Why are some people opposed to Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is gonna get shut down, I can already tell.

They are opposed to Vatican II, because basically did away with the old mass (not completely). Generally, the Pope is supposed to be the keeper and guard of traditions passed down, not the CHANGER of them.

It also came out with some ambiguous statements on doctrines relating to ecumenism, so called religious “freedom,” and salvation outside of the Church. As far as I can tell, those are the issues.
 
Last edited:
Maximilian75 said:
Some (not myself) feel that vatican 2
Click to expand...
Just stating the opinions of others that I have heard in order to help the OP.
I don’t need to provide concrete examples, since they aren’t my opinion. I think V2 was an overall good for the church.

Read the full context of things and don’t completely assume people’s positions on items.
 
Even though the Novus Ordo was actually meant to be said Ad Orientem.
 
My apologies Maximillian. I did not read your post correctly and missed your disclaimer. So often people make comments such as the 3 you mentioned but never go into examples. Again my apologies.
 
I was responding directly to the OP.

Again, please just start a new thread. It’s an interesting topic.
 
Isn’t the Novus sordo more like the mass the first Christians celebrated than the Latin mass? And I mean, if we’re speaking about tradition, which rite’s? Every rite in Catholicism has had some variation in how the liturgy is celebrated from the very beginning. As for the abuses to the liturgy, that was people who took advantage and misunderstood VII. I honestly think that at the heart of the hate of Vatican II is pride. Especially in, for example, those who abandoned the church to join the SSPX. It’s no different than what Martin Luther did in my opinion, and I may be wrong. He also thought he was holding on to the true faith, he also though he was reforming. I think it’s pride that causes that rebelión and lack of obedience and respect for Holy Mother church.
 
The difference is, trads aren’t just making up their own beliefs. They come from 2000 years of Church tradition.

I do agree, though, that certain “radical trads” like sedevacantists, are like protestants though.
 
for anti v2 people , liturgy is just the tip of the iceberg. They think the Council had adverse effects into ecumenism, the rise of liberation theology, a general ‘liberalization’ of the Church, etc etc
 
Exactly! I mean, the FSSP is traditional and stayed in full communion with the church. They may have problems with certain aspects of VII, but they don’t reject it. I do agree that there needs to be a reform to the abuses, but VII was not evil or heretical like some people I’ve spoken with from the SSPX have said. So yes, people are against it,not because they’re traditional, true traditional people don’t reject the entire counsel. They work for reform without going against the Church. People who reject it, are full on rebeling and proud in my opinion. Their heart may be in the right place, but it’s still not right. Either way, I agree with you!
 
Some feel it is very different…perhaps it’s the Holy Ghost prepping for the time of smart phones and Internet, causing a need for constant gratification and little patience or trying to see deeper into symbolic gestures such as the altar rail and the priest in Persona Christi bringing you God in the Eucharist, with you only having to accept the Gift, etc.

But in general people probably have a bad taste in their mouths because of ABUSES that happened following VII. But abuses are not what VII called for. In fact, the current mass is not the Mass called for in VII
 
If you are going to say things, you better make sure that the are true

If you read this document, you will see in paragraph 91 that you are wrong.

I suggest that all who have issues with VII and the Mass of Paul VI read this. This is the “practical application” of what VII called for on the reform of the liturgy.
 
So the bishops got together created new norms for the mass and went home and implemented them but those same bishops did not do what Vatican II wanted or know what the Vatican II documents said?
 
Last edited:
I’m not denying that it is permitted, but a reading of the rubrics of the Roman Missal will suggest that the priest should be facing God and at times will turn to face the people.
 
I’m confused. The concillium who wrote the document I referenced was doing exactly want VII called them to do. Implimemt new norms for the new Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top