Vatican II


#1

Hello all, a soon to be Catholic (with Gods grace) with a question concerning all the changes that came out in Vatican II. Especially the older Catholics that were happy with the glorious tradition of the past and the new seemingly more lax (maybe bad word), practices of the mass, baptism of desire, Latin mass changes and others I only know beginning to understand. Were all the changes welcome in the day or resisted? I’m in RCIA and RCC and some of the older parishioners miss the old way. Peace


#2

Yes, there were people who were upset after Vatican I, and presumably the earlier ecumenical councils as well. What it comes down to is this:

Does the Church have authority given it by God?

If the answer is “yes”, then despite what may or may not be comfortable for us, we have to accept what the Church decides. That being said, when it comes to Vatican II we have to be sure that we are discussing what the council ACTUALLY said, or what some people have misinterpreted and taken beyond what was said. A good way to be sure of this is to familiarize yourself with what the council said by reading the documents. They are available all together in book form.

Again, regardless of personal preference, all orthodox Catholics must be willing to accept what the teaching authority of the Church says. This precludes both outright rejection and taking a mile when given an inch.

Yours,
Jessica


#3

[quote=Mike316]Hello all, a soon to be Catholic (with Gods grace) with a question concerning all the changes that came out in Vatican II. Especially the older Catholics that were happy with the glorious tradition of the past and the new seemingly more lax (maybe bad word), practices of the mass, baptism of desire, Latin mass changes and others I only know beginning to understand. Were all the changes welcome in the day or resisted? I’m in RCIA and RCC and some of the older parishioners miss the old way. Peace
[/quote]

The “baptism of desire” has nothing to do with Vatican Council II. Follow the Church, and not those who feel they know better than the Church.

Be certain to purchase a copy of the Catechsim of the Catholic Church. A great many questions can be answered once and for all by simply looking up what the Church says on the matter. The answers are often surprising, particularly to those who typically relies on the opinion of others…


#4

Hello.

Yes, there were many people (all or most of the pious Catholics, e.g. St. Pio) who were outraged with Vatican II. Someone said: people were upset after Vatican I (e.g. the “Old Catholic” schismatics). Yes, but very few only. And they were not upset with any discipline but with doctrine. Those who are upset with Vatican II are upset with the ridiculous break with Tradition that occured in the disciplinary changes permitted by Vatican II and which were carried to the nth degree by the Liberals, Communists, Masons, and homosexuals that had infiltrated the Church.

Another person mentioned that you ought to get your hands on a CCC–I would suggest quite otherwise. You would be better off subscribing to a good Catholic newspaper or periodical. I would suggest Catholic Family News, which is my favorite. For doctrine, I would suggest a Brief Catechism for Adults, which used to be offered and I think still is, online by olrl.org. You can find more about it there, and you can read it all there. If you like it, you can buy it. Also the Baltimore Catechism is good (except its teaching on outside the Church no salvation/Baptism).

As was said before, Vatican II did not (nor could it) reverse the infallible teaching of the Church about outside the Church no salvation and without Baptism no salvation, PERIOD. St. John iii.5: “Amen, Amen, I say unto thee, unless a man be born again of WATER and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” Christ did not say: except if he wants to be baptized or is murdered for the faith or is ignorant. No. He said without being born again of water there is no salvation. This is been defined by the Church many times, and the Church has proclaimed also that there is no salvation outside of Her: “One indeed is the universal Church of the Faithful, outside of which NO ONE AT ALL is saved.” IV Lateran Council. It does not say “outside of which the ignorant, those who desire, etc., etc. are saved.” No… NO ONE AT ALL. In any event, I had not been on these forums for quite some time but I got an email that said it was flourishing again, and the topic about the immorality of women’s pants attracted my attention. This is all I have for now on this subject. If I were you, I would get out of your RCIA class, which is probably teaching you heresy (at least that is what my old Novus Ordo parish was doing), and I would search out a Traditional Mass near you, talk to the Pastor so that he can instruct you. Learn the Catholic Faith, not the “updated” version. God bless.


#5

Hello EENS,

 I am sorry that your old parish taught you heresy. I can allay your fears, though, that all parishes are that way-- I came through a completely orthodox RCIA praogram. I learned as much as I could from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and papal encyclicals throughout the process, and nothing I was tught in RCIA contradicted official Church teaching. It is true that there are dissenting parishes-- fortunately not all of them.

