Why are some people so against Vatican 2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MP_Kid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Church attendance has gone down because of mixed marriages. For the longest times Catholics were not able to marry Protestants. I know people who left the church because the Catholic Church would not allow for them to marry a non-catholic in the church. So they left to become Methodist, Lutheran, etc.
 
MP_Kid said:
Women had to have the priest with them when they went to the gynecologist.
Click to expand...
I never heard that. Besides, most women didn’t go to the gynecologist before V2, unless they had a serious problem in that part of the anatomy. GP’s did a lot more medical work in those years, and that’s who most gals would consult. Most babies that were born in the 1950’s were delivered by General Practitioners not ob/gyn- I was in 1956. And most people saw their doctor at home, the Home Visit was the standard of care before Vatican 2.

Although the council didn’t have anything to do with the change in the standard of care, the events just happened at the same time. If we were to return to Latin Mass, MD’s would not start doing home visits again.
 
Again, your friends, God bless them, appear to be a little confused. how do you suppose that in a place like say Philadelphia or NYC, where you might have a parish with 3 priests and 4000 parishioners, 2500 women, 500 of them pregnant at a given time, that those THREE PRIESTS could accompany 500 women to their GYN appointments?

Of course you don’t want to embarrass people but I think you can pretty much take it that THIS particular ‘memory’ is not an accurate one on their part. . .and move on.
 
MP_Kid said:
Church attendance has gone down because of mixed marriages. For the longest times Catholics were not able to marry Protestants.
Click to expand...
Church attendance has declined across the board in the United States, not just Catholic.
 
What @(name removed by moderator) said.

Vatican II isn’t really the issue (as far as I know, although I haven’t studied up on this). What is the issue is folks felt the need to change way more than what Vatican II called for. Vatican II called for a few changes to occur but folks took that to mean change was to come everywhere.

For instance, the Council never said anything about altar rails. But after the Council altar rails disappeared. Crying shame in my opinion.
 
MP_Kid said:
Women had to have the priest with them when they went to the gynecologist.
Click to expand...
Why? What special knowledge does the priest have that would make him anything more than a 3rd wheel at a gyn appointment?
 
“I was there before and after VII.”

Just thought I’d beat you to the punch, @edwest211. 🙂
 
More lies about Vatican II, but why not? To confuse the faithful. That’s why. The radicals and anarchists inside and outside the Church launched a coordinated attack against the Church starting right after the Second Vatican Council ended. I was there before and after Vatican II. No, life was not perfect then but we did not lock our doors at night. Most neighbors were good neighbors. And no, we did not all go to the same Church but we had shared community values. Sure, there were a few bad apples, but we were to avoid such people, not confront. To say hello, and be polite.

When the Hippies and Anarchists came into our neighborhoods, we did not see them for the wolves they were. “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” “We’ll burn this country down if we have to!” The Weather Underground. The Students for a Democratic Society. “Have sex with your girlfriend.” “Smoke dope” and use other dangerous illegal drugs.

NONE of the changes that occurred after Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II. 'Blame it on Vatican II." Make Vatican II the scapegoat. I watched it as it happened. More illegal drugs appeared in our neighborhoods and NOT out of nowhere. Cohabitation and have sex with anyone was preached constantly. In the 1970s, was it an accident that topless bars, strip clubs and Adult Bookstores opened everywhere? NO. 1000 times NO. Who paid for all of it? Who started designing and funding ugly churches? Who made hundreds of books on Eastern mysticism appear in bookstores by colleges? Christ was out. The Church was out. Mom and dad were out. And they moved into our neighborhoods to serve as very bad examples. And if anyone questioned them - anger. “We’re grown adults!!! We’ll live how we want!!!”

Heartbreak for parents as their sons and daughters began a steady decline into sexual perversion, scandal and addiction to the flesh.

That’s the truth.
 
Last edited:
How can one hold negativity toward Vatican II when the documents of the council more or less held up the values and traditions of the Church which were handed down through the generations? It’s the false interpretations of Vatican II I don’t much care for.
 
Last edited:
As DignumEtJustum pointed out, one reason some on the more traditional side look down on Vatican II is because many who would like to see the Church’s teachings and practices change tend to use “Vatican II” or “The Spirit of Vatican II” as a justification for the changes they would like to see, even though Vatican II doesn’t support the things they’re promoting in actuality.

I think that some on the more traditional side overreact and see Vatican II itself as the problem.

It’s a messy discussion, but that is one of the main basic points.
 
Last edited:
MP_Kid said:
I hear a few people complain about Vatican 2. They talk like it is a horrible thing and that it is to blame for problems in society today. Usually those who complain are extremely conservative. I even know a woman who claims that women wearing head coverings is a commandment.

I see have only seen the positive of Vatican 2. A lot of the complaints I hear make no sense.
Click to expand...
The only complaint I have about V II is the gray language. For example paragraph 841 talks about muslims and many of today’s Catholics believe it says that 841 says muslims are saved and they worship the same God Catholics do. Even some priests say this despite the fact it.says no such thing.

Also, EENS has not changed, yet V II’s language is gray and ecumenical and that causes confusion.
 
Last edited:
Altar rails/communion rails are being put back. The statues that were taken down are being replaced. Restorations are occurring. Why? The common answer: “Because of the things that happened in the 1960s.” Pope John Paul II revoked the authority of one dissident within the Church to teach Catholic theology. Pope Benedict continued to right the ship.
 
For one example:
How is that before Vatican II, people were required to take Communion kneeling at the altar rail – let’s say, up until about 1965. Then by 1970-1975, for the most part altar rails were out, and the faithful were literally forbidden to take communion kneeling. There was even a case in Canada where “troublemakers” kept kneeling to take communion, and the priest called the cops and had them arrested. Skoke-Graham v. The Queen - SCC Cases
If someone could explain to me why communion at the altar rail was required in a certain year, (and had been required for many many centuries), then forbidden 5-10 years later, I would love it. I personally think that makes the Church look foolish and fickle.
 
Last edited:
Peebo said:
I never came into the church until 1992…one elderly life long Catholic woman told me Vatican 2 was the best thing that happened…“now you only get Catholic who really want to go to mass”…that’s the way it should be.
Click to expand...
So, why is that good that more Catholics are skipping Mass? In what part of the Vatican II documents does it say that the faithful are no longer required to go to weekly Mass? I’m pretty sure that Vatican II did not teach that at all. I suspect that even today there are a good many Catholics who mainly go to Mass because it’s (still) a mortal sin to miss it.
 
Last edited:
I have one problem with the Second Vatican Council, but it’s a big one: the focus changing from Christ to the people in the pews. A great number of the changes seemed to be for the convenience of the people: use of the vernacular, priest facing the people, optional abstinence on Fridays, cessation of Ember days, communion in the hand, guitar Masses…the list goes on and on. The focus should be squarely and unalterably on Christ; we should be thinking of ourselves and our convenience as little as possible.
 
I was never opposed to Vatican 2. I was, however, disappointed in the deplorable decline of Catholic catechesis in the decades that followed. There was nothing in V2 that madated that future Catholics should be entirely ignorant of the Catholic doctrine that prior generations had learned in third grade from the Baltimore Catechism. Much later I was told by a bishop that his Catholic education at Catholic schools had consisted mainly of making banners and learning songs. That wasn’t the fault of the Council. That was the fault of some misguided diocesan administrators.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top