What do people have against Vatican II Council?

[Walking_Home]

The following is a homily by Paul VI. :
Maybe someone can do a better translation.
The best I can translate is:

Referring to the situation of the Church…
The Holy Father affirms…
from a fissure has entered the smoke of Satan …

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/homilies/1972/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19720629_it.html

SOLLECITUDINI ED AFFETTO PER I DEBOLI E I DISORIENTATI

Riferendosi alla situazione della Chiesa di oggi, il Santo Padre afferma di avere la sensazione che «da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio». C’è il dubbio, l’incertezza, la problematica, l’inquietudine, l’insoddisfazione, il confronto. Non ci si fida più della Chiesa; ci si fida del primo profeta profano che viene a parlarci da qualche giornale o da qualche moto sociale per rincorrerlo e chiedere a lui se ha la formula della vera vita. E non avvertiamo di esserne invece già noi padroni e maestri. È entrato il dubbio nelle nostre coscienze, ed è entrato per finestre che invece dovevano essere aperte alla luce. Dalla scienza, che è fatta per darci delle verità che non distaccano da Dio ma ce lo fanno cercare ancora di più e celebrare con maggiore intensità, è venuta invece la critica, è venuto il dubbio. Gli scienziati sono coloro che più pensosamente e più dolorosamente curvano la fronte. E finiscono per insegnare: «Non so, non sappiamo, non possiamo sapere». La scuola diventa palestra di confusione e di contraddizioni talvolta assurde. Si celebra il progresso per poterlo poi demolire con le rivoluzioni più strane e più radicali, per negare tutto ciò che si è conquistato, per ritornare primitivi dopo aver tanto esaltato i progressi del mondo moderno.

 

[anamchara]

That’s odd, I wonder why you can’t read it in English. The site usually has both.

I don’t doubt Satan has tried, we’d be naive if we didn’t think the devil has influenced a few. But I fully believe Vatican II was lead by the Holy Spirit.

That’s all I can add folks

 

[minkymurph]

I think perhaps some of what I said may have been misunderstood. I was not suggesting the gates of hell are prevailing against the Church. My point was, I don’t see how they can because Our Lord said they would not. Therefore, whatever happens in the Church, whatever difficulties it faces, whatever changes are made it cannot fall away and I got the impression, rightly or wrongly, that some other people think that Vatican II some sort of Satanic infiltration. It’s just an impression I get and I’m happy to say I’ve got the wrong impression if that is not the case. Just on another point, I was raised in the Jehovah’s witnesses I was not raised Protestant. I know of people in other countries who have been raised JW and become Catholic but I’m the only one in existence in Northern Ireland that I know of. Probably because in our part of the world JW’s are kind of seen as Protestant by others because most are converts from Protestant faiths and any who I know have defected it’s to a Protestant faith.

 

[Miserere_Mei]

Check this out to understand the bigger view of the Crisis in the church

destroyfreemasonry.com

 

[anthony022071]

The modernists, who ran the show at V2, hate Aquinas. The above statement is very far from reality.

Vatican 2 was not intended to be about modernist reforms,but it was hijacked,to an extent,by modernists and was misrepresented and misinterpreted by them. But they did not entirely run the show.
The documents of Vatican 2 were influenced by the theologians of the “ressourcement” movement (1930-1950) who were involved in a return to the sources of the faith,the patristic-mediaeval sources and Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

What I have against Vatican II is that there is not one document that forbids the Green Bay Packers from hiring Ted Thompson as general manager.

 

[paramedicgirl]

What I have against Vatican II is that there is not one document that forbids the Green Bay Packers from hiring Ted Thompson as general manager.

Not to get off track, but I noticed your new signature is NOT in green and gold.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Not to get off track, but I noticed your new signature is NOT in green and gold.

I kept the part of my sig that you like in green.

 

[Ann_Nonymous]

From my perspective, I believe I can draw many parallels between the changes made in the liturgy and the unravelling of my own family’s Catholic center and many families I know, as well as with the unravelling of our society as a whole. Would you disagree that there used to be a level of reverence that has declined since the changes have been made? How comforting it was years ago to know that one could walk into any Mass, anywhere and rest assured that it would be the exact same Mass as everywhere else. All Catholics worshipping in the exact same form. I am disheartened by the changes that seem to stem from the need to make people “feel more comfortable” or more part of the Mass. I think if I wasn’t feeling part of the Mass as it was, it was something in me that was lacking, not the Mass. It seems that we are ever more quick to be concerned with making people feel a certain way. The Catholic Church is the one true church. We know this and yet we seem to feel compelled to change it. Why? I really am so much less concerned with how I feel about my participation at Mass than how our Lord feels about my participation at Mass. I find that if I am prepared and fully aware of my purpose at Mass, I can’t help but feel overwhelmed with joy and gratitude for the single-most loving and awesome gift in history, His sacrifice, that I might have eternal life.

 

[minkymurph]

There is no doubt that reverence for God has declined. I don’t know that Vatican II is responsible for that but I can understand why others have the view that reverence is not emphasized in the way it was in the past. I think it is the spirit of the modern world and is something that would have happened anyway. It’s the world we live in. There is little respect for anything now and it is very sad.

 

[Ann_Nonymous]

I didn’t mean to suggest that Vatican II had a direct influence in what has been happening in the world, rather that, since Vatican II, the liturgy seems to have moved in the direction of the culture’s more “touchy feely, I’m okay-you’re okay, let’s all be tolerant of every little (and big) thing, politically correct” tone. What I mean to say is that the Mass was once so solemn and beautiful and awe-inspiring to me and now it seems more worldly and commonplace. I was raised to believe it was my right and duty to assist at the Sacrifice of Mass every Sunday and Holy Day and at every possible time. I don’t think we’ve gained much by moving toward making people feel more comfortable and included. Inclusion is inherent in that Jesus Christ died so that All of our sins might be forgiven and All are welcome to come and assist. I don’t need an engraved invitation. Comfort is taken in the knowledge that Jesus Christ loved us so much that he laid down his life for us so that we might spend eternity in Heaven. God made me to know Him, SERVE HIM, and love him and be happy with him in the next life. I assist at Mass that I might serve him, not that he may serve me. [Edited by Moderator]

 

[lentang2]

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?

Maybe for you, but why are you assuming everyone loses their focus on the Creator? For me, I simply see Christ in EVERYONE during the Sign of Peace - just wish I could maintain the vision for the rest of the day!

 

[Walking_Home]

Maybe for you, but why are you assuming everyone loses their focus on the Creator? For me, I simply see Christ in EVERYONE during the Sign of Peace - just wish I could maintain the vision for the rest of the day!

---

You’ve gone horizontal.

 

[BobP123]

Maybe for you, but why are you assuming everyone loses their focus on the Creator? For me, I simply see Christ in EVERYONE during the Sign of Peace - just wish I could maintain the vision for the rest of the day!

It seems some of you so heavily involved in your own spiritualities would probably find wisdom in smoking cigarettes if your bishop were to “approve” it for everyone.

 

[Joysong]

Paramedicgirl:

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 Rite of Peace

1. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

The rite is explained in GIRM, and I trust many of you are familiar with the reasons the Church has implemented it. It is untrue to proclaim to others that the rite therefore, is “horizontal” or that it removes focus from Jesus.

I view it as the scripture teaches, “Go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then offer your sacrifice.” Mt. 5:24 It is a good reminder that the “communion” about to be received is more than just unity with Christ, but also with the Christ who indwells our neighbor - ONE bread, ONE mystical Body.

 

[Walking_Home]

The rite is explained in GIRM, and I trust many of you are familiar with the reasons the Church has implemented it. It is untrue to proclaim to others that the rite therefore, is “horizontal” or that it removes focus from Jesus.

I view it as the scripture teaches, “Go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then offer your sacrifice.” Mt. 5:24 It is a good reminder that the “communion” about to be received is more than just unity with Christ, but also with the Christ who indwells our neighbor - ONE bread, ONE mystical Body.

---

There is no greater communion–than communion with Christ–and thru Christ to the community. Everything derives from that one communion. Without this communion with Christ—there is no community.

 

[Flos_Campi]

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:

I agree with you Palmas,
I am uncomfortable with the sign of peace at Mass, but people think I am just being odd if I refuse to do it. Also I take the Host on my tongue, not by hand, as it is considered an abuse if taken by hand thereby defiling it.
We should be concentrating more on the presence of Our Lord ! not turning away from the Holy Altar.
.

 

[Brendan]

I view it as the scripture teaches, “Go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then offer your sacrifice.” Mt. 5:24 It is a good reminder that the “communion” about to be received is more than just unity with Christ, but also with the Christ who indwells our neighbor - ONE bread, ONE mystical Body.

Joysong,

If you view the Kiss of Peace as fulfilling Mt.5, then you would be in error.

That command is fulfilled by the Penitential Rite “I confess to Almightly God, and to you my brothers and sisters…”

Redemptionis Sacramentum

[71.] The practice of the Roman Rite is to be maintained according to which the peace is extended shortly before Holy Communion. For according to the tradition of the Roman Rite, this practice does not have the connotation either of reconciliation or of a remission of sins, but instead signifies peace, communion and charity before the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist. It is rather the Penitential Act to be carried out at the beginning of Mass (especially in its first form) which has the character of reconciliation among brothers and sisters.

The Kiss of Peace cannot fulfil this command for two reasons,

First of all, Mt 5 requires the reconcilliation be done BEFORE the Sacrifice is offered, that means it would have to occur before the offertory.

Secondly, we do not extent personal peace to our neighbors, but rather extent a SIGN of the peace of Christ that the priest has already given to all of us. We do not extent our our peace, but signifiy that we have already recieved Christ’s Peace.

 

[Joysong]

Also I take the Host on my tongue, not by hand, as it is considered an abuse if taken by hand thereby defiling it.

Would you please insert “I” consider it an abuse, rather than “it is”? Remember that the Church permits the sacred host to be received in the hand, and “it is” not an abuse.

 

[Joysong]

Hello Brendan,

Did you notice that I said it is something “I” view? The part I wrote: “It is a good reminder that the “communion” about to be received is more than just unity with Christ, but also with the Christ who indwells our neighbor - ONE bread, ONE mystical Body” —

— agrees with R.S. as you wrote: “but instead signifies peace, communion and charity BEFORE the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist.”

It was just in my mind an extension of the penitential rite, for in that part of the Mass, the “I confess” applies only to the one praying it; whereas, at the sign of peace, we affirm it by extending it to our neighbor.

I pray we will not quibble about another person being in “error” for expressing a personal opinion?