Vatican II Why so much change so fast?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dizzy_dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dizzy_dave

Guest
In the 42 years since the Second Vatican Council has ended the Church has undergone numerous changes in a very short amount of time (42 years). We have a different Mass, Sacraments are different (somewhat), new rite of exorcism, Roman curia restructured, new catechism, new liturgy of the hours, new liturgical calendar, minor orders to the priesthood eliminated, Rosary added to, stations of the cross added to, Protestants before Vatican II were “heretics”, now they are “seperated brethren”, we’ve gone from the Douay-Rheims Bible to the NAB and RSV-CE, Ember days and Rogation days not mentioned, Confession not often used, yet Communion line long. Church attire is BAD, new canon law and so on.
Now, before I get jumped all over, let me make clear that I do NOT wish to bash the Church, I only want to learn. Has the Church ever gone through these many signifigant changes is such a short period of time? If so when? I’m curious why it all happened so fast. I’m thinking maybe that could have something to do with why we have a drop in Mass attendence and vocations. So was it too much too fast?
 
In the 42 years since the Second Vatican Council has ended the Church has undergone numerous changes in a very short amount of time (42 years). We have a different Mass, Sacraments are different (somewhat), new rite of exorcism, Roman curia restructured, new catechism, new liturgy of the hours, new liturgical calendar, minor orders to the priesthood eliminated, Rosary added to, stations of the cross added to, Protestants before Vatican II were “heretics”, now they are “seperated brethren”, we’ve gone from the Douay-Rheims Bible to the NAB and RSV-CE, Ember days and Rogation days not mentioned, Confession not often used, yet Communion line long. Church attire is BAD, new canon law and so on.
Now, before I get jumped all over, let me make clear that I do NOT wish to bash the Church, I only want to learn. Has the Church ever gone through these many signifigant changes is such a short period of time? If so when? I’m curious why it all happened so fast. I’m thinking maybe that could have something to do with why we have a drop in Mass attendence and vocations. So was it too much too fast?
Same Church. Same teachings. Same Mass. Same Sacraments…
Protestants are still objectively heretics.
You see significant change where it doesn’t exist.
 
Hi Dizzy,

42 years is a long time, and most of the things you mention have nothing to do with the Sacred Council. The Church, in imitation of Christ, is the incarnation of the divine witht the human. And as the human changes, it must change its form of incarnation.

I suggest you have a look at the REAL Vatican II by reading its documents, all approved by Paul VI, the furthest you can get away from a radical. Please click :

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM

Verbum
 
In the 42 years since the Second Vatican Council has ended the Church has undergone numerous changes in a very short amount of time (42 years). We have a different Mass, Sacraments are different (somewhat), new rite of exorcism, Roman curia restructured, new catechism, new liturgy of the hours, new liturgical calendar, minor orders to the priesthood eliminated, Rosary added to, stations of the cross added to, Protestants before Vatican II were “heretics”, now they are “seperated brethren”, we’ve gone from the Douay-Rheims Bible to the NAB and RSV-CE, Ember days and Rogation days not mentioned, Confession not often used, yet Communion line long. Church attire is BAD, new canon law and so on.
Now, before I get jumped all over, let me make clear that I do NOT wish to bash the Church, I only want to learn. Has the Church ever gone through these many signifigant changes is such a short period of time? If so when? I’m curious why it all happened so fast. I’m thinking maybe that could have something to do with why we have a drop in Mass attendence and vocations. So was it too much too fast?
Many of the things that are attributed to the Second Vatican Council were there beforehand and were simply brought to more people’s attention by the Council (which is usually what Councils do).

The Vulgate and Douay Rheims were no longer obligatory before Vatican II (it was Pius XII who authorized new translations).

Canon law was not revised until the 1980s. There was no code of canon law really until 1917–all we had were concilliar and papal canons. It was St. Pius X who re-organized them for the first time. Historically, one of the major functions of ecumenical Councils was to make changes to canon law.

It was also St. Pius X and then later Pius XII who emphasized frequent communion (before the 20th century you often had to have permission from your confessor to go to communion)–so that is why the lines are long. They felt people needed communion often to survive in the modern world.

Protestants were called seperated brethren before Vatican II, for example Pius XII calls them that in Summi Pontificatus.

Concerning the changes to many of the rites, the Council of Trent 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.”

It can be said that the unprecedented and radical circumstances of the times and places preceding the Council warranted a response from the Church.

