What do people have against Vatican II Council?

  • Thread starter Thread starter minkymurph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

minkymurph

Guest
Forgive me if I am starting a new thread if my question has been covered elsewhere, I just couldn’t find it. Why do so many people not like Vatican II Council? I have heard many say this which is why I ask. Personally, I don’t see what is so wrong or bad about Vatican II. I have been Catholic for just 4 years so I don’t know much about the Church prior to Vatican II. In my limited knowledge of the history of the Church, I would have to say that I feel the Church did need reforming. Do people who don’t like Vatican II simply just not like change? I also feel that in my part of the world, a lot of objections I have heard to change seem to me to be a storm in a teacup and I don’t understand what everyone is getting so upset about. I was appalled at a discussion I heard on my local radio station, argueing the sign of peace should be removed from the Mass by people who seemed to be hard-line traditionalists. Their reason? They didn’t like touching someone else’s hand in case they caught germs and didn’t want to touch someone’s hand if they had blown their nose. I someone uses a hanky I have no real objection as colds are airborn anyway so you are breathing in lots of who knows what and did Our Lord not reach out and touch a leper and wash the feet of his Apostles? The people who were asking for this to be removed from the Mass are critics of Vatican II. Did Saint Paul not say something like, ‘if I have all these things but do not have love’ there is nothing? Did he not also say ‘let not the one eating just the one not eating’ so on and so forth? Can’t we just be a little more tolerant? Why is that a bad thing?
 
Probably the main issue those people have is that 90-99% of the stuff that has happened “because Vatican II said so” was not actually called for by Vatican II. And a fair amount of what was done even goes against what was called for in Vatican II.

It might be interesting to start a list of things that were done in the name of Vatican II that were not actually called for by Vatican II. You’d be amazed.
 
minkymurph said:
Forgive me if I am starting a new thread if my question has been covered elsewhere, I just couldn’t find it. Why do so many people not like Vatican II Council? I have heard many say this which is why I ask. Personally, I don’t see what is so wrong or bad about Vatican II. I have been Catholic for just 4 years so I don’t know much about the Church prior to Vatican II. In my limited knowledge of the history of the Church, I would have to say that I feel the Church did need reforming. Do people who don’t like Vatican II simply just not like change? I also feel that in my part of the world, a lot of objections I have heard to change seem to me to be a storm in a teacup and I don’t understand what everyone is getting so upset about. I was appalled at a discussion I heard on my local radio station, argueing the sign of peace should be removed from the Mass by people who seemed to be hard-line traditionalists. Their reason? They didn’t like touching someone else’s hand in case they caught germs and didn’t want to touch someone’s hand if they had blown their nose. I someone uses a hanky I have no real objection as colds are airborn anyway so you are breathing in lots of who knows what and did Our Lord not reach out and touch a leper and wash the feet of his Apostles? The people who were asking for this to be removed from the Mass are critics of Vatican II. Did Saint Paul not say something like, ‘if I have all these things but do not have love’ there is nothing? Did he not also say ‘let not the one eating just the one not eating’ so on and so forth? Can’t we just be a little more tolerant? Why is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...
The reason for disliking the sign of peace is not because of germs, but the fact that the consecration has just taken place and the sign of peace takes the focus from Jesus and places it on each other. The sign of peace is seldom done as prescribed in the rubrics, solemnly and only to those immediately around you. There is so much activity that people tend to forget that Jesus has just become present on the altar. If you could visually see Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, would you be greeting your neighbour, or kneeling in reverence?
 
Not so much the actual council (although that had problems)…it is the “Spirit of Vatican II” that Catholics hate. Yes, I hate it. It is a form of modernism, a philosophy condemned by the Church.

I JUST WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT IT HERE

It is the article entitled Quote of the Week # 1. 🙂
 
Well,

the problem is liberals using the documents of Vatican II to justify the horrifying things I see in my local parish- and others I travel to across the country.

I am registered at a Mission Church that only uses the Roman Missal of 1962- before the “Vatican II” changes started to come into effect.

I am also registered at a local parish here near my home.

The difference how Mass is offered is strikingly different. In fact the entire experience of “going to church” is different. So different- and was so until after 1965.

The changes- that are stated to be “of the council” are not official changes mandated by Vatican II. We have not seen “Vatican II” implemented correctly. Just read the documents for yourself- see how Latin was supposed to remain part of the Liturgy as well as Gregorian Chant.

Now try to fit Gregorian Chant type of atmosphere into the local parish church’s Sunday Mass.

See how they all say “Vatican II” did away with Latin and Gregorian Chant!- yet you cannot find the removal of Latin or Gregorian Chant or “Mass facing the people”, “Lay ministers of Holy Communion”, “Female Altar Servers”, “Communion in the hand” or Protestant Hymns at Mass anywhere in what the Council Fathers decreed.

