Vatican II Review

[Onegin]

And while you fail to mention it, there are as many misrepresenting things to the other side by virtue of proclaiming the Church to be in heresy or that the Vatican II documents “change” doctrine.

You’re right, Vatican II didn’t “change” doctrine. It may have tried, but Doctrine cannot be changed. To that extent, one is right to ignore such attempts to change what cannot be changed. It is irrelevant, and those who drafted the documents knew it, which is why they tried to apply labels such as “broadening doctrine” and “deepening our understanding” and other such phrases to introduce new things that were never intended in the past. That is also why Vatican II was a pastoral council. Given the propositions that it made, it could not have been anything else.

That said, I agree with every aspect of Vatican II that affirms and upholds Holy Tradition. Take that as you will.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Actually, those “Catholics” who espouse gay marriage, contraception, women priests, or any other heresy aren’t in communion with the Church either.

Exactly. They have departed from the Church. They’ve fallen out of the Barque of Peter. What some “traditionalists” need to remember is that where you fall out of the left, or liberal, side of the boat, or the right, or conservative, side of the boat, you’ve still fallen out of the boat.

 

[wisdomseeker]

All of those things are disciplinary matters that can be changed by the Church. The directions to do the things that are currently in practice come from several different sources. Some were in fact directed by the Vatican II documents themselves. Others were the result of the commission appointed to implement the documents. Others come from other Papal decisions, such as the decisions to allow CITH and female altar servers.

You may not find them to be prudent decisions but they are all validly approved by the Pope before promulgation and thus licit and valid. None of them are in conflict with what Vatican II said, though some may address issues not addressed during Vatican II. Being disciplinary matters however they can be changed at will by any Pope, though no Pope can bind a future Pope into continuing them.

I’m curious about where you have seen altars being destroyed though. I have never encountered any such thing. Those churches that had high altars, at least in my experience, simply added freestanding altars in front of them for celebration of the Pauline Mass. Newer churches simply never installed high altars since the TLM was not in great use outside of indult parishes. I am aware of places that removed communion rails but this is the first I have heard of altars being “destroyed”. Could you give some specific examples? I don’t think there would be anything “illegal” about doing so if the Church wanted to but I would certainly question the judgment of “destroying” such beautiful and expensive works.

By the way, I never said you claimed the Church to be teaching heresy. I simply stated that there are those here and elsewhere who do so while claiming to be faithful to the Tradition of the Church, which is an oxymoron. I will say though, as a matter of simple fact, that you are among those here who mispresents things as being “Church teachings”–as exemplified in this very post and the things you claim to be “Teachings of the Church”–and creates confusion and dissension by doing so. I tend to believe it is done simply from not knowing better rather than bad intentions, as is often the case here, but it is interesting coming from one questioning why those who misrepresent the Church’s teachings aren’t disciplined. Unfortunately in this internet age, there are a lot of people who confine themselves to questionable websites as their sole or main source of information and then quote that as if it were gospel.

A council that caused division and confusion, loss of Faith, teachings of the Church were hidden from the people, liberals taking over the enterpretation of the Council, disobedience was everywhere, the documents did not even go through the bishops before it was implemented, certainly has to be questioned.

and yes, i know old people who left the Church in tears because they saw the beautifull Altars and Sanctuary being destroyed. this is not the work of God that is for sure. God is not in teh business of destroying His own House.

it is not just about words, it is also about the realities that we see in the present.

we dont seem to understand one another, what are we really talking about here?

did the Councill intend to makes all the changes in the Mass as we see it today?

we have accepted the modern psychology of the world and we are going with it. this psychology is that it is all about me. it is what i want, it is what benefits me the most. it is what makes me confortable. it is all about my needs. it is all about removing whatever offends me. it is all about my psychological needs.

 

[dmorgan]

You’re right, Vatican II didn’t “change” doctrine. It may have tried, but Doctrine cannot be changed. To that extent, one is right to ignore such attempts to change what cannot be changed. It is irrelevant, and those who drafted the documents knew it, which is why they tried to apply labels such as “broadening doctrine” and “deepening our understanding” and other such phrases to introduce new things that were never intended in the past. That is also why Vatican II was a pastoral council. Given the propositions that it made, it could not have been anything else.

That said, I agree with every aspect of Vatican II that affirms and upholds Holy Tradition. Take that as you will.