Given the tumultuous first half of the 20th century, and the horrors that took place in once Catholic countries, the Church realized that there was a disconect between how people worshipped and how they actually lived their faith in the world. Even Archbishop Lefebrve, the founder of the SSPX, said: “I wrote: ‘We may say without hesitation, that certain liturgical reforms have been needed, and it is to be hoped that the Council will continue in this direction.’ I recognized that a renewal was indispensable to bring an end to a certain sclerosis due to a gap which had developed between prayer, confined to places of worship, and the world of action-schools, the professions and public life.”

This was the reason for the reform in liturgical rites.

Many of things like vocations, church attire, confession and mass attendance were results of the cultural shift that happened in the 1960s independent of anything the Catholic Church was doing. They are a result of an intense individualism, anti-dogmatism (as a response to the dogmatic wars between nazi’s, communists, democrats, and others) and of course, the sexual revolution–when the Church stood agains these things, most people rejected Church authority, valued materialism over sacrifice, and made religion something personal and private–and the fruits of this change in culture is what you see in the churches–if you look at cultures that did not have this revolution, Mass attendance, confession lines, and vocations are thriving.
 
Does anyone recommend any good book(s) about the Second Vatican Council? Thanks.
 
Same Church. Same teachings. Same Mass. Same Sacraments…
Protestants are still objectively heretics.
You see significant change where it doesn’t exist.
And you blindly deny the very points the original poster was speaking of, acting as if your denial will make it fact. Why not address the individual points he raised rather than blindly stating “the church hasn’t changed,” a statement which actually helps no one – those who are trying to attack your position will see the rebuttal you’ve given as weak and useless, and those honestly seeking information will not be able to find what they seek. Instead, give real answers, and perhaps some good will come from it.
 
Just external trappings. Emphasis on “trap”…
I’ll assume you’re responding to my post, in which case I’ll simply request that you be more clear. None of what I said is intended to be a trap at all. I’m merely demonstrating the folly of blind statements of supposed fact without substantiation in a setting where such statements being disputed is often the basis of the discussion in question, as is the case for this thread.
 
No, sorry, I was responding to the OP in light of other replies. I’d like to make it clear though that I was born after Vatican II.
 
So you’re accusing the OP of trapping? If so, I fail to see how. He seems to be expressing a legitimate concern, and I haven’t seen anyone give a straightforward answer to these points yet.
 
Argh… I played on the word “trap” in “trappings” because one may get caught up in them, and miss the big picture. I meant trappings in the sense of “external signs”.
 
So then you are saying that the issues mentioned by the original poster are actually not important? That would mean that they aren’t part of the “deposit of faith”, right?

I think this all comes back to the question of “If these things were changes, how can the church claim to have never changed its teachings?”
 
<<Does anyone recommend any good book(s) about the Second Vatican Council? Thanks.>>

How about the documents of the Council themselves? They are available in English.
 
To the best of my knowledge, these are practices and/or disciplines, not tenets of the faith. They are important, but not as important as the latter.

*We have a different Mass, *
  • It’s still the Mass, only the way it’s celebrated has been changed.
Sacraments are different (somewhat),
  • Does the OP allude to shifts of emphasis? i.e. “Confession” becoming “Reconciliation”? The essence is unchanged.
new rite of exorcism
  • practices
Roman curia restructured
  • practices
new catechism
  • same teachings, rephrased possibly in light of the evolution of the world
new liturgy of the hours
  • practices/disciplines
new liturgical calendar
  • practices/disciplines
minor orders to the priesthood eliminated
  • practices/disciplines
Rosary added to
  • practices/disciplines. Anyway, the Pope himself decreed it, right? If Peter could extend the Church’s coverage to Gentiles (after divine prompting)…
*stations of the cross added to, *
  • practices/disciplines
*Protestants before Vatican II were “heretics”, now they are “seperated brethren”, *
  • a shift to emphasizing the positive side.
we’ve gone from the Douay-Rheims Bible to the NAB and RSV-CE,
  • why not? As long as it means the same…
Ember days and Rogation days not mentioned,
  • practices/disciplines
Confession not often used, yet Communion line long.
  • I thought Confession was encouraged?
Church attire is BAD,
  • practices/disciplines/OP’s opinion
new canon law
  • practices/disciplines
 
The only thing that I see is that there are things that are vauge after Vatican II and the each church is in essence doing “What they want” which in the long run causes confusion.
 
And you blindly deny the very points the original poster was speaking of, acting as if your denial will make it fact. Why not address the individual points he raised rather than blindly stating “the church hasn’t changed,” a statement which actually helps no one – those who are trying to attack your position will see the rebuttal you’ve given as weak and useless, and those honestly seeking information will not be able to find what they seek. Instead, give real answers, and perhaps some good will come from it.
The Church hasn’t (because it can’t) changed any teachings, only practices and disciplines. I suppose changes in practice and discipline would seem like significant changes if legalism was my thing, but it isn’t. The OP asserts that there were significant changes, when in fact there were none.

