what is vatican 2 and why is it contraversal ?

[ralphinal]

Also JP2 had alot of good ideas. Like for instance Pastorial Council, which I am in now and learning about. ITs a way of getting us to help the Priest in his everyday dutys so he can preach the word of God. Its a good thing. It shows us that its our house and not just Gods house and the Priests house. We have got off too easy just going to church on Sunday and leaving it up to the old people.

Oh no. guess what. I am only in my 40"s but I guess I am the old people

I think that there was a disconnect from reality with many people. For example, people my grandfather’s age NEVER questioned what a doctor told them. They WOULD NEVER challenge any of it. In the same way, people would never think that the priest would not know what was best in every way for his parish, or that he needed help in running it. Why would people think that he would know how to budget the operations, hire employees, etc? Plus, like you said, having lay people help in those areas frees up some of his time to visit the sick and spread the Good News

 

[rinnie]

I think that there was a disconnect from reality with many people. For example, people my grandfather’s age NEVER questioned what a doctor told them. They WOULD NEVER challenge any of it. In the same way, people would never think that the priest would not know what was best in every way for his parish, or that he needed help in running it. Why would people think that he would know how to budget the operations, hire employees, etc? Plus, like you said, having lay people help in those areas frees up some of his time to visit the sick and spread the Good News

I think you are right, Like just because Priests have the gift of the Holy Spirit to teach Gods word did not give them a accounting degree. Or a automatic gift of Not BEING HUMAN FOR GOODNESS SAKES. Let a Priest have a bad day and dear God there goes the CC.

But let us have a bad day and we are only human. I think thats what Vatican 2 was. PJ2 showing Priests are only human. Sure God feeds then the word and gives them powers that are super as for forgiving sin and all. But they need to vent to and be human. I love my Priest. This is the first Priest that I have that is actually more like a brother to me then an untouchable person. I love him as a brother and can actually talk to him. I think thats thats what JP2 seen, and has brought Priests to a human level again.

 

[flameburns623]

what were the changes made by Vatican 2 and why are they controversial?.

To attempt to answer the question actually being asked:

The Second Vatican Council was a council held in the early 1960’s. It was introduced as an attempt at ‘openness’, at making the Church seem more in step with the modern world. It made a number of notable changs possible: for example the reform of the Liturgy, which many felt was beautiful in it’s Latin form, but not engaging the faithful as it should. Many Catholics did not make a serious attempt to understand not only the language of the Latin Mass, but also the meaning and richness of it. Instead, many simply prayed or read or sat quietly.

Other changes were also introduced. Not all of them were directly mandated by Vatican II, and many of the changes spiralled out-of-control. A lot of things happened which tended to shock and repel a lot of faithful Catholics, and as a result many became more lax in their observance of what had once been standard Catholic practices. In the end, a lot of people used the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ as a pretext for open rebellion. It was this rebelliousness which emerged in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s which made Vatican II seem controversial.

 

[Reuben_J]

The spirit of Vatican II was the liberal way it’s documents were interpreted by liberals and modernists. The spirit led to this because it led to wrongul interpretations of certain documents and thus reduced the faith of many Catholics leading to a drop in vocations and thus - less priests to administer communion.

The drop in vocations was after the Council. Thr true disaster was that these trends occured just after the council when many Catholics were not sure about their faith. That was why the old Pius XII orthodoxy was needed in the 1960s and the council could have waited for better times.

At best this is just personal opinion and evaluation. There is no evidence to support this and thus the truth of it cannot be substantiated. This poster has failed to take into account the social changes in the sixties that also could very well affect the spirituality of the people.

If this is true (less vocations due to Vatican II) then we should see it happens also in Africa and Asia but instead in the two continents Catholicism is flourishing. If priests came from the West in the first half of the 20th century to serve the two continents now it seems the opposite is beginning to happen.

To blame the so-called liberals looks like we are merely finding the fall guys, the scapegoats. Liberals have been with the Church since its inception. Even without Vatican II we did have the reformation in the 16th Century. And yet the Church moved on.

This generation who seems to bank on the slogan for the laity to “pray and obey” sadly forget about it when the Pope introduced Vatican II. If one can question and disobey the Pope you would like to know how they can obey their local parish priest.

Reuben J:

Can you give examples of how Vatican II made Catholics godless?

Please give example where Vatican II makes Catholicism seems equal to other religions.

The documents on other religions while harmless and not in contradiction with Catholic doctrine was interepted wrongly by the spirit.

That must be the human spirit and not the Holy Spirit that gave Vatican II. In any case, as mentioned earlier I am skeptical of attributing to something like ‘the spirit of Vatican II’ because that would leads to all kinds of personal interpretation as to what that spirit is.

The basic is this: nowhere in Vatican II that it contradicts the Church teaching in the matter of faith and moral. As for its teachings and interpretation, there were times in her history that she made mistake and over time the mistakes would be ratified. We had a Pope in John Paul II who openly apologized on behalf of the Church for what the Church did long ago.

 

[Reuben_J]

Shawn38:

Reaffirmation of Trent
“This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of heaven or who are yet being purified after their death; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, of the Council of Florence, and of the Council of Trent.” (Vatican Council II Vol. 1, p. 412)

Re-Sacrifice
CHAPTER II THE MOST SACRED MYSTERY OF THE EUCHARIST. Beginning with paragraph 47.
The Second Vatican Council teaches that the celebration of the Eucharist is at the centre of the process of the Church’s growth. After stating that “the Church, as the Kingdom of Christ already present in mystery, grows visibly in the world through the power of God”,35 then, as if in answer to the question: “How does the Church grow?”, the Council adds: "as often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our pasch is sacrificed’ (1 Cor 5:7) is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out. realliferosary.com/writings/ede2.doc
Also online at vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/_P4.HTM

“In the sacrifice of the Mass in fact, Christ offers himself for the salvation of the entire world.” (Vatican Council II Vol. 1, p. 114)
“The celebration of the Eucharist which takes place at Mass is the action not only of Christ, but also of the Church. For in it Christ perpetuates in an unbloody manner the sacrifice offered on the cross, offering himself to the Father for the world’s salvation through the ministry of priests.” (Vatican Council II Vol. 1, p. 103)
“We believe that the Mass which is celebrated by the priest in the person of Christ in virtue of the power he receives in the Sacrament of Order … is indeed the Sacrifice of Calvary sacramentally realized on our altars.” (Vatican Council II Vol. 2, p. 393)
“The Eucharist is above all else a sacrifice. It is the sacrifice of the Redemption and also the sacrifice of the New Covenant …” (Vol. 2, p. 75)

Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this He did once, when He offered up himself.

But it’s the “same sacrifice” you will say.

Dear Shawn, the mass is not re-sacrifice. Can’t blame you, you being Protestant, but it is actually the re-enactment the sacrifice made at Calvary. True, it is once and for all sacrifice. The Church is very clear and understands the teaching on this very well. That is why it is never a re-sacrifice.

The re-enactment of the sacrifice is required:

(1) because Jesus said to eat his body and drink his blood in memory of him. That is understood as literal command and becomes the reason for the mass so that we can eat his body and drink his blood.

(2) The sacrifice that was once and for all is very important to all Christians. It has to be remembered, understood and experienced. The Church re-enact it because human memory is short. Something as important as that needs to be heard, seen and done again and again, and again.

God bless you.

 

[Reuben_J]

MyRdmrLvs:

this is the question that lead me to start this thread. my son in law refuses to attend mass that is not in latin. the closest one is 1/2 hour away so he hasnt been to my knowledge to a mass in over a year. So I joined this forum to try and understand the Catholic faith. I really appreciate the thoughtful posts on this thread.

Not to attend mass because it is not in Latin is simply not the excuse. Your son-in-law has deeper reason for the non-attendance like being lazy and simply does not see the need. A mass is a mass no matter in what language it is said. It does not minus or adds anything because of the language differences. The sacrifice is licit and valid.