Onegin thank you for this and other thoughtful posts that I have read by you. You are correct, Vatican II did not “change” Doctrine, but it allowed the modernists in the church to set the table (pun) for the changes that have removed much of our Tradition. When we have several generations of both cradle and RCIA Catholics that have no clue as to the pre-Vatican II Church and her Traditions you do not need to change Doctrine. The defeat of Tradition was accomplished at the Parish level in poor Catechesis and that is where the restoration must begin. The supporters of V-II that frequent this forum can properly claim that V-II did not Mute Doctrine, and to be in Communion with the Church we must accept the teachings, but the clear fact is that we have a watered down version of what it means to be Catholic being taught today and if this trend is not reversed soon the Catholic Church will decrease to a small remnant of traditional Parishes.
And before one of the V-II apologists chimes in, yes I know our Lord said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. But Christ did not say how many or few would be left!

 

[wisdomseeker]

Onegin thank you for this and other thoughtful posts that I have read by you. You are correct, Vatican II did not “change” Doctrine, but it allowed the modernists in the church to set the table (pun) for the changes that have removed much of our Tradition. When we have several generations of both cradle and RCIA Catholics that have no clue as to the pre-Vatican II Church and her Traditions you do not need to change Doctrine. The defeat of Tradition was accomplished at the Parish level in poor Catechesis and that is where the restoration must begin. The supporters of V-II that frequent this forum can properly claim that V-II did not Mute Doctrine, and to be in Communion with the Church we must accept the teachings, but the clear fact is that we have a watered down version of what it means to be Catholic being taught today and if this trend is not reversed soon the Catholic Church will decrease to a small remnant of traditional Parishes.
And before one of the V-II apologists chimes in, yes I know our Lord said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. But Christ did not say how many or few would be left!

thank you for the post. you have received the special gift of seeing what so many cannot see.

 

[gospel_life]

A council that caused division and confusion, loss of Faith, teachings of the Church were hidden from the people, liberals taking over the enterpretation of the Council, disobedience was everywhere, the documents did not even go through the bishops before it was implemented, certainly has to be questioned.

The council caused none of those things. People going their own way after the council, from both sides of the spectrum, have caused that. In recent times this confusion has been greatly increased by the number of people misrepresenting what the documents say and what the Church teaches, again from BOTH sides of the spectrum.

The bishops most assuredly were informed before implementation and most of them voted for the documents before they were even promulgated. Where you get an idea like that is beyond me.

As far as things being “hidden from the people” I have no idea what you mean. Everything that went on at the council was very well publicized and many books have been written on it. Every single document was overwhelmingly approved. There might have been a “liberal” bias to the council, whatever that might mean, but considering the handful of votes against any document there was no such thing as a “liberal hijacking” as so many critics have alleged. That is pure revisionist fantasy.

and yes, i know old people who left the Church in tears because they saw the beautifull Altars and Sanctuary being destroyed. this is not the work of God that is for sure. God is not in teh business of destroying His own House.

As I said, please provide some specific examples.

did the Councill intend to makes all the changes in the Mass as we see it today?

The council intended to make substantial changes to the Mass, including inclusion of the vernacular and more active and vocal participation. It included a call for a commission to determine what those changes would be. An initial attempt was made with the Missal of 1965 which was soundly rejected by people and clergy alike because the back and forth of the vernacular/Latin was confusing and just didn’t work. It was from that and worldwide (name removed by moderator)ut that the move to mostly vernacular arose.

we have accepted the modern psychology of the world and we are going with it. this psychology is that it is all about me. it is what i want, it is what benefits me the most. it is what makes me confortable. it is all about my needs. it is all about removing whatever offends me. it is all about my psychological needs.

I’m not sure what this has to do with anything but one can easily argue that this statement applies as much to those who insist on everything being as it was before as to those who wanted to change too much.

Our current Pope has offered a viable alternative, at least with respect to the liturgy, that allows the overwhelming majority who prefer the Pauline Mass to continue to worship there while making the TLM ever more available to those who prefer it. This should have quelled the division and allowed each of us to worship as we feel called but instead we continue to have those who believe their preference is “superior” and who continue to rant and rave against those with a different preference. To me that is the height of the “it is all about my needs” that you address above.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, those “Catholics” who espouse gay marriage, contraception, women priests, or any other heresy aren’t in communion with the Church either.

You could say that there are more CINO’s than Catholics. But the Vatican counts them anyway.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

A council that caused division and confusion, loss of Faith, teachings of the Church were hidden from the people, liberals taking over the enterpretation of the Council, disobedience was everywhere, the documents did not even go through the bishops before it was implemented, certainly has to be questioned.

