Vatican Ii

How dI’d the Church come to the decision to change and have Vatican Ii?

In what way did something change?

How did the Church change?

Vatican II wasn’t about “changing” the Church.

It was a Council in which the Church brought her teaching authority, under the guidance of the Spirit, to bear on some of the pressing concerns of a post-war and increasingly secularized world.

Think of it as analogous to the teachings of Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai and Malachi. They were addressing a different situation from the earlier (pre-Exilic) prophets, and had a different emphasis and language.

Several people, caught up with the secular zeitgeist, made dubious changes to their religious practice - including the liturgy - and tried to cloak them by saying that they were “in the spirit of Vatican II”. But even a cursory reading of the documents gives them the lie.

Others, upset by the actions of such people, and by the secularization of the world, tried to make Vatican II the scapegoat for these deeds - some even going so far as to accuse the Church or the Popes of error and heresy. But this is equally fallacious.

They didn’t intend to change the church but to enforce her age old teachings. Modernists in the church used Vatican II to change the liturgy of the Mass which was against the Council of Trent. So the Mass we had for over 1,000 years was changed much to the delight of the Protestants.

Very true.

Modernists in the church used Vatican II to change the liturgy of the Mass which was against the Council of Trent. So the Mass we had for over 1,000 years was changed much to the delight of the Protestants.

You’ve lost me here. The Mass of Pope Paul VI is certainly a valid Mass, and he certainly was not a “Modernist”. :confused:

Yes it is a valid Mass. There is no question about that at all. In my opinion the LM is just more. Respectful, spiritual, reverent.
I have done a lot of reading on Vatican II and CMTV has some excellent reports on Vatican II. It seems the Cleric responsible for changing the liturgy of the church was a modernist. He had several Protestant minsters sitting in on the changes.

It seems when the bishops heard the first NO Mass in the Sistine Chapel most were against it but some how it got pass through anyway and the NO is the result.

It is a fascinating topic to read about. There is a 3 book series called Liturgical Revolution. Written by Michael Davies that talks about this topic in great detail. I also get the Catholic Family News where they speak about this also.

Most changes we see today in the church were made “in the spirit” of Vatican II whatever that may mean.

Again my opinion

You’re fortunate to have access to it. :thumbsup:

I have done a lot of reading on Vatican II and CMTV has some excellent reports on Vatican II. It seems the Cleric responsible for changing the liturgy of the church was a modernist. He had several Protestant minsters sitting in on the changes.

What’s CMTV? Need to check them out.

It is a fascinating topic to read about. There is a 3 book series called Liturgical Revolution. Written by Michael Davies that talks about this topic in great detail. I also get the Catholic Family News where they speak about this also.

Davies is a problematic source, as he’s the author of the hagiographical Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.

Most changes we see today in the church were made “in the spirit” of Vatican II whatever that may mean.

Probably less so in my part of the world, though I see what you mean (and I’d dispute “most”; I’d say “some”). :slight_smile:

I hate to break this to you, but your average Protestant doesn’t give a ripe rodent’s rump about the Mass or Vatican II.

Some Protestants might have some vague notion that Vatican II is when the Mass went from Latin to vernacular language, but assume it is otherwise the same.

Nice alliteration! :smiley:

Some Protestants might have some vague notion that Vatican II is when the Mass went from Latin to vernacular language, but assume it is otherwise the same.

True. Their differences with us are at a far more fundamental level than just Latin. It’s only the Jack Chick types who make fun of Latin as a liturgical language; for most Protestants, “it’s the theology, stupid” (to paraphrase a wise man) :slight_smile:

The protestants sitting in were observers and I highly doubt they had any power over anything happening at a Catholic conference. The evidence used for those claims is a picture of Pope Paul VI with a small group of protestant preachers, and from my understanding this picture wasn’t taken during Vatican II. The fact that the protestants wanted to be at a Catholic conference suggests they realized Catholicism is the true faith.

Since you are interested in reading about the Mass, it might be beneficial to read about the rules here forbidding disparaging the Holy Mass or setting one form over the other as better. I understand your opinion and believe you have been sincere and careful. Realize though that equally sincere Catholics, may hold the opposite opinion and taste.

The initial reason was to respond to changes in society that were occurring (still are) at an exponential pace. It was deemed that the Church needed to consider how to address these changes. It was not so much a change, but an adaptation, trying to be more pastoral while losing nothing doctrinally.

[quote=Phyllo]I have done a lot of reading on Vatican II and CMTV has some excellent reports on Vatican II. It seems the Cleric responsible for changing the liturgy of the church was a modernist. He had several Protestant minsters sitting in on the changes. **

It seems when the bishops heard the first NO Mass in the Sistine Chapel most were against it but some how it got pass through anyway and the NO is the result.

**Again my opinion … **

… which is extremely malformed due to having absorbed Michael Voris’s distorted theories. (ChurchMilitant.tv)

The videos you refer to have been deleted every time they were highlighted in the TC forum.
[/quote]

:rolleyes:

Not from what I have read.

What a fascinating synopsis of the birth of the Pauline Missal. I’m especially intrigued with the manner of "how it got pass through anyway." :rolleyes:

It seems you misunderstood what I said. I said that the NO is a valid mass and that I just preferred the LM . I don’t recall disparaging the NO Mass or putting one mass over the other. So please don’t put words in my mouth.:mad:

So I would hope that the others on CA that hold an opposite opinion to mine would best serve themselves to keep it to themselves:(

If you cannot handle the refutation of your opinions, then perhaps you shouldn’t air them in public.

Charitable way to bash your fellow Catholic Michael Voris. I’ve been on his site and haven’t noticed any anti Catholic or anti Council information, which makes me wonder where you’re getting your distorted views of this man?

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.