P
ProVobis
Guest
For the record, two of the Vatican II’s 16 documents were labelled dogmatic, but they referenced earlier councils.
- Status
S
smead2942
Guest
Exactly.
J
JimG
Guest
One can’t blame Vatican II for all the social ills that sometimes seem to have followed it. Vatican II didn’t create the sexual revolution. There is nothing in its documents which mandated the elimination of catechesis, the de-emphasis of doctrine, the removal of altar rails, or the adoption of secular music for worship. Even while Vatican II was going on, however, the news reports did not much cover the actual documents of the Council. They rather dwelt on personal controversies, opinion columns and side issues. The real work of the Council was not much appreciated until things settled down. In the meantime, liturgists and academics proposed (and accomplished) much in the way of changes “in the spirit of the Council” which were not the work of the Council. The pendulum swung rather toward the crazy side of things, and has now begun to swing back.
A
Alan55
Guest
You falsely equate “doctrinal” and “dogmatic.” The doctrine of the Church includes non-dogmatic teaching. In fact, the vast majority of Church teaching is non-dogmatic. You also imply that non-dogmatic teaching can be ignored. The quote above states the proper response of Roman Catholics to the teaching of Vatican II: it must be accepted with docility.
E
edwest2
Guest
People and society at large were lied to during the late 1960s and onward by a coordinated attack on society and the Church. It was a confusing time because we did not recognize the wolves in sheep’s clothing until it was too late for many. My point is, it is a fact the Vatican II did not get rid of statues in Churches or tear down the Communion Rails I used to kneel at and gave out bad and wrong information to kids in Catholic schools - Catechesis. The Hippies were too busy smoking dope, discarded marriage: “I don’t need no piece uh paper tuh live my old lady,” as told to me by a Hippie friend. Of the few “Jesus Freaks,” they did nothing - absolutely nothing - to make the Mass less messed up as it was in some Churches. The Sexual - without love - Revolution was all about have sex with whoever you want and self-control was no longer required. Make sure she gets on The Pill and your worries are over. Today, the worst problems in our society have to do with the misuse of human sexuality. Further, the battle started in 1968 when Pope Paul VI released Humanae Vitae, reaffirming the Church’s constant teaching about artificial birth control. That, not Vatican II, was the opening battle.
"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.
"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”
"… an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…
Source: Regnum Christi
Pope Benedict:
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
That is what Catholics need to know.
Ed
E
eddie_too
Guest
it seems self-evident to me that Vatican II changed things. its whole purpose was to change things. the bishops believed, correctly, that the old ways of doing things were not adequately addressing the needs of Christ’s flock.
M
Megan7
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Pope John XXIII explains why the Second Vatican Council was called for:
ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm
Ed
S
St_Pancake
Guest
Is there any proof that anyone, coming up normally, in a Catholic Church, was well catechized by the Church?
J
JimG
Guest
I was, but then I was catechized before and during Vatican II, before the ‘great catechetical decline.’ And while that decline may persist in some places, where I live it has long since been corrected. Catholic elementary and high schools around here do a very good job of Catechesis.
C
clem456
Guest
Who was responsible for catechizing the succeeding generations after Vatican 2? The pre-Vatican 2 generation.
We did a great job of providing the sacraments, an awful job of catechizing and evangelizing. (Memorizing the catechism is NOT catechesis.)
P
ProVobis
Guest
No, but it seemed to be a good start.
C
clem456
Guest
And yet we are having this discussion about why our children have no compelling reason…No, but it seemed to be a good start.
Was memorizing the catechism really a good start?
The truth is, the generation that memorized the catechism did a poor job of catechizing and evangelizing. We could recite the “what”, but not explain the “why”. In defense, there seemed to be no need, since the whole world seemed to value religion. In reality, we gave our children no compelling reason to believe when the culture inevitably turned away from religion.
Show of hands please:
How many of us that had pre V2 parents ever heard our parents explain the faith around the kitchen table?
“I believe in Jesus Christ because…”
How many of us even heard our parents utter the name Jesus?
A Christianity that can’t even say the name Jesus is not going to be an enduring faith. Memorizing the facts is not evangelizing.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’m not disagreeing with you but if you look at the total educational process of an individual, you will find often the “what” such as memorizing the multiplication tables, etc, taught before they perform the exercises associated with them. A physics professor of mine told his classes a lot of taught concepts are vague until one learns how to apply them. I believe him to be right.
C
clem456
Guest
It’s difficult to equate physics with Christianity.
Physics is about learning concepts, facts, and formulas.
Christianity is the knowledge of a person, Jesus Christ. The current RCIA process stresses this. Primary to learning the “what” of the Church is the coming to know “who”. A person should come to know Christ through the personal witness of the community, the scriptures, the Tradition of the Church.
Tradition will only take hold if the neophyte has a relationship with Christ, or is at least seeking him. Those who tend to “marry” the Church from family pressures etc…tend to fall away quickly. Knowing the facts will not solve that problem.
J
JimG
Guest
Well, it was a good start. One has to start somewhere, and in elementary school we started with the Baltimore Catechism and bible history—the stories from Genesis with Adam and Eve up to the Redeemer.No, but it seemed to be a good start.
One can’t make progress without first knowing the facts of what we believe. The Baltimore Catechism provided those facts in an organized manner. Even if we forgot the exact memorization, the facts stayed with us. Those facts were incorporated into our spiritual lives. The teachers, usually nuns, did not just teach the facts but evangelized by example.
In high school the material became more varied, but it seemed to lose something in cohesiveness. In first year of a Catholic college I took a theology course using Frank Sheed’s “Theology for Beginners,” as a text, and after that it seemed that everything cohered beautifully.
If we are going to blame our parents for lack of catechesis or evangelization, remember that they were catechized by our grandparents, and on back for generations. The blame game could get quite complicated.
But the fact is that at a certain period after Vatican II, catechesis was deliberately de-emphasized. I’ve heard this even from a bishop who noted that all he learned until he got to seminary was how to draw pretty pictures about Jesus and be kind to one another. It was the alleged catechetical “experts” who were mainly responsible for this, and it took a good long while to turn it around.
V
Vico
Guest
I think she must have said purgatory instead of limbo.
C
clem456
Guest
Agreed that rote catechesis was de-emphasized. But it was never very good to begin with. Their are legions of Catholics over the age of 60 who don’t know the difference between Jesus and a yardstick.
I disagree that rote catechesis is a good place to start.
I disagree that rote catechesis is a good place to start.
J
JimG
Guest
It wasn’t just that “rote” catechesis was de-emphasized. All catechesis was de-emphasized. To paraphrase the bishop of whom I spoke, “I knew how to sing happy songs, I knew how to make banners, I knew we should be kind to one another. But I had not the slightest idea of what the Eucharist was until I was in seminary.”
(Coming from a better catechized generation, I knew what the Eucharist was in Second grade!)
E
edwest2
Guest
- Status