What changed after Vatican II

[roadsend]

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

What you say is also very correct.
I do not see where anything that johnnykins said is inconsistent with what you are saying.

 

[johnnykins]

I don’t think we are on different sides of this, Ed. I, too, remember both pre and post VII. You posted about my precis:

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.

I posted the following which looks pretty darn consistent with what you posted:

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.

and I posted

“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.

BTW I also mentioned side by side translations…

Then you say:

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…"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.”

I agree, though I would contend the justification for dissent was the “Spirit of Vatican II”

Again, I’m not sure why you tore into my description and then largely agreed with it and went into another area concerning that time. I think we basically agree…

 

[The_Holy_War_11]

I typed in, “What does the Catholic Church teach about the Anti-Chtist, and the Whore of Babylon?”. Many sedavacantist websites said that Vatican II was the Harlot.

 

[johnnykins]

I typed in, “What does the Catholic Church teach about the Anti-Chtist, and the Whore of Babylon?”. Many sedavacantist websites said that Vatican II was the Harlot.

Well, as a legitimate Ecumenical Council, it clearly was not. The fact that it was misused is irrelevant as Truth is often misused. Otherwise your question really needs another thread…

 

[edwest2]

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

-Tim-

None of the other things I mentioned occurred in 1930.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think we are on different sides of this, Ed. I, too, remember both pre and post VII. You posted about my precis:

I posted the following which looks pretty darn consistent with what you posted:

and I posted

BTW I also mentioned side by side translations…

Then you say:

I agree, though I would contend the justification for dissent was the “Spirit of Vatican II”

Again, I’m not sure why you tore into my description and then largely agreed with it and went into another area concerning that time. I think we basically agree…

We do agree on some points but I cannot stress enough that the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” turned the real Vatican II into a scapegoat. Unfortunately, on the internet, it’s sometimes forgotten (by myself as well) that what is written is not private, it’s meant to be read by all. And I am sick and tired of reading about The Spirit of Vatican II - it’s a fiction created by those who, before the Council, wanted the restriction on the use of Artificial contraception loosened to some degree.

This is a direct link - a 100% direct link with the Sex without Love Revolution of 1968, and I remember hearing in the late 1960s and early 1970s at my Catholic school, the following from the Seniors in High School: “Hey, guys don’t gotta wear rubbers no more. The girls will just get on the Pill.” Illegal drugs began to appear in my Catholic High School. In 1973, in my last year of High School, a radical - in school - was telling me he was living with his girlfriend. I told him, matter of factly, that he knew this was wrong. But, in an angry voice - the same type of angry voice that’s been cultivated on too many internet forums, he said, “But we love each other!!” When I mentioned, in a nonjudgmental way, that they should get married, he ignored me. I didn’t bother him about it.

When people go into detail about the priest facing the people and the mass being in English, they make it sound like “It was the end of the world! That - that changed everything!!!”

We still had Eucharistic Adoration, Stations of the Cross, Holy Days of Obligation, etc. We also had Masses in Polish. But again, to paper over what really happened, I’ve also seen: “It was no longer mandatory to not eat meat on Friday!” It ruined everything!!!

I was no less Catholic after Vatican II than before, so I ask those who think that the Second Vatican Council did anything wrong to remember - it did not.

And I apologize if my comments seemed to be directed only at you. They were not.

What changed after Vatican II were the perverts and sexual deviants, including the pro-abortionists, subverting the Christian principles on which this nation was founded, and today, denying that those principles ever existed in the first place. A few years ago, I saw a printed photo of a man carrying a sign in Washington, D.C. that read: “America! Get off your knees!”

I warn everyone reading this that if you want a State where the government forces you to do things that go against your conscience to remember the former Soviet Union: abortion and atheism.

Wake up, my fellow Catholics. The Revolutionaries/Communists/Socialists and Destroy the Family Anarchists from the late 1960s brought this upon us by abusing our trust and enacting laws to turn this country against Christian principles or to teach us to ignore them.

That’s what changed.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Angel_Bradford]

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

That’s true although not necessarily a habit; a distinctive cross or pin specific to their order.

 

[Mike30]

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.

