A
adstrinity
Guest
What were the abuses going on before this council in the Church that they were trying to correct?
- Status
S
Sancto_Spiritu
Guest
Well, before Vatican II, people were dressing up in clown costumes for Mass, they were using Liturgical accouterments like chalices that weren’t made of precious metals, they were wearing chasubles with smiley faces and new age designs…
…oh wait…
… that was AFTER Vatican II.
My mistake.
…oh wait…
… that was AFTER Vatican II.
My mistake.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
John XXIII was of the opinion that the Church needed the windows open so we could get some fresh air. What came in the windows though was toxic fumes. Metaphorically speaking.
M
maurin
Guest
I COULD BE WRONG HERE, but I seem to remember reading that His Holiness’ Successor, Pope Paul VI made a remark along the lines of the smoke of satan entering through those opened windows. Any else hear that, or have a link?
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
You’re not wrong, I’ve read it in numerous places; tried finding it online, but the only link I got was in Italian
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/homilies/1972/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19720629_it.html
R
rowermath
Guest
I would really like to know the honest answer to this question. Could you stop being so cynical for a few minutes?
B
brigid12
Guest
As a post-Vatican II convert (who has strong traditionalist leanings), I’d be interested myself.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Actually, Pope Paul VI didn’t say the smoke of Satan had entered the Church through a window but rather “through a crack.” :yup:
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
I recall reading (somewhere) that John XXIII wanted to “modernize” the Church, get Her in line with the times. Sorry I have no source yet, I’ll look for it and post it ASAP, along with more specifics.
N
novaslasher
Guest
You can read the opening statement at the Vatican council for specifics. Basically, he stated that the council was called to better evangelize the modern world by updating the church’s approach to teaching the faith without compromising the teachings of the church. This was not to be a typical council that addressed heresies, issued condemnations, and expounded on doctrine. Here is what Pope John XXIII said at the opening session of Vatican II (emphasis added) about the purpose of the council:
"The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character."
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Since I made my first Communion during the Eisenhower administration I remember Vatican II quite well, I think. There were some major reasons for John XXIII stating that it was time for aggionamento.
*There were some traditions in the Church that really were based on legend and had no historical basis. The story of St. Christopher is one of the more notorious, and one close to me since my Confimation name was Christopher.
*There were some necessary liturgical changes. The biggest being a move away from Latin at Mass and turning those altars around. Folks these days I don’t think realize just how much of the Mass was some mumbling which few could follow. I also found it hard to even memorize altar boy Latin.
*There were some necessary operational changes. I think John Paul II may have continued it but early on in Vatican II, the order of nuns whose mninistry was to pray for the conversion of Jews had their ministry changed. It believe the order, which had a mission near at least one concentration camp. now prays for the Jews and others who died in WWII.
*There was a rise in ecumenism. Slowly there was more of a stressing of the similarities, especially among Christian religions, where previously there was more of a demonstration of how there were major differences. That was a big change.
There were other changes and there was major resistance in some quarters of the Church, but the reforms of Vatican II were put in place and did take hold.
*There were some traditions in the Church that really were based on legend and had no historical basis. The story of St. Christopher is one of the more notorious, and one close to me since my Confimation name was Christopher.
*There were some necessary liturgical changes. The biggest being a move away from Latin at Mass and turning those altars around. Folks these days I don’t think realize just how much of the Mass was some mumbling which few could follow. I also found it hard to even memorize altar boy Latin.
*There were some necessary operational changes. I think John Paul II may have continued it but early on in Vatican II, the order of nuns whose mninistry was to pray for the conversion of Jews had their ministry changed. It believe the order, which had a mission near at least one concentration camp. now prays for the Jews and others who died in WWII.
*There was a rise in ecumenism. Slowly there was more of a stressing of the similarities, especially among Christian religions, where previously there was more of a demonstration of how there were major differences. That was a big change.
There were other changes and there was major resistance in some quarters of the Church, but the reforms of Vatican II were put in place and did take hold.
F
Freshman88
Guest
I think I disagree with all the changes you listed.
This one is especially worrying.
Anyway, these forums have made me realize one thing. The Church is under attack from within.
This one is especially worrying.
Do you know the name of this order? What a horrible crime to close them down.
Anyway, these forums have made me realize one thing. The Church is under attack from within.
I
I_Believe
Guest
So in other words, it was an about face.
And you are wrong about John XXIII wanting to drop latin from the Liturgy.
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html
In that document he decreed and commanded that he didn’t even want it discussed. And besides, why would he have went to the trouble of approving the 1962 missal if he wanted to drop the Latin ?
I firmly believe if he had lived to see the close of the Council, the VII documents would have read much differently.
Ever wonder why he might have said “stop the Council” while on his deathbed ?
I believe H.H. John XXII was a much more pious man than some trads give him credit for. He wanted some changes, but he was careful to point out revolutionary changes were not to be considered.
The day he died was the day the Modernists cried “Carpe diem !”
jmho
C
CristusRex
Guest
I am a trad and I consider John XXII an extreme holy man. His orthodoxy is beyond any dispute. I think no one in good faith can discover the slightest error in what he has written. Nor in his dedication for Christ and His Holy Bride.
Y
Yours_Truly
Guest
The intent of Vatican II was not to correct abuses. The intent was to update the Church and bring it more in line with the world, which is what has happened. Since Vatican II the spirit of the world has invaded the Church.
There is a quote from Pius XII (the Pope who reigned prior to John XXIII), in which he is discussing the health and growth of the Church at the time. I think the quote is from 1958.
The problems that the Church was experiencing just before the council is that the underground currents of modernism and liberalism were growing stronger, but kept beneath the surface. Pius XII did a good job in supressing the modernists, by sanctioning those whose heretical views were known, and writing encyclical that condemned their errors (such as Humani Generis). Like roaches, the modernists hid in the dark places and did not come out into the light.
At Vatican II the roaches came out of the woodwork. They were well organized and took over the council. These modernists - many of whom were under explicit sanctions from Rome - Congar, De Luback, etc - became the heros of Vatican II. The same people whose errors were condemned prior to the council, became the leading lights of the council.
This article (which was later made into a book) explains what happened at Vatican II. It provides many excellent quotes from the Popes and peritus of Vatican II. It is really a must read for Catholics.
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
He may have been a holy man but I disagreed with him changing the canon of the mass by adding St. Joseph into it. Council of Trent I believe specifically said no one was to change the canon.
C
CapIV
Guest
uggh. You do realize that the purpose of the Mass isn’t for the people right? Turning the altar around forced the priests to turn their back on the most important Person in the room!
The Old Mass was never intended for the people to actively participate or understand everything. It is meant to foster meditation which is what the whole Western Tradition is all about and makes us very different from the East. (not that there is anything wrong with the East)
While I am too young to remember Vat II, my family all used to pray the Rosary and MEDITATE ON THE MYSTERIES during the long silences. This is the whole point. Children today are rarely even taught the mysteries. Partially because people today have no time to meditate and have no interest in seeking time to meditate.
O
Ockham
Guest
As a post-V2 Catholic I am just now in the process of discovering our true heritage. As silly as it may sound, I credit the internet and the social networking group Facebook for my enlightenment. I joined a Pope B16 group that had a link to a TLM group. Once I discovered the TLM my hunger for the pre-V2 Church began.
Althought the SSPX is a bit controversial right now, their website is a great resource for things pre-V2. Here’s a link to their V2 section: sspx.org/articles_index.htm#vatican_II
The FSSP is another pre-V2 order but has managed to not rock the boat: fssp.org/en/index.htm
Other sources of info:
Websites:
adoremus.org/
fisheaters.com/
latinmassmagazine.com/index.html
Blogs:
newliturgicalmovement.org/
athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/
wdtprs.com/blog/
It’s still early in my research as I’m trying to figure out just what the heck happened at V2 and since. Our Church today isn’t the same as before.
My working theory: during the 1800’s there was a challenge to the authority of Rome, the papacy. Vatican I was called to formally pronounce the pope as the head of Christ’s Church and his infallibility on matters of faith. Unfortunately a bunch of rebel rousers stormed into Italy during the council and VI was interupted.
Time went by, the challeges to infallibility ceased, but new challenges of modernists began. Two world wars, the Depression dominated the agenda for the first half of the twentieth century. A couple popes considered calling V2 to basically conclude V1 but wisely decided against it. John23 gets elected and suddenly without warning calls V2.
Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, but an attempt to “modernize” the Church. Its documents were left full of ambiguity which allowed for separate interpretation. Paul6 becomes pope and show how allows Bugnini to rewrite the Mass in conjunction with six Protestant ministers in an attempt at ecumenical dialogue.
Modernists took this opportunity to radically change the Church to meet their agenda. Call it the age of aquarius, the baby boom generation, Satan sneaking in through a crack in the window, or whatever else. The results have been a significant decline in church attendance, priests, seminarians, and the faith in general.
Does that sound right?
Althought the SSPX is a bit controversial right now, their website is a great resource for things pre-V2. Here’s a link to their V2 section: sspx.org/articles_index.htm#vatican_II
The FSSP is another pre-V2 order but has managed to not rock the boat: fssp.org/en/index.htm
Other sources of info:
Websites:
adoremus.org/
fisheaters.com/
latinmassmagazine.com/index.html
Blogs:
newliturgicalmovement.org/
athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/
wdtprs.com/blog/
It’s still early in my research as I’m trying to figure out just what the heck happened at V2 and since. Our Church today isn’t the same as before.
My working theory: during the 1800’s there was a challenge to the authority of Rome, the papacy. Vatican I was called to formally pronounce the pope as the head of Christ’s Church and his infallibility on matters of faith. Unfortunately a bunch of rebel rousers stormed into Italy during the council and VI was interupted.
Time went by, the challeges to infallibility ceased, but new challenges of modernists began. Two world wars, the Depression dominated the agenda for the first half of the twentieth century. A couple popes considered calling V2 to basically conclude V1 but wisely decided against it. John23 gets elected and suddenly without warning calls V2.
Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, but an attempt to “modernize” the Church. Its documents were left full of ambiguity which allowed for separate interpretation. Paul6 becomes pope and show how allows Bugnini to rewrite the Mass in conjunction with six Protestant ministers in an attempt at ecumenical dialogue.
Modernists took this opportunity to radically change the Church to meet their agenda. Call it the age of aquarius, the baby boom generation, Satan sneaking in through a crack in the window, or whatever else. The results have been a significant decline in church attendance, priests, seminarians, and the faith in general.
Does that sound right?
L
Lujack
Guest
Equals cannot binds equals. The Council of Trent imposed a discipline, that any future pope is free change. The Roman Canon is not a dogma of the faith, and so Trent was not capable of preventing a pope down the road from adding St. Joseph to the Canon, if he felt that was appropriate.
F
fix
Guest
Very good. So, the world was changing, not that the Church needed “updating”.
- Status