What affect has Vatican II had on the Catholic Church?

[Onegin]

As a child (I am a senior) I recall how Catholics could not even enter a Protestant church (a mortal sin!), how Catholic priests had no association with Protestant clergy, how mixed marriages had to be performed in rectories rather than at the altar, how (in my home village) there was tension whenever there was a bacculaureate (sp?) service at public high school graduations if it were to be held in a Protestant church, etc.

That’s probably at least partly because extra ecclasium nulla salus was taught differently back then than it is today. Or was taught, or emphasized, or something. So people took the Protestant/Catholic distinction more seriously, I think.

 

[palmas85]

I come from a mixed Catholic-Protestant background. To me Vatican II was very positive, a move forward.

As a child (I am a senior) I recall how Catholics could not even enter a Protestant church (a mortal sin!), how Catholic priests had no association with Protestant clergy, how mixed marriages had to be performed in rectories rather than at the altar, how (in my home village) there was tension whenever there was a bacculaureate (sp?) service at public high school graduations if it were to be held in a Protestant church, etc. The Catholic and Protestant sides of the family lived at peace, but some of both were convinced that those not of their faith were destined to hell. A ridiculous situation. I also recall how the mass was all in Latin, there was no congregational singing, the priests were considered all but infallible, the nuns wore penguin-like habits, women (I have been told) were not permitted on the altar except to clean it, mothers often did not attend the baptism of their own new babies - and we could go on and on.

 Certainly Vatican II helped the image of Catholicism among non-Catholics. A new feeling of Christian fellowship emerged, and it still exists in such organizations as Church Women United, ecumenical soup kitchen efforts, local clergy groups, and such. Unfortunately, there are still some within Catholicism who want to go back to the 'good old days'. I don't recall them as being so good, myself. They were a time of silly bigotry, too much of which still lingers, as CAF proves.

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, and all of God's children.

I am not surprised. Most protestants were quite pleased with the results of Vatican II as were those that came from mixed families, the Orthodox, Muslims Hindus, Buddhists and and just about everyone outside of those who believed in traditional Roman Catholicism. Yes Vatican II did improve the view of the Roman Church in those peoples eyes. Do you want to know why?

Because in one fell swoop, the Church changed, re-worded is a more appropriate word, I guess, it’s view of other faiths, thus lending some credence to their claims as being justified and valid faiths. It is hard to see how those of any other faith would not be jumping up and down with joy at the Council. I can see them now joyfully clapping the nights away…

Yep, we got the Church now:thumbsup:. She is starting to give in.:clapping: Pretty soon no more rosaries, no more public processions, no more confessing to a man, no more praying to Mary and the Saints:clapping: no more rules on receiving Holy Communion etc. We can finally finish the job that Luther and Huss started. She’s on her knees now boys, lets finish her off.

Yeah, I can see how you would be positively ecstatic over it.

Oh and by the way, your two statements about penguin like habits and mothers not attending their own childrens baptisms gave you away completely. Jack Chick would be proud:thumbsup:

 

[CWBetts]

I am not surprised. Most protestants were quite pleased with the results of Vatican II as were those that came from mixed families, the Orthodox, Muslims Hindus, Buddhists and and just about everyone outside of those who believed in traditional Roman Catholicism. Yes Vatican II did improve the view of the Roman Church in those peoples eyes. Do you want to know why?

Because in one fell swoop, the Church changed, re-worded is a more appropriate word, I guess, it’s view of other faiths, thus lending some credence to their claims as being justified and valid faiths. It is hard to see how those of any other faith would not be jumping up and down with joy at the Council. I can see them now joyfully clapping the nights away…

Yep, we got the Church now:thumbsup:. She is starting to give in.:clapping: Pretty soon no more rosaries, no more public processions, no more confessing to a man, no more praying to Mary and the Saints:clapping: no more rules on receiving Holy Communion etc. We can finally finish the job that Luther and Huss started. She’s on her knees now boys, lets finish her off.

Yeah, I can see how you would be positively ecstatic over it.

Oh and by the way, your two statements about penguin like habits and mothers not attending their own childrens baptisms gave you away completely. Jack Chick would be proud:thumbsup:

I think you may be exaggerating just a bit

 

[Rites]

I recall how Catholics could not even enter a Protestant church (a mortal sin!)

Perfectly reasonable given that Catholics consider Protestants as belonging to heretical sects.

how Catholic priests had no association with Protestant clergy

The problem with this being? Protestants hold false views, so in general it’s much safer for the clergy to avoid them unless trying to convert them.

how mixed marriages had to be performed in rectories rather than at the altar

Liturgically that was not always the case. But the full marriage ceremonial should be reserved only for marriages between Catholics.

The Catholic and Protestant sides of the family lived at peace, but some of both were convinced that those not of their faith were destined to hell. A ridiculous situation.

Those not of the Catholic faith are in danger of going to hell unless they convert before their death. That is orthodox Catholic doctrine. Believing that we’re all good people and that nobody has to worry about hell is a serious error.

I also recall how the mass was all in Latin

As it had been for centuries upon centuries.

there was no congregational singing

At a Low Mass perhaps. But at sung Masses there should have been sung responses and such. If there weren’t then that was a problem.

the priests were considered all but infallible

They were more respected in those days because they were considered to be more than just laymen. They were in sacred orders and were therefore deserving of the reverence proper to them. Some people carried this to far, granted, but even that was far better than the anti-clericalism of today.

the nuns wore penguin-like habits

The fact that you didn’t care for their style of habits does not mean that their wearing them was in any way indecent.

women (I have been told) were not permitted on the altar except to clean it

Traditionally they weren’t allowed in the sanctuary even in that case. To understand why, one might benefit greatly from the Byzantine explanation: The altar is the holiest place on earth, and hence only those ordained to its service should ever approach it. That’s why it was preferable for even laymen to stay out of the sanctuary unless no clerics were around to fulfill the necessary functions.

mothers often did not attend the baptism of their own new babies

Many times this was because they wanted them baptized as soon as possible and were not recovered in time to see it take place. This is not an issue. What is an issue is the idea that baptisms are socials of some kind that demand the presence of the whole family; and while having the family there is certainly desirable, it is in no way required for the validity or licitness of the sacrament.

Certainly Vatican II helped the image of Catholicism among non-Catholics. A new feeling of Christian fellowship emerged, and it still exists in such organizations as Church Women United, ecumenical soup kitchen efforts, local clergy groups, and such.

The Church is supposed to be despised by those who are outside of Her. The truths of Catholicism are hard, and Our Lord specifically said that those who hold to them will be ridiculed and spat on. This “Christian fellowship” you speak of is more often than not an instance of us dumbing down our doctrines so people will like us. Salvation does not come through friendship. Even if it did, confirming people in their errors is hardly a friendly thing to do.

Unfortunately, there are still some within Catholicism who want to go back to the ‘good old days’. I don’t recall them as being so good, myself. They were a time of silly bigotry, too much of which still lingers, as CAF proves.

I must unconditionally disagree. The things you spoke of as being problems that VII somehow corrected were simply examples of orthodoxy showing forth in people’s daily lives. That they are now mostly gone is a deplorable consequence of modern man’s “new and improved” way of thinking.

 

[srp643]

Rites, I agree with your responses.

I wish the OP had added another category to the poll: “Complete and utter disaster”

The statistics cited above speak for themselves.

Michael Davies helped me understand so much of what happened in *Pope John’s Council. *Catholics can better understand the situation we are in if they understand the main forces in the Council.

Let us move forward with what created all of our saints.

 

[palmas85]

I think you may be exaggerating just a bit

Maybe, but not too much. There was and still is a lot of hatred for the Traditional Roman Church, and what she stood for, both in and out of the Church… You only have to look to some of the posts on this forum to see that.

 

[At_Trent]

You don’t understand what I said. Polling is not about hit-and-miss opinions. It’s applied mathematics…

I wasn’t talking about polls, but no big deal.

 

[Lormar]

Maybe, but not too much. There was and still is a lot of hatred for the Traditional Roman Church, and what she stood for, both in and out of the Church… You only have to look to some of the posts on this forum to see that.

You’ve got that 100% right.

 

[CWBetts]

Maybe, but not too much. There was and still is a lot of hatred for the Traditional Roman Church, and what she stood for, both in and out of the Church… You only have to look to some of the posts on this forum to see that.

That’s funny. Most of the hatred I have seen has NOT been from mainstream Catholics

 

[Layman]

You clearly do not know how to think in a critical manner and that impacts a great many postings on these forums. You offer your opinion that VC2 is the reason for some problems that may or may not actually exist. They key is that you really don’t know.

Sure you can list items that raise one’s emotions but all that does is take the focus off the real question: What would the Church be like today had VC2 never taken place? You cannot answer that, you can only provide an opinion. We would need to know that in order to truly ascertain the impact of VC2.

Sure I know. So does everyone that has attended the old and new rite in recent times. So does everyone that has read even a little about the Council, the events leading up to it and what happened after.

**That it made up a new Mass on the spot is bad enough. That such a major change could occur emboldened many clergy to make further changes to our worship which were not envisaged by the council. **This is not opinion. It is historical fact.

I am in the UK, in London. You can now get to Latin Mass here without too much trouble, but the complete Easter Triduum will mean travel for many. Imagine my surprise to find it was and is quite rare in Ireland. We are now told it wasn’t forbidden. That’s the creepy thing about a lot of the changes: none of them were in line with tradition and/or the GIRM and/or the reigning Pope; they were just done and got an indult or the rules were just ignored “in the Spirit Of Vatican II”.

Speaking to traditionalists, it still requires bravery for a priest to say the old rite in some dioceses. Imagine, a priest has to be careful what Mass he says!. Depressing.

**If a new rite had not been made, anyone who wanted to say the old one as per the texts could do so. ****The Vat. II Council has split the Church between it’s past and present and between traditionalists and modernists. **

What I’ve read is now occuring is a rear-guard action against the resurgence of rigour. Watch how poor Pope Benedict is hounded. Observe which prelates make moves to appeal to the liberal wing of the Church, preparing the ground for the next election.

 

[mick321]

I condemn every abuse cited and then some. I religiously avoid the OF. I will never accept communion in the hand. The sight of altargirls, emhc’s, lay presiders, dancers and guitar players prancing around the sanctuary makes me sick.

Most of all, I am repulsed when some Post-V2-Novus-Ordo-Neo-Catholic demands that I produce evidence that any of these things are abuses. I don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.

That said, present evidence that any official document of Vatican II REQUIRES any abuse of the Classical Roman Liturgy. Or stand down.

 

[Lormar]

I realize we live in a world that is a cess pool, but must we be vulgar on a traditional Catholic forum?

 

[edwest2]

Sure I know. So does everyone that has attended the old and new rite in recent times. So does everyone that has read even a little about the Council, the events leading up to it and what happened after.

**That it made up a new Mass on the spot is bad enough. That such a major change could occur emboldened many clergy to make further changes to our worship which were not envisaged by the council. **This is not opinion. It is historical fact.

I am in the UK, in London. You can now get to Latin Mass here without too much trouble, but the complete Easter Triduum will mean travel for many. Imagine my surprise to find it was and is quite rare in Ireland. We are now told it wasn’t forbidden. That’s the creepy thing about a lot of the changes: none of them were in line with tradition and/or the GIRM and/or the reigning Pope; they were just done and got an indult or the rules were just ignored “in the Spirit Of Vatican II”.

Speaking to traditionalists, it still requires bravery for a priest to say the old rite in some dioceses. Imagine, a priest has to be careful what Mass he says!. Depressing.

**If a new rite had not been made, anyone who wanted to say the old one as per the texts could do so. ****The Vat. II Council has split the Church between it’s past and present and between traditionalists and modernists. **

What I’ve read is now occuring is a rear-guard action against the resurgence of rigour. Watch how poor Pope Benedict is hounded. Observe which prelates make moves to appeal to the liberal wing of the Church, preparing the ground for the next election.

Well, well, I think someone’s spotted the problem. It ‘the liberal wing.’

And what is the penalty for saying the wrong Mass?

As a Traditional Roman Catholic, I don’t see what all the Vatican II fuss is all about. The liberals or dissidents saw their chance and took it along with their allies, known and unknown, in the secular world. It was time, they decided, to beat the Church up in an unfair fight.

Now, I’ll try this only once: When I walked in for my first English language, priest facing us Mass, I Did Not Freak Out. I was not filled with sinful thoughts. I did not suddenly become less Catholic.

God bless,
Ed

 

[mick321]

I realize we live in a world that is a cess pool, but must we be vulgar on a traditional Catholic forum?

Under the circumstances, absolutely.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Vatican II, was meant to renew our traditions, and for a fresh outpoor of the Holy Spirit. It was never intended for ugly churches, dancing priests, bare sanctuaries (actually, the sanctuary was never supposed to change). What happened, was the times. 'Twas the 60’s. People misinterpreted the council.

but that is exactly what we got. is it not? and i dont see the holy father say any different. the NO Mass continued to be encouraged and the Traditional Mass continues to be suppressed.
if it was not what the VII produced, then what happened? that is something i really would like to know. i dont mean for the thread to be derailed. but this is a question that no one has been able to answer.

youtube.com/user/wordonfirevideo#p/u/54/rbL0wAiZ1P4

great info here

sensustraditionis.org/multimedia.html then click on **Pentecost. **

 

[Lycorth]

I like being able to attend Mass on Saturday and fulfill my weekly obligation thus. I think that is very useful for Catholics. Overall, I think that’s it. I’m becoming more and more convinced that VII was otherwise a bust.

But where can I find the text of this Humane Generis? I can’t seem to find it anywhere.

 

[Roy5]

If the poll results and the majority of CAF postings on this questions represent Catholicism it certainly is deeply divided. However, my impression is that the vast majority of lay Catholics are happy with the changes Vatican II brought about. Certainly that is the opinion I hear most of the time. I did have a sister-in-law who worried that the ‘mystery’ of the Mass had been compromised, but gradually she came along and didn’t want to go back.
My wife's bitter memories of her days in parochial school affected her attitude toward the church, especially the cruelty of a couple nuns - plus rules she thought were silly. Once, for example, at age 8, she was sent home and her mother castigated because she had worn a dress that morning whose sleeves apparently were too short (she was dressed 'indecently') as it was the day all the students went to Mass. She never forgot the humiliation involved, and - after a few more such incidents - her parents sent her to public school. She never had a fondness for the church after those experiences.

 

[edwest2]

I like being able to attend Mass on Saturday and fulfill my weekly obligation thus. I think that is very useful for Catholics. Overall, I think that’s it. I’m becoming more and more convinced that VII was otherwise a bust.

But where can I find the text of this Humane Generis? I can’t seem to find it anywhere.

Actually, it’s Humanae Vitae. This was the turning point. The cause for the Sexual Revolution and the excuse for all of the attacks on the family and the distorted view of human sexuality that followed and was accelerated by the media:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

How did we get to this point? The Pill, followed by the Hippies, followed by lawyers and judges that helped to legalize sin, including abortion.

God bless,
Ed

 

[CWBetts]

If the poll results and the majority of CAF postings on this questions represent Catholicism it certainly is deeply divided. However, my impression is that the vast majority of lay Catholics are happy with the changes Vatican II brought about. Certainly that is the opinion I hear most of the time. I did have a sister-in-law who worried that the ‘mystery’ of the Mass had been compromised, but gradually she came along and didn’t want to go back.

 My wife's bitter memories of her days in parochial school affected her attitude toward the church, especially the cruelty of a couple nuns - plus rules she thought were silly. Once, for example, at age 8, she was sent home and her mother castigated because she had worn a dress that morning whose sleeves apparently were too short (she was dressed 'indecently') as it was the day all the students went to Mass. She never forgot the humiliation involved, and - after a few more such incidents - her parents sent her to public school. She never had a fondness for the church after those experiences.

I don’t think Catholicism is as deeply divided as the poll suggests. This forum, in particular, is heavily skewed.

 

[palmas85]

That’s funny. Most of the hatred I have seen has NOT been from mainstream Catholics

From who then?