What changed after Vatican II

[The_Holy_War_11]

I am new to the Catholic Church ( 5 months) so don’t think I’m dumb for asking, but what changes were made after Vatican II? Why do many traditional Catholics believe the Second Vatican Council is the great Harlot mentioned in Revelations? Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[adrift]

There were many changes that were attributed to the Spirit of Vatican II.
Every sacrament changed. The Mass went from being said in Latin to being said in vernacular languages. I believe for the most part it was a postive. What was negative was the excesses. I remember the sisters who taught me through away their habits and began to wear makeup.

Documents of Vatican II

Oh as a favorite teacher would say “There is no such thing as a dumb question, only dumb answers”

 

[Aelred_Minor]

There were many changes that were attributed to the Spirit of Vatican II.
Every sacrament changed. The Mass went from being said in Latin to being said in vernacular languages. I believe for the most part it was a postive. What was negative was the excesses. I remember the sisters who taught me through away their habits and began to wear makeup.

Documents of Vatican II

Oh as a favorite teacher would say “There is no such thing as a dumb question, only dumb answers”

To be clear, the sacraments themselves did not change, but the wording of the prayers and rituals involved in the administration of the sacraments changed, as well as in some cases the rules regarding the administration of the sacraments. As an example of the last point, the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, formerly usually called Extreme Unction, may now be given not just to those on the threashold of death but also to others who are seriously ill but not in immediate danger of death (the change in which name is prefered reflects the fact that the situation need not be as “extreme” as was once the case).

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I am new to the Catholic Church ( 5 months) so don’t think I’m dumb for asking, but what changes were made after Vatican II? Why do many traditional Catholics believe the Second Vatican Council is the great Harlot mentioned in Revelations? Thanks:thumbsup:

Ultimately there have been developments in nearly every aspect of the Church’s life since the early 1960s, not all directly because of the Council of course. The second half of the 20th Century (and now the first decade plus of the 21st) has been a heck of a time for all parts of Western Civilization, including the Western Church. To some extent it could be interpreted as the end of Western Civilization and its replacement by a successor culture. In any case the Church did not want to become just a relic of antiquity.

I’ve never heard of any “traditional Catholics” claiming the Second Vatican Council to be the Harlot of Revelations. That would be an extreme, fringe, un-Catholic position, akin to the Reformation-era Protestant claim that the Catholic Church Herself was the Harlot.

 

[roadsend]

…
I’ve never heard of any “traditional Catholics” claiming the Second Vatican Council to be the Harlot of Revelations. That would be an extreme, fringe, un-Catholic position, akin to the Reformation-era Protestant claim that the Catholic Church Herself was the Harlot.

Yup. I also have never heard any Catholic use any such expression.
The closest I have heard to this was the expression “smoke of Satan”. Pope Paul VI
apparently used this to describe unauthorized changes in Catholic practice after Vatican II.

 

[OraLabora]

There were many changes that were attributed to the Spirit of Vatican II.
Every sacrament changed. The Mass went from being said in Latin to being said in vernacular languages. I believe for the most part it was a postive. What was negative was the excesses. I remember the sisters who taught me through away their habits and began to wear makeup.

Documents of Vatican II

Oh as a favorite teacher would say “There is no such thing as a dumb question, only dumb answers”

A quibble: the Roman Rite Mass went from being said almost exclusively in Latin to being allowed to be said in the vernacular. The use of Latin for the Mass in principle remains the norm, yes even the Ordinary Form.

 

[choliks]

Something positive that’s commonly overlooked: Religious orders and congregations were asked to return to their roots and charism; that they should live how their founders intended them to live.

 

[OraLabora]

Something positive that’s commonly overlooked: Religious orders and congregations were asked to return to their roots and charism; that they should live how their founders intended them to live.

Excellent point!

 

[alwayslooking]

The restoration of the permanent diaconate. Was a good thing.

 

[ProVobis]

Yup. I also have never heard any Catholic use any such expression.
The closest I have heard to this was the expression “smoke of Satan”. Pope Paul VI
apparently used this to describe unauthorized changes in Catholic practice after Vatican II.

Sounds like a pretty severe charge coming from the Pope. I’ve heard this but I wonder if any other Pope in Church history had made such a comment as a result of something he himself implemented or signed. Just saying.

