Vatican i vs Vatican ii?

[AnotherMe]

Being a new Catholic Revert that was born in 1960 I never knew anything about Vatican i and Vatican ii. I am just learning about the differences now. I am somewhat astonished over the videos I see that accuse Vatican ii of being apostate! Sadly, when it comes to Christianity, it seems you just can’t win. Everyone is accusing others of going to hell. I never thought I would see it in the Catholic Church. But I am not here to start trouble. I just want to become more educated on the subject. To be honest, I really like the old fashion tradition of the Church. Perhaps I would like a church that practices in the Vatican i kind of way. Are there Catholics that still do Mass like they did in Vatican i? Is there a schism in the Church?

 

[bben15]

Vatican I caused the split between Catholics and Old Catholics. Vatican II caused the split between sedevacantists and Roman Catholics.

There are certain parishes, such as the FSSP, that practice pre-Vatican II liturgy and customs. Because of Summorum Pontificum, any Catholic priest may freely celebrating according to the 1962 Missal, which is the pre-Vatican II Mass.

Vatican I addressed doctrine, while Vatican II addressed ecumenism.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Unfortunately, the Church has always had schismatics. Most of these are fairly tiny. There are “Old Catholics” who rejected the First Vatican Council and very tiny groups who reject the Second Vatican Council.

There are Traditional Latin Mass groups in the Catholic Church which celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Missal.

 

[RPRPsych]

Being a new Catholic Revert that was born in 1960 I never knew anything about Vatican i and Vatican ii. I am just learning about the differences now. I am somewhat astonished over the videos I see that accuse Vatican ii of being apostate! Sadly, when it comes to Christianity, it seems you just can’t win. Everyone is accusing others of going to hell. I never thought I would see it in the Catholic Church. But I am not here to start trouble. I just want to become more educated on the subject. To be honest, I really like the old fashion tradition of the Church. Perhaps I would like a church that practices in the Vatican i kind of way. Are there Catholics that still do Mass like they did in Vatican i? Is there a schism in the Church?

There is no major schism, but each of those Councils brought about small splinter groups.

Vatican I, which took place during the era of republicanism and the move towards World War I, reaffirmed the primacy of the Pope and warned of the troubles that were to come. In that sense, it could be seen as similar to Old Testament prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Obviously, just as people didn’t like Jeremiah, they didn’t like Vatican I, and formed the breakaway “Old Catholics”.

Vatican II, which took place after World War II and under the shadow of nuclear warfare - not to mention the “sexual revolution” - reaffirmed Church teachings, but also attempted to engage the modern world and provide a message of hope. It can be seen as similar to Biblical books such as the second part (ch. 40-66) of the Book of Isaiah. And just as Manasseh had Isaiah sawn in half for his message, the Sedevacantists tried (and failed) to saw the Church in half.

Ignore the naysayers. Trying to answer them only dignifies their scandalous behaviour.

 

[luna1234]

Being a new Catholic Revert that was born in 1960 I never knew anything about Vatican i and Vatican ii. I am just learning about the differences now. I am somewhat astonished over the videos I see that accuse Vatican ii of being apostate! Sadly, when it comes to Christianity, it seems you just can’t win. Everyone is accusing others of going to hell. I never thought I would see it in the Catholic Church. But I am not here to start trouble. I just want to become more educated on the subject. To be honest, I really like the old fashion tradition of the Church. Perhaps I would like a church that practices in the Vatican i kind of way. Are there Catholics that still do Mass like they did in Vatican i? Is there a schism in the Church?

Are there Catholics that still do Mass like they did in Vatican i?

Yes, for the most part. This is now called the EF of the Mass.

** Is there a schism in the Church?**

There are potential schismatic groups, but for the most part there are just Catholics. Some prefer the pre-vatican II Mass and disciplines while others do not.

I would suggest if you want to study Church history you start at the beginning and then read up on all councils up to Vatican II. Vatican II can not contradict what has been previously defined as dogma. Once you have a solid grounding in what was taught before VII, you can then read the documents of VII in the proper context if Church history. If you do not work in chronological order, then it is very easy to think the documents of VII say things that they would not if read through the lens of Church history.

That is how so many “problems” crept in after VII. for many Catholics the Church started with VII and they never hear or are taught anything that came before. When was the last time you heard ANY pope prior to Paul VI in any Sunday Homily? Or for that matter anything catholic being referenced before VII?

Read Church history, then you will have a LOT better understanding of where all of the disagreements come from. As in any large family there will be legitimate things that the members can disagree on and still be in good standing.

