What do people have against Vatican II Council?

  • Thread starter Thread starter minkymurph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Reply With Quote

Hello Walking Home I was just wondering what is MP? My Archbishop is awesome! Please don’t say negative thing about someone if you don’t know. I love Archbishop Chaput and I know him personally. He loves Benedict and JP2 and he is loyal to our Holy Father in Rome Pope Benedict. I’m not sure where you got this idea from. I said nothing of this sort in my previous email. Please go back and reread the post. He is orthodox and I should know he’s my shepherd!
Kelly:eek:
 
Please stick to the OP’s original topic or I will have to close the thread. Thank you.
 
minkymurph said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was born in 1962 and converted in 2002. The parish I attend now is a reasonable mixture I think. I miss the crucifix in the sanctuary, but we have a stained glass window over the altar of it. I have never used altar rails, but I think I would not find them too odd. we have kneelers at the seats/pews. I have received Communion both in the hand and on the tongue. I feel when I receive it on my tongue that I am being more vulnerable somehow and if I am in that particular state of mind it just comes naturally. I wear a short veil attached to a head band that I made, and I am the only one besides one woman in the choir who wears a hat. I do that because I grew up wearing a head covering for the wrong reasons and now I just don’t feel right not doing it for the right reasons. I do it to honor My Lord. I have made a Consecration to Mary and when I can I wear a small ankle chain to show that also. I have watched the Mass done facing away from the audience and in Latin and it is beautiful but I feel detached from it. We occasionally do the Sanctus and Agnus Dei and sometimes other things in Latin, but I am distracted when we do because I am too busy trying to do it right. I prefer to be able to understand the Mass. We do the sign of peace after the Our Father also–when is it supposed to be done? I have never seen it get out of hand, usually people just greet those close by and maybe nod to others. I do find the hand holding during the Our Father awkward–but only because I have arthritic fingers and they hurt before we are done especially when raised higher for the last bit. I have been to Confession both face-to-face and free-form, and with the priest with his back to me and a screen between us and I was kneeling and used the standard ‘Bless me Father for I have Sinned’ and the prayer aftwerward. There are advantages to both I think. Face-to-face it is more of a counseling session, more personally tailored to fit the person. But I understand the sacredness of confidentiality too and as my priest explained to me, he does not ‘know’ who we are unless we remind him afterwards of the conversation–he said it is a gift God allows him, and it encourages me to use Reconciliation for what it is meant to be—and if I need to talk to him later on about other things I make a separate appointment just to talk. It can easily lose the sacredness of the rite in today’s self-help society if it is allowed to be too personal I think.
I think altar girls is a good thing, Children should be ‘genderless’ up to a certain age when it comes to participating in holy things-IMO.
So I walk a little of both trads I guess. There are some things I will not compromise on and others I do see as an improvment.

So are these changes Vatican II did? or is this something else?
I am not sure I know the difference. (I apologize to mod if I am talking about something different than OP—I am confused about what changes VatII brought about?)
Ravyn
 
littlemamaof5 said:
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.
Reply With Quote

Hello Walking Home I was just wondering what is MP? My Archbishop is awesome! Please don’t say negative thing about someone if you don’t know. I love Archbishop Chaput and I know him personally. He loves Benedict and JP2 and he is loyal to our Holy Father in Rome Pope Benedict. I’m not sure where you got this idea from. I said nothing of this sort in my previous email. Please go back and reread the post. He is orthodox and I should know he’s my shepherd!
Kelly:eek:
Click to expand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemamaof5
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
MP–stands for Muto Propio. It is a form of statement (someone may have a better way of stating what a muto propio is ) our Pope is apparently going to issue —allowing freedom for the TLM.

Now—from your own statements—you imply that your Archbishop will never go back to the Latin Mass that was over 35 yrs ago.

If the Pope says “Yes” to the TLM and your Archbishop says “No”—that would imply that he is anti Pope Benedict. So please don’t point the finger at me----it was your own words that did it.
 
