Why was Vatican 2 passed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pixle_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If interested in reading about the council I recommend two books.

The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story By Roberto de Matteo
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council by Agostino Marchetto

And for an overview of changes afterwards, Iota Unum by Romano Amerio
 
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?
This is completely false.
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)
Yes you are wrong there too.

Have you actually read the documents of Vatican II?
 
there were no less than six protestant observers at the Second Vatican council,
People observing does not equal people participating much less “double checking” any of the documents.

Please explain your comment on the “more Protestant form of the mass”. Please produce the Vatican II document that calls for this.
 
Last edited:
The best eyewitness account is by Father Wiltgen, the Press Secretary of the Second Vatican Council, and is titled The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.

Fr Wiltgen was a pro-reform priest but even so he was clearly shocked by the methods employed by the profressives to push their agenda through.
 
Please explain your comment on the “more Protestant form of the mass”.
It is definitely a more Protestant form. The following changes are features of the Lutheran and Anglican rites:
  • use of the vernacular
  • Mass versus populum
  • Communion in the hand
  • Priest and laity saying general confession together.
  • Replacing the Offertory with “Preparation of the Gifts”
  • Detaching the words Mystery of Faith from the consecration
  • Removal of references to Christ as victim
One could also add the increasingly common removal of altar rails, placing the altar in the centre of the church, making it difficult for the laity to kneel, not requiring communicants to be in a state of grace , not placing relics in the altar
 
Last edited:
Why was Vatican 2 passed? I feel like it took away from some of the devotion and beauty of our church.
Saint Pope John XXIII called the council for two reasons: 1) to discuss how to build and strengthen faith as it is lived and practiced by all of the faithful, and 2) to update (aggiornamento) how beliefs are presented, but not a changing of beliefs.
 
Last edited:
God allowed it. This is why it passed.

Vatican II should be studied by how it was intended, by how it came out and by it’s fruits. This will allow one to better distinguish arguments by those who criticize it (entirely and partially) from those who support it in its fullness.
 
Last edited:
It is definitely a more Protestant form.
That’s silly. It’s the mass.

And Vatican II didn’t do any of those things you listed.

Still waiting for you to give me the documents of Vatican II that support your assertions.
 
Last edited:
Have you been to the Latin mass?

Have you been invited to a Protestant service?

I have been to both, and the novus ordo is a Protestantism form of the Latin mass. I still go to the novus ordo as well, but its pretty plain and simple to me.
 
Last edited:
Vatican II completed the work that was started at Vatican I but was interrupted by the Franco-Prussian War.
 
I wouldn’t say that the Mass in English is less reverent. It is more meaningful to speakers of (only) English. Don’t you think it is good to get your message out to regular people who don’t speak Latin? Some of us came in off the street to join the Church (as opposed to being there because we are marrying somebody and don’t want flack from the in-laws in years to come). Not many new people would be joining if they were going to sit in the pew and listen to somebody going on in a dead language they had now knowledge of and no interest in. Frankly, I think the fact that I can understand the priest makes the Mass more reverent to me, since I don’t find listening to an unknown language all that “reverent.”
 
Its not about the language though, I would have been much more supportive if they didn’t get rid of so much stuff from the latin mass and just had a direct conversion from latin to english. Would be totally ok with that, but they didn’t just do that, they got rid of a lot of stuff and changed a lot of stuff that IMO makes it far less reverent. for instance (and I’m not completely an anti-“communion in the hand” person) but I think that communion on the tongue with altar rails is way better for everyone and I would rather receive communion from a priest than a server something about a lay person giving me communion just doesn’t seem right to me…makes the priest seem less important.

edit: I would also add that the mass is about the EUCHARIST its about Jesus not the people…and these changes seemed to be made for the people and not so much Jesus. But then again, I’m not the Holy Spirit, I just have a particular stance on this stuff.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with the kneeling at the alter rails. We did that in the Lutheran church (decades ago). I think the problem as they saw it was how long it took to get people up there, lined up, down and up, and leave and the next group up, etc.

Far as the Extraordinary Ministers, yep, that took me by surprise when I was joining the Church. I would rather receive from the priest but I am usually sitting in the wrong place for his line. Well, I get it. It’s a pretty big church and we can get the congregation up there and back faster. (But are we really in that big a hurry?)

So, yes, I see what you mean. I see both sides. I just have to say, in the instance of our church here, whatever the priest wants to do is ok with me.
 
Still waiting for the relevant documents of Vatican II.
To be fair, Vatican II isn’t just a bunch of documents, it was a gathering of a bishops who all exchanged ideas–some were formally promulgated, others they took home with them and put into place in their dioceses, and appointed experts, rectors, pastors, etc. who shared them. Even if some bishops were able to exert moderating influence on the documents and keep them relatively banal (in a good sense), the Council itself had a negative effect on many bishops and clearly inspired the changes that happened immediately after in its name. It seems they all got a bit full of themselves while imbibing novel ideas and then came back and imposed this on priests and people who didn’t ask for it.

See this NYT article from 1964 on the US bishops at Vatican II:
The “progressive” changes wrought in the American hierarchy in the past two years are, of course, due initially to Pope John, who made aggiornamento an acceptable idea as well as a universal word. Yet other factors have played a role. One is the day‐by‐day exposure to new ideas. And a major one is the bishops’ new concept of their own role in the church—the feeling of united responsibility for the universal church, affirmed theologically in the doctrine of collegiality. No longer need the bishops be preoccupied with anticipating the Curia’s communications.

After three sessions of daily meetings with fellow bishops from other lands, a swelling confidence in their own ability to discern the good of the church, the airing of many long pent‐up frustrations and doubts about traditional practices, exposure to the thought of the best and most forward-looking theologians in the Catholic world, the encouragement of two Popes, a groundswell of critical comment from parish priests, nuns and the articulate laity, the comfort of one another’s company, and the privacy afforded in a city where 2,300 other prelates are gathered and one bishop more or less goes unnoticed — with all this, plus the help of the Holy Spirit, which the bishops themselves would put first, the American bishops have found themselves.>

The big problem facing them now is that they are ahead of both their priests and their people. Normally, a hierarchy lags behind the intellectual leaders in the church. Newideas come from below and with great difficulty are recognized by the authorities. This process has been reversed during Vatican II. Now, new ideas have to be presented by the bishops themselves, who will certainly run into many of the same difficulties that traditionally have faced other forerunners.
 
Last edited:
“I will say that the Latin mass is in my personal experience MUCH more reverent than the novus ordo”

I share your preference for the same reason: reverence.
I find the rock- brand worship to be distracting at best, and very protestant indeed.
 
They were present as silent observers and played no part in the decisions voted on in the council.
 
I grew up in the 1950’s and remember the TLM as the ordinary.

For most parishes, people attended Mass in silence while the priest and altar boys mumbled the responses in Latin with their backs to the people. They didn’t wear microphones back then as PA systems were not as sophisticated and tiny as they are today.

The choir sang, and most of the time it was good, but once in a while it was a train wreck

The Novus Ordo is actually closer to the Mass celebrated by the early Christians. Protestantism didn’t exist until the 1500’s at the Reformation and even then, if you were to visit protestant churches in the 1500’s, their liturgy remained much like Catholic liturgies at that time. Read Fr Groschel’s book on it as he wrote how because they came from Catholicism, there much the same early on.

Mostly, the desire of Pope John XXIII was to bring the people into active participation of the Mass and to remove the division between the clergy and the people. Clericalism had taken over the past 200 years before Vatican II and Pope John XXIII was correct to call for it.

Of course there are those who will debate all of this, but they weren’t around before Vatican II and have a romanticized idea of what the liturgy was like for the people back then.

The society after WWII was a black and white society. People didn’t question authority, whether in religion or politics.

The 1960’s changed all that and the Church needed to change with the people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top