Vatican II Happened for a reason

[TMC]

What were the abuses going on before this council in the Church that they were trying to correct?

Pope Benedict spoke on this issue in 2005:

benedettoxvi.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

 

[TMC]

I’ll give you un-ambiguous statements from V2.

LUMEN GENTIUM 16

But the plan of salvation ( propositum salutis ) also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place ( in primis ) among these there are the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind ( qui fidem Abrahae se tenere profitentes, nobiscum Deum adorant unicum, etc. ).

NOSTRA AETATE 2

Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our human condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God.

GAUDIUM ET SPES 36

"…[All] believers of whatever religion have always heard His revealing voice in the discourse of creatures

                    That's just scratching the surface.

I agree, these are unamibuous statements that express the Catholic faith. The problem is not that the council was ambiguous. The problem is that many reject the Church’s teaching.

 

[maurin]

I agree, these are unamibuous statements that express the Catholic faith. The problem is not that the council was ambiguous. The problem is that many reject the Church’s teaching.

Actually, no, I don’t believe they do; certainly not based on your response to Seamus’ post. The so-called “Eastern” spiritualities and philosophies are absolutely a part of certainly some Religious Communities’ programs available to lay people. A simple search of these same fora at CA bears that out.

 

[CapIV]

I agree, these are unamibuous statements that express the Catholic faith. The problem is not that the council was ambiguous. The problem is that many reject the Church’s teaching.

ummm, no.

 

[malphono]

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.

And for this Bl PP John XXIII had to call a Council?

*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.

No. No. And No. The first part has already been addressed quite nicely:
"I_Believe:

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 ?

And there was a “need” to discard ad orientem celebration of the liturgy? Well, apparently that “need” never made its way into the books. Notice that the assumed posture even in the OF is ad orientem. Nor did it make its way to Rome. Ever go to Mass (OF or otherwise) in one of the chapels in any of the Major Basilicas? Ever notice how many churches even in the US are now restoring ad orientem celebration? Ever pay attention to the fact there is actually a theological tradition behind ad orientem? (too bad there’s no “shake head” simley)

*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.

And for this Bl PP John XXIII had to call a Council?

*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.

Seems to me this was a result of the “Spirit of Vatican II” rather than a condition for calling a Council in the first place.

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.

What was “put in place” was to a great extent the willful misinterpretation of the Council by certain parties intent on furthering their own agenda.

 

[Seamus_L]

Here’s some parts of Sacrosanctum Concillium I’d like to elaborate on.

1. The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her very own; she has admitted styles from every period according to the natural talents and circumstances of peoples, and the needs of the various rites. Thus, in the course of the centuries, she has brought into being a treasury of art which must be very carefully preserved. The art of our own days, coming from every race and region, shall also be given free scope in the Church, provided that it adorns the sacred buildings and holy rites with due reverence and honor; thereby it is enabled to contribute its own voice to that wonderful chorus of praise in honor of the Catholic faith sung by great men in times gone by.
   

               Right here we have justification for any piece of abstract modern art being brought into our churches, and called an object of devotion. AND it was done often.

124 Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.

                I don't know what possibly fit this description prior to V2, but I sure no what was brought in afterwards.

124 And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful.

        There was something wrong with those beautiful edifaces we once had ? The mass couldn't be properly celebrated in them ?

1. The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they may be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained. Nevertheless their number should be moderate and their relative positions should reflect right order. For otherwise they may create confusion among the Christian people and foster devotion of doubtful orthodoxy.
   

       Why not just become a Protestant ?

2. When passing judgment on works of art, local ordinaries shall give a hearing to the diocesan commission on sacred art and, if needed, also to others who are especially expert, and to the commissions referred to in Art. 44, 45, and 46
   Obviously we had no shortage of experts.

 

[Thomas58]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus L
I’ll give you un-ambiguous statements from V2.

LUMEN GENTIUM 16

But the plan of salvation ( propositum salutis ) also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place ( in primis ) among these there are the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind ( qui fidem Abrahae se tenere profitentes, nobiscum Deum adorant unicum, etc. ).

NOSTRA AETATE 2

Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our human condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God.

GAUDIUM ET SPES 36

"…[All] believers of whatever religion have always heard His revealing voice in the discourse of creatures

That’s just scratching the surface.

I agree, these are unamibuous statements that express the Catholic faith. The problem is not that the council was ambiguous. The problem is that many reject the Church’s teaching.

TMC,these statements are an authentic expression of Catholic Faith? Please present any pre Vatican II encyclical or Council document or writing of any kind by a pre Vatican II Pope that says that all religions are a means to salvation or that all religions lead to God.

You understand, don’t you, that dogma cannot change. There cannot be contradiction between what the Church has taught in the past and what she teaches now. If there are contradictions of dogma then there is a BIG problem somewhere.

Thomas

 

[I_Believe]

Let’s all get our heads out of the sand.

From The Permanent Instruction Of The Alta Vendita (masonic document}

“The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies; it is up to the secret societies to take the first step toward the Church, with the aim of conquering both of them.

“The task that we are going to undertake is not the work of a day, or of a month, or of a year; it may last several years, perhaps a century; but in our ranks the soldier dies and the struggle goes on.

“We do not intend to win the Popes to our cause, to make them neophytes of our principles, propagators of our ideas. That would be a ridiculous dream; and if events turn out in some way, if Cardinals or prelates, for example, of their own free will or by surprise, should enter into a part of our secrets, this is not at all an incentive for desiring their elevation to the See of Peter. That elevation would ruin us. Ambition alone would have led them to apostasy, the requirements of power would force them to sacrifice us. What we must ask for, what we should look for and wait for, as the Jews wait for the Messiah, is a Pope according to our needs …

“With that we shall march more securely towards the assault on the Church than with the pamphlets of our brethren in France and even the gold of England. Do you want to know the reason for this? It is that with this, in order to shatter the high rock on which God has built His Church, we no longer need Hannibalian vinegar, or need gunpowder, or even need our arms. We have the little finger of the successor of Peter engaged in the ploy, and this little finger is as good, for this crusade, as all the Urban II’s and all the Saint Bernards in Christendom.

“We have no doubt that we will arrive at this supreme end of our efforts. But when? But how? The unknown is not yet revealed. Nevertheless, as nothing should turn us aside from the plan drawn up, and on the contrary everything should tend to this, as if as early as tomorrow success were going to crown the work that is barely sketched, we wish, in this instruction, which will remain secret for the mere initiates, to give the officials in the charge of the supreme Vente some advice that they should instill in all the brethren, in the form of instruction or of a memorandum …

“Now then, to assure ourselves a Pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping him … for this Pope, a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of. Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children … You will contrive for yourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure patriots.

“This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun all the functions; they will form the sovereign’s council, they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily more or less imbued with the Italian and humanitarian principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation. It is a small grain of black mustard that we are entrusting to the ground; but the sunshine of justice will develop it up to the highest power, and you will see one day what a rich harvest this small seed will produce.

“In the path that we are laying out for our brethren, there are found great obstacles to conquer, difficulties of more than one kind to master. They will triumph over them by experience and by clearsightedness; but the goal is so splendid that it is important to put all the sails to the wind in order to reach it. You want to revolutionize Italy, look for the Pope whose portrait we have just drawn. You wish to establish the reign of the chosen ones on the throne of the prostitute of Babylon, let the Clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the apostolic keys. You intend to make the last vestige of tyrants and the oppressors disappear; lay your snares like Simon Bar-Jona; lay them in the sacristies, the seminaries, and the monasteries rather than at the bottom of the sea: and if you do not hurry, we promise you a catch more miraculous than his. The fisher of fish became the fisher of men; you will bring friends around the apostolic Chair. You will have preached a revolution in tiara and in cope, marching with the cross and the banner, a revolution that will need to be only a little bit urged on to set fire to the four corners of the world.”7

Pope Leo XIII’s response…
fisheaters.com/humanumgenus.html

 

[Genesis315]

TMC,these statements are an authentic expression of Catholic Faith? Please present any pre Vatican II encyclical or Council document or writing of any kind by a pre Vatican II Pope that says that all religions are a means to salvation or that all religions lead to God.

None of those statements say all religions are a means to salvation. I am not even sure how that could be gathered from them.

One just says what Hindus believe. You’ll have to ask the Hindus if that is correct or not.

One just says God can be known by created things (see Rom. 1:19-20; Vatican I, Dei Filius, Canon 2.1).

Finally, in regards to the one from Lumen Gentium, the paragraph is speaking about those men who are not members of the Church, but are related to her as all men are. See St. Thomas here. Furthermore, the plan of salvation includes all men (even though not all will be saved) and belief in the Creator is the first step in the fulfillment of that plan as the Holy Office in the 1940s stated here (both the section of St. Thomas and this document are cited specifically in that section of Lumen Gentium).

 

[Thomas58]

None of those statements say all religions are a means to salvation. I am not even sure how that could be gathered from them.

Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16:*“But the plan of SALVATION also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and AMOUNG these the MOSLEMS are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they worship the one merciful God who will judge humanity on the last day." *

So what does this statement mean Genesis? What do you “gather” from this statement? Are you saying that it is not saying salvation embraces Muslims or those who merely acknowledge the Creator, AMONG whom are the Muslims? I assume the word “among” implies that salvation embraces other faiths as well as long as they acknowledge the Creator.

Is this statement saying that Catholics worship Allah? Please explain this “ambiguous” statement.

How is this an “organic development” of past doctrine? Can you present any pre Vatican II encyclical or Council document or writing of any kind by a pre Vatican II Pope that says anything similar?

Thomas

 

[TMC]

ummm, no.

TMC,these statements are an authentic expression of Catholic Faith? Please present any pre Vatican II encyclical or Council document or writing of any kind by a pre Vatican II Pope that says that all religions are a means to salvation or that all religions lead to God.

You understand, don’t you, that dogma cannot change. There cannot be contradiction between what the Church has taught in the past and what she teaches now. If there are contradictions of dogma then there is a BIG problem somewhere.

Thomas

Of course these are authentic expressions of the Catholic Faith. I dont’ need to show where anyone else says they are - because the Church says they are.

People often ask on this forum what how to define Traditionalist and Liberal. I don’t have a definition, but here is one clear difference. Some in both the Traditional and the Liberal “camps” disagree with the Church’s teacings in certain areas (certainly not all do, but some). The dissenting Liberal says “I disagree with the bishops and the Church and dissent on this point.” The dissenting Traditionalist says “I get to define what Catholic is, not the bishops and the Church, **they **are in dissent on this point.”

I certainly have my own beefs with the Church from time to time. But I recognize that although I am free to discuss, spin and argue about Church teaching, I don’t get to declare what the Church does or doesn’t teach. The quoted documents are valid expressions of the Church’s teaching, approved by an ecumenical council made up of the majority of the bishops. Can anyone point to an authoritative document published after Vatican II that says they are not?

 

[manualman]

Could you please tell me how the Council is constantly distorted *if *there are no ambiguities?

How exactly is something direct and clear going to be misinterpreted by learned theologians?

How can Catholics *and *liberal “Catholics” both justify their positions with the Council if the truth is so obvious?

These are interesting questions, but they cut both ways! They MUST either prove nothing or prove too much.

For if it is true that difficult and potentially ambiguous documents that have demonstrably been frequently abused and misinterpreted can be concluded to be invalid, then you have proven that BOTH the documents of Vatican II AND the Sacred Scriptures are invalid.

Surely no one can deny that the Bible has been horribly misinterpreted by well meaning people in droves over the centuries? How? Because people failed to intepret them in harmony with the Keeper of the Scriptures: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Just like those who put their erroneous spin on council documents.

You can’t have it both ways. Either your criteria have teeth in both cases or neither. What’ll it be?

 

[manualman]

I’m surprised by how little imagination some folks seem to have.

Does anybody REALLY think that art, liturgy and architecture was completely static since the time of Jesus to the 1960’s?

Have you not read how St. Paul showed the people who worshipped at the temple of the unknown god that their insights were valuable, but incomplete? He then proceeded to show them the god they had not known, but who wished to be known! This is what those elements of V2 try to recapture.

Had we never reused good ideas taken from the cultures we encounter, we’d not have Christmas trees, no wedding rings… The point is that we can sift the wheat from the weeds from cultures we encounter and what secular culture offers us. It is a false dilemma to claim that we are obligated to either accept everything we come across as good or declare everything in art, culture and society under 100 years old to be evil by definition.

 

[Thomas58]

**Lumen Gentium ** # 16:*“But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the Moslems are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they worship the one merciful God who will judge humanity on the last day.” *

According to sacred Scripture and the Nicene Creed that we hear in Mass everyday, who will judge humanity on the last day?

 

[Yours_Truly]

Let’s all get our heads out of the sand.

From The Permanent Instruction Of The Alta Vendita (masonic document}

Pope Leo XIII’s response…
fisheaters.com/humanumgenus.html

I Believe,

Thank you for posting this information. Why don’t you start a thread on this subject?

 

[Chezterton]

Greetings to all!

I am a new member, Chezterton, from Peru. Sorry for my lousy english…

What was the reason behind Vatican II?

Quite interesting question. We must rememeber that the First Vatican Council was interrupted by violent events (the invasion of the Pontifical State in 1870).

Pius XI thought sometimes in reassuming V I. But according to Cardinal Domenico Tardini, Pius XII considered seriously re-assuming the Council or calling for a new one. He ordered to study the pros and cons, and decided that there will be a negative result and decided not to call a Council yet. (vid. Iota Unum, the masterpiece of Dr. Romano Amerio, Chapter III, 29ss) Apparently John XXIII realized that there was a need for a Pastoral Council and summoed VII. But all his original drafts were thrown away specially after the famous “Liénart intervention” in November 1962.

I strongly recommend Iota Unum, it’s the most comprehensive guide to understand what happened with the Church in the last 40 years. If someone in the forum has the english edition, it would be a great service to quote a few passages here.

WhollyRoamin’ said:

It’s important to distinguish the pre-conciliar church in the USA from the pre-conciliar church in Europe.

In Europe, the decline of the Church was a real fact. Countries like France-- one known as solidly Catholic-- were in the final throws of secularization that began with the French Revolution. Spain was closing Churches, Eastern Europe was leaving Rome pretty quickly.

Well. I disagree. Before Vatican II France had a thriving catholic intellectual movement and the rate of Catholics assinting to Mass on Sundays was more than a half percent. A few years later, the catholic intellectual movement disappeared -some died, some vanished and some went to apostasy- (it’s quite sad and interesting the case of Julien Green, a famous french novelist and literay convert, who said to his sister when they went for the first time to the aggiornated Mass: “We converted for THIS!??”. The catholics assinting to mass in the early 70s in France were a shrinking minority.

In Spain the aftermath of Vatican II was sadder. The “Centinel of the West” converted himself in a place were the “self-destruction” of the Church was exemplary. Before Vatican II Spain had many vocations and a lot of new foundations. Two saints were operating there, Msgr. Escrivá de Balaguer and Mother Maravillas de Jesús. A huge army of spanish priests and nuns went to Latin America, and in some regions of the continent they comprised the vast majority of the clergy (in the 50s, 60s and 70s)

After Vatican II the “Catholic Unity” of Spain broke. Many priests supported the overthrowing attempts and subvertion of Franco’s regime. The people -dizzy with the “new springtime” so different to the Church they knew- began experimenting with secularism and public moral started to collapse. Mass assistance dropped dramatically.

Maybe “Eastern Europe was leaving Rome pretty quickly” but that was due a tiny little reason: COMMUNISM!!! The primate of Hungary was held hostage in the American Embassy in Budapest, in places where the Catholic Church was not being obliterated by brutal persecution (Rumania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Russia) the clergy was being infiltrated by spies and forced to material and spiritual starvation (Poland and other “Popular Democracies”)

Yes, my friends. Back in the 60s the biggest menace to the Church was Communism. And the Council that supposedly had to address the current challenges of the Faith, REFUSED to condemn it. Why? Because the so called “Metz Pact”, in which officials of the Moscow Orthodox Patriarchate conditionated their presences as observers in the Council to the “no condemnatio” of communism.

What happened to Latin America?

Back in the 50s we had in some cases the best clergy whe had since the early Spanish Empire times and a very interesting lay movement, with social and political aims, a very good social christian alternative to communism or liberalism, the two twin ideologies who tried to destroy and keep in poverty and indignity our people.

There were also difficulties in the pre-conciliar church in Latin America. There were few vocations in many regions, the educational level of the clergy was very low in other places. In a few words: the same problems we can trace to the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767, the “state church” of the late spanish Borbouns and the secularization process of the republican liberals in the 1800s

But after the Second Vatican Council things started to went mad. Very obedient and orthodox clergy and laymen started to embrace the strange ideas of Liberation Theology. It was not condemned by the Hierarchy in those years, so catholic lay leaders tought it was OK. The curse of Latin American Catholicism iback then wass the sentimentalism and the a-critical acceptance of almost anything.

In Brazil the faith was almost obliterated. Mr. Leonardo Boff was -in the time when he was called to “silence” by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith- the main “peritus” of the Brasilian Bishop’s Conference.

At first, the things seemed to be not as bad as in Europe, because Latin Americans were very religious.

