P
Pathway2
Guest
How come? What reason do they have to oppose?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I’ll have the honor of starting off! Now I’m second because I wrote a long post!
You don’t have to look far to find opposition–it was in the council itself. Different factions naturally had different points of view.
Also, there was (and is) the issue of non-Catholic (particularly Protestant) participants. I don’t believe they had a vote, but they were there, they talked to people, and there was (in many people’s minds, including mine) an attempt to “Protestantize” the Church to please them. I’m putting words in their mouths, but the idea seemed to be “If we go halfway, maybe they’ll come halfway too and we’ll all be a happy family.” Nope. Catholics came halfway, and the Protestants just retreated in the other direction (Evangelicalism, Anglicans having women priests, gay ministers, etc).
Also, guess what folks! It was the early 60s. It was called in 1959, but didn’t actually meet until October 1962 and ended December 1965. The counter-culture was just getting revved up, and Vatican II could not escape the zeitgeist. It was in the air. They absorbed it.
Finally, an extremely important point, I don’t think anyone (well, maybe a few fringe extremists) has a problem with the documents of Vatican II themselves. If you read them, they uphold traditional orthodoxy, etc. etc. The problem came with implementation. Liturgy, for example, was largely handed over to lay people and/or radical clerics (my opinion, of course). If there was a tiny loophole, they drove a train through it.
A couple examples of trains being driven through loopholes: music during Mass. Guitars were approved. So what, right? But all of a sudden guitars were everywhere, and organs were nowhere. What songs you could sing were opened up, with the proviso that Gregorian Chant should have “pride of place.” Try finding Gregorian Chant at any Mass today–it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack. It exists, but so do diamonds. Orientation of the priest: facing the people instead of having his back to the people. The theory was that if he faced the people, everyone could see what he was doing and thus be more involved. The objection was that the priest was the leader–and leaders don’t face towards their followers, they lead them, facing in the same direction. An extremely important symbolic difference, which in part led to the diminution of priests relative to lay people. Use of vernacular languages for the Mass instead of Latin: first, you had to translate them correctly…a huge issue which was only overcome in English a few years ago when “et cum spiritu tuo” was originally “translated” as “and also with you” instead of the correct “and with your spirit.” There were a host of other examples. Each of which removed a religious element from the prayer (for example, “ecclesiae suae sanctae” came out “his Church” vs. the actual “his HOLY Church”. All that is now behind us, but it took almost 50 years. And to some extent (perhaps only symbolically, but that’s not minor) the elimination of Latin was the elimination of a unifying element. Mass before the “reforms” was the same in every country–word for word, action for action.
You don’t have to look far to find opposition–it was in the council itself. Different factions naturally had different points of view.
Also, there was (and is) the issue of non-Catholic (particularly Protestant) participants. I don’t believe they had a vote, but they were there, they talked to people, and there was (in many people’s minds, including mine) an attempt to “Protestantize” the Church to please them. I’m putting words in their mouths, but the idea seemed to be “If we go halfway, maybe they’ll come halfway too and we’ll all be a happy family.” Nope. Catholics came halfway, and the Protestants just retreated in the other direction (Evangelicalism, Anglicans having women priests, gay ministers, etc).
Also, guess what folks! It was the early 60s. It was called in 1959, but didn’t actually meet until October 1962 and ended December 1965. The counter-culture was just getting revved up, and Vatican II could not escape the zeitgeist. It was in the air. They absorbed it.
Finally, an extremely important point, I don’t think anyone (well, maybe a few fringe extremists) has a problem with the documents of Vatican II themselves. If you read them, they uphold traditional orthodoxy, etc. etc. The problem came with implementation. Liturgy, for example, was largely handed over to lay people and/or radical clerics (my opinion, of course). If there was a tiny loophole, they drove a train through it.
A couple examples of trains being driven through loopholes: music during Mass. Guitars were approved. So what, right? But all of a sudden guitars were everywhere, and organs were nowhere. What songs you could sing were opened up, with the proviso that Gregorian Chant should have “pride of place.” Try finding Gregorian Chant at any Mass today–it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack. It exists, but so do diamonds. Orientation of the priest: facing the people instead of having his back to the people. The theory was that if he faced the people, everyone could see what he was doing and thus be more involved. The objection was that the priest was the leader–and leaders don’t face towards their followers, they lead them, facing in the same direction. An extremely important symbolic difference, which in part led to the diminution of priests relative to lay people. Use of vernacular languages for the Mass instead of Latin: first, you had to translate them correctly…a huge issue which was only overcome in English a few years ago when “et cum spiritu tuo” was originally “translated” as “and also with you” instead of the correct “and with your spirit.” There were a host of other examples. Each of which removed a religious element from the prayer (for example, “ecclesiae suae sanctae” came out “his Church” vs. the actual “his HOLY Church”. All that is now behind us, but it took almost 50 years. And to some extent (perhaps only symbolically, but that’s not minor) the elimination of Latin was the elimination of a unifying element. Mass before the “reforms” was the same in every country–word for word, action for action.
Last edited:
D
deMontfort
Guest
What in this thread is worthy of being flagged?
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
I’ve read a bit in this area, and I think at the end of the day it all comes down to a very human aversion to “change” especially if they have any reason to distrust their leadership.
By the way, that disposition to distrust the leadership strikes be as counter to Catholic believes. Councils are supposed to be divinely inspired and the documents they put out are supposed to be doctrine. The catechism I’ve been referencing suggests that Catholics aren’t supposed to questions the doctrinal pronouncements of the Church.
These intrachurch politics are very difficult for a non-Catholic (such as myself) to understand.
By the way, that disposition to distrust the leadership strikes be as counter to Catholic believes. Councils are supposed to be divinely inspired and the documents they put out are supposed to be doctrine. The catechism I’ve been referencing suggests that Catholics aren’t supposed to questions the doctrinal pronouncements of the Church.
These intrachurch politics are very difficult for a non-Catholic (such as myself) to understand.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Some people tried to build a “new Catholicism” via Vatican 2. Some still do. This is wrong.
Some people see it as a break, between pre-Vatican 2 and post-Vatican 2. This is wrong.
It was a new way of expressing old truths.
Three things were redefined. The relationship between
It was not the Church adapting to modern morals or whims, but to grave changes in how society is organized and operates.
Some people see it as a break, between pre-Vatican 2 and post-Vatican 2. This is wrong.
It was a new way of expressing old truths.
Three things were redefined. The relationship between
- faith and modern science (Galileo had a big part in the discussions)
- the Church and the modern state (mostly about America)
- the Church and other religions (in light of what happened in Nazi germany to the Jews)
It was not the Church adapting to modern morals or whims, but to grave changes in how society is organized and operates.
G
Genesis315
Guest
I think in the experience of many, the Council was a catalyst (with a lot of other stuff going on in the world) for a lot of nuttiness in the Church. Directly afterward, and in its name, churches were wrecked, the Mass become unrecognizeable in most places, settled truths were opposed and doubted, priests stopped acting like priests, nuns stopped acting like nuns, etc.
I don’t think docile obedience to the texts of the actual acts of the Council are harmful or directly lead to these things. But the de facto dominant approach to the Council afterward was not that it was the culmination of a process, but rather the starting point for further updating and experimentation–and these resulting aberrations shook the faith of many.
Comparatively, the Church before the Council seemed idyllic. I can understand the temptation to want to pretend it never happened.
I don’t think docile obedience to the texts of the actual acts of the Council are harmful or directly lead to these things. But the de facto dominant approach to the Council afterward was not that it was the culmination of a process, but rather the starting point for further updating and experimentation–and these resulting aberrations shook the faith of many.
Comparatively, the Church before the Council seemed idyllic. I can understand the temptation to want to pretend it never happened.
Last edited:
N
neophyte
Guest
The Sin of Adam.Why is there opposition to Vatican 2?
S
steido01
Guest
That’s apparently how the forum works these days. It’s lamentable, and I wish folks didn’t do that.
M
misstherese
Guest
There will be differing views according to who agrees with it 100%, who disagrees with certain aspects of it, and who rejects it completely.
Some oppose the council (note the word reject isn’t used here) because of the ambiguities of the texts. Recently there was a post on here on the original Vatican II Schemas, which were worded VERY differently than the final documents, much more in tune with the attitude of the Church. I find it interesting all of that was scrapped for a much more lenient sounding version of it. The council wasn’t necessarily wrong, but the confusion was definitely there.
Then there were the changes. The changes post Vatican II aren’t necessarily apart of what the council wanted, but a result of the “spirit of Vatican II” and the general atmosphere of breaking away from rules at the time in not just the Church, but all of the world. Unfortunately the Church decided to be a victim of change, though it should have been a rock amidst the changing world.
Some oppose the council (note the word reject isn’t used here) because of the ambiguities of the texts. Recently there was a post on here on the original Vatican II Schemas, which were worded VERY differently than the final documents, much more in tune with the attitude of the Church. I find it interesting all of that was scrapped for a much more lenient sounding version of it. The council wasn’t necessarily wrong, but the confusion was definitely there.
Then there were the changes. The changes post Vatican II aren’t necessarily apart of what the council wanted, but a result of the “spirit of Vatican II” and the general atmosphere of breaking away from rules at the time in not just the Church, but all of the world. Unfortunately the Church decided to be a victim of change, though it should have been a rock amidst the changing world.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
That recent thread was closed by the moderators for good reason. There is way too much vagueness about Vatican II as presented here. So I predict this will be closed as well. Opinions are not facts. Change is not an idol. The Church never chose itself to be a victim. The totally fake “spirit of Vatican II” is just the same fake nonsense I see here all the time. There is no “spirit of Vatican II.” The Church acted correctly but others were determined to “blame it all on Vatican II” or, as in the last thread, some documents suggest bad intentions were afoot and speculation, speculation and more speculation, which only leads to confusion.
Opinions are not facts. The Church stood firmly against the planned assault going on outside and inside the Church right after Vatican II ended. I was there.
Opinions are not facts. The Church stood firmly against the planned assault going on outside and inside the Church right after Vatican II ended. I was there.
G
goout
Guest
If you listen to Tim Staples response in this video right at the beginning up until 1 minute 10 seconds your above statement is incorrect. The Councils are NOT Divinely inspired.
[/quote]
Catechism talks about this more in depth in par’s 880 through 892
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm
Excerpts:
[/quote]
Catechism talks about this more in depth in par’s 880 through 892
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm
Excerpts:
884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.
G
goout
Guest
Yea, I am amazed that God can accomplish anything with all the humanity goin on.That recent thread was closed by the moderators for good reason. There is way too much vagueness about Vatican II as presented here. So I predict this will be closed as well. Opinions are not facts. Change is not an idol. The Church never chose itself to be a victim. The totally fake “spirit of Vatican II” is just the same fake nonsense I see here all the time. There is no “spirit of Vatican II.” The Church acted correctly but others were determined to “blame it all on Vatican II” or, as in the last thread, some documents suggest bad intentions were afoot and speculation, speculation and more speculation, which only leads to confusion.
Opinions are not facts. The Church stood firmly against the planned assault going on outside and inside the Church right after Vatican II ended. I was there.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
I’m willing to bet if you were to examine the history surrounding every Council, you would find those who disagreed or felt the Church was surrendering. The first council at Jerusalem where the argument whether one had to be a Jew to become a Christian, was settled by Peter. I’ll bet there was some disagreement downstream at that one to. It is human nature for those who are comfortable with the status quo, to resist change. It isn’t necessarily wrong or bad, it is just human nature.
E
edwest211
Guest
It’s not human nature to resist change. There is good change and bad change.
Imagine going to a well to get your water before indoor plumbing.
Imagine owning a horse before cars were available.
Or kerosene lamps and candles before the light bulb.
A lot of good change has happened.
The only bad change appears to revolve around sex and drugs, and the bad behaviors and end results of such activity.
The Church examines all issues put before it and advises the faithful, and men of good will, ‘here’s the way to deal with… whatever,’ Be wise. Be prudent. Time doesn’t change anything, only people do.
Imagine going to a well to get your water before indoor plumbing.
Imagine owning a horse before cars were available.
Or kerosene lamps and candles before the light bulb.
A lot of good change has happened.
The only bad change appears to revolve around sex and drugs, and the bad behaviors and end results of such activity.
The Church examines all issues put before it and advises the faithful, and men of good will, ‘here’s the way to deal with… whatever,’ Be wise. Be prudent. Time doesn’t change anything, only people do.
G
gracepoole
Guest
There is a HEFTY amount of irony here. Your posting history reveals a tremendous amount of lamenting over change that’s taken place in the past 60-70 years.It’s not human nature to resist change. There is good change and bad change.
Imagine going to a well to get your water before indoor plumbing.
Imagine owning a horse before cars were available.
Or kerosene lamps and candles before the light bulb.
A lot of good change has happened.
E
edwest211
Guest
Good change. Good. Bad change, Bad.
G
gracepoole
Guest
And I honestly cannot remember one post in which you praised “good” change. I do, however, remember dozens over the past several years in which you claimed the world was about to come unhinged because of change in general.Good change. Good. Bad change, Bad.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
A lot of people here are equating change = improvement. Really? I won’t even comment on that one.
As for councils, the fact that there are different points of view in the Church is certainly not new; there have been different points of view from the beginning. How about Papal elections? Are they unanimous? Certainly not. How about the recent Synod of the Family: no dissent there, right? 100% unanimity? Please.
Let’s go back to the original question: “Why is there opposition to Vatican II?” Now that could be interpreted in several ways: broadly, some use “Vatican II” as an umbrella term for all the changes since 1965. To some extent they’re right–without Vatican II, a lot of these changes wouldn’t have been made, even if they were not contemplated by those at the Council. “Vatican II” could also be used in a very specific sense: only the official reports on various subjects. As I pointed out earlier, I don’t think many Catholics oppose the official reports or their contents. But if you say “Vatican II” and mean the changes implemented in its name, then there has been, and continues to be, opposition. But again, to be clear, this is opposition to the changes made “in the spirit of” or “in the name of” Vatican II. They were not necessarily changes Vatican II advocated. (Again, to use an analogy: If I draw up a set of household rules, and I change a rule such as “My son Paul cannot eat cake” to “My son Paul can occasionally eat cake,” and then Paul eats nothing but cake…see the problem? If you don’t then you don’t see the problems with Vatican II.)
Also please note carefully that I am not stating my opinion as to whether these changes were right or wrong (with one exception, which I clearly marked). I’m simply answering the question: Why is there opposition?
As for councils, the fact that there are different points of view in the Church is certainly not new; there have been different points of view from the beginning. How about Papal elections? Are they unanimous? Certainly not. How about the recent Synod of the Family: no dissent there, right? 100% unanimity? Please.
Let’s go back to the original question: “Why is there opposition to Vatican II?” Now that could be interpreted in several ways: broadly, some use “Vatican II” as an umbrella term for all the changes since 1965. To some extent they’re right–without Vatican II, a lot of these changes wouldn’t have been made, even if they were not contemplated by those at the Council. “Vatican II” could also be used in a very specific sense: only the official reports on various subjects. As I pointed out earlier, I don’t think many Catholics oppose the official reports or their contents. But if you say “Vatican II” and mean the changes implemented in its name, then there has been, and continues to be, opposition. But again, to be clear, this is opposition to the changes made “in the spirit of” or “in the name of” Vatican II. They were not necessarily changes Vatican II advocated. (Again, to use an analogy: If I draw up a set of household rules, and I change a rule such as “My son Paul cannot eat cake” to “My son Paul can occasionally eat cake,” and then Paul eats nothing but cake…see the problem? If you don’t then you don’t see the problems with Vatican II.)
Also please note carefully that I am not stating my opinion as to whether these changes were right or wrong (with one exception, which I clearly marked). I’m simply answering the question: Why is there opposition?
Last edited:
M
misstherese
Guest
No, the confusion started in the 60s when people left in droves. There obviously is a pattern in the way Vatican II was conducted. As mentioned previously, there were people of different religions present at the Council, influencing decisions.in the last thread, some documents suggest bad intentions were afoot and speculation, speculation and more speculation, which only leads to confusion.
I agree not all change is bad, but clearly one cannot say this change was good. Look where the Church lies, barely breathing.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Since it ended in 1965, and that was 53 years ago, I assume you must be at least 53 + 20+ = 73+. In what capacity were you “there”? What party or faction were you associated with? What can you tell us about what you experienced? Were you surprised by any subsequent changes? I would be interested in hearing from you.I was there.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.