Why Vatican II?

[Matariel]

The ordination of women is a tricky topic. It is not defined as dogma, but accepted as part of the Christian tradition that clerics must be men.

Actually, it is dogma. Pope John Paul II said that men only can function as priests, and that “this is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

The status is one of sister Churches.

Yes, but the Orthodox churches are in an imperfect union with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, because of their schism from Rome.

Idiots at mass: clowns etc, is already disappearing. All around the world bishops and religous superiors are realizing that some of these attempts to make the mass “more meaningful” were silly at best and offensive to the reverence that is due to the liturgy. That does not mean that you will never see someone do something dumb. It just means that it is being shot down by those in authority as quickly as they see it happen.

Thank God. Traditional Catholic reverence is on the rise.

Laws can be changed.

Actually, it’s better to call them disciplines. Disciplines can change, dogma cannot. The tricky thing is the difference between doctrines and dogma.

 

[bobzills]

‘The Church’ stated this? Not everything stated in a council is an infallible exercise of the Magisterium, just as every pronouncement of a Pope is not. Vatican 2, for example, pronounced no binding dogma at all, even though it was an ecumenical council that said many fine (and some possibly not so fine) things.

And Dr Ott, great though he is, is even less likely to be infallible in his estimation of what is dogmatic and binding belief and what is not. I’d trust JP2’s Catechism and Benedict XVI over Dr Ott any day.

Is the prohibition against artificial birth control infallible? ABC has been prohibited in an encyclical, but why should Catholics obey these encyclicals, since they can pick and choose which they want to obey or disobey? I follow wha tthe Pope says on limbo since he is the infallible head of the Roman Catholic Church and here is what the Pope has declared:
Pope Eugene IV ratified the Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439,: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
The letter of John XXII, Nequaquam sine dolore (November 21, 1321)
“…Illorum autem animas, qui in mortali peccato vel cum solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen ac locis disparibus puniendas.”
English translation:
“[The Roman Church teaches …] that the souls of those who depart in mortal sin or with only original sin descend immediately to hell, nevertheless to be punished with different punishments and in disparate locations…”
French translation:
“Les âmes cependant de ceux qui meurent en état de péché mortel ou avec le seul péché originel, descendent immédiatement en enfer où elles reçoivent cependant des peines différentes en des lieux différents.”

 

[ASD]

Why an ecumenical Council in 1959?

…My question is, why did the church feel it necessary to call the council in the first place?]…

…Here’s my “take away,” … . making every effort to simply state facts.

Some reasons that Bl. John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council in 1959
…

In reply #34, quoted above, I tried to summarize answers to first part of OP’s question, “why did the church feel it necessary to call the council in the first place?]”

Did Vatican II change the Church?

…and why such a radical departure (apparently) from previous teachings of the church?

Now, I would like to summarize some thoughts about the second part of OP’s question: Was it a “radical departure?” What follows comes mostly from 3 books I have read in the past few months. (For the record, please note that, AFAIK, nobody has ever described these authors as conservatives or traditionalists or anything similar. I believe that what I’m presenting here is very moderate and mainstream.)

1. • The Reformation: A History, by Patrick Collinson, 2006
   • Origin and nature of divisions in western Christianity, a very big concern during Vatican II.
   • The Council of Trent was the beginning of the Church as fortress under siege, a mentality that Vatican II largely overcame.
   • Interestingly, given JReducation’s remarks about reform of religious life, apparently reform of religious orders was big item at Trent, too.
   • The Catholic Revolution: New Wine, Old Wineskins, and the Second Vatican Council, by Fr. Andrew Greeley, 2005
   • Emphasis on effects of the French Revolution. Truly traumatic. For many years the Church couldn’t accomodate modern developments because it was focused on defending itself.
   • The process of change that finally began in 1962 was like new wine in old wineskins: It was explosive, and it went far beyond what Council fathers expected.
   • What Happened at Vatican II, by Fr. John O’Malley, 2008
   • For some perspective, Fr. O’Malley notes the Vatican II was the biggest meeting in history. (p. 18ff) If nothing big happened, I want my money back.
   • John XXIII’s stated objective was aggiornamento, updating. (p. 9) That is, changing the Church in non-trivial ways was the objective from the start.
   • The Bishops who are usually described as the progressive majority, the men who wanted big changes, repeatedly emphasized that the Council was “pastoral” only in order to forestall new statements about The Blessed Virgin by the conservative minority. “Pastoral” does not mean “merely pastoral,” or “no big changes.” In fact, during the Council it meant, “no more doctrines that Protestants can’t accept because the big changes we want to bring about are aimed in large part at new Christian unity.” (Cf, e.g., pp 188-189)
   • NB: The Council did build on developments earlier in the century. E.g., Dei Verbum built on Pius XII’s Divino afflante Spiritu of 1943.
   • Three fundamental issues pervade all discussions and documents of the Council (p. 8). Again, unless the Bishops were just wasting time and money, a Church Council wrestling with issues like these surely would lead to big changes.
     • When and how should the Church change?
     • Nature of authority in the Church; Papacy, Curia, Bishops, and others?
     • The style or model according to which authority should be exercised.
     • The results were indeed dramatic. In fact, a new vision of Catholicism was enacted by the language of the Council documents. (p 307) Fr. O’Malley certainly confirms what all of us have experienced: The post-conciliar Church just couldn’t be more different. The Church literally got a new “personality.” For better or worse, liberty, equality, and fraternity were finally accepted, ending the long struggle with the spirit of the French Revolution. (p. 306) Here’s his list, an enumeration of the “Spirit of Vatican II” (p. 307):
       • Instead of commands, invitations
       • Instead of laws, ideals
       • Instead of philosophical definitions, theological mystery
       • Instead of threats, persuasion
       • Instead of coercion, conscience
       • Instead of monologue, dialogue
       • Instead of ruling, serving
       • Instead of defensive withdrawl from the modern world, integration
       • Instead of vertical image of Church, horizontal
       • Instead of exclusion, inclusion
       • Instead of hostility, friendship
       • Instead of rivalry, partnership
       • Instead of suspicion, trust
       • Instead of static image of Church, ongoing
       • Instead of passive acceptance, active engagement
       • Instead of fault-finding, appreciation
       • Instead of prescriptive language, principles
       • Instead of behavior modification, inner appropriation
       State of play
       
       So, to my mind, the big questions now are:
       
       1. • Are all the items on Fr. O’Malley’s list of personality changes unalloyed blessings?
          • Given the reality that the “personality” of the Church was radically altered by the Second Vatican Council, what could an “hermeneutic of continuity” be like? How to accept the radical changes without accepting the loss of our inheritance?

          ASD​

          Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Usagi]

If limbo was not a dogma, then how does one explain the fact that the Church has stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”

That statement, undoubtedly, is dogma, and remains unchanged. Sin of any kind cannot enter heaven. The modern reliance on God’s mercy does not rely on an idea that God allows souls into His presence still stained with original sin, but on the idea that God may have means unknown to us to cleanse souls of original sin without outward baptism. We already have the notion that God may do this for adult catechumens or other seekers who die before they can receive baptism (the baptism of desire). The recently proposed alternative to limbo suggests that God may do the same for souls that pass into the afterlife while they are still incapable of committing actual sin. Of course, we cannot insist that God always does so, much less that He must, but we know of His great mercy and desire that all souls join Him in eternity.

Notice that your quoted de fide statement does not state “limbus infantum exists,” but merely confirms that there is no second chance or purification after death for those who die outside God’s friendship (an important counter to those who misunderstand purgatory as being such a second chance).

It seems that limbo, in the sense of a place or existence of natural happiness for unbaptized infants, was actually proposed as a merciful alternative to the earlier notion (from St. Augustine, I believe) that dying in original sin sends you straight to hell in the full sense. Even if limbo is considered a part of hell, it’s about as “heaven-like” as hell can get (just as purgatory is sort of a “hell-like” suburb or antechamber of heaven). So theologians have always struggled with the tension between the truth that even original sin bars one from heaven and the truth of God’s infinite mercy, especially in the case of souls innocent of actual sin. Over the centuries, proposals have gone from “yup, they go to hell, so sorry” to “they enter a state of natural happiness that might technically still be part of hell” to “we entrust them to God’s mercy, and by His action they might even be cleansed and taken to heaven.” In no case is there a change in definitive teaching, but there are different popular theories proposed to resolve the tension between definitive truths in the “corner case” of unbaptized infants.

Usagi

 

[bobzills]

That statement, undoubtedly, is dogma, and remains unchanged. Sin of any kind cannot enter heaven. The modern reliance on God’s mercy does not rely on an idea that God allows souls into His presence still stained with original sin, but on the idea that God may have means unknown to us to cleanse souls of original sin without outward baptism. We already have the notion that God may do this for adult catechumens or other seekers who die before they can receive baptism (the baptism of desire). The recently proposed alternative to limbo suggests that God may do the same for souls that pass into the afterlife while they are still incapable of committing actual sin. Of course, we cannot insist that God always does so, much less that He must, but we know of His great mercy and desire that all souls join Him in eternity.

Notice that your quoted de fide statement does not state “limbus infantum exists,” but merely confirms that there is no second chance or purification after death for those who die outside God’s friendship (an important counter to those who misunderstand purgatory as being such a second chance).
There are other statements confirming limbo:
Pope Eugene IV ratified the Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439,: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
The letter of John XXII, Nequaquam sine dolore (November 21, 1321)
“…Illorum autem animas, qui in mortali peccato vel cum solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen ac locis disparibus puniendas.”
English translation:
“[The Roman Church teaches …] that the souls of those who depart in mortal sin or with only original sin descend immediately to hell, nevertheless to be punished with different punishments and in disparate locations…”

It seems that limbo, in the sense of a place or existence of natural happiness for unbaptized infants, was actually proposed as a merciful alternative to the earlier notion (from St. Augustine, I believe) that dying in original sin sends you straight to hell in the full sense. Even if limbo is considered a part of hell, it’s about as “heaven-like” as hell can get (just as purgatory is sort of a “hell-like” suburb or antechamber of heaven). So theologians have always struggled with the tension between the truth that even original sin bars one from heaven and the truth of God’s infinite mercy, especially in the case of souls innocent of actual sin. Over the centuries, proposals have gone from “yup, they go to hell, so sorry” to “they enter a state of natural happiness that might technically still be part of hell” to “we entrust them to God’s mercy, and by His action they might even be cleansed and taken to heaven.” In no case is there a change in definitive teaching, but there are different popular theories proposed to resolve the tension between definitive truths in the “corner case” of unbaptized infants.

Usagi

 

[snshn3800]

Hi ,
I have to dispute this “idea” of yours, that…" V2 opened the Church to more people and a greater understanding…".etc.
I am a part of the “ahem” older generation .Before V2, we attended Mass and everyone there ‘knew’ they were in the house of God!
You could hear a pin drop, from the time Mass began, and while we approached the alter, and when we kneeled to receive Jesus. Because, we KNEW it was the body of Jesus. Now, people are yaking and talking before, during, and after.Now parish members have the audacity to reach out to their friends in the pews and chatting… on their way to receive Jesus, as though they were in a movie theatre going for popcorn!
Come on…V2 made a mess of our beautiful reverence. And now the people use the ‘sign of peace’ as a time to become even more disruptive and disrespective,
When we were children, we never spoke during mass. Our parents didn’t bring coloring books for us to play with either (a now common sight during Mass). Lets not over look the teen age girls attending Mass half dressed. Oh, and lets not leave out the priests who stand by the way side while so-called ministers are giving out communion, and we are FORCED TO STAND in the presence of our KING! You can call it nostalgic for the “good old days”, we call it DESIRE FOR RETURN OF REVERENCE…I WAS THERE…I KNOW…I SAW…I PARTICIPATED…AND I LONG FOR THE RETURN OF (what you call Middle Ages) REVERENCE…but what we are now seeing is “Campfire services,” Feel good services…Dear God, I ache for the return of our Old Masses…yes

View attachment 5280

AMEN.

If you will pardon me for venting…I attended Mass at another parish, and a mother with 3 children sat in front of me…with MacDonald’s bags. Fries in the pew, etc. Believe it or not, they got in line for Communion carrying their bags and toys, then left church by a front door after receiving Our Blessed Lord Reverence? Respect? It’s a sad condition our church is in post Vatican II. I think we need some old pulpit thumping and preaching…most of the post-Vatican II generations have no idea of sin, respect, reverence, tradition, etc. Very sad.

 

[rinnie]

OK. Here is a Mass with such a blessing at the end:

ctanorcal.org/WCCTA2008.wmv

I must admit. You got me there. I have never seen anything like that in my life. Does anyone know whats up with that. Or what its about. I swear I have never seen anything like that in my 47 years of life. And I have been going to the RCC since birth.

 

[JReducation]

OK. Here is a Mass with such a blessing at the end:

ctanorcal.org/WCCTA2008.wmv

OK, look at the source. This is the Call to Action group. Everyone knows that this group is not wrapped too tightly.

That’s all I’ll say about that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rinnie]

OK, look at the source. This is the Call to Action group. Everyone knows that this group is not wrapped too tightly.

That’s all I’ll say about that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks JR because I have never seen it before. Is this a new group or something. I have never heard of it?

 

[snshn3800]

OK. Here is a Mass with such a blessing at the end:

ctanorcal.org/WCCTA2008.wmv

OH MY GOSH! I have heard of Call To Action before, and also understand them to be extreme and New Age…just NEVER have I seen anything quite like this How can they gather people into such bizarre services? And what about the Priest? Good grief.

 

[bobzills]

OH MY GOSH! I have heard of Call To Action before, and also understand them to be extreme and New Age…just NEVER have I seen anything quite like this How can they gather people into such bizarre services? And what about the Priest? Good grief.

The priest is actually a Roman Catholic bishop: Bishop Remi de Roo who is now officially retired, I think.

 

[rinnie]

The priest is actually a Roman Catholic bishop: Bishop Remi de Roo who is now officially retired, I think.

Sorry there Bobz wrong again. The Pope say anyone in the call to action group is excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Nice try!

 

[JReducation]

Sorry there Bobz wrong again. The Pope say anyone in the call to action group is excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Nice try!

I’m not sure that the bishop is excommunicated, but the group is. I think the bishop is just on the shelf.

But their services and their ideas are not too kosher.

JR

 

[rinnie]

I’m not sure that the bishop is excommunicated, but the group is. I think the bishop is just on the shelf.

But their services and their ideas are not too kosher.

JR

If the bishop is with that group, from what I have read and the way I understand it anyone that participates or is a part of it is excommunicated. You may want to check into it though. But that’s how I understood it. Thanks.

 

[snshn3800]

The priest is actually a Roman Catholic bishop: Bishop Remi de Roo who is now officially retired, I think.

That’s terrible…glad he’s out of “service”, so to speak.

 

[JReducation]

If the bishop is with that group, from what I have read and the way I understand it anyone that participates or is a part of it is excommunicated. You may want to check into it though. But that’s how I understood it. Thanks.

I’m speculating here, since the Pope and I have not been out to lunch lately p) I believe that the Pope Benedict is not going to excommunicate a bishop as readily as Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict’s greatest concern is the unity of the Church. If you excommunicate a bishop, you run the risk of a schism. An excommunicated bishop can consecrate other bishops without answering to the Holy See.

Since this bishop is already on the shelf and the organization is going to do its thing in any case, there is not much that the Vatican can do, short of excommunication of the bishop. But that will not stop the bishop from celebrating the mass for them and whatever sacraments he celebrates for them.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Frosty]

I know that Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated the Call to Action group in the Diocese of Lincoln in the late 1990’s and that the excommunication was upheld officially by Rome a couple of years ago. Also that the Vatican has stated that there are certain doctrinal and disciplinary issues that are not consistent with the teachings of the Church. However, I do not believe that the action and statements I mentioned means that everyone who is a member of Call To Action has been excommunicated.

 

[JReducation]

I know that Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated the Call to Action group in the Diocese of Lincoln in the late 1990’s and that the excommunication was upheld officially by Rome a couple of years ago. Also that the Vatican has stated that there are certain doctrinal and disciplinary issues that are not consistent with the teachings of the Church. However, I do not believe that the action and statements I mentioned means that everyone who is a member of Call To Action has been excommunicated.

You may be right about that. I know that they are a very strange group. How they get so many people to attend their liturgies and other functions is beyond me. I guess there are more loose canons out there than WMDs.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[bobzills]

Sorry there Bobz wrong again. The Pope say anyone in the call to action group is excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Nice try!

I am interested in seeing your documentation showing that Bishop Remi de Roo is excommunciated from the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[ASD]

Robster7;4755250:

jeff417;4143442:

…why such a radical departure

(apparently) from previous teachings of the church?..Here’s a question
If the '50s-early’60s was the heyday of the the Catholic Church in American, how solid a foundation was it really if things fell into disarray so quickly and completely? Certainly, there were other factors, genl. disarray in USA, lack of discipline and obedience within the Church, etc. Any ideas?Good question. It reminds me a little of questions about the Protestant Reformation: Why did such an enormous fracture open up so suddenly?

An attempt to answer: In both situations there were people with legitimate concerns. In the case of V2, whereas discontented Catholics had been back-benchers, so to speak, before the Council, the Council had the effect of moving them to front and center. So, circa 1966, a couple of generations worth of “reform” ideas hit the fan.

So, maybe the flurry or frenzy of “reform” after 1966 was to be expected just because the party of “reform” got the reins.

There is a relevant article by Dr. Jeff Mirus over at CatholicCulture.org. Dr. Mirus seems to take the same view as Robster7 about the abrupt changes. In fact, about the sudden avalanche of change, Dr. Mirus says,

…the Catholic system … in place circa 1966] was in some respects a shell, and that the Catholic soul was in serious need of renewal.

I think that might be an oversimplification. For example, it’s hard to see how a shell of a religion could bear fruit like full seminaries, etc.

However, in general, it’s a good summary of HMC’s personality change. (Cf. James 4:4)

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar