Vatican II

[pnewton]

And there are those that believe they are being obedient to their conscience and the Church by aligning it to Traditional Catholic Praxis and not novelties introduced by disobedience.

I do not question the sincerity of those that obey their conscience over the Church, be they traditionalist that align it to traditional praxis or modern Catholics that align towat they think is pastoral charity. I just see where such deviance can lead one over the edge, both left and right. In some cases, it leads completely out of the Church.

Those that seek to change Christ’s Church and please man over God will twist them to their own condemnation.

This is so true. I do not think it is very common. Not that pleasing men, as in trying to appeal to men, is not uncommon. However I do think it is rare when this is done in opposition to God. Most of what we have seen is set for the purpose of evangelism, which is pleasing to God, even if it pleases Man too.

 

[OurBeloved]

We’ve seen a pendulum of theological thought swinging since Vatican II.

If we stick close to the centre of the arc we will be fine. Out on the end of the arc we will be out on a limb.

There is no ONE answer or RIGHT WAY to being a Catholic. But there are wrong ways.

Nancy Pelosi is wrong. Bishop Williamson is wrong.

You are certainly right in that there is a WRONG way. Right now, the dominant idea is that there is no such thing as a WRONG way. If its not intrinsically immoral, it is probably as RIGHT as any other WAY.

That thinking itself is WRONG to me because it does not consider prudence or risk of causing scandal.

 

[CesarAugustus]

The problems we are living today are the problems we have been living since the Garden of Eden. Any casual reading of St. Paul’s epistles and the psalms should put to rest the notion that we are in any way especially more sinful today. Maybe we’re just more efficient at it due to modern mass communications.

For example the sexual abuse scandal in the Church goes back to before Vatican II.

Just because sin was less visible in earlier times, does not mean that sin did not exist then.

Today we have more things going on, and I’m speaking for both religious and secular levels. Various things that weren’t reunited in such a small amount of time before.

Why is so difficult to see that we aren’t living in a “fantastic” era?

(And I’m speaking in general. Most people I know tend to be overtly optimistic about this age)

Blessings!

 

[OraLabora]

I think you are again delving in to unnecessary issues here.

The question was simple. How do you know if the priest that you visit is orthodox in his positions? How do you know if he is not?

This is a very simple question that does not require answering whether the Protestant or Schismatic shares any theological communion or not. So lets not blow this out of proportion.

Well your question asked whether the priest was inside the Church or outside of it. I answered.

I guess you’re reframing the question on whether the priest is heterodox or orthodox. That’s a legitimate question.

However at the basic level we have to ask ourselves if the priest is able to licitly and validly celebrate the sacraments. If he’s up there, and he doesn’t mess up the words of the consecration, then he is.

Which boils it down to the priest’s function as homilist. I can’t really answer that. I think even good priests can make mistakes and teach error inadvertently.

At the abbey, of the 28 priest-monks, not all are good homilists. They rotate the homily between different priests. Some you never hear because, well, they aren’t good homilists, or because they are too elderly, or because they are too busy with other functions to have the time to compose good homilies. Those that one does hear range from good to excellent. The abbot though, has the luxury of choice. The bishop doesn’t. A Sunday homily is mandatory. He has a shrinking pool of priests to serve the diocese, so each priest, good or bad, must give a homily whenever they celebrate Mass.

I’m trying to put myself in the shoes of the bishop. I can see it isn’t an easy task. I’m not sure yours is an easy question to answer… and I don’t think it’s as easy as it seems, to weed out the “bad apples”.

 

[OurBeloved]

Well your question asked whether the priest was inside the Church or outside of it. I answered.

I guess you’re reframing the question on whether the priest is heterodox or orthodox. That’s a legitimate question.

However at the basic level we have to ask ourselves if the priest is able to licitly and validly celebrate the sacraments. If he’s up there, and he doesn’t mess up the words of the consecration, then he is.

Which boils it down to the priest’s function as homilist. I can’t really answer that. I think even good priests can make mistakes and teach error inadvertently.