A) First of all, division, loss of faith, etc., cannot be reliably blamed on the council. It was a time for profound upheaval in society anyway, a time of questioning ALL authority and all authoritavitve institutions. That this happened at the same time as the council is just a coincidence. Correlation does not prove causation.

B) According to Church historians (and I believe Pope Benedict has repeated this), the period after ANY of the Councils has been a time of upheaval and adjustment. the 40-odd years since VII is barely a blink of the eye as the Church measures time.

and yes, i know old people who left the Church in tears because they saw the beautifull Altars and Sanctuary being destroyed. this is not the work of God that is for sure. God is not in teh business of destroying His own House.

I know old people who welcomed the changes. If someone leaves the Church, it’s never for a good reason. Did those people cease to believe in Transubstantiation? Absolution? Beauty in the Church is important, but it only dresses and illuminates the Truth, it is not truth Itself.

did the Councill intend to makes all the changes in the Mass as we see it today?

No, it didn’t, but that doesn’t mean those things don’t exist by proper authority (the vernacular Mass, for example, exist by authority of the Holy See, by the authority of the Pope).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Onegin thank you for this and other thoughtful posts that I have read by you. You are correct, Vatican II did not “change” Doctrine, but it allowed the modernists in the church to set the table (pun) for the changes that have removed much of our Tradition. When we have several generations of both cradle and RCIA Catholics that have no clue as to the pre-Vatican II Church and her Traditions you do not need to change Doctrine. The defeat of Tradition was accomplished at the Parish level in poor Catechesis and that is where the restoration must begin. The supporters of V-II that frequent this forum can properly claim that V-II did not Mute Doctrine, and to be in Communion with the Church we must accept the teachings, but the clear fact is that we have a watered down version of what it means to be Catholic being taught today and if this trend is not reversed soon the Catholic Church will decrease to a small remnant of traditional Parishes.
And before one of the V-II apologists chimes in, yes I know our Lord said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. But Christ did not say how many or few would be left!

You’re mistaken. “Tradition” with a big “t” has not changed or been removed. “Tradition” with a small “t” may have been altered, but that isn’t the same,certainly not by the Council nor by the Magisterium. “Traditionalists” often confuse the two.

I agree with you about the quality of catechesis.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I agree with you about the quality of catechesis.

This has not only been a problem within the Church. Since the latter half of the 19th century, there has been a radical alteration in educational theory and practice in all areas of scholastic institutions, which shifted from the Trivium/Quadrivium to what we have today in classrooms.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This has not only been a problem within the Church. Since the latter half of the 19th century, there has been a radical alteration in educational theory and practice in all areas of scholastic institutions, which shifted from the Trivium/Quadrivium to what we have today in classrooms.

EXACTLY! A lack of rigor in thinking.

 

[Alindawyl]

The council caused none of those things. People going their own way after the council, from both sides of the spectrum, have caused that. In recent times this confusion has been greatly increased by the number of people misrepresenting what the documents say and what the Church teaches, again from BOTH sides of the spectrum.

How true. I’m a catechist at my parish, mainly because I feel strongly about doing my part to ensure the awful crud I went through as a child in the 1970’s and early 1980’s becomes a historical aberration rather than the norm. Our last mystagogy session for RCIA covered Vatican II. Speaking the truth about Vatican II (or anything about the Church, for that matter) inevitably means taking a beating from both modernist dissenters AND traditionalist dissenters. Thanks to what can only be a grace from God, the fact that I feel terribly distraught whenever confronted by someone offended by my repetition of official Church teaching doesn’t stop me from continuing to repeat that Church teaching.

But as a catechist, I’ve got my own soul to worry about. I’m not about to go to hell for leading others into error. Anyone who doesn’t want me on the catechist team can complain to our deacon or priest. They’re welcome to do so, as I’d personally prefer to spend my evenings reading or playing games on my Playstation 3 instead of preparing lessons or teaching. There are enough volunteers that my presence is not necessary, and the other catechists all do a superior job of teaching the lessons. But seeing as our deacon has asked me to be on the RCIA team again next year, my good buddy Jesus appears once more to be interested in limiting my recreational time. Probably for the best

The number of Church teachings being misrepresented these days is staggering. Now, I freely admit I have an agenda, because everyone does. My agenda is submitting to the will of God and the authority of the Church established by Christ. I don’t have to like or understand everything the Church teaches. I just have to submit to that teaching. If there’s a problem with our understanding of Church teaching, it’s hard to have that misunderstanding corrected if our first impulse is to assume out of pride that the misunderstanding is due to a fault in the Church or the teaching. Rather, we should first out of humility do an honest assessment of ourselves to see if the fault lies within us. But who wants to blame themselves when they can blame someone else?

 

[ProVobis]

But seeing as our deacon has asked me to be on the RCIA team again next year, my good buddy Jesus appears once more to be interested in limiting my recreational time. Probably for the best

I too have been asked to teach RCIA by a local priest. My problem is I wouldn’t know where to start. Any suggestions? I assume you’re cradle Catholic.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Onegin thank you for this and other thoughtful posts that I have read by you. You are correct, Vatican II did not “change” Doctrine, but it allowed the modernists in the church to set the table (pun) for the changes that have removed much of our Tradition. When we have several generations of both cradle and RCIA Catholics that have no clue as to the pre-Vatican II Church and her Traditions you do not need to change Doctrine. The defeat of Tradition was accomplished at the Parish level in poor Catechesis and that is where the restoration must begin. The supporters of V-II that frequent this forum can properly claim that V-II did not Mute Doctrine, and to be in Communion with the Church we must accept the teachings, but the clear fact is that we have a watered down version of what it means to be Catholic being taught today and if this trend is not reversed soon the Catholic Church will decrease to a small remnant of traditional Parishes.
And before one of the V-II apologists chimes in, yes I know our Lord said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. But Christ did not say how many or few would be left!

As someone that frequents this forum, who is a Vatican II supporter, I can fully agree with the above quote. I said I support Vatican II. That does not mean that I agree with the way that it was implemented. I also believe that there is a way to interpret the documents in regards to Tradition and I pray that they are doing this at the Vatican right now! Also, not everything that is quoted against Vatican II is Tradition! Such as the Syllabus. True this came from the teaching authority of the Church, but it was not Sacred Tradition nor was it infallible.

The council intended to make substantial changes to the Mass, including inclusion of the vernacular and more active and vocal participation. It included a call for a commission to determine what those changes would be. An initial attempt was made with the Missal of 1965 which was soundly rejected by people and clergy alike because the back and forth of the vernacular/Latin was confusing and just didn’t work. It was from that and worldwide (name removed by moderator)ut that the move to mostly vernacular arose.

Sacrosanctum Concilium never asked for a more vocal Mass. It did not state any added dialogue. The changing position of the altar and ad populum also is not in the defining document.

 

[Onegin]

Onegin thank you for this and other thoughtful posts that I have read by you. You are correct, Vatican II did not “change” Doctrine, but it allowed the modernists in the church to set the table (pun) for the changes that have removed much of our Tradition. When we have several generations of both cradle and RCIA Catholics that have no clue as to the pre-Vatican II Church and her Traditions you do not need to change Doctrine. The defeat of Tradition was accomplished at the Parish level in poor Catechesis and that is where the restoration must begin. The supporters of V-II that frequent this forum can properly claim that V-II did not Mute Doctrine, and to be in Communion with the Church we must accept the teachings, but the clear fact is that we have a watered down version of what it means to be Catholic being taught today and if this trend is not reversed soon the Catholic Church will decrease to a small remnant of traditional Parishes.
And before one of the V-II apologists chimes in, yes I know our Lord said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. But Christ did not say how many or few would be left!

Thank you for your post, and I absolutely agree with what you have said.

One of my biggest struggles is not to impute evil intention where I am not sure it exists. To that extent, my criticisms of Vatican II and other modernising forces in the Church are focused on consequences. Honestly, I don’t know what the Bishops of the world were thinking when they convened in the 1960’s. My interest lies in the product - the documents and the aftermath which is clearly traceable, as you so accurately stated, to a departure from Tradition, not Doctrine (though this does not prevent many confused from assuming that Doctrine has, in fact, changed).

I know that JKirk will likely disagree with me on this latter point but I cannot help but note the original inconsistencies which, subject to further erroneous interpretations, have led to a watering down of the Faith and you noted and a general feeling of confusion and despair by many good-intentioned people caught up in this whole mess.

To that extent, I absolutely agree with your conclusion that, while the changes at Vatican II were effected using a “top-down” approach, I believe that the restoration of the fullness of the Faith will start from the bottom up, with each parish and those of goodwill working from the inside to re-educate themselves and their fellow Catholics in what the Faith really teaches. I believe that true and complete catechesis will also lead to an increase in vocations. One need look no further than the traditional schools to see that vocations flourish in a context where the Traditional Faith is fostered and encourage. It is not uncommon to meet a large traditional Catholic family that has 2 or more sons in the seminary and more aspiring.

There is hope for the Faith. But hope invites action and to that end, we must do all that we can.

 

[dmorgan]

You’re mistaken. “Tradition” with a big “t” has not changed or been removed. “Tradition” with a small “t” may have been altered, but that isn’t the same,certainly not by the Council nor by the Magisterium. “Traditionalists” often confuse the two.

I agree with you about the quality of catechesis.

I did not say that Tradition had been changed; I said it had been ignored. I said it has been removed! Walk into just about any post V-II built Parish and show me the statues of The Blessed Virgin, or St. Joseph, or any other Saint for that matter. If it were not for the Stations of the Cross you would think it was a protestant church. And for the record, I have seen your argument of Tradition VS tradition and it does not wash. It is a nice apologetic for V-II, but I do not by it. This is about re-training the lay faithfull into a new version of what Catholic means and it appears to have worked very well. Until the advent of the internet many Catholics were oblivious to what went on durring and after Vatican 2. Now we can read the documents, read first hand accounts from the dissenters who were there and read the Encyclicals from previous Popes and their warnings on the Modernist assault on Holy Mother Church. At the root of all of this is the simple fact that one Council, called not for the defense of the Faith, nor to stop a heresy, but to “Modernize” the church opened the doors for those who would re-create the Church to their own whims, and we can now see the end result of that effort after 40+ years.
Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Alindawyl]

I too have been asked to teach RCIA by a local priest. My problem is I wouldn’t know where to start. Any suggestions? I assume you’re cradle Catholic.

I’m a cradle Catholic, although a convert in many ways as I’d fallen away from being a practicing Catholic from the mid 1990’s until just a few years ago. Fourteen or so years of living no faith whatsoever… but God never gives up on us. No matter how stupid we may become for a time. Good thing we all get paid no matter how late we start working in the field.

If you’re doing it all alone, you need a metric ton of prayers and a miracle. At my parish we currently have a team of about seven people assisting our deacon. Catechists also have the entire weight of the diocese behind us. Archbishop Gomez has been fantastic in not only cleaning up Assumption Seminary but in providing tons of Church-approved resources for catechists of all varieties. Seminars, lesson plans, study guides, audio CDs… you name it.

We’re certainly going to miss Archbishop Gomez. But our loss will be LA’s gain

The study guide we use has detailed references to Bible verses and catechism paragraphs for each lesson. We give each of our catechumens and candidates their own copy of the compendium of the catechism, as well as a fun book called Why Do Catholics Do That. As long as whatever you’re teaching is based on the catechism, it’s hard to go wrong.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I did not say that Tradition had been changed; I said it had been ignored. I said it has been removed! Walk into just about any post V-II built Parish and show me the statues of The Blessed Virgin, or St. Joseph, or any other Saint for that matter. If it were not for the Stations of the Cross you would think it was a protestant church.

I think your proving his point about the confusion between the two.

And for the record, I have seen your argument of Tradition VS tradition and it does not wash.

Do you honestly believe they are the same thing?

 

[JMJ_coder]

I too have been asked to teach RCIA by a local priest. My problem is I wouldn’t know where to start. Any suggestions? I assume you’re cradle Catholic.

Assuming you’re in the USA, the Catechism for Adults should (in my opinion) be the primary text.

 

[RB2]

You know this thread is good and bad.
Personally I find it fairly vacant…because of some of the books I’ve read.

Traditionalists sometimes blame primarily Vatican II and the changes of the mass: incorrect.

Others blame cultural factors: mostly correct;

I too wonder how Vatican II and the cultural influences affected us and our families. To that end I have been purchasing and reading quite a few books.

I recommend highly as the best of all the books I have read:
The Decline & Fall of the Catholic Church in America by David Carlin
amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Catholic-Church-America/dp/1928832792/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273096380&sr=8-1

and a good review of it:
thefreelibrary.com/The+decline+and+fall+of+the+Catholic+Church+in+America.-a0128671109

The book nails it! Vatican II lowered the walls around the Church and its members that were established at the Council of Trent. The Church at the time of Vatican II thought that it had substantially stemmed the flow of damage that occurred during the Reformation and that now was the time to approach the world and let down the walls of the ‘Catholic Ghetto’. Unfortunately it was all bad timing. Letting down the walls would have temporarily weakend some Catholics but the curia didnt foresee many of the cultural changes and forces that were at play and gaining momentum that would sweep away many Catholics with it…this book explains the rest. A masterpiece!