Why do some people reject Vatican II?

[Kielbasi]

Whoa, there whippersnapper, I am 60, “around during Vatican 2” and maybe have another good 20 to 30 years left. Most who resist V2 do so because of the changes in Mass more than anything else.

The changes in the experience of attending mass were really transformative pre and post V2.

I think they made people uncomfortable, as when the old school Latin masses required no vocal participation from the faithful, the vernacular mass required a lot of vocal reading. A large portion of the population didn’t feel comfortable doing it, or just wasn’t able to do it as my grandparents who didn’t read English.

I personally don’t think it was due to any kind of great theological differences, or even “reverence” which can be had regardless of the language used.

 

[ProVobis]

Most who resist V2 do so because of the changes in Mass more than anything else.

At least the amplified vernacular, especially to the Canon, was the most noticeable change. Hardly anyone noticed that many of the private prayers of the priest were dropped.

 

[ProVobis]

I think they made people uncomfortable, as when the old school Latin masses required no vocal participation from the faithful

It allowed for more contemplative prayer, especially during the parts the priest said silently. I fear many people today aren’t being taught the value and sincerity of contemplative prayer, though it’s in the catechism. That 5-part series put out by the Latin Mass Society pointed that out.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It allowed for more contemplative prayer, especially during the parts the priest said silently. I fear many people today aren’t being taught the value and sincerity of contemplative prayer, though it’s in the catechism. That 5-part series put out by the Latin Mass Society pointed that out.

Contemplative prayer is not quite the same as what could have occurred during the Latin Mass which would have been more like Mental Prayer. It is strange though how when contemplative prayer is mentioned now it is done so with reservation and admonition as if it is not for everyone.

 

[The_Apostolate]

Whoa, there whippersnapper, I am 60, “around during Vatican 2” and maybe have another good 20 to 30 years left. Most who resist V2 do so because of the changes in Mass more than anything else.

I agree, I love Latin Mass over any Mass,I miss going up too the Alter and kneeling too receive Jesus.

 

[edwest2]

I was there before and after Vatican II. I did not love the Church less after.

People do not reject Vatican II because of documents but because right after the Council ended, the dissidents and heretics used it as “the” reason things went bad in the Church. So those inside and outside the Church who wanted to scatter the flock and secularize the West used Vatican II as the scapegoat. They were carefully organized and coordinated. They, not devout Catholics, sowed confusion, error and false ideas at a time when we were more trusting of people. We didn’t recognize the Hippies and anarchists for what they were and for their fervent desire to preach a new gospel of “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” and anything Christian was bad, just smoke dope, have sex with whoever, and “Peace! Love! Freedom!”

They made it a point to convince people to not listen to anyone except them. They were the messengers of the new! Change! Love what we love. Do what we do. Little did I know that the media, which was clean prior to 1969, would gradually descend into the pit and gradually poison the Body of Christ in the West.

That’s why Church attendance is down. Secularism - don’t listen to religion.

Ed

 

[AttendeDomine]

Can someone please explain? I know some info on the second Vatican council but people, especially traditionalists, talk about how much they despise Vatican II etc… Can someone explain?

There are certain teachings of Vatican II which certain traditionalists understand as being problematic or difficult to reconcile with previous teachings of the Church. Questions are then raised as to the authority of certain statements in certain documents, all with an eye to understand what the last, most authoritative word on a particular teaching may have been. They will ask questions like, “what can we safely ignore from Vatican II, since previous, more authoritative teachings may have given a different perspective?”

A lot of traditionalists basically think that Vatican II was hijacked by Modernistic theologians who made ambiguous statements in the official documents, and that such statements were meant to be a sort of time-bomb that they could take advantage of after the Council. This, they may say, has influenced the Church’s thinking on everything from ecumenism to feminism to spiritual theology.

This, in my opinion, leads to a sort of Sedeprivationism, which I believe that many traditionalists may be intellectually convinced of, even if they aren’t entirely aware of or intend this position. Everything in the modern Church is viewed at least with suspicion, almost to the point seeing the Magisterium as being defective.

 

[rben20]

Those who do not reject the teaching Magisterium know the true problem lies with the “Spirit of Vatican II” which has done great harm to the Church since the council.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Why do some people reject Vatican II?

Delicate subject. One that cannot be answered easily. Here are a couple of key points:

• Generally, some traditionalists reject what they see as the “fruits” of Vatican II. Namely, the change in liturgy, the functional and architectural changes made to the physical layout of our churches, the perceived “watering down” of the liturgy, the continued decline in the number of vocations to the priesthood, the increase in the number of closed Catholic schools, and more.
• Rightly or wrongly, some traditionalists perceive that many of the ills plaguing the Church - and Western society in general - stem directly from the changes arising from Vatican II.
• The traditionalist Catholic may or may not even be familiar with the documents of Vatican II. They do recognize, however, the differences at the parish level in terms of change in liturgy - its format, language, music, etc.
• There is a general feeling among some traditionalists that the Church lost key values in making changes associated with Vatican II. Namely, a loss of tradition and more conservative values, and a perceived pandering to modernism and secularism on behalf of the architects of Vatican II.
• Among some traditionalists, there is a noted negativity to the current Novus Ordo liturgy: accusations of a lack of reverence in current Novus Ordo Masses, a more “man-centered” liturgical style compared to the older, more mechanized Latin Mass, disappointment in “Teen Masses”, “Guitar Masses”, and other perceived “liturgical abuses”.

