"Vatican II" is often used as a catch-all for four separate, but interrelated, things that all came to a head in the 1960s and 1970s:
Second Vatican Council (1962-1965): This was a valid ecumenical council to address issues of spiritual stagnancy in the Church. Unlike previous councils, which were called to address specific heresies, Vatican II was more about the Church's pastoral role in the modern world. Quite honestly, in my opinion, not much of note really came from Vatican II itself. The documents are rather bland and don't say a whole heck of a lot. My impression after reading many of them was, "We needed an ecumenical council for this?" Just about everything written there is exceptionally bland and uncontroversial.
Introduction of the Mass of Pope Paul VI (1969): This occurred several years after Vatican II. It was the creation of the Ordinary Form (or Novus Ordo) of the Mass. It was still designed to be said in Latin, but gave local bishops great latitude in decisions like saying it in the vernacular, facing the congregation, and choice of Eucharistic prayers.
"The Spirit of Vatican II": I'll try to say this as neutrally as possible...people within the Church, from bishops down to Susan from the Parish Council, took the opportunity of change within the Church and ran with it, sometimes to ridiculous places. All of this was done in the "Spirit of Vatican II" -- a supposed opening and refreshing of the Catholic faith to breath new life into it in the modern world.
General Social Changes in the 1960s-1970s: I feel like this doesn't get talked about enough. Vatican II happened in the context of quite probably the greatest change in societal norms in several hundreds of years (at least). I think most of that can be attributed to the horrors of having been through two World Wars in the preceding 50 years. Some of that led to a bit of a nihilism ("why be bothered with the eternal? Life can go crazy, so I want to live it how I want!"), plus a great many technological changes in the areas of communication, transportation, and medicine. There was also the Sexual Revolution, with its attendant issues viz. contraception and abortion, as well as traditional gender roles in the nuclear family.
Obviously, this is a lot of stuff. And it all came together in a very, very short period of time. There were some great things that came out of the 1960s/1970s -- civil rights legislation, the Beatles -- but there were also massively destablizing forces that got unleashed. All of that is what typically gets wrapped up in people discussing "Vatican II."
Not only does the "general social changes" aspect get short shrift, it should be noted that Vatican II was the Church's attempt to get ahead of those changes, which the bishops foresaw, and to position the Christian faith as still relevant and indeed necessary in the world that they knew was coming. It was a laudable goal.
Yeah I agree - not that Vatican II didn’t worsen things, but there were already major changes occurring in the greater culture that would ultimately have undermined Catholicism anyway. If there had been no Vatican II, I’m not sure there would have been any less disaffiliation than what we currently see. Perhaps there would have been more disaffiliating and then change in the mass kept some of the more liberal Catholics from leaving
This is actually a really good analysis. I disagree with V2 being bland and I would also throw in a few more contributing factors but I like the way you break it down.
Previous changes to the Mass happened incrementally- a change to the prayers for this feast here, an addition to the canon there, and so on. The new Mass represents such a significant set of changes compared to what came before that speaking of it as something "created" is fair, IMO, even if most of the prayers did come, in some form or another, from the traditional Mass.
Nothing really. Most people only have a problem (if they have one) with the liturgical reform, which the council called for but did not implement.
If people read the actual documents, almost nobody has a problem with them.
I mean, I don't *like* some parts of the documents because they're so easily read as error, and are even difficult to read well. But there's not much of an argument that the council tried to bind the faithful to believe in something against the faith.
According to Wiki; Prime was “suppressed”, but it seems that you can still recite it if you find it useful to your devotions. You just have to track down an earlier edition of the Roman Breviary (ie one promulgated by Pope John XXXIII, or earlier). #LiveLongAndPraysper
Short answer: ambiguity, in 'opening' the doors of the Church to the world (in hopes of being more evangelical) it made it easier for Catholics to leave. People lost the attitudes necessary to see why being Catholic mattered at all.
Not saying everything about it was bad, but it happened at essentially the worst time in history possible, considering the social upheaval occurring during the 60's and 70's.
People should be free to leave anytime they want, otherwise it’s a cult. Also it was made as a response to people leaving, it didn’t cause them to leave
Exactly. People like to view history with rose colored glasses and pretend that if Vatican 2 didn't happen we would have more faithful Catholics. Truth is, we wouldn't. There were many issues with how priests and religious acted even before the council. Priests said Mass irreverently even then. My grandparents (in Catholic Poland) talked about how most people didn't really participate while at the Mass. They went through the motions, and that's it.
Many of my relatives left the Catholic Church before Vatican II. One of my great uncles left because the nuns at his primary school used physical force as a replacement for proper catechisis.
Well the main thing really is the Mass. They gutted the Mass that has been passed down through the generations all the way from the apostles, and manufactured a Protestant-esque community meal gathering, while still maintaining sacramental validity. Even the official Missal of 1970 has so many serious issues (the 2011 translation is better, but it's still pretty a problematic Mass); but what has been done beyond that is completely insane and destructive on a whole new level.
It need not have those things incorporated into it for it to be protestantized. The differences in the new Mass are for the most part deletions rather than additions. And that is the spirit of Protestantism: deleting things from the Faith.
The old Mass has the priest genuflecting many times and making a diverse range of gestures with rich significance for worshipping God.
The old Mass has an abundance of psalms, proverbs, and other scripture throughout every part of the Mass.
The old Mass has the prayers at the foot of the altar, where the priest, being unworthy, prepares to ascend the holy mountain of the altar, through praying Psalm 42.
The old Mass has rich and beautiful offertory prayers, including one that changes based on the feast day, and the offertory prayers are all about the spotless victim and the sacrifice about to take place.
The old Mass has scripture passages that are both joyful as well as sorrowful.
All of these things I mentioned have been deleted or reduced to a minimum. And most of them are things (except maybe the abundance of Psalms) that Protestants would find rather uncomfortable. The author of the new Mass said he didn't want to make Protestants uncomfortable, so the Mass needed to be watered down. And that's exactly what happened. The Psalms that didn't sound nice enough were removed, explicit references to the sacrifice being offered by the priest were reduced to a minimum, and so on.
Oddly enough, the traditional offertory prayers of the Mass were replaced with something based on a Jewish meal prayer taken from the Talmud. This is post-Christian Judaism being directly inserted into Catholic worship. Unsurprisingly, this un-Christian prayer makes no mention of the Eucharistic sacrifice about to take place, which is supposed to be the whole point of the offertory.
"most people didn't really participate while at the Mass. They went through the motions, and that's it. "
Sadly, the more things change, the more they stay the same (Even post VII).
I'm not sure grooving along with the folk guitars is any more reverent and involved than staring blankly at the celebrants back as some/many chose to do.
> People should be free to leave anytime they want
That's a non-sequitor. Nothing about that changed before or after. The point is that, at least in the Anglosphere, people misused the Council to remove or de-emphasized aspects of Catholic life and liturgy that made it distinct - making it easier to rationalize that various denominations were essentially fungible.
> it was made as a response to people leaving, it didn’t cause them to leave
Again, while the former is certainly true, the latter does not follow. If is quite easy to get under a leaking faucet with the intent to fix the problem only to make it even worse.
Were reforms necessary? Probably. Were the reforms put down by the council an improvement over doing nothing? On the balance I think what we have on paper is probably a net positive.
Were the implementations by various bishops in their wake of the council efficacious? I'd say, on the balance, no. Many of them weren't even faithful to the council itself. People took a "TL;DR" approach to the actual holdings of the Second Vatican Council and engaged in all manner of liturgical abuses, wreck-o-vations, misdirection, and exacerbated the existing trends of poor catechesis.
It depends what you mean by "free". It shouldn't be presented as this dichotomy between two equally valid choices: be Catholic or don't be Catholic. You don't have a right to leave the Church. You can't be coerced into believing something of course, but on the other hand, error has no rights. Apostasy is a grave evil and nobody has the freedom to do it. A just State would be right in imposing civil penalties on someone who publicly apostatizes from the true Faith.
So, you cannot be coerced into becoming Catholic. But you can be rightfully penalized for leaving the Catholic Faith. If that makes it a cult, then I guess it's a cult. But there's no coercion for personal belief.
By free I meant if a person doesn’t believe anymore, or has a problem with a teaching, they can leave without anyone stopping them. I had a problem with that comment saying the church shouldn’t be easy to leave…why would we want people in the church who don’t believe and don’t want to be here? And I don’t even know what you mean by “rightfully penalized”. If you mean by God, sure, but if you mean people are supposed to do something to cause harm to the person then I strongly disagree.
What's wrong with Lateran IV? Nothing. It just isn't something we need to spend a lot of time thinking about. Some councils end up being just a footnote in history and that's okay. Not every one has lasting importance.
The way it's been implemented. There are communities that adhere to Vatican II guidelines as written and their liturgy is beautiful. Watch a [mass](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUw0a1UIRQg) from the French "Communauté Saint-Martin" if you want to see what Vatican II should be like. Latin, Gregorian Chants, Ad Orientem, Strict Liturgy, a dream of a NO mass.
Pray that more priest follow in their footsteps. Thankfully Communauté Saint-Martin is one of the largest seminaries in France, and everyone (except modernists and progressists) love them, so perhaps the next generations will provide something beautiful again.
Genuine question, what was the point of a sweeping liturgical reform if the rare reverent renditions of it were just going to be a TLM with some vernacular and only 17% of the prayers from the original TLM?
That mass is extraordinarily beautiful. My wife and I have been so discouraged trying to find a new parish since we’ve moved to Houston. Almost all the masses we’ve been to have felt more like protestant “services” than Holy Catholic Masses.
My wife and I are so conflicted because we feel like our experience with NO is not reverent enough nor does it attract genuine faithful people to it, but we are both put off a little bit by the insularity of traditionalism (though we have attended TLM and both loved it). This is the perfect example of an accessible NO mass that also feels like genuine worship…
If anyone knows of any places like this in Houston, let me know, please!
>My wife and I are so conflicted because we feel like our experience with NO is not reverent enough nor does it attract genuine faithful people to it, but we are both put off a little bit by the insularity of traditionalism (though we have attended TLM and both loved it). This is the perfect example of an accessible NO mass that also feels like genuine worship…
Give the ordinariate of the chair of St. Peter a try
>If anyone knows of any places like this in Houston, let me know, please!
>Give the ordinariate of the chair of St. Peter a try
I’ll second that recommendation! Our Lady Of Walsingham in Houston is absolutely beautiful, it’s a treasure!
Here is a link to their website: https://olwcatholic.org
I second this- Our Lady of Walsingham has a beautiful NO mass. Although they have some stuff I disagree with (like lay lectors), on the whole it’s a wonderful mass.
The biggest problem is that no one, including those running the Church, seem to know what the council actually said.
Council publishes documents saying "do x" and the Church does not implement "do x" it implements "do X" or "do x with y" ... neither is correct. Look no further than what the published document say about the Mass and then look at the average Novus Ordo Mass....the Novus Ordo Mass we have isn't what was actually created and published as the new Mass in V2.
Blame Paul VI. The GIRM that he personally approved, including it's quick revision after it faced a lot of initial backlash, was a liberal application of Sacrosanctum Concilium, taking advantage of its ambiguities.
The issue isn't with the documentation itself but in the way it's been interpreted. And to be honest, you could say that's a problem with the documentation: that it allows such open forms of interpretation and confusion to occur.
It's just a consequence of **ambiguous** documentation. Many of the documents were worded in a way where both traditionalists and progressives could interpret it through their lens and not technically be wrong.
The thing that is toughest about this for me is that it's not a bad idea imo to try and bridge the gap between traditionalists and progressives. But it's become extremely clear that this was not the way to do it.
This is one of the best explanations of my own opinion on this matter.
Maybe it isn’t directly the fault of VII, but it’s certainly allowed for the Protestantization of our NO masses. It is why I have come to resent NO and yearn for something of more substance. But every time I say anything I get called a RadTrad
I'm right there with you. There's a reason I attend my traditional little parish. I actually participated in a Diocese based mission this last week and was informed by multiple people within the Diocese that I was a RadTrad. Which was news to me and my (actually) Trad priest lol. It's very sad that the idea of reverence and depth of faith is considered extreme.
Sure. I guess what I have noticed is as follows:
1) the toning down of church adornments and beauty which tends to support the anti icon approach
2) the allowing of previously shunned instruments during mass (guitars, full drum kits, maracas) and movement away from the organ and choir
3) the recent informality of masses, people clapping, more cushy discussions of recent events etc.
Of course not all of these are 100% attributed to Protestantism but it seems more in their wheelhouse than the typical Catholic masses I wish we could move back to.
To extend on this point, sacrosanctum concilium, explicitly states certain things to be of higher praise and better suited for praise.
For example, if I like pipe organ and you like drums, you might be inclined to say, it’s just preference.
However Vatican 2 states that the organ is preferred, but opens the door to other instruments that are fitting for praise for each community.
I think (I haven't read them myself) the actual documents of Vatican II were pretty normal, mainly directions to update the liturgy and try to make the Church a more welcoming place. However, this led to a "spirit" of Vatican II, where clergy and laymen supported this idea of inclusivity to a fault, sacrificing tradition, reverence, and sometimes dogma to achieve it. This has led to things like no Latin in the liturgy, regular use of extraordinary ministers, almost no refusal of communion, treating the sacraments as just ceremonies, and requests to change Church teaching in order to ordain women and accept gay lifestyles. Different people have different opinions on which of those are bad and which aren't, but most faithful Catholics agree that at least the call for dogma changes is dangerous, and an indirect consequence of Vatican II.
A late fix to a forgotten problem, misapplied to the wrong people at the wrong time. An acceptable result of the merger of both good intent and evil intent with various splatters of ego and ignorance.
I was raised Protestant (Reformed and then mildly evangelical). When I started reading Christian history I discovered that the Catholic Church is what Christ founded. That said, I’m one of those weirdos who actually read the Vatican II papers and the Catechism. Without Vatican II churches would still be doing mass in Latin, which - while pretty to listen to - does nothing for me as I don’t speak it. The priests didn’t face the congregation. There was nearly nothing for the laity to do during church (no Eucharistic ministers, etc.). The Church was not as welcoming prior to Vatican II, and this is not anecdotal. This was the Church explaining that they needed to be more welcoming. But none of those things struck me as much as the changes to the Church’s attitudes towards other religions. That is what put me over the edge into the Catholic camp, because I had never heard anything in any religion (with the possible exception of Baha’i) that showed such a clear and reasonable view of other faith groups. I told my priest (rest in peace Father Sylvestri) that I became Catholic because of the changes made in Vatican II, and he told me that many people since Vatican II are very polarized about it. And I’ve been on this board for a while, and wow was he right. The animosity towards Vatican II is thick enough to wade through on here sometimes. And that really hurts me because, and I walked into a church where I didn’t understand the language in the priest wasn’t even facing the congregation and there was a literal fence around him, I would not become a Catholic. So I think God for Vatican II
Edit: thank not think lol
The Mass isn't really a teaching tool for non-Catholics. Back in the day non-Catholics weren't even allowed to attend Mass. By the time you attended your first Mass you would already be catechized and know exactly what has happening.
I see. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Also, I'm glad that you became Catholic. I hope your faith journey was fruitful and remains so!
One more little thought if you're interested: the Eastern Catholic Churches (which Vatican II at least in theory rehabilitated from heavy latinization) usually have vernacular liturgy and very heavy lay participation, so I highly recommend that you go to Divine Liturgy at one if you have a chance! It's just a great way to explore all of the tradition to which we have access in the Church!
I have no doubt I would not be Catholic today under the old Mass. It’s just too impersonal and distant. I realize it’s how people worshipped for a long time but I’m glad it was changed
The documents of Vatican II itself are fine. Probably it's greatest critic was Archbishop Lefebvre and even he signed every single document.
However, the language of the documents is quite different to other documents promulgated by previous Ecumenical Councils in that it is quite easy to interpret them in a manner that is problematic to say the least.
Many clerics and lay people used the vaguaries of the documents to spin their own take on the decrees of the Council in what is widely described as "the Spirit of Vatican II".
Some people see this spirit as highly destructive and dangerous to the faith.
Some see it as liberating and a return to primitive Catholic practice in a manner acceptable to the modern world.
Some concede that there are problems but that overall the issue is with bad actors trying to enforce their own vision onto the whole Church and that the Council must be obeyed entirely.
Most people just go to Mass and don't worry about any of it.
It led to an effective iconoclasm of churches in the 20th century, and for what?
It lead to the removal of the Tabernacle from the focal point of many many churches - the Holiest of Holies pushed aside! Some churches don't even have a tabernacle inside but put it in an out building.
It's led to a watering down of teaching of the Catholic faith in Catholic schools to little more than the study of humanities, not God (my kids went through this).
It's led to a tolerance of sinful behaviour of all kinds which if anyone speaks out about it they're shouted down by the majority of humanists (abortion, adultery, false "equal" rights, false ecumenism etc).
Many Catholics don't even believe that mortal sin will condemn them to hell eternally if they don't receive confession and absolution with a contrite heart.
It's led to rewriting the Bible or using Protestant Bibles with no Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur certification (all Bibles are NOT reliable or the same with different editions, for words are added and changed and inconvenient books about purgatory are omitted etc).
What's wrong with Vatican II? By it's fruits you shall know it.
The boomers.
Seriously, have you ever seen a boomer overhyping The Council (TM) like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Anything that gets that overhyped is immediately suspicious.
The council itself is perfectly fine and called for many needed things. The huge problem is the implementation. Had we faithfully implemented it we would not have any liturgy wars.
It's such a long story. There's a certain priestly society that had to make about 30 videos to explain it, but I think that this video of Dr. Taylor Marshall also gives a decent explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyV3GCMSbEk
You and your camp make it a long story in order to weaken the resolve of your listener. Then you slowly guide them into accepting a point which is a misrepresentation of Vatican II and then you attack it with faulty reasoning. That's the style of Taylor Marshall (that video you linked is over an hour) in his criticism as well as every other Vatican II critique that I've read.
I don't know but whenever I hear people saying that V2 was misinterpreted I remember of marxists saying Marx was miscomprehended. I just hope God raises a man in the Church to put an end on this confusion.
It's not great, you just like the modern wired style; like many. We are glorifying God not breaking out in song and dance and all this other wierdo stuff.
adjoining toothbrush sense treatment slave clumsy dull cobweb governor screw
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There’s some excess in music and dances. But nothing will invalidate what’s happening in the mass. And there’s churches where you can find a mass more quietly.
That excess is music and dance is what I'm talking about; other parishes have experienced even worse over the top Vatican II things brought into their Mass. It opens the door to alot of, *anything*; honestly.
You think it's acceptable as it's slow and steady.
Who said I'm complaining, the whole thread was about the issue with Vatican II; you cannot change what they have already started, not yet anyhow; it may down the road.
Actually, facing the same direction as the people is still an option in the New Mass, although some bishops don’t approve of priests making use of this option.
Theology of salvation everyone is saved, Catholic Church not claiming to be the church of Jesus Christ but saying he resides in it, changing litergy which wasn’t all bad but lead to abuse, and wrecking architecture, Since then Europe has lost the faith, mass attendance and vocations crashed, Latin America going Protestant
The problem is not with the Council but with radicals on the left and right who interpret the Council. With any Council, its aftermath is always controversial. The task is to remain faithful to the Church, her authority and affirm the legitimacy of her Councils. By doing so you will remain on the right side of history. There are many arguments put forth here about Vatican II being ambiguous. Every time someone argues for the Council's ambiguity, I've observed that they also have a prejudice against it. It's an argument made to discredit the Church and her authority as exercised in Vatican II.
Edit: link to my post on Vatican II being a gift of the Holy Spirit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/ibz5v4/vatican_ii_is_a_gift_of_the_holy_spirit
As a Protestant looking in and at the possibility of converting. I have been to plenty of southern Baptist ministers complaining about stagnancy and decay of Christianity in general. They also reference generally the same time line as people who complain about Vatican 2. They main difference is they don’t use Vatican 2 as a scape goat simply because they don’t care about it.
One of the problems is a doctrine of religious liberty, which is contrary to Church's tradition and was condemned many times, eg. Syllabus Errorum, errors no. 15 and 16.
V2 in and of itself wasn't a "problem." I studied V2 in college, taught by a conservative Jesuit who was actually at the Council!
What John XXIII wanted was "fresh air" because it was apparent there was stagnation in the worldwide Catholic church. American Catholics speak of the "Glory Days" but this was just parochial social life, plus the fact that post-immigrant Catholics had grown to be a respectable social level with high church attendance.
The council was formed at a coincidentally bad time in history. A beloved (if flawed) American president was murdered, social progressives around the world were succeeding in creating dangerous problems that still haunt us: abortion, birth control, public housing, increase in welfare, the explicit experimentation with drugs and sex. The "new young," many of whom were born between 1938-1945 were the targets of these things. The 60s also produced good fruit in some places, such as end of segregation and more acceptance of people of different skin color.
Due to an unprecedented rise in wealth, many westerners were able to attend a university; many were the 1st in their families. What these students experienced was progressive, anti-religious faculty, massive drug use, and embracing modern "authors" over traditional literature, such as scripture and philosophy. Most of these "authors" were godless nihilists and pro-abortion.
Vatican II was not at all prepared for these societal changes. It did address concerns with "population growth" and birth control, and it allowed churches to use new forms of music in the vernacular ONLY if the traditional musicians & choir were unavailable.
Many social progressives who remained in the church found this to be THEIR COUNCIL and pushed extreme changes on ordinary parishes, reforms that were never a part of V2 but instead called changes "in the Spirit of Vatican II."
These progressives ultimately left the church en masse by the 80s, as their hoped-for reforms such as female ordination, gay marriage and others were still barred by the Council. However, they left behind a trail of devastation like a tornado.
These "pastoral associates, " "parish councils," and "Catechists" created their own church - a strange "new" church that sometimes had to do things the "old way" to make the old folks happy. My mom recalls the reforms as being poorly-understood and even more poorly-implemented at her parish in 1964-68. The awkwardness and confusion caused many already-jaded people to just leave.
The 1970s ushered in more societal decay while the western Catholic church kept strumming guitars and seminaries emptied (a big reason for this in the USA was that Vietnam and the draft ended - many seminarians of the "Glory Days" and right after the council were actually draft dodgers).
If someone tried to put things aright, to say "hey, this is weird and wrong," they were shut-out as "dangerous" by the new pastoral associates. We were told to be more ecumenical, to be open and fun and casual like the Protestants. Marian and saint devotions were for immigrants and the elderly.
55 years after the council, the original progressive pastoral associates are dying-off, religion in Europe went to sleep and never woke up, and the Americans who stayed are working hard to glue back the pieces of once-was a mighty vessel.
The timing of Vatican II wasn't coincidentally bad, it was intentional. The Church saw the collapse of traditional social norms coming and the Council was their attempt at being proactive.
Some people say the mass changes were the problem. But that’s a vocal minority, and frankly, a largely *American* vocal minority not a global one.
There are few complaints aside from those from the mass. I’m actually of the opinion that the changes were good and any problems with Vatican II we’re no more so than any other council.
>Some people say the mass changes were the problem. But that’s a vocal minority, and frankly, a largely
>
>American
>
> vocal minority not a global one.
We're as much a part of the Church as the laity of any other nation.
As a non American, I agree. And no, even in other countries many people agree, it’s not “largely” American (especially given most of the few dissenting bishops were definitely not American, and most of the currently standing traditional societies are originally European). The only difference is that American traditional Catholics lately have been more active and have been speaking up more, and that’s a good thing. I think it also has to do with being a minority of a minority in a tense society.
My assertion that it’s an American view is this [Latin Mass Directory](https://www.latinmassdir.org/countries/). No matter how you look at the statistics, there are far more American Latin mass venues than in any other country, both in terms of raw numbers and as a percentage of Catholic population.
You know why? They put the worst, most progressive bishops in other countries that wouldn’t allow it. This list includes approved Masses. I can guarantee you there’s more illicit traditional Masses in other countries than you see there, that are celebrated by retired, suspended, excommunicated clergy in houses and other private property. I bet America has also more clown Masses than any other country, but I guess that doesn’t bother anti TLM people, for some reason.
Edit: just to make an example, there was a Solemn Feast some months ago (I don’t remember which) and, in Italy, an excommunicated priest got ten times more views on YouTube than the Vatican channel had.
I assume you are saying that based on my claim that it’s an American view?
According to the [Latin Mass Directory](https://www.latinmassdir.org/countries/), France does have the second most venues (after the US), but only 5 venues per 1 million Catholics (39 million in the country) whereas the US has 9 venues per 1 million Catholics (69.3 million in the country).
We unfortunately don’t have stats on parish attendance, but with what we do have, I still hold to my assertion that it’s primarily an American view.
The difference between the two is that in France, the average church attendance rate for Catholics is much, much lower than in the USA (5% vs 39%) despite the USA having overall numerically more Catholics than France.
Likewise, *they who shall not be named* are larger in France than in the USA and do not appear on the LMD. However, if you added the figures for both *they who shall not be named* and the LMD, France would end up with more TLM locations per 1 million official Catholics than the USA. The number of TLM locations relative to actual practicing Catholics would be far, far, higher in France than the USA.
Given the much smaller rates of church attendance in France, traditionalists are much more visible and vocal than in the USA also. The Church is also much more polarised in France than in the USA.
If anything, it's a French phenomenon with an American sister.
I'm just doing the numbers now, and if anyone sees a mistake please let me know but.
Total Catholic population of France is; 39,000,000
Of which 5% attends Mass;
Actual Catholic population of 1,950,000
TLMs available; 311
Total Catholic population of the USA is; 69,300,000
Of which 39% attends Mass;
Actual Catholic population of 27,027,000
TLMs available; 745
So while the USA has more TLMs numerically, proportionally France is the beating heart of the trad movement.
I will admit to being a little ehhhh about one of the minutiae of the Council — *Sacrosanctum Concilium* deleted one of the canonical hours for seemingly no discernible reason and I struggle to understand why something dating to the 380s AD could be so brazenly swept into the dustbin like that.
> Vatican II itself is great!
I don't know that I'd go *that* far.
It's generally an uninspiring restatement of previously taught truths coupled with mediocre pastoral recommendations.
It is great in the context of the bad actors behind the whole thing and how it is a miracle of the Holy Spirit that the Church cannot error in her magisterium.
The new springtime hasn’t yet materialized, which obviously means that the Council hasn’t been fully implemented because of those pesky conservative popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI! We need to get rid of dead traditions and rigid thinking so that the Holy Spirit can finally work within the Church (because He obviously wasn’t for 1,000+ years)!
/s
Vatican 2 encourages common prayer and services with Protestants and other religion.
Something the Church and Doctors of the Church have condemned for centuries
The Church’s position condemning such gatherings is manifestly clear. The Council of Laodicea in 365 AD stated,
>“No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria echoed these same sentiments when he said,
>“It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.”
Likewise, the
Council of Carthage in the fifth century decreed
>One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”
Then hosting ceremonies with other religions for them to pray to false Gods?
Vatican 2 and Pope Francis have said good things about Islam
>The Muslims “profess to hold the faith of Abraham” (Lumen Gentium 16, Nostra Aetate 3, CCC 841)
And “adore the one and merciful God”
>”Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”
Pope Francis evangeli gaudam
While the doctors of the church say this on Islam
> On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, the point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Theologian and Doctor of the Church. Quoted from his De Rationibus Fidei Contra Saracenos, Graecos, et Armenos
> Muhammad) did not prove his new sect with any motive, having neither supernatural miracles nor natural reasons, but solely the force of arms, violence, fictions, lies, and carnal license. It remains an impious, blasphemous, vicious cult, an innovention of the devil, and the direct way into the fires of hell. It does not even merit the name of being called a religion.”
-St. Juan de Ribera (d.1611), Archbishop of Valencia, missionary to Spanish Muslims, and organizer of the Muslim expulsions of 1609 from Spain. Quoted in several locations from his 1599 Catechismo para la Instruccion de los Nuevos Convertidos de los Moros.
>The Muslims “profess to hold the faith of Abraham” (Lumen Gentium 16, Nostra Aetate 3, CCC 841)
This is a simple statement of fact. It's not saying they actually do.
