What do people have against Vatican II Council?

  • Thread starter Thread starter minkymurph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
It was not the Council, per se, but the innovations and departures from orthodoxy that occurred “in the spirit of vatican II”. This “spirit” fostered many abuses, especially of the divine liturgy.
 
QUOTE=minkymurph;2275000] What’s wrong with hearing Mass in your own tounge? Do you have to learn Latin to know Christ?

COLOR=“Red”]

QUOTE=minkymurph; Female altar server - ‘suffer the little children to come onto me’

COLOR=“Red”] FROM KELLY ; I do take issue with this one though. I feel that the alter servers should be only male. The reason? My husband was an altar server and he wanted to be a priest when he was with the priest on the altar and he went to the seminary for a year until he realized he didn’t have the calling for this life. Also our former parish they had a pool party for the altar servers and it was for the girls and the boys to go swim together. I thought this was a really bad idea because now when the girls and boys are serving on the atlar the boys may remember what the girls looked like in their swim suits! Also I’ve heard from several Mom’s of boys that serve, that the boys don’t like to serve with girls because the girls are bossy and they don’t like that. I have all girls and I won’t let them serve as altar servers because I feel it should be just boys up there. It is a step to the priesthood and girls cannot be priest!:o

QUOTE=minkymurph; The sign of peace - God is not an individual experience and is shared by communities.

COLOR=“Red”] FROM KELLY; I agree with you totally on this one, I think the so called traditionalist are being a bit harsh here. Christ wants us to LOVE each other and our church. If this is how the church and the Pope ordered the Mass to be, then we need to follow it. We cannot jump up and down and stomp our feet and throw a temper tantrum just because we aren’t getting our way about the Mass. This is a pride issue and we all need to look into our hearts and remember not to judge one another so harshly. 🙂

QUOTE=minkymurph; 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.

COLOR=“Red”]COLOR=“Red”] FROM KELLY; This is exactly right. Please anyone who’s reading this that will only go to a Latin mass because a NO mass isn’t proper or right remember what Christ said about the Pharasees and the Scribes. They had a hard heart and were not open to change and therefore were not open to Christ himself. I’m sorry if this offends anyone. I’m not trying to offend, but there are many good people who attend the NO mass and we are called to be a light to others and if you only go to a LM and ONLY hang around others that go to a LM you are missing the boat on reaching out to others who may need your whitness of reverence in Mass. I have five kids and we go to daily NO Mass and I love my Mass! I love the Latin in the NO Mass. The NO Mass can be beautiful too! Please don’t tell me that the prayers are more pleasing to God in the LM than they are in the NO Mass because this is just plain wrong! It is no different, it just sounds more pretty in the LM that’s all. Please, open your eyes and look around you, there are good people and good priest who say the NO mass and are in line with Rome and the Holy Father. Just look at the previous Pope JPII. He was awesome!👍

QUOTE=minkymurph; However, rigid traditionalism lacks love and it calls me to question, what is reverence for God? Adherenance to ritual or love?

FROM KELLY; I agree with you and if anyone wants to jump on me that is fine too, because I’ve not seen any solid arguments yet that can explain why they wouldn’t attend a NO mass if it is all that is avaliable in their area and what about when they go on vacation? Do the traditionalist just not go to mass because they cannot attend a NO Mass? If they don’t attend a NO Mass because they don’t like this or they don’t like that, is this a reason to go into mortal sin by not attending a mass while on vacation? I’m not judging here, just asking a question. I’m always giving this to you with my heart and with charity and love so please don’t take my words wrong, because you cannot hear the tone of my voice in this email.🙂
Jesus said we are to LOVE one another!
God Bless,
Kelly
 
littlemamaof5 said:
I agree with you and if anyone wants to jump on me that is fine too, because I’ve not seen any solid arguments yet that can explain why they wouldn’t attend a NO mass if it is all that is avaliable in their area and what about when they go on vacation? Do the traditionalist just not go to mass because they cannot attend a NO Mass?
Click to expand...
Simple solution for me. I only pick vacation spots which have close access to the TLM. The internet provides a better source of information than local hotel clerks and local phone books.
 
