P
PetraG
Guest
I don’t think the biggest damage came from people who bothered to read the documents of Vatican II.Also, you could include Joseph Ratzinger, which is why many have been stunned by some of his comments today that speak opposite of the liberalism found in some of the VII documents.
I think the big problem was people who did whatever they saw fit and then cried “Spirit of Vatican II!!” as if the Council had ever remotely promoted innovation for the sake of innovation.
The desire to avoid making people sad or upset is absolutely a reason not to do it. Why would you do something that would upset people and split them into divisions or even do something necessary in a way that would heighten that effect, if you didn’t have an extremely compelling reason to do it?But sadness at seeing something change is not a reason not to do it. Look at all the oldies going to daily Mass now. They got over it and continued to go with the flow of the pilgrim Church.
I don’t know, but I think “they’ll get over it” is a callous attitude. Even the removal of objectively hideous things has to be done with some sensitivity to those who are fond of them, don’t you think?
I’ve seen a pastor making some beautiful changes, and he still had people who actively resisted them because he wasn’t sensitive to how he went about doing it. Parishioners were mad at other parishioners and split into factions, and some people even left after decades of being active there. It was a mess, honestly. It is too bad, too, because with more patience I think most of the parish would have been content to accept most of the changes and might have even embraced many of them.
Last edited: