Anyone else out there who is a fan of Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2cats
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
curlycool,
the reason for the fingers being together was so that any particle of the consecrated host that remained on the fingertips wouldn’t fall. Hosts are made differently now and don’t crumble easily.
 
FickleFreckled said:
curlycool,
the reason for the fingers being together was so that any particle of the consecrated host that remained on the fingertips wouldn’t fall. Hosts are made differently now and don’t crumble easily.
Click to expand...
Ok. But why do the fingertips need to be kept together after putting the host down, during the elevation of the chalice and until the chalice is placed back on the alter under pain of mortal sin?
 
curlycool,
The fingers were kept together until the priest washed his hands after Communion. When I was a kid, the priest kept the tips of his thumb and index finger together during the consecration of the wine and the elevation. I don’t know anything about the sin aspect of it; it was just always done. Like I said, hosts have changed. They’re very smooth, unlikely to leave any fragments behind.
 
2cats said:
Recent convert here. During RCIA, when I read about the Second Vatican Council, I was so impressed and excited about it that I took Blessed John XXIII as my confirmation saint. (They said it was OK to take a Blessed.) But when I read the postings on CAF, it seems a large number of posters want to make Vatican II the scapegoat for anything going wrong within the Church. I’m feeling totally outnumbered. Just wondering if there’s anyone else out there like me.

I realize this post may be viewed by some as an invitation to let loose on everything you think Vatican II got wrong, but please restrain yourselves if you can! I’ve heard your voices loud and clear on these boards - just wondering if I’m the only one who doesn’t feel that way! 🙂
Click to expand...
Welcome to the Catholic Church, and welcome to CAF! 👋

You probably just need to stay away from the “Traditional Catholicism” forum. There’s a bit more rancor towards Vatican II there than in most of the other sub-forums. 😉

You are definitely not outnumbered, though. It just feels that way in some threads. The documents of Vatican II are really quite wonderful. The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes from them extensively. It’s always best to go to the source rather than rely on second-hand info about the documents.
 
Those who critique or disdain Vatican II don’t really understand the historical dynamics and theological developments and preparations prior to the council, during the council or after the council. They tend to focus exclusively on areas which are problematic, but could not possibly been anticipated prior to, during or immediately after the council and many of those areas had little to do with the Council itself but the larger cultural circumstances in Europe and the U.S.

Yes,clearly there have been some problems in the church - but to blame it on Vatican II makes little sense. Vatican II was convened to re-invigorate the Church and not leave it destitute and dying. As your patron saint John XXIII said: “We beg to differ with the prognosticators of doom”.

For evidence since 1988 2.7 million people have entered the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. If that many have entered especially during this stressful time with the sex abuse issue occupying so much attention - what will it be like once we move beyond on it?

We have much good to offer provided those on both sides of the cultural divide within the church will let down their suspicions and learn to talk recognizing that the issues are a little more complex than those on either side want to acknowledge…
 
FickleFreckled said:
curlycool,
The fingers were kept together until the priest washed his hands after Communion. When I was a kid, the priest kept the tips of his thumb and index finger together during the consecration of the wine and the elevation. I don’t know anything about the sin aspect of it; it was just always done. Like I said, hosts have changed. They’re very smooth, unlikely to leave any fragments behind.
Click to expand...
The hosts have changed now, but I doubt that in the 60s when the NO mass was first brought in that they would have been any different, and yet the elevation was significantly simplified (I heard from a priest that it was a very difficult maneuver to do).
 
EasterJoy said:
I’m a fan of Vatican II, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. That doesn’t make me a proponent of everything that anyone might try to read into any of them.
Click to expand...
So am I. 👍

I am not, however, a Catholic. But I do think Vatican II improved the Catholic Church, and increased the likelihood (though still small), that I might someday join.
 
otjm said:
I have several comments:
  1. it is clear from some people’s comment that they have never read the documents; yet they are full of opinions, particularly negative ones.
  2. it is futher clear that some people have never been trained in the art of critical thinking.
  3. it is also clear that some people see history through “rose colored glasses” and have zilch for any knowledge of, let alone any understanding of the history of the Church since, oh, say the time of Trent up to the time of the start of Vatican 2.
  4. coupled with that is a failure to understand something fairly simple: the documents were not meant for the average person in the pews. Not that the average person should not read them, but rather that the documents were written by the bishops - some 2000 of them - who, under the direction of the Pope - wrote the guidelines for the leaders of the Church (hint - the bishops) and their assitants (hint - the priests) to guide the Church into the future.
  5. in addition, there are those who insist that the documents are not doctrine or dogma, nor infallible, therefore subject to rejection or extreme criticism, all the while forgetting that 2000 bishops acting in conjunction with the Pope is an excellent definition of the Magisterium in action, and that the Church is protected by the Holty Spirit from error when teaching about Faith and Morals.
  6. they further presume that people who do not have graduate studies at a minimum (and I consider a Masters an absolute minimum) have almost no foundation upon which to criticize the work of the Magisterium, and further forget that our history is replete with scholars with PhDs and further work who have succeeded in "going down the rabbit hole; and yet they presume to critique the work of people (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) with far greater eduction and experience.
  7. and lastly, they confuse the work of the Church with the rebellion of some priests, bishops and theologians who have gone off in their own directions and are clearly not following the documents, and they presume the documents are the cause of that. A simple post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, but one they follow blindly.
Click to expand...
👍 especially for #5 . you have said it all. i hope everybody will read this.👍
 
You picked a wonderful person to be your Confirmation saint 2cats. Pope John XXIII was a brave and devout man. I hope you may find spiritual strength and guidance through his example.

As for Vatican II, I think there are many more members of the Church who support it than you think. In fact, it wasn’t until I joined CAF that I had ever heard anyone bad mouthing the Second Vatican Council. It was a bit of a shock at first to hear all the acidic comments. But since then it seems to me that a lot of people who make such comments are either pining for the “good ol’ days” (that never existed) or they are people who need something to complain about and will find it no matter what. (Note: I said “a lot of people…” not “everyone”.)

If Vatican II hadn’t happened I have serious doubts about whether or not I’d be a member of the Church today. …And as I type that I realize just how terrifying that thought is and how truly thankful I am to be a member of the Church.
 
I have read some portions of Vatican II. Its not my favorite council and I am tired of it being quoted almost exclusively. It is treated as the “super-council” and that everything that came before Vatican II was backward, judgmental, rigid, etc. We have been around for 2,000 years! We have had more councils than one. We have had more popes than just 5. It get’s ridiculous. Have any of you seen the USCCB’s catechism for RCIA? If you look in the back of it, it only mentions Vatican II as one council and about 4 popes, John XXIII, Paul Vl, John Paul I, and John Paul II. Most Catholics have NO clue about the history and Tradition of our Church. To them, it started in 1965. Everything that came before it was dark, sinister, and judgmental/rigid, etc. I don’t have rose-colored glasses. I know that the time before Vatican II wasn’t any better. However, there should be a continuity. The fact that there is SUCH a disconnect between pre and post Vatican II should give one pause. It does seem like it is two different Churches.
 
rapunzel77 said:
I have read some portions of Vatican II. Its not my favorite council and I am tired of it being quoted almost exclusively. It is treated as the “super-council” and that everything that came before Vatican II was backward, judgmental, rigid, etc. We have been around for 2,000 years! We have had more councils than one. We have had more popes than just 5. It get’s ridiculous. Have any of you seen the USCCB’s catechism for RCIA? If you look in the back of it, it only mentions Vatican II as one council and about 4 popes, John XXIII, Paul Vl, John Paul I, and John Paul II. Most Catholics have NO clue about the history and Tradition of our Church. To them, it started in 1965. Everything that came before it was dark, sinister, and judgmental/rigid, etc. I don’t have rose-colored glasses. I know that the time before Vatican II wasn’t any better. However, there should be a continuity. The fact that there is SUCH a disconnect between pre and post Vatican II should give one pause. It does seem like it is two different Churches.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t around before Vatican II, so I haven’t really observed any lack of continuity. :o

I understand your criticisms. We would be remiss not to continually draw from the Church’s rich tradition. Certainly, there are those who take things too far because they wanted Vatican II to start a “new church” of sorts.

But, in fairness, I would just point out that it seems to be human nature to focus on the recent past first. Thus, it is only natural to spend the most time reflecting on the most recent of ecumenical councils. Even the universal Catechism quotes for Vatican II at least twice as much as all previous councils combined. The USCCA just takes its lead from the CCC. Of course, Vatican II also produced more text than all the other councils, which is another reason for the wealth of citations.
 
All I can say is that the first time I read it, hiding in the unheated spare room or locked bathroom so my husband wouldn’t know I was even considering converting to Catholicism, it touched my heart because it was so full of truth. I cried my eyes out over it.
I consider a turning point in my conversion. I get a lot of people mad when they hear it so I save it for times when friends are more open to the truth.
I love the new and the old rites, because if the Jesus, Our Eucharistic Lord is present, I am full of joy.
For full disclosure, my husband is Catholic, we had been married for six years by this date, and his parents had been praying for me for years. I had been in a Charismatic prayer group that was filled with mostly Catholic ladies although it was part of a ecumenical group. I had received the Baptism of the Spirit and therefore feel great kinship with St Cornelius as I only received the Sacraments of Initiation, Baptism, Holy Communion, and Confirmation afterwards.
Glad you asked the question, I thought I was the only one! ( Not really. The Holy Spirit has a way of reaching people in similar ways. I think God wanted a miracle of conversion attached to this document to help others look at it in a new light.)
Most of the litugical confusion is not in the documents, that was in the hearts of those who read it .
 
rapunzel77 said:
I have read some portions of Vatican II. Its not my favorite council and I am tired of it being quoted almost exclusively. It is treated as the “super-council” and that everything that came before Vatican II was backward, judgmental, rigid, etc. We have been around for 2,000 years! We have had more councils than one. We have had more popes than just 5. It get’s ridiculous. Have any of you seen the USCCB’s catechism for RCIA? If you look in the back of it, it only mentions Vatican II as one council and about 4 popes, John XXIII, Paul Vl, John Paul I, and John Paul II. Most Catholics have NO clue about the history and Tradition of our Church. To them, it started in 1965. Everything that came before it was dark, sinister, and judgmental/rigid, etc. I don’t have rose-colored glasses. I know that the time before Vatican II wasn’t any better. However, there should be a continuity. The fact that there is SUCH a disconnect between pre and post Vatican II should give one pause. It does seem like it is two different Churches.
Click to expand...
Rapunzel, maybe this is because it’s hard enough to squeeze in enough meaningful content into RCIA that they simplified it. To be honest, what I got out of RCIA, I got out of it by researching, not by going to weekly class. I became Catholic in spite of the RCIA program. To be honest, I’m the only faithful Catholic from my class. When I went on to help catechise the latest class, I was given 1 hour to instruct on 2000 years of Church history. I think it needs to be said at every class that, to truly understand what we’re talking about tonight, you should read xxxx-xxxxx in the Catechism, and read all the footnotes.
 
I have read the Documents, and have referred to them many times. Excellent Council. Now if priests, parishes and people would only follow and obey them.
 
Any eastern rite Catholic will tell you that Vatican Council II was a “god-send” to us! It firmly supported the eastern rites “right” to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in their local tradition, instead of trying to “latin-ize” it. We are thrilled with the documents! Our liturgies are done in their traditional languages and formats, without the need to conform to a latinized ritual.

And you know, if you actually read the documents, they are wonderful. It was the broad-stroke interpretation of them that upset many traditionally-minded, Latin mass only, Catholics. The local ordinaries are the ones who messed it up. If they actually adopted what was asked in the documents, it would have been awesome and a smooth transition. I think there are some pot-stirrers out there that just love controversy! One of the funniest (not haha funny but interesting funny) things to me is that it is the generation above mine that fully embraced all the changes the local bishops made - the hand holding, kum bay ya stuff that upsets the traditionalists. Go figure. It is the people from the 60’s generation who adopted the changes. I have family members who love the novus ordo and guitar masses! Then there are those of us who are more traditional and among all the mess of post Vatican II sought some semblance of tradition and non-controversial rites and moved over to the eastern side of the aisle.

But don’t allow anyone to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and say all of Vatican II was a mistake - it certainly was one of the councils of the Church that had a lasting impact on its membership…the interpretations that were allowed to take place at the local level are what give it its bad reputation! Read it for yourself and embrace what the Council had to say. It is good.
 
bankerdavid said:
Rapunzel, maybe this is because it’s hard enough to squeeze in enough meaningful content into RCIA that they simplified it. To be honest, what I got out of RCIA, I got out of it by researching, not by going to weekly class. I became Catholic in spite of the RCIA program. To be honest, I’m the only faithful Catholic from my class. When I went on to help catechise the latest class, I was given 1 hour to instruct on 2000 years of Church history. I think it needs to be said at every class that, to truly understand what we’re talking about tonight, you should read xxxx-xxxxx in the Catechism, and read all the footnotes.
Click to expand...
I studied my way into the Catholic Faith so that when I went through RCIA, I didn’t learn that much. The catechism in question came from when I was helping out in RCIA and that is what was required. I don’t think it would be to difficult for new comers to have a list of all the councils and popes of the Church. Just to give them some idea of our history. Trying to act as if there was nothing that could be learned about the Church before Vatican II is a terrible way to introduce people to our Church. I know for a fact that the man in charge of the RCIA would always compare/contrast (we did this in the old days but now its changed so you don’t have to do such and such anymore, etc, etc). Again, there is a terrible lack of continuity.
 
2cats said:
Recent convert here. During RCIA, when I read about the Second Vatican Council, I was so impressed and excited about it that I took Blessed John XXIII as my confirmation saint. (They said it was OK to take a Blessed.) But when I read the postings on CAF, it seems a large number of posters want to make Vatican II the scapegoat for anything going wrong within the Church. I’m feeling totally outnumbered. Just wondering if there’s anyone else out there like me.

I realize this post may be viewed by some as an invitation to let loose on everything you think Vatican II got wrong, but please restrain yourselves if you can! I’ve heard your voices loud and clear on these boards - just wondering if I’m the only one who doesn’t feel that way! 🙂
Click to expand...
I am Vatican II to a fault! This forum, from my limited experience, is not reflective of the vast majority of American Catholics- laity and clergy! Vatican II was the greatest thing to happen to the Church since Pentecost and the Jesus movement of the early Church. Most of the changes were 500-1500 years overdo to reform what the Church had become vs what the Spirit intended.
 
Aggiornamento said:
I am Vatican II to a fault! This forum, from my limited experience, is not reflective of the vast majority of American Catholics- laity and clergy! Vatican II was the greatest thing to happen to the Church since Pentecost and the Jesus movement of the early Church. Most of the changes were 500-1500 years overdo to reform what the Church had become vs what the Spirit intended.
Click to expand...
This is the sort of comment that I am talking about. You realize you are sounding like some fundamentalists who claim that the Catholic Church went off the rails during the Middle Ages, right? We have been around for over 2,000 years following the scriptures and Sacred Tradition. There must be continuity. The fact that you claim that there had to be a total break with a good chunk of our history proves my point. Most Catholics have been taught that almost everything before Vatican II was an accretion, rigid, judgemental, etc. You are basically claiming that there are two Churches, not one. I also must ask you another question: do you speak for the Holy Spirit? Who are you to speak for the Holy Spirit?
 
Well, I am supportive of Vatican II. I mean, without it, we wouldn’t have the novus ordo mass and the novus ordo mass is what brought me into the Church. That said, I think I would probably be happy with the traditional Latin mass as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top