I will not go further. If you are seeking additional answers, your best course of reading is to study the writings of the founder of the SSPX, Archbishop Marcel LeFebrevre. His controversial book, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”, outlines his concerns with Vatican II at the time.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Much is done in the “Spirit of Vatican II” that isn’t actually there.

catholicnewsherald.com/viewpoints/50-news/roknewspager-viewpoints/5981-deacon-james-h-toner-vatican-ii-what-we-know-that-ain-t-so

This is a good, concise, calmly written article about Vatican II.

Great article! Thanks for the link

Fr. William Most said that he challenged anyone to find contradictions between Vatican II and previous Councils. He found none. He admitted apparent contradictions, but that is all they are: apparent. Some will disagree; they might appreciate his writings on ecumenism, salvation outside the Church etc.

 

[commenter]

• Generally, some traditionalists reject what they see as the “fruits” of Vatican II. Namely, the change in liturgy, the functional and architectural changes made to the physical layout of our churches, the perceived “watering down” of the liturgy, the continued decline in the number of vocations to the priesthood, the increase in the number of closed Catholic schools, and more.
• Rightly or wrongly, some traditionalists perceive that many of the ills plaguing the Church - and Western society in general - stem directly from the changes arising from Vatican II.
• The traditionalist Catholic may or may not even be familiar with the documents of Vatican II. They do recognize, however, the differences at the parish level in terms of change in liturgy - its format, language, music, etc.
• Among some traditionalists, there is a noted negativity to the current Novus Ordo liturgy: accusations of a lack of reverence in current Novus Ordo Masses, a more “man-centered” liturgical style compared to the older, more mechanized Latin Mass, disappointment in “Teen Masses”, “Guitar Masses”, and other perceived “liturgical abuses”.

Good summary.

• Many of the criticized trends were already in place before Vatican II. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis and other documents identified part of what was going on, underground we might say. The fact that dissenters suddenly got so prominent in the late 1960s just shows they were ready, closely networked, and prepared long before Vatican II, not that they were a fruit of the Council.
  *One might criticize the Council for not adequately predicting all the changes that happened afterward. Trent could also be criticized for the same thing. We can all agree Vatican II did not cover every possible base. No council does.
• Church architecture was already becoming more “horizontal” after 1950.
• You are probably right in that many traditionalists are not familiar with the documents themselves; at least, they rarely quote from them or refer to them, except to point out that the document on the Liturgy does not justify the changes made afterwards! Among the younger ones there is almost an assumption that, because current bishops and perhaps pope are products of a flawed Vatican II system, **therefore any obedience owed to them is waived, for the time being. ** The sin of Pride has not disappeared.
• Opponents of Vatican II are right in pointing out bad things happened after Vatican II in the Catholic Church. But bad things also happened in other denominations and in society at large in the same time period.

 

[Kielbasi]

• Church architecture was already becoming more “horizontal” after 1950.

That really has nothing to do with V2 at all. Churches built in new suburban subdivisions (and not just Catholic edifices) were built shorter and spread out, it was not only less expensive to spread them out, it was a matter of necessity as they needed sufficient parking space for the parishioners.

Old school styles like gothic are fine for the small lots in urban areas, just didn’t work out so well in country.

 

[edwest2]

There are certain teachings of Vatican II which certain traditionalists understand as being problematic or difficult to reconcile with previous teachings of the Church. Questions are then raised as to the authority of certain statements in certain documents, all with an eye to understand what the last, most authoritative word on a particular teaching may have been. They will ask questions like, “what can we safely ignore from Vatican II, since previous, more authoritative teachings may have given a different perspective?”

A lot of traditionalists basically think that Vatican II was hijacked by Modernistic theologians who made ambiguous statements in the official documents, and that such statements were meant to be a sort of time-bomb that they could take advantage of after the Council. This, they may say, has influenced the Church’s thinking on everything from ecumenism to feminism to spiritual theology.

This, in my opinion, leads to a sort of Sedeprivationism, which I believe that many traditionalists may be intellectually convinced of, even if they aren’t entirely aware of or intend this position. Everything in the modern Church is viewed at least with suspicion, almost to the point seeing the Magisterium as being defective.

The documents of Vatican II were not hijacked. Dissidents inside and outside the Church began their coordinated attack against the Church in 1965, with the intent of causing confusion, and other damage, inside and outside the Church. It is unfair to lump “a lot of traditionalists” into any one category. The last sentence has no basis in fact.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Those who do not reject the teaching Magisterium know the true problem lies with the “Spirit of Vatican II” which has done great harm to the Church since the council.

The “Spirit of Vatican II” is a lie. The correct view is that those who wanted to wreck the Church and Western society consistently blamed Vatican II for no reason. They created the fake “Spirit of…” term to create confusion and make people blind, for a while, to what they were doing. They were doing the great harm.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Delicate subject. One that cannot be answered easily. Here are a couple of key points:

• Generally, some traditionalists reject what they see as the “fruits” of Vatican II. Namely, the change in liturgy, the functional and architectural changes made to the physical layout of our churches, the perceived “watering down” of the liturgy, the continued decline in the number of vocations to the priesthood, the increase in the number of closed Catholic schools, and more.
• Rightly or wrongly, some traditionalists perceive that many of the ills plaguing the Church - and Western society in general - stem directly from the changes arising from Vatican II.
• The traditionalist Catholic may or may not even be familiar with the documents of Vatican II. They do recognize, however, the differences at the parish level in terms of change in liturgy - its format, language, music, etc.
• There is a general feeling among some traditionalists that the Church lost key values in making changes associated with Vatican II. Namely, a loss of tradition and more conservative values, and a perceived pandering to modernism and secularism on behalf of the architects of Vatican II.
• Among some traditionalists, there is a noted negativity to the current Novus Ordo liturgy: accusations of a lack of reverence in current Novus Ordo Masses, a more “man-centered” liturgical style compared to the older, more mechanized Latin Mass, disappointment in “Teen Masses”, “Guitar Masses”, and other perceived “liturgical abuses”.

I will not go further. If you are seeking additional answers, your best course of reading is to study the writings of the founder of the SSPX, Archbishop Marcel LeFebrevre. His controversial book, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”, outlines his concerns with Vatican II at the time.

This is incorrect. As the subject needs to be studied from the view of the poisonous fruits of the dissidents inside and outside the Church. Church architecture? Apparently, a group of someones within the Church had the authority, money and influence to uglify Churches.

amazon.com/Ugly-as-Sin-Michael-Rose/dp/1933184442

The Latin Mass was not mechanized. I lived it.

Western society was corrupted by those who wanted to shape it toward sinful ends. The Church opened Adult Bookstores, topless bars and strip clubs? The Church approved of TV and movies getting gradually a little bad, a little more, a little more and a little more, for decades? The Church remained the Church. The radicals and dissidents preached their gospel through the media. Live like we already do, like what we already like and reject any restrictions from that God person.

Ed

 

[kozlosap]

This is incorrect. As the subject needs to be studied from the view of the poisonous fruits of the dissidents inside and outside the Church. Church architecture? Apparently, a group of someones within the Church had the authority, money and influence to uglify Churches.

amazon.com/Ugly-as-Sin-Michael-Rose/dp/1933184442

The Latin Mass was not mechanized. I lived it.

Western society was corrupted by those who wanted to shape it toward sinful ends. The Church opened Adult Bookstores, topless bars and strip clubs? The Church approved of TV and movies getting gradually a little bad, a little more, a little more and a little more, for decades? The Church remained the Church. The radicals and dissidents preached their gospel through the media. Live like we already do, like what we already like and reject any restrictions from that God person.

Ed

Merry Christmas! My memories of pre VII masses is different from yours. I was 12 in 1965, and the 2 major changes that affected my friends and I were mass in the vernacular and not having to find something to pin on top of my thick hair! I do remember old woman praying The Rosary out loud during mass.

 

[7_Sorrows]

This is incorrect. As the subject needs to be studied from the view of the poisonous fruits of the dissidents inside and outside the Church. Church architecture? Apparently, a group of someones within the Church had the authority, money and influence to uglify Churches.

amazon.com/Ugly-as-Sin-Michael-Rose/dp/1933184442

The Latin Mass was not mechanized. I lived it.

Western society was corrupted by those who wanted to shape it toward sinful ends. The Church opened Adult Bookstores, topless bars and strip clubs? The Church approved of TV and movies getting gradually a little bad, a little more, a little more and a little more, for decades? The Church remained the Church. The radicals and dissidents preached their gospel through the media. Live like we already do, like what we already like and reject any restrictions from that God person.

Ed

kind of like what we have seen with Western society again in the last 20 years. more decadence where the Church has remained firm in her teachings.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Merry Christmas! My memories of pre VII masses is different from yours. I was 12 in 1965, and the 2 major changes that affected my friends and I were mass in the vernacular and not having to find something to pin on top of my thick hair! I do remember old woman praying The Rosary out loud during mass.

I was an altar boy and it was formative to be involved in the Mass, Latin and all. Sitting out there in the pew is a different story. There needed to be more dialogue between the priest and the congregation. Should have kept the Latin (and I am not even a traditionalist).

A different view of Non Catholic religions was also over due. Another important reform was religious communities doing research and getting back to their roots.

 

[Seamus_L]

Many Traditionalist Catholics believe that some Vatican II documents such as Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium in particular, contradicted what the Church had always taught regarding non-Christian religions.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Many Traditionalist Catholics believe that some Vatican II documents such as Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium in particular, contradicted what the Church had always taught regarding non-Christian religions.

I didn’t think you could reject Vatican II documents and call yourself a traditionalist.