Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Traditional Catholicism
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old Apr 30, '12, 1:26 pm
adrift adrift is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 16,856
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel Bradford View Post
Actually, there were religious orders whose founders never intended them to wear habits, but were forced to by the Church. They were allowed to return to their founders original intentention.
The Church still asks that they have some sort of distinction that will set them apart.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Apr 30, '12, 2:15 pm
johnnykins johnnykins is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 2,039
Religion: catholic
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Holy War 11 View Post
I am new to the Catholic Church ( 5 months) so don't think I'm dumb for asking, but what changes were made after Vatican II?...
The changes are many and varied, and are mostly attributable to the interpretations called "The Spirit of Vatican II" of the Church documents rather than actual proclamations of the Council.

Use of the vernacular in stead of Latin in the Latin Rite. There were/are several reactions to that. Use of Latin meant no matter where you went, the Mass was in the same language. Since Latin was a dead language, i.e., no one spoke it in conversational use, the meaning of words was fixed allowing for real specificity in meaning. Of course many did not understand Latin. Use of the vernacular offered a greater accessibility than side-by-side translations. However, due to the fluidity of a living language translations and colloquial usage allowed for greater disparity and controversy over what was said and meant. Cf things like translating (or mis-translating) "pro multis" as "for all" or "Credo" for "We believe" and a host of others such things. In effect that change became the rallying cry for reform. Hence the screaming as it is brought back, and as translations are made more literal and less dynamic.

The pre-concillar Church was much more authoritative - often decried as steeped in clericalism. VII called for greater participation by the laity and less authority in the hands of the Bishops. Perhaps, on its face a good thing, but this led to all sorts of strange dissent and murkiness. The good thing about a strong central order - is it's clear where and how to get an answer; and who gives the answer. The weakness is a tendency toward a sort of despotism. The irony, of course, is that the despotism of the Bishop and Rome simply substituted the despotism of the cool priest and parish liturgist. In stead of one or a few despots, every parish had a different one....

The change of the rituals became a cry that everything and anything goes. Out went Palestrina and chant and in came folk rock. (Admittedly out went some awful 19th and 20th century treacly goo passing as music, too, but what came in was nothing more than bad syncopated dreck that was often heretical) Out went solemnity and in came the hootenanny. The rubrics became optional for all practical purposes in the name of being relevant to the young. Of course, teaching the faith lost out to the I'M OK/ You're OK philosophy of the time. Of course, without catechesis of any real sort, defections by the youth grew; and mom and dad left, too as they saw that syncretism was the order of the day, so why bother. Vocations dried up and many priests, sisters, and brothers left their orders in a similar reaction to lack of any clear doctrine beyond "do good" whatever that may be....

"The Spirit of Vatican II" - came to be the deformed brother of what was proclaimed by the Vatican II documents, and that Spirit held sway for 30+ years hiding the eternal Truth proclaimed by Holy Mother Church and elevated the passing chaff of the 60s/70s zeitgeist.

There are still those out there fighting for a theology of syncretic meaningless bad taste and apostasy, but the ship has turned.

That's what the screaming is about in relationship to use of Latin, the new translation, use of chant, following the rubrics, use of fiddleback chasubles and all the rest .
__________________
St. Josephat pray for us
Bl. Cardinal Stepinac pray for us
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Apr 30, '12, 3:08 pm
roadsend roadsend is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2010
Posts: 635
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnykins View Post
The changes are many and varied, and are mostly attributable to the interpretations called "The Spirit of Vatican II" of the Church documents rather than actual proclamations of the Council.

Use of the vernacular in stead of Latin in the Latin Rite. There were/are several reactions to that. Use of Latin meant no matter where you went, the Mass was in the same language. Since Latin was a dead language, i.e., no one spoke it in conversational use, the meaning of words was fixed allowing for real specificity in meaning. Of course many did not understand Latin. Use of the vernacular offered a greater accessibility than side-by-side translations. However, due to the fluidity of a living language translations and colloquial usage allowed for greater disparity and controversy over what was said and meant. Cf things like translating (or mis-translating) "pro multis" as "for all" or "Credo" for "We believe" and a host of others such things. In effect that change became the rallying cry for reform. Hence the screaming as it is brought back, and as translations are made more literal and less dynamic.

