Why was Vatican 2 passed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pixle_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pixle_Catholic

Guest
Why was Vatican 2 passed? I feel like it took away from some of the devotion and beauty of our church.
 
Because it was an Ecumenical Council, called by the pope to address a number of issues in the Church.

The same reason all other Ecumenical Councils were convened; to address issues in the Church.

Deacon Christopher
 
The documents of Vatican II did not call for many of the changes that came into play around that time.

Vatican II was called (that is the term, not ‘passed’) by Pope St. John XXIII and continued after his death by Pope St Paul VI in order to address several concerns and concepts by both religious and laity at the time. There were, as there always are, glitches, changes, things that worked well after a while, things that didn’t work as planned, etc.

It is really still too early to make any kind of final judgments. The Church has been around for 2000 years; something that occurred only 50 or so years ago is still evolving and being worked out.
 
So, basically, Vatican 2 was created to heal wounds that were apart of our church?
 
Last edited:
Okay. It seems I am miseducated on what Vatican 2 actual was. Let me go do my research! 🙂
 
What I don’t get is why:
  1. there were protestant theologians called in to essentially “double check” the documents of the council which led to a more “protestant form” of the Catholic mass?
  2. Why none of it was considered doctrinal? (I may be wrong on the doctrinal aspect please correct me if I’m wrong, but I am at least positive none of it is dogmatic)
plus

It’s obvious that after the council church attendance has significantly increased over time, and I’m not even a “anti-Vatican 2 person”
 
Last edited:
I’m not even sure what is in Vatican two and I doubt most people could tell you without checking.
That’s not an insult, it’s more a point to people calling out points the church didn’t do.
 
Last edited:
@Anrakyr, What I am beginning to realize is things most people (myself included) attribute to Vatican two, are simply things that happened during Vatican two but not necessarily in result of. Or am I wrong on that?
 
Last edited:
ColoradoCatholic said:
  • there were protestant theologians called in to essentially “double check” the documents of the council which led to a more “protestant form” of the Catholic mass?
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
 
Zero. I have realized that I know nothing about Vatican two and based my assumptions on things I have heard about from others. I’m about going to try and do some research on it to better educate myself.
 
Last edited:
Because it was needed. Vatican II is just as valid as any other church council. After two world wars and changing technology that led to new ways to facilitate sin the church had to address it.
 
Last edited:
I would definitely recommend starting by reading all of the Council documents.
 
Thank you all for you patience! This will not go in vain. I will definitely seek to know more about Vatican two and try not to just assume things next time.
 
there were no less than six protestant observers at the Second Vatican council, that is just a fact you can view it on wikipedia or here: Library : Vatican II & Ecumenism: What did the Council Really Say? | Catholic Culture

just control F “protestant” and you’ll find they were there. The question is how much they were able to influence in the name of ecumenism. Which is honestly a little shocking and disturbing to me…

(mainly because I think any changes should be primary initiated by the Catholic Authorities not as a reactionary approach to protestants…basically I don’t think we should have invited them with the intent of "if we change this for you will you come to our churches more? of course their answer would have been yes, but they don’t believe in Catholicism anyways which is why it rubs me the wrong way)

…But the fact of the matter is that nothing in the council was deemed doctrine…and because of this…why??? why was it necessary to have a council if all they said at the end of it was “well this is the new change but its not completely official!”…doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me…but I’m not a cardinal, I just go to the mass to receive Jesus and because the Catholic faith is the true faith.

I will say that the Latin mass is in my personal experience MUCH more reverent than the novus ordo
 
pixie i know this, it weeded out a lot of people , nuns and priests who werent as commited to their vocations as anyone might have thought. Meantime the feminist movement was in full force heading up and changing the , no drawing on the women who were not as commited to marriage and motherhood … a lot of things changed by the changes, people certainly did not have to hide behind false costumes and by now the circus has reached the max and fresh true roots are growing all the time.
 
ColoradoCatholic said:
there were no less than six protestant observers at the Second Vatican council, that is just a fact you can view it on wikipedia or here:
Click to expand...
Observing doesn’t amount to ‘double-checking the council documents.’
ColoradoCatholic said:
mainly because I think any changes should be primary initiated by the Catholic Authorities not as a reactionary approach to protestants…basically I don’t think we should have invited them with the intent of "if we change this for you will you come to our churches more?
Click to expand...
There was no such intent. If that was the intent of a few council fathers or others working at the council, this could in no way undermine the intent of the Church manifested in unanimity of the world’s bishops in union with the Pope.
ColoradoCatholic said:
But the fact of the matter is that nothing in the council was deemed doctrine
Click to expand...
This isn’t exactly true. Many points of doctrine were taught at the Council.
ColoradoCatholic said:
if all they said at the end of it was “well this is the new change but its not completely official!”
Click to expand...
Where did “they” say this?
ColoradoCatholic said:
I just go to the mass to receive Jesus and because the Catholic faith is the true faith.
Click to expand...
Good on you!
ColoradoCatholic said:
I will say that the Latin mass is in my personal experience MUCH more reverent than the novus ordo
Click to expand...
You’re certainly entitled to that opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top