Why did Vatican II happen?

[curlycool89]

Someone I know has problems with Vatican II because he was raised in a Catholic school where the nuns strictly told him that the Eucharist is recieved kneeling and only the Priest can hold Him and such. He held these rules very closely to his heart and when it suddenly changed, it was like a shock to him.

Well, that’s what happens when you found your belief on things that are not true. This is what happened to the Pharisees, who preferred the traditions and rules of men to the point that they lost sight of those of God.

The nuns were simply misinformed. Deacons have always been ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. There is also the story of St. Tarcisius, a 12 year old acolyte (not a cleric at all) who was martyred on the way to prison to give out the Eucharist.

Thanks, pnewton. Certainly, we need to avoid the extreme that we can disregard whatever we want that’s not explicitly de fide. But we need to equally be on guard against having our faith so wrapped up in a specific discipline that our faith is shaken if it changes.

That is important.

If someone’s faith is shaken by, say, Catholics eating meat on Fridays (allowed in the US/Canada outside of Lent, just make sure you do something else as a penance) then I have to ask what exactly their faith was based on. It can’t have been their relationship with Jesus Christ and His Church if something so petty shakes them.

 

[Dolores49]

I recommend reading some (short) books on the topic:

(1) “What Went Wrong With Vatican II: the Catholic Crisis Explained” by Ralph McInerny. Available here: shop.SophiaInstitute.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=439

You can read an excerpt HERE:
ewtn.com/library/Theology/SIPVAT2.HTM .

(2) Michael Davies examined Vatican II and was a prolific writer. His books are available at www.TanBooks.com .

The books I read by Davies are: “Liturgical Time Bombs of Vatican II,” “The Catholic Sanctuary and the Second Vatican Council,” and “Liturgical Shipwreck-28 Years of the New Mass.” The last two are booklets.

(3) Michael Davies Dossier – fiuv.org/dossier_davies.html

then-CARDINAL RATZINGER’S LETTER

On the occasion of Mr. Davies’s funeral, Pope Benedict XVI sent a short letter to be read at Davies’s Solumn Requiem Mass in England, below:

"I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
(Translated from the original German)
9 November 2004 "

Source: web.archive.org/web/20050428074342/http://www.latin-mass-society.org/2005/michaeldavies.html

 

[ProVobis]

Is that even a barometer to say if something is begrudgingly done or not?

You got me. Sorry to bring up the fact that there were strict conditions attached.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is only this last statement that is thin. There is nothing unorthodox about recognizing the difference between discipline and doctrine. In fact, it is essential to good theology. After all, if something is discipline, it can not be disbelieved as that only applies to doctine. It can only be disobeyed.

Thank you for wording it in a much better way. And you are right about obedience. We owe the disciplines our obedience until the Church says we can disregard it. The problem of some with things like Vatican II, they say “it’s not de fide anyway, I can pretend it does not exist.”

 

[Dolores49]

Well, that’s what happens when you found your belief on things that are not true. This is what happened to the Pharisees, who preferred the traditions and rules of men to the point that they lost sight of those of God. The nuns were simply misinformed. If someone’s faith is shaken by … eating meat on Fridays . . . then I have to ask what exactly their faith was based on. It can’t have been their relationship with Jesus Christ and His Church if something so petty shakes them.

To “curlycool89” – Petty, you say? Petty!? 60,000 Catholics left the Church following Vatican II. It hit them in the gut, as Anne Roche Muggeridge has said. “RedDuke50” sounds like he sincerely wants to know facts about VII not shame his friend.

Are you aware that the Second Vatican Council had Protestant “observers” giving their opinions? Are you aware that liturgy reformer and chief architect of the New Mass Catholic Archbishop Bugnini was accused by Pope Paul VI of being a Freemason? Where is the Tabernacle of Our Blessed Lord in your church? Jesus is the center of our faith not the priests who stand facing us like an entertainer.

The changes in Catholic worship was a Revolution. Notice I said “worship” not “rules”.

Michael Davies’s book “Liturgical Time Bombs of Vatican II” is subtitled “The Destruction of Catholic faith Through Changes in Catholic Worship.”

“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy . . . the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy . . .”—Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, ‘Milestones.’ Ignatius Press, 1998. Pp. 148-149.

 

[edwest2]

To “curlycool89” – Petty, you say? Petty!? 60,000 Catholics left the Church following Vatican II. It hit them in the gut, as Anne Roche Muggeridge has said. “RedDuke50” sounds like he sincerely wants to know facts about VII not shame his friend.

Are you aware that the Second Vatican Council had Protestant “observers” giving their opinions? Are you aware that liturgy reformer and chief architect of the New Mass Catholic Archbishop Bugnini was accused by Pope Paul VI of being a Freemason? Where is the Tabernacle of Our Blessed Lord in your church? Jesus is the center of our faith not the priests who stand facing us like an entertainer.

The changes in Catholic worship was a Revolution. Notice I said “worship” not “rules”.

Michael Davies’s book “Liturgical Time Bombs of Vatican II” is subtitled “The Destruction of Catholic faith Through Changes in Catholic Worship.”

“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy . . . the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy . . .”—Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, ‘Milestones.’ Ignatius Press, 1998. Pp. 148-149.

First, look at the real numbers starting in 1965. I was there.

old.usccb.org/comm/cip.shtml

People hit in the gut by Vatican II? No. Vatican II was not the cause of the changes people attribute to it. It was made into a scapegoat.

"In his outstanding book, “Spirit of the Liturgy,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the ancient and venerable practice of offering the Holy Sacrifice ad orientem, in which both priest and people face east:

“It has been the practice in the entire Church, East and West from time immemorial. Contrary to a prevailing misconception, there is no evidence for celebration of Mass versus populum in the first nineteen centuries of the Church’s history, with rare exceptions.”

“Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again.”

Yes, a lot of people are not aware of the things you mention.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

To “curlycool89” – Petty, you say? Petty!? 60,000 Catholics left the Church following Vatican II. It hit them in the gut, as Anne Roche Muggeridge has said. “RedDuke50” sounds like he sincerely wants to know facts about VII not shame his friend.

Are you aware that the Second Vatican Council had Protestant “observers” giving their opinions? Are you aware that liturgy reformer and chief architect of the New Mass Catholic Archbishop Bugnini was accused by Pope Paul VI of being a Freemason? Where is the Tabernacle of Our Blessed Lord in your church? Jesus is the center of our faith not the priests who stand facing us like an entertainer.

The changes in Catholic worship was a Revolution. Notice I said “worship” not “rules”.

Michael Davies’s book “Liturgical Time Bombs of Vatican II” is subtitled “The Destruction of Catholic faith Through Changes in Catholic Worship.”

“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy . . . the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy . . .”—Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, ‘Milestones.’ Ignatius Press, 1998. Pp. 148-149.

So you follow the rules before but NOT Vatican II? Then aren’t you just picking and choosing what to follow?

I don’t know what you are seeing at Mass but what I see is not the priest as an entertainer…

A fair amount of people left the Church because of rigid “rules” and stern people that could never explain anything.

All you have linked is someone’s opinion and not the infallibility of the Church…

 

[Zosimus41]

Someone I know has problems with Vatican II because he was raised in a Catholic school where the nuns strictly told him that the Eucharist is recieved kneeling and only the Priest can hold Him and such. He held these rules very closely to his heart and when it suddenly changed, it was like a shock to him.

So can someone please tell me what was the purpose of changing from Vatican I to Vatican II? If you have any links they would also be appreciated.

Thank you

That was over 50 years ago Id think the shock would wear out by now.
I think it started in 1962.

The aim was to let some fresh air into the Church’ and to promote within her an aggiornamento “to bring it up to date”.

 

[Rich_C]

To “curlycool89” – Petty, you say? Petty!? 60,000 Catholics left the Church following Vatican II. It hit them in the gut, as Anne Roche Muggeridge has said. “RedDuke50” sounds like he sincerely wants to know facts about VII not shame his friend.

Are you aware that the Second Vatican Council had Protestant “observers” giving their opinions? Are you aware that liturgy reformer and chief architect of the New Mass Catholic Archbishop Bugnini was accused by Pope Paul VI of being a Freemason? Where is the Tabernacle of Our Blessed Lord in your church? Jesus is the center of our faith not the priests who stand facing us like an entertainer.

The changes in Catholic worship was a Revolution. Notice I said “worship” not “rules”.

Michael Davies’s book “Liturgical Time Bombs of Vatican II” is subtitled “The Destruction of Catholic faith Through Changes in Catholic Worship.”

“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy . . . the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy . . .”—Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, ‘Milestones.’ Ignatius Press, 1998. Pp. 148-149.

He’s just a blunt person, and exhibits no sympathy for people hurt by the Catholic Revolution. Don’t let it get to you. He won’t be pastoring anyone in our country, anyway.

 

[Mary_Fleurdelis]

That was over 50 years ago Id think the shock would wear out by now.

Nope. My grandparents, parents, aunts, and uncles still have huge issues with it, because they went to Catholic schools during Vatican II. One day, nuns came in without habits and in casual clothing, and several priests and nuns left their vocations. They were told that touching the Eucharist was a mortal sin since early childhood and suddenly they were playing rock music in church and received the Eucharist in their hands. No more being silent in church. Confession was unnecessary anymore because we can now go straight to God, and the Church was stupid for not letting women be priests.

Unfortunately, they were not catechized properly, and I have a hard time convincing them of the difference between discipline and doctrine/dogma. Or teaching them about the authority of the Church. Or the role of other major changes that were occurring simultaneously during Vatican II.

 

[clem456]

Someone I know has problems with Vatican II because he was raised in a Catholic school where the nuns strictly told him that the Eucharist is recieved kneeling and only the Priest can hold Him and such. He held these rules very closely to his heart and when it suddenly changed, it was like a shock to him.

So can someone please tell me what was the purpose of changing from Vatican I to Vatican II? If you have any links they would also be appreciated.

Thank you

The documents are available here: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
EVERYONE CATHOLIC SHOULD TAKE A YEAR, AND ACTUALLY READ THE DOCUMENTS,
maybe a little bit every night. The actual documents are profound and beautifully written, and they also take some time to absorb.

Neither Vatican 2 nor the changes attributed to it, whether they be the solid changes or the misguided changes, are responsible for anyone fleeing the Church in the 60’s. That is just an absurd notion. There are many many factors involved. I look at the secular culture at war with faith, which is the ongoing battle since Genesis. I think satan dances with glee when Catholics blame these problems on V2.

A good book that further exposes the meaning of the documents and the implementation of them is “Sources of Renewal” by Karol Woytla (JP2). Catholics should also attempt to read that, since JP2 was one of the chief architects of V2.

 

[Zosimus41]

To “curlycool89” – Petty, you say? Petty!? 60,000 Catholics left the Church following Vatican II. It hit them in the gut, as Anne Roche Muggeridge has said. “RedDuke50” sounds like he sincerely wants to know facts about VII not shame his friend.

Are you aware that the Second Vatican Council had Protestant “observers” giving their opinions? Are you aware that liturgy reformer and chief architect of the New Mass Catholic Archbishop Bugnini was accused by Pope Paul VI of being a Freemason? Where is the Tabernacle of Our Blessed Lord in your church? Jesus is the center of our faith not the priests who stand facing us like an entertainer.

The changes in Catholic worship was a Revolution. Notice I said “worship” not “rules”.

Michael Davies’s book “Liturgical Time Bombs of Vatican II” is subtitled “The Destruction of Catholic faith Through Changes in Catholic Worship.”

“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy . . . the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy . . .”—Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, ‘Milestones.’ Ignatius Press, 1998. Pp. 148-149.

I was raied in the new mass druing the 70s my mother was in a group back then called the “womens guild” I think it was. On one of our picknicks the priest accompanied us
He decided to say mass and used the hamburgerbuns for the Eucharist. I still remember him long cury/stringy hair and played the guitar.

I remember singing Kumbaya in mass and what is now called RE we called CCD
it lasted pratically all day Saturday I hated it. We coloured, watched movies, sang. It was sooo boring.

 

[Zosimus41]

Nope. My grandparents, parents, aunts, and uncles still have huge issues with it, because they went to Catholic schools during Vatican II. One day, nuns came in without habits and in casual clothing, and several priests and nuns left their vocations. They were told that touching the Eucharist was a mortal sin since early childhood and suddenly they were playing rock music in church and received the Eucharist in their hands. No more being silent in church. Confession was unnecessary anymore because we can now go straight to God, and the Church was stupid for not letting women be priests.

Unfortunately, they were not catechized properly, and I have a hard time convincing them of the difference between discipline and doctrine/dogma. Or teaching them about the authority of the Church. Or the role of other major changes that were occurring simultaneously during Vatican II.

Its my thinking that vaticatn II didnt change things as much as some would have you believe.

I think people just took it too far. Dressing up in silly costumes, the kids holding hands in a circle around the alter, female alter girls and Eicharistic Ministers and the such.

Seems if people do something long enough it just get implemented into the mass. Like when the preist gestures peace be with you he does it as singular hands held outward because hes addressing the congregation its funny to see the people mimic him back with the same gesture.

And now the big thing is to hold your hand in the air and pray for an individual at that moment I feel like Im in a protestant service.

 

[Pork_Roll]

It was a pastoral council. It didn’t infallibly bind us to anything liturgically or doctrinally.

 

[edwest2]

That was over 50 years ago Id think the shock would wear out by now.
I think it started in 1962.

The aim was to let some fresh air into the Church’ and to promote within her an aggiornamento “to bring it up to date”.

Those are inaccurate statements. The goal was not to present new truths but to present the same truths anew to a society that was being influenced by secularists to think differently. Only people wrongly try to change what is true. A fresh approach was needed, but guided by the Holy Spirit, not the Beat generation or the J.D.s (juvenile delinquents).

Peace,
Ed

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thank you for wording it in a much better way. And you are right about obedience. We owe the disciplines our obedience until the Church says we can disregard it. The problem of some with things like Vatican II, they say “it’s not de fide anyway, I can pretend it does not exist.”

It was a pastoral council. It didn’t infallibly bind us to anything liturgically or doctrinally.

And there you have it.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

He’s just a blunt person, and exhibits no sympathy for people hurt by the Catholic Revolution. Don’t let it get to you. He won’t be pastoring anyone in our country, anyway.

To be fair…when he said petty…this is what he said "If someone’s faith is shaken by, say, Catholics eating meat on Fridays (allowed in the US/Canada outside of Lent, just make sure you do something else as a penance) then I have to ask what exactly their faith was based on. It can’t have been their relationship with Jesus Christ and His Church if something so petty shakes them."

So he was referring to the fact that if your faith is so shaken by the above Friday pennance or abstaining…then it is pretty shallow.

I think it was taken out of context…

 

[Pork_Roll]

And there you have it.

We as catholics owe the 2nd Vatican council our obedience and respect. We don’t owe it our complete and totall unconditional acceptance–unlike the doctrines of the first 7 ecumenical councils.

The documents of the 2nd Vatican council must be interpreted in light of tradition. This really hasn’t been the case in the last 50 years.

 

[pnewton]

To “curlycool89” – Petty, you say? Petty!? 60,000 Catholics left the Church following Vatican …Michael Davies’s book “Liturgical Time Bombs of Vatican II” is subtitled “The Destruction of Catholic faith Through Changes in Catholic Worship.”

Inflamatory titles hardler recommend a balanced and imparial book. Wasn’t Davies a Lefebvre supporter?

People also broke from the Church after Vatican I, among many other splinters. I would say 60,000 or 1 in every ten thousand Catholics, does not represent a destruction of anything.

 

[pnewton]

It was a pastoral council. It didn’t infallibly bind us to anything liturgically or doctrinally.

It was pastoral in purpose. It remains an ecumenical church council. It produced two dogmatic constitutions. The Catholic Church has made it clear in its discussion with the SSPX that Vatican II can not simply be dismisses as pastoral.