The pre-concillar Church was much more authoritative - often decried as steeped in clericalism. VII called for greater participation by the laity and less authority in the hands of the Bishops. Perhaps, on its face a good thing, but this led to all sorts of strange dissent and murkiness. The good thing about a strong central order - is it's clear where and how to get an answer; and who gives the answer. The weakness is a tendency toward a sort of despotism. The irony, of course, is that the despotism of the Bishop and Rome simply substituted the despotism of the cool priest and parish liturgist. In stead of one or a few despots, every parish had a different one....

The change of the rituals became a cry that everything and anything goes. Out went Palestrina and chant and in came folk rock. (Admittedly out went some awful 19th and 20th century treacly goo passing as music, too, but what came in was nothing more than bad syncopated dreck that was often heretical) Out went solemnity and in came the hootenanny. The rubrics became optional for all practical purposes in the name of being relevant to the young. Of course, teaching the faith lost out to the I'M OK/ You're OK philosophy of the time. Of course, without catechesis of any real sort, defections by the youth grew; and mom and dad left, too as they saw that syncretism was the order of the day, so why bother. Vocations dried up and many priests, sisters, and brothers left their orders in a similar reaction to lack of any clear doctrine beyond "do good" whatever that may be....

"The Spirit of Vatican II" - came to be the deformed brother of what was proclaimed by the Vatican II documents, and that Spirit held sway for 30+ years hiding the eternal Truth proclaimed by Holy Mother Church and elevated the passing chaff of the 60s/70s zeitgeist.

There are still those out there fighting for a theology of syncretic meaningless bad taste and apostasy, but the ship has turned.

That's what the screaming is about in relationship to use of Latin, the new translation, use of chant, following the rubrics, use of fiddleback chasubles and all the rest .

Pretty darn good summary.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Apr 30, '12, 7:59 pm
edwest2 edwest2 is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 26, 2007
Posts: 19,986
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

A pretty poor summary. I was there before and after Vatican II. None of the changes were even suggested by the Council. The Spirit of Vatican II is a smokescreen with no connection to the actual documents. You could get the Saint Joseph Daily Missal with the English and Latin on the same page.

What some writers tend to ignore is the actual bomb dropped by the Radicals and Anarchists in 1968 in response to Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae. That, not anything having to do with Vatican II, brought great confusion to a naive, trusting and mostly Christian nation. I was there. And I could see how some people, both old and young, could be duped into believing certain experts and wolves in sheep's clothing. Our trust was taken advantage of, and lies were spread and deceptions occurred. Just prior to this, most Americans were more trusting of their government and experts in general. The ACLU had not yet waged their campaign to declare Nativities in front of public buildings unconstitutional! The same with religious monuments inside public buildings. OUT!

By upholding constant Church teaching about artificial birth control, including The Pill, Pope Paul VI got this in response:

"In the encyclical, the Holy Father courageously reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that, in the words of the encyclical, “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of new life” (No. 11).

"It caused a firestorm.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Got that? The Sex without Love Revolution meant a full-scale attack against the Church began. The goal: All the way up to today, sex with anyone at any time - no strings attached. And it's "just sex," like going to the bathroom.

The dissenters inside and outside the Church went to work.

The Pill.
Adult Bookstores exposing what was meant to be private to public view.
Topless bars.
Strip clubs.
In the 1970s, Swingers magazines with hundreds of ads and nude photos from people looking for no-strings attached sex.

It was legal, and that made it OK, for some.

Then abortion in 1973, created by a vague right to privacy and "penumbras" and "emanations" from the Constitution.

Nope. We were duped.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402


What was "normal' just a few years prior, became more and more abnormal as the years passed. Love and the family. Feminist Betty Friedan called the family "a comfortable concentration camp." Feminist Gloria Steinem said, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." In the 1970s, radical feminists were telling their "sisters" to get out of the house and get a career. All men were the enemy, and they, the eternal victims. What a great way to convince people to divorce when No-Fault Divorce completed its sweep of the country in the 1980s. Hey, it's nobody's fault. No kids? $75 and you're out. Call 800-DIVORCE. And the kids? What about them?



Peace,
Ed
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Apr 30, '12, 8:05 pm
TimothyH TimothyH is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2010
Posts: 9,135
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by edwest2 View Post
A pretty poor summary. I was there before and after Vatican II. None of the changes were even suggested by the Council. The Spirit of Vatican II is a smokescreen with no connection to the actual documents. You could get the Saint Joseph Daily Missal with the English and Latin on the same page.

What some writers tend to ignore is the actual bomb dropped by the Radicals and Anarchists in 1968 in response to Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae. That, not anything having to do with Vatican II, brought great confusion to a naive, trusting and mostly Christian nation. I was there. And I could see how some people, both old and young, could be duped into believing certain experts and wolves in sheep's clothing. Our trust was taken advantage of, and lies were spread and deceptions occurred. Just prior to this, most Americans were more trusting of their government and experts in general. The ACLU had not yet waged their campaign to declare Nativities in front of public buildings unconstitutional! The same with religious monuments inside public buildings. OUT!

By upholding constant Church teaching about artificial birth control, including The Pill, Pope Paul VI got this in response:

"In the encyclical, the Holy Father courageously reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that, in the words of the encyclical, “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of new life” (No. 11).

"It caused a firestorm.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Got that? The Sex without Love Revolution meant a full-scale attack against the Church began. The goal: All the way up to today, sex with anyone at any time - no strings attached. And it's "just sex," like going to the bathroom.

The dissenters inside and outside the Church went to work.

The Pill.
Adult Bookstores exposing what was meant to be private to public view.
Topless bars.
Strip clubs.
In the 1970s, Swingers magazines with hundreds of ads and nude photos from people looking for no-strings attached sex.

It was legal, and that made it OK, for some.

Then abortion in 1973, created by a vague right to privacy and "penumbras" and "emanations" from the Constitution.

Nope. We were duped.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402


What was "normal' just a few years prior, became more and more abnormal as the years passed. Love and the family. Feminist Betty Friedan called the family "a comfortable concentration camp." Feminist Gloria Steinem said, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." In the 1970s, radical feminists were telling their "sisters" to get out of the house and get a career. All men were the enemy, and they, the eternal victims. What a great way to convince people to divorce when No-Fault Divorce completed its sweep of the country in the 1980s. Hey, it's nobody's fault. No kids? $75 and you're out. Call 800-DIVORCE. And the kids? What about them?



Peace,
Ed
All of this actually started in 1930 when the Anglican Church became the first to allow contraception.

-Tim-
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old Apr 30, '12, 8:28 pm
roadsend roadsend is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2010
Posts: 635
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by edwest2 View Post
A pretty poor summary. I was there before and after Vatican II. None of the changes were even suggested by the Council. The Spirit of Vatican II is a smokescreen with no connection to the actual documents. You could get the Saint Joseph Daily Missal with the English and Latin on the same page.

What some writers tend to ignore is the actual bomb dropped by the Radicals and Anarchists in 1968 in response to Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae. That, not anything having to do with Vatican II, brought great confusion to a naive, trusting and mostly Christian nation. I was there. And I could see how some people, both old and young, could be duped into believing certain experts and wolves in sheep's clothing. Our trust was taken advantage of, and lies were spread and deceptions occurred. Just prior to this, most Americans were more trusting of their government and experts in general. The ACLU had not yet waged their campaign to declare Nativities in front of public buildings unconstitutional! The same with religious monuments inside public buildings. OUT!

By upholding constant Church teaching about artificial birth control, including The Pill, Pope Paul VI got this in response:

"In the encyclical, the Holy Father courageously reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that, in the words of the encyclical, “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of new life” (No. 11).

"It caused a firestorm.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Got that? The Sex without Love Revolution meant a full-scale attack against the Church began. The goal: All the way up to today, sex with anyone at any time - no strings attached. And it's "just sex," like going to the bathroom.

The dissenters inside and outside the Church went to work.

The Pill.
Adult Bookstores exposing what was meant to be private to public view.
Topless bars.
Strip clubs.
In the 1970s, Swingers magazines with hundreds of ads and nude photos from people looking for no-strings attached sex.

It was legal, and that made it OK, for some.

Then abortion in 1973, created by a vague right to privacy and "penumbras" and "emanations" from the Constitution.

Nope. We were duped.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402


What was "normal' just a few years prior, became more and more abnormal as the years passed. Love and the family. Feminist Betty Friedan called the family "a comfortable concentration camp." Feminist Gloria Steinem said, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." In the 1970s, radical feminists were telling their "sisters" to get out of the house and get a career. All men were the enemy, and they, the eternal victims. What a great way to convince people to divorce when No-Fault Divorce completed its sweep of the country in the 1980s. Hey, it's nobody's fault. No kids? $75 and you're out. Call 800-DIVORCE. And the kids? What about them?



Peace,
Ed
What you say is also very correct.
I do not see where anything that johnnykins said is inconsistent with what you are saying.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Apr 30, '12, 8:31 pm
johnnykins johnnykins is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 2,039
Religion: catholic
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

I don't think we are on different sides of this, Ed. I, too, remember both pre and post VII. You posted about my precis:
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwest2 View Post
A pretty poor summary. I was there before and after Vatican II. None of the changes were even suggested by the Council. The Spirit of Vatican II is a smokescreen with no connection to the actual documents. You could get the Saint Joseph Daily Missal with the English and Latin on the same page.
I posted the following which looks pretty darn consistent with what you posted:
Quote:
The changes are many and varied, and are mostly attributable to the interpretations called "The Spirit of Vatican II" of the Church documents rather than actual proclamations of the Council.
and I posted
Quote:
"The Spirit of Vatican II" - came to be the deformed brother of what was proclaimed by the Vatican II documents, and that Spirit held sway for 30+ years hiding the eternal Truth proclaimed by Holy Mother Church and elevated the passing chaff of the 60s/70s zeitgeist.
BTW I also mentioned side by side translations...

Then you say:

Quote:
What some writers tend to ignore is the actual bomb dropped by the Radicals and Anarchists in 1968 in response to Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae. That, not anything having to do with Vatican II, brought great confusion to a naive, trusting and mostly Christian nation. I was there. And I could see how some people, both old and young, could be duped into believing certain experts and wolves in sheep's clothing. Our trust was taken advantage of, and lies were spread and deceptions occurred..."Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”
I agree, though I would contend the justification for dissent was the "Spirit of Vatican II"

Again, I'm not sure why you tore into my description and then largely agreed with it and went into another area concerning that time. I think we basically agree...
__________________
St. Josephat pray for us
Bl. Cardinal Stepinac pray for us
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Apr 30, '12, 8:37 pm
The Holy War 11's Avatar
The Holy War 11 The Holy War 11 is offline
Junior Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 191
Religion: I want to be Catholic. I also follow elements of Buddhism.
Send a message via Skype™ to The Holy War 11
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

I typed in, "What does the Catholic Church teach about the Anti-Chtist, and the Whore of Babylon?". Many sedavacantist websites said that Vatican II was the Harlot.
__________________
It's been four years now and I've still yet to be Catholic.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old Apr 30, '12, 8:46 pm
johnnykins johnnykins is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 2,039
Religion: catholic
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Holy War 11 View Post
I typed in, "What does the Catholic Church teach about the Anti-Chtist, and the Whore of Babylon?". Many sedavacantist websites said that Vatican II was the Harlot.
Well, as a legitimate Ecumenical Council, it clearly was not. The fact that it was misused is irrelevant as Truth is often misused. Otherwise your question really needs another thread...
__________________
St. Josephat pray for us
Bl. Cardinal Stepinac pray for us
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old May 1, '12, 8:14 am
edwest2 edwest2 is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 26, 2007
Posts: 19,986
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimothyH View Post
All of this actually started in 1930 when the Anglican Church became the first to allow contraception.

-Tim-


None of the other things I mentioned occurred in 1930.





Peace,
Ed
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old May 1, '12, 8:43 am
edwest2 edwest2 is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 26, 2007
Posts: 19,986
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnykins View Post
I don't think we are on different sides of this, Ed. I, too, remember both pre and post VII. You posted about my precis:

I posted the following which looks pretty darn consistent with what you posted:

and I posted


BTW I also mentioned side by side translations...

Then you say:

I agree, though I would contend the justification for dissent was the "Spirit of Vatican II"

Again, I'm not sure why you tore into my description and then largely agreed with it and went into another area concerning that time. I think we basically agree...

We do agree on some points but I cannot stress enough that the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" turned the real Vatican II into a scapegoat. Unfortunately, on the internet, it's sometimes forgotten (by myself as well) that what is written is not private, it's meant to be read by all. And I am sick and tired of reading about The Spirit of Vatican II - it's a fiction created by those who, before the Council, wanted the restriction on the use of Artificial contraception loosened to some degree.

This is a direct link - a 100% direct link with the Sex without Love Revolution of 1968, and I remember hearing in the late 1960s and early 1970s at my Catholic school, the following from the Seniors in High School: "Hey, guys don't gotta wear rubbers no more. The girls will just get on the Pill." Illegal drugs began to appear in my Catholic High School. In 1973, in my last year of High School, a radical - in school - was telling me he was living with his girlfriend. I told him, matter of factly, that he knew this was wrong. But, in an angry voice - the same type of angry voice that's been cultivated on too many internet forums, he said, "But we love each other!!" When I mentioned, in a nonjudgmental way, that they should get married, he ignored me. I didn't bother him about it.

When people go into detail about the priest facing the people and the mass being in English, they make it sound like "It was the end of the world! That - that changed everything!!!"

We still had Eucharistic Adoration, Stations of the Cross, Holy Days of Obligation, etc. We also had Masses in Polish. But again, to paper over what really happened, I've also seen: "It was no longer mandatory to not eat meat on Friday!" It ruined everything!!!

I was no less Catholic after Vatican II than before, so I ask those who think that the Second Vatican Council did anything wrong to remember - it did not.

And I apologize if my comments seemed to be directed only at you. They were not.

What changed after Vatican II were the perverts and sexual deviants, including the pro-abortionists, subverting the Christian principles on which this nation was founded, and today, denying that those principles ever existed in the first place. A few years ago, I saw a printed photo of a man carrying a sign in Washington, D.C. that read: "America! Get off your knees!"

I warn everyone reading this that if you want a State where the government forces you to do things that go against your conscience to remember the former Soviet Union: abortion and atheism.

Wake up, my fellow Catholics. The Revolutionaries/Communists/Socialists and Destroy the Family Anarchists from the late 1960s brought this upon us by abusing our trust and enacting laws to turn this country against Christian principles or to teach us to ignore them.

That's what changed.



Peace,
Ed
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old May 1, '12, 9:30 am
Angel Bradford's Avatar
Angel Bradford Angel Bradford is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 1, 2005
Posts: 767
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift View Post
The Church still asks that they have some sort of distinction that will set them apart.

That's true although not necessarily a habit; a distinctive cross or pin specific to their order.
__________________
ad majorem Dei gloriam
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old May 1, '12, 10:28 pm
Mike30 Mike30 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 14, 2011
Posts: 939
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by choliks View Post
Something positive that's commonly overlooked: Religious orders and congregations were asked to return to their roots and charism; that they should live how their founders intended them to live.
In theory it would have been if that is what happened. In practice more than a few communities, both male and female went totally bonkers in search of their roots and charism and experimented wildly in usually vain attempts to find them or understand them. It was this search that ended in the virtual decimation of many female religious orders and communities in particular. Among the male orders the Jesuits took off in directions that ignored the primitive charism entirely and started to morph into a totally different direction. The battles that took place between Pope Paul VI and John Paul II and the Society of Jesus are the stuff of legend.

It wasn't pretty.

Thankfully, I think most of that silliness has passed into history.

At least I hope so. I really do.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old May 2, '12, 9:55 am
TimothyH TimothyH is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2010
Posts: 9,135
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by edwest2 View Post
None of the other things I mentioned occurred in 1930.


Peace,
Ed
Humanae Vitae was less about contraception in general than it was about "The pill" which had just been developed.

Some argued that the pill blocked ovulation and not pregnancy, and as such, it was not "Artificial" contraception but was actually using natural processes within a womans' body to prevent pregnancy. Others argued that preventing pregnancy was the ultimate outcome and that the pill did that through artificial means.

But artificial contraception became socially acceptable after the August 1930 Lambeth Conference, held every ten years by the Anglican Church. Resolution 15 said...
Resolution 15
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
The issue was "other methods" and the floodgates opened. All the mainline denominations - Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc - all fell in line and for the first time in Christian history, artificial birth control was no longer considered a sin.

The Catholic Church's response was scathing.
CASTI CONNUBII
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE


56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.
The phrase "Standing erect in the midst of moral ruin" is breathtaking.

Casti Connubii was issued by the Holy Father on the last day of 1930, after repeatedly asking the Anglical Church to clarify its statement about "Other methods" or to retract the statement all together.

Much of what you stated did start after 1930. The generation which saw protestant churches allow contraception became the generation which made condoms widely available over the counter and who started carrying them in their wallets. Playboy magazine was introduced in 1953 during that same generation. Colorado, California, Oregon and North Carolina legalized abortion (for rape, incest, etc) in 1967, two years before Humanae Vitae was written. Killing infants for conveninece was allowed in the USA two years before Humanae Vitae and any subsequent dissent.

Humanae Vitae was a huge catalyst, but was really about the pill and not contraception per se. That the message in it was distorted and used as an excuse to dissent by some is undeniable. But the sexual revolution has its roots in the generation which was told in the 1930's that contraception was OK. That same generation matured in the 1950s and began to live the reality of recreational sex without consequences. Their Children demaned legalized abortion and legitimized "Single parents", and the next generation invented the "morning after" pill.

But it all goes back to the Lambeth Conference in 1930.


-Tim-
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old May 2, '12, 10:12 pm
choliks's Avatar
choliks choliks is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: August 24, 2009
Posts: 1,608
Religion: Katoliko
Default Re: What changed after Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike30 View Post
In theory it would have been if that is what happened. In practice more than a few communities, both male and female went totally bonkers in search of their roots and charism and experimented wildly in usually vain attempts to find them or understand them. It was this search that ended in the virtual decimation of many female religious orders and communities in particular. Among the male orders the Jesuits took off in directions that ignored the primitive charism entirely and started to morph into a totally different direction. The battles that took place between Pope Paul VI and John Paul II and the Society of Jesus are the stuff of legend.

It wasn't pretty.

Thankfully, I think most of that silliness has passed into history.

At least I hope so. I really do.
I understand it the other way around. When the religious orders started going back to their roots, a lot of them didn't recognize what's been happening. For them the original charism looked so alien to them, that they didn't want any part of it. I do hope Brother JR would shed some light on this, as he was one of the few who testified to this.

I was wondering if you have anything in writing that I could read about your assertion that the Jesuits "took off in different directions ignoring their charism," Or books about the legendary battles of Popes Paul and JPII and the Jesuits.

Otherwise, it remains an opinion that denigrates a religious order in good standing with the Church.
__________________


Domine Iesu Christe, Fili Dei, miserere mei, peccatoris.

Fratres, orare pro me peccatore.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Traditional Catholicism

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8303Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Inariga
5071CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: mountee
4355Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: Marla Frances
4035OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: 3DOCTORS
3853SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3614Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3264Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3211Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3196Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3068For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Holly Christine



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:17 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.