At the abbey, of the 28 priest-monks, not all are good homilists. They rotate the homily between different priests. Some you never hear because, well, they aren’t good homilists, or because they are too elderly, or because they are too busy with other functions to have the time to compose good homilies. Those that one does hear range from good to excellent. The abbot though, has the luxury of choice. The bishop doesn’t. A Sunday homily is mandatory. He has a shrinking pool of priests to serve the diocese, so each priest, good or bad, must give a homily whenever they celebrate Mass.

I’m trying to put myself in the shoes of the bishop. I can see it isn’t an easy task. I’m not sure yours is an easy question to answer… and I don’t think it’s as easy as it seems, to weed out the “bad apples”.

I think its better to move away from the homily a bit here. There are cases that are yet to be handled (like one I cited about a certain priest in the Philippines), who make very public statements on record. What has been done about them?

The fact of the matter here is that these people in authority are leading people astray. There are person’s who trust them with their spirituality because they are priests. This is not a light matter.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Yes, is true that some people trust their Priests a lot, and don’t contrast their teachings with the Catechism or the Bible.

It has happened to me, that I’m going to show Church doctrine, the Catechism, etc, yet people is suspicious as if one is explaining a foreign faith, and they find difficult to believe what one is going to say because their Priests said so and so.

Blessings!

 

[OraLabora]

Today we have more things going on, and I’m speaking for both religious and secular levels. Various things that weren’t reunited in such a small amount of time before.

Why is so difficult to see that we aren’t living in a “fantastic” era?

(And I’m speaking in general. Most people I know tend to be overtly optimistic about this age)

Blessings!

What’s so fantastic about this era? Historically, there’s not much unique about it except the extraordinary speed at which we can communicate. This kind of revolution has happened at many intervals in history. First there was the printing press, then cable, then wireless (radio), then television, then computers, then internet, then smart phones… and each like any human invention had propensity for the greater good and great evil. Heck the printing press was greatly responsible for the spread of Protestantism by making the Bible, and not always good translations of it, widely available.

Surely in the grand scheme of things not much in this era trumps the Reformation for its impact? And not that many years prior to Vatican II, we had WWII and the Holocaust… something perpetrated by an allegedly, at least nominally, Christian country.

I’m not overly optimistic about this era, but not completely pessimistic either. Much grace and beauty still exists in this world in this era. We need to have a sense of perspective. There are many things about this era that are better than in the past; medical science has made great strides (antibiotics, insulin, etc.) in the 20th century; racism is on the decline, just to name a couple. Yes I know someone will trot out a litany of the bad things. They certainly exist. They always have.

 

[TimothyH]

We’ve seen a pendulum of theological thought swinging since Vatican II.

If we stick close to the centre of the arc we will be fine. Out on the end of the arc we will be out on a limb.

There is no ONE answer or RIGHT WAY to being a Catholic. But there are wrong ways.

Nancy Pelosi is wrong. Bishop Williamson is wrong.

And people tend to focus on the extremes. Right in the middle of the Barque of Peter is the best place to be.

-Tim-

 

[triumphguy]

A close to the guy at the helm as possible:thumbsup:

We should probably close the thread here

 

[Chuck1]

Hi ,
I was wondering what are the differences between Vatican 1 and 2 and why some people say that Vatican 2 is all wrong wrong wrong about everything ? And also isn’t Vatican 1 mass a EF mass and and Vatican 2 a LM ? I’m a bit confused can someone clear this up for me ?
Like Is the form we do it in today that is not a pre Vatican 2 mass is not valid or In a sense the ‘same’ as before Vatican 2 ? Are we still doing it as they did before Vatican to in a way if you see what I mean ?

Thanks chuck

 

[aragonjohn1]

technichally vatican 2 is vatican 1 since vatican 1 was never disconcontued but, anyway vatican changed nothing just tryed to bring a lot of teachings for in aa evangilistic light and after that a few liberals realizing what a threat that was to their existince decided to bring out all amalgonous words and cause mass confusion (pardon the pun : ] )

so nothing changed just their was a call to the new evangilization

Shalom
God Bless

 

[mburn16]

Wow. What a horribly distorted and one-sided explanation of VI and VII.

To provide a slightly better understanding:

Both Vatican I and Vatican II were Ecumenical Councils convened by the reigning Pope to address questions relevant to the Church in the (then) modern world. Vatican I was the first Ecumenical Council since Trent, roughly 300 or so years prior.

The First Vatican Council was convened in the late 1860s, and produced clarifications on doctrines like Papal Infallibility. The Council was never truly “completed”, due to war, but WAS closed prior to Vatican II.

Vatican II was called in the 1960s by Pope John XXIII, and then continued after his death by Pope Paul VI. This council is probably best known - and more controversial - for the alterations it made to the liturgy, including the implementation (though the full intent of this is debated) of the vernacular as the primary language of the Mass, and other attempts to modernize and update the image and position of the church. Its controversial (you could even go as far as to say “opposed”) among the most Conservative elements of the RCC because of its alleged/supposed/apparent association with more liberal theological ideas and practices.

 

[Chuck1]

But Vatican 2 and the way we worship now is because of it is fine ? Becuase when people say we’re wrong wrong wrong for following the Vatican 2 and worshiping in all those changes made me think and I doing it wrong ? And is it still the same church as Vatican 1 if you see what I mean ?

 

[Chatter163]

Duplicate thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9475455#post9475455

 

[agnes_therese]

But Vatican 2 and the way we worship now is because of it is fine ? Becuase when people say we’re wrong wrong wrong for following the Vatican 2 and worshiping in all those changes made me think and I doing it wrong ? And is it still the same church as Vatican 1 if you see what I mean ?

Anyone who says we are “wrong for following Vatican 2” is going against the Church. Are you sure you want to listen to someone who tells you not to follow the Church?

 

[edwest2]

Wow. What a horribly distorted and one-sided explanation of VI and VII.

To provide a slightly better understanding:

Both Vatican I and Vatican II were Ecumenical Councils convened by the reigning Pope to address questions relevant to the Church in the (then) modern world. Vatican I was the first Ecumenical Council since Trent, roughly 300 or so years prior.

The First Vatican Council was convened in the late 1860s, and produced clarifications on doctrines like Papal Infallibility. The Council was never truly “completed”, due to war, but WAS closed prior to Vatican II.

Vatican II was called in the 1960s by Pope John XXIII, and then continued after his death by Pope Paul VI. This council is probably best known - and more controversial - for the alterations it made to the liturgy, including the implementation (though the full intent of this is debated) of the vernacular as the primary language of the Mass, and other attempts to modernize and update the image and position of the church. Its controversial (you could even go as far as to say “opposed”) among the most Conservative elements of the RCC because of its alleged/supposed/apparent association with more liberal theological ideas and practices.

None of the changes commonly blamed on Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

There were dissidents inside the Church in the 1960s and 1970s.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html

Pope Benedict regarding the Latin Mass:

"My dear Brother Bishops,

"With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

"News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

"This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”

Full document here:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bravo_6]

There can never be a split in the Church as it is always and has been one.The differencesne was declared a Pastoral Council(Vatican II)as the other*was Dogmatic(Vatican I).Again I stand corrected.In view of the former,it was basically an attempt to bring Catholicism up to pace with the modern world."*t’s time to open our windows and let in some fresh air." - Pope John XXIII.

Now the “apparent split” which you refer to,is perhaps the division between traditionalists and modernists(terms used to distinguish the two;accepting or not accepting the teachings of Vatican II as such),in actual fact there is no such thing as we are all catholic.However,this is a very dense and complicated topic and needs to be broken down.

Best to stay away from it and leave it up to the Holy Ghost and the high-ups to deal with.Attend mass,pray the rosary,do penance and live accordingly to what our Master has commanded and died for.

JMJ**

 

[liturgyluver]

Wow. What a horribly distorted and one-sided explanation of VI and VII.

To provide a slightly better understanding:

Both Vatican I and Vatican II were Ecumenical Councils convened by the reigning Pope to address questions relevant to the Church in the (then) modern world. Vatican I was the first Ecumenical Council since Trent, roughly 300 or so years prior.

The First Vatican Council was convened in the late 1860s, and produced clarifications on doctrines like Papal Infallibility. The Council was never truly “completed”, due to war, but WAS closed prior to Vatican II.

Vatican II was called in the 1960s by Pope John XXIII, and then continued after his death by Pope Paul VI. This council is probably best known - and more controversial - for the alterations it made to the liturgy, including the implementation (though the full intent of this is debated) of the vernacular as the primary language of the Mass, and other attempts to modernize and update the image and position of the church. Its controversial (you could even go as far as to say “opposed”) among the most Conservative elements of the RCC because of its alleged/supposed/apparent association with more liberal theological ideas and practices.

I think this is one of the most sensible posts that I have seen on this thread. Whilst there are many people who doubtless feel that Vatican II shouldn’t have happened: it did happen. And the liturgical dcuments that eminated from it were very specific about a number of changes to the liturgy. It spoke of:

• active participation and the elimination of silent spectators at the mass;
• revision of the rite of the Holy Mass
• elimination of duplication within the mass
• Introduction of the Homily
• Restoration of Common Prayer
• accomodating the Mother tongue (not to the exclusion of Latin altogether)
• Permissiable for Communion under both kinds
• Simplification of the Liturgy of the Hours
• revision of the Liturgical year. And so on.

It also gave Bishops the authority to determine implementation within their territories, but these changes were approved by Rome.

I suppose the point I am making is that to pretend that Vatican II wasn’t advocating important changes in the way liturgy and the mass was carried out is nonsence.

Having said that I would agree with some of the comments that execution of the liturgy is often far too casual and creates an impression of irreverance. But that is not the fault of Vatican II, nor of its implementation as it is certainly possible to execute a proper reverent and dignified celebration in the OF.

 

[YoungTradCath]

To sum up things so far in an impersonal manner:

Regardless of what Vatican II did or did not say, the vast majority of Catholics have been told that Vatican II was a watershed “win” for the “liberals” of the Church. They have no reason not to believe this because as far as they can perceive with their senses, this is absolutely true, and here perception is just as important as reality.

Vatican II’s tainted zeitgeist is slowly being killed, and even the “liberals” agree; pop on to NCR sometime and you can almost hear the groans. Almost everyone of an orthodox-leaning persuasion–and I grant that there is a stratum here–agrees that Vatican II has been grossly misinterpreted. The difference is that some also believe that the next logical step, that it has been grossly misapplied, is also true, while others do not.

There is also disagreement over whether or not the letter of what the Council said in some places was prudent, and whether what some would consider problematic areas should be redacted in practice–effectively ignored, which the readership is reminded does have precedent–even if it actually is part of what the Council actually said.

Furthermore, there is significant disagreement on whether or not this misinterpretation and potential misapplication has been bad or not and whether it should be rectified at all. There is also significant disagreement on why it happened in the first place.

Perhaps most importantly there is vehement disagreement on what, exactly, Vatican II was intended to do in the first place: embrace modernism or, as some say, embrace modernism to ultimately condemn modernism.

I believe this is a sensible and quite honest assessment of the overall post-Conciliar historical theme of the situation, in a manner of speaking.

 

[OraLabora]

Perhaps most importantly there is vehement disagreement on what, exactly, Vatican II was intended to do in the first place: embrace modernism or, as some say, embrace modernism to ultimately condemn modernism.

Does it have to be either/or? I think it’s more subtle than that. First of all modern times is not necessarily equal to modernist heresy. Modernist heresy has existed in the Church for over a century! And it’s an an enemy from within. I suspect the true enemy of the modern world is less modernism and is rather secularism that leads to a rudderless unchurched society.

I think also there are other factors. For one, the recognition that the Church was becoming less Euro-centric with rapid growth outside Europe and Europe’s child cultures. That perhaps a wider less Eurocentric vision was needed to avoid the taint of cultural imperialism

To look at it entirely through the lens of modernist heresy is, I think, to miss the point of Vatican II entirely.