Vatican II Why so much change so fast?

[Leopard]

It’s late so I’m only going to address one of these:

…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…

Holy days of Obligation are obligatory because the Church, exercising her authority, says they are obligatory. The same authority that set these obligations can also change or even entirely dispense with them.

 

[PC_Master]

It’s late so I’m only going to address one of these:

Holy days of Obligation are obligatory because the Church, exercising her authority, says they are obligatory. The same authority that set these obligations can also change or even entirely dispense with them.

So, they weren’t clearly a part of the deposit of faith, but are instead man’s way of interpreting or building on that. These things are not infallible (by your own statement), and yet they are required for all faithful. So, in essence, the RCC is requiring something that may be wrong (lack of infallibility always allows for this) and is saying it’s an essential for the faith?

 

[Spirithound]

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.)

“This is my Body. This is my Blood.”

And how do you define essence?

I’d say it’s the words of absolution.

So if I change this rite, it’s fine?

If you do it, no. If the Pope mandates different prayers for kicking out demons (not a sacrament, so there’s nothing that’s essential to it), yes

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.

Well then you’re mistaken in your musings. Disciplines, although they are imposed by a true authority, and thus are binding (binding and loosing?) for their duration, are not infallible.

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.

But this is always the way of it. The Pope never defines anything new ex cathedra.

I’d say this is a change in teaching, as the original poster claims.

Already addressed by a PP.

If it means the same, why is there any need for a change at all?

A new version is not mandated, only allowed.

So, they weren’t clearly a part of the deposit of faith, but are instead man’s way of interpreting or building on that. These things are not infallible (by your own statement), and yet they are required for all faithful. So, in essence, the RCC is requiring something that may be wrong (lack of infallibility always allows for this) and is saying it’s an essential for the faith?

Are you saying that going to church can be a bad idea?

 

[Pons]

Actually, this is a mistaken impression…
NotWorthy;2731111:

If it was so obvious, why did it take so many years to do it? And why did it take a dream from an angel to kick it into gear?

Did the Angel come to the other Apostles and tell them to eat these unclean foods.

I’d add: why a council, then? True, Jesus told them to preach to all nations. But if they’d understood the full force of that statement right then and there, Gentiles would have been admitted earlier without “legal wrangling”.

Back to OT: I may be overstating things, but I’d say nothing Catholics do is wrong as long as it doesn’t contradict doctrine. That actually gives them a lot to work with. In terms of sports, Christ “passed the ball” to the Church and it’s up to it how it handles the ball, as long as it keeps scoring.

 

[Pons]

The extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles originated from Jesus but that doesn’t mean someone else couldn’t affirm it. Similarly, the teachings of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary weren’t made out of thin air by Popes who declared them to be true.

 

[Leopard]

So, they weren’t clearly a part of the deposit of faith, but are instead man’s way of interpreting or building on that. These things are not infallible (by your own statement), and yet they are required for all faithful. So, in essence, the RCC is requiring something that may be wrong (lack of infallibility always allows for this) and is saying it’s an essential for the faith?

As an example, Christmas Day is a Holy Day of Obligation.

Yes, The obligation to assist at Mass on Christmas is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is the Church’s (not man’s in general) way of building on this Deposit of the Faith. I don’t know what you mean by it is not infallible. Infallible statements are usually teachings or explanations of Catholic teaching. This is neither. It is a discipline. Yes, this is required by all the faithful unless there is some reason preventing them (illness, no Mass locally available, etc.) But no, the Church is not requiring something that may be wrong, unless you can demonstrate that it is somehow wrong to assist at Mass on Christmas. And yes, obedience to the discipline of the Church is essential to the practice of the Catholic Faith.

The same applies to the other Holy Days of Obligation, with the understanding that different bishops may exercise their authority to make different Holy Days obligatory for Catholics within their jurisdictions.

 

[DebChris]

The Tradition handed down to us from the Apostles has remained intact. This Tradition is safeguarded by the Magisterium. The Magisterium consists of the Pope and bishops, who trace their lineage back to the Apostles. It is the Magisterium who met in Vatican II to address the issues facing the Church in the modern age.
The way that Tradition is expressed can be modified and has been throughout history. As mentioned by Genesis 315, there were already efforts in place to confront many of the issues discussed at Vatican II. St. Pius X worked on liturgical reform that would allow greater participation by the laity. There were also lay groups at work to better understand our Faith, such as Cursillo, and to put it into action, like the Knights of Columbus.
Ours is a living faith. Reading the actual documents of Vatican II can be very enlightening.

 

[dizzy_dave]

Wow, I haven’t checked this thread in a couple days.

• First let me clarify my original question. I mean no disrespect to Vatican II, I just went through a bout of radical Traditionalism and wanted clarification of some aspects of what Traditionalists claim are “bad” changes.
• I have read the Vatican II documents, I’d like books that go into more detail on what was going on during the Council and with the Council, basically the who’s of the Council, etc. I have books about Vatican II but they are all on the negative side of it.

 

[Genesis315]

Wow, I haven’t checked this thread in a couple days.

• First let me clarify my original question. I mean no disrespect to Vatican II, I just went through a bout of radical Traditionalism and wanted clarification of some aspects of what Traditionalists claim are “bad” changes.
• I have read the Vatican II documents, I’d like books that go into more detail on what was going on during the Council and with the Council, basically the who’s of the Council, etc. I have books about Vatican II but they are all on the negative side of it.

I recommend the chapters on Vatican II from Fulton Sheen’s autobiography (he, of course, was a participant) and also Joseph Ratzinger’s “Theological Highlights of Vatican II” which gives his experience there.

Here are some online articles dealing with what Fr. Ratzinger’s had to say:

Was Vatican II a “Waste of Time”? Looking at the Council with Cardinal Ratzinger

Ratzinger on Vatican II: Opening Events and the Document on the Liturgy

Ratzinger on Vatican II: The Debate on Revelation

Ratzinger on Vatican II: The Debate on the Church

Reading some of those negative books is like being in a dark room with a bunch of scary shadows. But then, when you read other accounts it’s like turning on the lights to see those scary shadows are not scary at all, but are cast from things that are completely benign.

It also is a good idea to put things into perspective by reading about what happened at other ecumenical councils. Likewise, read the accounts of other ecumenical councils, the ones we consider bulwarks of faith. Read what went down at the First Vatican Council–blasphemies uttered on the floor, ambiguities purposefully added to make different groups happy (why do you think very few people can actually understand beyond a couple examples when papal infallibility actually applies?) and bishops walking out rather than be part of it. Likewise, what happened at the first few ecumenical councils was no less scandalous. Read what Saints like Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen had to say. Councils always have factions fighting against each other, some underhanded things going down occasionally, and a general overall sense of confusion. The decrees and whatnot are always filled with compromise. Compared to how other Councils took place, the Second Vatican Council is par for the course.

 

[jmcrae]

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?

Society has also changed a great deal during the same amount of time. Most of the changes we see at Mass have more to do with the changes in society than with the changes of Vatican II - for example, the way people dress at Mass is the same as how they dress pretty much everywhere else.

Back in 1960, men even wore suits to go mountain climbing - today, people wear climbing gear to Mass.

 

[Mannyfit75]

<<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.

I know you can buy a CD-ROM called Welcome to the Catholic Church. This has everything. Papal Encyclicals, the 16 Documents of Vatican Council II, Code of Canon Law, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catechism of Trent, Theology of the Body. I think its like 98.00 from aquinasandmore.com.

Oh the Vatican website have them for free and yes its available in English.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm -The Holy See. Sixteen Documents of Vatican Council II.

 

[PC_Master]

As an example, Christmas Day is a Holy Day of Obligation.

Yes, The obligation to assist at Mass on Christmas is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is the Church’s (not man’s in general) way of building on this Deposit of the Faith. I don’t know what you mean by it is not infallible. Infallible statements are usually teachings or explanations of Catholic teaching. This is neither. It is a discipline. Yes, this is required by all the faithful unless there is some reason preventing them (illness, no Mass locally available, etc.) But no, the Church is not requiring something that may be wrong, unless you can demonstrate that it is somehow wrong to assist at Mass on Christmas. And yes, obedience to the discipline of the Church is essential to the practice of the Catholic Faith.

The same applies to the other Holy Days of Obligation, with the understanding that different bishops may exercise their authority to make different Holy Days obligatory for Catholics within their jurisdictions.

Infallible statement == A statement given which cannot be incorrect (it is not fallible).
Infallible action == An action which cannot be incorrect
Infallible discipline/teaching == A discipline/teaching which cannot be incorrect.

Thus, either Holy Days of Obligation are infallible, or it’s possible the RCC has it wrong. Those are the only two options.

So, are Holy Days of Obligation infallible (that is, necessarily correct [for whatever reason], and thus impossible to be changed in the future without committing error), or is there a possibility of error (meaning that the RCC is not infallible in its teaching magisterium)? If the former, all one has to show is a single Holy Day of Obligation that has been changed.

 

[Spirithound]

Infallible statement == A statement given which cannot be incorrect (it is not fallible).
Infallible action == An action which cannot be incorrect
Infallible discipline/teaching == A discipline/teaching which cannot be incorrect.

Thus, either Holy Days of Obligation are infallible, or it’s possible the RCC has it wrong. Those are the only two options.

So, are Holy Days of Obligation infallible (that is, necessarily correct [for whatever reason], and thus impossible to be changed in the future without committing error), or is there a possibility of error (meaning that the RCC is not infallible in its teaching magisterium)? If the former, all one has to show is a single Holy Day of Obligation that has been changed.

It is a really strange construction to speak of Holy Days of Obligation as “infallible”. The two words just don’t go together.

