Why was Vatican II necessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter marci
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

marci

Guest
I was born post Vatican II, so I never experienced the church prior to NO masses, or eucharistic ministers, or anything else that changed after VII. I come from a very traditional family that basically feel nothing good came out of the changes.

My question is: What was wrong in the church at that time that the pope and council decided changes needed to be made? I know that many lay catholics have feeling about why things should or should not have changed, but I am more interested in what the thinking of the Holy Father (i believe John the VI–could be mistaken, sorry) and the Council members was. I have often read of a reference to “opening a window and allowing fresh air into the church” Why this thinking? Why was fresh air needed?

I don’t want this to be an argument about the rightness or wrongness of Vatican II. I know both sides on that issue. i would like to know the intention or thinking of those directly involved prior to the calling together of the Council.

Thanks
 
The First Vatican Council had been held nearly a century before but had been cut short by the capture of Rome by Italian revolutionary forces. As a result, only deliberations on the role of the Papacy were completed, with examination of pastoral and dogmatic issues concerning the whole church left undone.

Pope John XXIII, however, gave notice of his intention to convene the Council on 25 January 1959, less than three months after his election in October 1958. While he expressed his intentions in many messages over the next three years in formal detail, one of the best known images is of Pope John, when asked why the Council was needed, reportedly opening a window and saying, “I want to throw open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and the people can see in.”
 
In the past few centuries what was once been a thoroughly Catholic western world had for the most part apostized from the faith–the horrors of the “Reformation,” “Enlightenment,” French Revolution, reign of Napolean, Liberalism, Modernism, Naturalism, Rationalism, Nationalism, Facism, Socialism, Naziism, Communism, and the the Great Wars of the first half of the twentieth century left modern man dissiliusioned and faithless. Those who had remained faithful, were very much so, but the rest of what was once Christendom was not–godless civil society would not have been ushered in if it were faithful.

The Second Vatican Council was called to give the Church a unified direction in re-evangelizing the world and also bringing the stray sheep (non-Catholic Christians) back into the fold.

This Council, however, had a different orientation than every other Council, and that is what both through people off and made it easily manipulated by modernists and liberals. All other Councils, beginning with Nicea I in 325 took place during a period when there was a Christendom. These previous Councils were what I would call “fortress Councils.” They were concerned with protecting Christendom from error–usually by condemning heresies, purging heretics from the Church, and/or reforming certain ecclesiatical disciplines to correct cergy vices and abuses.

Christendom, however began a rapid death, especially in the 1700s and 1800s. The very foundations of the faith and authority of the Church were being undermined. The First Vatican Council was the last ditch effort to reinforce these foundations. Unfortnately, as cursory view of the first half of the 20th century shows, it failed.

Since there was no more Christendom for really the first time since Nicea I, the Second Vatican Council did not adopt the fortress approach, but rather took up a new approach–the missionary approach. We can see the good fruits in the rapid growth of Catholicism in third world countries in the last few decades.

Unfortunately, no one in the Western modern world adopted this missionary spirit–instead, since the Council had such a different approach, the Liberals and Modernists used it as justification to usher in a revolution of religious indifferentism, relativism, moral license, and destruction of the sacred–none of which the Council called for at all. Luckily, utter failures of that revolution are becoming apparent–and as that generation dies out, the younger generation who hungers for authentic Catholicism are replacing them more and more. Sadly, society itself is getting farther and farther gone. John Paul II and Pope Benedict, especially of late, have been urging us on to bring about the new evangelization and usher back in the Kingdom of God into society as the Council actually directed. Hopefully the faithful will listen 🙂
 
marci said:
I was born post Vatican II, so I never experienced the church prior to NO masses, or eucharistic ministers, or anything else that changed after VII. I come from a very traditional family that basically feel nothing good came out of the changes.
Click to expand...
It aslo bears pointing out that none of these changes were called for by the Council. They came about as part of the “revolution” I mentioned in the previous post. The Council did call for some minor liturgical reforms, but nothing like what Pope Paul instituted as a result of pressure from some moderist Cardinals. And even the reforms he instituted, did not call for stripping down churches and bringing in eucharistic ministers and the overall banaliztion of the Mass and church decor. These came from local bishops conferences and whatnot–more of the false revolution. His missal can be celebrated in the kind of beauty and solemnity of the old Mass as some churches actually do it.
 
Thanks for the posts. I am trying to read what I can about the council and I continue to be intrigued by the things that came out of the council that have been such a source of contention. Rather, I should say the interpretations that have come about.

I will continue to study the matter.
 
Hi Marci,

Pope John XXIII, in his opening speech to the Council said this, among other things.
The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, **should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. **The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
Click to expand...
You will find the complete text at

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

Verbum
 
The pre-Vatican II liturgy was in essence quite beautiful, and at times could be an overwhelming experience.

Nevertheless, the liturgy did need reforming. During most Sunday or especially weekday Masses, it was nearly impossible to use the Missal as it was intended to follow along with the prayers of the Mass. That was because most priests read the Latin quite rapidly, and I simply couldn’t keep up. Nor could I keep track of just where in the liturgy the priest actually was, since the prayers were read in a low voice, and there was a lot of skipping around in the missal–much more so than now.

This was a shame because the prayers of the Mass were quite inspiring. I often wished the priests could just slow down and read them in English.

Now, despite whatever liturgical abuses you might encounter, you will easily be able to follow along with the Mass. (And in my parish there are no abuses whatsoever.)

Of course you can just as easily daydream through the English as through the Latin, but the congregation is certainly more ‘connected’ to the liturgy than they were in the past.

