Vatican II

[WillKC4]

I grew up in the 80s and 90s and don’t have a good grasp of the changes that were brought about by Vatican II and the reactions from Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I was wondering if someone could offer a good place to start reading and understanding this document. I would prefer to have specific books, titles, authors etc.
thanks so much and God bless
Mark

 

[john81]

I grew up in the 80s and 90s and don’t have a good grasp of the changes that were brought about by Vatican II and the reactions from Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I was wondering if someone could offer a good place to start reading and understanding this document. I would prefer to have specific books, titles, authors etc.
thanks so much and God bless
Mark

The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber
Author Rev. Ralph Wiltgen.

Pope Paul’s New Mass
Liturgical Revolution: Vol. III
by Michael Davies

God bless!

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Start by reading the documents themselves.

 

[Joe_5859]

Of course it’s good to read the documents themselves (as (name removed by moderator) has graciously made easy for you to do). Most of the 16 documents are fairly short. Only 3 of the 4 Constitutions are a bit on the longer side. There is no substitute for being familiar with the primary sources.

That said, I think some historical perspective is helpful in understanding what reaction different people had to the documents in the 60’s and 70’s and why they reacted in such a way. To that end, the best book I have read is Ralph McInerny’s What Went Wrong with Vatican II.

If you find yourself having trouble understanding the documents and think it would be helpful to hear things explained in more basic language, I think Alan Schreck’s Vatican II: The Crisis and the Promise does a great job of breaking down the content of the documents in a way that most can understand it more easily.

 

[edwest2]

First, I was there in the 1960s and 1970s. I was in Catholic school at the time. I had every reason to believe our priests and nuns regarding any outward changes, which, by the way, were not even suggested by the Second Vatican Council.

There is an unfortunate tendency here to see comments that “something” related to Vatican II caused problems and changes. This is simply not true. I did not love God less after Vatican II. And since Catholic communities were stronger during that time period, we had every opportunity to ask our priests and nuns about any outward changes. A good resource:

harvestingthefruit.com/

Peace,
Ed

 

[WillKC4]

Hi Ed,

Thanks so much for commenting. I was wondering what kind of outward changes you remember specifically from priests and nuns? Did they say that Vatican II was the reason/impetus behind their changes?
I am starting to believe there are a lot of misconceptions regarding Vatican II. According to some of the documents that I have read and the few stories I have heard, the changes don’t seem to be as much about ideology as people claim. Have people with differing opinions regarding Vatican II used the same documents to try to enact their agenda? Were some of the outward signs/actions/behaviors of priests and nuns more of a productive of the tumultuous times around the world or founded on the ideology of Vatican II? Again, the actual wordage does not seem to be as liberal and reformative as both sides claim. I would really like to hear people’s opinions and am looking forward to reading the rest of the document and some of the accounts/commentaries suggested here.

Thanks
Mark

 

[edwest2]

You’re welcome, Mark.

First of all, read this:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

The nuns told us that the Mass was now in English to encourage fuller participation by the people. That’s it. You have to understand the mindset of people living in the United States in the early 1960s. That’s the key. Christianity was highly respected. There was a Nativity in front of our local City Hall (I’ll get back to that in a moment), the Federal government told people we were is a struggle not just with Communism, but Godless Communism, and the newspapers, radio and television all reflected our Christian values. Wholesome entertainment, modesty and restraint in speech and dress and respect for your parents was the norm. Divorce was rare. Most families were stable. We were taught to be polite to our elders, and to simply not annoy the few ‘bad apples’ in our neighborhood. These were people who acted inappropriately at times. We should still be polite but not give them occasion to act out when we were nearby. Example: There was a woman next door who was enraged when one of my small plastic rockets ended up on her lawn and I would ‘step on her grass’ to retrieve it.

Restraint and living out your faith as being good neighbors was the order of the day. We lived as a community with shared values. You could say it was easy to be Catholic at the time. It was considered normal and as a boy, reinforced by the wonderful role models around me. I looked forward to being a similar adult.

Trust was the other part of the equation. We trusted the media, our government and the people around us. We looked out for each other, and didn’t lock our doors at night. My house was much like everybody else’s house and we all offered hospitality to each other. But that would be our undoing, from young to old. We did not know that dissidents inside and outside the Church wanted to attack it, the media, and our way of life. We welcomed the stranger who preached “freedom” but offered us nothing but lies. The trusting types that we were could not understand, until it was too late, that they wanted every aspect of our society turned upside down. They wanted things to be their way.

Vatican II became the scapegoat. Another lie. And the lie was: somewhere, somehow, Vatican II led to the social upheaval that followed it. That’s just not true.