Starting with your definitions, you defined infallible statement satisfactorily, it is a teaching of the Church that it is a charism of the the Pope. “Infallible action” just seems odd. No one who knows the doctrine of papal infallibility would ever speak of an infallible action. Sinlessness is called impeccability, and the pope does not possess this (no matter how much of a great guy i think he is ). I disagree with you in lumping together “infallible discipline” and “teaching”. Under the Catholic understanding of infallibility, “teaching” goes along with “statement”, and disciplines are never infallible.

Holy Days of Obligation are a discipline, and thus, cannot be spoken of as “infallible”. When imposed by the legitimate authority, however, they are binding upon the faithful, until such time as they are revoked or loosed. Let’s look deeper. What are the HDOs?

1 Jan: Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
6 Jan: Epiphany
19 March: Solemnity of St. Joseph
Thursday after the 6th week of Easter: Ascension
Thursday after Trinity Sunday: Corpus Christi
29 June: Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul
15 Aug: the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
1 Nov: All Saints
8 Dec: Immaculate Conception
25 Dec: Nativity of the Lord

This is the full list given by canon law, which may be cut by individual bishops. As you can see, there are a few that commemorate specific events, like the Epiphany or the Assumption, we could potentially speak of those days being “infallibly proclaimed” in that the pope could come out and tell us that those are the actual days that those things happened (he has not done so). Some other days, however, like the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, or Corpus Christi (aka, the Body and Blood of Christ), or All Saints, do not commemorate specific events, but rather celebrate certain people (Mary, Jesus, the rest of the saints). For these days, it would not be proper to speak of them as “infallible” in any sense, since the day does not and cannot correspond with any event.

There is the potential (at least grammatically) to say that the decree saying you must go to church on these days is infallible, but this falls outside of the Church’s definition of papal infallibility.

You seem concerned that the Church could be wrong in requiring the faithful to attend church on these days. Why?

 

[stmaria]

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?

I am one of those Traditionalists that believe that the Church has changed. It does have a New Mass. It does have new teachings. Read *The Rhine Flows into the Tiber *for an unbiased look at Vatican II. It was written by a priest/journalist at the Council. It contains interviews such as the following which shows the mindset of the reformers.
One of the reformers was Bishop William Dushak who was interviewed by Father Ralph Wiltgen author of The Rhine Flows into the Tiber. He said this on the floor of the Vatican II Council, “ “My idea is to introduce an ecumenical Mass, …It would be a kind of celebration of the Mass which all members of a community…can readily understand without involved explanations…the entire Mass, including the Canon, should be said aloud in the vernacular and facing the people….this ecumenical Mass… is to be written by liturgical scholars of all faiths in order to provide a basis of common worship by all Christians”
Read *The Reform of the Liturgy *by Father Annibale Bugnini, the man most responsible for not only writing the new Liturgy but also writing the Constitution on the Liturgy. When introduced at the Council it was known as the “Bugnini Draft”.
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

The *Constitution on the Liturgy *decrees none of the changes to the mass such as Communion in the hand, priest facing the people, suppression of the Leonine prayers, removal of the Canon, all vernacular Mass, elimination of the prayers at the foot of the altar. Eucharistic lay ministers and Removal of the Tabernacle.
“ One statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers.”-Monsignor Klaus Gambler Reform of the Roman Liturgy.”

Before the Council it was a mortal sin and subject to excommunication to be cremated. Now cremation is approved. Receiving the Holy Eucharist was only for Catholics now non-Catholics can, with approval from the Bishop, receive communion without going to confession or becoming Catholic. This reached it height of shamefulness when President Bill Clinton received Communion in 1998 in a Church in Africa.

Religious Liberty and false ecumenism are new beliefs. Mixed marriages were once forbidden. They are now considered “good for ecumenism”
All religions even false religions are held in high esteem as was seen when pagan religions were allowed to pray to the devil in a Catholic Church at Assissi in 1986 and again in 2002.

 

[stmaria]

In addition to* TheRhine Flows into the Tiber and Reform of the Liturgy read Pope Pius XII Mediator Dei *where he warns of the coming Liturgical movement.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM
8. Indeed, though we are sorely grieved to note, on the one hand, that there are places where the spirit, understanding or practice of the sacred liturgy is defective, or all but inexistent, We observe with considerable anxiety and some misgiving, that elsewhere certain enthusiasts, over-eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact, they interlard their plans and hopes for a revival of the sacred liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it with errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical doctrine.

1. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days – which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation – to other dates”

Read the* Critical Study of the Mass *by a group of theologians in 1969. Read Cardinal Ottavini’s, head of the Roma Curia, letter to Pope Paul VI.
latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

Read the Constitution on the Liturgy and read Pope Paul VI who said:
Paul VI, General Audience, November 19, 1969: "1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

1. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past [indeed], which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.
2. …This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed…
3. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.
4. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. … This moment is shaking the Church…
   ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM