Reasons for Vatican II changes?

[WenckebachCath]

Can anyone here nicely explain to me what is the reasoning behind the reforms of Vatican II? My understanding is that this was to correct some excesses that had developed over the years, and to attempt a return to some earlier Church practices? Also, it changed some negative sounding wording in the Mass regarding the Jews, and tried to assume a less triumphalistic approach to both non-Catholics and non-Christians?

I was very young during these changes and only vaguely remember the transition period. I more vividly remember the subsequent litugical experiments with folk Masses (fond memories I might add).

I haven’t read any of these documents and don’t plan to, but was hoping that some of those who have can provide a synopsis of the main thrust of them, and the original intent in calling this council?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Can anyone here nicely explain to me what is the reasoning behind the reforms of Vatican II? My understanding is that this was to correct some excesses that had developed over the years, and to attempt a return to some earlier Church practices? Also, it changed some negative sounding wording in the Mass regarding the Jews, and tried to assume a less triumphalistic approach to both non-Catholics and non-Christians?

I was very young during these changes and only vaguely remember the transition period. I more vividly remember the subsequent litugical experiments with folk Masses (fond memories I might add).

I haven’t read any of these documents and don’t plan to, but was hoping that some of those who have can provide a synopsis of the main thrust of them, and the original intent in calling this council?

It’s important for every Catholic to be aware of the Documents and their contents. For some it may not be reading the actual documents. But everyone should at least read a good accurate book like Vatican II - The Catholic Challenge by Alan Schreck. Or one of the other good one like it. Some changes were for one reason others were for another reason. I don’t think you can make a blanket statement as to why the reforms were made.

The Church had isolated itself from the world and this was hindering it from evangelizing the world. Vatican II was called to address that. How to make the Church more revelent to the world. The Church needed to address certain issues in the world that didn’t even exist 50 years before!

 

[Tomster]

It’s important for every Catholic to be aware of the Documents and their contents. For some it may not be reading the actual documents. But everyone should at least read a good accurate book like Vatican II - The Catholic Challenge by Alan Schreck. Or one of the other good one like it. Some changes were for one reason others were for another reason. I don’t think you can make a blanket statement as to why the reforms were made.

The Church had isolated itself from the world and this was hindering it from evangelizing the world. Vatican II was called to address that. How to make the Church more revelent to the world. The Church needed to address certain issues in the world that didn’t even exist 50 years before!

How did the Church isolate herself from the world and which issues needed to be addressed?

 

[anamchara]

Bump!

This is actually a really good question and I’m surprised with all the ramblings about Vac-II I’ve seen on here that there hasn’t been more answering this post. Where’s all the Catholic egg heads on here?

 

[WenckebachCath]

Bump!

This is actually a really good question and I’m surprised with all the ramblings about Vac-II I’ve seen on here that there hasn’t been more answering this post. Where’s all the Catholic egg heads on here?

Yes, I was hoping that someone could cover the main points here, although thanks for the reference book recommendation. It appeared to me that there were some people who post at this site who are familiar with the historical background leading up to these dramatic changes, and some of the intellectual and theological forces behind this transforming council.

 

[Tomster]

Yes, I was hoping that someone could cover the main points here, although thanks for the reference book recommendation. It appeared to me that there were some people who post at this site who are familiar with the historical background leading up to these dramatic changes, and some of the intellectual and theological forces behind this transforming council.

I would suggest that you read the book by Mr. Schreck and then read “The Great Facade - Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church” by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Reading both works will give you a clear perspective of the different forces at work within the Church during the Council and up to the present day.

 

[Tomster]

How did the Church isolate herself from the world and which issues needed to be addressed?

Brother,

Your answer please.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

How did the Church isolate herself from the world and which issues needed to be addressed?

In response to the Reformation we have the Council of Trent and the counter-reformation. From this point the Church was focused on cleaning up it’s own house. Vatican I being suspended and incomplete left some things unfinished. The Social issues created in the wake of the two world wars. The Ecumenical movement began in the late 1800’s with the Oxford Movement, was continuing to move forward. There were no pressing doctrinal issues to be addressed, which is why it is referred to as a Pastoral Council. That does not mean that it does not present authentic Catholic doctrine in it’s documents. A main focus however was defining “The Church” and “The relationship of The Church to the World”.

 

[WenckebachCath]

The Church as it relates to the world was, then, the focus? Is this the reason for the dramatic Liturgical changes? I can understand the need to present the Mass in our native tongues, but what about the other changes in the Liturgy? Also, since Vatican 2, what is the reason for the change in the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, and the de-emphasis of it?

 

[awalt]

With regard to

How to make the Church more relevant to the world. The Church needed to address certain issues in the world that didn’t even exist 50 years before!

there is an important addition left out, which is why extremes have caused some of the abuses.

The reform required *ressourcement *- a return to the sources of Catholic theology in the Bible and in the Early Church Fathers. The first dimension is as described in the quote above, called aggiornamento, or “bringing up to date” the Church’s practices, structures, and methods of encounter with modern culture and society.

Most if not all the problems have been from people bringing up to date without returning to our true roots (otherwise anything goes, right?), or the equally incorrect retro-trip back to AD 60 with creates a Church totally irrelevant in these times.

Cardinal Ratzinger has written extensively on this two-dimensional goal of Vatican II, and it is why people sometimes get the wrong read from him, namely is he for it for against it? He is 100% FOR the two dimensional goal of Vatican II, he is also 100% AGAINST some of the changes that did not take both dimensions in account.

 

[reggieM]

To the person who recommended “The Great Facade”. I found that to be a terrible book in many ways. It completely misunderstands Vatican II and the need for changes (which were supported by all the bishops of the Catholic Church!).

I would take some additional proof that it is not a reliable book because one of the co-authors, Thomas Woods, has denounced the book later and wants his name withdrawn from future editions (which I hope there will not be any).

He realized later that the arguments were extreme and simply wrong in a number of important areas.

 

[reggieM]

The need for liturgical changes was quite simple, really. All of the bishops of the world, including Abp. Lefevbre, voted to change the 1962 (so-called traditional Latin Mass). Why?

Well, the first thing (although it was stated subtly) was the need for some vernacular language in the liturgy. The arguments supporting an all-Latin language Mass simply didn’t make any sense.

Unfortunately, Vatican II said that Latin should be preserved (meaning “some” Latin) but it was wiped out. Why? There was such a huge impact with the vernacular being permitted that people simply went crazy with it.

So the language was a huge thing. Remember, before the Council, all seminarians were taught theology in the Latin language. How many of them really understood their lessons? They could hardly read and write freely in Latin and most seminaries had Saturday sessions where the courses were taught in a summary form in vernacular.

Catholics never learned how to read and speak Latin fluently – they simply didn’t understand the readings and propers of Mass without a translation. It didn’t make sense.

After that, the calendar would not permit much room for additions of new Saints. The readings were very limited – often the same Gospel and Epistle would be read every day at daily Mass. So those and other changes were needed.

The discipline before the Council was too legalistic – it gave the impression that Catholic had to follow lots of laws by the letter but that tended to kill the spirit of the law as well.