Ceil-1 said:
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.

I agree with Minky for the most part, as well. I haven’t been over in this area of the forum in a long time but this caught my eye. From what I’ve learned over these last few years, it does appear Vatican II caused things to go too far the other way. This has hurt many people, sadly, especially those who remember pre-vatican II. I really do understand where they are coming from.

But it seems the ones who are screaming about the changes the most are converts from the evangelical Protestant side. Many of them didn’t even live through the old ways and have no clue what it was like, good or bad. I’ve had a few priests tell me that the young ones that are coming up the ranks are more conservative. It’s interesting how the pendulum swings.

I want to remind everyone that many welcomed the changes in the Church with open arms, who are of the age to remember the change. I have a dear friend who recently came back to the church after years of being MIA and when I asked him what he thought of all this debate, he simply replied, “anyone who wants to go back to those horrible rigid days are nuts”. He was a pre-vatican II child and has terrible memories of incredibly mean nuns and a God that was very cold. 🤷 since he came back he has become very spiritual, he is a pilot and away from his family a great deal. But now he never misses Mass. He will go while out of the state. He carries a rosary and prays the rosary. He loves that his daughters are altar servers.

I don’t know that anyone has anything against Vatican II Council. I think people do have something against change though and this change was far too fast and not properly implemented. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
 
anamchara said:
I want to remind everyone that many welcomed the changes in the Church with open arms, who are of the age to remember the change.
Click to expand...
Many people opened the Protestant Revolt with open arms, too. You can’t judge something like this by its popularity.
I have a dear friend who recently came back to the church after years of being MIA and when I asked him what he thought of all this debate, he simply replied, “anyone who wants to go back to those horrible rigid days are nuts”. He was a pre-vatican II child and has terrible memories of incredibly mean nuns and a God that was very cold. 🤷 since he came back he has become very spiritual, he is a pilot and away from his family a great deal. But now he never misses Mass. He will go while out of the state. He carries a rosary and prays the rosary. He loves that his daughters are altar servers.
Click to expand...
Things before Vatican II weren’t perfect. I don’t think anyone is claiming that they were. As I stated in THIS ARTICLE, modernism had taken root in the Church. It was certainly time to get rid of some of the corruptions. However, you never get rid of problems by making the rules laxer.
 
V2 was great, except for the crazy music it authorized during Mass.
 
PauloFreire2 said:
V2 was great, except for the crazy music it authorized during Mass.
Click to expand...
See, that is one HUGE misunderstanding people have. The Council never authorized that.

In fact, it specifically said that Gregorian Chant should have ‘pride of place’ ( the offical Latin of the document translates more as “First Place” or “Principal Place”)

So much wierd stuff was done in the name of “Vatican II” that just isn’t in the documents.
 
AquinaSavio said:
Many people opened the Protestant Revolt with open arms, too. You can’t judge something like this by its popularity.

Settle down there young one 😉 😛 I was simply giving the other side a voice my friend. I wasn’t judging by popularity. Just felt it needed to be said.
Things before Vatican II weren’t perfect. I don’t think anyone is claiming that they were. As I stated in THIS ARTICLE
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
anamchara said:
I want to remind everyone that many welcomed the changes in the Church with open arms, who are of the age to remember the change. I have a dear friend who recently came back to the church after years of being MIA and when I asked him what he thought of all this debate, he simply replied, “anyone who wants to go back to those horrible rigid days are nuts”. He was a pre-vatican II child and has terrible memories of incredibly mean nuns and a God that was very cold. 🤷 since he came back he has become very spiritual, he is a pilot and away from his family a great deal. But now he never misses Mass. He will go while out of the state. He carries a rosary and prays the rosary. He loves that his daughters are altar servers.
Click to expand...
I didn’t see it that way at all. The “open arms” I saw were staying away from Church in droves. But I’ll be honest with you and tell you I don’t think it was the liturgical changes as much as perhaps their disappointment with the fact the Vatican would not permit the pill for birth control. After all it was just an extension of the rhythm method, right? Wrong. But it still was the real sticky issue back then. It was making headlines while the Vatican was debating it.

I always am suspicious of those people who claim God was cold back then. God is God. I think it was more that we were God-fearing, a term I haven’t heard in decades. Makes a big difference in our relationship with Him.

Going back to the Mass, it was changing Sunday after Sunday after the start of Vatican II in 1963 and maybe before that in many places. Perhaps that was what your friend was referring to as far as the horrible days. Yes, I agree. Things were really getting out of hand in that transitional period between 1963 and 1970. Actually it was the Novus Ordo in 1970, whether it was the best thing in itself or not, that finally provided some stability to the Church. As did the TLM for 1600 years before 1963. And that’s where we are today. Two stable liturgical forms.

As far as the nuns go, we’ll leave that to a future discussion.🙂
 
Brendan said:
So much wierd stuff was done in the name of “Vatican II” that just isn’t in the documents.
Click to expand...
See another example of things going way to far over the top. I don’t think people understand middle ground.
 
anamchara said:
Settle down there young one 😉 😛 I was simply giving the other side a voice my friend. I wasn’t judging by popularity. Just felt it needed to be said.
Click to expand...
I’m not mad! I enjoy having nice, friendly conversations! 😃 👍
The OP was asking “what do people have against Vatican II Council”? I tired to answer the best I could. Personally I think it’s far too complex for anyone to really answer unless you have a Phd in theology with a minor in history AND sociology. Ok maybe cannon law thrown in as well.
Click to expand...
I don’t jump on band wagons about “modernism” in the Church. I understand you are concerned, we should be watchful but not over the top. I think that’s the problem with much of this stuff, people going way too far over the top. 😉
Click to expand...
I try not to become too radical on any issue. However, modernism has been condemned by the Church. These new philosophies are so harmful to the Church.
 
BobP123 said:
I didn’t see it that way at all. The “open arms” I saw were staying away from Church in droves. But I’ll be honest with you and tell you I don’t think it was the liturgical changes as much as perhaps their disappointment with the fact the Vatican would not permit the pill for birth control. After all it was just an extension of the rhythm method, right? Wrong. But it still was the real sticky issue back then. It was making headlines while the Vatican was debating it.

Interesting, I don’t remember much about this. I was a 1960s child as well but not Catholic. I bet it was a major sticking point.
I always am suspicious of those people who claim God was cold back then. God is God. I think it was more that we were God-fearing, a term I haven’t heard in decades. Makes a big difference in our relationship with Him.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
AquinaSavio said:
I’m not mad! I enjoy having nice, friendly conversations! 😃 👍

I try not to become too radical on any issue. However, modernism has been condemned by the Church. These new philosophies are so harmful to the Church.
Click to expand...
I know you weren’t mad 🙂 I was just teasing you silly. :hug1:
 
Ravyn_Guiliani said:
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:
Click to expand...
Karl Keating did an interesting piece last year where he discussed the fact that people have indeed become sick from the chalice. Unless I am ill, I always partake from both the body and the blood. It’s important to understand the Platonic distinction between accidents vs substance. That is, the accident, appearance, or characteristics remain like that of wine. It tastes and behaves like wine. The underlying substance, however, is changed to the sacred blood of Christ.
 
Please stay on topic. If you wish to discuss other issues raised in this thread, please start new threads for that. Thank you.
 
**What do people have against Vatican II Council?

It has drained, strained n stained the historic teaching of the Catholic Church.
It implies that Tradition is no longer what “is handed down undiluted”, but a morphology of thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis.

It’s fruits have been confusion, loss of the Catholic members and clergy. A Council that* anti-grows* the Church may be a prophetic event, but then so was Judas.

**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top