What do people have against Vatican II Council?

[palmas85]

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?

There may have been bad interpretation at times, but due to the rigidness of the Church I doubt there was much of it. After Vatican II these things took on a life of their own. It was almost as if everything old was suddenly bad and everything new was suddenly good. There was no thought given to retaining anything that even remotely smacked of tradition. This did not come from the council itself, it came from the self styled reformers who took the reins and ran. I will reccomend a book for you to read.

Sisters in Crisis by Ann Carey 1997 Our Sunday Visitor INC.

It details in pretty graphic detail what happened to female religious communities and life in the wake of Vatican II. In many respects it also shows what happened to the Church as a whole during the same time. What it all boils down to is that certain elements within the Church saw an opportunity to advance their agenda, modernize at any cost, and did so, often claiming that the mandate, however far fetched, came from Vatican II. Since most people didn’t then and still have not read the documents from Vatican II, they didn’t and still don’t have the knowledge to say, hey this isn’t right. That is not what the Council said. And most of us, being brought up in the spirit of obedience to the Church, fell for it hook line and sinker believing that we could trust our Bishops, Priests and Sisters completely.

I’m not implying in any way that all religious were in this boat and responsible for what happened.Many of them were caught as flatfooted and unaware as the rest of us were. That is very eloquently brought forth in the above book.

An example from this book details why female religious by and large abandoned the habit, even though the documents from Vatican II expressly mandated that habits be maintained, and the lengths that the reformers would go to to claim compliance with the guidelines. The same can be said about just about every aspect of Catholicism, both in the religious life, read up on the major confrontations between the Holy Fathers Paul VI and John Paul II and the Jesuits if you doubt that, and the laity in general.

It is really only in the past 15 years or so that many people are really starting to realize that we were manipulated by those we trusted to accept their vision of a new Church and the new spring that the Council never really intended.

Only time will tell I guess, but I see encouraging signs. More and more people clamoring for traditional ways of worship and devotions and less tolerence for such innovations as self styled Eucharistic Liturgies, raisin bread and tortillas used as the host and prayers to the mother father god etc.

I believe once we get over the bump in the road that we have experienced for the past 40 years, we can get down to the serious business of accomplishing what the Council truly intended,

 

[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.

I’m sorry, call me stupid but I still don’t understand. There has always been people who have had their own agenda and there always will be. Prior to Vatican II, there where those who badly interpreted things and had their own agenda and used situations and interpretations to satisfy that agenda. There is nothing new in this. I was touched by what brotherhrolf said. This gives me a better understanding of how others have affected by change. As I said earlier, not all change is good. I don’t understand why people have a problem with receiving the Eucharist into the hand. It was pointed out on a radio programme I heard that when Our Lord instituted the Eucharist, he broke bread, HANDED IT to his apostles and said ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ I was taught to recieve it into the hand and I don’t have a problem. I like to recieve the host on the tongue, but I only do it when I am holding my young child as no one else does it and I would like to recieve the host kneeling but no one does it so I can appreciate as much as it is possible for me to, how others who always did it like this feel about the change.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I believe once we get over the bump in the road that we have experienced for the past 40 years, we can get down to the serious business of accomplishing what the Council truly intended,

I certainly hope and pray that this is so. I am certainly encouraged by the number of young people expressing an interest. We may be able to reclaim parts of our heritage but it will never be as it was in 1965 before all of this happened. (And my car of choice is a 68 Impala with a 350 engine - my first car).

 

[BobP123]

(And my car of choice is a 68 Impala with a 350 engine - my first car).

Nice car. My dad had a pre-Vatican II 62 Impala. My first car was a transitional 69 green Camaro. Sorry it wasn’t one of those motu proprio 2007 remakes, paramedicgirl.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

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.

Over time, the Modernists within the Church did away with practices that strengthened our spiritual lives. . Fasting and abstinances were a good discipline. Devotions as well.

Excesses were introduced in “protestantizing” the Church by removals of the altar rail and the worst of all…Communion in the hand.

Many changes were made that were NOT scripted in Vatican 2…they just went ahead and ad-libbed changes as they wished.

Today, I rarely ever hear a Catholic hymn at Mass except, sometimes on Christmas.

 

[AquinaSavio]

Today, I rarely ever hear a Catholic hymn at Mass except, sometimes on Christmas.

I actually heard one on the Feast of the Annunciation!

 

[brotherhrolf]

Nice car. My dad had a pre-Vatican II 62 Impala. My first car was a transitional 69 green Camaro. Sorry it wasn’t one of those motu proprio 2007 remakes, paramedicgirl.

At the risk of derailing the thread (mea culpa!) I had a friend of mine in the Navy with a 69 green candy apple paint job Camaro and my other friend from high school was given a 69 green Mustang Mach 1. Both were awesome cars.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Today, I rarely ever hear a Catholic hymn at Mass except, sometimes on Christmas.

Sad but true. We use the Worship III hymnal which is filled with Catholic hymns and Gregorian Chant. If you use Gather or Glory and Praise or the other hymnals of this ilk, traditional Catholic hymns are few and far between.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m sorry, call me stupid but I still don’t understand. There has always been people who have had their own agenda and there always will be. Prior to Vatican II, there where those who badly interpreted things and had their own agenda and used situations and interpretations to satisfy that agenda. There is nothing new in this. I was touched by what brotherhrolf said. This gives me a better understanding of how others have affected by change. As I said earlier, not all change is good. I don’t understand why people have a problem with receiving the Eucharist into the hand. It was pointed out on a radio programme I heard that when Our Lord instituted the Eucharist, he broke bread, HANDED IT to his apostles and said ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ I was taught to recieve it into the hand and I don’t have a problem. I like to recieve the host on the tongue, but I only do it when I am holding my young child as no one else does it and I would like to recieve the host kneeling but no one does it so I can appreciate as much as it is possible for me to, how others who always did it like this feel about the change.

---

But you see----the apostles were our first bishops. This was the start of our hierarchy. That radio program apparently did not distinguish between the ordained and the laity.

Prior to Vat II—anyones agenda could be determined by how they deviated from the prior Councils. With Vat II it is a different story. As I mentioned prior—it left itself open to where the roots of bad interpretation could take hold.

 

[Jennifer_G]

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, hard line traditionalists?:bigyikes:

They’ve started doing that at my Lutheran church a few years back. At first, it was just before the church service started (ok, I could deal with that, but I was still uneasy about it). Now, it’s right before Communion. We never did that when I was growing up. It’s like stuff from the contemporary service is filtering down or something. It is odd when I do go to a Catholic Church for a family event (baptism, 1st Holy Communion, wedding) and I start hearing very protestant (and very Lutheran) hymns. Not to mention, 90% of the Catholic Churches I’ve been in are modern ones with modern architechture, and they do have altar girls, too. Even older churches, as well as new have large banners on the inside and outside of their church.

I don’t know 100% what the Vatican II council did (althought we do have “-]Pope/-] John XXIII (Bishop of Rome)” listed in our Lutheran hymnal as one of the saints.), though, except for having Mass in the local languages, and removing/changing some prayers in the Mass.

Excesses were introduced in “protestantizing” the Church by removals of the altar rail and the worst of all…Communion in the hand.

I guess ours is a rare Lutheran church, then. We still have communion rails (and use it weekly), and kneelers (the funny part is, they decided to mix up the service a bit - i.e., put the brief order of Confession and Forgiveness right before communion, and everyone gets confused on if we should kneel, sit or stand! - now we just kneel instead of stand, then kneel). I think we did receive communion on the tongue once, including drinking the wine from the chalice. It was stopped due to fear of germs, I think.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I actually heard one on the Feast of the Annunciation!

Was a warming experience, was it not?

 

[AquinaSavio]

Was a warming experience, was it not?

:yup:

 

[TNT]

Music

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.

AND Country Music.
I really don’t know where some folks get these ideas about restraining women. NO ONE, I MEAN NO TRAD Woman dresses or behaves any other way than what they choose to. Further, there are very few that EVER suggest some other woman should have the same standards.
The only time I know of this happening, the Trad Priest found out and prefaced his Sermon by admonishing that HE is the authority on demeanor at Mass, not any member…mind your own business. Case closed.
Temp 73. Sun peekin through awesome billowing clouds. Eatin Southern hickory Smoked ribs…watchin the calves play…what a day.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Music

AND Country Music.
I really don’t know where some folks get these ideas about restraining women. NO ONE, I MEAN NO TRAD Woman dresses or behaves any other way than what they choose to. Further, there are very few that EVER suggest some other woman should have the same standards.
The only time I know of this happening, the Trad Priest found out and prefaced his Sermon by admonishing that HE is the authority on demeanor at Mass, not any member…mind your own business. Case closed.

When I said music with a good beat, I meant country music of course!

 

[Jon_S]

The bigger question would probably be:

How many people that talk about the “spirit of Vatican II” have actually read the documents.

There was a lady at my church who would always talk about that, so I bought copies of the documents (post-concilliar also) and I took her to school on it.

Recently, I have been asked to start a get-together at church to read and discuss the documents. We’ll see if I can actually make that happen or not…

†

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The bigger question would probably be:

How many people that talk about the “spirit of Vatican II” have actually read the documents.

There was a lady at my church who would always talk about that, so I bought copies of the documents (post-concilliar also) and I took her to school on it.

Recently, I have been asked to start a get-together at church to read and discuss the documents. We’ll see if I can actually make that happen or not…

†

Yikes! That could be very revealing about the excesses.

 

[PauloFreire2]

“What do people have against Vatican II Council?”

It was the product of revolutionary times. The pendulum is swinging in the opposite direction now, toward conservatism. It’s standard fare.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

Is it true that writings of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. led to the promotion of heresies after the council was over?
Fr.Pierre was himself a heretic, correct?

To BobP123, I agree that translations are imperfect, but surely there is something more satisfactory than the ICEL translation?

Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not have such big controversies with their translations, most people are satisfied with them. Certainly the point is progress, not perfection.

Hopefully in any case people who are not perfectly satisfied with a “good translation” can find the ability to attend a church using the original liturgical language during parts of the year.

 

[palmas85]

I’m sorry, call me stupid but I still don’t understand. There has always been people who have had their own agenda and there always will be. Prior to Vatican II, there where those who badly interpreted things and had their own agenda and used situations and interpretations to satisfy that agenda. There is nothing new in this. I was touched by what brotherhrolf said. This gives me a better understanding of how others have affected by change. As I said earlier, not all change is good. I don’t understand why people have a problem with receiving the Eucharist into the hand. It was pointed out on a radio programme I heard that when Our Lord instituted the Eucharist, he broke bread, HANDED IT to his apostles and said ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ I was taught to recieve it into the hand and I don’t have a problem. I like to recieve the host on the tongue, but I only do it when I am holding my young child as no one else does it and I would like to recieve the host kneeling but no one does it so I can appreciate as much as it is possible for me to, how others who always did it like this feel about the change.

Actually the translation in every Gospel account I’ve read is that He gave it to his Apostles, not handed it to them. The Greek word in question is (phonetic)didomi which translates out to give as a present to supply or to furnish. It in no way indicates that the hands were used on the part of either Jesus or his Apostles. I’m not saying He didn’t, but Scripture does not say that He did. In actuality, there was a better than average chance that He placed the food, a portion anyway, in the Apostles mouths Himself. That practice was fairly common in the Seder meals of the time particularly in family gatherings. It is true that the early Church distributed communion in the hand but not in imitation of the last Supper. No, in those days every family brought a substantial loaf to the Mass and gave them to either the Deacon or the Priest. All of them were then consecrated and distributed as whole loaves. Part would be consumed at the Mass and the rest taken home, usually wrapped in white cloth for consumption during the week, The white cloth was to guard against mice consuming the Eucharist. As years went by, people stopped bringing loaves and the Church started supplying them. With an eye towards economy perhaps the portions got smaller and smaller.

The Church went to distributing on the tongue in part to re-instill reverence in the Eucharist and in part to stop the fairly widespread practices of using the Eucharist as amulets and good luck charms and to stop private displays, which were usually at someones home.

During the Reformation, protestants began receiving in the hand to demonstrate their belief that the Eucharist was nothing more than symbolic and was not transformed through transubstantiation into the body and blood of Christ. Some felt that the Eucharist would be transformed but only when consumed.

I personally have never received in the hand and hopefully God will grant me the grace that I never have to. I will receive standing if that is the practice, but I prefer kneeling even though at myage it gets to be a bit difficult at times .

 

[BobP123]

It was pointed out on a radio programme I heard that when Our Lord instituted the Eucharist, he broke bread, HANDED IT to his apostles and said ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ I was taught to recieve it into the hand and I don’t have a problem.

Moot point. The Apostles were priests and thus could self-communicate if that is what they did.