In theory it would have been if that is what happened. In practice more than a few communities, both male and female went totally bonkers in search of their roots and charism and experimented wildly in usually vain attempts to find them or understand them. It was this search that ended in the virtual decimation of many female religious orders and communities in particular. Among the male orders the Jesuits took off in directions that ignored the primitive charism entirely and started to morph into a totally different direction. The battles that took place between Pope Paul VI and John Paul II and the Society of Jesus are the stuff of legend.

It wasn’t pretty.

Thankfully, I think most of that silliness has passed into history.

At least I hope so. I really do.

 

[TimothyH]

None of the other things I mentioned occurred in 1930.

Peace,
Ed

Humanae Vitae was less about contraception in general than it was about “The pill” which had just been developed.

Some argued that the pill blocked ovulation and not pregnancy, and as such, it was not “Artificial” contraception but was actually using natural processes within a womans’ body to prevent pregnancy. Others argued that preventing pregnancy was the ultimate outcome and that the pill did that through artificial means.

But artificial contraception became socially acceptable after the August 1930 Lambeth Conference, held every ten years by the Anglican Church. Resolution 15 said…

Resolution 15
**The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex **
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

The issue was “other methods” and the floodgates opened. All the mainline denominations - Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc - all fell in line and for the first time in Christian history, artificial birth control was no longer considered a sin.

The Catholic Church’s response was scathing.

*CASTI CONNUBII
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

1. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.*

The phrase “Standing erect in the midst of moral ruin” is breathtaking.

Casti Connubii was issued by the Holy Father on the last day of 1930, after repeatedly asking the Anglical Church to clarify its statement about “Other methods” or to retract the statement all together.

Much of what you stated did start after 1930. The generation which saw protestant churches allow contraception became the generation which made condoms widely available over the counter and who started carrying them in their wallets. Playboy magazine was introduced in 1953 during that same generation. Colorado, California, Oregon and North Carolina legalized abortion (for rape, incest, etc) in 1967, two years before Humanae Vitae was written. Killing infants for conveninece was allowed in the USA two years before Humanae Vitae and any subsequent dissent.

Humanae Vitae was a huge catalyst, but was really about the pill and not contraception per se. That the message in it was distorted and used as an excuse to dissent by some is undeniable. But the sexual revolution has its roots in the generation which was told in the 1930’s that contraception was OK. That same generation matured in the 1950s and began to live the reality of recreational sex without consequences. Their Children demaned legalized abortion and legitimized “Single parents”, and the next generation invented the “morning after” pill.

But it all goes back to the Lambeth Conference in 1930.

-Tim-

 

[choliks]

In theory it would have been if that is what happened. In practice more than a few communities, both male and female went totally bonkers in search of their roots and charism and experimented wildly in usually vain attempts to find them or understand them. It was this search that ended in the virtual decimation of many female religious orders and communities in particular. Among the male orders the Jesuits took off in directions that ignored the primitive charism entirely and started to morph into a totally different direction. The battles that took place between Pope Paul VI and John Paul II and the Society of Jesus are the stuff of legend.

It wasn’t pretty.

Thankfully, I think most of that silliness has passed into history.

At least I hope so. I really do.

I understand it the other way around. When the religious orders started going back to their roots, a lot of them didn’t recognize what’s been happening. For them the original charism looked so alien to them, that they didn’t want any part of it. I do hope Brother JR would shed some light on this, as he was one of the few who testified to this.

I was wondering if you have anything in writing that I could read about your assertion that the Jesuits “took off in different directions ignoring their charism,” Or books about the legendary battles of Popes Paul and JPII and the Jesuits.

Otherwise, it remains an opinion that denigrates a religious order in good standing with the Church.

 

[fred_conty]

Maybe I can fill in a blank or two that was overlooked.

I remember the rearrangement of the sanctuary when the altar was brought to the front and the priest faced the people. That was a shock, a biggie. Then the altar rail disappeared. Wow.
Then Communion standing. Bingo. The reception in the hand, that was a humdinger. The people replaced the choir singing, and singing in English, and singing “Faith of our Fathers” one week and then the guitar group singing “folky” melodies, while the next week the organist got her act together and played “love Story” song during communion. This kept the priests busy thinking of how to convince everyone in their next sermon not to jump ship, but that it will all work out, and eventually how everyone will love all these changes, week after week.