Reform of the Liturgy was not, however, one of the main purposes of the council. The documents produced by the Council can be found in not very lengthy book form, and for the most part, they have nothing to do with what later came to be known as “the spirit of Vatican II.”
 
marci said:
Thanks for the posts. I am trying to read what I can about the council and I continue to be intrigued by the things that came out of the council that have been such a source of contention. Rather, I should say the interpretations that have come about.

I will continue to study the matter.
Click to expand...
Sadly, with every Council there has been contention. Previously, however this led to schism (like the Nestorian churches rejecting Ephesus, the Oriental Orthodox rejecting Chalcedon, and the Old Catholics rejecting the First Vatican Council, etc.). While some have gone off into schism in response to Vatican II, most of the contention has remained internal–I think it is the lack of integrity of the modernists who in their twisted and illogical minds think it is ok to profess non-Catholic doctrine while remaining Catholic.
 
Now, despite whatever liturgical abuses you might encounter, you will easily be able to follow along with the Mass. (And in my parish there are no abuses whatsoever.)
Click to expand...
I agree that presenting the mass in the vernacular does make it easier to follow, particularly now when, latin is not studied at all by that lay faithful, at least not because they HAVE to know it.

However, where I live the majority of masses are in Spanish, which I do speak, however, because it is not my native tongue, I have trouble following when the priest speaks so fast. Particularly when he gives the homily, as I don’t have the missal to follow along.

Thanks for all the replies and the info.
 
marci said:
I agree that presenting the mass in the vernacular does make it easier to follow, particularly now when, latin is not studied at all by that lay faithful, at least not because they HAVE to know it.
Click to expand...
In the pre-Vatican II days, the problem was, in a way, more than simply that the Mass was not easy to follow. It was that it seemed to be something entirely disconnected from the congregation. That is why there were people in the pews saying their rosaries, reading prayer books, and doing other devotional or non-devotional things, and a few trying without much success, to follow along in their missals.
However, where I live the majority of masses are in Spanish, which I do speak, however, because it is not my native tongue, I have trouble following when the priest speaks so fast. Particularly when he gives the homily, as I don’t have the missal to follow along.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is a good argument for saying the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin. It’s not hard to learn the prayers, and the congregational responses–and involvment–would still be present.

Indeed, one of the strengths of the Pauline Mass was that it was the same throughout the world. No matter where you traveled, the Mass (except for the homily) was the same. But travel was not so widespread then. Now, everyone travels, but the Mass is different everywhere!
 
there was unfinished business remaining from the first Vatican council that was supposed to be addressed by a second council in the 1930s, which was postponed due to the conditions that led to WW2 and the war. the liturgical renewal began at that time, accelerated in the 1950s under Pope Pius12. V2 was supposed to complete that work, and come up with dogmatic statements on the church in the modern world, an outgrowth of the ideas proposed in the great encyclicals published at the end of the 19th century. the actual agenda proposed for the council and the actual issues addressed in the documents produced are not the same, but V2 essentially did the job it set out to do.

That is not to say that a lot of change undertaken in liturgy and all aspects of Church life in the 60s-80s particularly were not done “in the spirit of V2” even though the council produced no actual documents or teachings that mandated or even allowed the changes.

One of the main issues that was supposed to be addressed in the 2nd council was balancing the collegial role of the bishops with the role and meaning of the office of the Papacy, in light of the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility. Had that been tackled sooner it is a matter of speculation of the schisms following that dogma (separation of Old Catholics, Polish national Church etc) would have occurred, let alone the schism of the Lefebrists. I think the effort to articulate those definitions and the inevitable church politics that went on in defining the role of the bishops (as well as priests, religious and laity) led to some of the abuses and destructive changes that did emerge after V2.
 
puzzleannie;1718454
That is not to say that a lot of change undertaken in liturgy and all aspects of Church life in the 60s-80s particularly were not done “in the spirit of V2” even though the council produced no actual documents or teachings that mandated or even allowed the changes.

One of the main issues that was supposed to be addressed in the 2nd council was balancing the collegial role of the bishops with the role and meaning of the office of the Papacy, in light of the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility. Had that been tackled sooner it is a matter of speculation of the schisms following that dogma (separation of Old Catholics, Polish national Church etc) would have occurred, let alone the schism of the Lefebrists. I think the effort to articulate those definitions and the inevitable church politics that went on in defining the role of the bishops (as well as priests, religious and laity) led to some of the abuses and destructive changes that did emerge after V2.
Click to expand...
Do you think that eventually there will be another council to address those things which did not “follow the spirit” of VII?
Or do you think that those things will continue to be addressed through papal documents, ie the awaited document concerning the more widespead implementation of the latin mass?

Speaking for someone who has never experienced anything other than NO masses, I would love to start regularly attending a Tridentine or Latin mass. Right now where I live, which has a population of 900,000, (city and surrounding areas) there is only one parish where the Tridentine mass is offered and then only two Sundays a month.

While I am anxiously awaiting the Holy Father’s document concerning the Latin mass, I fear that if it falls only to what the bishop will allow, or only be available if lots of people ask for it, there will not be much hope that it will become wide spread in my area.

There is a St. Pius the X society chapel here which I was planning to start attending. However, upon further reading, I have found that attending would be “illicit”. Eventhough it is my understanding that the communion would still be valid, I don’t want to do anything that would not be licit.

In the end, I think that the only hope for my family to attend regular Latin mass will only come if the St. Pius X Society reconciles with Rome. I pray that this will happen.

Thanks to all for the info.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top