 

[thistle]

Being a new Catholic Revert that was born in 1960 I never knew anything about Vatican i and Vatican ii. I am just learning about the differences now. I am somewhat astonished over the videos I see that accuse Vatican ii of being apostate! Sadly, when it comes to Christianity, it seems you just can’t win. Everyone is accusing others of going to hell. I never thought I would see it in the Catholic Church. But I am not here to start trouble. I just want to become more educated on the subject. To be honest, I really like the old fashion tradition of the Church. Perhaps I would like a church that practices in the Vatican i kind of way. Are there Catholics that still do Mass like they did in Vatican i? Is there a schism in the Church?

The OF and EF Masses are both VALID Masses. Some people prefer one or the other but they are both valid.

 

[janeway529]

The interesting thing about the First Vatican Council is that it was interrupted and never properly concluded, so when the Second Vatican Council was in the works, they had to address those unresolved issues.

 

[John_6]

Interesting—what were the unresolved issues? Do you know? I would be interested. Thanks

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Being a new Catholic Revert that was born in 1960 I never knew anything about Vatican i and Vatican ii. I am just learning about the differences now. I am somewhat astonished over the videos I see that accuse Vatican ii of being apostate! Sadly, when it comes to Christianity, it seems you just can’t win. Everyone is accusing others of going to hell. I never thought I would see it in the Catholic Church. But I am not here to start trouble. I just want to become more educated on the subject. To be honest, I really like the old fashion tradition of the Church. Perhaps I would like a church that practices in the Vatican i kind of way. Are there Catholics that still do Mass like they did in Vatican i? Is there a schism in the Church?

First, all of Vatican I can be found repeated, almost verbatim, in the texts of Vatican II.

It should be remembered that Vatican I was intended to cover much, much more ground than it did; however, Providence had other plans for the Church. Vatican I left the Church with a lop-sided emphasis on the nature of the Church, focusing on the institution of the Papacy, which Vatican I covered, but not the nature of the whole Church or even just the Church on earth.

Now given the nature of the Papacy as “the rock” upon which the Lord would “build [His] Church”, it makes sense that this would be covered first and its role be emphasized; however, the Papacy exists for the sake of God’s Church, not the Church for the sake of the Papacy. The apparent “change” in some respects in this regard following Vatican I was just the pendulum swinging back to centre; however, and no doubt, in many places it seems to have swung too far in the opposite direction, thus admitting a neglect of the Papal Magisterium, which is a special part of the Church’s Magisterium and cannot be ignored or neglected or dismissed - let alone “cherry picked”. I see a lot of folks from either side of the spectrum (Traditionalists and Progressives) who “cherry pick” the Papal Magisterium or even just ignore it outright. Indeed such appeals can tempt us all when we do not “like” or otherwise we misunderstand some teaching or direction from the Church’s Magisterium.

Some Trads, for example, will try to appeal to what they take for being “Sacred Tradition” over against a Pope, (which is the same error as trying to appeal from a Pope’s judgement to a Council), while Progressives will sometimes select and distort texts from Vatican II (or give a novel reading of them) to try to annul or otherwise cancel something from the Papal Magisterium of the Living Magisterium of the Church. But it’s the Church’s Magisterium that has final authority over the interpretation of the texts of the Council, so this is a vanity. Neither is healthy for a Catholic and each could possibly become a springboard for a schism.

 

[CyrilSebastian]

Who are the sedevaccantists?

 

[Edmundus1581]

All the above advise is good.

I would just like to add the recommendation that you simply avoid web sites and any reading which questions Vatican II or the Novus Ordo Mass. Sometimes there is a grain of truth (especially about post-VII abuses), but they will do your head in. They are wrong, but they can be persuasive.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Interesting—what were the unresolved issues? Do you know? I would be interested. Thanks

Vatican I was interrupted by the Italian Civil War and was never adjourned. The first order of business for Vatican II was to adjourn Vatican I. As for the unresolved issues, I don’t have specifics, but I suspect it involved all the stuff the cardinals didn’t get to because they were beating a hasty retreat.

 

[felsguy]

Interesting—what were the unresolved issues? Do you know? I would be interested. Thanks

The council planners intended for the Council to deal with five major areas and established a subcommission to do preparatory work for each one. One such area was faith and dogma. Out of this came Dei Filius, one of only two documents passed by the Council, which dealt with the nature of God, revelation, and faith and reason. The other (and major) decree was Pastor Aeternus which dealt with the papacy; its primacy; and the definition and proclamation of papal infallibility. Interestingly, this issue which became the dominant one before the Council was barely mentioned in the advance planning and was not included in the original agenda.

The four areas which the Council intended to treat but never got around to, due to the outbreak of war, were ecclesiastical discipline; religious orders; the Eastern Churches and foreign missions; and church-state relations.

 

[John_6]

The council planners intended for the Council to deal with five major areas and established a subcommission to do preparatory work for each one. One such area was faith and dogma. Out of this came Dei Filius, one of only two documents passed by the Council, which dealt with the nature of God, revelation, and faith and reason. The other (and major) decree was Pastor Aeternus which dealt with the papacy; its primacy; and the definition and proclamation of papal infallibility. Interestingly, this issue which became the dominant one before the Council was barely mentioned in the advance planning and was not included in the original agenda.

The four areas which the Council intended to treat but never got around to, due to the outbreak of war, were ecclesiastical discipline; religious orders; the Eastern Churches and foreign missions; and church-state relations.

Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[Sirach2]

The council planners intended for the Council to deal with five major areas and established a subcommission to do preparatory work for each one. One such area was faith and dogma. Out of this came Dei Filius, one of only two documents passed by the Council, which dealt with the nature of God, revelation, and faith and reason. The other (and major) decree was Pastor Aeternus which dealt with the papacy; its primacy; and the definition and proclamation of papal infallibility. Interestingly, this issue which became the dominant one before the Council was barely mentioned in the advance planning and was not included in the original agenda.

The four areas which the Council intended to treat but never got around to, due to the outbreak of war, were ecclesiastical discipline; religious orders; the Eastern Churches and foreign missions; and church-state relations.

Let’s add one more, Felsguy. The iintent was to expand papal primacy with regard to the Bishops, which was later finished in V-II in Lumen Gentium. A most beautiful exposition of their role is detailed in Chapter III of the document.

 

[M-Dent]

Being a new Catholic Revert that was born in 1960 I never knew anything about Vatican i and Vatican ii. I am just learning about the differences now. I am somewhat astonished over the videos I see that accuse Vatican ii of being apostate! Sadly, when it comes to Christianity, it seems you just can’t win. Everyone is accusing others of going to hell. I never thought I would see it in the Catholic Church. But I am not here to start trouble. I just want to become more educated on the subject. To be honest, I really like the old fashion tradition of the Church. Perhaps I would like a church that practices in the Vatican i kind of way. Are there Catholics that still do Mass like they did in Vatican i? Is there a schism in the Church?

There are so many things people can point toward – but IMO the most impacting changes from Vatican I (1869–70) to Vatican II (1962–1965) is the approach to correction, discipline and how the Church understands herself and her mission in the world (ecclesiology).

Overall, the different approach may have in fact led to less chance of schism yet more chance of open rebellion (for lack of a better term). Many church leaders seem to find it better to deal with problematic issues this way. I suppose it would be coined the ‘medicine of mercy’ approach, as stated by Blessed John XXIII.

 

[Genesis315]

Being a new Catholic Revert that was born in 1960 I never knew anything about Vatican i and Vatican ii. I am just learning about the differences now. I am somewhat astonished over the videos I see that accuse Vatican ii of being apostate! Sadly, when it comes to Christianity, it seems you just can’t win. Everyone is accusing others of going to hell. I never thought I would see it in the Catholic Church. But I am not here to start trouble. I just want to become more educated on the subject. To be honest, I really like the old fashion tradition of the Church. Perhaps I would like a church that practices in the Vatican i kind of way. Are there Catholics that still do Mass like they did in Vatican i? Is there a schism in the Church?

In think the first step to clearing up your confusion is to understand what “Vatican I” and “Vatican II” are. They are short hand for the First Vatican Council and the Second Vatican Council. These were the last two ecumenical Councils of the Church. An ecumenical Council is essentially where all the bishops of the Church get together to make decisions for the Church, in matters of doctrine, discipline, policy, etc. Such Councils are named after the place where they were held–in this case, Vatican City. Here is a list of all the ecumenical Councils there have been so far:

newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

The First Vatican Council dealt exclusively with two main doctrinal issues: the relationship between faith and reason and the authority of the Pope. It had more on the agenda, but was called short due to Rome being invaded.

The Second Vatican Council took up some of the issues the previous Council could not get to, like the doctrine on the nature of the Church, as well as providing direction to the Church for addressing contemporary circumstances. As others have mentioned an two important themes were a reform of the liturgy and laying down the a program for seeking the reunion of separated Christians.

As others have mentioned, the liturgical form existing before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and Paul VI may still be practiced and are in many dioceses. Other traditions were not addressed by Vatican II at all and their falling by the wayside in recent time has been a sad corallary to the general loss of faith in the developed West. There are however, individuals and parishes who still maintain them.