I know it was hard on everyone.

But the best I have saved for last.

We no longer need to love God, only our neighbor. We can forget the St. Margaret Mary and St. John of the Cross, and all the other top saints who meditated and prayed over the passion and death of Jesus. Because of “social justice”, we now only had to think about our neighbor who we see, and forget about all that other stuff about Jesus’ passion and loving Jesus.
We must go out into the world and conquer it in the name of justice and love.

So what is the consequence of this drive to love the world? The sacraments, especially communion, and Confession, took a back seat, along with knowing right and wrong. Everyone just loves one another and just as you are with no change, and with everyone being equal in sin or out. God wasn’t mentioned, because God was dead. No thought about the Sacred Heart, Mary, prayer,commandments, because we threw away the rudder to our ship. How could we possibly think that we can give to others what we first don’t have within ourselves? But that was the philosophy of direction at that time.

I’ve bored everyone long enough. Have a great day.

.

 

[roadsend]

Maybe I can fill in a blank or two that was overlooked.

I remember the rearrangement of the sanctuary when the altar was brought to the front and the priest faced the people. That was a shock, a biggie. Then the altar rail disappeared. Wow.
Then Communion standing. Bingo. The reception in the hand, that was a humdinger. The people replaced the choir singing, and singing in English, and singing “Faith of our Fathers” one week and then the guitar group singing “folky” melodies, while the next week the organist got her act together and played “love Story” song during communion. This kept the priests busy thinking of how to convince everyone in their next sermon not to jump ship, but that it will all work out, and eventually how everyone will love all these changes, week after week.

I know it was hard on everyone.

But the best I have saved for last.

We no longer need to love God, only our neighbor. We can forget the St. Margaret Mary and St. John of the Cross, and all the other top saints who meditated and prayed over the passion and death of Jesus. Because of “social justice”, we now only had to think about our neighbor who we see, and forget about all that other stuff about Jesus’ passion and loving Jesus.
We must go out into the world and conquer it in the name of justice and love.

So what is the consequence of this drive to love the world? The sacraments, especially communion, and Confession, took a back seat, along with knowing right and wrong. Everyone just loves one another and just as you are with no change, and with everyone being equal in sin or out. God wasn’t mentioned, because God was dead. No thought about the Sacred Heart, Mary, prayer,commandments, because we threw away the rudder to our ship. How could we possibly think that we can give to others what we first don’t have within ourselves? But that was the philosophy of direction at that time.

I’ve bored everyone long enough. Have a great day.

.

I could not agree more except that you left out the parts where the organists were fired and replaced by the guitars and the piano player and the OCP started to market their banal music which replaced the sacred music we had been using for more than a thousand years. It is interesting that OCP hires quite a number of defrocked and renegade clergy to produce this tripe that most of us are inflicted with every Sunday.

 

[fred_conty]

Yes. That’s the way it was, very hurtful, and done in the name of the council.
What harm confusion can do.

The old saying “the proof is in the eating of the pudding” has been proven once again.
Look at where we are at today. I think everyone knows what I mean. In the 50’s the world would be compared to paradise against today’s world. Peace, peace, peace.

So maybe it would be wrong to say that these reforms in the church were responsible for this in some way, but it is apparent that the world has slid a long way down the hill since then. Maybe this would have happened anyway or maybe even worse. But to me, looking back, the 50’s was disney land, both in church and out.

Maybe I’ve been looking at the flesh pots of Egypt too much.

Just a thought of a senior crank.

 

[1AugustSon7]

A quibble: the Roman Rite Mass went from being said almost exclusively in Latin to being allowed to be said in the vernacular.

Another quibble, because historically only increasing parts or portions of the old rite were allowed to be said in the vulgar, which was during the 1960’s; however, with the new Mass being introduced in the early 1970’s, and the old mass being suppressed for public use, the old rite was only permitted in vernacular for a very short period of time (i.e. about a decade or so).

 

[edwest2]

Maybe I can fill in a blank or two that was overlooked.

