Pre and post Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allan_M
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Allan_M

Guest
What was wrong in the RCC that Vatican II had to change:
Has it succeeded? I have attended some masses said in the old rite and the reverence shown to the Eucharist is very encouraging, The language of the pre VaticanII popes is clear and for catholics, but when I see popes kissing the qoran and visiting mosques I start to wonder if the descenters are actually descenting or is it the other way around, are the descenters correct? then the “catholic faithful” would be the real descenters. It’s for me a bit confusing. I know the Seat of Peter can never be destroyed but there has been anti-popes in the past. We do have an intrinsic safety device provided by the Holy Spirit, the documents of previous popes, and for me at least one thing is a miss, I cannot remember what pope said it (I think at the council of Trent) but it was said that nothing in the Holy mass can be altered?
And why can’t we pray for the conversion of the Jews? Why? We are catholic, the church is the light of the world and through her actions all can find The Lord.
Whats you’re thoughts??? All chatter is welcomed… This I’m interested in.
 
Allan_M said:
What was wrong in the RCC that Vatican II had to change:
Has it succeeded? I have attended some masses said in the old rite and the reverence shown to the Eucharist is very encouraging, The language of the pre VaticanII popes is clear and for catholics, but when I see popes kissing the qoran and visiting mosques I start to wonder if the descenters are actually descenting or is it the other way around, are the descenters correct? then the “catholic faithful” would be the real descenters. It’s for me a bit confusing. I know the Seat of Peter can never be destroyed but there has been anti-popes in the past. We do have an intrinsic safety device provided by the Holy Spirit, the documents of previous popes, and for me at least one thing is a miss, I cannot remember what pope said it (I think at the council of Trent) but it was said that nothing in the Holy mass can be altered?
And why can’t we pray for the conversion of the Jews? Why? We are catholic, the church is the light of the world and through her actions all can find The Lord.
Whats you’re thoughts??? All chatter is welcomed… This I’m interested in.
Click to expand...
Several things, the first being the last thread on this topic was just locked a few days ago. As to your questions, yes there have been antipopes, and technically are today as a few people think they are pope, as opposed to Benedict XVI. But that has no bearing on Vatican II or the Church today. Second, the Mass had been altered before Trent, at Trent and after Trent. Some people lock onto the Council of Trent as it was *THE *Church Council, when it was just one of several. It must always be understood in light of the time and the language of the Church at the time. It was immediately following the Reformation and addressed the issues that arose at that time.

One word of caution, when you speak of dissenters and anit-popes, sedevacantism is a banned topic here. It has been talked about in the past, but is currently not allowed.
 
Thanks for you’re reply I did’t know that the subject was off limits.:o No more said.
 
Allan_M said:
What was wrong in the RCC that Vatican II had to change:
Has it succeeded? I have attended some masses said in the old rite and the reverence shown to the Eucharist is very encouraging, The language of the pre VaticanII popes is clear and for catholics, but when I see popes kissing the qoran and visiting mosques I start to wonder if the descenters are actually descenting or is it the other way around, are the descenters correct? then the “catholic faithful” would be the real descenters. It’s for me a bit confusing. I know the Seat of Peter can never be destroyed but there has been anti-popes in the past. We do have an intrinsic safety device provided by the Holy Spirit, the documents of previous popes, and for me at least one thing is a miss, I cannot remember what pope said it (I think at the council of Trent) but it was said that nothing in the Holy mass can be altered?
And why can’t we pray for the conversion of the Jews? Why? We are catholic, the church is the light of the world and through her actions all can find The Lord.
Whats you’re thoughts??? All chatter is welcomed… This I’m interested in.
Click to expand...
“What was wrong in the RCC that Vatican II had to change:”
Nothing!. It was only meant to be a continuation of Vatican I. Thats until Satan arrived!!.
 
Vatican II should’ve remained faithful instead of softening up with the times. I’m sure the intentions of John XXIII and Paul VI were good, but then again, so were Hitler’s.🤷
 
latinmasslover said:
Vatican II should’ve remained faithful instead of softening up with the times. I’m sure the intentions of John XXIII and Paul VI were good, but then again, so were Hitler’s.🤷
Click to expand...
That is an extremely poor (not to mention, tasteless) analogy. Bl PP John XXIII was a good and holy man. I’ve never been much of a fan of Paul VI, but even so, never would I even think to use such words.
 
latinmasslover said:
Vatican II should’ve remained faithful instead of softening up with the times. I’m sure the intentions of John XXIII and Paul VI were good, but then again, so were Hitler’s.🤷
Click to expand...
Did you really just compare the intentions of two popes to the intentions of Hitler? :tsktsk:

Peace

Tim
 
I hold high regards to Pre Vatican II times and views as well as Post Vatican II. Vatican II intended to bring us closer to God spiritually by the use of Vernacular language alongside the Latin. There was no intention of misleading those that are/were Catholic. Masses on EWTN is perfect example of what Vatican II intended for.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I hold high regards to Pre Vatican II times and views as well as Post Vatican II. Vatican II intended to bring us closer to God spiritually by the use of Vernacular language alongside the Latin. There was no intention of misleading those that are/were Catholic. Masses on EWTN is perfect example of what Vatican II intended for.
Click to expand...
I still haven’t seen a NO Mass on EWTN that is ad-orientum.
 
Many mainstream Catholics still prefer looking at the priest and not God.
 
bkovacs said:
Take a guess!!. Hint (ad-orientum). No where in Vatican 2 did it say to turn the altars around and remove altar rails.
Click to expand...
How does that relate to what you wrote? Why do you assume that I prefer looking at the priest rather than God? Is the priest invisible when the Mass is said ad orientum?

Is God present during the NO Mass?

Peace

Tim
 
tobinatorstark said that the Mass on EWTN is what Vatican 2 called for. But Vatican 2 did not call for the altar to be turned around, which is what many parishes did. So if the Mass on EWTN was said in ad-orientum than that may be more closer to what was called for in Vatican 2.
 
bkovacs said:
tobinatorstark said that the Mass on EWTN is what Vatican 2 called for. But Vatican 2 did not call for the altar to be turned around, which is what many parishes did. So if the Mass on EWTN was said in ad-orientum than that may be more closer to what was called for in Vatican 2.
Click to expand...
Is there a problem with the altar being turned around? Not from a personal preference standpoint, but from a technical standpoint?

Peace

Tim
 
bkovacs said:
Take a guess!!. Hint (ad-orientum). No where in Vatican 2 did it say to turn the altars around and remove altar rails.
Click to expand...
No, but it*** did *** give the option of the priest facing the people or God. Not every parish removed their alter rails. Some churches still use their alter rails. My church was one that did remove the alter rail, but we still have pocess the alter rail as it is in our church basment
 
Orogeny said:
How does that relate to what you wrote? Why do you assume that I prefer looking at the priest rather than God? Is the priest invisible when the Mass is said ad orientum?

Is God present during the NO Mass?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
God most certainly is present. People quite misunderstood Vatican II in general. Thus caused much confusion. There are just people can’t accept any form change something a tad different. I am sure there was some confusion when the TLM came into being because of change, dare I say that word or does it offend people? I have learn to deal with what we have as there is room for improvement and change
 
Some posters here remind me of some elderly colleagues at work. "Why do we need to change the way we do things? " “I like it this way, it has been like this for the last ten years”, “Old times were better” … I always smile at them, and I understand that some are not capable to learn new things… I just pray that when I become old, I still would be able to appreciate the good in change, keep learning, and discern the new signs of the times, and of course, not being a whiner.
Peace.
 
FK04US said:
Some posters here remind me of some elderly colleagues at work. "Why do we need to change the way we do things? " “I like it this way, it has been like this for the last ten years”, “Old times were better” … I always smile at them, and I understand that some are not capable to learn new things… I just pray that when I become old, I still would be able to appreciate the good in change, keep learning, and discern the new signs of the times, and of course, not being a whiner.
Peace.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top