What's the story behind Vatican ii?

[Bix]

I’ve often wanted to ask this question too. I don’t know anything about vatican 1 vs 2 either. I truly dislike clicking on links I’m unfamiliar with. Can anyone give a condensed answer? Is there a reason everyone is afraid or unwilling to speak about this? I would rather have (name removed by moderator)ut here rather than random searches on the internet. (at least there are moderators here)

 

[floresco]

Unlike previous councils, Vatican II, was primarily pastoral in nature. Other councils were mostly to address doctrinal questions with clear answers. VII was not responding to doctrinal controversies. Instead it was trying to take existing doctrine and put it into terms that would be more easily understood . It lasted for several years and issued documents on a variety of subjects.

Unfortunately there was a perception that it was changing Church teaching. Pope Benedict has been very clear that anything taught at the council must be understood in continuity with previous teaching. Even so, there are some points that are difficult to understand this way.

Unlike earlier councils which had the purpose of clearly defining doctrine, sometimes the documents are unclear or ambiguous. There is also a problem of people who deliberately misinterpret them to further their own agendas.

 

[Bix]

Unlike previous councils, Vatican II, was primarily pastoral in nature. Other councils were mostly to address doctrinal questions with clear answers. VII was not responding to doctrinal controversies. Instead it was trying to take existing doctrine and put it into terms that would be more easily understood . It lasted for several years and issued documents on a variety of subjects.

Unfortunately there was a perception that it was changing Church teaching. Pope Benedict has been very clear that anything taught at the council must be understood in continuity with previous teaching. Even so, there are some points that are difficult to understand this way.

Unlike earlier councils which had the purpose of clearly defining doctrine, sometimes the documents are unclear or ambiguous. There is also a problem of people who deliberately misinterpret them to further their own agendas.

Would changing the mass from Latin be an example?

 

[TrueLight]

I’ve often wanted to ask this question too. I don’t know anything about vatican 1 vs 2 either. I truly dislike clicking on links I’m unfamiliar with. Can anyone give a condensed answer? Is there a reason everyone is afraid or unwilling to speak about this? I would rather have (name removed by moderator)ut here rather than random searches on the internet. (at least there are moderators here)

I wouldn’t touch that with a 10-foot pole.

 

[Bix]

Seriously?

 

[floresco]

Would changing the mass from Latin be an example?

The document on liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium recommended:
**In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. **

What the document actually says is that the vernacular may be used for parts of the Mass. What most people think it says is that the whole Mass must be in the vernacular.

 

[Bix]

The document on liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium recommended:
**In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. **

What the document actually says is that the vernacular may be used for parts of the Mass. What most people think it says is that the whole Mass must be in the vernacular.

Okay, so - Vatican 2 said if I’m the U.S. I’m able to go and hear this in English. Right? I don’t understand why that would upset people…

For example- my Mother was taken to a Baptist church for Sunday school classes(religious ed ) as a child and then went to mass where she didn’t understand the language. My grandparents were clearly different denominations and were attempting to expose her to both so she could make a choice when older. Naturally, she chose Baptist as she didn’t understand the mass as a child. She continues to visit a Catholic church for prayer sometimes, but is active at her church. Now, she is asking me more detailed questions about Catholicism.

So, was this the change that upset everyone with Vatican 2?

 

[floresco]

Okay, so - Vatican 2 said if I’m the U.S. I’m able to go and hear this in English. Right?

No. What Vatican II said was that the Mass should be in Latin. The document says: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” It said that some parts of the Mass, like the readings, could be in the vernacular.

What actually ending up happening is not much like what Vatican II said should happen. But most people think the Council ordered all the changes they saw.

 

[Bix]

So what is all the hub bub? I don’t understand.

People saw changes, didn’t like them and thought Vatican ll made them? ( but Vatican ll didn’t make them and their anger is misplaced? )

 

[floresco]

So what is all the hub bub? I don’t understand.

People saw changes, didn’t like them and thought Vatican ll made them? ( but Vatican ll didn’t make them and their anger is misplaced? )

That is one problem. Another problem is that some of the documents can be understood as contradicting earlier Church teaching. This is highly distressing because the truth does not change. An example of this is VII’s teaching on other religions and other Christians.

 

[Bix]

What are Vatican ll teachings regarding other religions and other Christians?

 

[Melchior_1]

That is one problem. Another problem is that some of the documents can be understood as contradicting earlier Church teaching. This is highly distressing because the truth does not change. ** An example of this is VII’s teaching on other religions and other Christians.**

In light of mendicant traditions and practices (which very much resemble what the Vatican II documents say), how has Vatican II changed this exactly?

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the documents you speak of, which mirrors centuries of Dominican/Benedictine/Franciscan methodologies happened at the same time Rome told Bishops to let the religious do as they should be doing.

 

[Schism_hater]

Another problem is that some of the documents can be understood as contradicting earlier Church teaching. This is highly distressing because the truth does not change. An example of this is VII’s teaching on other religions and other Christians.

Indeed. In the bull Unam Sanctam Pope Boniface VIII “solemnly” declared in 1302 that it was absolutely necessary to salvation to be subject to the “Roman Pontiff”. The Council of Florence decreed in 1453 that “pagans”, “heretics”, “Jews” and “schismatics”, no matter what their works were, would be consigned to hell if they didn’t enter the Catholic Church before the end of their lives. Yet, as you know, Lumen Gentium says that non-Christians can be and are saved if they are sincere in seeking the truth (which I agree with). This is a problem I have struggled with for some time, and I am curious how you would resolve it.

 

[Tridentinum]

So what is all the hub bub? I don’t understand.

People saw changes, didn’t like them and thought Vatican ll made them? ( but Vatican ll didn’t make them and their anger is misplaced? )

Think of it like this:

Vatican II was an attempt to change the way the Church teaches the faith to make it more understandable by the modern man. The Council was hijacked by liberals and many of the documents produced by the council contained ambiguities - which were exploited by mis-interpretation by liberals to push forth their agenda of destruction.

Rome calls for the documents to be interpreted in the light of tradition, not as a break with the past. However, many claim, including the SSPX, that some of the documents are outright wrong - the document ‘DIGNITATIS HUMANAE’ seems irreconcilable with previous Church teaching, for example. For this reason, the SSPX rejects the documents of Vatican II. They accept that it was a valid Ecumenical Council, of course, but they reject the documents promulgated by it.

 

[King_Lazy]

What was Vatican ii?

Why was it needed?

Why do people hate it so much?

Vatican II updated some practices in the Church to make it more adaptable, empowering the grass roots.

People hate it because it happened at the same time there was a massive falling-away from all major denominations of Christianity in Western Culture, and they think Vatican II was the cause.

In reality, Vatican II didn’t happen in Protestantism, and yet many Protestant denominations suffered similar modernist heresies and a loss of faithful at the same time. Orthodoxy has suffered too where it exists in more Western countries such as Greece. In the Catholic Church, Vatican II was abused by liberal clergy, and they hid behind the adaptability it permitted when introducing their own erroneous practices. Vatican II was not meant to do away with traditional Catholicism, but many liberal bishops actually forbade traditional practices.

Nowadays, the modernists in the Church have exposed themselves and have been mostly unable to pass their false beliefs onto the new generation. They are getting old and their influence is waning. We’re seeing a slow, but gradual return to traditional Catholicism, but existing concurrently with the more positive Vatican II influences.

There are problems with the documents of Vatican II themselves in that they are a little vague and are open to interpretation. But it does not represent a departure from doctrine, and Papal authority has gradually been clarifying the spirit in which Vatican II is actually supposed to be interpreted. And that is the spirit of traditional Catholic teaching.

In any case, the 60s are well and truly over and the Church will go on. Although the Devil has used Vatican II for evil, God will not be taken for a fool and He will turn it into goodness in the centuries to come, which is a short time in the time scale of the Church. We must trust in Divine Providence. God knows what He’s doing, and He permits trials from the Evil One so that good may come of them.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Hmm… how many people went around after the Council of Trent, or Vatican I, wondering if it was a conspiracy?

:hey_bud:

 

[ProVobis]

Yet, as you know, Lumen Gentium says that non-Christians can be and are saved if they are sincere in seeking the truth (which I agree with). This is a problem I have struggled with for some time, and I am curious how you would resolve it.

If you read the Baltimore Catechism, written before Vatican II, you will essentially find the same thing.

 

[ProVobis]

Okay, so - Vatican 2 said if I’m the U.S. I’m able to go and hear this in English. Right?

Vatican 2 said nothing about English.

But think back to Trent. That 17-yr council doctrinally stated that the vulgar tongue is not to be allowed everywhere. This was to counter the Reformation where liturgies were being babelized left and right, translations were faulty, errors were introduced, and Catholic faith became undermined.

There was no prohibition against the vulgar tongue per se since some legitimate non-Reformation-related exceptions were allowed at the time.

Vatican 2 was a little stronger in its statement that Latin would be preserved in the liturgy, though it left the matter of the how much vernacular to allow in their countries up to the bishops. But the Mass is still in Latin, whether you actually hear it in Latin or not. Does that make sense?

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Yeah, like ProVobis said, Vatican II never mandated the vernacular. Latin was not supposed to go away like it unfortunately did in practice.

Please remember that there is a HUGE gap between what Vatican II did and taught and what actually happened afterward.

 

[gentle_atheist]

Vatican 2 said nothing about English.

But the Mass is still in Latin, whether you actually hear it in Latin or not. Does that make sense?

??? I never heard that one before!