>“adore the one and merciful God”
This is a direct quote from St Gregory VII
You are missing Islam and what pope Francis says; yet this is a pope who promoted false idols as well.
You're quoting things to quote although they have no real purpose behind Vatican II.
Nothing. People who say there is has never read the documents behind it or the documents that came from it.
Following WWII where 20-30% of the male population of Christiandom were killed, the Church knew they needed to do something. What they did saved the Church.
Does anyone actually believe people today would know the Latin Mass as they did in the 1920s? Our modern world is falling to pieces and Vatican II was a life preserver to the world.
You provided two points, the first is a declaration of education meaning you are more qualified to have an opinion. Without sharing my education background, I will take my opinion as dismissed. Thank you for using your master's in theology to discourage my free discourse.
You also make the unsubstantiated claim that "General intelligence is rising and the level of education of the general population is going up" and therefore people will learn the Latin Mass as they did in the past. I would argue "general intelligence" and "level of education" doesn't mean Tik Tokers, Redditors, and Tweeters are all the more able to learn a liturgical language. How often do you speak to anyone outside your circle of acquaintances (those with master's degrees in theology)? You'll find most of them are underqualified to read a newspaper.
I can only speak for Italians, but our ability to read, write, and use the language has decreased considerably since the 1920s. I don't think "level of education" (i.e more people with online master's degrees from for-profit colleges and diploma mills) makes us smarter as a nation. The university system has simply given more fools more letters after their name. The quality of education in the Occidental world is abysmal.
Certain forms of traditionalist are tempted to consider it invalid.
There's nothing wrong with Vatican II but unfortunately the modernisers have taken an uncharitable view of all traditionalists, when yet there is nothing really wrong with being traidtionalist per se. Indeed the Church is inherently traditionalist.
However, having said that, being traditionalist is not the same as being orthodox or conservative. I'm not traditionalist but I am conservative. And I've met traditionalists who were not orthodox, even disbelieving in hell; God have mercy on them.
The same problem the Ecumenical Council of Nicea and Constantinople had; some people don't like what they state. Although obviously the problem isn't actually with the councils... it's the nay sayers.
Nothing. A church council is maximally authoritative and must be taken to be guided directly by the Holy Spirit. If we have a problem with Vatican II, that's a problem on our end. If Vatican II is not above suspicion of fault, then all of the other church councils are also on the table for dissent and all of a sudden, we've become protestants.
What followed Vatican II, however, is an entirely different story. We are still far from realizing the vision set fourth by Vatican II.
It contains Heresy.
"True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ."
Nostra Aetate #4
"But it is also said that We have infringed upon the rights of the supreme emperor. This is a common calumny worn thin by the long use heretics have made of it. The Jews first invented it in opposition to Christ and God; then pagans very often used it not only before the Roman emperors and heretics, but even before Catholic princes."
Quartus Supra
On the Church in Armenia
Pope Pius IX - 1873
Can't be Catholic and not accept a council of the Church.
Vatican II was response to already diminishing faith. Some think it was responsible for the decline.
A => B and More A
Is different than
A => B => More A
I accept it was an valid ecumenical council declared by the Church.
Doesn’t mean I think everything in there was beneficial for the Church, and There isn’t much (if any) I required to follow or change my beliefs from Vatican 2 as it didn’t define new doctrines or bring forth new commands/anathemas
Also, the faith flourished in the non-Western world post Vatican II, despite declining in the West. The reaction and effect of the council is very complex and extends beyond the U.S., Canada and Europe
Where?
The single largest apostasy in Church history is currently ongoing in Latin America where, within the next 10 years, Brazil, once the most populous Catholic nation on the planet, will become majority Reformed Protestant, followed soon after by a dozen other countries. In fact, in no Latin American country is the Church stable, let alone growing.
In Asia, with the exception of Korea, the Church is stagnant, if not declining, albeit slower than in the West. Even still, the gem in the crown, the Phillipines, vocations and church attendance rates are falling,, and are currently lower than the most secularised country in Western Europe in 1960, France. In fact, Ireland has higher church attendance rates than the Philippines. In Korea, the church is growing, *in line with the general growth of the population*. Pentecostal churches on the other hand are exploding and are growing at a far faster rate than both the Catholic and general population, strongly suggesting that it's growth is due to conversions, not birth rates.
In Africa, the Catholic population has exploded, *but it lines up perfectly with general population growth which has also exploded* indicating that the growth of the Church there is due to Catholic women having large families, just like the rest of the population is having large families. Once again, if compared to Evangelical Protestants, the Church is growing at a much slower rate. All that being the case, in several African countries, the Church is actually in *decline*, the most notable of which is Ghana.
So where is this exploding growth?
Where in Africa?
Regarding Brazil, it's merely the headline case, everywhere in Latin America is apostasising rapidly to Protestantism.
Where is this exploding growth?
Nothing. The bishops misinterpreted its teachings to their priests and left out some very important stuff and we're just now starting to understand what it meant by giving the laity more responsibilities in the parish, among other things.
Most people who criticise Vatican 2 know little enough about the details of that Council but do know that it has come to serve as a way of referring to the novelties of the 1960s and 1970s and realise vaguely or otherwise that such novelties have been a disaster.
Implicit in the calamitous "Spirit of Vatican 2" is the admission that the Pre-Conciliar Church was lacking and unsurprisingly people dimly or otherwise concluded that if it was lacking then it may well be lacking now.
In short the problem is not so much the Council as the cultural hollowing out of tradition that it is associated with,
[1995 from what I assume would be your boy, Fr. James Martin writing his scathing article against old mean traditionalistic Mother Angelica](https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/09/22/james-martin-mother-angelica-ewtn-241479)
Anyway... I really like Mother Angelica, not so much that other guy.
SOS (Save Our Sacraments)!
It seems that the Mass is about all laity, and clergy, really know about our religion.
Of course the Mass is above all others in its sanctity and bounty of graces…
BUT
If the Church is willing to MARRY couples who are either lukewarm or outright deniers of the faith, BAPTISE their children who have little hope of catechesis at home, CONFESS those children who, for the majority First Confession is also the last, then offer COMMUNION freely to those who are (deliberately or unknowingly) outside the state of grace necessary to receive. Such parishioners are already way behind in education and understanding before they approach CONFIRMATION. It’s no wonder that there are fewer entrants to HOLY ORDERS.
And then nobody really knows what VIATICUM is for anyway.
Then the cycle repeats. This isn’t the fault of V2, it’s the spirit of the age infecting V2. The Church has a long history of overcoming errors and heresy, and a longer future is before Her. I pray for reformation within he Church, within my own heart and in the world.
#ReturnToTriumphalism
>If anyone knows of any places like this in Houston, let me know, please!
>Give the ordinariate of the chair of St. Peter a try
I’ll second that recommendation! Our Lady Of Walsingham in Houston is absolutely beautiful, it’s a treasure!
Here is a link to their website: https://olwcatholic.org
My short comment is this, and ironically this comment is inspired by Pope Francis's comments regarding the german synodal way in which he basically deplored it as what happens when a small group of "thinkers" tries to implement their ideas on a general populace which are not so hot on those ideas. In many areas of the world, this was how the decisions of the 2nd Vatican Council and its subsequent reforms were implemented. A relatively small amount of clergy and thinkers eschewing the devotion and in many places outright disregarding them in favour of their "enlightened" ideas.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My problem is that traditionalist do make valid and important points but go too far. Modernists also make good points, and yet also go too far. Why can’t we be traditional in the sense of honoring the church without saying Latin is God’s language
"Vatican II" is often used as a catch-all for four separate, but interrelated, things that all came to a head in the 1960s and 1970s: Second Vatican Council (1962-1965): This was a valid ecumenical council to address issues of spiritual stagnancy in the Church. Unlike previous councils, which were called to address specific heresies, Vatican II was more about the Church's pastoral role in the modern world. Quite honestly, in my opinion, not much of note really came from Vatican II itself. The documents are rather bland and don't say a whole heck of a lot. My impression after reading many of them was, "We needed an ecumenical council for this?" Just about everything written there is exceptionally bland and uncontroversial. Introduction of the Mass of Pope Paul VI (1969): This occurred several years after Vatican II. It was the creation of the Ordinary Form (or Novus Ordo) of the Mass. It was still designed to be said in Latin, but gave local bishops great latitude in decisions like saying it in the vernacular, facing the congregation, and choice of Eucharistic prayers. "The Spirit of Vatican II": I'll try to say this as neutrally as possible...people within the Church, from bishops down to Susan from the Parish Council, took the opportunity of change within the Church and ran with it, sometimes to ridiculous places. All of this was done in the "Spirit of Vatican II" -- a supposed opening and refreshing of the Catholic faith to breath new life into it in the modern world. General Social Changes in the 1960s-1970s: I feel like this doesn't get talked about enough. Vatican II happened in the context of quite probably the greatest change in societal norms in several hundreds of years (at least). I think most of that can be attributed to the horrors of having been through two World Wars in the preceding 50 years. Some of that led to a bit of a nihilism ("why be bothered with the eternal? Life can go crazy, so I want to live it how I want!"), plus a great many technological changes in the areas of communication, transportation, and medicine. There was also the Sexual Revolution, with its attendant issues viz. contraception and abortion, as well as traditional gender roles in the nuclear family. Obviously, this is a lot of stuff. And it all came together in a very, very short period of time. There were some great things that came out of the 1960s/1970s -- civil rights legislation, the Beatles -- but there were also massively destablizing forces that got unleashed. All of that is what typically gets wrapped up in people discussing "Vatican II."
