what is vatican 2 and why is it contraversal ?

[KC91]

One of the reasons Vatican II was controversial was because of what happened to the Catholic Church soon afterwards - before Vatican II the Church was powerful and united with tens of thousands of vocations, 80% Mass attendence rates and dozens of concordats with different countries but after Vatican II the Church was drastically weakened with many Catholics disagreeing with the Pope on birth control, abortion, etc, Mass attendence rates dropping to 30%, a loss of power by the Church with more state and church seperation in many countries, a sharp drop in vocations and many priests and nuns leaving their orders. Not surprisingly many blamed this on Vatican II although it was the spirit, not the documents, that was responsible.

 

[JRforhope]

I appreciate to many people that the Vatican 2 issue can seem unproductive at best.

But just imagine that before the changes that came in after the Second Vatican Council - how many questioned the validity of the Mass.

Or if their priest was really a priest?

Or if Jesus really said the first Mass with those words?

And these are the tip of the iceberg!

Maybe the dwindling priest numbers & the emptying pews aren’t related to V2, but to Trad Cath’s it’s awfully coincident.

Foremost it’s about being loyal or disloyal to Christ & so that could just affect one’s status in the afterlife. And that’s why the changes ushered in after V2 will not go unquestioned by so many.

Kind Regards
JR

---

www.ChristianBooksToday.com
“Hard to find Catholic Books at affordable prices - & some that are just plain brilliant”

 

[Reuben_J]

One of the reasons Vatican II was controversial was because of what happened to the Catholic Church soon afterwards - before Vatican II the Church was powerful and united with tens of thousands of vocations, 80% Mass attendence rates and dozens of concordats with different countries but after Vatican II the Church was drastically weakened with many Catholics disagreeing with the Pope on birth control, abortion, etc, Mass attendence rates dropping to 30%, a loss of power by the Church with more state and church seperation in many countries, a sharp drop in vocations and many priests and nuns leaving their orders. Not surprisingly many blamed this on Vatican II although it was the spirit, not the documents, that was responsible.

If I read correctly this post seems to assume that Vatican II was responsible for “… the Church was drastically weakened with many Catholics disagreeing with the Pope on birth control, abortion, etc, Mass attendence rates dropping to 30%, a loss of power by the Church with more state and church seperation in many countries, a sharp drop in vocations and many priests and nuns leaving their orders”.

Can you say then had it not for Vatican II the above would not have happened to the church?

While it is true that the Church was in a state of declining per se as what you stated, it also could due to the fact that by the late fifty there was already a sign of a ‘deteriorating’ church. Vocation was definitely in a decline and the Church seemed to be reaching to a point of non-vibrant and stalemating. Otherwise how could we explain the call by Pope John XXIII in the late fifties to pray for a new Pentecost?

But at the same time we have to be cognizant of the fact of a new revolution that was about to explode in the Western world. Many commentators today have attributed this to the new phenomenon of Artificial Birth Control that was about to be unleashed in the sixties. This came about to a nation that had witnessed the endless trauma of wars – WWII, Korean War and then, Vietnam War.

What happened can be roughly summarized – the introduction of Birth Control, the sexual revolution, Hippies, rebelliousness that arise from the Vietnam War, materialism, commercialism, culture of death and relativity.

There are varies opinion about Vatican II. What we cannot dispute is the fact that it was done accordingly to the normal procedure in the Vatican. There were no less than four meetings of about 3000 Cardinals, Bishops and their theology advisers in a span of about four years. In 1965 the document was promulgated and adopted by Pope Paul VI.

Many Catholics, while others disagree, are of the opinion that Vatican II was actually a saving grace for a Church that was faced with the onslaught of the tide of people that were on the verge of becoming Godless. One striking attribute of post Vatican II is the rise of the laity in the Church that saw greater participation by them in parishes and movements and the Church as a whole. One wonder what would have happened if we depend entirely on the clergies to run the churches, dioceses and parishes like it was pre-Vatican II.

As to answer the title of the thread, Vatican II is not a controversy. The Church is still led by the Holy Spirit. It faces different problem and attack in different era and it always has an answer for each and every one of them.

God bless.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

I appreciate to many people that the Vatican 2 issue can seem unproductive at best.

But just imagine that before the changes that came in after the Second Vatican Council - how many questioned the validity of the Mass.

Or if their priest was really a priest?

Or if Jesus really said the first Mass with those words?

And these are the tip of the iceberg!

Maybe the dwindling priest numbers & the emptying pews aren’t related to V2, but to Trad Cath’s it’s awfully coincident.

Foremost it’s about being loyal or disloyal to Christ & so that could just affect one’s status in the afterlife. And that’s why the changes ushered in after V2 will not go unquestioned by so many.

Kind Regards
JR

---

www.ChristianBooksToday.com
“Hard to find Catholic Books at affordable prices - & some that are just plain brilliant”

Are you saying V2 was disloyal to Christ? could you elaborate?

 

[KC91]

Can you say then had it not for Vatican II the above would not have happened to the church?

While it is true that the Church was in a state of declining per se as what you stated, it also could due to the fact that by the late fifty there was already a sign of a ‘deteriorating’ church. Vocation was definitely in a decline and the Church seemed to be reaching to a point of non-vibrant and stalemating. Otherwise how could we explain the call by Pope John XXIII in the late fifties to pray for a new Pentecost?

Yes since in the Pius XII years before Vatican II he had a succesful ‘Great Design’ for the Church where the Church was to be monolithic with power concentrated at the apex and distributed through canon law and concordats. John XXIII inherited the mightiest organisation in the world in 1958. The drop in vocations did not begin until the 1960s. The 1950s church was interpreted as non-vibrant because many dissident theologians were muzzled but many of them had doubtful doctrines which came to fruition in the spirit of Vatican II. I recognise and admire John XXIII as a noble and warm hearted Pope but in my opinion he called the council at the wrong time when the church was flourishing.

Many Catholics, while others disagree, are of the opinion that Vatican II was actually a saving grace for a Church that was faced with the onslaught of the tide of people that were on the verge of becoming Godless. One striking attribute of post Vatican II is the rise of the laity in the Church that saw greater participation by them in parishes and movements and the Church as a whole. One wonder what would have happened if we depend entirely on the clergies to run the churches, dioceses and parishes like it was pre-Vatican II.

Actually the spirit made many Catholics godless as the harmless documents were interpreted by the spirit in a way which made Catholicism seem equal to other religions which led to a loss of faith. The laity should not be involved in Church affairs especially like giving out communion, etc. Many of them are not as orthodox theologically speaking as the clergy. Their role is to pray and obey.

 

[Reuben_J]

The laity should not be involved in Church affairs especially like giving out communion, etc. Many of them are not as orthodox theologically speaking as the clergy. Their role is to pray and obey.

Is there any reference to support this?

Does not the parish priest has the final say on anything that happening in the parish? And that include the appointment of ECM? If the ECMs take up the role, is not that obeying the priest of their parish?

Of course that’s not considering that in many parishes there is about one priest celebrating a mass for about two thousand people at a time. Considering that there is a mass about every two hours, any mass that last for more than one and a half hour would be a disaster in logistic for the church. A single priest administering communion for about two thousand people would be surely a logistical nightmare where time is the essence.

 

[KC91]

Well the problems you raise illustrate my point that the spirit of Vatican II led to difficult situations such as these due to the priest shortage relating to the loss of faith.

 

[crazzeto]

The latin mass was not in universal use for 2000 years. The original masses were always in the vernacular of the audience.

Peace

That’s only half true… It is in fact true that Latin was not the original universal language of the Mass, Greek was. However that was not necessarly the vulgar tounge of the “audience” as you call it (actually, the lay faithful at the mass is not merely the audience, but that is another discussion). The tounge was changed Latin after some time, because no one (or hardly anyone) in the West spoke Greek, they spoke and understood Latin. And when this change was originally made, a segment of the Catholic population decried “HOW DARE YOU PUT THE MASS IN THE VULGAR TOUNG!” (does that sound familiar?).

The Second Vatican Council just took that final next step, recognizing that there no longer was a true “universal language” for the church in the sense of there being a single language in the Church which everyone understood (Latin remained a good choice into and through the middle ages actually).

Note, my post doesn’t endorse one mass as being better than the other. I have attended the vulgar mass my entire life, but I do have a church near me which offers the Mass in Latin, and I do plan to attend some services.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well the problems you raise illustrate my point that the spirit of Vatican II led to difficult situations such as these due to the priest shortage relating to the loss of faith.

I hope you help me here. How is that? We are short of priest and we have four masses a day on Sunday for every two hours in the morning and one in the evening. Each congregation has an average of about two thousand parishioners and you have one celebrant who at times may say two masses a day because the other priests are visiting the other parish.

How does the spirit of Vatican II led to these? What is the spirit of Vatican II if I may ask? Thanks.

 

[Reuben_J]

The tounge was changed Latin after some time, because no one (or hardly anyone) in the West spoke Greek, they spoke and understood Latin. And when this change was originally made, a segment of the Catholic population decried “HOW DARE YOU PUT THE MASS IN THE VULGAR TOUNG!” (does that sound familiar?).

That’s interesting. What about the Indians, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Africans and the Asians, who know nothing about Latin? What does the Church do with these Catholics?

 

[crazzeto]

That’s interesting. What about the Indians, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Africans and the Asians, who know nothing about Latin? What does the Church do with these Catholics?

I think I’m missing the what you’re asking here, could you clarify?

