what is vatican 2 and why is it contraversal ?

[KC91]

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

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.

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.

John XXIII called the council but Paul VI completed it.

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.

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.

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

 

[crazzeto]

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).

Any time you have a conflict in teachings you’ll have some lead astray, unfortunetly the church was just a little too slow in responding to some abuses which really drove the refermation. Had it not taken 30 years for Trent, the reformation might well have been still born.

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’m not sure I wholly agree with this, though I certainly can’t entirly disagree with it. Sure the Church could have done a better job, but then again the layity wasn’t putting much effort into learning over the past few decades either.

Talk to most babyboom era Catholic Christians. At first (for instance) they’ll try convincing you that “before Vatican II, the Church didn’t want you reading the bible”… Then you point out “well why then did the Church offer since ~1901 an impramatur of 3 years for reading the bible 15 minutes a day for one month”… And eventually you come to “well, you could read the bible with your spiritual director, but no one really wanted to do that”… So right off, you have a “lay faithful” uninterested in learning about the word of God.

Then you consider this is the same generation that brought us the sexual revolution (woodstock, i.e.) a “question everything” mentality and the idea of having a “revolution against the establishment” and well, you have one very Church hostile environment.

 

[ralphinal]

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.

I don’t have to. You just posted it. No where does it say that we “re-sacrifice” Christ. The entire Eucharist is a metaphysical event. We are joined with Christ Crucified. You have made a false claim, but I cannot hold that against you.

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).

Again, it does not say that she was co-redemptress with Christ. I think that you are misreading the term. The term does not mean that she is equal to, or even required. It means that she had a role, small as it was, and her prayers are still used to help us.

Besides, neither term is in the posts you just put up

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

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.

Sorry tried to google it, what is ECM?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

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.

I want to see one and Im not even Catholic!

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

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.

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.

 

[shawn38]

I don’t have to. You just posted it. No where does it say that we “re-sacrifice” Christ. The entire Eucharist is a metaphysical event. We are joined with Christ Crucified. You have made a false claim, but I cannot hold that against you.

Again, it does not say that she was co-redemptress with Christ. I think that you are misreading the term. The term does not mean that she is equal to, or even required. It means that she had a role, small as it was, and her prayers are still used to help us.

Besides, neither term is in the posts you just put up

It says Christ is sacrificed on the alter. No that has already been done. We are joined with Christ Crucified when we accept Christ for the world will hate us for His name sake.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

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.

Ive been told by some protestant missionary’s that have been to South America that the Catholic church there has some strange death cult type stuff mixed in.

 

[ralphinal]

It says Christ is sacrificed on the alter. No that has already been done. We are joined with Christ Crucified when we accept Christ for the world will hate us for His name sake.

Where were you on September 11, 2001? If you are old enough, where were you when JFK was killed? Or Pearl Harbor? These events caused a memory to be fixed forever in our memories. The Crucifixion had the same effect on all of creation, including heaven itself. ALL of creation was saved by an event almost 2000 years ago. In the same way that modern and future men could be saved by an event in the past, so to can we be part of it through the mass. It is NOT a re-sacrifice. To say that is to say that God cannot have an event outside of time, or that He cannot have the power to allow it.

I am not sure why this is difficult for so many non-Catholics to understand. Christ was crucified once for all mankind. However, just was he was able to offer his Body and Blood the night before the actual crucifixion, we can re-present the same Body and Blood today.

If you ever see or study the Passover meal, the question is asked “what makes this night unlike all others?” The present tense is used, not the past. In the Jewish understanding, those participating in the meal are joined with the Children of Israel so many years ago. It is the same idea today.

As an aside, if we tell you that Catholics believe something, why would you persist in saying that we do not?

 

[ralphinal]

Ive been told by some protestant missionary’s that have been to South America that the Catholic church there has some strange death cult type stuff mixed in.

That is an mis-statement. What has happened in some areas is that native or folk religions have been “Catholicked” by some people, trying to make something new. In the Caribbean, it was called voodoo. In some places, it is santaria. The Faith itself is the same, but some people are trying to make it something it is not. If you go to a mass there, it is the same. The Catachism reads the same. All of the faith is the same, but some people try to add something to it.

Haiti is a good example. The Churches are Catholic, and the religion is the same, yet many of the lay people will go and practice voodoo as well. No one IN the clergy is doing it or teaching it, but some would claim that it is part of the Catholic faith in Haiti

 

[smogdew]

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

There are things people like and dislike about the Vatican II change.

Since the St. Joseph Daily Missal (and others) had Latin on one page and the vernacular on the opposite, I don’t understand why Mass is in the vernacular. Except perhaps in countries where literacy is low and the people need it.

I miss the music/hymns - they’ve either been done away with or changed - those I knew by heart, I now have to use a song book to ‘get’ the new words.

Since Vatican II I find there is a new leniency in the Church regarding Mass attire (people in my church look like they’re going to or just returned from the beach - there’s no sense of modesty or being in God’s house with Him present). And nobody came out and said “it’s on you if you vote for a pro-abortionist”.

Unfortunately, (for me) the intensity is gone; in over 6 years at this parish, I have yet to hear anything about ‘death, judgment, heaven and/or hell’. It’s all sweetness, light, mercy and goodness and that’s not the sum total of life (or death).

Perhaps I’m too entrenched in the old ways; I realize changes are good, but not all changes.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Sorry tried to google it, what is ECM?

It didn’t appear that anyone answered your question. ECM means “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”, referring to lay people who assist the Priest in distributing Communion (both kinds) during Mass.

Back to V2. Although the documents themselves may not have been revolutionary, the way they came about represented a sea change in comparison to prior councils. The Curia had drawn up their schema for various subjects and expected that the Bishops would fall in line. But the Bishops, some prior to the start and the great majority at the first session, took charge of the agenda themselves. And Pope John XXIII, to his credit, let it be. So it was the collegial atmosphere and openness of the sessions that was different, and Bishops and others built on that following V2 and brought it back to their own countries and dioceses.

For a time after that, Bishops, Priests and laity saw this as a sign that the Church was becoming more a “church of the people in God”, and participation in “important” aspects of church life by the laity increased. One poster said that Catholic laity should “pray and obey” and that was the pre-Vatican II practice. V2 seemed to empower ALL Catholics to do more than just that and to become more involved as true participants in the liturgy and in the life of their Church.

And even though the V2 documents themselves did not make earth shaking changes to doctrines or practices, the language used in many of them certainly seemed to encourage and allow for those changes. The rest is history.

And the changes did not happen all at once, but some of them already mentioned (Mass in the vernacular, roles of laity as ministers of the Word and as ECM’s, changes in wording in the Order of the Mass) added up to a huge change over a period of about 6 or 7 years.

V2 is controversial not only because of what it did, but because it was an obvious pivoting point from the Church of the 50’s and early 60’s (when I was growing up) to the Church that existed by the late 60’s and early 70’s. Even if V2 did not “force” these changes it initiated the process and created the attitude that allowed them to occur.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Re
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).

Im very interested to hear from Catholics on this. Is this apart of the vatican 2 document?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

That is an mis-statement. What has happened in some areas is that native or folk religions have been “Catholicked” by some people, trying to make something new. In the Caribbean, it was called voodoo. In some places, it is santaria. The Faith itself is the same, but some people are trying to make it something it is not. If you go to a mass there, it is the same. The Catachism reads the same. All of the faith is the same, but some people try to add something to it.

Haiti is a good example. The Churches are Catholic, and the religion is the same, yet many of the lay people will go and practice voodoo as well. No one IN the clergy is doing it or teaching it, but some would claim that it is part of the Catholic faith in Haiti

So the priests dont condone it or teach it?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

There are things people like and dislike about the Vatican II change.

Since the St. Joseph Daily Missal (and others) had Latin on one page and the vernacular on the opposite, I don’t understand why Mass is in the vernacular. Except perhaps in countries where literacy is low and the people need it.