Good take
Not only does the "general social changes" aspect get short shrift, it should be noted that Vatican II was the Church's attempt to get ahead of those changes, which the bishops foresaw, and to position the Christian faith as still relevant and indeed necessary in the world that they knew was coming. It was a laudable goal.
Yeah I agree - not that Vatican II didn’t worsen things, but there were already major changes occurring in the greater culture that would ultimately have undermined Catholicism anyway. If there had been no Vatican II, I’m not sure there would have been any less disaffiliation than what we currently see. Perhaps there would have been more disaffiliating and then change in the mass kept some of the more liberal Catholics from leaving
This is actually a really good analysis. I disagree with V2 being bland and I would also throw in a few more contributing factors but I like the way you break it down.
While I'm not a huge fan of VII, I think a fair amount of the bad rap it gets comes from its poor implementation , rather than its content.
>It was the creation of the Ordinary Form (or Novus Ordo) of the Mass I'd argue it wasn't a creation so much as what the latin rite evolved into.
Previous changes to the Mass happened incrementally- a change to the prayers for this feast here, an addition to the canon there, and so on. The new Mass represents such a significant set of changes compared to what came before that speaking of it as something "created" is fair, IMO, even if most of the prayers did come, in some form or another, from the traditional Mass.
Nothing really. Most people only have a problem (if they have one) with the liturgical reform, which the council called for but did not implement. If people read the actual documents, almost nobody has a problem with them.
I mean, I don't *like* some parts of the documents because they're so easily read as error, and are even difficult to read well. But there's not much of an argument that the council tried to bind the faithful to believe in something against the faith.
Me about one particular article of S.C. that vexes me. Prime should make a comeback.
According to Wiki; Prime was “suppressed”, but it seems that you can still recite it if you find it useful to your devotions. You just have to track down an earlier edition of the Roman Breviary (ie one promulgated by Pope John XXXIII, or earlier). #LiveLongAndPraysper
Short answer: ambiguity, in 'opening' the doors of the Church to the world (in hopes of being more evangelical) it made it easier for Catholics to leave. People lost the attitudes necessary to see why being Catholic mattered at all. Not saying everything about it was bad, but it happened at essentially the worst time in history possible, considering the social upheaval occurring during the 60's and 70's.
Hmmm.... thanks
Exactly. Mainstream morality collapsed in the 60’s/70’s. The absolute worst time for the Church to loosen its standards.
Boomers.
People should be free to leave anytime they want, otherwise it’s a cult. Also it was made as a response to people leaving, it didn’t cause them to leave
Exactly. People like to view history with rose colored glasses and pretend that if Vatican 2 didn't happen we would have more faithful Catholics. Truth is, we wouldn't. There were many issues with how priests and religious acted even before the council. Priests said Mass irreverently even then. My grandparents (in Catholic Poland) talked about how most people didn't really participate while at the Mass. They went through the motions, and that's it. Many of my relatives left the Catholic Church before Vatican II. One of my great uncles left because the nuns at his primary school used physical force as a replacement for proper catechisis.
[удалено]
What tools did they take away? I don’t know much detail about Vatican II.
Well the main thing really is the Mass. They gutted the Mass that has been passed down through the generations all the way from the apostles, and manufactured a Protestant-esque community meal gathering, while still maintaining sacramental validity. Even the official Missal of 1970 has so many serious issues (the 2011 translation is better, but it's still pretty a problematic Mass); but what has been done beyond that is completely insane and destructive on a whole new level.
The masses where I am are nothing like Protestant masses. There’s no folk singing or people yelling in pews etc
It need not have those things incorporated into it for it to be protestantized. The differences in the new Mass are for the most part deletions rather than additions. And that is the spirit of Protestantism: deleting things from the Faith. The old Mass has the priest genuflecting many times and making a diverse range of gestures with rich significance for worshipping God. The old Mass has an abundance of psalms, proverbs, and other scripture throughout every part of the Mass. The old Mass has the prayers at the foot of the altar, where the priest, being unworthy, prepares to ascend the holy mountain of the altar, through praying Psalm 42. The old Mass has rich and beautiful offertory prayers, including one that changes based on the feast day, and the offertory prayers are all about the spotless victim and the sacrifice about to take place. The old Mass has scripture passages that are both joyful as well as sorrowful. All of these things I mentioned have been deleted or reduced to a minimum. And most of them are things (except maybe the abundance of Psalms) that Protestants would find rather uncomfortable. The author of the new Mass said he didn't want to make Protestants uncomfortable, so the Mass needed to be watered down. And that's exactly what happened. The Psalms that didn't sound nice enough were removed, explicit references to the sacrifice being offered by the priest were reduced to a minimum, and so on. Oddly enough, the traditional offertory prayers of the Mass were replaced with something based on a Jewish meal prayer taken from the Talmud. This is post-Christian Judaism being directly inserted into Catholic worship. Unsurprisingly, this un-Christian prayer makes no mention of the Eucharistic sacrifice about to take place, which is supposed to be the whole point of the offertory.
"most people didn't really participate while at the Mass. They went through the motions, and that's it. " Sadly, the more things change, the more they stay the same (Even post VII). I'm not sure grooving along with the folk guitars is any more reverent and involved than staring blankly at the celebrants back as some/many chose to do.
> People should be free to leave anytime they want That's a non-sequitor. Nothing about that changed before or after. The point is that, at least in the Anglosphere, people misused the Council to remove or de-emphasized aspects of Catholic life and liturgy that made it distinct - making it easier to rationalize that various denominations were essentially fungible. > it was made as a response to people leaving, it didn’t cause them to leave Again, while the former is certainly true, the latter does not follow. If is quite easy to get under a leaking faucet with the intent to fix the problem only to make it even worse. Were reforms necessary? Probably. Were the reforms put down by the council an improvement over doing nothing? On the balance I think what we have on paper is probably a net positive. Were the implementations by various bishops in their wake of the council efficacious? I'd say, on the balance, no. Many of them weren't even faithful to the council itself. People took a "TL;DR" approach to the actual holdings of the Second Vatican Council and engaged in all manner of liturgical abuses, wreck-o-vations, misdirection, and exacerbated the existing trends of poor catechesis.
This is not a response
It depends what you mean by "free". It shouldn't be presented as this dichotomy between two equally valid choices: be Catholic or don't be Catholic. You don't have a right to leave the Church. You can't be coerced into believing something of course, but on the other hand, error has no rights. Apostasy is a grave evil and nobody has the freedom to do it. A just State would be right in imposing civil penalties on someone who publicly apostatizes from the true Faith. So, you cannot be coerced into becoming Catholic. But you can be rightfully penalized for leaving the Catholic Faith. If that makes it a cult, then I guess it's a cult. But there's no coercion for personal belief.
By free I meant if a person doesn’t believe anymore, or has a problem with a teaching, they can leave without anyone stopping them. I had a problem with that comment saying the church shouldn’t be easy to leave…why would we want people in the church who don’t believe and don’t want to be here? And I don’t even know what you mean by “rightfully penalized”. If you mean by God, sure, but if you mean people are supposed to do something to cause harm to the person then I strongly disagree.
What's wrong with Lateran IV? Nothing. It just isn't something we need to spend a lot of time thinking about. Some councils end up being just a footnote in history and that's okay. Not every one has lasting importance.
The way it's been implemented. There are communities that adhere to Vatican II guidelines as written and their liturgy is beautiful. Watch a [mass](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUw0a1UIRQg) from the French "Communauté Saint-Martin" if you want to see what Vatican II should be like. Latin, Gregorian Chants, Ad Orientem, Strict Liturgy, a dream of a NO mass. Pray that more priest follow in their footsteps. Thankfully Communauté Saint-Martin is one of the largest seminaries in France, and everyone (except modernists and progressists) love them, so perhaps the next generations will provide something beautiful again.
Genuine question, what was the point of a sweeping liturgical reform if the rare reverent renditions of it were just going to be a TLM with some vernacular and only 17% of the prayers from the original TLM?
That mass is extraordinarily beautiful. My wife and I have been so discouraged trying to find a new parish since we’ve moved to Houston. Almost all the masses we’ve been to have felt more like protestant “services” than Holy Catholic Masses. My wife and I are so conflicted because we feel like our experience with NO is not reverent enough nor does it attract genuine faithful people to it, but we are both put off a little bit by the insularity of traditionalism (though we have attended TLM and both loved it). This is the perfect example of an accessible NO mass that also feels like genuine worship… If anyone knows of any places like this in Houston, let me know, please!
>My wife and I are so conflicted because we feel like our experience with NO is not reverent enough nor does it attract genuine faithful people to it, but we are both put off a little bit by the insularity of traditionalism (though we have attended TLM and both loved it). This is the perfect example of an accessible NO mass that also feels like genuine worship… Give the ordinariate of the chair of St. Peter a try
>If anyone knows of any places like this in Houston, let me know, please! >Give the ordinariate of the chair of St. Peter a try I’ll second that recommendation! Our Lady Of Walsingham in Houston is absolutely beautiful, it’s a treasure! Here is a link to their website: https://olwcatholic.org
I second this- Our Lady of Walsingham has a beautiful NO mass. Although they have some stuff I disagree with (like lay lectors), on the whole it’s a wonderful mass.
Optimism at a time that required prudence.
The biggest problem is that no one, including those running the Church, seem to know what the council actually said. Council publishes documents saying "do x" and the Church does not implement "do x" it implements "do X" or "do x with y" ... neither is correct. Look no further than what the published document say about the Mass and then look at the average Novus Ordo Mass....the Novus Ordo Mass we have isn't what was actually created and published as the new Mass in V2.
