Vatican II Controversies

[Reuben_J]

You had some bad stuff in your time and we’ve both go lots of other bad stuff now in our time–and the actual decrees of Vatican II have nothing to do with either.

My thought exactly.

As I said, mistake is not a sin, well, at least nobody told me it was when I was an altar server then. If it was, surely I was told about it. Of course we took our role (as altar servers) seriously but so too are altar servers today. I know - all my three boys are altar servers until their teens. They spent lots of time practicing and meeting within their group.

Having said that, not all groups in the church are the same. In some places, they do not have altar servers thus in that situation it is hard to be really strict when you are short of volunteers. There are very much less people attending church today than there were before.

 

[Genesis315]

From Trent Session 7

“CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.”

The world’s Bishops were quite aware of Trent. Since they themselves were no less an ecumenical council, they decreed in Sacrosanctum Concilium

In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms

Of course, there is not a contradiction here. Trent was condemning the Protestant notions that the Church’s rites could be evil or harmful or that any priest could make changes to the Church’s rites. It was not saying the Church couldn’t make changes to the rites (see below). Just to show that both Trent and Vatican II said the same thing, here is Vatican II saying what Trent said above and Trent saying what Vatican II said above:

Vatican II, Constitution on the Liturgy:
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

Trent, Session 21:
It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.

 

[vincentleo]

There is always confusion after a major Council, and we are still very near to it in history.

Those who remain faithful to the Roman Catholic Church will say that Vatican II did not issue anything heretical, and therefore strictly speaking is in continuity with the past.

Unfortunately, some things taught by the Council were not explicit, leaving room for interpretation. Also unfortunately, Pope Paul VI (who concluded the Council) seemed to suffer from a lot of the negative things that happened after the Council and seemed to let a lot of illicit “interpretation” go on.

The full picture remains to be seen what the Church will say is the “proper interpration” of the Council.

 

[Reuben_J]

There is always confusion after a major Council, and we are still very near to it in history.

Those who remain faithful to the Roman Catholic Church will say that Vatican II did not issue anything heretical, and therefore strictly speaking is in continuity with the past.

Unfortunately, some things taught by the Council were not explicit, leaving room for interpretation. Also unfortunately, Pope Paul VI (who concluded the Council) seemed to suffer from a lot of the negative things that happened after the Council and seemed to let a lot of illicit “interpretation” go on.

The full picture remains to be seen what the Church will say is the “proper interpration” of the Council.

This may be a bit digressing but the era when Vatican II came in must be factored too - the discovery of artificial birth control which led to the sexual revolution in the sixties - hippies, drugs, etc. Vietnam war too. A new culture of anti-establishment and rebels became more pronounced and openly displayed.

It is academic now but there are Catholics obviously who would think that, had there been no Vatican II to address the prevailing direction of where the world led us, the Church would be in a worse shape than it was.

Vatican II was Spirit led to bring the Church into the twentieth century against a new hostile culture that was about to unveil which was especially against her.

Edit:
And TV too, which usage started to get more prevalent that major issues began to play into our living rooms. It was a kind of revolution not seen before since the Guthenberg printing press. We never really recover from the effect of the social upheaval of the sixties and perhaps Vatican II has to be seen from this background.