Why is there opposition to Vatican 2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fauken said:
As far as I know, in the Mass of the early Church, catechumens were not present for the consecration until their initiation into the Church. Even today, catechumens can be dismissed from Mass during RCIA for a lesson while the Mass of the Faithful occurs.
Click to expand...
In fact, you still see the remnants of this in eastern liturgy with the deacon’s cry of “The doors!”

Being the primary mode of instruction is not inconsistent with unitive; these are quite consistent. The initiated also need ongoing instruction/reminder.

Also, there are differences in Eastern/Western focus on this.

hawk
 
On a sidenote, I have a personal theory that the “Acts of Thecla” was created by a frustrated catechumen, on the laborious process that might’ve already been developing by the writer’s time. And it got popular/circulated widely because many identified with it.

If anyone doesn’t know the story, Thecla was a saint who heroically escaped some attempted executions… and Paul (her senior companion and instructor) wouldn’t baptize her, because she wasn’t “ready”.
 
Last edited:
Witnessing a murder does not mean murder is legal

I speak hyperbolically, but you get my point
 
Last edited:
Maximilian75 said:
Witnessing a murder does not mean murder is legal

I speak hyperbolically, but you get my point
Click to expand...
I have seen bands playing in Catholic Churches. I have also seen slide shows and dancing during Mass. These are official Catholic Churches under the official authority of the local Roman Catholic bishop. In one case the Mass was said by a Roman Catholic bishop in full communion with the Pope. As far as I know everyone participating was and still is in official communion with the Catholic Church under the Roman Catholic Pope…
Do you claim that these Catholic Churches under Pope Francis are illegal even though they are officially registered as Catholic Churches ?
I am confused. Is it or is it not absolutely and strictly forbidden to have a band play in a Catholic Church today under the rules of the Church in place after Vatican II ? If so, then why do the Catholic authorities allow it?
 
Last edited:
I still do not know whether or not it is absolutely and strictly forbidden to have a band play in a Catholic Church today ?

 
Last edited:
I can’t make sense of your statement.
Is it strictly forbidden or is it not?
If individual bishops are allowed to choose to have bands in Catholic Churches, that means it is not strictly forbidden, even though you say it is.
 
Rules are rules, even if they are broken.
Just because clown masses occur, they, by no means, are normative.
 
ratio1 said:
Thanks.
But my point remains is that the Jews now speak a vernacular Hebrew language which is different than Biblical Hebrew. No one speaks Biblical Hebrew anymore. Yet Jews still read aloud their Torah in Biblical Hebrew NOT modern vernacular Hebrew. And it’s the same with Quranic Arabic for Muslims. No one speaks the language of the Quran anymore.

So my only point I want to make here is that it is not only Catholics who are using an ancient language that is not vernacular in their religious matters.

As to whether the Church should still use Latin I have no strong opinion. This is because I think it is just a pastoral issue. So whatever works is fine. Personally I love Latin so would be sad to see it go but that’s just me. I don’t wish to impose this on others.
Click to expand...
So the Jews are using an authentic original language of worship?
Was Latin an authentic original language of worship?
Or was it an innovation that conformed to the dominant culture for reasons of practicality? (nothing wrong with that but…you can see the question that is begged)

Question: when the Church used a universal language:
1)how many people were literate?
2) how expensive were books?
3) how were books like the bible and other worship documents produced? (remember, the printing press was not invented til long after)
 
Has anyone noticed?: God became a human being
Does anyone believe that God speaks Latin? Did Jesus worship in Latin? NO.

If God, who has absolutely no need of human language, subjects himself to the human condition in Jesus Christ, who came learning and speaking a specific human language at a time in history, how can anyone complain about innovation? The whole thing is wildly innovative and full of radical change.

If you forget that Christ is God incarnate in this way, you make an idol of human things.
 
Last edited:
As opposed to… The fake, secret, secondary double life of the Church?

All jokes aside, I don’t understand what you mean
 
Certainly not in regards to the Church’s stance on such issues…
 
You believe that TLS is doctrinal and dogmatic ?
Certainly, In Pius X’s time, the problem of modernity need to be addressed, and so this is the appropriate response in that time.
Ok, but we live today. And where I live, western Europeans have for the most part rejected our patrimony. The vibrant communities are immigrants (Hispanic where I live), who have strong families, pious devotions, and sing their lungs out with guitars, trumpets, and shakers, and huge drums that make the Church shake. The Church needs to be shaken, as it’s traditional culture is dying in the west, in case you haven’t noticed.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure this argument makes sense. The Church needs to innovate because it’s dying in the West. Yet when it didn’t innovate (say, during the Middle Ages), it wasn’t dying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top