did not come to a “consensus” regarding faith and works; rather, they came to an agreement as to what each group legitimately could declare on the relationship between faith and works. I don’t think it true to say that the differences concerning justfication have been ironed out to the point that one can say the various views are equally acceptable for the Church.

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Quoted by Br. Rich SFO:

What was misunderstood about the church at that time by the world?

The Church after trent tended to be very closed off from the world. John XXIII wanted it to have more influence in the world. Not the other way around.

The Church, both before and after Trent, was threatened on all sides by enemies as yet unrivaled in the danger they posed to the Church. The Protestant churches posed a real threat in drawing away the Catholic faithful, and in this sense the Church had to close itself off somewhat from dispositions leading to these theologies in order to avoid further dissension.

The time just after Trent was also very different from the world today. Atheism and secularism were not yet widespread, and the world (which at Trent was only gradually being understood to comprise vast tribes in the Americas, India, China and elsewhere) was at that time still mostly a Latin world, the Arab and Turkish invaders having somewhat hindered many contacts of the West with Eastern people.

I argue that the Church in fact was very open to the world. Some of the most famous Catholic saints of the period were missionaries to new worlds of people who had not yet heard the Christian message, as well as to Protestant Christians whose concepts of the Church were affected by Reformation divergences from traditional beliefs of the Church.

The increasingly challenged authority of the Pope and the rise of idealogies that lent to a disbelief in the supernatural, in God and finally in objective norms, prompted the Popes to firmly respond to these threats to the Christian faith. In doing so, they may have been over-protective and appeared to have been closed off from the secularizing world.

So, I must politely say that to compare the Tridentine Church as “closed off” is not really fair to the Tridentine Catholics, since they lived at a different time when certain elements of the world today were not yet widespread, and so were impossible for the Church to open up to. Plus, better inter-communications today have enabled a general opening up which in that time could not be orchestrated on so grand a scale.

 

[kleary]

Does VII contradict prior councils (such as Trent) about salvation outside the catholic church?,

No, not at all.

Did members of other religious faiths take part in the council?

Non-Catholics were there as observers. The problem with “the council” was the liberal Catholic clergy and theologians who were present and intended on using the documents in ways the Council Fathers never intended. A great example is the Liturgy Constitution that decreed Gregorian Chant was to have its pride and place in the Liturgy, that Latin was to remain in the Liturgy and the people shoudl be taught how to sing and say the responses IN LATIN. These “hijackers” of the Council felt that it didn’t go far enough and the Church needed a lot more “reform”.

Was the VII council infallible?

If Vatican II defined a dogma to be held by all the faithful then yes. However the Second Vatican Council was declared “pastoral in nature”. It DID NOT define one dogma or definition to be held by all the faithful. The reason for its calling was not for a purpose of defining a truth that was in dispute at the time, such as in the past with Trent.

Why were the changes in the liturgy made? What was wrong with the mass before?

Nothing was wrong with the Tridentine Mass, and if you come to my parish you will see there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Tridentine Mass. You will see and hear people responding and following the Mass. The only reason I can think of, as to why the N.O. Mass, is a purely ecumenical thing to attract Protestants to the Chuch, to make the liturgy more in line with Protestant ones.

Why the referenses to “the spirit of VII”? Why weren’t the documents more clear? Wouldn’t the “spirit”, or “intent” be spelled out plainly?

Again, liberal progressive theologians purposely intended on distorting the documents to their destructive doctrines.

Why did so much craziness (for lack of a better word) break out during the post councicular era? (not sure if that’s a word, sorry)

See answer above. The liberal modernists were fully entrenched in the Church. Even before the New Mass came out there were plenty of churches built just waiting for its publication- with freestanding altars, no statues, cross only with no corpus on it or one of the risen Lord.

Finally, Did VII change dogma/doctrine?

No Pope or Ecumenical Council can EVER CHANGE a dogma or doctrine.

Ken

 

[ricko]

I saw the changes. To the average Catholic here is what we saw …

The communion rails were removed.

Podiums were removed.

Most of the statues were removed.

The altar was revised

The Mass went from Latin to English

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I saw the changes. To the average Catholic here is what we saw …

The communion rails were removed.

But were not required to be and are now to some extent returning.

Podiums were removed.

But not required to be.

Most of the statues were removed.

But not required to be and are to some extent returning.

The altar was revised

But nothing required the removal of any High altars. Or the removal of the tabernacle from the High Altar.

The Mass went from Latin to English

But even the N.O. was available and could be celebrated in Latin. It just was not.

An example a parish here had a Latin N.O. Mass on Wednesday evening for the purpose of helping people learn the Latin. Then we would after enough people learned the Latin, have one Sunday N.O. Mass in Latin every week. I don’t think that there were ever more than 10 people at the Wednesday evening Mass and they were always the same people. The idea eventually went away.

 

[marci]

“No Pope or Ecumenical Council can EVER CHANGE a dogma or doctrine.”

kleary,

If this is the case then why did the church teaching on salvation outside the church change? In the baltimore catechism it says that a non-catholic baptised person who dies without mortal sin can be saved, but it stresses that this would be rare because that person, if they be baptist for example, would not have the ability to go to confession. I think it is reasonable to say that in this day and age it is extremely difficult to live ones life without ever having committed a mortal sin, especially if one doesn’t have access to the graces given through the sacraments, which those outside the church do not possess. This teaching is very different from modern church teaching about salvation for those outside the church.

I find it reasonable to say that no one knows the condition of another’s soul, therefore I do believe that God in His Mercy, provides means for salvation for those individuals outside the church that I may not understand. However, modern day teaching goes a step beyond this thinking in that it affirms that there is “truth” in other christian faiths and even in non-christian ones universally and not just individually.
In my opinion, the modern teaching seems to “belittle” the necessity for converstion to the true faith, and as a consequence, demotes the place of the sacraments to mearly things that are good to have, but not really necessary for salvation anymore.

This to my mind, is a clear change in church teaching. If I am wrong, someone please help me to see this as a continuation or a reaffirmation of belief as apposed to a “change”.

P.S. I couldn’t get my “quote” button to wrap text. I have “errors on page”.

Sorry.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is a mistake to assume that because our understanding of doctrine changes that the underlying doctrine is also changed.

Often the application of doctrine is based on non-infallible information or ideas. A good example is the Church’s position on suicide. At one time it was assumed that suicide was always a rational act – and hence an unforgiveable sin, committed at the instant of death. Modern science, however, has shown that suicide is often the product of acute depression, which isa disease caused by chemical imbalances in the brain.

Similarly, such ideas as “outside the Church there is no salvation” is not changed – but our understanding that we cannot limit Christ’s saving grace has. It is through Christ’s sacrifice we are saved, but those who cannot know the message of the Church – those in “invincible ignorance” can be saved, as can those who grope, however imperfectly, toward His grace.

 

[Goblin_Taters]

marci,

I enjoyed reading your post and agree with much of what you write. The following, however, presents some variations of my own thought.

However, modern day teaching goes a step beyond this thinking in that it affirms that there is “truth” in other christian faiths and even in non-christian ones universally and not just individually.

Is this anything new? Do not other faiths, Christian and non-Christian, develop certain of their beliefs around the natural law? However, I believe I am with you in regards to the affirmation of these “truths” outside the Church. I’m not sure where you stand on this, but personally I don’t see the Church so much as changing its beliefs as changing its emphasis, which can equally be as dangerous to the faith of the Church. The Church holds Trent as much as an Ecumenical Council as Vatican II, but which one has precendence these days? For many, Vatican II has superseded Trent. While the contents of Vatican II may be fully orthodox at least to the letter, the overwhelming attention to pastoral, non-dogmatic matters (VII being a Pastoral not Dogmatic Council) lends to a tendency in the ranks to quietly pass over the previous Dogmatic Councils of the Church.

If a person one day spends hours telling friends that people who listen to Hard Rock, Pop, Death Metal (anything but Classic) are warping the harmony of the mind achieved through Classical music, but a few weeks later tells the same friends, over dinner, that, although Classical music still is to be held in high esteem, there are other forms of music that may possess qualities beneficial to the soul, are we then to believe that the person has changed, at least in regards to his thoughts on music? Or has he deepened his understanding/appreciation of good music?

Such I believe is similiar to the situation of the Church.

In my opinion, the modern teaching seems to “belittle” the necessity for converstion to the true faith, and as a consequence, demotes the place of the sacraments to mearly things that are good to have, but not really necessary for salvation anymore.

The Vatican II documents do in fact uphold the value of the sacraments–but, personally, I think the heavy focus on various non-Catholic groups (Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Protestants, Orthdodox) is overwhelmingly the emphasis of discussion. Vatican II reaffirmed Trent, but perhaps individuals capitalized on its conciliar comments on non-Catholics to the point of relegating the saving efficacy of the sacraments behind the strive for world unity.

This to my mind, is a clear change in church teaching. If I am wrong, someone please help me to see this as a continuation or a reaffirmation of belief as apposed to a “change”.

Again, much of what was finally established in Vatican II had previous seeds in encyclicals, Councils and in the saints and Fathers. The Catholic Church always has declared positively that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, no Council until Vatican II officially declared what exactly this meant. No Council mentions positively that non-Catholic Christians are completely outside the Church.

I say it again: if there are any changes in Vatican II, it is not a positive change in doctrine or dogma. One can find at least some precedence for what is written in Vatican II in the magisterial texts of previous times of the Church. However, focus on exceptions and possibilities may give the wrong impression that these are the rules. The Faith learned by the Catholic faithful is the Faith as presented by the Vatican II Council. And if Vatican II is dispreponderate in its presentation of certain held beliefs of the Church, then this will be reflected in the life of the Church. This, I believe, is perhaps more dangerous to the integrity of the Catholic faith among the faithful than any clear textual divergence from previous magisterial decisions.

That is, at least, my understanding of Vatican II. Like the Book of Romans, which must be read in the context of the whole canon, Vatican II, if properly understood, must be interpretted alongside the other Ecumenical Councils and magisterial decisions of the Church.

In my opinion, Vatican II would have benefitted by a stronger commitment to explicitly stating the decisions (however harsh-sounding to modern ears) of previous Councils. This would achieve a balance I honestly believe to be lacking.

 

[Victorious]

Why the referenses to “the spirit of VII”? Why weren’t the documents more clear? Wouldn’t the “spirit”, or “intent” be spelled out plainly?

When you hear somebody talking about the “spirit of Vatican II,” you can be sure you’re about to hear a busload of bushwa. You can be sure you’re about to hear something completely whacked out. You can be sure you’re about to hear something that can in no way be justified by any of the documents of Vatican II – hence the appeal to the “spirit.”

When people talking about the “spirit of Vatican II” as a justification for something, they’re really saying that Vatican II didn’t go far enough, since they can cite to nothing in the letter of Vatican II that supports the kookburger thing they’re pushing.

 

[marci]

marci,

I’m not sure where you stand on this, but personally I don’t see the Church so much as changing its beliefs as changing its emphasis, which can equally be as dangerous to the faith of the Church. The Church holds Trent as much as an Ecumenical Council as Vatican II, but which one has precendence these days? For many, Vatican II has superseded

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Does VII contradict prior councils (such as Trent) about salvation outside the catholic church?

No, it does contradict (corrects) certain false understandings.

Then can we also assume that V2 has false understandings?
even being infallible?

As with any Council if you look back historically. It simply takes time sometimes centuries to properly implement a Council.

Infallible and guided by the Holy spirit, yet during the centuries of implementation millions of souls could have been sacrificed.
And this is “The Church”?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Infallible and guided by the Holy spirit, yet during the centuries of implementation millions of souls could have been sacrificed.
And this is “The Church”?

Consider the source of that quote…

Christ’s Church has done more for the faithful on the path to salvation than any religion you can THINK of to believe, TRADITIONS that you follow, or your PERSONAL interpertations of scripture in the saving of souls.

tit for tat comments will get you nowhere. If you need more proof of that, keep going. There are no winners, only losers in that argument.

Seek the Truth!