Why would you discourage anyone from reading the CCC? This is, after all, the official Catholic teaching. I agree with you that dissenters are disconcerting, and I am ashamed that people pretending to be orthodox-- or having their own opinion of orthodoxy-- lead people astray. People are led astray both to the left and to the right. This usually happens when confidence is lost in the teaching authority of the Magisterium. I sincerely hope and pray that all Catholics will follow the true teaching of the Church, as given by the maginterium, and not distort it or reject it for any reason.

Yours,
Jessica


#6

In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)

Baptism of desire is attested to by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine.

Baptism of blood is attested by Our Lord Himself: “Everyone therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in Heaven.” He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me shall find it."

Scott


#7

Jessica (Scott, I reply to you below),

I discourage the CCC because it bases pretty much everything it says on Vatican II documents, which are not infallible or dogmatic. Why would it use teachings that are not declaring dogma to explain DOGMA? That makes no sense to me. Moreover, it uses very vague and confusing passages. These passages AT LEAST SEEM to contradict infallible Church teaching from the past, e.g.: “everyone has a common end, namely, God.” I do believe the Church has taught many, many times that many, many people do not go to Heaven… and if they don’t go to Heaven how is their end God? And how is it that everyone has a COMMON end? Unless we all go to the same place? These are the sorts of problems, not to mention the outright heretical teaching that someone can be saved without Baptism or without the Church (even infants!).

Scott,

Baptism of Desire taught by two Fathers does not constitute an Article of Faith. That means if 2 Fathers taught it the other 30 didn’t… which one would be more logical simply on the basis of the Fathers? Baptism of desire certainly would. As far as St. Augustine, he did not stay in one place in regard to this doctrine, which would prove him to be less credible than the others who did stand their place. St. Augustine at one point taught that not only did one need to be baptized with water but also receive Holy Communion (even infants–everyone without exception) in order to be saved, as that is how he took St. John vi. Of course, the Church does not teach such a position, but his swing all the way to the other extreme is not taught by the Church either. The correct belief is found in the middle: that Baptism of water is necessary (not the Holy Eucharist) for all without exception, as well as membership in the Mystical Body of Christ, which according to Pius XII, is one and the same things as the Roman Catholic Church. Christ did not teach Baptism of blood in that statement. The “everyone” statements do not always hold for an ABSOLUTE everyone. Of course, it is most everyone who dies for Christ will be saved. This is not absolute, per the Council of Florene, which made clear: “No one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (Ex Cathedra).


#8

I have a CCC and study it. The Baltimore Catechism is a bit different as to salvation outside the church. The CCC states basically the same as Romans 2:14-16. I was not aware until the other night in CCD that other faiths were granted salvation through implicit desire. Being former Pentecostal we thought everyone was going to hellhttp://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon12.gif. I thought faith in Jesus was the only way to the Father and for those that never heard Romans applies. Some other non Christian faiths deny Jesus was the Son of God so it’s a bit confusing. I will accept what the Church says period. I have decided to devote my life to her and our Lord. The older form of the mass seems so beautiful and some older folks in our church get starry eyed remembering them. Peace.


#9

I was not aware until the other night in CCD that other faiths were granted salvation through implicit desire. Being former Pentecostal we thought everyone was going to hellhttp://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon12.gif. I thought faith in Jesus was the only way to the Father and for those that never heard Romans applies. Some other non Christian faiths deny Jesus was the Son of God so it’s a bit confusing. I will accept what the Church says period. I have decided to devote my life to her and our Lord. The older form of the mass seems so beautiful and some older folks in our church get starry eyed remembering them. Peace.

That is the kind of heresy I am talking about… your CCD class is teaching you the wrong things, and this is one of the worst. The Church has spoken infallibly about this three times. NEVER in any infallible teachings from Her has an exeption of ignorance been listed. Here are the infallible decrees of the Church:

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Notice that NO exceptions are given, PERIOD. IV Lateran is very clear: “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside of which NO ONE AT ALL is saved.” To say a person at all can be saved outside the Catholic Church is heresy and opposed to the IV Lateran Council’s infallible decrees.

As far as many, many quotes about ignorance, see this website for quotes from the Church and Her Saints: romancatholicism.org/ignorance-quotes.htm

God bless,
Matthew


#10

Hello EENS,
I see now where you are coming from, and perhaps we can start another thread to discuss it. Or, feel free to e-mail me and we can continue it that way.
I can assure you that neither the CCC nor the Second Vatican Council contradict the consistant teaching of the Church. Some, though, have twisted the authentic words of the Council, and many have misunderstood it.
Again, I will be happy to continue this discussion either on another thread or privately.
I am genuinely interested in hearing you.

Yours,
Jessica


#11

[quote=EENS]I discourage the CCC because it bases pretty much everything it says on Vatican II documents, which are not infallible or dogmatic. Why would it use teachings that are not declaring dogma to explain DOGMA? That makes no sense to me. Moreover, it uses very vague and confusing passages. These passages AT LEAST SEEM to contradict infallible Church teaching from the past, e.g.: “everyone has a common end, namely, God.” I do believe the Church has taught many, many times that many, many people do not go to Heaven… and if they don’t go to Heaven how is their end God? And how is it that everyone has a COMMON end? Unless we all go to the same place?
[/quote]

Just a comment about the “common end” of mankind being God. Stating that everyone has a common end does not imply that everyone is going to heaven. I take “common end” here to mean what philosophy would call our “final end” which is our purpose, our reason for existence. And the common purpose of mankind–all of us–is to reach union with God. It is not guaranteed that we will all reach it. But that is what we were created for.


#12

[quote=EENS]That is the kind of heresy I am talking about… your CCD class is teaching you the wrong things, and this is one of the worst. The Church has spoken infallibly about this three times. NEVER in any infallible teachings from Her has an exeption of ignorance been listed. Here are the infallible decrees of the Church:

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Notice that NO exceptions are given, PERIOD. IV Lateran is very clear: “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside of which NO ONE AT ALL is saved.” To say a person at all can be saved outside the Catholic Church is heresy and opposed to the IV Lateran Council’s infallible decrees.

As far as many, many quotes about ignorance, see this website for quotes from the Church and Her Saints: romancatholicism.org/ignorance-quotes.htm

God bless,
Matthew
[/quote]

For Heaven’s sake EENS, get a grip. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is just that and it is complete, the documents of Vatican II are Catholic Documents (just avoid the ultra-liberal interpretation which add and omit counting on people not reading the original). Nota Bene and Scott are correct.
VaticanII was an exercise of the proper teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately many liberals wanted us to believe that it said and allowed things which it didn’t (except in their imaginations).
Even the ICEL has had their hands slapped so many times because they have repeatedly refused to accede to the wishes of Rome. Now some of the things that were supposed to be done are being done correctly again in our liturgies since the liberals, despite their years of rebellion, are now losing those battles.
Please don’t try to mislead anyone that the Catechism is somehow not Catholic or complete.
God bless you all.
Newman60


#13

But to respond to the original poster’s question. Looking back, it seems to me that the changes were originally welcomed, with perhaps some later second thoughts. For example, I can recall being in favor of having the Mass at least partially in English. But what I thought was that it would simply be the English right out of my existing Latin-English missal. I did not foresee that there would be an entirely new translation in what ICEL called “spare” but I experienced as “bare” English language.

I did not foresee that the liturgy would be turned over to an inflexible bureaucracy. One thing which actually startled me was that every Sunday Mass would have exactly the *same * songs. Even in the old “rigid’ tridentine liturgy, the choir director or song director at different Masses would often choose different songs.

There was a period of trendiness, where we sang Simon and Garfunkel tunes and chanted “Kumbaya” but that passed, as most trends do. The pendulum is now swinging the other way, toward a more reverential style of celebration. The current Mass can be celebrated every bit as reverently as the old Mass. We can even do Gregorian Chant or Latin as long as you can get it past the liturgy committee.

In hindsight, the Old Mass would eventually have required some revision in any case.


#14

I’d suggest for a proper perspective on the changes in the mass, Vatican II, etc. that you check out www.adoremus.org Fr. Fessio is very faithful to Rome, the Pope and works very closely with Cardinal Ratzinger on issues of the Mass.

I’d also suggest reading Pastor Aeternus on where we are to be obedient and submissive. Some posts on this thread seem quite contra to this infallible, dogmatic consitution. I find it’s one of those documents that people like to ignore because it doesn’t fit in with their line of thinking. ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

We could all give you our opinions but I think that it would probably make things a little less clear! :wink:


#15

Jessica,

I tried to post a new thread, but it keeps timing out. I would like to discuss this, also, so if you can, would you mind starting a new thread? I was trying to call it: “Salvation outside the Church?”, but you can call it what you like. God bless.


#16

EENS–

I tried also to post a new thread and it timed out on me, too. I will try again tommorrow. Thank you for your patience, and I look forward to conversing with you.

Yours,
Jessica


#17

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