Thanks Bob for your reply. Maybe you could let the TLM people know where those vacation places are so they can go on vacation and attend Mass.
God Bless,
Kelly:thumbsup:
 
guanophore said:
It was not the Council, per se, but the innovations and departures from orthodoxy that occurred “in the spirit of vatican II”. This “spirit” fostered many abuses, especially of the divine liturgy.
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
Johnn do you believe that there are wholesale changes being made today and that there is hope? We live in the Denver Archdiocese and I believe our seminary is going to produce awesome holy priest. Our Archbishop is one of the best in the US for orthodoxy. He’s said before that you win more fly’s over with honey than with vinegar. It will never go back to the Latin Mass that was over 35 years ago, but it could mean that the NO Mass will use more Latin and return to the way that the Vatican 2 council intended it to be. The role of the laity is key to this change.
God Bless,
Kelly:p
 
littlemamaof5 said:
Johnn do you believe that there are wholesale changes being made today and that there is hope? We live in the Denver Archdiocese and I believe our seminary is going to produce awesome holy priest. Our Archbishop is one of the best in the US for orthodoxy. He’s said before that you win more fly’s over with honey than with vinegar. It will never go back to the Latin Mass that was over 35 years ago, but it could mean that the NO Mass will use more Latin and return to the way that the Vatican 2 council intended it to be. The role of the laity is key to this change.
God Bless,
Kelly:p
Click to expand...
If the Novus Ordo replaced the Mass for all time it’s not a stretch to believe the NO will see a reversal.

The Latin Mass was holy and all felt the ambiance of Heaven. The Consecration along with delicate bells excited all of us of Christ’s Presence in our midst.

[Edited by Moderator]

I go to the NO because it is still valid albeit fragmented. My personal focus is the moment Jesus arrives to feed us with the Bread of Eternal Life, which, of course, is He in Person.

The Latin Mass glorified God and instilled in Catholics our closeness and the awe of God; it was a real consciousness. I truly, truly believe the Latin Mass will return and the Novus Ordo will be a nothing more than a blip remembered by some but forgotten by most.

The Mass was tampered with by Modernists whose motives are known to God. The Novus Ordo will NOT be the Mass being said as Christ descends from Heaven to mete out His j:) ustice. He will be hearing Latin and He will be pleased.
 
littlemamaof5 said:
It will never go back to the Latin Mass that was over 35 years ago, but it could mean that the NO Mass will use more Latin and return to the way that the Vatican 2 council intended it to be. The role of the laity is key to this change.
Click to expand...
But the TLM is what Vatican 2 intended. In fact it was said before every session. If they wanted a new Mass don’t you think they would have hired some salesmen to demonstrate their stuff?

I’ll agree, though, that the laity will be the key.
 
Johnn and Bob I respectfully disagree with you on the Mass. Our Holy Father changed this Mass for the people and it was right to do this if he so felt called by God to do this! I disagree that the NO Mass won’t be said when Christ comes. Do you know when he’s coming? The NO Mass is Holy and reverent when it is done by a Holy and Reverent priest and I’ve seen it done many, many times. You don’t know this unless you’ve been to a NO Mass done this way. We used to have a Holy priest from another country and he always said the Eucharistic prayers in Latin and it was reverent and beautiful. Again I think this is a pride issue and you need to look into your hearts. Our Holy Catholic Church has EVERY RIGHT TO CHANGE THE WAY THE MASS IS SAID! With all due respect I do disagree with you. Our area doesn’t have any bad things going on that are worth not going to mass over, and I’m sorry to say but a lot of people left the church and left our Pope and left our Jesus in the Eucharist because they weren’t getting their way about the way things are said and prayed in the Mass. This is wrong and I’ve got the courage to say it out loud! Wake up Catholics we don’t know when Jesus is coming and the NO mass is pleasing to God, we have NO RIGHT to judge weather or not a Mass is pleasing, we are playing God if we try and do this.
God Bless,
Kelly:)
 
