M
MyRdmrLvs
Guest
what were the changes made by Vatican 2 and why are they controversial?.
- Status
T
Teneas
Guest
I am not a pre-Vatican II Catholic, and understand little about the changes honestly. There will be some that can post the technical names to things and why it was seen for it to change.
In short, and a brief description of it, is that it made the church more “user friendly” as I like to say.
It was no longer required to have the Mass in Latin.
The priest no longer said Mass to God with his back turned toward the congregation. He faces the congregation now.
You could now take the Eucharist into your own hands before comsumption in your mouth.
Kneeling during the Eucharist was no longer required.
I am not sure of the others, but I know people here will be. Hope it helps some.
In short, and a brief description of it, is that it made the church more “user friendly” as I like to say.
It was no longer required to have the Mass in Latin.
The priest no longer said Mass to God with his back turned toward the congregation. He faces the congregation now.
You could now take the Eucharist into your own hands before comsumption in your mouth.
Kneeling during the Eucharist was no longer required.
I am not sure of the others, but I know people here will be. Hope it helps some.
S
Splinker
Guest
As a Jew, I’m not big on sequels.
T
Teneas
Guest
lol Nice response. meant with all honesty and humor.
1
1ke
Guest
Vatican II is an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. It took place in the 1960s at the Vatican, hence it’s name. It is Vatican Council “two” because there was a Vatican Council in the 1800s which was Vactican Council “one.” An ecumenical council is a meeting of all the bishops of the Church (or as many as can attend) that is subsequently ratified/acknowledged by the Pope.
The Council itself did not “change” things.
There are many changes that took place after the council that are loosely called “Vatican II changes.” For example, the new order Mass which was released in 1969, the new code of canon law issued in 1983, various committees formed for various purposes, and a desire to emphasize/focus on certain pastoral issues facing the church.
These “changes” of which people speak came after the Council but were not part of the Council itself.
1
1ke
Guest
Why is it controversial?
Well, it isn’t “controversial” unless you are a part of a group of people who didn’t like the changes that came about. And, many of these “changes” were not *directives *of the Council but some person’s interpretation of the Council documents.
Those people range from faithful to the magesterium but vocally disappointed by the changes to people who have become schismatic and reject the authority of the church to make such changes.
Well, it isn’t “controversial” unless you are a part of a group of people who didn’t like the changes that came about. And, many of these “changes” were not *directives *of the Council but some person’s interpretation of the Council documents.
Those people range from faithful to the magesterium but vocally disappointed by the changes to people who have become schismatic and reject the authority of the church to make such changes.
W
wmscott
Guest
I also understand that it put the Mass in the vernacular or language of the people. I am not sure if this is a completely proper definition of one of the changes. However to be completely honest, I am not sure I would have converted if all of the Masses were in Latin. But I guess this is a moot point now.
M
Mark77
Guest
i understand the need to have the Mass said in the local language, but i love the EWTN Mass, which still retains some parts in Latin, like the Our Father.
It is so beautiful & easy to learn & you truly feel a much closer connection to all of our brothers & sisters in Christ who used Latin at Mass for nearly 2000 years.
Watch Here! ewtn.com/ Go to multimedia & live TV to watch the Mass or other great Catholic shows on EWTN!
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ors Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
It is so beautiful & easy to learn & you truly feel a much closer connection to all of our brothers & sisters in Christ who used Latin at Mass for nearly 2000 years.
Watch Here! ewtn.com/ Go to multimedia & live TV to watch the Mass or other great Catholic shows on EWTN!
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ors Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
P
portarica
Guest
The latin mass was not in universal use for 2000 years. The original masses were always in the vernacular of the audience.
Peace
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
With respect, the Mass was not ‘changed to the vernacular’ in the sense that all Latin (and the Greek Kyrie) were to be jettisoned. In fact, the documents of Vatican 2 specifically note t**hat the people are to retain the various Latin responses ‘proper’ to them. ** This is the reason that you see the Mass on ETWN, for example, retaining the Latin for the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, etc. This “vernacular” Mass in which the sermon, readings, and certain ex temporare prayers are in the language ‘of the people’ but the timeless prayers above (and more) are retained in Latin (as a ‘common language’), is the Mass that Vatican 2 called for but which in a lot of places, and for a lot of reasons, had not been instituted until relatively recently.