 

[Rich_C]

Basically, the council made 16 documents and went home. Immediately some big changes were made to the Mass that had hardly changed in the grand scheme of things for over 1,000 years. It seems that no doctrine changed but people widely believed that everything had changed.

A few years later, after the council, a special group wrote a new Mass based on the ancient one but simpler, more vague in places, with modernized, less spiritual language. It was generally translated into the vernacular and the Latin original is rarely prayed.

At the same time, the outward form of all the other sacraments and Divine Office was changed in a similar manner, and the liturgical calendar was revised. By 1973 this was all complete.

Unfortunately, in the wider cultural shift in the West in the late 20th century, the traditional Catholic worldview has been largely lost as well.

But it’s the same Church, the same Sacrifice, the same promise.

Forums like this exist because a minority of Catholics (myself included) find the Faith more clearly taught and most joyfully lived in the old ways that pre-dated the Council. The Church has made it clear that these older forms have not been rejected and the faithful can live that way while being totally obedient to Holy Mother Church.

 

[OraLabora]

Minor point I suppose, but although the Divine Office also changed, at the time of the change the Divine Office in use was only 60 years old when the LOTH came out in 1970, and before 1970 much experimentation was allowed.

Though it was a pretty big change, maybe even bigger than the change to the Mass. But so too were the 1910 changes a major break with tradition. We as laity didn’t really see it as before 1970 the laity weren’t really encouraged to pray the Divine Office. Believe me though it had a huge impact on religious communities and clergy bound to the Office, which is why the GILH permitted the older Office to continue, mostly for the benefit of elder clergy, for whom change was too difficult. Monastics though, had to follow whatever the abbot decided.

 

[TimothyH]

The restoration of the permanent diaconate. Was a good thing.

Along with the introduction of philosphy as a means to study theology and the introduction of the mendicant orders, I think this is perhaps one of the two or three least understood and least appreciated changes in the last 1000 years.

-Tim-

 

[Angel_Bradford]

There were many changes that were attributed to the Spirit of Vatican II.
Every sacrament changed. The Mass went from being said in Latin to being said in vernacular languages. I believe for the most part it was a postive. What was negative was the excesses. I remember **the sisters who taught me through away their habits **and began to wear makeup.

Documents of Vatican II

Oh as a favorite teacher would say “There is no such thing as a dumb question, only dumb answers”

Actually, there were religious orders whose founders never intended them to wear habits, but were forced to by the Church. They were allowed to return to their founders original intentention.

 

[adrift]

To be clear, the sacraments themselves did not change, but the wording of the prayers and rituals involved in the administration of the sacraments changed, as well as in some cases the rules regarding the administration of the sacraments. As an example of the last point, the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, formerly usually called Extreme Unction, may now be given not just to those on the threashold of death but also to others who are seriously ill but not in immediate danger of death (the change in which name is prefered reflects the fact that the situation need not be as “extreme” as was once the case).

Thank you for clarifying. I had thought about this as I wrote but forgot by the end of the sentenc. I am glad you caught it.

 

[adrift]

Actually, there were religious orders whose founders never intended them to wear habits, but were forced to by the Church. They were allowed to return to their founders original intentention.

The Church still asks that they have some sort of distinction that will set them apart.

 

[johnnykins]

I am new to the Catholic Church ( 5 months) so don’t think I’m dumb for asking, but what changes were made after Vatican II?..

The changes are many and varied, and are mostly attributable to the interpretations called “The Spirit of Vatican II” of the Church documents rather than actual proclamations of the Council.

Use of the vernacular in stead of Latin in the Latin Rite. There were/are several reactions to that. Use of Latin meant no matter where you went, the Mass was in the same language. Since Latin was a dead language, i.e., no one spoke it in conversational use, the meaning of words was fixed allowing for real specificity in meaning. Of course many did not understand Latin. Use of the vernacular offered a greater accessibility than side-by-side translations. However, due to the fluidity of a living language translations and colloquial usage allowed for greater disparity and controversy over what was said and meant. Cf things like translating (or mis-translating) “pro multis” as “for all” or “Credo” for “We believe” and a host of others such things. In effect that change became the rallying cry for reform. Hence the screaming as it is brought back, and as translations are made more literal and less dynamic.

The pre-concillar Church was much more authoritative - often decried as steeped in clericalism. VII called for greater participation by the laity and less authority in the hands of the Bishops. Perhaps, on its face a good thing, but this led to all sorts of strange dissent and murkiness. The good thing about a strong central order - is it’s clear where and how to get an answer; and who gives the answer. The weakness is a tendency toward a sort of despotism. The irony, of course, is that the despotism of the Bishop and Rome simply substituted the despotism of the cool priest and parish liturgist. In stead of one or a few despots, every parish had a different one…

The change of the rituals became a cry that everything and anything goes. Out went Palestrina and chant and in came folk rock. (Admittedly out went some awful 19th and 20th century treacly goo passing as music, too, but what came in was nothing more than bad syncopated dreck that was often heretical) Out went solemnity and in came the hootenanny. The rubrics became optional for all practical purposes in the name of being relevant to the young. Of course, teaching the faith lost out to the I’M OK/ You’re OK philosophy of the time. Of course, without catechesis of any real sort, defections by the youth grew; and mom and dad left, too as they saw that syncretism was the order of the day, so why bother. Vocations dried up and many priests, sisters, and brothers left their orders in a similar reaction to lack of any clear doctrine beyond “do good” whatever that may be…

“The Spirit of Vatican II” - came to be the deformed brother of what was proclaimed by the Vatican II documents, and that Spirit held sway for 30+ years hiding the eternal Truth proclaimed by Holy Mother Church and elevated the passing chaff of the 60s/70s zeitgeist.

There are still those out there fighting for a theology of syncretic meaningless bad taste and apostasy, but the ship has turned.

That’s what the screaming is about in relationship to use of Latin, the new translation, use of chant, following the rubrics, use of fiddleback chasubles and all the rest .

 

[roadsend]

The changes are many and varied, and are mostly attributable to the interpretations called “The Spirit of Vatican II” of the Church documents rather than actual proclamations of the Council.

Use of the vernacular in stead of Latin in the Latin Rite. There were/are several reactions to that. Use of Latin meant no matter where you went, the Mass was in the same language. Since Latin was a dead language, i.e., no one spoke it in conversational use, the meaning of words was fixed allowing for real specificity in meaning. Of course many did not understand Latin. Use of the vernacular offered a greater accessibility than side-by-side translations. However, due to the fluidity of a living language translations and colloquial usage allowed for greater disparity and controversy over what was said and meant. Cf things like translating (or mis-translating) “pro multis” as “for all” or “Credo” for “We believe” and a host of others such things. In effect that change became the rallying cry for reform. Hence the screaming as it is brought back, and as translations are made more literal and less dynamic.

The pre-concillar Church was much more authoritative - often decried as steeped in clericalism. VII called for greater participation by the laity and less authority in the hands of the Bishops. Perhaps, on its face a good thing, but this led to all sorts of strange dissent and murkiness. The good thing about a strong central order - is it’s clear where and how to get an answer; and who gives the answer. The weakness is a tendency toward a sort of despotism. The irony, of course, is that the despotism of the Bishop and Rome simply substituted the despotism of the cool priest and parish liturgist. In stead of one or a few despots, every parish had a different one…

The change of the rituals became a cry that everything and anything goes. Out went Palestrina and chant and in came folk rock. (Admittedly out went some awful 19th and 20th century treacly goo passing as music, too, but what came in was nothing more than bad syncopated dreck that was often heretical) Out went solemnity and in came the hootenanny. The rubrics became optional for all practical purposes in the name of being relevant to the young. Of course, teaching the faith lost out to the I’M OK/ You’re OK philosophy of the time. Of course, without catechesis of any real sort, defections by the youth grew; and mom and dad left, too as they saw that syncretism was the order of the day, so why bother. Vocations dried up and many priests, sisters, and brothers left their orders in a similar reaction to lack of any clear doctrine beyond “do good” whatever that may be…

“The Spirit of Vatican II” - came to be the deformed brother of what was proclaimed by the Vatican II documents, and that Spirit held sway for 30+ years hiding the eternal Truth proclaimed by Holy Mother Church and elevated the passing chaff of the 60s/70s zeitgeist.

There are still those out there fighting for a theology of syncretic meaningless bad taste and apostasy, but the ship has turned.

That’s what the screaming is about in relationship to use of Latin, the new translation, use of chant, following the rubrics, use of fiddleback chasubles and all the rest .

Pretty darn good summary.

 

[edwest2]

A pretty poor summary. I was there before and after Vatican II. None of the changes were even suggested by the Council. The Spirit of Vatican II is a smokescreen with no connection to the actual documents. You could get the Saint Joseph Daily Missal with the English and Latin on the same page.

What some writers tend to ignore is the actual bomb dropped by the Radicals and Anarchists in 1968 in response to Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. That, not anything having to do with Vatican II, brought great confusion to a naive, trusting and mostly Christian nation. I was there. And I could see how some people, both old and young, could be duped into believing certain experts and wolves in sheep’s clothing. Our trust was taken advantage of, and lies were spread and deceptions occurred. Just prior to this, most Americans were more trusting of their government and experts in general. The ACLU had not yet waged their campaign to declare Nativities in front of public buildings unconstitutional! The same with religious monuments inside public buildings. OUT!

By upholding constant Church teaching about artificial birth control, including The Pill, Pope Paul VI got this in response:

"In the encyclical, the Holy Father courageously reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that, in the words of the encyclical, “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of new life” (No. 11).

"It caused a firestorm.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Got that? The Sex without Love Revolution meant a full-scale attack against the Church began. The goal: All the way up to today, sex with anyone at any time - no strings attached. And it’s “just sex,” like going to the bathroom.

The dissenters inside and outside the Church went to work.

The Pill.
Adult Bookstores exposing what was meant to be private to public view.
Topless bars.
Strip clubs.
In the 1970s, Swingers magazines with hundreds of ads and nude photos from people looking for no-strings attached sex.

It was legal, and that made it OK, for some.

Then abortion in 1973, created by a vague right to privacy and “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Constitution.

Nope. We were duped.

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402

What was "normal’ just a few years prior, became more and more abnormal as the years passed. Love and the family. Feminist Betty Friedan called the family “a comfortable concentration camp.” Feminist Gloria Steinem said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” In the 1970s, radical feminists were telling their “sisters” to get out of the house and get a career. All men were the enemy, and they, the eternal victims. What a great way to convince people to divorce when No-Fault Divorce completed its sweep of the country in the 1980s. Hey, it’s nobody’s fault. No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE. And the kids? What about them?

Peace,
Ed

 

[TimothyH]

A pretty poor summary. I was there before and after Vatican II. None of the changes were even suggested by the Council. The Spirit of Vatican II is a smokescreen with no connection to the actual documents. You could get the Saint Joseph Daily Missal with the English and Latin on the same page.

What some writers tend to ignore is the actual bomb dropped by the Radicals and Anarchists in 1968 in response to Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. That, not anything having to do with Vatican II, brought great confusion to a naive, trusting and mostly Christian nation. I was there. And I could see how some people, both old and young, could be duped into believing certain experts and wolves in sheep’s clothing. Our trust was taken advantage of, and lies were spread and deceptions occurred. Just prior to this, most Americans were more trusting of their government and experts in general. The ACLU had not yet waged their campaign to declare Nativities in front of public buildings unconstitutional! The same with religious monuments inside public buildings. OUT!

By upholding constant Church teaching about artificial birth control, including The Pill, Pope Paul VI got this in response:

"In the encyclical, the Holy Father courageously reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that, in the words of the encyclical, “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of new life” (No. 11).

"It caused a firestorm.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Got that? The Sex without Love Revolution meant a full-scale attack against the Church began. The goal: All the way up to today, sex with anyone at any time - no strings attached. And it’s “just sex,” like going to the bathroom.

The dissenters inside and outside the Church went to work.

The Pill.
Adult Bookstores exposing what was meant to be private to public view.
Topless bars.
Strip clubs.
In the 1970s, Swingers magazines with hundreds of ads and nude photos from people looking for no-strings attached sex.

It was legal, and that made it OK, for some.

Then abortion in 1973, created by a vague right to privacy and “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Constitution.

Nope. We were duped.

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402

What was "normal’ just a few years prior, became more and more abnormal as the years passed. Love and the family. Feminist Betty Friedan called the family “a comfortable concentration camp.” Feminist Gloria Steinem said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” In the 1970s, radical feminists were telling their “sisters” to get out of the house and get a career. All men were the enemy, and they, the eternal victims. What a great way to convince people to divorce when No-Fault Divorce completed its sweep of the country in the 1980s. Hey, it’s nobody’s fault. No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE. And the kids? What about them?

Peace,
Ed

All of this actually started in 1930 when the Anglican Church became the first to allow contraception.

-Tim-