Your dad’s mistaken or has been misled–which, as you note, it seems many of that generation have been, sadly. Again, Vatican II teaches about this Sacrament (e.g. Lumen Gentium 11, Sacrosanctum Concilium 72) as does the post-Vatican II catechism and various other Magisterial texts.
Possibly, but another reason is that a great many were simply not taught doctrine at all–even in Catholic school. We went from a period when religion classes had actual content to a period where they had none.
Yes, they did walk away from the Church on account of this stuff. Who can blame them?
My mom said since Vatican 2 missing mass on Sunday is ok and not a mortal sin anymore
It appears that your parents are using “Vatican II” as an excuse to create their own church with its own beliefs and practices. It’s similar to the way many people over the past few years have cited “Pope Francis” as their excuse for separating themselves from Catholic beliefs. (Oh, those mean old bishops say X but I don’t think that’s what Pope Francis would say.)
That’s not accurate at all. I was in Catholic school. I was there before and after Vatican II. Lies were and still are being spread. The Confessional did not close. We still had the Feast Days and Holy Days of Obligation. The nuns explained the situation to us in Religion class.
People also need to stop saying that Vatican II was not a doctrinal Council and had no real binding authority, as if it is necessary for the Church to issue anathemas in order to teach authoritatively. At the very least, you should consult a decent treatment of the levels of authority in Church teaching. Placing yourself above and in judgment of an ecumenical council of the Church duly called and presided over by not one but two popes is incredibly arrogant. Furthermore, to say that it “changed nothing” is just plain wrong.
Such good advice. I think if most people actually READ the documents, you would see the clear intent of those at the council. The documents are beautiful.Adamski,
Your parents have fallen for what so many other Catholics have fallen for. The distortions of what Vatican II really was about.
I highly recommend that you read the actual documents of VII yourself.
Missing Mass on Sunday is still a mortal sin, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is still necessary, Purgatory is still dogma etc etc.
What you have heard and have been told with the “since Vatican II” is clearly wrong in so many way.
Again, read the actual documents yourself and become educated as to what really it says.
The culture may have changed, but the Church mission of representing the Truth has not.
Catholics need to know what happened and it had nothing to do with Vatican II.Such good advice. I think if most people actually READ the documents, you would see the clear intent of those at the council. The documents are beautiful.
Their implementation was a mess. but it’s been 50 years.
Time to stop griping and get on with the work of the Church.
The Second Vatican Council wasn’t doctrinal. Both Popes John XXIII and Paul VI asserted this. For example… read the quote I included. Pope Paul asserted that the Council was an extension of the ordinary magisterium and thus not infallible.
Regarding the first paragraph, that might have been your experience, but in other places people did have the feast days ignored, were told confessional wasn’t necessary or that mortal sins were pretty much impossible to commit, that it didn’t matter if you were Catholic or Protestant, that they shouldn’t pray the rosary; they had their churches virtually destroyed, their stain glassed windows covered in plaster, their sacred items literally thrown in the trash–not to mention the actual changes like the radical reforms to the Mass and how it was offered, abstinence no longer being required on Fridays, etc, all done with little to no explanation from their pastors. I have spoken with many old timers, including my own relatives who stopped going to Mass, etc. in my attempt to figure the mess out and this is overwhelmingly the reason. They didn’t leave to go and decide to be hippies–they wanted to be faithful–in fact, many continued praying. To them, it just wasn’t the Church they knew anymore.
Doctrine is just a fancy word for teaching. The ordinary Magisterium is by definition doctrinal (ie dealing with teaching, not just ruling–“magisterium” just means teaching authority). It is an error to assume that the Church’s sole teaching authority lies only in its definitive judgments. It certainly expounded upon and clarified various doctrinal points, just not in a definitive way.
Allow me to quote Pope Paul VI again.
I looked for this audience in the Acts of the Apostolic See and I can’t find it. It shows up a lot on the net just as you quote it, but it doesn’t seem to actually exist–there is a speech Paul VI made on that date to Jesuit university rectors, but it does not contain this quote. Do you have source for it?
This is true, but remember, it ultimately belongs to the Magisterium to interpret its own pronouncements–past and present–concerning what belongs to the immutable tradition and what does not. Yes, the teaching of the Church must be presumed to be consistent with itself, but the later acts often shed additional light on past acts, or correct misinterpretations of them. For example, the Council of Chalcedon provided the proper interpretation for the Council of Ephesus’ doctrine contrary to misinterpretations of it made by the monophysites. Ephesus needs to be interpreted in line with Chalcedon and vice versa–it’s not a one way street, otherwise a person misinterpreting a past magisterial act could erroneously condemn a later act.