I am a pre-Vatican 2’er (born in 1956). While I am not able myself to get to a TLM and thus for the last 40 years have worshipped at the OF Masses (many of which, especially lately, are reverent and beautiful but many of which, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, were at best ‘experimental’ and at worst downright invalid), I most certainly appreciate the greater and increasing opportunity that many will have to experience the TLM/EF, which is beautiful and reverent and (even if one is firmly convinced that ‘muh own language is better’n any dumb stupid Latin’) should be experienced if one can prayerfully jettison any strong bias ‘against’ it.
Again I have to agree with earlier posters-- the Council itself was pastoral; it did not bring in any ‘new teachings’, its documents (while ambiguous in language but part of that is I think due to the ‘time’–ANYTHING written in the 1960s pretty much suffered from that defect just as most everything written since say 1990 suffers from the defect of jaded ‘postmodern’ cliche-ridden angst) when read COULD be read as endorsing perfectly legitimate teachings. Unfortunately quite a few people (again, for many reasons, some well-intentioned and some not) ‘took’ away from the documents some very strange ideas which they proceeded to ‘cram down’ the peoples’ throats, resulting in again some very awful liturgies and some other things such as wholesale discontinuation of legitimate religious practices in favor of either some very esoteric and (pardon the term) ‘hippified’ replacements or just completely forgetting about said practices.
Thankfully now a lot of those practices are and have been recurring. Some lucky people never really saw them disappear; some saw them ‘return’ in the last 15 years or so; some are JUST starting to see signs that they may return.
I am a pre-Vatican 2’er (born in 1956). While I am not able myself to get to a TLM and thus for the last 40 years have worshipped at the OF Masses (many of which, especially lately, are reverent and beautiful but many of which, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, were at best ‘experimental’ and at worst downright invalid), I most certainly appreciate the greater and increasing opportunity that many will have to experience the TLM/EF, which is beautiful and reverent and (even if one is firmly convinced that ‘muh own language is better’n any dumb stupid Latin’) should be experienced if one can prayerfully jettison any strong bias ‘against’ it.
Again I have to agree with earlier posters-- the Council itself was pastoral; it did not bring in any ‘new teachings’, its documents (while ambiguous in language but part of that is I think due to the ‘time’–ANYTHING written in the 1960s pretty much suffered from that defect just as most everything written since say 1990 suffers from the defect of jaded ‘postmodern’ cliche-ridden angst) when read COULD be read as endorsing perfectly legitimate teachings. Unfortunately quite a few people (again, for many reasons, some well-intentioned and some not) ‘took’ away from the documents some very strange ideas which they proceeded to ‘cram down’ the peoples’ throats, resulting in again some very awful liturgies and some other things such as wholesale discontinuation of legitimate religious practices in favor of either some very esoteric and (pardon the term) ‘hippified’ replacements or just completely forgetting about said practices.
Thankfully now a lot of those practices are and have been recurring. Some lucky people never really saw them disappear; some saw them ‘return’ in the last 15 years or so; some are JUST starting to see signs that they may return.
J
JimG
Guest
Documents of Vatican II
Not much controversial here, in my opinion.
Not much controversial here, in my opinion.
D
DOShea
Guest
The controversial issues are not so much the doings or documents of the Council itself, but in what happened afterward. During this period (late 60s early 70s), just about everything in our culture was changing, from laws to attitudes. There were some liberal theologians who hoped that this Council would effect major changes in the Church in terms of doctrine, and when it didn’t deliver what they wanted, these people began using their theological credentials as a type of “filter,” to where they set themselves up as the experts on what the Church was really saying every time the Church spoke.
One example of this is the idea of forming a proper conscience and the place one’s conscience has in making moral decisions, and more to the point, following the already-decided (by the Church) moral issues. As you know, it’s not news when a Catholic goes on TV and says “we follow the Pope,” but it IS news when a liberal theologian says, “this is what the Pope said, but this is what it really means…” and then spout whatever interpretation suited their personal agendas. Some were saying things to the effect of, yes, the Church says this is wrong but only if it doesn’t go against your conscience. Meaning that if it did, you could do it and not be in sin. Isn’t that convenient?
The effect is that it caused major confusion, because not many (even today) have ever read those Council documents, and took at face value what a credentialed theologian was telling them. Even if they did read them, there are theological nuances in them that theologians pick up on but us regular laity don’t, and how do you argue those points with someone who’s spent a lifetime teaching the subject even if they’re wrong?
Just like any policy anywhere, whenever it changes there are a handful leading the charge for change, another handful resisting the change, and everyone else just kind of follows along where the masses seem to walk. So some policies changed in a way that was too far or too much away from what was desired, and for a while it became a sort-of “norm” in the sense that it was accepted by many without a lot of questions. It seemed a bit outrageous, but hey, it’s big change (or so most thought).
Realize also that many of these liberal theologians were firmly entrenched in Catholic academia, and you had to deal with them if you expected to get your post-grad degree in any facility in which they taught. How many they influenced with their wild ideas is not known.
In the years since, it’s been a battle to sort of contain the “went too fars” and get back to something of an even keel. Because whole generations have grown up knowing nothing other than this quasi-confused state and little of what was before, it requires a bit of a delicate balancing act to enact reforms in such a way that it doesn’t invalidate a lifelong mode of worship. Many who love the Latin Mass would like to see us go back to nothing but that, but I don’t think that will ever happen in a couple lifetimes because it would be too radical a change happening too fast, and it would make people feel their legitimate worship for years was some kind of second-class participation in Sacraments when all they did is loyally follow the clergy ordained to bring them those Sacraments.
So it wasn’t so much what the Council actually did, it was that there were many loose cannons out there campaigning for change and using their influence to force it. Now that we’ve seen the problems it has brought, the Church is slowly and surely fixing it.
One example of this is the idea of forming a proper conscience and the place one’s conscience has in making moral decisions, and more to the point, following the already-decided (by the Church) moral issues. As you know, it’s not news when a Catholic goes on TV and says “we follow the Pope,” but it IS news when a liberal theologian says, “this is what the Pope said, but this is what it really means…” and then spout whatever interpretation suited their personal agendas. Some were saying things to the effect of, yes, the Church says this is wrong but only if it doesn’t go against your conscience. Meaning that if it did, you could do it and not be in sin. Isn’t that convenient?
The effect is that it caused major confusion, because not many (even today) have ever read those Council documents, and took at face value what a credentialed theologian was telling them. Even if they did read them, there are theological nuances in them that theologians pick up on but us regular laity don’t, and how do you argue those points with someone who’s spent a lifetime teaching the subject even if they’re wrong?
Just like any policy anywhere, whenever it changes there are a handful leading the charge for change, another handful resisting the change, and everyone else just kind of follows along where the masses seem to walk. So some policies changed in a way that was too far or too much away from what was desired, and for a while it became a sort-of “norm” in the sense that it was accepted by many without a lot of questions. It seemed a bit outrageous, but hey, it’s big change (or so most thought).
Realize also that many of these liberal theologians were firmly entrenched in Catholic academia, and you had to deal with them if you expected to get your post-grad degree in any facility in which they taught. How many they influenced with their wild ideas is not known.
In the years since, it’s been a battle to sort of contain the “went too fars” and get back to something of an even keel. Because whole generations have grown up knowing nothing other than this quasi-confused state and little of what was before, it requires a bit of a delicate balancing act to enact reforms in such a way that it doesn’t invalidate a lifelong mode of worship. Many who love the Latin Mass would like to see us go back to nothing but that, but I don’t think that will ever happen in a couple lifetimes because it would be too radical a change happening too fast, and it would make people feel their legitimate worship for years was some kind of second-class participation in Sacraments when all they did is loyally follow the clergy ordained to bring them those Sacraments.
So it wasn’t so much what the Council actually did, it was that there were many loose cannons out there campaigning for change and using their influence to force it. Now that we’ve seen the problems it has brought, the Church is slowly and surely fixing it.
R
ralphinal
Guest
One of the issues that came up was not from the Council itself, but from something known to everyone as “The Spirit of Vatican II.”
The way the Church works, things are stated in the Council, but they do not become “official” until all the Bishops are given the statements. For discussion’s sake, let’s say that it took a couple if years to get the official documents into the hands of the Bishops. While they waited, people with agendas forced changes that were NEVER part of the Council. All of this was done in the name of this spirit. Once the documents were seen and known, they kept on forcing until the Church pushed back
The way the Church works, things are stated in the Council, but they do not become “official” until all the Bishops are given the statements. For discussion’s sake, let’s say that it took a couple if years to get the official documents into the hands of the Bishops. While they waited, people with agendas forced changes that were NEVER part of the Council. All of this was done in the name of this spirit. Once the documents were seen and known, they kept on forcing until the Church pushed back
K
KathleenGee
Guest
In the utmost simplicity, what happened in my native diocese was that sin was no longer a sin, our seminary was shut down, a blackout in our local Catholic paper of the teachings of John Paul II, the desire to stop using altar boys as they were flower pot children (Communist Russia stopped altar boys, the source of vocations), and women religious wanting to become priests, being on seminary admission boards and turning away solid candidates (our candidates had to go out of state to another seminary) and in their final confrontation with the clergy, blaspheming the priesthood, and if priestesses, wanting to stop daily Mass.
We prayed very much. In the late 90’s we had 33 local boys studying out of state for the priesthood, whereas the state the new seminary was located in, only one from the host diocese.
Suffering bears fruit with prayer and petition.
We prayed very much. In the late 90’s we had 33 local boys studying out of state for the priesthood, whereas the state the new seminary was located in, only one from the host diocese.
Suffering bears fruit with prayer and petition.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
Good summary for our Protestant friend. As regards comment I quoted, it has to be noted that many changes contradict what the Council explicitly calls for with regard to liturgy and priestly training.
—Sacrosanctum Concilium, #36, December 4, 1963
After advising the use of the vernacular for the biblical readings and common prayers, the Council also advised:
—ibid. #54
The main reason I suggest for why the Council is controversial is because liberals went way beyond the boundaries that the Council set for various disciplines and practices in the Church. Then with all irony, “Traditionalists” are sometimes labelled as anti-Vatican II because we like Latin or Thomas Aquinas. But it is the Council that declared that we must retain a knowledge of the Latin and that our seminaries would continue to teach in the Tradition of Thomistic theology and philosophy! Maybe Traditionalists have heard this for so long that they assume that they really are anti-Vatican II. I think the Traditionalists have something to gain and the liberals a lot more to lose if the words of the Council were adhered to as opposed to somem vague spirit of the Council.
Speaking of the training required for seminarians we have the following instructions which are almost universally ignored, except by so-called Traditionalists who are the only ones in obedience to Vatican II:
—Optatum Totius, October 28, 1965, #13
—ibid. #16
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The previous post is right on to my experience.
I shared some pretty heavy stuff.
But the good news is that overall, the Catholic Church in America is now prime for restoration!
I shared some pretty heavy stuff.
But the good news is that overall, the Catholic Church in America is now prime for restoration!
M
MyRdmrLvs
Guest
what sorts of things were done that really bothered you or made the mass illegitimate?ere
what would a person do if their perish(dont know if thats the right word) was doing things that were not proper? Contact the vatican?
M
MyRdmrLvs
Guest
Wouldnt a word from the pope straighten everyone out? I dont want to seem as though Im using your very informative and thoughtful post to find fault with your church, so please dont take this that way. what is happening here seems very similar to the way different denominations of protestantism start. Would the followers of these ideas still be considered R Catholics?
M
MyRdmrLvs
Guest
Is all this still going on?
M
MyRdmrLvs
Guest
how would one know if their local catholic church was teaching and doing things in the right way? Is there a checkyourperish.com?
- Status