I remember the rearrangement of the sanctuary when the altar was brought to the front and the priest faced the people. That was a shock, a biggie. Then the altar rail disappeared. Wow.
Then Communion standing. Bingo. The reception in the hand, that was a humdinger. The people replaced the choir singing, and singing in English, and singing “Faith of our Fathers” one week and then the guitar group singing “folky” melodies, while the next week the organist got her act together and played “love Story” song during communion. This kept the priests busy thinking of how to convince everyone in their next sermon not to jump ship, but that it will all work out, and eventually how everyone will love all these changes, week after week.

I know it was hard on everyone.

But the best I have saved for last.

We no longer need to love God, only our neighbor. We can forget the St. Margaret Mary and St. John of the Cross, and all the other top saints who meditated and prayed over the passion and death of Jesus. Because of “social justice”, we now only had to think about our neighbor who we see, and forget about all that other stuff about Jesus’ passion and loving Jesus.
We must go out into the world and conquer it in the name of justice and love.

So what is the consequence of this drive to love the world? The sacraments, especially communion, and Confession, took a back seat, along with knowing right and wrong. Everyone just loves one another and just as you are with no change, and with everyone being equal in sin or out. God wasn’t mentioned, because God was dead. No thought about the Sacred Heart, Mary, prayer,commandments, because we threw away the rudder to our ship. How could we possibly think that we can give to others what we first don’t have within ourselves? But that was the philosophy of direction at that time.

I’ve bored everyone long enough. Have a great day.

.

I was there before and after Vatican II. I was in Catholic school at the time. With all due respect, I heard none of that. None. And I heard none of that as the years passed either.

I was no less Catholic after Vatican II than before. And the same sins then remain the same sins today.

Peace,
Ed

 

[OraLabora]

Another quibble, because historically only increasing parts or portions of the old rite were allowed to be said in the vulgar, which was during the 1960’s; however, with the new Mass being introduced in the early 1970’s, and the old mass being suppressed for public use, the old rite was only permitted in vernacular for a very short period of time (i.e. about a decade or so).

I meant the Ordinary Form. It is supposed to be in Latin with the vernacular allowed when necessary.

 

[fred_conty]

I was there before and after Vatican II. I was in Catholic school at the time. With all due respect, I heard none of that. None. And I heard none of that as the years passed either.

I was no less Catholic after Vatican II than before. And the same sins then remain the same sins today.

Peace,
Ed

I’m happy that the transition was peaceful for you.

 

[fhansen]

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:

The Church began the task of learning to fulfill the greatest commandments-to truly love God and neighbor- with more honesty, openness, and sincerity than ever before, and challenging the whole world to do likewise, while many took it as a license to pursue their own naive liberal agendas. Fortunately God is patient and He’ll have his way via the council He inspired. Most councils in the past have raised plenty of controversy and dissension. Even Trent required decades for genuine change, reform, and its’ teachings to take hold in the Church universally-and it benefited us increasingly-and immensely- through the centuries that followed.

 

[Dirt]

It is a curious fact that while we debate and argue as to the effects of Vatican Council II and whether the Council was/is to blame for any of the destruction we have witnessed in The Church in the last 50 years, all one need do is read PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS By His Holiness Pope Saint Pius X and you will readily see that all of the turmoil, all of the desecration and destruction of the Liturgy, The Religious Orders, The Church was well under way at the end of the 1800’s.
One may argue that the Wording of some of the Documents of the last Council left open the ability to mis-translate or draw diverse meanings, but the Council itself did nothing but produce Documents. It was those who sought change who took the documents and utilized them to justify the wrecking of Sanctuaries and Faith.
Satan is “the father of all lies”, and numerous Pope’s and Saints have warned us about the assaults Mother Church would suffer, especially in the last days. Rather than flog a dead horse, Pray for a return to Sound Doctrine and solid tradition. Pray for Faithful Bishops and Priests. Pray for the Holy Father as he attempts to steer the Barq of Peter back on course.
St. Athanasius turned the tide of arianism with Prayer and fasting. We can do the same.

 

[anonymousdollz]

One of the things that changed after Vatican II ( I think) is that angels not mentioned in the Bible are not Catholic. Uriel who was the seraphim who drove Adam and Eve out of Eden however his name isn’t mentioned. So the only angles accepted by the Catholic faith are Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael.