What actually changed during VII?

[Pope_Noah_I]

I hear people say that no beliefs of the Church were actually changed, but apparently, some things did change which rustled some feathers of some of the Fathers. Could anyone name a couple of them?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

One thing that changed is the way the Church has chosen to talk about herself. It used to be standard that expositions of the Church worked hierarchically from the top down (we talk about the papacy, episcopate, presbyterate, diaconate, religious life, and then the laity). Now the Church emphasizes the vocation common to all the faithful and thus speaks of the Church at large before focusing on particular subsets. This is reflected in the structural changes between the 1917 and 1983 codes of canon law.

 

[DustinsDad]

One thing that changed is the way the Church has chosen to talk about herself. It used to be standard that expositions of the Church worked hierarchically from the top down (we talk about the papacy, episcopate, presbyterate, diaconate, religious life, and then the laity). Now the Church emphasizes the vocation common to all the faithful and thus speaks of the Church at large before focusing on particular subsets. This is reflected in the structural changes between the 1917 and 1983 codes of canon law.

On the topic of ways the Church talks about herself - there’s the “degrees of communion” concept that was new. No longer are we (talked about as) either inside or ouside HMC - now it’s always talked about from the viewpoint of “degrees of communion” - “full communion” - “imperfect communion” - etc. What was black and white suddenly became gray. Ambiguity.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Dempsey1919]

Doctrine didn’t change that’s for sure but I think some disciplinary practices did, for example meatless friday’s became an optional penance instead of a requirement.

Another example is the use of the habit for religious. In pre-concillar days, it was common to see Nuns and Priests wearing the habit. Nowadays, this is much rarer.

Ecumenism is definitely a major change. Protestants are treated more kindly than ever before. While this is a good thing to a certain degree, I think that the need for conversion is not stressed as much as it should be.

However, I’m not sure if these things changed during Vatican II or if they were a result of Vatican II. I’m more inclined to believe that they were altered to better suit modern times. But I really don’t know.

I would be interested to see if anyone could provide quotes or references from the actual Vatican II documents to show what the Council actually did change. I don’t know what the Council actually called for. I know that it didn’t call for the New Mass or many of the other changes that are attributed to the so-called “spirit of Vatican II.”

 

[rwoehmke]

The majority of the laity pre-Vatican II were of the pray-pay-and obey types. Vatican II called for the laity to not only pay-pray-and obey, but to actually take responsibility for bringing our Faith into the world outside of our Church and homes. Before than it was pretty much “Father’s” job to spread the Faith and specify in the minutest detail how we were to make decisions and behave as proper Catholics. Now whether that was inherent in the documents themselves or not, that is what happened. For a while chaos reigned but I truly believe that we are finally settling down and the Church will be better for it.

 

[JuanCarlos]

The intent of Vatican II was to open the Church up for the laity- in pre-conciliar times, teh focus was on the sanctification of the clergy- sometimes to the neglect of the laity. There aren’t many non-priest saints or non-nun saints. Vatican II kind of gave access to the common man the Church’s teachings.

This was the intent, IMHO

 

[scylla]

Since truth cannot change, the answer can be the Church itself didn’t change at all, it is supposed to be the same Church. There are no beliefs that changed as the Catholic Church is perfect, since it was founded by Jesus and never needs to change in belief.

What has changed is the focus of presentation. Since the Church was so strong and the Bishops\Priests felt that we should open up and share it with everyone Vatican II focused on presenting and sharing the faith with everyone.

You can see this in how that documents rather than defend the Church against misinterpretation, focus on presenting the faith to everyone. We can all argue about how wise this was and if this led to a hijacking of the documents since they were not made to be specific or dogmatic. They were made to inspire us to open up the Church, open up our practice of the faith to the world who previously was just guarded against.

I believe that the documents might be a little too optimistic in the good will of other people and of those who are reading them, which has led to numerous misinterpretations and misrepresentations.

If you read the documents it doesn’t say anything about nuns losing their habits, just update them. It doesn’t say anything about making a Church look like a gymnasium, it just said get rid of bad or non-religious art. It doesn’t say get rid of Latin, it just said we can use some vernacular to help us understand better. Most of the stuff that has happened in the last 40 or so years is not an honest implementation of Vatican II, it is just things got out of control.

The good thing is some people were listening, such as Mother Angelica (EWTN is a modern means of reaching out), Catholic Answers (using the web to share the Catholic Faith), Catholic Radio, is another example of trying to faithfully follow Vatican II. Independant Latin schools, Independant Catholic Schools
Catholic Magazines, etc…
Slowly but surely the proper implementation of Vatican II will follow and hopefully some of the bad stuff people are doing will fade away.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Pete_1]

Doctrine didn’t change that’s for sure but I think some disciplinary practices did, for example meatless friday’s became an optional penance instead of a requirement.

This is not true in England and many other countries, i think it’s only where the conference of bishops allows it, i don’t think this was changed at Vatican II
."

 

[Pious_Mat]

Believe it or not, Dempsey, VII didn’t tell religious to abandon their habits, and it seems that those who have are mostly the “spirit of Vatican II” people. And believe it or not, many, many people who are loyal to the Magisterium and are thankful for VII think that female religious ought to return to their habits, and that priests ought to dust off their old cassocks once in a while, or at least quit wearing street clothes all the time.

Different dress for the clergy and religious is a custom that has existed almost since persecution of Christians has been lifted.

Also, VII proposed that there be an option for parts of the mass to be vernacular, a “suggestion” that has been grossly misinterpreted.

 

[Lepanto]

One thing that changed is the way the Church has chosen to talk about herself. It used to be standard that expositions of the Church worked hierarchically from the top down (we talk about the papacy, episcopate, presbyterate, diaconate, religious life, and then the laity). Now the Church emphasizes the vocation common to all the faithful and thus speaks of the Church at large before focusing on particular subsets. This is reflected in the structural changes between the 1917 and 1983 codes of canon law.

I believe that the whole notion of the “common priesthood via baptism” (i.e., the priesthood of the laity) is a notion originally concocted by Martin Luther and adopted by V2.

Please let me know if my history is incorrect.

 

[stmaria]

I hear people say that no beliefs of the Church were actually changed, but apparently, some things did change which rustled some feathers of some of the Fathers. Could anyone name a couple of them?

Pope John XXIII said in his opening address to the Council that doctrine would be presented in such a way that it would be easier to understand. In my opinion just the opposite happened. I can read pre-Vatican II doctrine without any problem. It is very direct and unambiguous.
Opening address ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm
“The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously… The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing,** and the way in which it is presented is another…**

He said the Church would be more loving in regards to “our separated brothers”

“The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity…the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her.”

Did doctrine change? When I read Vatican II it is very confusing. It will say one thing and then say the opposite.Pre- Vatican II doctrine was very direct.
SUMMO IUGITER STUDIO
papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16summo.htm

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE GREGORY XVI
MAY 27, 1832
5…. You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. … Moreover, St. Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: “Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ.” Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this indeed is the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.” Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: “There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.”

MIRARI VOS
papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm#par13

ON LIBERALISM AND RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE GREGORY XVI
AUGUST 15, 1832
13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”
Continue-

 

[stmaria]

Pope Pius IX “Quanta Cura”
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm
…that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.”
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.
15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice.

1. Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.