 

[ralphinal]

It is a gross overstatement to say that the majority of the west understood Latin. IN fact, for the majority of Church history, the faithful were illiterate in their vulgar tongue and did not speak Latin at all. Where Latin was an advantage is that those who were educated could speak it, meaning there was a common (universal) tongue for the “entire” world.

 

[crazzeto]

It is a gross overstatement to say that the majority of the west understood Latin. IN fact, for the majority of Church history, the faithful were illiterate in their vulgar tongue and did not speak Latin at all. Where Latin was an advantage is that those who were educated could speak it, meaning there was a common (universal) tongue for the “entire” world.

True, yet despite this disadvantage even the masses of illiterate lay faithful after Rome fell (when latin finally started getting forgotten) managed to understand the faith very well. As the illiterate masses could not read, obviously they were in fact learning from some where. That some where was in fact, the very same mass everyone was attending.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think I’m missing the what you’re asking here, could you clarify?

I hope I did not misunderstand you. I am asking was it a bad thing to use vernacular language, the native tongue of the people in mass instead of using only Latin? It is strange if the Church insists on Latin especially for people who do not speak it at all. Remember, Latin speakers are only part of the larger Church.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes since in the Pius XII years before Vatican II he had a succesful ‘Great Design’ for the Church where the Church was to be monolithic with power concentrated at the apex and distributed through canon law and concordats. John XXIII inherited the mightiest organisation in the world in 1958. The drop in vocations did not begin until the 1960s. The 1950s church was interpreted as non-vibrant because many dissident theologians were muzzled but many of them had doubtful doctrines which came to fruition in the spirit of Vatican II. I recognise and admire John XXIII as a noble and warm hearted Pope but in my opinion he called the council at the wrong time when the church was flourishing.

John XXIII did not call the council as far as I can remember. It was Paul 6. Or maybe I am too young to remember.

How do you account for the drop in vocations in the 60s? If you do not see the changes in people mentality due to what’s happening in the 50s and the 60s, would not that be not seeing the sign of times? What about the birth control phenomenon and sexual promiscuity of the sixty through new introduction of technology and the affect of an unpopular war? It would be naïve to think that the mighty fifty would not change in the sixties whether there is Vatican council or not.

Actually the spirit made many Catholics godless as the harmless documents were interpreted by the spirit in a way which made Catholicism seem equal to other religions which led to a loss of faith.

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

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

 

[crazzeto]

I hope I did not misunderstand you. I am asking was it a bad thing to use vernacular language, the native tongue of the people in mass instead of using only Latin? It is strange if the Church insists on Latin especially for people who do not speak it at all. Remember, Latin speakers are only part of the larger Church.

God bless.

I was quoting the reaction many ancient Catholic traditionalists had. Which is shockingly similar to the reaction many modern day traditionalists have.

 

[ralphinal]

True, yet despite this disadvantage even the masses of illiterate lay faithful after Rome fell (when latin finally started getting forgotten) managed to understand the faith very well. As the illiterate masses could not read, obviously they were in fact learning from some where. That some where was in fact, the very same mass everyone was attending.

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.

 

[shawn38]

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

Vatican II only reaffirmed Trent: papal supremacy, the Roman priesthood, the mass as a re-sacrifice of Christ, Catholic tradition on equal par with Scripture, Mary as the Queen of Heaven and co-redemptress with Christ, auricular confession, purgatory, and prayers to and for the dead, the venration of saints, and more.

While Vatican II was occurring, it was being called an “ecumenical” council. Ecumenical was explained to mean that it would reach out to Protestants and attempt to harmonize differences. The council was not ecumentical at all. The core principle in place at the time of Trent, to include the heresies, were only reaffirmed.

 

[ralphinal]

Vatican II only reaffirmed Trent: papal supremacy, the Roman priesthood, the mass as a re-sacrifice of Christ, Catholic tradition on equal par with Scripture, Mary as the Queen of Heaven and co-redemptress with Christ, auricular confession, purgatory, and prayers to and for the dead, the venration of saints, and more.

While Vatican II was occurring, it was being called an “ecumenical” council. Ecumenical was explained to mean that it would reach out to Protestants and attempt to harmonize differences. The council was not ecumentical at all. The core principle in place at the time of Trent, to include the heresies, were only reaffirmed.

Please show me where the Church teaches that Christ is re-sacrificed at the mass. Please show where the Church teaches that Mary is co-redemptress with Christ

 

[shawn38]

Please show me where the Church teaches that Christ is re-sacrificed at the mass. Please show where the Church teaches that Mary is co-redemptress with Christ

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.

Co-Redeemer
“Taken up to heaven she [Mary] did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation.” (Vol. 1, p. 419)

“Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix” (Second Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, II, 62, pp. 382-383).

Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus says, she being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching … ‘death through Eve, life through Mary.’ This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death” (Second Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, II, 56, pp. 380-381).