I miss the music/hymns - they’ve either been done away with or changed - those I knew by heart, I now have to use a song book to ‘get’ the new words.

Since Vatican II I find there is a new leniency in the Church regarding Mass attire (people in my church look like they’re going to or just returned from the beach - there’s no sense of modesty or being in God’s house with Him present). And nobody came out and said “it’s on you if you vote for a pro-abortionist”.

Unfortunately, (for me) the intensity is gone; in over 6 years at this parish, I have yet to hear anything about ‘death, judgment, heaven and/or hell’. It’s all sweetness, light, mercy and goodness and that’s not the sum total of life (or death).

Perhaps I’m too entrenched in the old ways; I realize changes are good, but not all changes.

good change is hard bad change is harder.

 

[ralphinal]

So the priests dont condone it or teach it?

The only true answer is that they are not now, and never were, allowed or supposed to. Naturally, I cannot say that none of them ever did. I can say that teaching anything outside of the Catholic faith is not allowed, and, in fact, forbidden.

 

[ralphinal]

Im very interested to hear from Catholics on this. Is this apart of the vatican 2 document?

None of this is new. You have to understand that when discussing Vatican II, most of the documents are just re-statements or clarifications of older teachings. There were few actual teachings (mass in vernacular, increased allowances for the lay people) that were newer. There were several “documents” from the Council. People just lump them all into one

For example, the teachings on Mary date from the early Church, as does the teachings on the Eucharist.

Please look into them for yourself on this site (catholic.com). DO NOT try to learn the Catholic faith from non-Catholic sites. The level of incorrect information can vary from slight to total fiction

 

[rinnie]

Where were you on September 11, 2001? If you are old enough, where were you when JFK was killed? Or Pearl Harbor? These events caused a memory to be fixed forever in our memories. The Crucifixion had the same effect on all of creation, including heaven itself. ALL of creation was saved by an event almost 2000 years ago. In the same way that modern and future men could be saved by an event in the past, so to can we be part of it through the mass. It is NOT a re-sacrifice. To say that is to say that God cannot have an event outside of time, or that He cannot have the power to allow it.

I am not sure why this is difficult for so many non-Catholics to understand. Christ was crucified once for all mankind. However, just was he was able to offer his Body and Blood the night before the actual crucifixion, we can re-present the same Body and Blood today.

If you ever see or study the Passover meal, the question is asked “what makes this night unlike all others?” The present tense is used, not the past. In the Jewish understanding, those participating in the meal are joined with the Children of Israel so many years ago. It is the same idea today.

As an aside, if we tell you that Catholics believe something, why would you persist in saying that we do not?

I agree when we have communion at mass we do not see a difference from the last supper and the present supper. It is God in his presense sharing his body and blood with us.

We feel it is a honor and blessing to be called to the Supper of Christ.

As far as Vat.2 is concerned I have to be quite honest. Its all I ever knew. So the small changes that have been made I could never miss. I just know that the RCC is the true Church for me and the Pope has the power to do what God calls him to do. I just obey.

I do not see any teaching of God that has been taken away so disciplines of the church do not bother me. As long as we have the RCC and RCP to preach that word I will obey the authority given to them. And I will continue to pray for them to continue to multiply and do Gods work.

I have heard people complain about the changes but can honestly say that from all of the complaints I have not heard one that would bother me.

 

[ralphinal]

I agree when we have communion at mass we do not see a difference from the last supper and the present supper. It is God in his presense sharing his body and blood with us.

We feel it is a honor and blessing to be called to the Supper of Christ.

As far as Vat.2 is concerned I have to be quite honest. Its all I ever knew. So the small changes that have been made I could never miss. I just know that the RCC is the true Church for me and the Pope has the power to do what God calls him to do. I just obey.

I do not see any teaching of God that has been taken away so disciplines of the church do not bother me. As long as we have the RCC and RCP to preach that word I will obey the authority given to them. And I will continue to pray for them to continue to multiply and do Gods work.

I have heard people complain about the changes but can honestly say that from all of the complaints I have not heard one that would bother me.

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.

 

[rinnie]

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.

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