Vatican II

[Formida42]

I’m just beginning to learn about Catholicism. I’ve been reading all the books I can, and I’ve recently been learning about the changes that took place after the Second Vatican Council.

I’m wondering what the average Catholic thinks about these changes. A good thing? Bad? Both?

Thank you!
Heather

 

[judechild]

Hi Heather!

The changes that were Vatican II made in the Church’s relationship to the rest of the world are, in my opinion, very good. They have allowed us to have a better relationship with protestants like yourself and other poeple in general, and also encourage us to use modern means and styles to spread the unchanging Faith. There were problems, of course, but I think the worst of the misunderstandings are over and people are truely able to act in the “spirit of Vatican II”. It’s important to remember that no docrine is ever thrown out at an ecumenical counsil - the Church just doesn’t work that way. Instead, the changes brought about by Vatican II were pastoral in nature, meant to accomplish the purposes I’ve already mentioned. Hope that helps!

 

[ravenonthecross]

Vatican II, though a valid council is non-dogmatic, and a pastoral council; and is very ambiguous. Now, that being said, the Council was a blunder, in that it severely muddled our relationship with the Orthodox and Protestants. (I.e. making Catholics forget that the Orthodox ARE schismatic, and the Protestants ARE heretics). And It let to the promotion of a false-ecumenicism.

Vocations and Mass attendance, and conversion at an all time high prior to the Council in the 1950’s dropped by approx. 75% after the Council. Some may elucidate that this is due to the “mis-interpretation” of the council’s documents; whilst this is so, it still remains a fact that the documents of Vatican II are highly ambiguous and have been used adversely as a sort of “cudgel” by Liberals, Modernists, and Heretical clerics to chip away at the orthodox remnent of faithful that remain within the Holy Catholic Church.

The Council was opened with all sorts of optimism, and a naive notion that it would lead to a new “springtime” within the Church [despite the objections of a many clergy advised the Holy Father, Bl. John XXIII that calling a council was testing God: in other words, Ecumenical Councils are only to be called in times of emergency to fight heresy and clarify true Catholic Teaching]. It didn’t; the exact opposite effect happened. Instead of having the Church grow by “leaps and bounds:” there was a mass exodus as a result of this new liberalized pseudo-teachings [teachings that were not what the Council said at all.]

It [Vatican II] was an attempt to “reach out” to “world,” to Protestants, and to the Orthodox, but it acted in a way contrariwise to the Catholic Church’s perennial stance of battling the temptations and errors of the World, the schismatics (Orthodox), and Heretics (i.e. Protestants, Gnostics, Donatists, Jansenist, Mohammedans, etc.), and Pagans (Hindus, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.). Hence, given this new openness that followed the council, heretical clerics utilizing an very broad misinterpretation of the Council [made possible by the grave ambiguity and lack of clarity and specificity within the Second Vatican Council’s texts’] twisted the council’s pastoral prescriptions towards their own errant and malovent ends.

Also, the texts of Second Vatican Council’s documents were also in conflict with prior Catholic Encyclicals and teaching on Ecumenism, and salvation: or so it was wrongfully interpreted by heretical clerics.

However, in spite of this mass confusion and heresy that has resulted with the Church post-Vatican II, Pope Benedict XVI is working on reinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council’s documents in light of Sacred Tradition, attempting to reconcile VII with previous papal and church teachings. It is still on-going.

And we pray that it continues and that the Holy Mother Church can get up on her feet so to speak, bury the amibuigity of Vatican, recover the clarity and specificity of the First Vatican Council and the Council of Trent, and surge ahead in a renewed Catholic Reformation/Counter-Reformation!

:knight1::getholy:

P.S. I realize that my post is convulated. I apologize.

 

[judechild]

Also, the texts of Second Vatican Council’s documents were also in conflict with prior Catholic Encyclicals and teaching on Ecumenism, and salvation: or so it was wrongfully interpreted by heretical clerics.

Interesting, could you please give some specific examples?

 

[Catholic_Martyr]

You want to know what happened at Vatican II?

 

[Yours_Truly]

Interesting, could you please give some specific examples?

I’ll give you a few examples. Compare the encyclical Quanta Cura of Pope Pius IX, with Dignitate Humanae of Vatican II.