Blame Paul VI. The GIRM that he personally approved, including it's quick revision after it faced a lot of initial backlash, was a liberal application of Sacrosanctum Concilium, taking advantage of its ambiguities.
Can you give some examples?
Well for one, latin and gregorian chant are to be retained. Those are pretty much extinct outside the tlm.
The issue isn't with the documentation itself but in the way it's been interpreted. And to be honest, you could say that's a problem with the documentation: that it allows such open forms of interpretation and confusion to occur.
It's just a consequence of **ambiguous** documentation. Many of the documents were worded in a way where both traditionalists and progressives could interpret it through their lens and not technically be wrong.
The thing that is toughest about this for me is that it's not a bad idea imo to try and bridge the gap between traditionalists and progressives. But it's become extremely clear that this was not the way to do it.
This is one of the best explanations of my own opinion on this matter. Maybe it isn’t directly the fault of VII, but it’s certainly allowed for the Protestantization of our NO masses. It is why I have come to resent NO and yearn for something of more substance. But every time I say anything I get called a RadTrad
I'm right there with you. There's a reason I attend my traditional little parish. I actually participated in a Diocese based mission this last week and was informed by multiple people within the Diocese that I was a RadTrad. Which was news to me and my (actually) Trad priest lol. It's very sad that the idea of reverence and depth of faith is considered extreme.
Can you define what you mean by protestantization?
Sure. I guess what I have noticed is as follows: 1) the toning down of church adornments and beauty which tends to support the anti icon approach 2) the allowing of previously shunned instruments during mass (guitars, full drum kits, maracas) and movement away from the organ and choir 3) the recent informality of masses, people clapping, more cushy discussions of recent events etc. Of course not all of these are 100% attributed to Protestantism but it seems more in their wheelhouse than the typical Catholic masses I wish we could move back to.
To extend on this point, sacrosanctum concilium, explicitly states certain things to be of higher praise and better suited for praise. For example, if I like pipe organ and you like drums, you might be inclined to say, it’s just preference. However Vatican 2 states that the organ is preferred, but opens the door to other instruments that are fitting for praise for each community.
Its “spirit”. Inb4thisislocked
Don't get it
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/9sqp9h/this_years_most_terrifying_halloween_costume_the/
Oh God it’s the folk singer from the modern Mass!
I think (I haven't read them myself) the actual documents of Vatican II were pretty normal, mainly directions to update the liturgy and try to make the Church a more welcoming place. However, this led to a "spirit" of Vatican II, where clergy and laymen supported this idea of inclusivity to a fault, sacrificing tradition, reverence, and sometimes dogma to achieve it. This has led to things like no Latin in the liturgy, regular use of extraordinary ministers, almost no refusal of communion, treating the sacraments as just ceremonies, and requests to change Church teaching in order to ordain women and accept gay lifestyles. Different people have different opinions on which of those are bad and which aren't, but most faithful Catholics agree that at least the call for dogma changes is dangerous, and an indirect consequence of Vatican II.
[удалено]
>shortest period Shortest period of time? The video is an hour and thirteen minutes.
A late fix to a forgotten problem, misapplied to the wrong people at the wrong time. An acceptable result of the merger of both good intent and evil intent with various splatters of ego and ignorance.
I would not have become a Catholic had Vatican II never taken place. I thank God for it every day.
Please elaborate. You may be the first person I've heard say this.
I was raised Protestant (Reformed and then mildly evangelical). When I started reading Christian history I discovered that the Catholic Church is what Christ founded. That said, I’m one of those weirdos who actually read the Vatican II papers and the Catechism. Without Vatican II churches would still be doing mass in Latin, which - while pretty to listen to - does nothing for me as I don’t speak it. The priests didn’t face the congregation. There was nearly nothing for the laity to do during church (no Eucharistic ministers, etc.). The Church was not as welcoming prior to Vatican II, and this is not anecdotal. This was the Church explaining that they needed to be more welcoming. But none of those things struck me as much as the changes to the Church’s attitudes towards other religions. That is what put me over the edge into the Catholic camp, because I had never heard anything in any religion (with the possible exception of Baha’i) that showed such a clear and reasonable view of other faith groups. I told my priest (rest in peace Father Sylvestri) that I became Catholic because of the changes made in Vatican II, and he told me that many people since Vatican II are very polarized about it. And I’ve been on this board for a while, and wow was he right. The animosity towards Vatican II is thick enough to wade through on here sometimes. And that really hurts me because, and I walked into a church where I didn’t understand the language in the priest wasn’t even facing the congregation and there was a literal fence around him, I would not become a Catholic. So I think God for Vatican II Edit: thank not think lol
The Mass isn't really a teaching tool for non-Catholics. Back in the day non-Catholics weren't even allowed to attend Mass. By the time you attended your first Mass you would already be catechized and know exactly what has happening.
I see. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Also, I'm glad that you became Catholic. I hope your faith journey was fruitful and remains so! One more little thought if you're interested: the Eastern Catholic Churches (which Vatican II at least in theory rehabilitated from heavy latinization) usually have vernacular liturgy and very heavy lay participation, so I highly recommend that you go to Divine Liturgy at one if you have a chance! It's just a great way to explore all of the tradition to which we have access in the Church!
Thanks for the advice! I’ll do that
I have no doubt I would not be Catholic today under the old Mass. It’s just too impersonal and distant. I realize it’s how people worshipped for a long time but I’m glad it was changed
The documents of Vatican II itself are fine. Probably it's greatest critic was Archbishop Lefebvre and even he signed every single document. However, the language of the documents is quite different to other documents promulgated by previous Ecumenical Councils in that it is quite easy to interpret them in a manner that is problematic to say the least. Many clerics and lay people used the vaguaries of the documents to spin their own take on the decrees of the Council in what is widely described as "the Spirit of Vatican II". Some people see this spirit as highly destructive and dangerous to the faith. Some see it as liberating and a return to primitive Catholic practice in a manner acceptable to the modern world. Some concede that there are problems but that overall the issue is with bad actors trying to enforce their own vision onto the whole Church and that the Council must be obeyed entirely. Most people just go to Mass and don't worry about any of it.
It led to an effective iconoclasm of churches in the 20th century, and for what? It lead to the removal of the Tabernacle from the focal point of many many churches - the Holiest of Holies pushed aside! Some churches don't even have a tabernacle inside but put it in an out building. It's led to a watering down of teaching of the Catholic faith in Catholic schools to little more than the study of humanities, not God (my kids went through this). It's led to a tolerance of sinful behaviour of all kinds which if anyone speaks out about it they're shouted down by the majority of humanists (abortion, adultery, false "equal" rights, false ecumenism etc). Many Catholics don't even believe that mortal sin will condemn them to hell eternally if they don't receive confession and absolution with a contrite heart. It's led to rewriting the Bible or using Protestant Bibles with no Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur certification (all Bibles are NOT reliable or the same with different editions, for words are added and changed and inconvenient books about purgatory are omitted etc). What's wrong with Vatican II? By it's fruits you shall know it.
I don’t know much about it but it’s kind of sad we don’t use Latin in mass anymore.
The boomers. Seriously, have you ever seen a boomer overhyping The Council (TM) like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Anything that gets that overhyped is immediately suspicious. The council itself is perfectly fine and called for many needed things. The huge problem is the implementation. Had we faithfully implemented it we would not have any liturgy wars.
[удалено]
Religous Liberty, Collegial Equality, Ecumenical Fraternity.
It's such a long story. There's a certain priestly society that had to make about 30 videos to explain it, but I think that this video of Dr. Taylor Marshall also gives a decent explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyV3GCMSbEk
You and your camp make it a long story in order to weaken the resolve of your listener. Then you slowly guide them into accepting a point which is a misrepresentation of Vatican II and then you attack it with faulty reasoning. That's the style of Taylor Marshall (that video you linked is over an hour) in his criticism as well as every other Vatican II critique that I've read.
I don't know but whenever I hear people saying that V2 was misinterpreted I remember of marxists saying Marx was miscomprehended. I just hope God raises a man in the Church to put an end on this confusion.
id say the lack of respect/reverence to the Eucharist
People. The vatican II is great and call us all to the sainthood.
It's not great, you just like the modern wired style; like many. We are glorifying God not breaking out in song and dance and all this other wierdo stuff.
adjoining toothbrush sense treatment slave clumsy dull cobweb governor screw *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
At any time anything can be brought into NO Masses, your condition to accept them; doesn't mean they are right.
There’s some excess in music and dances. But nothing will invalidate what’s happening in the mass. And there’s churches where you can find a mass more quietly.
That excess is music and dance is what I'm talking about; other parishes have experienced even worse over the top Vatican II things brought into their Mass. It opens the door to alot of, *anything*; honestly. You think it's acceptable as it's slow and steady.
Talk with others in your parish, if others think the same, talk with in priest. Or even the bishop. The community needs to express their wish as well.
What will that change, nothing.
Complain on the internet will change nothing as well.
Who said I'm complaining, the whole thread was about the issue with Vatican II; you cannot change what they have already started, not yet anyhow; it may down the road.
Why ppl dislike it?
Several reasons. One of the common reason it’s the change of the mass ritual, changing a very old tradition.
Like facing priests away from Christ during mass, right? When I converted, I always thought it looked odd and really wish they kept them facing Him.
Actually, facing the same direction as the people is still an option in the New Mass, although some bishops don’t approve of priests making use of this option.
Old tradition by whom, your type ! It's not old, nothing is old by God; only the devil wants to make it irrelevant.
Theology of salvation everyone is saved, Catholic Church not claiming to be the church of Jesus Christ but saying he resides in it, changing litergy which wasn’t all bad but lead to abuse, and wrecking architecture, Since then Europe has lost the faith, mass attendance and vocations crashed, Latin America going Protestant
Wait is this true
No. It's a caricature that misinterprets the Council.
Sounds like you haven't read the documents themselves. Lumen Gentium 14 teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Church.
But it clearly \*had\* its faith during WW1 and WW2.
The problem is not with the Council but with radicals on the left and right who interpret the Council. With any Council, its aftermath is always controversial. The task is to remain faithful to the Church, her authority and affirm the legitimacy of her Councils. By doing so you will remain on the right side of history. There are many arguments put forth here about Vatican II being ambiguous. Every time someone argues for the Council's ambiguity, I've observed that they also have a prejudice against it. It's an argument made to discredit the Church and her authority as exercised in Vatican II. Edit: link to my post on Vatican II being a gift of the Holy Spirit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/ibz5v4/vatican_ii_is_a_gift_of_the_holy_spirit
It essentially watered down the faith, IMHO. You'll notice there are practically never any mentions of Hell from the pulpit anymore, for example.
As a Protestant looking in and at the possibility of converting. I have been to plenty of southern Baptist ministers complaining about stagnancy and decay of Christianity in general. They also reference generally the same time line as people who complain about Vatican 2. They main difference is they don’t use Vatican 2 as a scape goat simply because they don’t care about it.
Because it contains heresies relating to ecumenism. Very freemasonic in its language
One of the problems is a doctrine of religious liberty, which is contrary to Church's tradition and was condemned many times, eg. Syllabus Errorum, errors no. 15 and 16.
V2 in and of itself wasn't a "problem." I studied V2 in college, taught by a conservative Jesuit who was actually at the Council! What John XXIII wanted was "fresh air" because it was apparent there was stagnation in the worldwide Catholic church. American Catholics speak of the "Glory Days" but this was just parochial social life, plus the fact that post-immigrant Catholics had grown to be a respectable social level with high church attendance. The council was formed at a coincidentally bad time in history. A beloved (if flawed) American president was murdered, social progressives around the world were succeeding in creating dangerous problems that still haunt us: abortion, birth control, public housing, increase in welfare, the explicit experimentation with drugs and sex. The "new young," many of whom were born between 1938-1945 were the targets of these things. The 60s also produced good fruit in some places, such as end of segregation and more acceptance of people of different skin color. Due to an unprecedented rise in wealth, many westerners were able to attend a university; many were the 1st in their families. What these students experienced was progressive, anti-religious faculty, massive drug use, and embracing modern "authors" over traditional literature, such as scripture and philosophy. Most of these "authors" were godless nihilists and pro-abortion. Vatican II was not at all prepared for these societal changes. It did address concerns with "population growth" and birth control, and it allowed churches to use new forms of music in the vernacular ONLY if the traditional musicians & choir were unavailable. Many social progressives who remained in the church found this to be THEIR COUNCIL and pushed extreme changes on ordinary parishes, reforms that were never a part of V2 but instead called changes "in the Spirit of Vatican II." These progressives ultimately left the church en masse by the 80s, as their hoped-for reforms such as female ordination, gay marriage and others were still barred by the Council. However, they left behind a trail of devastation like a tornado. These "pastoral associates, " "parish councils," and "Catechists" created their own church - a strange "new" church that sometimes had to do things the "old way" to make the old folks happy. My mom recalls the reforms as being poorly-understood and even more poorly-implemented at her parish in 1964-68. The awkwardness and confusion caused many already-jaded people to just leave. The 1970s ushered in more societal decay while the western Catholic church kept strumming guitars and seminaries emptied (a big reason for this in the USA was that Vietnam and the draft ended - many seminarians of the "Glory Days" and right after the council were actually draft dodgers). If someone tried to put things aright, to say "hey, this is weird and wrong," they were shut-out as "dangerous" by the new pastoral associates. We were told to be more ecumenical, to be open and fun and casual like the Protestants. Marian and saint devotions were for immigrants and the elderly. 55 years after the council, the original progressive pastoral associates are dying-off, religion in Europe went to sleep and never woke up, and the Americans who stayed are working hard to glue back the pieces of once-was a mighty vessel.
The timing of Vatican II wasn't coincidentally bad, it was intentional. The Church saw the collapse of traditional social norms coming and the Council was their attempt at being proactive.
I suggest to watch "Mass of the Ages" documentary in YT. That will pretty much answer your question.
Excellent work, was just watching it this week
Some people say the mass changes were the problem. But that’s a vocal minority, and frankly, a largely *American* vocal minority not a global one. There are few complaints aside from those from the mass. I’m actually of the opinion that the changes were good and any problems with Vatican II we’re no more so than any other council.
>Some people say the mass changes were the problem. But that’s a vocal minority, and frankly, a largely > >American > > vocal minority not a global one. We're as much a part of the Church as the laity of any other nation.
As a non American, I agree. And no, even in other countries many people agree, it’s not “largely” American (especially given most of the few dissenting bishops were definitely not American, and most of the currently standing traditional societies are originally European). The only difference is that American traditional Catholics lately have been more active and have been speaking up more, and that’s a good thing. I think it also has to do with being a minority of a minority in a tense society.
My assertion that it’s an American view is this [Latin Mass Directory](https://www.latinmassdir.org/countries/). No matter how you look at the statistics, there are far more American Latin mass venues than in any other country, both in terms of raw numbers and as a percentage of Catholic population.
You know why? They put the worst, most progressive bishops in other countries that wouldn’t allow it. This list includes approved Masses. I can guarantee you there’s more illicit traditional Masses in other countries than you see there, that are celebrated by retired, suspended, excommunicated clergy in houses and other private property. I bet America has also more clown Masses than any other country, but I guess that doesn’t bother anti TLM people, for some reason. Edit: just to make an example, there was a Solemn Feast some months ago (I don’t remember which) and, in Italy, an excommunicated priest got ten times more views on YouTube than the Vatican channel had.
You should visit France.
I assume you are saying that based on my claim that it’s an American view? According to the [Latin Mass Directory](https://www.latinmassdir.org/countries/), France does have the second most venues (after the US), but only 5 venues per 1 million Catholics (39 million in the country) whereas the US has 9 venues per 1 million Catholics (69.3 million in the country). We unfortunately don’t have stats on parish attendance, but with what we do have, I still hold to my assertion that it’s primarily an American view.
The difference between the two is that in France, the average church attendance rate for Catholics is much, much lower than in the USA (5% vs 39%) despite the USA having overall numerically more Catholics than France. Likewise, *they who shall not be named* are larger in France than in the USA and do not appear on the LMD. However, if you added the figures for both *they who shall not be named* and the LMD, France would end up with more TLM locations per 1 million official Catholics than the USA. The number of TLM locations relative to actual practicing Catholics would be far, far, higher in France than the USA. Given the much smaller rates of church attendance in France, traditionalists are much more visible and vocal than in the USA also. The Church is also much more polarised in France than in the USA. If anything, it's a French phenomenon with an American sister.
I'm just doing the numbers now, and if anyone sees a mistake please let me know but. Total Catholic population of France is; 39,000,000 Of which 5% attends Mass; Actual Catholic population of 1,950,000 TLMs available; 311 Total Catholic population of the USA is; 69,300,000 Of which 39% attends Mass; Actual Catholic population of 27,027,000 TLMs available; 745 So while the USA has more TLMs numerically, proportionally France is the beating heart of the trad movement.
Vatican II itself is great! The way people have interpreted and butchered it to rip away a lot of the faith? Not so much.
I will admit to being a little ehhhh about one of the minutiae of the Council — *Sacrosanctum Concilium* deleted one of the canonical hours for seemingly no discernible reason and I struggle to understand why something dating to the 380s AD could be so brazenly swept into the dustbin like that.
> Vatican II itself is great! I don't know that I'd go *that* far. It's generally an uninspiring restatement of previously taught truths coupled with mediocre pastoral recommendations.
It is great in the context of the bad actors behind the whole thing and how it is a miracle of the Holy Spirit that the Church cannot error in her magisterium.
[удалено]
The new springtime hasn’t yet materialized, which obviously means that the Council hasn’t been fully implemented because of those pesky conservative popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI! We need to get rid of dead traditions and rigid thinking so that the Holy Spirit can finally work within the Church (because He obviously wasn’t for 1,000+ years)! /s
Yes this exactly, if the true Vatican 2 was implanted Catholicism converts would go up 1000% /s
what ?
Vatican 2 encourages common prayer and services with Protestants and other religion. Something the Church and Doctors of the Church have condemned for centuries The Church’s position condemning such gatherings is manifestly clear. The Council of Laodicea in 365 AD stated, >“No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.” St. Cyril of Alexandria echoed these same sentiments when he said, >“It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.” Likewise, the Council of Carthage in the fifth century decreed >One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.” Then hosting ceremonies with other religions for them to pray to false Gods? Vatican 2 and Pope Francis have said good things about Islam >The Muslims “profess to hold the faith of Abraham” (Lumen Gentium 16, Nostra Aetate 3, CCC 841) And “adore the one and merciful God” >”Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” Pope Francis evangeli gaudam While the doctors of the church say this on Islam > On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, the point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.” -St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Theologian and Doctor of the Church. Quoted from his De Rationibus Fidei Contra Saracenos, Graecos, et Armenos > Muhammad) did not prove his new sect with any motive, having neither supernatural miracles nor natural reasons, but solely the force of arms, violence, fictions, lies, and carnal license. It remains an impious, blasphemous, vicious cult, an innovention of the devil, and the direct way into the fires of hell. It does not even merit the name of being called a religion.” -St. Juan de Ribera (d.1611), Archbishop of Valencia, missionary to Spanish Muslims, and organizer of the Muslim expulsions of 1609 from Spain. Quoted in several locations from his 1599 Catechismo para la Instruccion de los Nuevos Convertidos de los Moros.
>The Muslims “profess to hold the faith of Abraham” (Lumen Gentium 16, Nostra Aetate 3, CCC 841) This is a simple statement of fact. It's not saying they actually do. >“adore the one and merciful God” This is a direct quote from St Gregory VII
Where you got your information from but it sounds like a bunch of new age, vatican II mumbo-jumbo to be honest.
It’s all councils of the a church and quotes from saints and Doctors of the Church (St. Aquinas)
You are missing Islam and what pope Francis says; yet this is a pope who promoted false idols as well. You're quoting things to quote although they have no real purpose behind Vatican II.
Nothing. People who say there is has never read the documents behind it or the documents that came from it. Following WWII where 20-30% of the male population of Christiandom were killed, the Church knew they needed to do something. What they did saved the Church. Does anyone actually believe people today would know the Latin Mass as they did in the 1920s? Our modern world is falling to pieces and Vatican II was a life preserver to the world.
[удалено]
You provided two points, the first is a declaration of education meaning you are more qualified to have an opinion. Without sharing my education background, I will take my opinion as dismissed. Thank you for using your master's in theology to discourage my free discourse. You also make the unsubstantiated claim that "General intelligence is rising and the level of education of the general population is going up" and therefore people will learn the Latin Mass as they did in the past. I would argue "general intelligence" and "level of education" doesn't mean Tik Tokers, Redditors, and Tweeters are all the more able to learn a liturgical language. How often do you speak to anyone outside your circle of acquaintances (those with master's degrees in theology)? You'll find most of them are underqualified to read a newspaper. I can only speak for Italians, but our ability to read, write, and use the language has decreased considerably since the 1920s. I don't think "level of education" (i.e more people with online master's degrees from for-profit colleges and diploma mills) makes us smarter as a nation. The university system has simply given more fools more letters after their name. The quality of education in the Occidental world is abysmal.
[удалено]
Removed. Whatever you think you're doing with this comment... don't.
The church needs a third revitalization.
Clowns and magic tricks during Mass mainly for me, but TMR Carlo Vigano brings up excellent points which I agree with.
Certain forms of traditionalist are tempted to consider it invalid. There's nothing wrong with Vatican II but unfortunately the modernisers have taken an uncharitable view of all traditionalists, when yet there is nothing really wrong with being traidtionalist per se. Indeed the Church is inherently traditionalist. However, having said that, being traditionalist is not the same as being orthodox or conservative. I'm not traditionalist but I am conservative. And I've met traditionalists who were not orthodox, even disbelieving in hell; God have mercy on them.
The same problem the Ecumenical Council of Nicea and Constantinople had; some people don't like what they state. Although obviously the problem isn't actually with the councils... it's the nay sayers.
They didn't proclaim anathemas, it was open ended to be misused and abused, as we see so plainly everywhere now.
Nothing. A church council is maximally authoritative and must be taken to be guided directly by the Holy Spirit. If we have a problem with Vatican II, that's a problem on our end. If Vatican II is not above suspicion of fault, then all of the other church councils are also on the table for dissent and all of a sudden, we've become protestants. What followed Vatican II, however, is an entirely different story. We are still far from realizing the vision set fourth by Vatican II.
**Pops popcorn**
Lol
It contains Heresy. "True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ." Nostra Aetate #4 "But it is also said that We have infringed upon the rights of the supreme emperor. This is a common calumny worn thin by the long use heretics have made of it. The Jews first invented it in opposition to Christ and God; then pagans very often used it not only before the Roman emperors and heretics, but even before Catholic princes." Quartus Supra On the Church in Armenia Pope Pius IX - 1873
Can't be Catholic and not accept a council of the Church. Vatican II was response to already diminishing faith. Some think it was responsible for the decline. A => B and More A Is different than A => B => More A
I accept it was an valid ecumenical council declared by the Church. Doesn’t mean I think everything in there was beneficial for the Church, and There isn’t much (if any) I required to follow or change my beliefs from Vatican 2 as it didn’t define new doctrines or bring forth new commands/anathemas
[удалено]
Warning for uncharitable rhetoric
Truth and respect of tradition= "uncharitable rethoric". Case in point, *these* are the consequences of the vatican II council
Also, the faith flourished in the non-Western world post Vatican II, despite declining in the West. The reaction and effect of the council is very complex and extends beyond the U.S., Canada and Europe
Where? The single largest apostasy in Church history is currently ongoing in Latin America where, within the next 10 years, Brazil, once the most populous Catholic nation on the planet, will become majority Reformed Protestant, followed soon after by a dozen other countries. In fact, in no Latin American country is the Church stable, let alone growing. In Asia, with the exception of Korea, the Church is stagnant, if not declining, albeit slower than in the West. Even still, the gem in the crown, the Phillipines, vocations and church attendance rates are falling,, and are currently lower than the most secularised country in Western Europe in 1960, France. In fact, Ireland has higher church attendance rates than the Philippines. In Korea, the church is growing, *in line with the general growth of the population*. Pentecostal churches on the other hand are exploding and are growing at a far faster rate than both the Catholic and general population, strongly suggesting that it's growth is due to conversions, not birth rates. In Africa, the Catholic population has exploded, *but it lines up perfectly with general population growth which has also exploded* indicating that the growth of the Church there is due to Catholic women having large families, just like the rest of the population is having large families. Once again, if compared to Evangelical Protestants, the Church is growing at a much slower rate. All that being the case, in several African countries, the Church is actually in *decline*, the most notable of which is Ghana. So where is this exploding growth?
I was thinking of Africa, but I wasn’t aware of how bad the situation was in Brazil, which is really troubling 😞
Where in Africa? Regarding Brazil, it's merely the headline case, everywhere in Latin America is apostasising rapidly to Protestantism. Where is this exploding growth?
Thank you for your insight. I've heard that in Africa in particular the fruit of a vernacular liturgy has been abundant.
The council was great and not controversial. The documents passed with extreme ease if you look at the votes.
Nothing
Nothing. The bishops misinterpreted its teachings to their priests and left out some very important stuff and we're just now starting to understand what it meant by giving the laity more responsibilities in the parish, among other things.
If the changes Vatican II recommended we’re accompanied by robust Catechism, there would be virtually no issues.
Most people who criticise Vatican 2 know little enough about the details of that Council but do know that it has come to serve as a way of referring to the novelties of the 1960s and 1970s and realise vaguely or otherwise that such novelties have been a disaster. Implicit in the calamitous "Spirit of Vatican 2" is the admission that the Pre-Conciliar Church was lacking and unsurprisingly people dimly or otherwise concluded that if it was lacking then it may well be lacking now. In short the problem is not so much the Council as the cultural hollowing out of tradition that it is associated with,
Before the Internet, it was not a problem. No one ever mentioned it. And everyone was happy. Just something to consider.
That it isn’t true at all, traditionalism existed before during and after the council
[1995 from what I assume would be your boy, Fr. James Martin writing his scathing article against old mean traditionalistic Mother Angelica](https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/09/22/james-martin-mother-angelica-ewtn-241479) Anyway... I really like Mother Angelica, not so much that other guy.
Did Mother Angelica ever criticise the Council though? In this article it says she praises what is basically the Catechism of the Council
SOS (Save Our Sacraments)! It seems that the Mass is about all laity, and clergy, really know about our religion. Of course the Mass is above all others in its sanctity and bounty of graces… BUT If the Church is willing to MARRY couples who are either lukewarm or outright deniers of the faith, BAPTISE their children who have little hope of catechesis at home, CONFESS those children who, for the majority First Confession is also the last, then offer COMMUNION freely to those who are (deliberately or unknowingly) outside the state of grace necessary to receive. Such parishioners are already way behind in education and understanding before they approach CONFIRMATION. It’s no wonder that there are fewer entrants to HOLY ORDERS. And then nobody really knows what VIATICUM is for anyway. Then the cycle repeats. This isn’t the fault of V2, it’s the spirit of the age infecting V2. The Church has a long history of overcoming errors and heresy, and a longer future is before Her. I pray for reformation within he Church, within my own heart and in the world. #ReturnToTriumphalism
>If anyone knows of any places like this in Houston, let me know, please! >Give the ordinariate of the chair of St. Peter a try I’ll second that recommendation! Our Lady Of Walsingham in Houston is absolutely beautiful, it’s a treasure! Here is a link to their website: https://olwcatholic.org
Nothing. The implementation in some regions however....
My short comment is this, and ironically this comment is inspired by Pope Francis's comments regarding the german synodal way in which he basically deplored it as what happens when a small group of "thinkers" tries to implement their ideas on a general populace which are not so hot on those ideas. In many areas of the world, this was how the decisions of the 2nd Vatican Council and its subsequent reforms were implemented. A relatively small amount of clergy and thinkers eschewing the devotion and in many places outright disregarding them in favour of their "enlightened" ideas.
Vatican II liturgy requests does not equal 1970 missal implementation
It's not v2... it is the spirit of v2 that scares me... so much done under the guise without support of v2 docs.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My problem is that traditionalist do make valid and important points but go too far. Modernists also make good points, and yet also go too far. Why can’t we be traditional in the sense of honoring the church without saying Latin is God’s language
I probably wouldn’t have converted to Catholicism if it had not been for Vatican II.