*I am aware of [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28431/do-the-catholic-church-ex-cathedra-pronouncements-about-necessity-of-catholicism/28433#28433) previous question where the discussion centered on statements of Pope Francis and the catechism but that is not my interest here. [This](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30898/has-the-church-stated-any-advantages-or-reasoning-or-prompting-to-re-formulating/30899#30899) question also asks about the reasoning behind these changes but that is also not my question.* From what I understand about Catholic teaching, it is not possible for infallible teachings, either from a pope or an ecumenical council, to contradict each other. However, there seems to be a clear incompatibility between medieval Catholic doctrine and that of Vatican II around the question of salvation outside the church: [Pope Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam (1302)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) > Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Council of Florence, Session 11 (1442)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum17.htm) > It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all 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 catholic church before the end of their lives. Contrast this with two documents from Vatican II in 1964: [Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html) > It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. [Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) > But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. To me it seems fairly clear that the "schismatics" from the council of Florence would correspond to the "separated churches and communities" from Vatican II. Unam Sanctam makes even clearer that the intent of the earlier documents is that "salvation outside the church" does mean communion with the Roman Pontiff, despite Vatican II's discussion of separated communities and Muslims. Admittedly I do not understand the intricacies of Catholic thought on many matters so my question is: How can all of these documents be read together consistently within a Catholic framework? In particular I'm interested in how this can be consistent with the infallibility of ecumenical councils and papal infallibility.

From [*Lumen Gentium*](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) chapter II, paragraph 16: > (126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. I find this really confusing on two levels. Firstly, this seems to imply that Muslims worship the same God as the Christian God; secondly, perhaps a corollary of the first point, it suggests that Muslims are also given salvation. What does the Vatican actually mean by this?

Their official website is [The Society of Saint Alphonsus Marie de Liguori]( https://trcatholics.org) . They seem to be located in New Jersey, and call themselves "The Traditional Catholic Church." But I am skeptical; for example, because they also claim to be "ALPHONSIAN REDEMPTORISTS" and show lots of pictures of St. Alphonsus Liguori. However, they do not (as far as I can tell) belong to the true *Redemptorists,* which was founded by St. Alphonsus Liguori and is officially named, the *Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer.* QUESTION: Can anyone tell me who these people are? They clearly are trying to give the impression that they are Catholic, but I have my doubts. It is not clear from their website that they are in communion with the Pope. Moreover, a Google search of their address: 300 Peach Street, Hammonton, New Jersey 08037 identifies them as [*St. Mark's Episcopal church*](https://www.waze.com/live-map/directions/us/nj/hammonton/saint-marks-episcopal-church?to=place.ChIJQc-iExkowYkRjJk5jVueonk)---but I could not such an identity on their website. (Maybe the link is outdated.)

**Context:** Many Protestants overstate the claim that the Catholic Church “chained the Bible to the pulpit,” asserting that the Bible was placed on a list of “banned books” after the Council of Trent. In reality, that never happened. However, the Church did enforce severe prohibitions against what it considered dubious translations of Scripture. Historically, from Trent until the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic faithful were encouraged to read the Bible regularly, but only in certain approved translations of the Latin Vulgate (e.g., the Douay-Rheims). Following the Second Vatican Council, many Catholics have begun to use a wider variety of translations. Some, such as Ronald L. Conte Jr., have even produced personal translations like the Catholic Public Domain Version. Popular Catholic figures on YouTube, including Matt Fradd, have expressed a preference for translations like the KJV or the Orthodox Study Bible, and others—like Jeff Cavins—have suggested that Catholics should read “whichever translation of the Bible you will actually read.” Despite this apparent openness to different translations, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) still maintains a list of “approved” Bible translations. **Final Question:** Are there still prohibitions within the Catholic Church that would make it sinful for the faithful to print, publish, pray with, or study using any English translation of the Bible not on an approved list?

I once heard that so many priests, monks and nuns left their vocations and returned to lay state immediately after Vatican council II ended. Is this true? I also heard that so many convents and monasteries shutdown. I know now that churches across Europe continue to shutdown and Christianity dwindle. But is there any official trustworthy statistics or records for all this? Is there a good reference that talks about these issues? **Update 1:** I found the following SSPX research paper Fruits of Vatican II : But I need more guidance in evaluating it (how valuable it is and what other research exists in this are, especially books treating this matter). **Update 2:** Another resource I found is a blog article by the same title by Patrick Hawkins, a [contributor to One Peter 5](https://onepeterfive.com/author/pfhawkins/) (a website for restoring Catholic Tradition). But again, I am looking for a trustworthy interpretation of this data in the form of a book. **Update 3:** Another is a book list on Second Vatican Council by [Dr. Peter and Julian Kwasniewski](https://bookshop.org/shop/tradition-sanity-list).

I often hear many people (of more traditionalist bent, but also more moderates) state that Vatican II is pastoral, not ecumenical. What does it mean for a council to be pastoral, and what does it mean for a council to be ecumenical?

Given that Ralph McInerny's book *What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained* has recently been bandied about (see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96550/who-said-god-did-not-become-man-in-order-for-man-to-become-a-theologian and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96557/what-is-meant-by-catholic-truths-in-otts-fundamentals-of-catholic-dogma) , I would like to point out that at the beginning of that book on pg. 7, one finds: >It is forgotten now that early in his papacy he [Pope John XXIII] issued a directive requiring Latin to be fully restored as the language of instruction in seminaries and pontifical institutions. QUESTION: Specifically, what was the directive of the said Pope fully restoring Latin as the language of instruction in seminaries and pontifical institutions; and was it ever followed? What is its status today?

Are Catholic schools run by seculars (non-religious laity) a post-Vatican II novelty?

Vatican II is one of the most controversial councils (perhaps falling behind Trent) and has been criticized widely by Catholics due to the stance it takes on how the church should interact with society. To keep in line with the teachings of the Church, to what extent can a faithful Catholic criticize what the Church defined as doctrine/discipline at Vatican II? ---- Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/32008/for-catholics-who-object-to-vatican-ii-what-are-the-key-issues and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35290/what-is-the-status-of-catholics-who-reject-vatican-ii-are-they-considered-heret

My girlfriend and I are both Roman Catholics. I know that attending Pre-Cana (or pre-marriage counseling, as it is sometimes called) is a regular practice among Catholics. However I was wondering **which (if any) Vatican documents mention Pre-Cana as a requirement for engaged couples?** Any leads would be appreciated! –––––––––––– Edit: *Vatican Code of Canon Law, Title VII: Marriage, Chapter I: Pastoral Care and Those Things Which Must Precede The Celebration of Marriage* states that pastors are obliged to offer assistance especially by: > "personal preparation to enter marriage, which disposes the spouses to the holiness and duties of their new state." (Can. 1063) But this seems rather vague. Perhaps someone knows of a more precise passage?

What was the difference between The First Vatican Council and the Second? Was the Second Council a continuation of the first? What does a 'Pastoral' Council mean?

In *Lumen Gentium* 8 we find the words, "*Haec Ecclesia [...] **subsistit in** Ecclesia catholica...*" ("This Church [...] subsists in the Catholic Church"). The *Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II* is a collection of all of the speeches, debates, and written submissions of the Council Fathers at Vatican II. For example, it is well known that "*subsistit in*" replaced the original formulation of "*est*" due to an intervention during the Council. ## Question: ## ---------- According to the *Acta Synodalia* of Vatican II, what is the meaning of "*subsistit in*"? What did the Council Fathers mean by *subsistit in* and why did they use this term to convey the relation between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church? ---------- **Note: I am only interested in the interpretation of *subsistit in* with respect to the *Acta Synodalia*.** Strong answers will include insight into central discussions and debates that took place at the Council as well as the names of the parties who put forward various positions.

Vatican II allowed vernacular languages for rites. However, the official document about it ([Sacrosantum Concilium](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html)) doesn't mention anything about Bible readings. Where readings **already** allowed to be based in vernacular translations of the Bible? There are many Catholic translations of the Bible pre-Vatican II, some quite authoritative (e.g. Douay-Rheims, English, made in 17th century), which could have been used in mass (and were certainly used for personal study or prayer). (However, the real surge of translation is around and after Vatican II; see [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible#Catholic_English_versions)) . So, were non-Vulgate bibles used at mass pre-Vatican II? Or were all Bible readings in pre-Vatican II masses also in Latin?

[Lumen Gentium](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) 25 states in part: > In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (*religioso animi obsequio* ). This religious submission of mind and will (*religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium* ) must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium (*authentico magisterio* ) of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. What does this "submission" amount to? Does that mean assuming the Pope is correct and not questioning that? How does it differ from the obligation towards infallible statements generally?

Lumen Gentium 25 states in part: >In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (*religioso animi obsequio* ). This religious submission of mind and will (*religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium* ) must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium (*authentico magisterio* ) of the Roman Pontiff What is the scope of the authentic magisterium of the Pope? How does this differ from the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church? Can the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff conflict with the general Magisterium (what has been taught previously)? Is the Roman Pontiff the specific current holder or the general office?

From time to time I see references to Roman Catholics who object to (part? all?) of Vatican II. Most commonly I see ads in my local newspaper for traditional Latin masses, but I understand the objections to be more than vernacular versus Latin worship. I've also heard (as a Jew) that not all Roman Catholics accept *nostra aetate*, the Vatican II declaration that Jews have a valid covenant with God and don't need to be sought as converts, but I don't know if the anti-NA folks overlap the Latin-mass folks and what other beliefs they share. Do certain groups object to the whole thing or just parts of it? I tried to find an answer on Google and it led me to [this page at Catholic Answers](http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=237782) (no idea how authoritative that is), which in turn led me to the name "Society of Saint Pius X". [This page on their site](http://sspx.org/en/about/major-concern) lists key concerns of: modernism, religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, and liturgical abuses (their wording, not mine), but I can't tell if that's all based on Vatican II or if it's something broader. I also can't tell if SSPX comprises the Catholics who object to Vatican II or if they are just one such group. (I don't remember seeing that name in the aforementioned newspaper ads.) I found [this C.SE question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/22900/4145) about whether SSPX is schismatic, which is helpful but doesn't answer my question, which is about the broader platform, not one specific organization. So: is there a (denomination? ideology?) that describes objectors to Vatican II, or do such objections come from scattered groups or individuals with no over-riding ideology? If there is an ideology beyond specific people/groups, does it have a name? And what specifically do they object to -- everything decided at that council or just certain things?

Why did *versus populum* (the priest facing the congregation) become commonplace after Vatican II, when *ad orientem* ("facing east," with the priest's back to the congregation) was the norm before Vatican II? Did a Vatican II document prescribe *versus populum*?

I got this email excerpt from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church emailed to me today. > 249. Is everything immutable in the liturgy? > > In the liturgy, particularly in that of the sacraments, there are unchangeable elements because they are of divine institution. The Church is the faithful guardian of them. There are also, however, elements subject to change which the Church has the power and on occasion also the duty to adapt to the cultures of diverse peoples. What are some examples of the "elements which are subject to change" and how have they done so over the years? Has this change increased or remained steady since Vatican II?

If I understand correctly, the Second Vatican Council ordered the revision of the liturgical books based on the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. These revisions where carried out in the years after the council and implemented in 1969/70. Even during the council and even more up to the implementation of the revised books there was plenty of criticism of the council as a whole, specific teachings in particular and of the liturgy and the upcoming liturgical reform. If my research is correct, in 1974 the congregation for divine worship announced that no more permissions would be given to those who intended to celebrate the liturgy according to the pre-vatican formulae. This situation eventually led to the founding of SSPX and the schismatic consecration of four bishops by Marcel Lefebvre. Later on the restrictions on the use of the older liturgy where loosened until Benecit XVI made access to the now called extraordinary form widely an mostly unrestrictedly availably. This leads me to the following two questions: 1. What reasons where there to heavily restrict access to the old liturgy after the council? 2. Was it expected that these restrictions might give further rise to the SSPX-schism (or similar problems within the church)?

Before Vatican II in the 1960s, the Church was overtly anti-Jewish. For example: - St. Thomas Aquinas writes in *De Regimine Judaeorum* (also called *Epistola ad ducissam Brabantiae* ) that "the Jews by reason of their fault are sentenced to perpetual servitude". - The Church had the Good Friday prayer that addressed "the perfidious Jews." That prayer is no longer said by most Catholics. - The Church sanctioned the expelling of Jews from many nations. - The Church in some places made the Jews wear special symbols so that they could be distinguished from gentiles. - In the 17-19th centuries you had a series of popes (e.g., Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical *Humanum Genus* ) condemning the rising influence of "Judeo-Masonry." - Pope St. Pius X had a conversation with Zionist founder Theodore Herzl and told him that he can't recognize the proposed state of Israel until the Jews recognize the Church and convert. - etc. This overtly anti-Jewish attitude of the Church that existed for 1960-odd years just seemed to vanish after Vatican II, and was replaced with a positive view of the Jews. I've even heard senior Churchman refer to Talmudic Jews as elder brothers of Catholics. This about-face on the subject of Jews is just one of many radical changes that occurred to the Church in the wake of Vatican II. If the full deposit of the faith was revealed by Jesus, then how can the Church teach contradiction? How can the Church teach one thing about the Jews for nearly two millenia, and now practically fawn over them?