What do people have against Vatican II Council?

[minkymurph]

Perhaps I phrased that badly. I was not suggesting those on the outside have a better chance of salvation. I would just not be convinced they have none as there are many factors to consider in relation to why they see no need to convert. Those who see no need to convert for a variety of reasons will not be converted by force. Conversion of the heart is necessary which takes a lot more work, love, understanding and patience.

 

[paramedicgirl]

---

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.

As long as they are in good conscience.

 

[Walking_Home]

Perhaps I phrased that badly. I was not suggesting those on the outside have a better chance of salvation. I would just not be convinced they have none as there are many factors to consider in relation to why they see no need to convert. Those who see no need to convert for a variety of reasons will not be converted by force. Conversion of the heart is necessary which takes a lot more work, love, understanding and patience.

---

True conversion of course—need conversion of the heart. But as I said—I believe a bad interpretation of the council has led to a loosening of the bindings to the point it seems—where the Church is just loosing Herself among the denominations. That is where “the many factors to consider in relation to why they see no need to convert”–come into play.

 

[minkymurph]

---

True conversion of course—need conversion of the heart. But as I said—I believe a bad interpretation of the council has led to a loosening of the bindings to the point it seems—where the Church is just loosing Herself among the denominations. That is where “the many factors to consider in relation to why they see no need to convert”–come into play.

This is why I said earlier I do think faith can become a bit of a mish-mash in an attempt to please everyone. I don’t see the need for that. Personally, I want to maintain my Catholic identity and I believe what I believe and I can’t change it or water it down to accommodate an opposing view. I just agree to differ with those who I believe I am wasteing my time talking to. Sorry, that sounds harsh. What I mean is I don’t like futile debates or pointless arguements with someone who is not receptive and just likes to argue. I have however, had productive discussions with some who would strongly disagree with me and while they have it in their head ‘I will never become a Catholic’ I believe I have dispelled some of the misheld views they would hold of Catholicism and a greater understanding has developed without a compromise on my beliefs or a falling out. I believe this approach may, in time overcome prejudice and lead to conversion but it’s hard work. Could you enlarge a little on how you see the statement I made ‘the many factors to consider in relation to why they won’t convert?’ I kind of feel sorry for people because their prejudice has been bred into them and at the risk of sounding condescending, they don’t seem to know any better. That sounds awful and I really don’t mean to be condescending but I can’t think how else to put it. I’m not sure how you link this to bad interpretation. I sort of understand why people have prejudices or don’t want to convert and feel conversion would be a huge hurdle for them to jump. I’m not suggesting it’s an excuse, just a reason.

 

[Walking_Home]

This is why I said earlier I do think faith can become a bit of a mish-mash in an attempt to please everyone. I don’t see the need for that. Personally, I want to maintain my Catholic identity and I believe what I believe and I can’t change it or water it down to accommodate an opposing view. I just agree to differ with those who I believe I am wasteing my time talking to. Sorry, that sounds harsh. What I mean is I don’t like futile debates or pointless arguements with someone who is not receptive and just likes to argue. I have however, had productive discussions with some who would strongly disagree with me and while they have it in their head ‘I will never become a Catholic’ I believe I have dispelled some of the misheld views they would hold of Catholicism and a greater understanding has developed without a compromise on my beliefs or a falling out. I believe this approach may, in time overcome prejudice and lead to conversion but it’s hard work. Could you enlarge a little on how you see the statement I made ‘the many factors to consider in relation to why they won’t convert?’ I kind of feel sorry for people because their prejudice has been bred into them and at the risk of sounding condescending, they don’t seem to know any better. That sounds awful and I really don’t mean to be condescending but I can’t think how else to put it. I’m not sure how you link this to bad interpretation. I sort of understand why people have prejudices or don’t want to convert and feel conversion would be a huge hurdle for them to jump. I’m not suggesting it’s an excuse, just a reason.

---

The factors that I see are derived from the “unbinding” that has been occuring since the Council. Where by the interpretation of the Council has led—to the Church not being needed. Various methods are currently used to explain it — for example—anyone can with every breath reject our Lord Christ outright — yet somehow they are in union with the Church and thru the Church with Christ.

 

[palmas85]

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.

I was respectful. The poster indicated that he thought that reforms were needed. I asked what needed to be reformed. The answers he gave were very pat, very unconvincing and showed pretty clearly that he didn’t have much of a clue what the Church was like prior to Vatican II and whats its teachings were. As I recall he brought up that the use of the vernacular was needed in the Mass, although as I have often heard said, If someone cannot be bothered to learn what Agnus Dei means, what makes you think they will bother to learn what Lamb of God means? However Vatican II never dictated that the Mass should be in the vernacular and in fact seemed to be of the opinion that it should remain principally in Latin.

He also thought that female altar servers was a good idea, and that the time was past for the subjugation of women. These were not even contemplated at Vatican II. In fact, i don’t believe that the issue of equal rights for women in the Church ever even came up.

He apparently feels all religions are equal in the eyes of God, and all lead to salvation . That idea also appears nowhere in the documents of Vatican II, which while admitting that every person must be free from coercion in matters of faith, the Catholic Church is still the true Church and all others are deficient in one manner or another.

He further said that it was time to get over the reformation whatever that means, although I have to assume it had to do with the anathemas issued at the Council of Trent against the heresies being proclaimed by the Protestants. Unfortunately, at least for the more ecumenically minded among us, Vatican II did not condemn, re-consider or rescind those either. In fact Vatican II unabashedly endorsed Trent.

In essence he seemed to be of the opinion that everyone should be free to do his own thing and that everyone else should accept it. How did he word it, not be clones. I don’t think that Vatican II endorsed that particular idea either.

So what appears has happened is that our poster, far from speaking about Vatican II and what it actually said, is, as are many, under the spell of the mythical “spirit” of Vatican II, which having been left virtually unchecked these past forty or so years, has boldly gone where no one has gone before or even intended to.

 

[minkymurph]

---

The factors that I see are derived from the “unbinding” that has been occuring since the Council. Where by the interpretation of the Council has led—to the Church not being needed. Various methods are currently used to explain it — for example—anyone can with every breath reject our Lord Christ outright — yet somehow they are in union with the Church and thru the Church with Christ.

I take your point and I agree with you but, can Vatican II be held responsible because people choose to interpret what they say in their own way?

 

[Ceil-1]

I have to agree with MinkyMurph. There is a lack of love present in the Traditionalist movement. Not so much individuals. They seem to start out okay, but in the same way the liberals took it one way and made Mass their own invention, these people take their conservative ideas and go nuts in the other direction.

Case in point. Modesty is an issue. Yes, women should look feminine and not like boys. But that is not enough for these people. Even wearing a dress isn’t enough. It has to be a long one, down to the ankles. And then, being long isn’t enough. It can’t be a flashy color. I won’t even mention coloring hair and wearing makeup. Ie: if you don’t look like a dowdy frump, you are at best, unspiritual, and, most likely living out of the state of grace. I wish I were kidding, but that is the truth.

Music cannot have a steady beat. That is from the devil. If it is not Gregorian chant or Mozart (which is barely tolerable), it is of the devil. You think I am kidding. I am not.

My belief is that the Traditionalist movement is a reactionary movement which in its own right is just as imbalanced as the liberal one. The intentions are understandable, but it takes on a life of its own. I guess those that adhere to it feel the need to justify it. Perhaps it is simply a spiritual pride that takes over.

I know several very holy people, consecrated to God. They do works of mercy every day and would give you the shirt off their back. And guess what? The women sometimes, even regularly, wear pants. Some of them even take Communion in the hand. I do not, but if the Church says it’s okay, then who am I to argue?

There is a movement of charismatic, orthodox Catholics who are very balanced and focused on Jesus and the Sacraments and good works. These people, I believe, will carry on the Church.

 

[Walking_Home]

I take your point and I agree with you but, can Vatican II be held responsible because people choose to interpret what they say in their own way?

---

In a prior post I stated—bad interpretation, bad implementation. In other words the bad interpretation of the Council has led to a bad implementation of the Council.

Now we have to ask ----what led to the bad interpretation. Why was the Council interpreted in such a manner. It would seem that the Council itself —left the door open to a bad interpretation.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I have to agree with MinkyMurph. There is a lack of love present in the Traditionalist movement. Not so much individuals. They seem to start out okay, but in the same way the liberals took it one way and made Mass their own invention, these people take their conservative ideas and go nuts in the other direction.

Case in point. Modesty is an issue. Yes, women should look feminine and not like boys. But that is not enough for these people. Even wearing a dress isn’t enough. It has to be a long one, down to the ankles. And then, being long isn’t enough. It can’t be a flashy color. I won’t even mention coloring hair and wearing makeup. Ie: if you don’t look like a dowdy frump, you are at best, unspiritual, and, most likely living out of the state of grace. I wish I were kidding, but that is the truth.

Music cannot have a steady beat. That is from the devil. If it is not Gregorian chant or Mozart (which is barely tolerable), it is of the devil. You think I am kidding. I am not.

My belief is that the Traditionalist movement is a reactionary movement which in its own right is just as imbalanced as the liberal one. The intentions are understandable, but it takes on a life of its own. I guess those that adhere to it feel the need to justify it. Perhaps it is simply a spiritual pride that takes over.

I know several very holy people, consecrated to God. They do works of mercy every day and would give you the shirt off their back. And guess what? The women sometimes, even regularly, wear pants. Some of them even take Communion in the hand. I do not, but if the Church says it’s okay, then who am I to argue?

There is a movement of charismatic, orthodox Catholics who are very balanced and focused on Jesus and the Sacraments and good works. These people, I believe, will carry on the Church.

I don’t know any traditional Catholics who are as you describe above. It sounds to me like you are talking about die hard Protestant fundamentalists. Every trad Catholic I know wears jeans, just not to Mass. And most of them love music! Even music with a good beat! Just not at Mass. I’m a traditional Catholic, and like many others, I highlight my hair, I wear make up and I love lots of colour in my wardrobe. So, I’m sorry, but what you are saying has very little if no merit.

 

[brotherhrolf]

It’s really difficult for me to put into words how I feel about what happened after 1965. I was fourteen that year and had been an altar boy for five years. And, like Mary Bobo said, many of the posters have no earthly idea of what the Church was like before V II.

For many people, the “springtime” of Vatican II was long needed. For others, like myself, it was like having the rug yanked out from beneath your feet at best or torn asunder at worst. Palmas85 has made mention of the years 1965 - 1970 - the transitional years. The years when the Mass seemingly changed every six months as something old was deleted and something new added. All of it was done by fiat from the pulpit with little or no explanation.

I was a teenager attending a Catholic high school. We were encouraged as freshmen to join the Confraternity of the Sacred Heart (which I did) and there were always at least 10 or 15 of us in chapel during our free periods or during lunch praying. By the spring of 1970, devotions like that were passe. Five years! Not a very long time at all.

In the fall of 1968, the brothers ceased wearing their cassocks and long rosaries in favor of black pants, white shirt, and black tie. When I graduated in 1969 there were 35 brothers in residence and teaching. Today, there are only two brothers (one of whom taught me) involved in my old alma mater and they are in administration. What happened? What happened to the sisters?

In 1965, the entrance hymns for Mass were along the lines of “To Jesus Christ Our Sovereign King” or “Come Holy Ghost” or “Come Thou Almighty King”. Contrary to popular belief, most of us could sing Latin - “Tantum Ergo”, “O Salutaris Hostia” etc. so this business of no one understood Latin is a real red herring.

In 1969, for my high school graduation Mass, we sang as an entrance hymn “Sons of God, Hear His Holy Word” - complete with guitars and choir a’grinnin’ and a’strummin’. Can anyone sing this now policitically incorrect hymn? Then for the Offertory we sang Simon and Garfunkle’s “Sounds of Silence”, Communion was S and G’s “Bridge over Troubled Waters”, Recessional was “And They’ll Know We are Christians by Our Love”. Almost forty years later and I still deeply resent this.

And as so many have pointed out, none of this was mandated by V II. And in the years after 1970, things went downhill even further. Just one point - to this day I do not receive Communion in the hand. I would love to kneel but the kneelers are long gone in my cathedral. I can, however, kneel at a neighboring parish which has the indult and NO Masses where people are allowed to kneel. This was a profound sea change for me. It’s very hard to explain to someone how we felt about the Eucharist before V II. I’m not saying that folks don’t feel that way now but just look into the preparations that went into just preparing the communion rails for Communion. Starched white linen to cover the rail. Altar boys holding patens under your chin lest one crumb of the Precious Body be lost on the floor.

What happened after 1965 is that someone “took the ball and ran with it as far as they could”. I’ve found a reverent NO parish but my personal feelings and devotions are entirely pre-V II. It wasn’t just Latin, it was an entire complex of things - most of which, sadly, exist only in the minds of us who are old enough to remember.

 

[minkymurph]

---

In a prior post I stated—bad interpretation, bad implementation. In other words the bad interpretation of the Council has led to a bad implementation of the Council.

Now we have to ask ----what led to the bad interpretation. Why was the Council interpreted in such a manner. It would seem that the Council itself —left the door open to a bad interpretation.

Sorry, call me stupid but I still don’t follow you. Why did the Council leave the door open to bad interpretation? I don’t think that before Vatican II we can say there was no bad interpretation. Yes, I agree that there are those who would use reform for their own agenda. There is nothing new in that. Within the Church have there not always been those with their own agenda? Those who have distorted things in order to fill that agenda?

 

[BobP123]

I don’t know any traditional Catholics who are as you describe above. It sounds to me like you are talking about die hard Protestant fundamentalists. Every trad Catholic I know wears jeans, just not to Mass. And most of them love music! Even music with a good beat! Just not at Mass. I’m a traditional Catholic, and like many others, I highlight my hair, I wear make up and I love lots of colour in my wardrobe.

Yes, but when you drive a 69 Ford, that’s a giveaway.

 

[AquinaSavio]

Case in point. Modesty is an issue. Yes, women should look feminine and not like boys. But that is not enough for these people. Even wearing a dress isn’t enough. It has to be a long one, down to the ankles. And then, being long isn’t enough. It can’t be a flashy color. I won’t even mention coloring hair and wearing makeup. Ie: if you don’t look like a dowdy frump, you are at best, unspiritual, and, most likely living out of the state of grace. I wish I were kidding, but that is the truth.

Looks have nothing to do with spirituality. B16 sometimes looks very grumpy…is he “unspiritual?” I doubt it…

We just want women to be modest…that’s it!

Music cannot have a steady beat. That is from the devil. If it is not Gregorian chant or Mozart (which is barely tolerable), it is of the devil. You think I am kidding. I am not.

I like light rock music…I also like country. However, neither is suitable for Mass.

Perhaps it is simply a spiritual pride that takes over.

I don’t argue that spiritual pride is very harmful and widespread. A lot of Traditionalists come off that way. However, just as many liberals come off that way, too. Can it really be linked to their philosophy on the liturgy? Or does Satan just know that spiritual pride is a good way to get people?

I know several very holy people, consecrated to God. They do works of mercy every day and would give you the shirt off their back. And guess what? The women sometimes, even regularly, wear pants. Some of them even take Communion in the hand. I do not, but if the Church says it’s okay, then who am I to argue?

Sarcastic…and yet, you’re criticizing us for being arrogant.

There is a movement of charismatic, orthodox Catholics who are very balanced and focused on Jesus and the Sacraments and good works. These people, I believe, will carry on the Church.

There is also a movement of traditional, orthodox Catholics who are very balanced and focused on Jesus and the Sacraments and good works. I think you’re stereotyping and seeing only what you want to see.

We all need to step back and take a look at ourselves once in a while. I am looking at the ICRSS because it places emphasis on spreading Traditionalism with love. Everyone needs to work on it. However, arguing that Traditionalists are all no-nonsense Puritans is not helping anyone.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I have to agree with MinkyMurph. There is a lack of love present in the Traditionalist movement. Not so much individuals. They seem to start out okay, but in the same way the liberals took it one way and made Mass their own invention, these people take their conservative ideas and go nuts in the other direction.

Case in point. Modesty is an issue. Yes, women should look feminine and not like boys. But that is not enough for these people. Even wearing a dress isn’t enough. It has to be a long one, down to the ankles. And then, being long isn’t enough. It can’t be a flashy color. I won’t even mention coloring hair and wearing makeup. Ie: if you don’t look like a dowdy frump, you are at best, unspiritual, and, most likely living out of the state of grace. I wish I were kidding, but that is the truth.

Music cannot have a steady beat. That is from the devil. If it is not Gregorian chant or Mozart (which is barely tolerable), it is of the devil. You think I am kidding. I am not.

My belief is that the Traditionalist movement is a reactionary movement which in its own right is just as imbalanced as the liberal one. The intentions are understandable, but it takes on a life of its own. I guess those that adhere to it feel the need to justify it. Perhaps it is simply a spiritual pride that takes over.

I know several very holy people, consecrated to God. They do works of mercy every day and would give you the shirt off their back. And guess what? The women sometimes, even regularly, wear pants. Some of them even take Communion in the hand. I do not, but if the Church says it’s okay, then who am I to argue?

There is a movement of charismatic, orthodox Catholics who are very balanced and focused on Jesus and the Sacraments and good works. These people, I believe, will carry on the Church.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

www.youtube.com/?v=R6AOvStZS64

This video shows what people have against Vatican II. People miss the eloquence of high sung liturgies.

If you see no difference…

Of course its great for it to be in English, but in a MUCH better english translation than what we have today. The vernacular should have been the norm in most countries for centuries. That it was not was a mistake. Nevertheless a special liturgical language deserves to be preserved for certain feast days and special celebrations.

the altar servers are supposed to be acolytes or sub-deacons, essentially to be an altar server you were formerly in a “minor order” in most instances.

Formerly, only young men, among whom the Church hoped to recruit for the priesthood, and seminarians, who needed the training, were altar servers

In his encyclical Allatae Sunt of 26 July 1755, Pope Benedict XIV explicitly condemned females serving the priest at the altar with the following words:

“Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: “Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.” We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21.”[2]

Women may not serve in the altar except in women’s monasteries. In that case they are not tonsured, and do not vest in the sticharion or alb, but wear their normal habit for attending services, and serve at a certain distance from the actual altar table.

 

[Walking_Home]

Sorry, call me stupid but I still don’t follow you. Why did the Council leave the door open to bad interpretation? I don’t think that before Vatican II we can say there was no bad interpretation. Yes, I agree that there are those who would use reform for their own agenda. There is nothing new in that. Within the Church have there not always been those with their own agenda? Those who have distorted things in order to fill that agenda?

---

Bad interpretation needs a starting point. It needs roots. It roots can be traced back to the Council. The language of the Council --left it open to various interpretations. It did not close loop–holes that could be used to root a bad interpretation. I believe it was Pope Benedict XVI–then Cardinal—who said the Council needs to be interpreted in light of Tradition. When and how this will happen–remains to be seen.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Yes, but when you drive a 69 Ford, that’s a giveaway.

It’s a 2007 retro '69 Mustang, not the real thing! Sheesh, Bob, get your facts straight!

 

[BobP123]

You see, that’s the problem. No two people will exactly translate the Latin (or any other language, for that matter) the same way so therefore not everyone will be happy with the finished product, if there ever is such a thing.

But with a liturgical language and one in which all the Church documents are kept, there never is a problem with translations because there is no translation. Est quod est. It is what it is.

 

[HenryV]

I don’t think people don’t like Vatican II, I think people don’t like what followed Vatican II, some blame the 60’s some blame clergy who where caught up with the spirit of the world, there are very few people who put the blame on the texts of the Council ( they are confirmed by the pope and safeguarded by the Holy Spirit).

Is everything that happened after Vatican II the new springtime of the Church?
If you think so you need a reality check.
The springtime will come when Catholics accept the teachings of Holy Church and when they live them in daily life.