But all these religiosity couldn’t accept the sociological faith of the modernizers, so they started to join evangelical sects or going back to paganism (the bad jesuits “inculturation” played a key roll in bringing back the “old gods” in Central and South America)

And the old problems (few and non authentic vocations in the rural regions and very low education of catholics) remained and became worst.

Thanks God we have now Pope Benedict XVI, and here in the so called “Hope Continent” we have finally hope. Because we feel the change (orthodox bishops, cleaning of seminaries, etc…)

Sorry for the lousy english, again

 

[Timothysis]

It wasn’t the Council that led to the decline of the Church in America; that’s really the classic A preceded B, therefore A caused B. It was the death of the Catholic neighborhood that ended that time in America, and the death of the Catholic neighborhood was caused by the death of the inner-city, and the abandonment of the inner-city by American society at large.

Lujack, I think that this is the most insightful comment that I have read on these pages and is most probably the reason why American is in the shape it is now. How sad that we will never be able to go back to these by-gone days.

 

[daughteroftruth]

For if it is true that difficult and potentially ambiguous documents that have demonstrably been frequently abused and misinterpreted can be concluded to be invalid, then you have proven that BOTH the documents of Vatican II AND the Sacred Scriptures are invalid.

Who said ambiguity meant invalidity? It certainly wasn’t me, I simply said that it was deceitful.

Surely no one can deny that the Bible has been horribly misinterpreted by well meaning people in droves over the centuries? How? Because people failed to intepret them in harmony with the Keeper of the Scriptures: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Just like those who put their erroneous spin on council documents.

Right. The Church always taught that She was the means of salvation. Now the implication is that one does not need to convert in order to be saved. Other religions are presented in such a positive light that doesn’t inspire much evangelization. If you already know the teachings of the Church, you can see through the kissing words of the documents; however, if you don’t already (or if you have an ulterior motive) it isn’t hard to misinterpret these documents. That’s my problem with the Council, and I’m the others here feel the same way (right? …of course, I could be wrong on this one? )

You can’t have it both ways. Either your criteria have teeth in both cases or neither. What’ll it be?

I’m not one justifying misrepresentation; therefore, I’m not one trying to have anything both ways.

 

[daughteroftruth]

Have you not read how St. Paul showed the people who worshipped at the temple of the unknown god that their insights were valuable, but incomplete? He then proceeded to show them the god they had not known, but who wished to be known! This is what those elements of V2 try to recapture.

You said “He then proceeded to show them the God they had not known…” Many use the Council (the actual documents themselves) to only (as you worded) show Catholics that the worship of false gods is “valuable,” even if incomplete (but since they can be saved anyway, what does it matter if it’s incomplete?).

I’m not saying that all non Catholics are damned, only God knows the heart. He alone knows what others are aware of, and if they rejected Him or if they are ignorant. What I am saying, is that this has never been the focus of the Church: mediocrity: “You *should *become Catholic, but it isn’t necessary.”

Had we never reused good ideas taken from the cultures we encounter, we’d not have Christmas trees, no wedding rings…

But this is often abused as well, we have to be careful what we integrate and *how *we do it.

 

[PJM]

I would really like to know the honest answer to this question. Could you stop being so cynical for a few minutes?

Dear friend in Chrsit,

I wish I had thought to ask your question.

The RCC even at the conclusion of Vatican II, had hundreds of millions of Catholics, world wide.

So without doubt, their were abuses. However, they were not publised, and held up as the “New Norms” of Vatican II.

Pope Pius VI. and Pius X both wrote about evident concerns of “New Age” religion, and the now prevelant theology of Relativism, which loudly proclaims that it “is only wrong if YOU say that it is wrong.” This is a dominant theology within the RCC today. Including Cardinals, Bishops, Priest and Religious.

Once Humanae Vitae was published, it was as if public desent with our Pope and the Magistrium, were no longer a moral requirement, and EVERYBODY was, even piblicly permitted to pick and chose what they would believe and practice.

And so we are where we are today.

In 1965 about 70% od professed Catholics fullfilled their Sunday and Holyday Obligatins, and about the same percent regullary went to Confession.

A visiting priest announced at the end of our Parish 40 hour Devotion last week that he had recently read a report that stated that currently only “16%” now attend Mass, on any sort of perscribed schedule. I read a Pew Report in 2007 that claimed only 10% now go to Confession, even once per year?

Shocking:blush:

So their were abuses, but not done publicaly and proudly!

Dear God help us :byzsoc: