Why Vatican II?

[ASD]

First of all, Vatican II did not destroy any families or the Church. . . .

It seems to me that killyclogher’s basic point is that, as a social phenomenon, Vatican II was hugely disruptive, often traumatic. Honestly, I don’t see how there can be any debate about that. Reasonable people can debate about whether the disruption was necessary or wise or worthwhile. But, the disruption itself is just a fact.

BTW, killyclogher, Thanks for posting. I could tell right away that you were talking about Northern Ireland.

We do not pray the Protestant Our Father, because there is no such thing.

I don’t know why you insist on calling it the Protestant Our Father. The doxology, “for thine is the kingdom, etc” is as Catholic as the Pope. It was used before the time of Jesus until the 4th century of the Church and is still used by the Orthodox. Roman Catholics recovered it in the 1960s. The Protestants recovered it in the 1500s.

All that might be true. It still sounds like a Protestant shibboleth to me. I thought I was the only one who still felt that way. Apparently not. :silly_irish_emoticon:]

Holy Spirit does not work in our time frame or in the manner that we want. He works through human beings and through human limitations.

Another way to put that point: Churchmen, even the venerable fathers of Vatican II, can make mistakes.

But, maybe some people just aren’t willing to listen to anything about Vatican II except unqualified praise; not even personal anecdotes like killyclogher’s.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Robster7]

Understandably, perhaps, Killyclogher’s attitude toward Protestants is a bit harsh, given his Northern Ireland location. Keep that in mind, please.

 

[asia53]

Dear OP,

Thank you so much for this interesting thread, and thank you all who posted opinions/views, etc.

I’ve learned so much, still digesting some, and researching some. A very good thing!

 

[da_nolo]

It seems that Vatican II created at least a lot of confusion and at worst a huge chasm of controversy and lost souls. My question is, why did the church feel it necessary to call the council in the first place and why such a radical departure (apparently) from previous teachings of the church?

what created lost and confused souls are the ones who refused to learn what vatican 2 was about, reasons for it’s decisions, thought they themselves knew better, faught against the Church’s own decision, never tried to learn their own faith, walked out and away because they don’t like what happened.

 

[seekdatruth]

It seems that Vatican II created at least a lot of confusion and at worst a huge chasm of controversy and lost souls. My question is, why did the church feel it necessary to call the council in the first place and why such a radical departure (apparently) from previous teachings of the church?

I’ve noticed since I decided to return to the Catholic Church, that there is a large body of people within whom blame everything from the ills of society to wars on Vatican II. IMO, the changes in society caused Vatican ll. More of a reaction than a cause. Vatican ll didn’t invent Beatnicks or HIppies, they came about in rebellion to conservative society as a whole. Mainstream society was leaving the Church anyway. All of the faults of the Catholic Church today are also blamed on Vll as well. In my personal experience, the TLM is essentially not that different from the Ordinary Mass. No dogmas or doctrine of the Catholic Church were changed with Vatican II, just a few minor traditions and disciplines. People who remember pre-Vll times miss the “Old Days”. Understandable, yet the same faulty logic in blaming everything on VII is the same that was employed to change superficial elements like the Mass, ignoring the REAL problems it seemed to be attempting to address in the first place (people leaving the Church.) It seems to have had no real permanent or positive effect in keeping people around. People stay because it was what they were born into, because friends and loved ones are there, or because they realize the value of being “poor in spirit” and not just taking the “easy road”.
What I’ve read and heard about Vatican ll, (outside of opinions in CAF of course, but via informational sources) the intention behind it was good. The fault seems to have been in the interpretation and execution. The general gave us good orders, even let us have a little leeway and creativity as to how to carry them out, but we failed because we were too caught up in what color to make the convoy trucks. We’re standing around bickering like children and getting no where, only the lot of us can agree on is saying, “Well the general shouldn’t have given us the orders in the first place!”
Careful! We’re now saying the Pope is fallible!
IMO, he was completely right, he just overestimated our ability to work together as one. Or maybe he saw all this coming and wasn’t daunted, because he had faith we’d all fall in line eventually!

“And the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”

 

[JReducation]

One big concern that I have is that everyone speaks about “lost souls” as if it were a given that a person’s soul is lost because he obeys what the Church teaches or what his spiritual director and bishop say.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Even if these were in error, the person’s soul is not lost if he obeys out of love of God and love for the Church. We have to remember that to lose sanctifying grace you must commit a grave sin and you must do so knowingly and freely.

I have not seen any commands or directlives come of Vatican II that are grave sins and that people knowingly and freely choose to follow.

I suggest that we limit discussions to the decrees of Vatican II and not judge people’s souls.

JR

 

[Matariel]

I’ve noticed since I decided to return to the Catholic Church, that there is a large body of people within whom blame everything from the ills of society to wars on Vatican II…

That’s odd, it seems the exact opposite to me. Everyone I hear seems to claim anything bad comes from a “Pre-Vatican II mentality” or people who don’t want to change with the times.

 

[Layman]

My gripe with Vat. II is that I can’t get to a TLM in Ireland where I come from. Holy Ireland. Where post-60’s Catholics have no idea what a Latin Mass is.

Our traditional enemies, the English, had an indult. Thus it is now easier for me to get to a TLM in England than in Holy Ireland. This was a shock to me.

The young Irish now think altar girls, communion in the hand, the vernacular, lay lectors, EMCs, mini-skirts at Mass, the priest versus-populi and guitars are normal. (Yeah, I know they’re allowed, but they’re not reverent. They help make the mass look banal)

A diocese beside mine (in Ireland) is now looking at Permanent Deacons as a solution to the priest shortage. If the masses in the nearest big town are anything to go by, I know why they’ve a shortage. The masses offer a choice between ‘quite’ to ‘very abusive’; including the priest making the words up he goes along, to another sitting down and letting the EMCs distribute all the communion. In a small church!

Why would a normal guy, with all the wonders of the modern era and ‘booty’ on tap available to him, give it up for a life of poverty, chastity and the chance to preside at a feminised, protestantised Mass every day?

Thanks to Vat. II, I didn’t know missing Mass was a mortal sin. Likewise sex outside marriage. That if you died with such a sin on your soul, you would go to Hell. I suppose because no priest ever explicitly made that clear to me. The religious worried too much about trying to reach ‘The Young People’ when they should have delivered a lectern-thumping hellfire sermon now and again. Or stated cooly and calmly to us smart-asses the real stakes in the game called Life. Then at least they could tell Jesus they did their job.
*
I admit, it could be I was too much of a smart-* to take such a message in.* I know I was pious up to my teens, I even read a lesson at my Confirmation, then …

Through the Grace of God I’ve found my way back to the Church, only to find the Mass has mutated even more since I was a lad.

If I had stayed in Holy Ireland I might still be a sneering, cynical sinner with the sword of Damocles hanging over my head. Now, with the TLM I know I can tick the box that says: ‘Go to a holy Mass on Sunday’: check!

Question: Imagine Vat. II had never happened. Explain, briefly please, what would we have lost that has any value i.e. that helps souls get into Heaven?

 

[JReducation]

The Legend of the Three Companions, a very famous Franciscan work of spirituality and Franciscan theology, our holy father Francis said

"The peace you proclaim with words must dwell even more abundantly in your hearts. Do not provoke other to anger or create scandal. Rather, let your gentleness draw them to peace, goodness and harmony. This is our vocation: to heal wounds, to bind what is broken, to bring home those who are lost."

Often in these discussions about the Church pre Vatican II and post Vatican II there is a great deal said that does just the opposite. Instead of bringing peace from within our hearts into the world, they bring out anger and they create a scandal to those who are looking at Catholics from the outside.

That is not to say that we do not make mistakes; because the Church is for sinners and for fallible men and women. What is the case here is that we often forget this and we tend to be very hard and even nasty, rather than brotherly.

To heal the wounds of Christ within his Church all Catholics must make an effort to acquire the peace of Christ, to project his goodness and to work for harmony, not confrontation.

Solutions are never found through confrontation, but through dialogue that seeks the common good and the points that we share in common.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[The_Smiter]

Is there anything in all of the Vatican II writings that says that contraception is OK or that since there might be nothing actually written about it that it is now permitted by assent?

There is a teacher in authority at our parish who has instructed candidates and catachumens that contraception is OK because it has been left up to our individual consciences since Vatican II.

First - I know that this is not true and
’
Second - how do I go about fixing this? The teacher will not listen to redirection from me and I am not sure that the pastor is in disagreement.

I am worried about new Catholics who will be learning and propogating such misconceptions and falsehoods. If this is not corrected.

Any help would be great.

 

[JReducation]

Is there anything in all of the Vatican II writings that says that contraception is OK or that since there might be nothing actually written about it that it is now permitted by assent?

There is a teacher in authority at our parish who has instructed candidates and catachumens that contraception is OK because it has been left up to our individual consciences since Vatican II.

First - I know that this is not true and
’
Second - how do I go about fixing this? The teacher will not listen to redirection from me and I am not sure that the pastor is in disagreement.

I am worried about new Catholics who will be learning and propogating such misconceptions and falsehoods. If this is not corrected.

Any help would be great.

See your pastor or DRE.

JR

 

[bobzills]

Is there anything in all of the Vatican II writings that says that contraception is OK or that since there might be nothing actually written about it that it is now permitted by assent?

There is a teacher in authority at our parish who has instructed candidates and catachumens that contraception is OK because it has been left up to our individual consciences since Vatican II.

First - I know that this is not true and
’
Second - how do I go about fixing this? The teacher will not listen to redirection from me and I am not sure that the pastor is in disagreement.

I am worried about new Catholics who will be learning and propogating such misconceptions and falsehoods. If this is not corrected.

Any help would be great.

This is not actually a teaching of Vatican II, but it falls under what I would call the spirit of Vatican II. Another example is the huge increase in Catholic marriage annulments since Vatican II. Going from 9 annulments per year in 1930 to more than 60,000 per year in the USA in some recent years.

 

[JReducation]

This is not actually a teaching of Vatican II, but it falls under what I would call the spirit of Vatican II. Another example is the huge increase in Catholic marriage annulments since Vatican II. Going from 9 annulments per year in 1930 to more than 60,000 per year in the USA in some recent years.

This is not the spirit of Vatican II that the Church observes.

Many of the marriage annulments are due to the fact that many people were not valid candidates for the marriage state in the first place.

JR

 

[bobzills]

This is not the spirit of Vatican II that the Church observes.

Many of the marriage annulments are due to the fact that many people were not valid candidates for the marriage state in the first place.

JR

Why have the marriage annulments increased from 9 per year in 1930 in the USA to more than 60,000 per year in the USA in recent years? Other religious groups have not seen such an explosive increase in family breakups? It is only among Catholics since Vatican II, that these annulments have been given out like candy. For example, Fr. Doherty quotes a Tribunal official as saying: “There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.”

 

[The_Smiter]

This is not actually a teaching of Vatican II, but it falls under what I would call the spirit of Vatican II. Another example is the huge increase in Catholic marriage annulments since Vatican II. Going from 9 annulments per year in 1930 to more than 60,000 per year in the USA in some recent years.

Your answer is vague.

Is it your understanding that Vatican II somehow approved of contraception or not?

 

[seekdatruth]

Why have the marriage annulments increased from 9 per year in 1930 in the USA to more than 60,000 per year in the USA in recent years? Other religious groups have not seen such an explosive increase in family breakups? It is only among Catholics since Vatican II, that these annulments have been given out like candy. For example, Fr. Doherty quotes a Tribunal official as saying: “There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.”

I believe the increase in annulments reflects the increase in divorce rates across the board throughout society. TV, movies, internet all influence the minds of our youth, and in most cases a parent or church is hard-pressed to compete with flashy graphics and “cool” characters who lack any morals whatsoever, especially when parents are like big kids themselves. Celebs get married and divorced in the same month and it’s all over the TV. Society and the media have devalued marriage, not the Church. We just have more to compete with now and need to compensate, IMO. Better and MORE teaching is needed within the framework of the Church on a level that children can understand, but not just scared into it. Let’s face it the CCC is written in college-level language, and Sacrament and CCD class books are written like fairy tales, black and white, devil or God, everything is just magic. Don’t ask why, just shut up and color. Society is skeptical, kids are that way to the extreme. I’m not saying we need to pander to what’s “cool” and the latest fad to reach them either, we can never keep up anyway. And we certainly do not need to compromise on our faith and morals! I’m saying we need to teach them real life coping skills to deal with the outside immorality and pressures, sadly what modern families lack. Arm them with strong knowledge of the love of Christ, Scripture and the beauty and uniqueness of our faith. Maybe after a couple of generations of this type of teaching, families will again take over their role of raising children to be decent, moral beings. I can only pray!
Further, how many other religions delve as deep into marital lives on paper as the Catholic Church does? I don’t’ know of any personally. The Catholic Church has more annulments because, naturally, they are the only ones that bother. So many kids part from the church as soon as they can, then after the fairy tale they saw on TV crashed down, they come back to the Church, only now with scars and usually a dysfunctional marriage or two. The Church does forgive (eventually) these prodigal sons and daughters, the downside is then we have the stain of many many annulments processed. Yes, Vatican ll, in some way contributed to a rise in annulments, but ONLY because it now allows the sinners to come back and be forgiven. They were already there, waiting to be let back in. To me, this SAVES souls, whereas before, they were left standing outside and never had the opportunity to return. Sure it’s hard to see sinners in our company when one believes he is righteous because he never strayed, but Jesus taught about his forgiveness and expects us to do the same. It’s hard, but don’t we Catholics appreciate a good test of our spirit?
Just my 2 cents (or 5!)

 

[bobzills]

I believe the increase in annulments reflects the increase in divorce rates across the board throughout society.

I disagree because Catholic annulments in the USA have shown a much steeper increase than divorces. Let’s compare the number of divorces with the number of annulments in the USA.
Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6 (5.9)
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA.

 

[CeltusSanctus]

I am faithful Catholic and submit completely to the teaching authority of the Church. Vatican II itself has not committed any heresies, but countless heresies have been committed “in the name of Vatican II”.

There is so much confusion around Vatican II, I can’t blame traditionalist societies, if one looks at pre-Vatican II and then post-Vatican II, it’s very easy to freak out and ask what happened to the the Catholicism of the first 1,965 years! Latin rite Catholicism (“roman” Catholicism) is Latin, just as Maronite Catholicism has Aramaic liturgy, and Melkite Catholicism has Greek liturgy etc. “Roman” or “Latin” Catholicism has Latin liturgy. The Latin Mass is the original and regular Liturgy of the Latin Rite.

The Novos Ordo, the Venacular Mass was created because most “Roman” rite Catholics knew little to no Latin. Plus it was a good Evangelism tool for bringing in Protestants. Latin Mass is intense, and very deeply spiritual, this would be too much for any Protestants interested in conversion. We don’t want to overwelm them.

That being said, the Latin Mass (Tridentine) was never meant to be dissolved, forgotten, or rejected. Originally, both were supposed to be available. Many Bishops took the initiative to remove them. This sparked the idea for schism for Catholics who loved Latin mass. Ask yourselves, "how can the Latin rite dissovle the Latin Mass? It sounds self destructive.

We need a Vatican III to clear up what the true teachings of Vatican II were and show the world that Latin Mass is Holy, and simply authentic Latin rite and shoiuld exist side by side Novos Ordo. Personally, I feel like Latin Mass is “Catholicism for adults” and Novos Ordo is “Catholicism for beginners”. Why should we leave exalted Liturgies rich in History and tradition for Eastern Catholics? Western Catholics have a rich and beautiful tradition that should be preserved.

Why not a Vernacular Tridentine???

 

[Layman]

CeltusSantus, this is inspired!:

*“Ask yourselves, how can the Latin rite dissolve the Latin Mass? It sounds self destructive.” *

That’s the smartest comment I’ve read on the TLM issue to date. We’re in the Roman Catholic Church and we dumped the thing that makes us Roman!

It’s horribly like an MBA swanning into an old company and selling off its main asset to take a gamble on new technology.

My opinion: There’re no fools like educated fools; the professor that gets lost in his own college, the intellectual that embraces vice in the name of ‘freedom’.

I read a quote on this forum, purportedly from Cardinal Bugnini (architect of Vat. II), that he wanted the Catholic Church to be protestantised, so we could all join in together i.e. we change to accommodate heretics. If true, it’s madness.

“Why not a Vernacular Tridentine?”

We have such a thing. It’s called the Novus Ordo, done properly. Which it is not.

The beauty of Latin is that it is 1) simple 2) a dead language, so it can’t be infected with modern slang and 3) musical; it has many words ending in ‘uumm’, ‘a’, ‘o’, ‘ee’; it’s lovely to sing.

A Vernacular Tridentine would be like caffeine-free coffee or alcohol-free beer; pointless.

 

[seekdatruth]

I disagree because Catholic annulments in the USA have shown a much steeper increase than divorces. Let’s compare the number of divorces with the number of annulments in the USA.
Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6 (5.9)
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA.

You can’t have a Catholic annulment unless you have a civil divorce. Why does the number or percentage of annulments vs divorce matter?