Keep in mind that what Pope Pius IX wrote in Quanta Cura is exactly what all the Popes taught up to Vatican II. Another very good encyclical to read is Libertas, by Pope Leo XIII. Dignitate Humanae of Vatican II is interpreted by EVERYONE as teaching exacty what was condemned by many Popes prior to the council.

Also compare the encyclical Mortalium Animos to modern day ecumenism as practiced by virtually every member of the hierarchy. Be sure to notice in Mortalium Animos that the Pope say those who practice the false ecumenism he speaks of are deceived, and by their actions end by rejecting the true religion - *“Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion”. * You will see that what he condemns is exactly what is being used to promote “Christian unity”. The Pope explains the only path to true Christian unite and warns Catholics not to be deceived by the move towards a false unity.

 

[Yours_Truly]

I’m just beginning to learn about Catholicism. I’ve been reading all the books I can, and I’ve recently been learning about the changes that took place after the Second Vatican Council.

I’m wondering what the average Catholic thinks about these changes. A good thing? Bad? Both?

Thank you!
Heather

Hi Heather,

Vatican II has been a disaster for the Church. According to the words of the Pope who opened the Council, it was originally intented to simply express the faith is modern language. It was not protected from error as other Councils were since it did not intend to define any doctrines. There have been books written from those who were present at the Council who described it as a war. Unfortunately there was a well organized group of liberal minded Catholic Bishops who hijacked the council. During the first Session, the documents that had been meticulously prepared during the previous two years were scrapped… and things went down hill from there.

The Council almost destroyed the Church. Fortunately, there were some groups that refused to go along with the reforms. Today, it is these groups that are flourishing. Their Seminaries and Churches are full, while the more liberal “Vatican II” Churches and Seminaries are empty and closing.

The Churches that refused to go along with the Liberal and disasterous reforms are known as “Traditional” Churches. It is at these Churches where you will still find the Catholic Faith as it has been taught from the beginning. At the more Liberal Churches the Priests usually teach what the Church condemns and the average Catholic in the pew is in a state of confusion.

It is interesting that the current crisis was predicted by many of our saints. In fact, one of them even gave the actual date that the crisis would errupt. She said it would take place “in the second half of the 20th century”, which is exactly when it errupted. What else is interesting is that many of these same saints who predicted the current crisis also predicted a glorious restoration that should begin very soon.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I’m just beginning to learn about Catholicism. I’ve been reading all the books I can, and I’ve recently been learning about the changes that took place after the Second Vatican Council.

I’m wondering what the average Catholic thinks about these changes. A good thing? Bad? Both?

Thank you!
Heather

some good decisions and some bad decisions. Your best bet to understand the changes is to read the Vatican II documents

 

[mchale]

Heather,
Welcome to the Forums…

Now I am not sure the Traditionalist Catholic Forum is the best place to look for the average Catholic’s opinion about the Second Vatican Council. Many of the members here are at the least, ambivalent about how Vatican II Pastoral reforms were instituted (and in many cases, they may well be right), some are downright hostile to the Second Vatican Council and have basically decided that Pope John XXIII and his successors are in fact anti-Popes (considering the obvious affection that John Paul II engendered and the masses mourning his death, I think it is safe to say that this is a minority opinion amongst Catholics).

By and large though, I think the opinions of Catholics about Vatican II is extremely varied. For some of us, its the only Church we have ever known. For others it has stripped away many of the liturgical traditions of the past. I think many, both religious and lay, rushed to embrace the Council in the late 60s and 70s and the result was often as not less than could have been hoped for (as well as at least some cases of outright abuses stemming from misinterpretations of the Council).

–
Bill

 

[Ockham]

The ‘spirit of Vatican II’ that misinterpreted council documents can be summed up in two words: clown mass.

 

[OldRedleg]

Asking for opinions about Vatican II on the “Traditional Catholic” forum is going to result in a lopsided response. As the previous post show, most folks who frequent here are not advocates of anything that was good that came out of Vatican II.

Strange that a “traditional” Catholic layman would denounce the spiritual and learned teachings of the entire College of Bishops and the Pope as being heretical.

I love it when they dig up statements from the dark and middle ages to support their positions.

In order for the Church to remain relevant it must speak to the people in the times we live in, while remaining true to the doctrines of the faith. That was the goal of Vatican II.

The Church has and does make mistakes on matters of doctrine and discipline. Otherwise we all would be required to hold true the following from the 1633 trial of Galileo:

…by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

The Church has admitted this mistake.

 

[Ockham]

In order for the Church to remain relevant it must speak to the people in the times we live in, while remaining true to the doctrines of the faith. That was the goal of Vatican II.

The Church has and does make mistakes on matters of doctrine and discipline. Otherwise we all would be required to hold true the following from the 1633 trial of Galileo:

The Church has admitted this mistake.

How was the Church not relevant prior to V2?

The Church was founded by Jesus Christ, our Lord, perfection. It is up to the world to become relevant to the Church.

The mistakes that were made were leaving the documents open to interpretation and then not enforcing Church teaching when things like liturgical creativity broke out.

If you are watching what the Holy Father is doing, it should be clear he is trying to right the ship away from the chaos of post-V2.

 

[PJM]

I’m just beginning to learn about Catholicism. I’ve been reading all the books I can, and I’ve recently been learning about the changes that took place after the Second Vatican Council.

I’m wondering what the average Catholic thinks about these changes. A good thing? Bad? Both?

Thank you!
Heather

Hi Heather,

Mt. 7: 15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

There have been a few good “fruits” with the use of “Common Language” topping the list on the good side. The other really good is that more and more Catholics are becomming “Bible Literate”

However orver all when one looks at the results - stastics of what has taken place, one can question just how good these changes were?"

In 1970 Mass Attendance was above 70%, today it is less than 25%.

About that same percentage regularly went to the Sacrament of Known Forgiveness (Jn.20:23) and today that number is about 10%.

While Catholics remain the largest Chrsitian Dedomination in America, fallen-away catholics are the second largest group.

Formation of new Priest is about half what is was in 1970, and the formation of Religious “Brothers and Sisters (nuns)” is far below half fro most Orders. There are exceptions, amonf very Traditional and Orthodox Communities.

But God remains in Charge, and God will prevale.

Love and prayers,

 

[OldRedleg]

How was the Church not relevant prior to V2?

Because it had not been updated since the Council of Trent in 1563.

The Church was founded by Jesus Christ, our Lord, perfection. It is up to the world to become relevant to the Church.

True, Jesus Christ founded the Church. He did not give us the “Trinitarian Mass” and specify all the rubics of liturgical worship. The Church does change. Otherwise the liturgery of the Mass would be Aramiac and look almost exacetly like a first century Jewish Seder meal…which is what the Last Supper was.

The mistakes that were made were leaving the documents open to interpretation and then not enforcing Church teaching when things like liturgical creativity broke out.

If you actually read the documents of Vatican II you will see that they are heavily cross referenced with Church teachings from ages past.

If you are watching what the Holy Father is doing, it should be clear he is trying to right the ship away from the chaos of post-V2.

The Holy Father is continuing to implement Vatican II. As a faithful Catholic I support him.

 

[Ockham]

Because it had not been updated since the Council of Trent in 1563.

Truth is time sensitive?

True, Jesus Christ founded the Church. He did not give us the “Trinitarian Mass” and specify all the rubics of liturgical worship. The Church does change. Otherwise the liturgery of the Mass would be Aramiac and look almost exacetly like a first century Jewish Seder meal…which is what the Last Supper was.

Actually, Christ did give us the Tridentine Mass. It evolved organically from the Last Supper. The Novus Ordo Mass was composed by Bugnini and launched in April 1969.

If you actually read the documents of Vatican II you will see that they are heavily cross referenced with Church teachings from ages past.

How do you know whether I’ve read the documents of V2 or not?

The Holy Father is continuing to implement Vatican II. As a faithful Catholic I support him.

I pray he does a better job than the previous post V2 popes have done. Only giving Holy Communion to those while kneeling and on their tongue, bringing back the Tridentine Mass, correcting the mistranslations of the GIRM, and trying to appoint less modernist bishops are encouraging signs. As a faithful Catholic I support him too.

 

[LumenGent]

OldRedleg:

He did not give us the “Trinitarian Mass” and specify all the rubics of liturgical worship. The Church does change. Otherwise the liturgery of the Mass would be Aramiac and look almost exacetly like a first century Jewish Seder meal…which is what the Last Supper was.

The Church does not and can’t develop in it’s Liturgical Ministry. What the early Church celebrated in the Liturgy is what is supposed to be practiced and celebrated throughout the ages for ever. If you Read about or attend a Western Syriac Litugy (Maronite, Syriac) you will see what the earliest Liturgy was and how it still retains it’s traditions. Not like the rubbish that emerged from the 60’s. Please keep in mind that the Novus Ordo is a valid Liturgy but is theologically, spiritually and scripturarly inferior to the Early Eastern Liturgy/ies i mentioned and the Traditional Latin Mass. You don’t see clown celebrations there (i refuse to call it a Mass because it isn’t) or any of the abuses present in the NO. The Early Church didn’t see it a luxury to abuse the Liturgy just as many see it today.

Actually, Christ did give us the Tridentine Mass. It evolved organically from the Last Supper

Not exactly. The Liturgy evolved from Jerusalem and Antioch before it made it’s way to Rome. I must say there are striking similarities between the Ancient Oriental Liturgies, Eastern Liturgies and the TLM. We see a departure with the Novus Ordo.

 

[Randolph]

Friends:

As faithful catholics, in matters relating to our faith and to the Church, we must first and foremost heave and obey the will of God, whether we agree with it or not. This shows humility and love for God. Then, we must also be self-critical and brutally honest with ourselves, but we must also be extremely careful that, along the way, we do not get to the point where we become self-destruct. We must know where this line is.

We can go on and on about the problems in the Church after Vatican II. The mis-interpretation and the ill-guided implementation of Vatican II are well-documented. The bad results are clearly apparent to all of us, and can be statistically substantiated. Nevertheless, Vatican II is the teaching of the Church and an inseparable part of the Magisterium. One’s faithfullness to the Catholic Church, founded by Christ Himself and protected by the Holy Spirit, would be in serious jeopardy, if one rejects Vatican II, or lends a helping hand to those who reject it. The treasure within Vatican II documents has yet to be fully discovered and faithfullly implemented. The texts in the documents is at issue here, not the spins of those who are too eager to tear Vatican II apart. I encourage all of us to read and study the actual, original 16 documents of the Council for ourselves, not with our biased and hardened hearts, but with faith, fidelity and humility. I assure that you will be pleasantly surprised of what the documents actually say.

Just like other ecumenical councils before it, there were debates of all sprectrums of the Church. Sub-groups within the orthodoxy, sub-groups within the progressives, the accommodationists, the liberals, traditionalists, etc… fought hard during the Council. In the end, the Holy Father and the Church declared it binding for the Church. The Church and the popes have steered and will continue to steer the Church in the right course, should it goes off. John Paul II did it and Benedict is doing it. Future popes, and possibly councils, will continue to do so.

The abuses from the participants in the Novus Ordo is numerous and outrageous. But the abuses do not mean that the Novus Ordo mass itself is bad, or should be ridiculed and rejected. If the Novus Ordo is done correctly and according to the rubrics faithfully and reverently, it is fine. I believe the logic of “do not throw the baby out with the bath water” is quite appropriate here. The abuses of the good do not trump the good of the good.

Instead of allowing ourselves to be tempted, divided and strayed from the Church, I beg all of us to pray for God’s will be done, and to pray for our increased faith, hope and obedience in the Church. The Holy Spirit is protecting the Church. Remember Christ’s promise to St. Peter: “The gates of hell will not prevail against it (the Church)” - a Church that is also Christ’s bride. If we do not believe it, we make a liar out of Christ. Christ wants His love to be spread to all and all souls be united with Him here on earth and in heaven. We need unity and love in our faith in the Church so when the world sees us, it sees Christ.

In Christ,

 

[ncjohn]

The Church does not and can’t develop in it’s Liturgical Ministry. What the early Church celebrated in the Liturgy is what is supposed to be practiced and celebrated throughout the ages for ever.

Ockham:

Actually, Christ did give us the Tridentine Mass.

Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

What the “early Church” celebrated was a eucharistic meal in people’s home. No priests, no “consecration”, no “Tridentine” Mass or any “eastern liturgy”. Even the earliest forms of what would over centuries develop into the TLM didn’t occur for centuries. Even then there were many forms of the Latin Mass through the centuries, one of the reasons that Trent tried to standardize things except for allowing for some significant forms that had existed for many years. If “what the early Church celebrated in the Liturgy is what is supposed to be practiced and celebrated throughout the ages for ever” the we should all be sitting at our dining room tables in small groups without a priest, “breaking bread”.

As to the concept that the OF doesn’t resemble the TLM, as if it came from some other planet, that is such hogwash as to be incredible. Yes, the Mass is in the vernacular and there have been a couple elements added. Yes, the altar is turned the other way. Yes, we have additional readings available and a wider variety of them. But it is the same essential Mass that I grew up with pre-Vatican II in the same essential order.

LumenGent:

Please keep in mind that the Novus Ordo is a valid Liturgy but is theologically, spiritually and scripturarly inferior to the Early Eastern Liturgy/ies i mentioned and the Traditional Latin Mass

And yet the Pope says exactly the opposite. You are certainly welcome to feel a preference for those and to feel that they speak more clearly to you. But it is far from any sort of “objective truth” that they are superior in any way, shape or form. The “superior” Mass for any individual is the one that most clearly communicates the mysteries of God to that individual and calls him or her to the deepest worship. All this “My Mass is better than your Mass” bickering is so destructive to the unity of the Church that I can only wonder how God must weep at the division. Nobody seems to take the least issue with the fact that people prefer the TLM or some specific Eastern liturgy, but get their panties all tied in a knot because many of us prefer to hear our liturgy in our native tongue, which is of course the only reason why the liturgy changed to Latin to begin with.

Father, forgive us for the way we wound You in wounding each other!

 

[mchale]

Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

What the “early Church” celebrated was a eucharistic meal in people’s home. No priests, no “consecration”, no “Tridentine” Mass or any “eastern liturgy”. Even the earliest forms of what would over centuries develop into the TLM didn’t occur for centuries. Even then there were many forms of the Latin Mass through the centuries, one of the reasons that Trent tried to standardize things except for allowing for some significant forms that had existed for many years. If “what the early Church celebrated in the Liturgy is what is supposed to be practiced and celebrated throughout the ages for ever” the we should all be sitting at our dining room tables in small groups without a priest, “breaking bread”.

I agree in part with what you said. I certainly believe that what the Early Church celebrated was probably akin to a small meal amongst friends and that the Mass developed from it (in all of its forms). That being said, I disagree with you with respect to the idea that there was no priests or consecration. Without the consecration by a validly ordained priest (presbyter or bishop), there is no Eucharist. If there is a consecration and therefore a valid Eucharist, then it is certainly a mass, even if the form was simpler than is the norm today.

The apostles were Bishops, and the Acts refer to the Apostles choosing men as bishops and laying hands on them, and of the bishops choosing presbyters. Thus priests have existed since the very founding of the Church at the Last Supper and have always been with us.

–
Bill

 

[LumenGent]

Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

What the “early Church” celebrated was a eucharistic meal in people’s home. No priests, no “consecration”, no “Tridentine” Mass or any “eastern liturgy”. Even the earliest forms of what would over centuries develop into the TLM didn’t occur for centuries. Even then there were many forms of the Latin Mass through the centuries, one of the reasons that Trent tried to standardize things except for allowing for some significant forms that had existed for many years. If “what the early Church celebrated in the Liturgy is what is supposed to be practiced and celebrated throughout the ages for ever” the we should all be sitting at our dining room tables in small groups without a priest, “breaking bread”.

As to the concept that the OF doesn’t resemble the TLM, as if it came from some other planet, that is such hogwash as to be incredible. Yes, the Mass is in the vernacular and there have been a couple elements added. Yes, the altar is turned the other way. Yes, we have additional readings available and a wider variety of them. But it is the same essential Mass that I grew up with pre-Vatican II in the same essential order.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about if you honestly have convinced yourself that the Apostles and thier disciples never knew how to say the Mass. Don’t post nonsense and expect people to digest it. The mere fact that you have dismissed the Early Liturgies is evidence that you have no clue where the Liturgy originated form.

Breaking bread without a Priest, no consecration, no Mass? yeah sure whatever

Proves how much you know about the basic nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. What’s your next relpy, Christ never Offered the first Mass at the Last Supper?