Why was Vatican 2 passed?

[OddBird]

six protestant observers

I wasn’t present at VII ( ) but I’ve dragged my shoes in enough international ecumenical institutions to have an idea of how it works.

Observers are there to, well, observe. They share in the “off” conversation and give their point of view on the happenings, unless they are officially asked a question in the assembly they observe. They do not take part in the writing or validating of documents, unless, again, they are officially asked to. The main aim of having observers is that they can relate what happened in their institution of origin, so that ecumenical partners may have an idea of what their sister churches are occupied with.

In the World Council of Churches, the organism which reunites a consequent share of the world’s Protestant and Orthodox churches, Catholics are invited as observers. There are of course people who dislike the idea and suspect them of secretly influencing the conversation, but it’s simply not how it goes.

 

[Barnabysmom]

No disrespect meant. It is my opinion, Opinions are generally not “taught” but rather formed by personal experience.

 

[blackforest]

Passed? …

I’m wondering if the OP is in the U.S. American Catholics often slip into conceptualizing our Church as a representative democracy, e.g. “passing” measures as though they’re legislation.

 

[TK421]

Vatican 2 was never passed. The Pope in union with the bishops convened to address topics related to the contemporary post-War world. That is known as an Ecumenical Council. Other examples before the 2nd Vatican Council are the Council of Trent or the Council of Florence.

Peace.

 

[phil19034]

Vatican II “passed” because it was needed.

Vatican II did NOT take away devotion and beauty from our Church. What took away devotion & beauty from our Church was heretical and dissent movements that took advantage of the post Vatican II confusion.

Heretics and dissents claimed “oh Vatican II said to do this & that” before priest & bishops had time to further analyze the documents.

What made Vatican II different from every other Council was the fact that the international media was reporting on it constantly. Modern communications allowed the media to report on the Council real time.

This real time reporting led to heretics & dissents to start moving forward with changes based on Vatican II sometimes before the Council was even closed and/or before the Bishops created the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which came out almost 30 years after the Council ended).

In other words, instead of the Bishops being able to proactively teach what the Council was taught in a consistent manner, the news media & dissents jumped the gun before the Bishops could even figure out how to properly roll out Vatican II to the people.

This happened all over the West. HOWEVER, in communist countries, like Poland, there wasn’t much media coverage on the Council, so countries like Poland were able to properly teach their people. Same happened in most of Africa & Asia.

But in the West, thanks to the abundance of news coverage (which was nothing compared to the coverage available today) - heretics & dissents were able to push a number of their agenda items.

My point: Vatican II was not the issue. The problem was that in the West, the Church lost control of the narrative surrounding Vatican II.

I hope this helps.
God Bless

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

But are we really in that big a hurry?

This is EXACTLY my point. Its like stuff was cut out or alternatives were deemed “ok” to make the service quick and less intense. Less time worshiping means more time watching football, playing video games, or watching the office for the 10 millionth time. All things less important than God and really focused on distracting you from Him.

 

[CRM_Brother]

• use of the vernacular
• Mass versus populum
• Communion in the hand

This is not a “more Protestant form”. If you study the Church Fathers about the Mass in the early Church, these aspects of the mass were present from the very beginning of the Church. The priest faced the people, spoke in the vernacular (usually Greek which was spoken throughout the Mediterranean by the poor), distributed communion in the hand.

Removal of references to Christ as victim

This is wholly incorrect. Eucharistic Prayer I preserves the use of “Victim”:

Therefore, O Lord,
as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed Passion,
the Resurrection from the dead,
and the glorious Ascension into heaven
of Christ, your Son, our Lord,
we, your servants and your holy people,
offer to your glorious majesty
from the gifts that you have given us,
this pure victim,
this holy victim,
this spotless victim,
the holy Bread of eternal life
and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.
Emphasis added

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

1ke:

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.

Thank you Genesis, its not about the documents, its about the ideas that were promoted or synthesized that went in them. Why would having protestant theologians be important if they were simply there to observe? Doesn’t make sense because then they could just read the documents after the council. No, I think they were there to contribute at a minimum their opinions, despite what the internet says.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

then why were they there at all? They contributed opinions and that is evident today.

 

[phil19034]

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?

That’s not what happened. Protestants (and the Orthodox) were invited because separated brethren are ALWAYS invited to Ecumenical Councils. The hope is that unification will happened (or at least the path towards unification) will happen due what happens at every Council.

The Protestants were not there to “double check” the documents. HOWEVER, it is true that some Catholic Bishops felt that some changes to the Mass MIGHT encourage Protestants & Old Catholics to return to communion with Rome.

The changes to the liturgy seemed to be working too, as most of the Mainline Protestant & Old Catholics adopted the new Mass (or at least made theirs very similar to ours… it was not the other way around).

HOWEVER, unforntally all of that good work fell to the waist side as soon as the protestants (and now many of the Old Catholics) started ordaining women.

NOTE: I say this as someone who prefers to attend the Latin Mass. The problem with the mass wasn’t that it was “too Catholic.” The issue was it was too European. We also have to remember that during the 1960s, Europe was realizing the damage that colonization did to Africa & Asia and independence was being granted to them. Throughout Catholic history, the Church always had localized Rites so that different cultures could express the Faith. This is why the vernacular was considered to be a good idea.

They also were trying to return to the more original mass (a movement that was well over 100 years old by Vatican II).

So by introducing more original options to the mass & allowing the vernacular, they were de-Europeanizing the Roman Rite.

However, I think the Council Fathers made few mistakes (in hindsight):

1. I think they should have regionalized the changes. AKA created Regional Uses instead of making the changes universal. That way, they could have left Europe & the Americas alone, while addressing the real issues in Africa & Asia.
2. They made far too many changes to the Mass in a very short time. It was very confusing to people who grew up believing that the teachings of the Church cannot change.
3. Not enough catechesis was created. Far too many people who grew up during Vatican II didn’t understand the changes & how they came about. And the truth is, most of them still don’t understand how & way the changes came about.
4. The Fathers underestimated the negative impact the media was going to have. Thanks to the media; priests, religious sisters, & lay people were implementing changes before the Bishops had even figured out what those changes should look like.

I hope this helps.

 

[CRM_Brother]

Why would having protestant theologians be important if they were simply there to observe?

An Eccumenical Council is not purely a Catholic event. It is an event encompassing the Universal Christian Church. Every Christian religion was called. The Orthodox bishops were invited, not just to observe but to participate as equals but the Orthodox Church chose to abstain and just send observers. The Protestants, with no valid bishops, could not participate but it was still demanded by the nature of an Eccumenical Council but were instead invited to try to revive the original sense of the Eccumenical Council, rather than the “Us vs. Them” attitude which as been taken by some Councils.

If you believe that their presence infringed upon the legitimacy of the theology put forth by the Council, then you must also reject the Council of Trent, as the same Protestant observers were invited to all of the sessions. Martin Luther didn’t go to the first session, but his representatives did, in fact, attend the later sessions with assurances of their safety.

 

[OddBird]

I second @CRM_Brother.

I’d also add this :

Doesn’t make sense because then they could just read the documents after the council

No. That’s not the same. Most theologians are as much interested in debate and how a consensus is reached as in the final result. Also, you can’t tell from reading the documents what was the topic of a heated debate, and what was wholly eventless. That’s also important, because it’s revealing about what the Church is going through and what are Her “theological hotspots” at a given point in time – an information which is essential for mutual ecumenical understanding.

 

[Genesis315]

An Eccumenical Council is not purely a Catholic event. It is an event encompassing the Universal Christian Church. Every Christian religion was called. The Orthodox bishops were invited, not just to observe but to participate as equals but the Orthodox Church chose to abstain and just send observers. The Protestants, with no valid bishops, could not participate but it was still demanded by the nature of an Eccumenical Council but were instead invited to try to revive the original sense of the Eccumenical Council, rather than the “Us vs. Them” attitude which as been taken by some Councils.

A couple corrections here. The EO bishops were invited to participate in the First Vatican Council (Pius IX wanted it to be a reunion Council like Florence), but they refused. At the Second Vatican Council, they were invited as merely observers, but many refused at first to come because they thought they should be treated this time as equal participants. Only the Russians sent a delegation to the first session as observers, but others would later follow suit.

Of course, it also bears pointing out that Protestants were permitted to participate at Trent by making making proposals, conferring, debating, etc.

Both Pius IX and John XXIII hoped their respective Councils would inspire the return of separated Christians (EO and Protestant), but sadly neither happened.

It should also be noted that non-Catholics do not have a right to participate in such a Council, but only Catholic bishops. Others can be allowed some role at the discretion of the supreme authority of the Church (this truth is reflected in the current Code’s canon 339).

Honestly, when it came to Vatican II, we would have seen the same problems afterward with or without them being physically present. The Protestant observers were not the source of the novel attitudes and ideas bandied about.

 

[Maximian]

You think that because the V2 documents don’t say “We are hereby protestantising the Mass” that the Mass has not been protestantised?

 

[Genesis315]

You think that because the V2 documents don’t say “We are hereby protestantising the Mass” that the Mass has not been protestantised?

Not to mention the fact that the practical prescriptions in Sacrosanctum Concillium became a dead letter/out-of-date the instant Missale Romanum was issued by Pope Paul.

 

[goout]

Okay. It seems I am miseducated on what Vatican 2 actual was. Let me go do my research!

Wisest post in the whole thread right here.

 

[vsedriver]

Anything unique to Catholics that offended protestants was removed from the Mass.

like what? And which protestants were offended by what was in the Catholic Mass?

 

[Dovekin]

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.
Vatican II. Unitatis Redintegratio 1

This is one statement of purpose from the Council. Our divisions damage the holy cause of preaching.

With views like this, I hope that observers would have had some influence on the opinions at the Council. Excluding these carefully chosen experts from among our separated brothers and sisters would have been foolish.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I can only answer with my opinion, but my guess is that they were invited by the Church to be there, as they are closely related to the Church and the Church wanted them to see the information firsthand rather than read about it in the media.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Vatican II never removed the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but defined it correctly that it is a “living sacrifice,” as stated in the third Eucharistic Prayer.

And prayers to Mary and the Saint’s have remained. However, devotions were not included.