Vatican II

[Mgray82]

Recent convert to the faith here…

What are the main differences between Vatican I and II? Where do people differ in opinions/views? Is it a serious split within the Church between one group or another, or is it just a matter of opinion?

I’d appreciate the feedback! Thanks

 

[Chatter163]

The First and Second Vatican Councils were held almost a century apart and have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They were each called to deal with different situations and the only thing that they have in common is that they were both held in the same place.

This is a broad topic, so I suggest that you start with a google and Wikipedia, then ask questions from there.

 

[JillianRose]

Hello-

I would not call it a “big” split. The only thing I can tell you is I had some issuse with Vativan II and I was told that I should pray until my views alligned with the Church teachings. You need to compare the issues and understand why there are some changes. If their is a division with ones beliefs and the Church, it is with them and not the Church. There is only one ROMAN Catholic Church.

 

[YoungTradCath]

“Differences between Vatican I/Vatican II” is not really a valid comparison. I mean, there are vast differences in what they say, for what they were summoned, what they intended to do, their aftermaths, how they are viewed today, etc. However, you phrase your question as if Vatican I and Vatican II are opposites. They are not.

Vatican I and Vatican II are “ecumenical councils,” which are councils of all the world’s bishops. Councils can be called, theoretically, for any reason a Pope–or in some cases someone else–wants to call one. However, historically speaking, they are usually called in times of crisis or uncertainty, or when some major contemporary problem needs fixing. Vatican II is the one exception to that last bit, but that is beside the point.

There have been twenty-one ecumenical councils in the Church’s history. Some important ones by today’s standards are: Nicaea, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II. If I’m understanding your implications correctly, you perceive some conflict or hesitancy, so to speak, about Vatican II. You would be correct. However, it still would not be right to say or think that Vatican II and Vatican I are opposites. Their naming is purely incidental. It’s not like, “Vatican I said ____, Vatican II went and changed ___,” or anything like that.

Rather, given what you’ve posted so far, this is what I will say:

Vatican II happened between 1962 and 1965. Through a whole system of unfortunate events (nutty Sixties, cultural problems, misunderstandings, an overzealous and borderline fanatic optimism, near complete disintegration of catechesis, focus on odds and ends rather than the central parts of the faith, etc.), Vatican II turned out to be, in my opinion, The Council That Probably Needed To Happen But Which Was Doomed For Very Troubled Times. Basically, Vatican II asked for some changes in the Church, for various reasons. To varying extents, these things happened.

However, what is now commonly called a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” emerged. Basically, in this view, some people took things waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far. I can’t really phrase it more succinctly than that. And I don’t want to go much further because I’m sure others have things to say.

I should note that this is a massive subject…

 

[Not_Sure_1]

“Differences between Vatican I/Vatican II” is not really a valid comparison. I mean, there are vast differences in what they say, for what they were summoned, what they intended to do, their aftermaths, how they are viewed today, etc. However, you phrase your question as if Vatican I and Vatican II are opposites. They are not.

Vatican I and Vatican II are “ecumenical councils,” which are councils of all the world’s bishops. Councils can be called, theoretically, for any reason a Pope–or in some cases someone else–wants to call one. However, historically speaking, they are usually called in times of crisis or uncertainty, or when some major contemporary problem needs fixing. Vatican II is the one exception to that last bit, but that is beside the point.

There have been twenty-one ecumenical councils in the Church’s history. Some important ones by today’s standards are: Nicaea, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II. If I’m understanding your implications correctly, you perceive some conflict or hesitancy, so to speak, about Vatican II. You would be correct. However, it still would not be right to say or think that Vatican II and Vatican I are opposites. Their naming is purely incidental. It’s not like, “Vatican I said ____, Vatican II went and changed ___,” or anything like that.

Rather, given what you’ve posted so far, this is what I will say:

Vatican II happened between 1962 and 1965. Through a whole system of unfortunate events (nutty Sixties, cultural problems, misunderstandings, an overzealous and borderline fanatic optimism, near complete disintegration of catechesis, focus on odds and ends rather than the central parts of the faith, etc.), Vatican II turned out to be, in my opinion, The Council That Probably Needed To Happen But Which Was Doomed For Very Troubled Times. Basically, Vatican II asked for some changes in the Church, for various reasons. To varying extents, these things happened.

However, what is now commonly called a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” emerged. Basically, in this view, some people took things waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far. I can’t really phrase it more succinctly than that. And I don’t want to go much further because I’m sure others have things to say.

I should note that this is a massive subject…

Vatican II was declared by the Popes as a pastoral council.
It dealt with pastoral issues and not with doctrinal issues (there were no anathemas, etc).

Vatican I declared as dogma that the Pope was infallible.
Vatican II did not seek to create any new dogmatic statements.

This is where the confusion lies.

 

[minkymurph]

The First and Second Vatican Councils were held almost a century apart and have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They were each called to deal with different situations and the only thing that they have in common is that they were both held in the same place.

This is a broad topic, so I suggest that you start with a google and Wikipedia, then ask questions from there.

I was under the impression Vatican II was a continuation, all be it a very late one, of Vatican I as Vatican I did not actually finish, but was interrupted and ‘suspended’ as a consequence of the war?

 

[Not_Sure_1]

It was supposed to be…

but things didn’t go as planned.

THe condemnation of communism didn’t happen, there was a lack of doctrinal statements,

 

[YoungTradCath]

Vatican II was declared by the Popes as a pastoral council.
It dealt with pastoral issues and not with doctrinal issues (there were no anathemas, etc).

Vatican I declared as dogma that the Pope was infallible.
Vatican II did not seek to create any new dogmatic statements.

This is where the confusion lies.

Yes, but I’m trying to be a bit more astute and situation-conscious than that. The OP is new to Catholicism and I don’t want to overload her with heavy things like these.

edit: no sarc. intended

 

[Angel_Bradford]

I was under the impression Vatican II was a continuation, all be it a very late one, of Vatican I as Vatican I did not actually finish, but was interrupted and ‘suspended’ as a consequence of the war?

The first order of business for the Second Vatican Council was to officially adjourn the First Vatican Council. When the Italian Civil War broke out, the visiting bishops had to hurry and leave the country while they could get out.

 

[Mgray82]

Yes, but I’m trying to be a bit more astute and situation-conscious than that. The OP is new to Catholicism and I don’t want to overload her with heavy things like these.

It’s “him” not “her” lol. But thanks for all of the info…all of you. Keep it coming.

I’m learning. Doing what I’m supposed to do and ask questions…the Vatican I/II thing is a big subject. And yes YoungTradCath, it is easy to reach overload. But I am researching, especially based on what I’m reading and your replies. So keep them coming!

 

[studychristian]

This might not be the right place, but why do some people think Vatican 2 is when the Church changed there teachings and gave into Liberal Society?

 

[Not_Sure_1]

because many of the pastoral teachings were written in a very ambiguous way.

IN light of tradition, nothing changed, but in light of some of those in power in the Church, they used the ambiguous documents as license to destroy everything (this is what people called the Spirit of Vatican II).

The Old Mass was all but abolished (even though the Popes, not the council itself did not allow for this to happen), many Bishops used the documents as license to be disobedient to the Pope (the Canadians reacting in rebellion to Humani Vitae, establishing Altar girls, allowing Communion in the Hand), and what people call “wreck-ovation” the high altars were overthrown, the tabernacle was moved to the side, the altar rails were ripped from the ground, statues and paintings in some churches disappeared.

Now we sit here trying to pick up the pieces. Paul VI said the smoke of satan hand entered into the Church. John Paul II said that the Old Mass was never abolished. Benedict XVI has become even more of a friend to tradition.

Most of what is wrong with the Spirit of Vatican II is due to the disobedience of many in the Church, and most of what people find wrong in the documents themselves (false ecumenism, etc) is not even doctrinal.

The Church is the same, we just have been rocked by a wave of disobedience (the errors of Russia if you will)

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Yes, but I’m trying to be a bit more astute and situation-conscious than that. The OP is new to Catholicism and I don’t want to overload her with heavy things like these.

edit: no sarc. intended

No problem. Excuse my youth.

 

[Andre1000]

This might not be the right place, but why do some people think Vatican 2 is when the Church changed there teachings and gave into Liberal Society?

Because if you read it you sometimes hit statements that sounds like the opposite of the old teachings of the Church. To really see that you need to know the teachings of the Church before Vatican II(today they are still the same of curse).

 

[edwest2]

Here is the opening speech by Pope John XXIII about the Second Vatican Council.

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

Everyone needs to understand that none - zero - of the changes attributed to Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Peace,
Ed

 

[JillianRose]

Hey pal!!

I should add, I do not know your age but an awesome book for teens and young Catholics is the YOUCAT. The opening letter from our Pope to our young adults is abosolutley beautiful and very TRUE!!!

 

[YoungTradCath]

This might not be the right place, but why do some people think Vatican 2 is when the Church changed there teachings and gave into Liberal Society?

Because for all intents and purposes this is exactly what happened. Some like to fawn over how Vatican II is completely orthodox and whatnot–and it is, of course–but that doesn’t change the fact that probably upwards of 90% of Catholics, at least in the West, saw it as a radical break from the past. Because really, in all outward and perceivable ways, it was.

 

[Presbyterian20]

Recent convert to the faith here…

What are the main differences between Vatican I and II? Where do people differ in opinions/views? Is it a serious split within the Church between one group or another, or is it just a matter of opinion?

I’d appreciate the feedback! Thanks

For me, the most important one has always been Trent…for obvious reasons.

 

[edwest2]

Because for all intents and purposes this is exactly what happened. Some like to fawn over how Vatican II is completely orthodox and whatnot–and it is, of course–but that doesn’t change the fact that probably upwards of 90% of Catholics, at least in the West, saw it as a radical break from the past. Because really, in all outward and perceivable ways, it was.

There were dissidents inside the Church which caused great damage and confusion, but they are rarely mentioned.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Rarely mentioned here.

The names of dissidents spread around the inter webs.

Bugnini, John Courtney Murray