Your post comes across as a mean spirited ad-hominem attack. 😦 Was that your intent? :confused:
 
To the best of my knowledge, these are practices and/or disciplines, not tenets of the faith. They are important, but not as important as the latter.

*We have a different Mass, *
  • It’s still the Mass, only the way it’s celebrated has been changed.
Sacraments are different (somewhat),
  • Does the OP allude to shifts of emphasis? i.e. “Confession” becoming “Reconciliation”? The essence is unchanged.
new rite of exorcism
  • practices
Roman curia restructured
  • practices
new catechism
  • same teachings, rephrased possibly in light of the evolution of the world
new liturgy of the hours
  • practices/disciplines
new liturgical calendar
  • practices/disciplines
minor orders to the priesthood eliminated
  • practices/disciplines
Rosary added to
  • practices/disciplines. Anyway, the Pope himself decreed it, right? If Peter could extend the Church’s coverage to Gentiles (after divine prompting)…
*stations of the cross added to, *
  • practices/disciplines
*Protestants before Vatican II were “heretics”, now they are “seperated brethren”, *
  • a shift to emphasizing the positive side.
we’ve gone from the Douay-Rheims Bible to the NAB and RSV-CE,
  • why not? As long as it means the same…
Ember days and Rogation days not mentioned,
  • practices/disciplines
Confession not often used, yet Communion line long.
  • I thought Confession was encouraged?
Church attire is BAD,
  • practices/disciplines/OP’s opinion
new canon law
  • practices/disciplines
Great line-by-line answer!👍 👍 👍
 
The number and content of “changes” in the church are a direct result of the times. This is the information age, when every jot and dot the Pope utters can be found on line, when many have no priest, but they have EWTN.

Only the side dishes have been changed, as another posted-disciplines have changed, but the main course-the liturgy and the faith-have not changed, nor could they change-they were sent down from God, through his Son. God cannot change, the doctrines and dogmas cannot change because God gave them to us and He does not change.

We are free to practice any discipline we want to get us closer to God-Eucharistic adoration, rosaries, novenas, fasting days, devotions to Mary and the Saints. But any Catholic who does none of these can still be a good Catholic through the Mass, through living the life God asks, and through the Sacraments.

Shorter lines in confessional and improper dress in Church are things the people need to take heed to. The first (confession) is encouraged and necessary, the second is highly recommended. But the Church does not tell people they must go to confession, except once a year, and She does not tell people how to dress. In Italy, they already know how to dress for Mass…
 
To the best of my knowledge, these are practices and/or disciplines, not tenets of the faith. They are important, but not as important as the latter.
So what specifically is the difference to you? Were these practices and disciplines included in the deposit of faith, or are they man’s way of interpreting the deposit? Why should changes be allowed to discipline and practice?
*We have a different Mass, *
  • It’s still the Mass, only the way it’s celebrated has been changed.
Okay, so what exactly is vital to the Mass? What parts must remain unchanged for it to be considered Mass? (Obviously these can not include any part that was changed by Vatican II.)
Sacraments are different (somewhat),
  • Does the OP allude to shifts of emphasis? i.e. “Confession” becoming “Reconciliation”? The essence is unchanged.
Perhaps the original poster should be a little clearer as to what he thinks changed then? And how do you define essence?
new rite of exorcism
  • practices
So if I change this rite, it’s fine?
new liturgical calendar
  • practices/disciplines
As I recall, part of this liturgical calendar are the “holy days of obligation”. So, are these practices and disciplines essential, or aren’t they? If they’re essential, I’d say they’re as important as church teachings of faith.
Rosary added to
  • practices/disciplines. Anyway, the Pope himself decreed it, right? If Peter could extend the Church’s coverage to Gentiles (after divine prompting)…
Actually, this is a mistaken impression. Jesus himself commanded the apostles to go into every nation preaching the gospel and baptizing. Peter didn’t extend anything – he simply had the wisdom to act on God’s instructions.
*Protestants before Vatican II were “heretics”, now they are “seperated brethren”, *
  • a shift to emphasizing the positive side.
I’d say this is a change in teaching, as the original poster claims.
we’ve gone from the Douay-Rheims Bible to the NAB and RSV-CE,
  • why not? As long as it means the same…
If it means the same, why is there any need for a change at all?
 
*Protestants before Vatican II were “heretics”, now they are “seperated brethren”, *
  • a shift to emphasizing the positive side.
Protestants are “Separated Brethren” by virtue of their (material or formal) heresy. (CCC 817-820)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top