Vatican 2: What do you like about it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Restoration of the Permanent Diaconate is one of the positive outcomes from Vatican II that I like and appreciate.
 
“changes that would have occurred anyway” as in changes that occurred in line with changing tastes in music, architecture etc. Just as in the past Romanic / Norman architecture of church buildings gave way to gothic, and that gave way to Renaissance and then baroque and then neo Gothic. And parallels can be found in the development of church music. People in different ages had different preferences. Only the 1950 right up the present day seems to be architecturally preoccupied with concrete boxes that would be more appropriate for having your car repaired than they are for praying in, and statues don’t actually have expressions but are totally abstract, and the music is pompous and ugly. None of this is directly the fault of Vatican 2. But vatican 2 was used as an excuse for much of it.
 
@Michael16 , I was fortunate to live through the years of the Second Council of the Vatican , the Church’s 21st Ecumenical Council .

It was a fun time .

It brought to the world a Church in which its members were not unquestioning robots , as some thought . Its leaders , the bishops, were debating issues and this was reported in the media . Ordinary lay folk began to discuss things , and it would get rather heated at the time , but it was an educative process .

The decisions of the Council Fathers about which I am pleased are …

1 Reform of the Liturgy .

2 The ecumenical movement becoming part of Catholic life .

3 The move towards greater episcopal collegiality .

4 The emphasis on the universal call to holiness .

5 The opening up of the Scriptures to all .

6 The teaching about non-Christian religions .

7 And generally a more open Church which had come out of the ghetto of a post Reformation straight jacket . (Excuse mixed metaphors) .

The process of reform continues , and that’s good because the Church is always in need of reform .
 
Last edited:
I think we have to separate the written documents of Vatican II from the mindset of those people who view Vatican II as a kind of progressive movement to modernise the Church. Some people see Vatican II as a council that produced a set of documents, others see Vatican II as a sort of ‘signpost’ pointing to further modernising reforms not explicitly detailed in the documents. And there lies the problem.
 
Last edited:
Vatican II was used as an excuse to wreck society and the Church.
 
Vatican II only watered down Catholicism in general. It was the equivalent of feminism within the Church.
 
No, it did not. Sexual perversion as a ‘norm’ is bad. Radical feminism is bad. Vatican II watered down nothing. I was there before and after.
 
The mere fact the Church went from calling Protestants “heretics” to “lost brothers”, essentially abiding the “one true faith” claim, is enough of a watering down for me. And I’m not even getting into the overall downfall of Catholicism worldwide, even in Catholic majority nations, after Vatican II.
 
Scott84 said:
Over night Protestant baptisms became valid for example. Previously the Church refused to recognize any baptism outside the Catholic Church as valid.
Click to expand...
Not true.
The Church defined back in Trent that if a baptism was made with the intention to do the same thing the Church does, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it was valid.
Anyone who says different let him be anathema.
 
edwest211 said:
Which is why altar/communion rails and statues are being restored. The primary reason: “Because of what happened in the 1960s.” No one had any right to remove them or ‘blame it on Vatican II.’ Vatican II is blameless.
Click to expand...
In regards to communion rails: for functionality, so the faithful are able to receive Holy Communion under both species (both body and blood) with undue impediment, it made sense to remove the communion rails.

Where I live, I don’t know of any Catholic churches that do use communion rails that offer reception of the Holy Eucharist under both species during their regular Masses. Those churches that use communion rails offer the Holy Communion to the faithful only under the consecrated host.
 
semper_catholicus said:
Vatican II itself never called for their removal. It was a product of those who embraced the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II.”
Click to expand...
No, it was a product of trying to find a functional norm so the faithful would be able to receive Holy Communion under both species in a workable manner.
 
Intinction. Simple.

Or go with the Byzantine tradition and use a straw or spoon
 
Instinction sets are just another thing to deal with during the ablutions. It makes things more complicated.
 
Then have an acolyte holding the chalice and following Father.

But, it’s also the dang Latin Mass. Everything is excessively complicated- that’s part of the beauty
 
What I like about the Vatican II reforms:
  1. I like that the Mass is celebrated in the vernacular so everyone can have a better understanding of the liturgy itself.
  2. I like the revised lectionary (both the Sunday and weekday lectionaries) so we can hear more parts of the Holy Bible proclaimed at Mass.
  3. I like that I have the ability to receive during Holy Communion at many Masses the Most Precious Blood of Christ.
  4. I like that the laity are called to take a more active roll in the celebration of the Mass itself
 
I was there. A coordinated attack against the Church and society began after Vatican II. That is a fact, not an opinion.
 
No one was given the authority to remove Communion/Altar Rails, that’s why they’re being restored. Things were a little different before Vatican II. Us kids knelt at the Communion Rail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top