Opinions of Vatican II Poll

[BobP123]

The church, through the Holy Spirit needed to change.

It’s really hard to see how that could be when you had a Pope John XXIII, who convened the council having one agenda, and those he called to the council, bringing in their own. It seems as if you had battle lines already drawn before it even started. At least all the literature I’ve read on the subject at least implies that.

And it took how long for a Pope to realize that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church? Doesn’t sound like one would want to tie the Holy Spirit to that.

 

[historyb]

Vatican II was one of the most important events in all of church history. Vatican II brought new life to the church, and opened the windows to allow for a breath of fresh air.

Later to be found out that the air was rather stale

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pius X
Vatican II was one of the most important events in all of church history. Vatican II brought new life to the church, and opened the windows to allow for a breath of fresh air.

Later to be found out that the air was rather stale

---

More like smoke.

 

[Denae]

I think it was a very good thing, but too many people made their own reforms and invoked the name of Vatican II to justify it.

I agree.

 

[Miserere_Mei]

Anyone else gone through spiritual upheaval reading the decrees of Vatican I the Syllabus of errors and the canons of the council of Trent.

 

[Gregory_I]

ME. I feel like I am starting to see between the lines of this…this kind of vatican doublespeak. I feel lost, like I am hearing the voice of the condemned opinions of the moderninsts speaking through the church…it’s unsettling…

 

[Walking_Home]

ME. I feel like I am starting to see between the lines of this…this kind of vatican doublespeak. I feel lost, like I am hearing the voice of the condemned opinions of the moderninsts speaking through the church…it’s unsettling…

---

Very insettling.

 

[sosayi1960]

It’s really hard to see how that could be when you had a Pope John XXIII, who convened the council having one agenda, and those he called to the council, bringing in their own. It seems as if you had battle lines already drawn before it even started. At least all the literature I’ve read on the subject at least implies that.

And it took how long for a Pope to realize that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church? Doesn’t sound like one would want to tie the Holy Spirit to that.

Satan was smoking? How can Satan enter the church? Well, i can barely remember all the “bells and whistles”. Most of the “Rituals” seemed alot like hocus pocus. Christ wants love, forgiveness, mercy. “I desire Mercy NOT Sacrifice”. Our Lord was with his people even on the Cross. He didn’t turn his back on anyone. Why should the priest? He did condemn the Priests of his time. God wants a personal relationship with us. We are humble out of reverance. He wants our Love, not fear. Let’s change the church again. Go back to the old ways. It will distroy the church as we know it. All the ritual is a great show. It shows no communion with Christ and each other. The Holy Spirit is alive, moving, breathing life into our hearts. God wants action to help each other. All of the holy water in the world can’t show us how to love each other. Peace to all. God help the church is it ignores the people. I’m outta here. Your ship is sinking

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

Yeah, some people take liberties with Vatican II. But guess what? The church is run by and attended by humans. Stupid, sinful humans! If Vatican II had never happened, we’d still have some wacky, confused priest doing things all wrong! We’d still have people dressing badly. If women still had to keep their heads covered, I can see girls coming in wearing bandanas advertising some satanic band. I’m not supporting sinfulness. I’m just saying that you can’t use other people’s bad behavior as an excuse for your own.

Plus, I like singing along in church. :harp: So, I’m glad we had V2.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

Your ship is sinking

So we’ve been told for 2000 years!

 

[Aramis]

I feel that Vatican II was a needed correction point to make the liturgical, canonical, and evangelical life of the church match to the evolving doctrine and theology of the church.

I don’t feel it went to far, and I don’t feel the church was decadent. I feel it was, based upon my reading of the modern histories, and of the theology and rhetoric, that the church was out of snych between its teachings and its liturgical and evangelical life, and that the canonical changes to return the eastern rites and churches to their own traditions was an essential and important outcome.

I do feel, however, that many have gone far from where the council has pointed, amongst them the SSPX, several Roman Bishops, many Roman Parishes, and some practices.

I feel that some of the modern changes beyond the Vatican II mandates may actually be appropriate growth in the tradition in the Church. Others, of course, are not.

I’m a child of the implementation of V II. I remember very young, and Mass changing monthly.

 

[stmaria]

Satan was smoking? How can Satan enter the church? Well, i can barely remember all the** “bells and whistles**”. Most of the “Rituals” seemed alot like hocus pocus. Christ wants love, forgiveness, mercy. “I desire Mercy NOT Sacrifice”. Our Lord was with his people even on the Cross. He didn’t turn his back on anyone. Why should the priest? He did condemn the Priests of his time. God wants a personal relationship with us. We are humble out of reverance. He wants our Love, not fear. Let’s change the church again. Go back to the old ways. It will distroy the church as we know it. ** All the ritual is a great show**. It shows no communion with Christ and each other. The Holy Spirit is alive, moving, breathing life into our hearts. God wants action to help each other. All of the holy water in the world can’t show us how to love each other. Peace to all. God help the church is it ignores the people. I’m outta here. Your ship is sinking

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? “bells and whistles?” “hocus pocus?”

The Council of Trent was an infallible Council. The Holy Fathers declared that is was guided by the Holy Spirit. This is what the Fathers, guided by the Holy Spirit, had to say about 'bells and whistles and hocu pocus"

Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.

CHAPTER V
THE CEREMONIES AND RITES OF THE MASS
And since the nature of man is such that he cannot without external means be raised easily to meditation on divine things, holy mother Church has instituted certain rites, namely, that some things in the mass be pronounced in a low tone and others in a louder tone. She has likewise, in accordance with apostolic discipline and tradition, made use of ceremonies,[15] such as mystical blessings, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be emphasized and the minds of the faithful excited by those visible signs of religion and piety to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

 

[BobP123]

I feel that Vatican II was a needed correction point to make the liturgical, canonical, and evangelical life of the church match to the evolving doctrine and theology of the church.

So you had no special love for the Church prior to Vatican II? Did you feel uncomfortable with Hell, with meat abstinence, with the language of the Church? What exactly are you implying?

 

[Miserere_Mei]

If these people continue in their arrogance to dare to criticize the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as Codified by the council of Trent, after being shown the infallible canons and decrees, there can be no other conclusion that they are manifest heretics, as the Church teaches.

 

[Aramis]

So you had no special love for the Church prior to Vatican II? Did you feel uncomfortable with Hell, with meat abstinence, with the language of the Church? What exactly are you implying?

The implementation began about the time I was born… in Alaska, in the early 1970’s (I have memories as early as 1971), the mass was undergoing radical changes. It stabilized about 1975.

Many of the reforms of vatican II cured disconnects between the theology and the practice of the faith.

EG: Subdeacons
EG: The lack of participation of the people
EG: The people not hearing the prayers of consecration
EG: The priest, when speaking In Persona Christi not facing the people.

the theological debate was swinging away, at lest from what’s documented, in the 1950’s, and in positions that had been minority in the 1850’s were becoming majority by the 1950’s amongst the theologians.

But then, I’ve no attachment to, no love for, the TLM. I know many who do, and I feel that they should have it, and a separate but in union with rome hierarchy. I don’t begrudge those who want the TLM. I’ve only experienced the Dominican Rite Latin Mass personally, and it’s different (in many VERY subtle ways) from the Trent Mass. But comparing them is forbidden here.

As the Eastern Churches are allowed separate hierarchy, theology and Doctrine, but the same Dogma, so should those who would follow the Old Latin Mass.

 

[bilop]

To me the actual documents of VII are fairly innocuous, with some exceptions, when read today.

But, they were exactly the opposite of what the world needed at the time. Given the permissive, socialistic and hedonist trends of the time, the Church needed to say “the Truth doesn’t change, Doctrine doesn’t change”, full stop.

Instead, they tried to accomodate the “liberals” as much as possible, causing them to become even bolder. They also confused the laity. Once the disciplines, especially of the Mass changed, people thought everything was up for grabs. That is why people reacted so badly to Humanae Vitae. If it had been promulgated in 1963, it would have seemd obvious to Catholics. But, by 1968, the “liberals” had convinced the people that the Church would change on contraception too, in the “spirit of VII”.
By 1973, Paul IV had said “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church”.

The world needed a Pope who would stand against the trend of time. We had a conciliator, we needed a warrior. If, in the early 1960’s, a strong Pope had stood up to the modernists the people would have backed him. Now, the people have gotten used to disobedience.

God Bless

Arhur

 

[gorman64]

Aramis:

…Many of the reforms of vatican II cured disconnects between the theology and the practice of the faith.

EG: Subdeacons
EG: The lack of participation of the people
EG: The people not hearing the prayers of consecration
EG: The priest, when speaking In Persona Christi not facing the people.

Taken from “The Liturgical Movement, An Address of Pope Pius XII to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy”, September 22, 1956

Role of the Laity
If the Hierarchy communicates the truth and the grace of Christ by means of the liturgy, the faithful on their side, have a duty to receive them, to give them their whole-hearted consent, to transform them into values for life. They accept all that is offered to them- the graces of the sacrifice of the altar, of the sacraments and sacramentals – not as mere passive recipients of the graces flowing over them, but cooperating in these graces with all their will and strength, and, above all, participating in the liturgical offices, or at least following their performance with fervor.
The laity have contributed in large measure, and by a constant effort to continue to contribute, to increase the external solemnity of worship, to build churches and chapels, to adorn them, to enhance the beauty of the liturgical ceremonies with all the splendors of sacred art.

The position of the tabernacle
In the instruction of the Holy Office, “De arte sacra,” of June 30, 1952, the Holy See insists, among other things, on this point: “This Supreme Sacred Congregation strictly commands that the prescriptions of Canons 1268, #2, and 1269 #1, be faithfully observed: ‘The Most Blessed Eucharist should be kept in the most distinguished and honorable place in the church, and hence as a rule at the main altar unless some other be considered more convenient and suitable for veneration and worship due to so great a Sacrament…The Most Blessed Sacrament must be kept in an immovable tabernacle set in the middle of the altar.’”
There is question, not so much of the material presence of the tabernacle on the altar, as of a tendency to which We would like to call your attention, that of a lessening of esteem for the presence and action of Christ in the tabernacle. The sacrifice of the altar is held sufficient, and the importance of Him who accomplishes it is reduced.

Latin in the liturgy
Yet it would be superfluous to call once more to mind that the Church has grave motives for firmly insisting that in the Latin rite the priest celebrating Mass has an absolute obligation to use Latin, and also, when Gregorian chant accompanies the Holy Sacrifice, that this be done in the Church’s tongue.

the theological debate was swinging away, at lest from what’s documented, in the 1950’s, and in positions that had been minority in the 1850’s were becoming majority by the 1950’s amongst the theologians.

And many of these theologians were unorthodox and were silenced. Many of the encyclicals of Pope Pius XII were aimed directly at these theologians and other lovers of novelty.

But then, I’ve no attachment to, no love for, the TLM. I know many who do, and I feel that they should have it, and a separate but in union with rome hierarchy. I don’t begrudge those who want the TLM. I’ve only experienced the Dominican Rite Latin Mass personally, and it’s different (in many VERY subtle ways) from the Trent Mass. But comparing them is forbidden here.

It not a matter of preference…the doctrinal content is different. Lex orandi est lex credendi …the law of prayer is the law of belief…as we pray we believe…change the prayer and you change the belief. This is known by all heretics…they know that they must change the prayer, the liturgy, to effect their errors on the faithful.

As the Eastern Churches are allowed separate hierarchy, theology and Doctrine, but the same Dogma, so should those who would follow the Old Latin Mass.

What distinction do you make between “doctrine” and “dogma”? Ithink you may mean disciplines are different…many doctrines that are not strictly classified as dogma are certainly true nonetheless…are you saying they can be different in different “rites”? That is nonsense.

Gorman

 

[BobP123]

Many of the reforms of vatican II cured disconnects between the theology and the practice of the faith.

EG: Subdeacons
EG: The lack of participation of the people
EG: The people not hearing the prayers of consecration
EG: The priest, when speaking In Persona Christi not facing the people.

Have you read these somewhere or did you just make them up?

How are all these “disconnects”? What was wrong with subdeacons? People not participating? Excuse me? People not hearing the Consecration? Maybe the deaf perhaps.

The last one is a new one for me. I’ll have to think about that claim, or is it just an observation?

 

[fix]

Satan was smoking? How can Satan enter the church? Well, i can barely remember all the “bells and whistles”. Most of the “Rituals” seemed alot like hocus pocus. Christ wants love, forgiveness, mercy. “I desire Mercy NOT Sacrifice”. Our Lord was with his people even on the Cross. He didn’t turn his back on anyone. Why should the priest? He did condemn the Priests of his time. God wants a personal relationship with us. We are humble out of reverance. He wants our Love, not fear. Let’s change the church again. Go back to the old ways. It will distroy the church as we know it. All the ritual is a great show. It shows no communion with Christ and each other. The Holy Spirit is alive, moving, breathing life into our hearts. God wants action to help each other. All of the holy water in the world can’t show us how to love each other. Peace to all. God help the church is it ignores the people. I’m outta here. Your ship is sinking

You are the authority?

 

[laudamus_te]

I feel that Vatican II was a needed correction point to make the liturgical, canonical, and evangelical life of the church match to the evolving doctrine and theology of the church.

This is wrong. The Church’s doctrine and theology does not “evolve.” It is immutable and timeless as it has been handed down, miraculously, from the time of the apostles. The biggest mistake is to think that the Church needs to “change with the times.”

I do feel, however, that many have gone far from where the council has pointed, amongst them the SSPX, several Roman Bishops, many Roman Parishes, and some practices.

But really, the council was the one pointing away from the traditional teachings of the Church, not Archbishop Lefevbre and the SSPX. The SSPX has only maintained the status quo, as it were, of the Church as it was from all time until the changes of VII, which was only a “pastoral” council and not an infallible one.