Why are some people so against Vatican 2?

[undead_rat]

Vatican II says that the Plan of Salvation includes the muslims, and that Catholics and muslims worship the same God. Many Catholics have a problem with those ideas.

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

I can agree on the Muslims part. I wish 841 was not mentioned. The Church could be silent on this and treat Islam like the other religions.

841 is difficult to defend and it is unnecessary.

 

[JimG]

Pre Vatican II priests did not accompany women to see their doctors. That’s just nonsense. And yes, Catholics were allowed to marry non-Catholics. My Catholic mother married my then non-Catholic father in the 1930’s.

 

[Reuben_J]

Just a thought, but I think JohnX111 was misinterpreted. who knows the reason why things are the way they are in society? Maybe it started with protesters of the Vietnam war? But John X111 was trying to bring more people into the Catholic church, in ways that were not in contradiction with the gospel.

I believe St. John XXIII was Spirit led and the ensuing Vatican II was the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church to equip her to deal with the sign of time that was to come in the sixties onward. The Holy Spirit was to be allowed free play in the Church to empower her against the tide of the growing Godlessness.

 

[JimG]

So, when do we start fighting back instead of caving in?

 

[gracepoole]

What exactly does “fighting back” look like?

 

[Augustinian]

My Catholic mother married my then non-Catholic father in the 1930’s.

President Reagan’s mum was Protestant and his dad was Catholic and he was born in 1911.

 

[Augustinian]

Next, do you know what is involved in a pelvic exam? No priest is going to be in the room for that one!!

Back before V2, non-medical men were considered too sensitive to be in the room during childbirth. My father, like the vast majority of men, was in a cocktail lounge while I was being born.

If it was considered too much for a married man, I can’t imagine a single man, a priest, being in the same building if he could help it.

 

[phil19034]

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.

Unless they are SSPX or worse, they are usually talking about the so called “Spirit of Vatican II” where things were done by confused clergy & laity (often lead by dissents) that was never called for by Vatican II.

For example: ripping out Altar Rails in Churches. Vatican II (nor official Church docs) never said to do that. But some people claimed Vatican II justifies the removal.

Another example is how a number of nuns and priests left the priesthood & religious life to get married because Vatican II some how told them to do that.

How a number of female religious orders (or individual convents) claim Vatican II instructed them to lose their habits.

How some Catholics used to claim that Vatican II put an end to the rosary, and other devotions.

it’s not really Vatican II that people complain about, but rather how some things were done that should not have been done, claiming to be done in the “spirit of Vatican II,”

Additionally, some of the legitimate changes could have been implemented better in hindsight.

God Bless

 

[Reuben_J]

Trent’s text is not easy to understand either with all the double negatives in a sentence. Until today many of us are still arguing, especially against Protestants, about what some of Trent’s text really mean. Only five, six hundred years ago not many people were reading which is probably the same as today but then mistakes like that would not become viral and less people knew about them.

The more truthful reason is changes - people cannot accept them. Some like it in the hand and some on the tongue; some like Latin and some like it spoken native, some Gregory and some guitar, some piano and some organ, etc, etc.

We are not sufficiently dying to the self thus obeying the Church is difficult. The rest are just excuses.

 

[Reuben_J]

The reality is that the council paved the way for the apostasy we see taking place in the Church today.

This is far from the truth. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al, were all yesterday men.

 

[DignumEtJustum]

Of course it includes them; the apparitions in Portugal witnessed by thousands of Catholics and non-Catholics alike occurred in a village called Fatima! Mary is also the only woman mentioned by name in the Koran and Islamics have been known to venerate her. This is a fairly orthodox perspective I think.

 

[Reuben_J]

I would not be blaming semantic on the text to blame Vatican II. If people are sincere enough, there should not be mistakes. Abuses are not mistakes but deliberate acts.

 

[undead_rat]

TY. I myself like Vatican II, especially for its inclusiveness of other religions. But I have noticed on CAF some reluctance to accept these principles, especially the idea that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.

 

[phil19034]

You never hear about the “Spirit of Trent” Or the “Spirit of Vatican I”.

Many councils (if not all) have had their own implementation issues.

Some resulted in schism afterwards (namely Ephesus, Chalcedon, & Vatican I). Others like Trent and Florence failed reunite everyone like they were supposed to.

 

[phil19034]

I believe the main issue with Vatican II was the media.

This was the first Council with the modern media. Priests and nuns were finding out about things and implementing changes before the bishops even started writing implementation documents.

The Bishops in the West were frankly ill prepared to deal with the confusion the media caused by reporting half-truths, incomplete information, and speculation.

Add the media to the dissent bishops & other leaders - boom!

This is why Pope John Paul II and Benedict understood that the media narrative needed to be controlled by the Church.

The media firestorm during Vatican II has been similar under Pope Francis. When the Church fails to control the media narrative, the media writes speculation and their own opinions/interpretations

 

[Mi_Rose]

No but a nurse had to be in the room when a gynecologist gave an exam. A nurse not a priest.

 

[gcshapero]

I’m pretty traditional, but Vatican II was not bad. However, it did open the door to a lot of bad that was already happening and when it happened, the walls came a-tumblin’ down.

Vatican II was never promoting the removal of traditions. It rather allowed an ability for lay people to participate in important matters like catechesis for instance.

Archbishop Athenasius Schneider has proposed a Syllabus of Errors for Vatican II to clear up the misunderstandings.

Two sides:
Side 1) Modernists using Vatican II to promote modernism and reject orthodoxy. This especially comes from the Baby Boomer generation since this is something many of them are proud of. This was their contribution to the Church and for them, it means bringing the community together and a tool for evangelism.

Side 2) Radical Traditionalists rejecting Vatican II because they also agree with the modernists that this is what it was all about (when it wasn’t). They throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m pretty traditional, but Vatican II was not bad. However, it did open the door to a lot of bad that was already happening and when it happened, the walls came a-tumblin’ down.

^I agree with this, generally.

I do think that the restrictions after Vatican II on the use of the Latin Mass turned a lot of people off. I understand why this was done - obviously if you want everybody to get on board with the new Mass, you may need to take the old version “off the market” for a while - but it made traditionalists feel like they didn’t have any say or any control in what was happening to their Church, and that a bunch of crazy permissive hippie protesters had taken over.

Having grown up in the 60s and 70s, the Church during that time was very hippie, very social justice. I’ve said this before, but if you weren’t into expressing your faith through social justice, and instead you wanted to pray and do devotions, you were made to feel like you were doing it wrong, or there wasn’t a place for you at the table.

I honestly feel much more welcome in the Church today than I did in the 80s partly for that reason. If I want to pray a lot and read spiritual books and live my faith that way, while still keeping an eye out for the occasional opportunity to help people that I can do, today that’s okay, that’s accepted. I can even go out to public Rosary Rallies and TLMs and stuff like that. No one is acting like I have to be living and working in an impoverished community, or moving to El Salvador or whatever the equivalent country today is, and getting shot at.

 

[JimG]

What exactly does “fighting back” look like?

I’m not sure. I was responding to Reuben who said this: “Vatican II was the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church to equip her to deal with the sign of time that was to come in the sixties onward. The Holy Spirit was to be allowed free play in the Church to empower her against the tide of the growing Godlessness.”

And that very well may be true. But if the Holy Spirit is working to counter the spirit of Godlessness, the battle does not seem to be going well. A lot of Catholics seem to have adopted the tenets of the sexual revolution while dismissing the tenets of the Faith.
On the other hand, there has been a growing counterrevolution. One example might be the growth of enterprises like EWTN and Catholic Answers. I recall that when Mother Angelica first started her network, many bishops were opposed, and started their own official network, CTNA, I believe, which was a dismal failure. So all is not lost. It’s just that I haven’t seen the Church winning many battles against the forces of modernism and the sexual revolution.