Why is there opposition to Vatican 2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was going to say the same. Flags are not meant for posts expressing a view you don’t like. Flags are for violations of the terms of service, or for material that is totally off topic to the forum or the post, or is some kind of personal attack.

I really wish the moderators would deal with the misuse of the flagging system.
 
Looks like this thread is doing fine. It’s an important topic. Vatican II is still impacting the Holy Church in many positive ways.
 
Last edited:
Pathway2 said:
How come? What reason do they have to oppose?
Click to expand...
It must be God’s will. He seems to prefer that even a slam dunk should be contested with, at the very least, shouting from the sidelines.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
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.
Click to expand...
🤮🤮🤮

Pius X’s motu proprio, Tra Le Sollecitudini:

"Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum.

"The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.

“It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place provided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.”
 
I feel like Mass before Vatican II had a lot more reverence. There was more respect for the Eucharist, the respect it deserves, which is why I kneel to receive on the tongue in Mass now. I also feel like in general the Church seemed more “Catholicy” I guess. I wouldn’t say it’s all bad though, I like having Mass said in the language of the people, as opposed to Latin.
 
This kind of feeling comes from the externals, which subconsciously have an effect on how we perceive the faith. The designs of the church building, sacred art and music, and he exterior signs of the liturgy and sacraments are more important than we may think. For intellectuals who have internalized the faith, it may not make a big difference, but for those who are humble in spirit…they need these externals. Especially children — it’s how they learn the faith! It needs to be tangible for them, something they can feel… A beautiful church helps us contemplate supernatural realities better, as does truly sacred art and music.
[/quote]

I think the externals also helped distinguish the Catholic faith from all other protestant groups. Now it often seems as though Catholicism is just another form of Christianity rather than Christianity itself.
 
KnightTemplar said:
I feel like Mass before Vatican II had a lot more reverence
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is correct at all.

In 2018, it IS true that traditional Latin masses are more reverent than modern vernacular masses. But that’s mostly because, IMO, the Latin mass is only attended by a small minority of Catholics instead of the vast majority, the great unwashed masses.
 
People are afraid of change and many times don’t understand it and don’t want to understand the reasons for changes.

People disliked Martin Luther king too. And many in history. Look at what it took to dismantle apartheid and that Berlin wall
 
To be able to worship God in the vernacular and in the local customs is such a blessing. Afterall we are charged with taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth. And we have a great example in Mary as our Lady of Guadeloupe.

If we are still concentrating on externals and environment, we need to understand that what works for downtown NY or at the Vatican , won’t work on Tonga or in the Outback or Inuit Alaska
 
The early church taught in the vernacular elsewhere. That was the whole point of teaching Latin in the first place - it was vulgar/vernacular. And no different than when the Church helped bring the Gospel to Slavs. Or when the Russian church got their Gospel in their own language. Or Egyptians/Ethiopians/Arabs/etc/etc.

This is the only thing I think the Orthodox kept right, while the West started overly-relying on Latin when it was no longer directly speaking to people. And it just added fuel to the fire of the Reformation, and the Church dropped the ball on this. They could have been ahead of the game and not given a reason for so many to rebel and point to.
 
Last edited:
gracepoole said:
And yet, for close to 2000 years, what existed worked for all of those places and more.
Click to expand...
Really?
Outback Australia, Tonga and Alaska were missionary outposts much more recently than 1AD.
I mean, do you realise Australia, for example, was only settled mid 1800s. It took a bit longer for people to get into the outback.

How old is USA as far as settlement and missions?
 
When exactly do you think missionaries visited these places? In what language do you think they said Mass?
 
Are you asking me or the poster who mentioned Australia?

Because we already know the Slavonic church got their liturgy in vernacular. To this day, Bulgaria and other areas use it. This is why to this day their alphabet is called Cyrillic… from St. Cyril. Then St. Methodius translated the scriptures into the vernacular. This is still well before any Great Schism (800s AD). Russia wasn’t long after.
 
Last edited:
Well, it wasn’t exactly vernacular. Old Church Slavonic was a language which was intelligible to the various Slavic nations, but was still markedly distinct from any of the actual vernacular tongues. It had a greatly expanded lexicon, mainly adapted from Greek, otherwise it would be unable to refer to most of sacral concepts, its syntax was notably non-Slavic at some points, since the translators often mimicked the constructions in the original Greek source etc. It was a liturgical language, even though it was intelligible to the people, at first. When the Proto-Slavic areas fell apart and developed into medieval versions of the modern languages, the churches did not switch from CS to the vernacular. Neither does the Greek church use Modern Greek in liturgy, but the ±2000 years old Koiné.

And even then, so what? Use of “vernacular” is proper to the Eastern Church, use of Latin to the Western Church. We have no obligation to mimic the East at every turn; we have our own patrimony, even if it was forgotten to a great extent.
 
What do you mean we have no obligation? That’s already been done.

I appreciate the insight on Slavonic though.

As for modern Greek, that’s unfortunate. They even caused riots when the first modern Greek bible was made in the early 20th century. Riots over a Bible translation. I can think of better things to unleash one’s anger on. But at the same time, if they were so adamant about ancient Greek, they did a poor job of educating anyone in it (same as Latin in the West). Some Orthodox “saints” in their church bemoaned this fact… like St. Kosmas. He did what he could to establish schools, but he was looking forward to more of a Renaissance, of sorts (he even “prophesied” of one…).
 
Last edited:
There isn’t so much opposition to Vatican II as there is opposition…and rightly so…to making Vatican II a sort of super council, such that Church history essentially was reborn c. 1965.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top