Can someone explain the changes?

I remember going to mass as a kid with my grandmother, I have attended recently and it is very different. A family that I know no longer attends the services as they feel they are not correct and do not follow the original doctrine anymore? Can someone explain this to me? What are the changes that were made? How do they affect the beliefs of the church do they change?

Please try to explain this to me.

The Second Vatican Council was held in the 1960s. There were two problems facing the Church, how to heal the schism with the Protestants, and what to about modernity - the facts of mass literacy. mobility, affluence, scientific understanding, all-powerful governments, and so on.

For various reasons, it was decided to make some superficially very large changes in the Mass, the most obvious being the use of modern languages instead of Latin, and the priest facing the people instead of leading the people. Liturgy does both reflect the beliefs of the Church and reinforces them. For instance the change in the priest’s physical position at Mass cannot but affect the way we view the nature of his role. However it does not do this in any simple way. There was no formal change in the status of the priest at Vatican II.

Please remember that no comparisons between the TLM and the NOM are to be made in which either one is denigrated. Thank you.

The teachings and beliefs of the Church have not changed. A new Mass rite was introduced in the late 1960s but none of the Catholic Church teachings have changed at all.

However, there are many who would like Church teachings to change and some who even claim that they have. But there have always been heretical currents in the church and some of these people are priests and bishops.

Although later refuted, perhaps the main change at the time was the definition of the Mass, which was actually signed by Pope Paul VI.

In the Novus Ordo Mass, we find a new definition of the Mass in the General Preface, which reads:

“The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in their midst’” (General Instruction to the Novus Ordo, April 6, 1969).

Notice the terminology “priest presiding” and the Scriptural reference, “where two or three are gathered in My Name.” … he merely presides over the assembly, and the assembly, the people gathered together, bring about a spiritual presence of Christ.

The* Constitution on the Liturgy *passed at Vatican II by a vote of 2,147 for and 4 against. But what exactly did the Fathers believe that they were voting on?

They believed that they were voting on the Traditional Latin Mass where only the Gospel, Epistle and a few prayers would be said in the Vernacular. They believed that the Mass would have more Gospel readings, that a few prayers would be omitted and that Communion under both kinds would be permitted. There would be an increase of the laity in terms of participation with responses and they believed that Gregorian chant would be the sacred music of the liturgy.

The Constitution did not authorize the following:
Communion in the hand
Removal of the Tabernacle
Priest facing the people
The entire Mass said in the vernacular
Removal of the Canon and replacing it with nine Eucharistic prayers
Changing the words of Consecration
Eucharistic Ministers
Sign of Peace
Music with guitars, drums etc.

The Constitution as passed has yet to be implemented.

Well said! :thumbsup:

I have read all 16 of the Vatican II documents. What you have said is absolutely correct. In fact many of the practices you mentioned were either explicitly criticized (non-traditional musical instruments) or not mentioned at all. And that lack of mention should NOT be interpreted as tacit approval, but rather as implied disapproval.

I remember going to mass as a kid with my grandmother, I have attended recently and it is very different. A family that I know no longer attends the services as they feel they are not correct and do not follow the original doctrine anymore? Can someone explain this to me? What are the changes that were made? How do they affect the beliefs of the church do they change?

I remember going to mass as a kid with my grandmother, I have attended recently and it is very different. A family that I know no longer attends the services as they feel they are not correct and do not follow the original doctrine anymore? Can someone explain this to me? What are the changes that were made? How do they affect the beliefs of the church do they change?

This is a very inclusive question that cannot be answered in a couple of paragraphs. There have been many books written on this very subject. One of the most dramatic changes that resulted from Vatican II was a very dramatic change in the Mass.

Another primary change resulting from Vatican II is how the Church views its relationship with other religions. Some people say these changes are merely the Church reaching out to adherents of other religions to emphasize common beliefs; so called Ecumenism. Others believe that these changes actually teach religious indifferentism or that other religions or sects lead to salvation and that it doesn’t really matter what religion you hold to because there is truth in all of them.

These changes can be found in the Vatican II documents; Unitatis Redintegratio – Decree on Ecumenism and Nostra Aetate – Decree on Non-Christian Religions, as well as encyclicals and speeches given by the post councilor Popes.

One short example of these changes; Vatican II document, Unitatis Redintegratio #3 states: “For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church- whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church- do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that **all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Here Vatican II seems to teach that Protestant and schismatic sect members are in communion with the Catholic Church (albeit partial), and brothers of the same Church, with a right to the name Christian. This teaching is more overtly expressed no. 819 of the 1992 Catechism:

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Now these teachings seem to contradict what has been taught by the Church down through the ages.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, ** who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442 : “…the holy Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy Spirit… **Therefore it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches thatall those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives …”

This is just one of many examples of the changes implemented by Vatican II. Some say that Vatican II was just misinterpreted and that the true meaning or “spirit of Vatican II” have not been properly implemented, but other claim that there are many things in Vatican II which are a direct contradiction of the doctrines and dogmas handed down by Holy Mother Church through the ages.


This is a change as well.

Benedict XVI, Address during ecumenical Vespers service, Sept. 12, 2006:

“Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ! We are gathered, Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants – and together with us there are also some Jewish friends – to sing together the evening praise of God… This is an hour of gratitude for the fact that we can pray together in this way.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “…
this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…

*Pope Pius IX, Neminem vestrum (# 5), Feb. 2, 1854: *
We want you to know that those same monks sent Us a splendid profession of Catholic faith and doctrine… They eloquently acknowledged and freely received the regulations and decrees which the popes and the sacred congregations published or would publish – especially those which prohibit communicatio in divinis (communion in holy matters) with schismatics…
They acknowledge that they condemn the error of the schismatic Armenians and recognize that they are outside of the Church of Jesus Christ.”

That’s actually the one example everyone uses of a doctrinal change. I’ve had atheists using it to try to prove that the Church isn’t really infallible.

The atheist does have a point. It is not really meaningful to define “Church” so broadly that it is almost impossible to be outside it, whilst claiming all along to have the original teaching. However there has always been a bit of a contradiction here, because prayers for those who die excommunicated are allowed, which they wouldn’t be if there was no possibility of salvation. Prayers for saints are not allowed, for example.

These items that were not in that constitution came after the Council and apparently must have been approved for the large part by the Holy Father, Paul VI as well as by two of his successors. Maybe that says something about the authority of a Council in relation to that of a Pope.

Which items are you referring to? Because V-II certainly does say that some outside the church, in certain very limited circumstances, may not go to Hell.

I recently had part of my neighborhood rezoned as commercial property, to which I assented, knowing that a nice, well landscaped office building will be built there. The very first thing they did was to chop down 20 or so beautiful evergreen trees! Apparently, even papal councils can not see the forest for the trees sometimes! I am thoroughly thrilled with Summorum Pontificum as I believe it is a big first step in the ultimate plan of our Holy Father to bring the Mass in line with what it should have been after VII. He even hints at his personal distaste of the current state of things in the letter accompying the Sum. Pont.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit