What made Vatican II such a big deal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ValiantDomain
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

ValiantDomain

Guest
Until I joined this forum, I had never heard of such “schismatic” groups as the sedevacantists or the SSPX (or SSPV). Now that I have, and have done a small amount of research into why they are considered by the Church in Rome to be schismatic, I can’t help but notice one overriding trend among all of them: disagreement concerning Vatican II.

Unfortunately for me, I have no idea what Catholic life was like prior to Vatican II since I’m only now becoming familiar with Catholicism (Vatican II-style) now! Regardless, it doesn’t take a genius to see that Vatican II shook things up a bit, especially considering the reactions of the SSPX and the sedevacantists! But what happened? Most of the claims I read about concerning Vatican II are that the Catholic Church ceased being Catholic, etc. And it’s really disturbing when the SSPX and sedevacantists use St. Thomas and Irenaeus to back up their claims.

So, what changed from pre-Vatican II to Vatican II that caused so much unrest?
 
Without meaning to be overly simple, anytime there is a major council- it is a big deal; even if just by definition.

I inagine (and have heard, but not researched) that after every major council of the Church there were outcries, problems, confusion, etc. I would expect no different with Vat. II, especially with the general confusion caused by modernism already present in the world.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
ValiantDomain said:
…
So, what changed from pre-Vatican II to Vatican II that caused so much unrest?
Click to expand...
I think we saw an acceleration after Vatican II of the changes being instilled into the Church and Society by modernism and lack of faith. This was accentuated greatly by Paul VI promulgating the Novus Ordo (which was not mandated or even reccomended by Vat. II)- a change in liturgy so great (but not invalid) that it, along with the promiscuous atmosphere of the 1960’s, plus mis-interpretations of Vat. II (i.e., the “spirit of Vat. II”) led a lot of confusion and reactions from every quarter.

That is my take. Thankfully Benedict XVI is ready to take on the proper interpretation of Vatican II!

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
I would say the complete and utter absolution of Holy Tradition as the bedrock of the Roman Catholic Church for the modernist innovations of the ‘spirit of the age’ (i.e. Teilhardism) which has largely undermined the faithful execution of our religious duty as Roman Catholics.

Just joking… :o
 
chrisb said:
I…Just joking… :o
Click to expand...
Or were you…😦

Keep in mind, that this did not all start in the 1960’s. It started, well in the Garden, but the modern version started at least in the Protestant revolution, or at the latest the Galileo affair. Clearly it started slow, but by the 19th century it was going strong, but was kept at bay. In the latter part of the 20th century it really started taking off. By Vatican II, it was going wildly. Today it is threatining to become the status quo. In parts of Europe it practically is.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
trth_skr said:
Or were you…😦

Keep in mind, that this did not all start in the 1960’s. It started, well in the Garden, but the modern version started at least in the Protestant revolution, or at the latest the Galileo affair. Clearly it started slow, but by the 19th century it was going strong, but was kept at bay. In the latter part of the 20th century it really started taking off. By Vatican II, it was going wildly. Today it is threatining to become the status quo. In parts of Europe it practically is.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
I started a similar thread about this today concerning a encyclical by Pope Pius XI in 1935:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=119465
 
It was the first Church Council in the age of mass media, and the way I’ve heard it, the “progressives” inside the Church and the media worked together to define the Council to the outside world even as the Council was proceeding. By the time the Council was done the entire western world thought it knew the meaning of the Council, when what it really knew is only how the “progressives” had decided to hijack the Council.

One of the comments often heard by those who actually attended the Council is along the lines of “We never intended any of this!” (meaning all the “spirit of Vatican II” disasters that have been visited upon the Church for 40 years).
 
Well… as someone who has learned quite a lot here at Catholic Answers, This Rock magazine and others such as the late Michael Davies and those who are parishioners at the Indult Parish I attend…

Vatican II was no “big deal”. It is what happened AFTER Vatican II.

The progressives who thought that Vatican II did not go far enough are using the documents issued by the Council in a way in which the council fathers never intended. Archbishop Lefebvre himself signed the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II, yet we see how horribly it has been hijacked by the liberals who have had very lofty positions in the Church including the Vatican. Just read the documents yourself and see.

I have yet to hear Gregorian Chant at any of the local parishes I go to, yet I hear it every Sunday at Mater Ecclesiae.

Ken
 
ValiantDomain said:
Until I joined this forum, I had never heard of such “schismatic” groups as the sedevacantists or the SSPX (or SSPV). Now that I have, and have done a small amount of research into why they are considered by the Church in Rome to be schismatic, I can’t help but notice one overriding trend among all of them: disagreement concerning Vatican II.

Unfortunately for me, I have no idea what Catholic life was like prior to Vatican II since I’m only now becoming familiar with Catholicism (Vatican II-style) now! Regardless, it doesn’t take a genius to see that Vatican II shook things up a bit, especially considering the reactions of the SSPX and the sedevacantists! But what happened? Most of the claims I read about concerning Vatican II are that the Catholic Church ceased being Catholic, etc. And it’s really disturbing when the SSPX and sedevacantists use St. Thomas and Irenaeus to back up their claims.

So, what changed from pre-Vatican II to Vatican II that caused so much unrest?
Click to expand...
I would say it was the attitude or “spirit” of Vatican II that did the most damage.

The Church didn’t cease being Catholic, but it definitely dropped many unique and distinguished Catholic traits.

As well as the Latin Mass…which is in my opinion more important than anything in the world.

Every week I have to settle with the Novus Ordo Mass I feel my spirituality and faith declining…only to be reassured and reastablished at the Feast of the Lamb…celebrated under the Traditional Latin Mass.
 
Vatican II was a blessing to the Church despite some of the misdirection that occurred when people took the “bit in their teeth” and ran off in many directions. It was a blessing in that many lay people were forced to study what was actually taught by the Church and what was dross and superstition that had built up over the centuries since Trent. Properly celibrated the Mass of Paul VI can be quite beautiful and edifying when properly done. We have been able to put the popular devotions like the Rosary, Novenas, Benediction, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, etc. in their proper place; good for growing in Holiness, but not more beneficial than Mass and the Sacraments. In the years preceeding Vatican II superstition had crept into the prayer lives and beliefs of many ordinary people. After Vatican II a lot of folks, in ignorance, “threw out the baby with the bath water.” In my opinion we are starting to reap the benefits of the Council and Benedict XVI will make it happen. As John Paul II said,“Be not afraid.”
 
rwoehmke said:
Vatican II was a blessing to the Church despite some of the misdirection that occurred when people took the “bit in their teeth” and ran off in many directions. It was a blessing in that many lay people were forced to study what was actually taught by the Church and what was dross and superstition that had built up over the centuries since Trent. Properly celibrated the Mass of Paul VI can be quite beautiful and edifying when properly done. We have been able to put the popular devotions like the Rosary, Novenas, Benediction, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, etc. in their proper place; good for growing in Holiness, but not more beneficial than Mass and the Sacraments. In the years preceeding Vatican II superstition had crept into the prayer lives and beliefs of many ordinary people. After Vatican II a lot of folks, in ignorance, “threw out the baby with the bath water.” In my opinion we are starting to reap the benefits of the Council and Benedict XVI will make it happen. As John Paul II said,“Be not afraid.”
Click to expand...
I think that what a lot of people forget is that, almost by definition, there is no ideal way of dealing with evil.
The church, surrounded by the evils of the modern world - remember that at the time about half of humanity was living under
openly atheistic and repressive regimes, another third was living in abject poverty, and the remainder were largely in the hedonistic West - had to respond somehow. This she did by dropping the symbols of the past. The huge danger in this was that it fed the suspicion that the church was ashamed of her traditions. However the alternative danger was that the church would be seen as not of the present.

In my opinion the Council worked quite well for the mature, active layman, or more usually laywoman. It didn’t make enough concessions to people’s immaturity. There is also an interesting effect whereby most of the liberals, having been given what they wanted, then left the church, whilst the conservatives, resenting the Council, nevertheless remained. So the church in the West has ended up smaller and more right wing.
 
The 2nd Vatican Council was called to and addressed the Church in modern times. It produced an excellent vision for how the church should be through its many documents.

Some people within the church who were unhappy about how it was not giving in to unmodern culture, claimed falsely that it was an effort to incorporate moderan secular & protestant cultural ideas into the church. They would claim changes were needed and that these changes where in the ‘spirit of Vatican II’. They were not.

The true Spirit of Vatican II was shown by the papacy of John Paul II who endeavered to implement the vision of Vatican II.

Pope Benedict XVI continues this endeavor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top