Why did Vatican II happen?

[clem456]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zosimus41
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

There is some confusion here. Aggiornamento is not the presentation of new truths

Who are the “juvenile delinquents” you refer to?
So, do you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church, or do you not?

 

[jam070406]

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.

The Church had made it clear that the texts the SSPX have difficulty reconciling with Tradition are not binding on Catholics, and they are open to be further discussed and interpreted clearer.

 

[jam070406]

There is some confusion here. Aggiornamento is not the presentation of new truths

Who are the “juvenile delinquents” you refer to?
So, do you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church, or do you not?

I believe the Holy Spirit guided the Church in a way that will lead those Faithful to 2000 of Tradition in Truth, and those that wished to do harm to Church Teaching to their own destruction. Much like the OT Jews.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This Council has been greatly misunderstood compounded by, well, as we see explained here. Change within the church which occured much to swiftly without proper teaching. This doesn’t equate to wrong with V-II, it only indicates the inability to clearly understand what Pope Paul VI was stating and impliment that swiftly and correctly.

Bl John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI agree with and defend V-II.

Nevertheless, The idea that we must go back is incorrect, with an appeal to a period long past. We need to understand where we are and move foward. This is what Pope Paul did and this is what eventually the church will do again and is doing. V-II is not over and we are just now gaining our footing on clearer understanding. It been a mere 40-years, and the genius behind the Council is just starting to be recognized.

What occured also during the 60-70 period in society is not a result of V-II. Nor can be it be stated with any accuracy that had V-II not occured the Church would have faired better in this period. Thats an assumption which cannot be proven. The 50-60 period in western society bought much change, this was in the making with much contrary thinking to Christianity which we see traces of as far back as the 20-30’s, contraceptives, and so forth as we moved through the century.

 

[jam070406]

This Council has been greatly misunderstood compounded by, well, as we see explained here. Change within the church which occured much to swiftly without proper teaching. This doesn’t equate to wrong with V-II, it only indicates the inability to clearly understand what Pope Paul VI was stating and impliment that swiftly and correctly.

Bl John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI agree with and defend V-II.

Nevertheless, The idea that we must go back is incorrect, with an appeal to a period long past. We need to understand where we are and move foward. This is what Pope Paul did and this is what eventually the church will do again and is doing. V-II is not over and we are just now gaining our footing on clearer understanding. It been a mere 40-years, and the genius behind the Council is just starting to be recognized.

What occured also during the 60-70 period in society is not a result of V-II. Nor can be it be stated with any accuracy that had V-II not occured the Church would have faired better in this period. Thats an assumption which cannot be proven. The 50-60 period in western society bought much change, this was in the making with much contrary thinking to Christianity which we see traces of as far back as the 20-30’s, contraceptives, and so forth as we moved through the century.

We need to get away from a mindset that has one think there is a “going back”. This assumes that there was change. This is exactly the mindset that Pope Benedict says we are to avoid. To begin at that point should be an indicator that one is looking at it wrong. We have a Faith that is handed down. It doesn’t change. To speak in terms of “going back” assumes a hermeneutic of rupture that Pope Benedict has been attempting to expel from modern Catholic thought.

 

[clem456]

This Council has been greatly misunderstood compounded by, well, as we see explained here. Change within the church which occured much to swiftly without proper teaching. This doesn’t equate to wrong with V-II, it only indicates the inability to clearly understand what Pope Paul VI was stating and impliment that swiftly and correctly.

Bl John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI agree with and defend V-II.

Nevertheless, The idea that we must go back is incorrect, with an appeal to a period long past. We need to understand where we are and move foward. This is what Pope Paul did and this is what eventually the church will do again and is doing. V-II is not over and we are just now gaining our footing on clearer understanding. It been a mere 40-years, and the genius behind the Council is just starting to be recognized.

What occured also during the 60-70 period in society is not a result of V-II. Nor can be it be stated with any accuracy that had V-II not occured the Church would have faired better in this period. Thats an assumption which cannot be proven. The 50-60 period in western society bought much change, this was in the making with much contrary thinking to Christianity which we see traces of as far back as the 20-30’s, contraceptives, and so forth as we moved through the century.

Huge
There is no going back, by definition. This does not negate traditions and definitely does not negate Tradition. But the search for a certain time and culture and a set of feelings associated with it will be frustrating, as it cannot be done. The world changes period. The Church responds to changes. I accept that the the Holy Spirit guides the Church in a positive and holy way,
-always-, not just in the years prior to 1962.

We must remember that the kingdom of God is an eternal kiingdom. It is not 40 years long. It takes centuries for the Church to chew on scripture and revelation and give it full interpretation and implementation. 40 years is the blink of an eye! Although in these days of instant communication we act as though 40 years is an eternity. While you may be upset at the errors that people make, or the coarseness of culture that surfaces in the Church pews, as Catholics we are called to believe that God is guiding us through the Catholic Church and all of it’s teaching. The changes that have come about, even those you consider erromeous, WILL work for God’s greater glory, in a way that none of us can clearly see.

 

[jam070406]

Huge
There is no going back, by definition. This does not negate traditions and definitely does not negate Tradition. But the search for a certain time and culture and a set of feelings associated with it will be frustrating, as it cannot be done. The world changes period. The Church responds to changes. I accept that the the Holy Spirit guides the Church in a positive and holy way,
-always-, not just in the years prior to 1962.

We must remember that the kingdom of God is an eternal kiingdom. It is not 40 years long. It takes centuries for the Church to chew on scripture and revelation and give it full interpretation and implementation. 40 years is the blink of an eye! Although in these days of instant communication we act as though 40 years is an eternity. While you may be upset at the errors that people make, or the coarseness of culture that surfaces in the Church pews, as Catholics we are called to believe that God is guiding us through the Catholic Church and all of it’s teaching. The changes that have come about, even those you consider erromeous, WILL work for God’s greater glory, in a way that none of us can clearly see.

What teachings changed?

 

[clem456]

What teachings changed?

Why are you asking me that?

 

[jam070406]

Why are you asking me that?

Sorry, perhaps I read your post wrong. You seemed to suggest that teaching has changed.

 

[pnewton]

The Church had made it clear that the texts the SSPX have difficulty reconciling with Tradition are not binding on Catholics, and they are open to be further discussed and interpreted clearer.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14002

The Vatican made it clear in September that the SSPX would be asked to accept the “doctrinal preamble” as a condition for reconciliation with the Holy See. Although the contents of the document have not been made public, the Vatican was asking for an acknowledgment from the SSPX that the teachings of Vatican II are valid.

 

[clem456]

Sorry, perhaps I read your post wrong. You seemed to suggest that teaching has changed.

I see what you are seeing.
“as Catholics we are called to believe that God is guiding us through the Catholic Church and all of it’s teaching. The changes that have come about, even those you consider erromeous, WILL work for God’s greater glory, in a way that none of us can clearly see.”

I didn’t intend changes as in changes in teaching, but rather changes in form and observance, such as liturgical forms. Not Teachings as in doctrine. Sorry, that was confusing in consecutive sentences like that.

 

[jam070406]

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14002

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14369

 

[jam070406]

I see what you are seeing.
“as Catholics we are called to believe that God is guiding us through the Catholic Church and all of it’s teaching. The changes that have come about, even those you consider erromeous, WILL work for God’s greater glory, in a way that none of us can clearly see.”

I didn’t intend changes as in changes in teaching, but rather changes in form and observance, such as liturgical forms. Not Teachings as in doctrine. Sorry, that was confusing in consecutive sentences like that.

Gotcha. Thanks.

 

[pnewton]

The Holy Father in Spirit of the Liturgy disavows the possibility of going back here.

books.google.com/books?id=_8wk5BxoAWUC&pg=PA265&lpg=PA265&dq=ratzinger+spirit+of+the+liturgy+quote+white+wash+fresco&source=bl&ots=QRZWqK1Cu5&sig=MD8iWT7QCMffYswEXp12uBrOKi8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DP7yT863Oqbc2QWX9MnOCw&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=ratzinger%20spirit%20of%20the%20liturgy%20quote%20white%20wash%20fresco&f=false

We might say that … the liturgy was rather like a fresco… Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss

 

[jam070406]

The Holy Father in Spirit of the Liturgy disavows the possibility of going back here.

books.google.com/books?id=_8wk5BxoAWUC&pg=PA265&lpg=PA265&dq=ratzinger+spirit+of+the+liturgy+quote+white+wash+fresco&source=bl&ots=QRZWqK1Cu5&sig=MD8iWT7QCMffYswEXp12uBrOKi8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DP7yT863Oqbc2QWX9MnOCw&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=ratzinger%20spirit%20of%20the%20liturgy%20quote%20white%20wash%20fresco&f=false

Going back where? To the TLM?
Well, he was the one that expressed the desire for wider use of the TLM, so he certainly doesn’t want it gone.
That aside, the Holy Father’s Liturgy is VASTLY different then those found in most parishes today. So while you may think he doesn’t want to “go back there”, he doesn’t wish to have irreverent Liturgy with banal music and rampant abuses.

 

[pnewton]

Going back where? To the TLM?
Well, he was the one that expressed the desire for wider use of the TLM, so he certainly doesn’t want it gone.

Wider use is not a return. It is an pastoral accommodation to the minority.

So while you may think he doesn’t want to “go back there”, he doesn’t wish to have irreverent Liturgy with banal music and rampant abuses.

What I think is irrelevant. That is why I quoted. As far as what constitutes banal music, I will only say that the opposite of banal is fresh, original and innovative.

I think the word is often used as a synonym for “bad” meaning, “something I do not like.”

 

[Rich_C]

The Holy Father in Spirit of the Liturgy disavows the possibility of going back here.

We might say that … the liturgy was rather like a fresco… Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss

It is me, or is the Holy Father saying that the TLM was like a fresco that the concilium tried to cover with a whitewash, and now the Church is not going to cover it again, but will seek a new understanding of it, being careful not to lose it’s traditional meaning?

 

[jam070406]

Wider use is not a return. It is an pastoral accommodation to the minority.
What I think is irrelevant. That is why I quoted. As far as what constitutes banal music, I will only say that the opposite of banal is fresh, original and innovative.

I think the word is often used as a synonym for “bad” meaning, “something I do not like.”

You are free to think what you like. But I think Pope Benedict has a better understanding of what sacred music is appropriate for the Liturgy then you or I.

 

[pnewton]

It is me, or is the Holy Father saying that the TLM was like a fresco that the concilium tried to cover with a whitewash, and now the Church is not going to cover it again, but will seek a new understanding of it, being careful not to lose it’s traditional meaning?

If you read the whole preface in context, he said the liturgy (not the TLM) was like a fresco that had been whitewashed and the changes removed the whitewash revealing the bright colors underneath. In other words, the changes to the liturgy aided in giving greater understandin to the populous. Then, he went on to use the analgy of weather to illustrate the danger to the litury, that is, experimentation and changes can also damage the meaning of liturgy. Finally, he states that it can not be recovered (roll back the changes) yet care must be taken not to damage the liturgy and its meaning, even in a good-faith effort to make it more relatable.

 

[ProVobis]

Bl John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI agree with and defend V-II.

To the extent that Vatican II does not break with tradition (or Tradition, if you prefer).

To me, that means that Trent was not undone.