This thread is straying into a banned topic (comparing the TLM with the NO), folks. Please return to the OP’s topic. Thank you.
 
paramedicgirl said:
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?
Click to expand...
While I personally participate in the sign of peace at my parish, I think you have made some good points. The editor of *This Rock *also recently addressed this topic in a recent issue, and I believe she echoed similar concerns. It was challenging for me to grasp the objection at first, but I think this does represent a legitimate concern for the faithful. It draws our attention away from what we really should be focused upon.
 
littlemamaof5 said:
Johnn do you believe that there are wholesale changes being made today and that there is hope? We live in the Denver Archdiocese and I believe our seminary is going to produce awesome holy priest. Our Archbishop is one of the best in the US for orthodoxy. He’s said before that you win more fly’s over with honey than with vinegar. It will never go back to the Latin Mass that was over 35 years ago, but it could mean that the NO Mass will use more Latin and return to the way that the Vatican 2 council intended it to be. The role of the laity is key to this change.
God Bless,
Kelly:p
Click to expand...
So I gather your Archbishop is not going to be receptive to the MP if it does come about. In other words–he is going to be anti Pope Benedict. That says alot about his orthodoxy.
 
I’ve wondered the very same thing as the original poster. I have entered the church only in the last year, but have studied it for a number of years prior. Yet, I was born after Vatican II and have no experience with pre-Vatican II 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.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Church very often adapts to the times. I’m not talking about moral teaching adapting to secular morality, but practices adapting to meet the needs of the Catholic communities.

For example, there was at one time a problem in certain parts of Europe where some of the faithful would find discrepancies in the times that the Eucharist was offered. They believed that there was no such thing as too much of a good thing and that the more of Christ’s body and blood one could partake of every day - the better! Eventually the Church adapted and said that unless one were a priest, they shall only partake of the Eucharist once per Mass (and that included Vigil Masses as well). There was a more spiritual and philosophical reasoning behind this, but a practical one as well (for one, in cities like Paris, priests became annoyed at the suddenly long lines for the Eucharist, with people who had not celebrated the entire Mass).

I guess my question is: is it really so terrible to have the priest turn and face the faithful during the celebration of Mass? Aren’t communion assistants really a response to the shortage of priests and deacons in some areas? Does it make the Eucharist less holy if they are women?

Part of me understands though. Hey, I’m a Cubs fan who still hates the fact that Wrigley has lights 😉 .

As for Vatican II itself, I’m sure Pope John XXIII had good reason to call the council.
 
COLOR=“Red”] FROM KELLY ; I do take issue with this one though. I feel that the alter servers should be only male. The reason? My husband was an altar server and he wanted to be a priest when he was with the priest on the altar and he went to the seminary for a year until he realized he didn’t have the calling for this life. Also our former parish they had a pool party for the altar servers and it was for the girls and the boys to go swim together. I thought this was a really bad idea because now when the girls and boys are serving on the atlar the boys may remember what the girls looked like in their swim suits! Also I’ve heard from several Mom’s of boys that serve, that the boys don’t like to serve with girls because the girls are bossy and they don’t like that. I have all girls and I won’t let them serve as altar servers because I feel it should be just boys up there. It is a step to the priesthood and girls cannot be priest!:o

You and I could get on so well only for this! Children in my young sons school go swimming together so the whole class will remember not only the girls but the boys on the altar in their swimwear. I’ve also been swimming with two priests on a pilgrimage to Rome and they said Mass the next day and for the rest of the week. I don’t know if it’s different in your part of the world but here, children only serve as altar servers up to 11. Perhaps little boys are more precocious than I would give them credit for. Do the girls remember the boys in their swimwear? I have to agree with you that girls can be bossy. However, I don’t know that it’s fair to ban someone from being an altar server because they are bossy and the boys don’t like it. To me that kind of reinforces the idea that women should be subservient to men. Altar servers only serve here for two years as well so I don’t see it as being a step to the priesthood. Women are also ministers of the Eucharist here, I don’'t know if they are in your part of the world so why not altar servers? Many things seem different in your part of the world. Children who have not been confirmed here must receive the Eucharist on their tounge and not in the hand. There is nowhere in Ireland I know of where you can hear a Mass in Latin. I’ve just discovered this is a banned topic but I’ve never heard of NO Mass or the other one. At Christmas, O Come All Ye Faithful is traditionally sang in Latin. On St Patricks day parts of the Mass are said in Irish and in the South the Our Father is always said in Irish at some Masses. People in this part of the world are more ardent in keeping Irish in the Mass than Latin. We also have a Parish Folk Group who play at the Saturday night vigil. They don’t sing Folk songs they sing the Gloria in a traditional Irish way and it’s lovely. It’s not cheesy or irreverend at all. I have also never heard anything other than Catholic hymns sang at Mass, with the exception perhaps of a soloist at a wedding but the song usually has a spiritual theme. I don’t know what anyone else here thinks of all this?
 
I returned to the Catholic Church after a very long absence. In fact, I drifted away pre-Vatican II. So when I came back, the changes were dramatic. Let me give my two cents here. Firstly, I was happy about the sign of peace (which happens in my parish after the Our Father). It was astounding to me to see people wishing peace to each other instead of big city indifference (“Peace be with you” as compared to “Out of my way, jerk”.) I loved seeing altar girls, …adorable! I don’t mind communion in the hand at all. I do miss some of the Latin, but I think a portion of it will come back and some of our songs are in Latin. As a member of the choir, I was a little surprised at “Shall We Gather At the River” and “Ride On, King Jesus”; but it was all good. I still wear something on my head in church, even if it’s a small headband and my hair is long. I have never done a face-to-face confession and I don’t think I ever could. I miss some of the formality and am looking forward to the inevitable modifications in our ever-changing Church, whose essence remains unchanged.
 
Vaclav said:
Part of me understands though. Hey, I’m a Cubs fan who still hates the fact that Wrigley has lights 😉
Click to expand...
I hear you but in Chicago there are Sox fans who go to the TLM too. 🙂
As for Vatican II itself, I’m sure Pope John XXIII had good reason to call the council.
Click to expand...
While at the library today, I picked up this interesting book, *Keepers of the Keys *by Wilton Wynn. It contrasts Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II. Fascinating so far and a suggested read. Did you know that talk of the council had been in the works for some time before 1962? However, when John XXIII called it, he had his agenda but when the Fathers showed up, they brought in their own. I’ll report more when I read more.
 
Yes, in my part of the world the sign of peace comes after the Our Father. I do think it is possible for the Church to adapt to change and maintain it’s essence but yes it is a challenge. Did Our Lord not say ‘he who is given much will be asked much in return?’ No one said that being Catholic would be easy. I believe the Church is there to guide and nuture the faith of the people. If people are being ailienated from the Church is it not right the Church should address this? To say well they shouldn’t feel ailienated isn’t really very helpful. I have always done face to face confession because I only came into the Church four years ago and that’s how it’s done now so I’ve never done anything else. Besides, I usually confess to my own Parish Priest who will know who I am so why hide? I would like to say though, that I have never been one for radical change, I believe it has to evolve because radical change causes rancour and uneccessary upheaval. Perhaps this is the difficulty with Vatican II. Not wrong just Too much too soon. Just an observation.
 
Jennifer_G said:
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.
Click to expand...
I realize you are talking about a Lutheran communion service but I have heard this from Catholics too—this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! What a lack of faith! How can the Real Presence be anything but perfect? Jesus HEALED disease not caused it! Has anyone ever gotten ill from taking the Eucharist? where is the faith? This is not like sharing a bite of your burger and a sip of your coke! I am flabbergasted when I hear this excuse for lack of faith.
Ravyn:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top