I can understand why people like the thing they used to do and not comfortable with the changes. Some people like certain music and hymns while others don’t.

I was not there during pre-Vatican but I could remember as a child that my late grandmother would be saying the rosary throughout the mass. She was used to the old mass where the celebrant says the mass and the congregation did their own thing. The priest would face the tabernacle (the wall) with this back to the congregation and during the elevation as he consecrated the host he was very much talking to himself when he echoed Christ’s word, **“take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you …” **One thought that in the person of Christ he would say that to the people. Vatican II simply corrected this and now the priest faces the congregation.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

rinnie:

Also JP2 had alot of good ideas. Like for instance Pastorial Council, which I am in now and learning about. ITs a way of getting us to help the Priest in his everyday dutys so he can preach the word of God. Its a good thing. It shows us that its our house and not just Gods house and the Priests house. We have got off too easy just going to church on Sunday and leaving it up to the old people.

Oh no. guess what. I am only in my 40"s but I guess I am the old people

JP2 was one of those great Pope.

This is simply common sense and logical, not to say that it is Biblical too. In modern management language it is call the power of delegation. Vatican II saw this need in the parishes and dioceses and recommended it.

In Moses time, he was advised by his father-in-law, Jethro, to delegate the judging to others because this duty would** wear him down if he did it all by himself**.

Exodus 18 **
14And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, what is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?
17And Moses’ father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good.
18Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. **

25And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.
26And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.

In the early church, the apostles appointed people from among the disciples to run the administration of the day to day business so that they could concentrate on their priestly duty of proclaiming the word.

Acts 6:1-4
1And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
2Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3Wherefore, brethren,** look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.**

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Like you, the post-VII Church is all that I have known. Some of the complaints, I think, are misplaced. People are not as formal as they used to be in mass. Well, guess what? It is like that in society as a whole. For example, I have been to several weddings lately where people wore blue jeans! Schools have to explain what proper attire is for graduations and special events. It is wrong to blame the Church for what we see in all of society.

Likewise, the change from Latin to the vernacular really doesn’t bother me. Sure, it took the mystery away, and that is a duel edged sword. Mass became like everything else in everyone’s life. At the same time, people could hear the words and focus only on what was said, not worrying about translating it as they went.

The music changed, but again, that is not the Church’s fault. We cannot blame her for a lack of good music or song-writers.

my son in law tells me that all Catholics were taught Latin so they could understand the mass. this makes no sence to me at all.

 

[ralphinal]

my son in law tells me that all Catholics were taught Latin so they could understand the mass. this makes no sence to me at all.

That is simply incorrect. Catholics who spent a lot of time in Catholic run schools MAY have been taught some ecclesiastical Latin. However, most Catholics, especially those in public school who relied on Sunday School classes to “learn” the faith were not really taught much. My mother and her family were in that group. They could not speak it. Over the years, they learned the Latin words used in the mass (maybe), but the idea that ALL Catholics were at least bi-lingual is false.

Think about this. The majority of Catholics through history never went to a school at all. They were unable to read their own language. How did they learn Latin as well? Even today, the largest Catholic nations in the world are in South America. Some of these nations have very high poverty levels. When and where were these people taught Latin?

 

[smogdew]

Yes and no. The faith was understood, yet you still had the issues that lead to the Protestants. Even today, some Catholics have a mixture of folk faith and the True Faith (you see it in Orthodoxy, too).

However, the real issue was that when there was teaching, people were teaching the true faith. Over the last 40 years, so many people were not taught the faith correctly.

I concur about faith teaching. Our church had a lay, faith formation teacher come to the office and ask what ‘reconciliation’ was. Our religion is not taught as ‘in depth’ or with the same intensity,as if some things (I’m thinking of the 10 Commandments) were taken at face value or glossed over. e.g. Thou Shall Not Kill - goes much further than the mere words we read. And the 9th Commandment, was it expounded upon, could lead to modesty which is sorely missing in Church and in public.

 

[rinnie]

my son in law tells me that all Catholics were taught Latin so they could understand the mass. this makes no sence to me at all.

Why Not I mean if all Catholics were taught latin at the time the Mass was said in Latin would that not be so they could understand the mass at that time?

IF I did not understand Spanish and the Mass was only said in Spanish would it not be wise for me to learn Spanish. If not what would I get out of the Scripture, etc if I did not understand a word that was being said?

 

[ralphinal]

Why Not I mean if all Catholics were taught latin at the time the Mass was said in Latin would that not be so they could understand the mass at that time?

IF I did not understand Spanish and the Mass was only said in Spanish would it not be wise for me to learn Spanish. If not what would I get out of the Scripture, etc if I did not understand a word that was being said?

Because humans tend to be lazy and defy common sense.

 

[Renko]

I for one do not like all the changes in the church since Vatican 2. Years ago before all this happened, you could walk into any Catholic church and hear a pin drop, now it is like a zoo, people talking out loud, kids screaming, no reverance what so ever, this is what Vatican 2 done.

 

[ralphinal]

I for one do not like all the changes in the church since Vatican 2. Years ago before all this happened, you could walk into any Catholic church and hear a pin drop, now it is like a zoo, people talking out loud, kids screaming, no reverance what so ever, this is what Vatican 2 done.

Can you say that for sure? It is the same way in other venues. Is Vatican 2 the reason they have to tell people to turn off their cell phones before movies and plays? If V2 the reason that 20 years ago, people dressed up for the theatre or for work and now you have to explain what proper attire is? Can you show me in the documents where a decline in reverence was called for?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Why Not I mean if all Catholics were taught latin at the time the Mass was said in Latin would that not be so they could understand the mass at that time?

IF I did not understand Spanish and the Mass was only said in Spanish would it not be wise for me to learn Spanish. If not what would I get out of the Scripture, etc if I did not understand a word that was being said?

why not teach the people in their own language and spend all the time and effort that goes into teaching them a dead language and teach them something that will improve their lives.

 

[rinnie]

why not teach the people in their own language and spend all the time and effort that goes into teaching them a dead language and teach them something that will improve their lives.

Is that not what is being done And was that not the reason that the RCC started in Latin because at that time in History Latin was the chosen language:shrug:

 

[rinnie]

Because humans tend to be lazy and defy common sense.

I totally agree. What could possibly be the down side of learning another language. I mean the more Education the more places a person can go in this world,

Think of the Job opportunities that we and our Children would have today if they had the honor of learning and reading Latin. I see no negative in this whatsoever.

I would love to be able to read a bible in Latin. I would call that a great gift from the church not a burden. And what would have been Great beings that I went to a Catholic School I could have learned it early in life.

 

[ralphinal]

I totally agree. What could possibly be the down side of learning another language. I mean the more Education the more places a person can go in this world,

Think of the Job opportunities that we and our Children would have today if they had the honor of learning and reading Latin. I see no negative in this whatsoever.

I would love to be able to read a bible in Latin. I would call that a great gift from the church not a burden. And what would have been Great beings that I went to a Catholic School I could have learned it early in life.

In Engish speaking countries, Latin educated students outperform their counterparts in many ways. Further, if you are going into medicine or law, Latin terms are all over the place.

Having one language that all official things are done in is very, very important. So much so that even the secular world agrees. French is the “official” language of the United Nations. All airline pilots must speak English if they fly outside of their own nation.

Many non-Catholics would want to admit it, but had the Church not moved into Rome, and become accepted by the Empire, Christianity would be a local faith in the Middle East. EVERY educated person in Western Europe spoke Latin, and every town or village had at least one Latin speaker. That allowed the Gospels to be spread without needing to translate them at the source, or soon thereafter.

 

[peary1]

Vatican II is an ecumenical council that is called by the pope. It is ‘ecumenical’ because ALL the bishops of the Catholic Church are involved in it. It was the 21st council of the Church.

Prior to this was the council called Vatican I. Both councils took place in the Vatican basilica rather than the Lateran basilica which is why most councils were called Lateran councils. Vatican I was suspended indefinitely by Pope Pius IX due to the Franco-Prussian War.

Pope John XXIII called for a new council in 1960. Preparation took two years. One of the first orders of ‘business’ was to vote on officially closing Vatican Council I and opening Vatican Council II, which the bishops did.

The council in itself was not controversial but it did open up a dialogue on several fronts, such as ecumenism and establishment of better relations with our Jewish brothers and sisters. It attempted to clarify a theology and the nature of the Church in all aspects of Christian life. One of the major changes was the permission to have the Mass said in the vernacular, and allowing the altar to be turned around facing the people. Traditional Catholics had a very difficult time with these changes. It was only under the present pope and John Paul II that the Latin Mass was promulgated once again as an extraordinary form of the Latin rite.

The fact was, the Church was in seriously bad shape due to its persecution by Communism for more than half a century, and, in my opinion, the council SAVED the Church. What transpired afterwards would have been far worse if the council had not taken place and direction given. It has been only during the pontificates of popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI that the Church is returning to its roots.

What has been controversial was the total ignorance of what Vatican II documents actually said, and that, in the ‘spirit’ of the Council, all sorts of experimentation in liturgy and religious life was allowed by bishops throughout the world, the result being a mass exodus of Catholics to protestant denominations, low vocations to religious life, and the folding up of many religious orders. One good outcome was a more genuine involvement of the laity within the remnant Church itself, and now a greater evangelization throughout the world.

 

[Reuben_J]

why not teach the people in their own language and spend all the time and effort that goes into teaching them a dead language and teach them something that will improve their lives.

Just a few comments on this.

Basically you are spot on. This is what arises from Vatican II though it was not something new. The Bible was written in the languages of the people and so was the liturgy of the mass even though Latin was used during pre-Vatican II. Latin is part of the rich tradition of the Catholic Church and it will always have a place there. But it is NOT the only language for the Church and we know too that the early Christians and even some of the ECFs (Early Church fathers) most probably did not say their mass in Latin.

So when we talk about the Church being the Universal Church that baptizes people of every tongue and nation, Latin will be inadequately dispose to prescribe to do this especially when the Church spread to every corner of the globe. The Pope saw this. Vatican II came about as a result of profound prayer and deliberations by the top clergies of the early sixties. If we believe that the Church is led by the Holy Spirit and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth, it is hard for ordinary Catholics to dispute Vatican II. I am not too old or very young, but it was easier for my generation to accept Vatican II in obedient to the Pope as a gift from God. The generation of pre-Vatican II may not readily accept the changes brought about by Vatican II but my personal opinion is they should move on with life and actively support it so that it will achieve the objective that it set out to do. And the majority of them do, thanks God.

Now about your son in law who does not want to attend mass not said in Latin. If the purpose of the mass is for the communion of the faithfuls and to celebrate its liturgy, there is no reason to refuse to attend mass in other language if there is no Latin mass around. If a person goes for mass simply because he/she wants it in Latin, then her/his intention is misplaced. It is not the mass that motivated such people but the language, the hymn and the music. This is wrong and a misinterpretation of what the mass is all about. I am quite much travelled myself even to some very unlikely places. Due to circumstances I have attended mass in language that I do not understand and it was no less than a full mass for me. However, I would always rather it said in the language that I can understand because there is so much in the mass and it is certainly not in the language and the hymns.

We can always make justifications why we want particular language, organ music or guitar, Greggory chant or contemporary. And there is always valid reason for them but none of these should be a reason for us avoid the mass altogether. Time changes. Latin is good in an era where everybody loved and used to it. It is different for today generation and especially the informed ones. Latin may be out of place for them especially if you don’t speak this language. The Church sees the sign of time and moves on accordingly for it to be still relevant. Its dogmas and doctrines never change but it adapts itself to the change of time and that’s why it is never irrelevant.

God bless.