What changed after Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Holy_War_11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
johnnykins said:
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 .
Click to expand...
Bless you brother for speaking truth
 
The_Holy_War_11 said:
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:
Click to expand...
Welcome to the fold!

There has been a lot of confusion on this subject. You question is a very good question. Most Catholics including bishops and preist would have trouble answering.

Its easier answered what didnt change due to VatII.

This website is an awesome research toll for you. You can also YOUTUBE Micheal Voris
and Cardinal Arinze for easy to understand information about our church.
 
There should be no confusion about this subject at all. At times, it appears there are some that purposely try to create confusion. Catholics need to get it straight. Vatican II ushered in zero changes regarding specific things attributed to the FAKE “Spirit of Vatican II” which is a completely fictional phrase.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Peace,
Ed
 
To be a Catholic in those days of John’s papacy and the Council was to be involved enthusiastically in a Church that was committed to becoming a true servant to everyone, to fight for civil rights for all, to overcome the tragedies of the first half of the 20th Century (world wars, totalitarian regimes, world wide economic collapse, the Shoah, the nuclear age and the Cold War). We were supposed to be a “soul and leaven” for society, working for the common good of all. It’s what brought so many of us into ministry. But as another worried friend has often said, "These days, we have walked far from Galilee. . . "!
 
Swiss_Guy said:
Wasn’t there always a diaconate?:confused:
Click to expand...
There was always a diaconate, but the permanent deacons faded aways and what was left were transitional deacons who were studying for the priesthood. Vatican II reinstated the permanent dioaconate.
 
ProVobis said:
Pope Paul VI restored the “permanent” diaconate in 1967.

deaconsforlife.org/articles/fournierpermdeac.htm
Click to expand...
From your link:
“The Council of Trent (1545-63) called for the restoration of the permanent diaconate for the entire Church. But it was not until the Second Vatican Council, four centuries later, that this direction was implemented. The Council Fathers explicitly stated their purpose as threefold: to enhance the Church, to strengthen with sacred orders those men already engaged in diaconal functions, and to provide assistance to areas suffering clerical shortages.”
 
Angel_Bradford said:
From your link:
“The Council of Trent (1545-63) called for the restoration of the permanent diaconate for the entire Church. But it was not until the Second Vatican Council, four centuries later, that this direction was implemented. The Council Fathers explicitly stated their purpose as threefold: to enhance the Church, to strengthen with sacred orders those men already engaged in diaconal functions, and to provide assistance to areas suffering clerical shortages.”
Click to expand...
My uncle who lives in California is a permanent deacon. 🙂
 
choliks said:
My uncle who lives in California is a permanent deacon. 🙂
Click to expand...
Does that mean he has committed never to be a priest? 🙂

Technically all deacons are permanent, even when they ordained to the priesthood or episcopal position.
 
I still take Holy comm from the mouth and not the by the hand and as i live in Germany im pretty much the only one that does it …but as far as i undersatnd it taking Holy Comm with the hand is an opition that was offered after Vatican II and it did not mean you had to take it by hand ? …As in Ireland many popel still take it by mouth not hand
 
ProVobis said:
Does that mean he has committed never to be a priest? 🙂

Technically all deacons are permanent, even when they ordained to the priesthood or episcopal position.
Click to expand...
Yep. He’s married for over 30 years now (without a child though). I don’t think the priesthood entered his mind when he became a deacon.
 
Paul_Andrew_T said:
I still take Holy comm from the mouth and not the by the hand and as i live in Germany im pretty much the only one that does it …but as far as i undersatnd it taking Holy Comm with the hand is an opition that was offered after Vatican II and it did not mean you had to take it by hand ? …As in Ireland many popel still take it by mouth not hand
Click to expand...
That is correct. There is no obligation to receive Holy Communion in the hand.
 
ProVobis said:
Does that mean he has committed never to be a priest? 🙂

Technically all deacons are permanent, even when they ordained to the priesthood or episcopal position.
Click to expand...
You are techincally correct; all priests are deacons but not all deacons are priest. However the permanent diaconate is seen as a separate vocation from the priesthood and is not meant to be a stepping stone to the priesthood. Although there have been permanent deacons who did go on to become priests.
 
Paul_Andrew_T said:
I still take Holy comm from the mouth and not the by the hand and as i live in Germany im pretty much the only one that does it …but as far as i undersatnd it taking Holy Comm with the hand is an opition that was offered after Vatican II and it did not mean you had to take it by hand ? …As in Ireland many popel still take it by mouth not hand
Click to expand...
When was communion in the hand allowed?
I seem to remember that it was somewhere in the 1980’s in the United States. I believe Canada had it before the U.S.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top