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
  #1  
Old Jul 2, '12, 9:03 am
Mgray82 Mgray82 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2012
Posts: 364
Religion: Catholic
Default Vatican II

Recent convert to the faith here..

What are the main differences between Vatican I and II? Where do people differ in opinions/views? Is it a serious split within the Church between one group or another, or is it just a matter of opinion?

I'd appreciate the feedback! Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Jul 2, '12, 9:27 am
Chatter163's Avatar
Chatter163 Chatter163 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2005
Posts: 3,380
Religion: Roman Catholic
Post Re: Vatican II

The First and Second Vatican Councils were held almost a century apart and have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They were each called to deal with different situations and the only thing that they have in common is that they were both held in the same place.

This is a broad topic, so I suggest that you start with a google and Wikipedia, then ask questions from there.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Jul 2, '12, 9:28 am
JillianRose's Avatar
JillianRose JillianRose is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2010
Posts: 952
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Vatican II

Hello-

I would not call it a "big" split. The only thing I can tell you is I had some issuse with Vativan II and I was told that I should pray until my views alligned with the Church teachings. You need to compare the issues and understand why there are some changes. If their is a division with ones beliefs and the Church, it is with them and not the Church. There is only one ROMAN Catholic Church.
__________________
“Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven." Matthew 10 vs 32 NASB
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Jul 2, '12, 9:35 am
YoungTradCath's Avatar
YoungTradCath YoungTradCath is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2011
Posts: 7,013
Religion: Latin Catholic
Default Re: Vatican II

"Differences between Vatican I/Vatican II" is not really a valid comparison. I mean, there are vast differences in what they say, for what they were summoned, what they intended to do, their aftermaths, how they are viewed today, etc. However, you phrase your question as if Vatican I and Vatican II are opposites. They are not.

Vatican I and Vatican II are "ecumenical councils," which are councils of all the world's bishops. Councils can be called, theoretically, for any reason a Pope--or in some cases someone else--wants to call one. However, historically speaking, they are usually called in times of crisis or uncertainty, or when some major contemporary problem needs fixing. Vatican II is the one exception to that last bit, but that is beside the point.

There have been twenty-one ecumenical councils in the Church's history. Some important ones by today's standards are: Nicaea, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II. If I'm understanding your implications correctly, you perceive some conflict or hesitancy, so to speak, about Vatican II. You would be correct. However, it still would not be right to say or think that Vatican II and Vatican I are opposites. Their naming is purely incidental. It's not like, "Vatican I said ____, Vatican II went and changed ___," or anything like that.

Rather, given what you've posted so far, this is what I will say:

Vatican II happened between 1962 and 1965. Through a whole system of unfortunate events (nutty Sixties, cultural problems, misunderstandings, an overzealous and borderline fanatic optimism, near complete disintegration of catechesis, focus on odds and ends rather than the central parts of the faith, etc.), Vatican II turned out to be, in my opinion, The Council That Probably Needed To Happen But Which Was Doomed For Very Troubled Times. Basically, Vatican II asked for some changes in the Church, for various reasons. To varying extents, these things happened.

However, what is now commonly called a "hermeneutic of discontinuity" emerged. Basically, in this view, some people took things waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far. I can't really phrase it more succinctly than that. And I don't want to go much further because I'm sure others have things to say.

I should note that this is a massive subject...
__________________

Deference to tradition should be taken for granted.
Devoted bibliophile.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Jul 2, '12, 10:08 am
Not Sure's Avatar
Not Sure Not Sure is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2010
Posts: 907
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoungTradCath View Post
"Differences between Vatican I/Vatican II" is not really a valid comparison. I mean, there are vast differences in what they say, for what they were summoned, what they intended to do, their aftermaths, how they are viewed today, etc. However, you phrase your question as if Vatican I and Vatican II are opposites. They are not.

Vatican I and Vatican II are "ecumenical councils," which are councils of all the world's bishops. Councils can be called, theoretically, for any reason a Pope--or in some cases someone else--wants to call one. However, historically speaking, they are usually called in times of crisis or uncertainty, or when some major contemporary problem needs fixing. Vatican II is the one exception to that last bit, but that is beside the point.

There have been twenty-one ecumenical councils in the Church's history. Some important ones by today's standards are: Nicaea, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II. If I'm understanding your implications correctly, you perceive some conflict or hesitancy, so to speak, about Vatican II. You would be correct. However, it still would not be right to say or think that Vatican II and Vatican I are opposites. Their naming is purely incidental. It's not like, "Vatican I said ____, Vatican II went and changed ___," or anything like that.

Rather, given what you've posted so far, this is what I will say:

Vatican II happened between 1962 and 1965. Through a whole system of unfortunate events (nutty Sixties, cultural problems, misunderstandings, an overzealous and borderline fanatic optimism, near complete disintegration of catechesis, focus on odds and ends rather than the central parts of the faith, etc.), Vatican II turned out to be, in my opinion, The Council That Probably Needed To Happen But Which Was Doomed For Very Troubled Times. Basically, Vatican II asked for some changes in the Church, for various reasons. To varying extents, these things happened.

However, what is now commonly called a "hermeneutic of discontinuity" emerged. Basically, in this view, some people took things waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far. I can't really phrase it more succinctly than that. And I don't want to go much further because I'm sure others have things to say.

I should note that this is a massive subject...
Vatican II was declared by the Popes as a pastoral council.
It dealt with pastoral issues and not with doctrinal issues (there were no anathemas, etc).

Vatican I declared as dogma that the Pope was infallible.
Vatican II did not seek to create any new dogmatic statements.

This is where the confusion lies.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Jul 2, '12, 10:33 am
minkymurph minkymurph is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 17, 2006
Posts: 2,984
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatter163 View Post
The First and Second Vatican Councils were held almost a century apart and have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They were each called to deal with different situations and the only thing that they have in common is that they were both held in the same place.

This is a broad topic, so I suggest that you start with a google and Wikipedia, then ask questions from there.

I was under the impression Vatican II was a continuation, all be it a very late one, of Vatican I as Vatican I did not actually finish, but was interrupted and 'suspended' as a consequence of the war?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Jul 2, '12, 10:39 am
Not Sure's Avatar
Not Sure Not Sure is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2010
Posts: 907
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican II

It was supposed to be...

but things didn't go as planned.

THe condemnation of communism didn't happen, there was a lack of doctrinal statements,
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Jul 2, '12, 10:55 am
YoungTradCath's Avatar
YoungTradCath YoungTradCath is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2011
Posts: 7,013
Religion: Latin Catholic
Default Re: Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Sure View Post
Vatican II was declared by the Popes as a pastoral council.
It dealt with pastoral issues and not with doctrinal issues (there were no anathemas, etc).

Vatican I declared as dogma that the Pope was infallible.
Vatican II did not seek to create any new dogmatic statements.

This is where the confusion lies.
Yes, but I'm trying to be a bit more astute and situation-conscious than that. The OP is new to Catholicism and I don't want to overload her with heavy things like these.

edit: no sarc. intended
__________________

Deference to tradition should be taken for granted.
Devoted bibliophile.

Last edited by YoungTradCath; Jul 2, '12 at 11:09 am.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Jul 2, '12, 10:57 am
Angel Bradford's Avatar
Angel Bradford Angel Bradford is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 1, 2005
Posts: 784
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by minkymurph View Post
I was under the impression Vatican II was a continuation, all be it a very late one, of Vatican I as Vatican I did not actually finish, but was interrupted and 'suspended' as a consequence of the war?
The first order of business for the Second Vatican Council was to officially adjourn the First Vatican Council. When the Italian Civil War broke out, the visiting bishops had to hurry and leave the country while they could get out.
__________________
ad majorem Dei gloriam
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Jul 2, '12, 11:11 am
Mgray82 Mgray82 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2012
Posts: 364
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoungTradCath View Post
Yes, but I'm trying to be a bit more astute and situation-conscious than that. The OP is new to Catholicism and I don't want to overload her with heavy things like these.
It's "him" not "her" lol. But thanks for all of the info..all of you. Keep it coming.

I'm learning. Doing what I'm supposed to do and ask questions..the Vatican I/II thing is a big subject. And yes YoungTradCath, it is easy to reach overload. But I am researching, especially based on what I'm reading and your replies. So keep them coming!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Jul 2, '12, 11:14 am
studychristian studychristian is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2012
Posts: 92
Religion: Angostic
Default Re: Vatican II

This might not be the right place, but why do some people think Vatican 2 is when the Church changed there teachings and gave into Liberal Society?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Jul 2, '12, 11:35 am
Not Sure's Avatar
Not Sure Not Sure is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2010
Posts: 907
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican II

because many of the pastoral teachings were written in a very ambiguous way.

IN light of tradition, nothing changed, but in light of some of those in power in the Church, they used the ambiguous documents as license to destroy everything (this is what people called the Spirit of Vatican II).

The Old Mass was all but abolished (even though the Popes, not the council itself did not allow for this to happen), many Bishops used the documents as license to be disobedient to the Pope (the Canadians reacting in rebellion to Humani Vitae, establishing Altar girls, allowing Communion in the Hand), and what people call "wreck-ovation" the high altars were overthrown, the tabernacle was moved to the side, the altar rails were ripped from the ground, statues and paintings in some churches disappeared.

Now we sit here trying to pick up the pieces. Paul VI said the smoke of satan hand entered into the Church. John Paul II said that the Old Mass was never abolished. Benedict XVI has become even more of a friend to tradition.

Most of what is wrong with the Spirit of Vatican II is due to the disobedience of many in the Church, and most of what people find wrong in the documents themselves (false ecumenism, etc) is not even doctrinal.

The Church is the same, we just have been rocked by a wave of disobedience (the errors of Russia if you will)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Jul 2, '12, 11:36 am
Not Sure's Avatar
Not Sure Not Sure is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2010
Posts: 907
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoungTradCath View Post
Yes, but I'm trying to be a bit more astute and situation-conscious than that. The OP is new to Catholicism and I don't want to overload her with heavy things like these.

edit: no sarc. intended
No problem. Excuse my youth.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Jul 2, '12, 11:56 am
Andre1000's Avatar
Andre1000 Andre1000 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 15, 2009
Posts: 408
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by studychristian View Post
This might not be the right place, but why do some people think Vatican 2 is when the Church changed there teachings and gave into Liberal Society?
Because if you read it you sometimes hit statements that sounds like the opposite of the old teachings of the Church. To really see that you need to know the teachings of the Church before Vatican II(today they are still the same of curse).
__________________
Sorry for my English and God bless you
Júdica me, Deus, et discérne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab dómine iníquo et dolóso érue me.
Quia tu es, Deus, fortitúdo mea: quare me repulísti, et quare tristis incédo, dum affligit me inimícus?

Last edited by Thomas Casey; Jul 5, '12 at 10:34 am.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Jul 2, '12, 12:55 pm
edwest2 edwest2 is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 26, 2007
Posts: 20,485
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican II

Here is the opening speech by Pope John XXIII about the Second Vatican Council.

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm


Everyone needs to understand that none - zero - of the changes attributed to Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145




Peace,
Ed
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
8537Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: jerrythetrucker
5198CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: James_OPL
4433Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3869SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3834Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3393Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3300Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3231Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3150For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:52 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.