Many Catholics hate “Vatican II” because the changes ushered in are given credit to “Vatican II”. But Vatican II did not decree any of the horrifying abberations we are made to witness every Sunday.

Ken
 
**

The Latin Mass was the first mass I went to in my life, and I was 50 years old. As a protestant Christian, for the first time I saw what worship and Honour to God was all about. Three years later, after a lot of study and catechism of course, I became part of the True Church. I have been to 2 “new” masses, and Thank God that wasnt the one I first went to, as there was no difference between my Anglican days and that “service”. Dont get me wrong here, I know it is valid, but to become the same as other churches does not help in the conversion process. After all, isnt that what our faith is about? Converting, or helping others find the real prescence of Christ? Thank God for our little SSPX church in Sydney

Iccy
 
minkymurph said:
Forgive me if I am starting a new thread if my question has been covered elsewhere, I just couldn’t find it. Why do so many people not like Vatican II Council? I have heard many say this which is why I ask. Personally, I don’t see what is so wrong or bad about Vatican II. I have been Catholic for just 4 years so I don’t know much about the Church prior to Vatican II. ** In my limited knowledge of the history of the Church, I would have to say that I feel the Church did need reforming.** Do people who don’t like Vatican II simply just not like change? I also feel that in my part of the world, a lot of objections I have heard to change seem to me to be a storm in a teacup and I don’t understand what everyone is getting so upset about. I was appalled at a discussion I heard on my local radio station, argueing the sign of peace should be removed from the Mass by people who seemed to be hard-line traditionalists. Their reason? They didn’t like touching someone else’s hand in case they caught germs and didn’t want to touch someone’s hand if they had blown their nose. I someone uses a hanky I have no real objection as colds are airborn anyway so you are breathing in lots of who knows what and did Our Lord not reach out and touch a leper and wash the feet of his Apostles? The people who were asking for this to be removed from the Mass are critics of Vatican II. Did Saint Paul not say something like, ‘if I have all these things but do not have love’ there is nothing? Did he not also say ‘let not the one eating just the one not eating’ so on and so forth? Can’t we just be a little more tolerant? Why is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...
In what areas did the Church need reforming in 1962? I would be interested in your opinion. Please be specific, and remember, I was there. 🙂

As far as the Sign of peace goes, I object to where it is in the Mass, coming as it does when the Holy Eucharist is generally being removed from the tabernacle and carried to the altar. It seems rude to be hugging, kissing, shaking hands, roaming up and down the aisles looking for cute girls to offer the sign to, flashing peace signs around and looking to see what everyone else is doing while Christ is on His way to the altar. It just doesn’t seem very respectful, but then again I am one of the how did you say it, :hmmm: hard line traditionalists?:bigyikes:
 
I’m beginning to feel a degree of trepadation having started this thread as I feel I am going to be jumped all over, but hey! I’m not easily offended. I would like to respond to several posts here so bear with me to find the response to your own individual post. Someone asked me to explain why I think the Church needed reforming. Before I answer, I admit to being an ‘L’ plate Catholic as I have only been Catholic for four years and was not even born in 1962. Therefore I do see things from my own perception. However, I feel my opinions are as valid as anyone else’s but would like to reassure traditionalists that I have no intention of writing to the Holy Father and request he alter the teachings of the Church in accordance with my opinions. Vatican II had a huge impact here in Northern Ireland in relation to reconciliation between mainstream Churches and it was badly needed. We have an ongoing peace process which has brought us farther than ever before but being a realist, it could collapse at any moment. I think it is imperative that the Church is part of that peace process and cannot afford to promote religious division or act in a manner which rekindles the sectarian flame that the majority of people want to see extinguished. That means tolerance and I am in agreement with what I was told about Vatican II, there are truths in all religions but the fulfillment of faith is to be found in Catholicism. God’s people are in all faiths and is not for us to say who as individuals they are because we do not know.

The Mass in Latin - I went on a pilgrimage to Rome and heard the Mass (parts of it) in Latin and it was a lovely experience. However, I don’t speak Latin, neither does anyone else I know. the Apostles were given the gift of tounges so people could hear the gospel in their own tounge. What’s wrong with hearing Mass in your own tounge? Do you have to learn Latin to know Christ?

Female altar server - ‘suffer the little children to come onto me’ Our Lord did not specify only little boys. Girls and women can receive the Eucharist, why can they not therefore serve at the altar and be ministers of the Eucharist? Mary mother of God and Mary Magdaline were at the Cross, Christ first appeared to the women. Women were present when the Holy Spirit was poured out and do we know for sure they were not present to Minister when Christ insituted the Eucharist? Was it not unknown for men in that culture to cook and do dishes? Women travelled with Christ. I feel the Church has been guilty of opression of women and reinforcing partriarchy and the Church is now older and wiser as women suffered greatly and their human dignity was not respected. I think to say otherwise is at best naive but no I am not a rageing feminist who thinks women should be ordained as the sacrifices in the Old Testament had to be male animals and whether we like it or not, Christ was male. Without going into it in great detail as I know everyone here will know what I am talking about, I believe the person who stands in place of Christ as a sacrifice must be male.

The sign of peace - God is not an individual experience and is shared by communities. I don’t see God has a problem if we touch another as a sign of peace in his presence but yes, some people overdo it and I take the point that perhaps the point of the Mass the sign of peace is offered is something which could be addressed. However,being too ritualistic is not good as God looks at the heart. I’ve seen people rigidly follow ritutals in reverence for God, yet they lack his very essence, love. Rigid adherence to rules and traditions without love is to me too like the Pharasees. They are not in themselves wrong, but it depends how we do them. I would like to relate an experience here. I attended the Easter Vigil in the South of Ireland. When I came out of Mass it was dark and I didn’t see a huge whole in the road. I fell right in front of a car, destroyed my candle I had been bringing home for my young son, skinned my hands, ripped my trousers and twisted my ankle and as a result, found it hard to get up. There were droves of people coming out of Mass, I was lying on the road right in front of a car whose occupants were leaving Mass and the only person who asked if I was okay was a guy coming out of a pub to have a cigarette who had not been to Mass. Who was the good Samaritan.

I’m not against tradition, it’s not always bad but it’s not always good and you can say the same about change and any reform will have teething problems. However, rigid traditionalism lacks love and it calls me to question, what is reverence for God? Adherenance to ritual or love? and now I’ve said my bit, feel free to jump all over me.
 
palmas85 said:
In what areas did the Church need reforming in 1962? I would be interested in your opinion. Please be specific, and remember, I was there. 🙂

As far as the Sign of peace goes, I object to where it is in the Mass, coming as it does when the Holy Eucharist is generally being removed from the tabernacle and carried to the altar. It seems rude to be hugging, kissing, shaking hands, roaming up and down the aisles looking for cute girls to offer the sign to, flashing peace signs around and looking to see what everyone else is doing while Christ is on His way to the altar. It just doesn’t seem very respectful, but then again I am one of the how did you say it, :hmmm: hard line traditionalists?:bigyikes:
Click to expand...
I am also a traditionalist. But please be respectful of the OP. He/she was not a Catholic at that time and many of our posters were not even born then so they have no reference from which to make comparisons. I attend the NO at my parish because that is what is offered. Occasionally I drive 35 miles to attend a TLM, held every other Sunday in the afternoon. I think those who have not been exposed to the TLM can be just as reverent and prayerful as those of us who were around before.
 
Sorry, left a bit out of my long dialogue. Looking for cute girls to give the sign of peace to is a disgrace and yes reverence is sadly lacking during the consecration of the gifts and the point of transubstantiation. Makes you wonder why people go? I also think Vatican II was right in that it’s time we got over the reformation, (it was in the 16th century) people now are not responsible for what happened then and they have been brought up in other denominations for generations. However, I take the point about modernism. I don’t see why faith has to be made a mish-mash to keep everyone happy. The challenge of Christianity is to live together despite our differences not turn into clones to make everything all right.
 
minkymurph said:
Sorry, left a bit out of my long dialogue. Looking for cute girls to give the sign of peace to is a disgrace and yes reverence is sadly lacking during the consecration of the gifts and the point of transubstantiation. Makes you wonder why people go? I also think Vatican II was right in that it’s time we got over the reformation, (it was in the 16th century) people now are not responsible for what happened then and they have been brought up in other denominations for generations. However, I take the point about modernism. I don’t see why faith has to be made a mish-mash to keep everyone happy. The challenge of Christianity is to live together despite our differences not turn into clones to make everything all right.
Click to expand...
Are you saying Christianity is not about conversion—but about just co-extisting in peace.
 
minkymurph said:
Looking for cute girls to give the sign of peace to is a disgrace.
Click to expand...
And you will stop this practice, right! How?

The point is that the cat is already out of the bag, so to speak. The horses have ran away from the stables. That was/is the problem with the “spirit of Vatican II.” Everything that goes on seems to have Vatican “approval” too, or at least that’s the rationale given. Seems as if we need another Council of Trent to recapture all those cats and horses.
 
palmas85 said:
In what areas did the Church need reforming in 1962? I would be interested in your opinion. Please be specific, and remember, I was there. 🙂

As far as the Sign of peace goes, I object to where it is in the Mass, coming as it does when the Holy Eucharist is generally being removed from the tabernacle and carried to the altar. It seems rude to be hugging, kissing, shaking hands, roaming up and down the aisles looking for cute girls to offer the sign to, flashing peace signs around and looking to see what everyone else is doing while Christ is on His way to the altar. It just doesn’t seem very respectful, but then again I am one of the how did you say it, :hmmm: hard line traditionalists?:bigyikes:
Click to expand...
In our church the sign of peace comes right after the consecration.
 
minkymurph said:
Sorry, left a bit out of my long dialogue. Looking for cute girls to give the sign of peace to is a disgrace and yes reverence is sadly lacking during the consecration of the gifts and the point of transubstantiation. Makes you wonder why people go? I also think Vatican II was right in that it’s time we got over the reformation, (it was in the 16th century) people now are not responsible for what happened then and they have been brought up in other denominations for generations. However, I take the point about modernism. I don’t see why faith has to be made a mish-mash to keep everyone happy. The challenge of Christianity is to live together despite our differences not turn into clones to make everything all right.
Click to expand...
This is what I just read between your lines:

Oh yeah, it’s time we got over the reformation. Let’s stop evangelizing and trying to convert people to Catholicism. After all, all religions are equal.
 
BobP123 said:
And you will stop this practice, right! How?

The point is that the cat is already out of the bag, so to speak. The horses have ran away from the stables. That was/is the problem with the “spirit of Vatican II.” Everything that goes on seems to have Vatican “approval” too, or at least that’s the rationale given. Seems as if we need another Council of Trent to recapture all those cats and horses.
Click to expand...
The cat can be placed back in the bag by the Pope.
 
Tom317 said:
The cat can be placed back in the bag by the Pope.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Vatican II came out with this little thing called “collegiality” which, in effect, takes away a lot of Papal authority. Check it out.
 
BobP123 said:
And you will stop this practice, right! How?

The point is that the cat is already out of the bag, so to speak. The horses have ran away from the stables. That was/is the problem with the “spirit of Vatican II.” Everything that goes on seems to have Vatican “approval” too, or at least that’s the rationale given. Seems as if we need another Council of Trent to recapture all those cats and horses.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe I said that it was in my power to stop this practice. How others think and how they behave is something I have no control over, therefore, the only suggestion I can offer is to pray for others that they will respond to the grace of God, which brings me to my next point in response to walking home. I don’t believe I said Christianity was not about conversion either. We do not have the power to covert others against their will and we do not have the right to use force which Vatican II realized. If others have no desire to be converted or see no need to, we are compelled as Christians to live peaceably with them WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO. If others do not wish to live peaceably with us, we have an obligation to protect the vulnerable in society and do what is WITHIN OUR POWER to promote morality within society. I believe the greatest sign we can give to others is to live our faith, as Mother Theresa said, ‘live your faith and if necessary use words.’ I also believe that co-existing peaceably with those of other denominations brings greater understanding and is more likely to lead to conversion. It wasn’t stated in the post I was responding to who it was seeking out cute girls to give the sign of peace to, but it seems leacherous to me particularly if it is older men seeking out young girls which is why I said it was a disgrace. As far as I know, letching after young boys and girls went on before Vatican II as well and I would not be convinced that the pre-Vatican II spirit was any more wholesome in that respect and perhaps a few others including conversion by force. I don’t understand why people think pre-Vatican II days were better. They had their problems too which is why I posted this. What was better?
 
minkymurph said:
I don’t believe I said that it was in my power to stop this practice. How others think and how they behave is something I have no control over, therefore, the only suggestion I can offer is to pray for others that they will respond to the grace of God, which brings me to my next point in response to walking home. I don’t believe I said Christianity was not about conversion either. We do not have the power to covert others against their will and we do not have the right to use force which Vatican II realized. If others have no desire to be converted or see no need to, we are compelled as Christians to live peaceably with them WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO. If others do not wish to live peaceably with us, we have an obligation to protect the vulnerable in society and do what is WITHIN OUR POWER to promote morality within society. I believe the greatest sign we can give to others is to live our faith, as Mother Theresa said, ‘live your faith and if necessary use words.’ I also believe that co-existing peaceably with those of other denominations brings greater understanding and is more likely to lead to conversion. It wasn’t stated in the post I was responding to who it was seeking out cute girls to give the sign of peace to, but it seems leacherous to me particularly if it is older men seeking out young girls which is why I said it was a disgrace. As far as I know, letching after young boys and girls went on before Vatican II as well and I would not be convinced that the pre-Vatican II spirit was any more wholesome in that respect and perhaps a few others including conversion by force. I don’t understand why people think pre-Vatican II days were better. They had their problems too which is why I posted this. What was better?
Click to expand...
It is interesting that you bring the ----“see no need”—up. This is where a bad interpretation of the Council has led. Why convert when it seems—those on the outside—have a better chance of salvation then those within.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top