Why is there opposition to Vatican 2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you give just a few examples of this church history that Vatican 2 has supposedly erased?
 
Roseeurekacross said:
Which place would you like to discuss first.
Click to expand...
Honestly I don’t want to discuss any of them as they aren’t of genuine relevance. There is nothing special about these regions and the peoples who live in them that demands a different form of evangelization or liturgy than what worked for a millennia before.
 
Jesus said to preach the gospel to all nations. Nothing more, nothing less.

He didn’t complicate it and say “Preach the gospel to all nations, but hide it in a language these nations don’t know. Better yet, preach it in the language those centurions you guys are running from… even a thousand years from now when they don’t exist… because I have blessed their language as holy.”

God is not a God of absurdity.
 
Last edited:
The question isn’t whether Christ commanded the use of Latin. The question is why the language that worked to convert those in disparate countries with disparate native tongues somehow cannot do the same today.
 
This screed against the sacred language of the Roman Rite is vintage Protestantism.
 
It only worked to convert when people could understand. And I doubt even then that many understood. Some of the Western European Christians were monsters, so I doubt they ever heard the gospel to begin with. Look at the 4th Crusade for the worst example. They pillaged a Christian city, placed a prostitute on the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and raped Christian nuns. The Pope excommunicated them, of course… but it shows how little control he had over them, and how little they actually knew of Christianity.

Anyhow, languages are never timeless. This even happened to the Hebrews. They originally spoke and wrote with more Canaanite script and linguistics. The Hebrew we have now is not the same as the one that many parts of the Bible would have been handed down in. It only finally came to the form we have it now after the Exile (and even then, modern Hebrew understanding is a bit different too). If this can happen to Hebrew, the first language God’s word came in, then it can happen to anything.
 
I feel bad for even calling those guys “Western European Christians”. I doubt they were Christian at all… which is my point. I don’t see how someone who’s heard the gospel does that. So my only conclusion is that they never heard the gospel.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
I understand why you say this. But just be careful with the word “us”. I don’t really care about the aesthetics. And “I” am part of the ''us".

And “truly sacred” is also very subjective. All I’m reading on this thread are opinions. Interestng opinions that I’d love to opine about, but just opinions. I’m not convinced the church can litigate on much of this.
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree, the “truly sacred” is closely tied to the sacraments. The Sacraments are not subjective. I understand that how to bring this out is less clear, but we cannot stray from the sacraments as objective. Given that, the question becomes what highlights that better. And I think few would disagree that horizontal, uninspired Churches (and I am not talking about “simple” designs) are not helpful in that regard. I have spoken even with non-Catholics that noted the same observation.
straykat said:
Jesus said to preach the gospel to all nations. Nothing more, nothing less.

He didn’t complicate it and say “Preach the gospel to all nations, but hide it in a language these nations don’t know. Better yet, preach it in the language those centurions you guys are running from… even a thousand years from now when they don’t exist… because I have blessed their language as holy.”

God is not a God of absurdity.
Click to expand...
First of, I think you are oversimplifying the reason the Church uses Latin. But mainly, I highly doubt that the main reason many people are uneasy with the changes after Vatican II is that Latin was reduced in prominence. I think it has much more to do with the number of changes in a very short time. Catholicism looked vastly different within maybe a decade. It requires a lot of faith to see the continuity within. And also that the list of changes seems to be never ending. I think that resulted in an over correction among some, those that blame the council for it all, and reject it.
 
Bartholo said:
First of, I think you are oversimplifying the reason the Church uses Latin. But mainly, I highly doubt that the main reason many people are uneasy with the changes after Vatican II is that Latin was reduced in prominence. I think it has much more to do with the number of changes in a very short time. Catholicism looked vastly different within maybe a decade. It requires a lot of faith to see the continuity within. And also that the list of changes seems to be never ending. I think that resulted in an over correction among some, those that blame the council for it all, and reject it.
Click to expand...
The complaints about some of the changes I understand… from what I little I know at least (I’m not all that versed in it). But Latin? I definitely see the need for vernacular. And I think it’s been the cause of great weakness in history too. If not weakness, very shortsighted, because it became a weapon in the Reformation. A weapon that still reverberates to this day. One that the Church had rightful ownership over, but either stubbornly refused to use or didn’t use to it’s full effect. Until V2, in fact. This was a good thing.
 
Last edited:
I can agree with you that the vernacular can be helpful sometime. I don’t see the widespread use of Latin as something bad though, that is a handicap. The Church seemed to have spread into South America fine while using Latin, for example. Admittedly, there was some supernatural help there (Our Lady of Guadalupe), but grace is really always at the core of evangelization.

I personally like going to Masses in languages that I don’t understand. This includes Latin, but Spanish too. I think it illustrates better the fact that we really don’t understand fully what is going on at Mass. What is important is that catecesis outside of Mass is done well, and that is were we see a big failure for the last 50ish years. Mass in the vernacular does no good, if vast numbers of Catholics don’t understand the real presence in the Eucharist.
 
Bartholo said:
I can agree with you that the vernacular can be helpful sometime. I don’t see the widespread use of Latin as something bad though, that is a handicap. The Church seemed to have spread into South America fine while using Latin, for example. Admittedly, there was some supernatural help there (Our Lady of Guadalupe), but grace is really always at the core of evangelization.

I personally like going to Masses in languages that I don’t understand. This includes Latin, but Spanish too. I think it illustrates better the fact that we really don’t understand fully what is going on at Mass. What is important is that catecesis outside of Mass is done well, and that is were we see a big failure for the last 50ish years. Mass in the vernacular does no good, if vast numbers of Catholics don’t understand the real presence in the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
If it’s unity people want (when encouraging Latin), this I understand. But with some work, I think it can happen in the vernacular too. What I find really beautiful right now is all of the various Bishop Conferences issuing out Bible translations that read very similarly to each other (from what I can understand. I’m not an expert in these languages). I mean, the new French (officielle liturgique), German (Einheitsübersetzung), Spanish (CEE), and the NAB have a lot of the same readings and quirks. I love this. This is something no church has… this sense of unity across liturgical langauages and bibles… but the Catholic church has all the means to get there. It’s something to be cheered, rather than be sad about.
 
Last edited:
straykat said:
It only worked to convert when people could understand. And I doubt even then that many understood.
Click to expand...
Let’s consider the example of St. Kateri. Mid to late 17th-century, Algonquin-Mohawk – nothing in her time, place, or culture would lead one to assume that she’d be converted to Catholicism via missionaries. But she was. And those missionaries said the Mass in Latin. She certainly heard and knew the gospel, as well. The language really hasn’t been the impediment that some might assume.

That said, Bartholo is right. The more you speak with those who identify as traditional Catholics, the more you come to realize that while they may have a love for the Latin Mass, that’s not their primary concern with where the Church is currently.
 
If she received the gospel enough to become a saint, how I can argue with that? 🙂 If those Europeans I mentioned earlier did hear the gospel in some way, then what madness fell upon them? I just don’t get it. It was said that even the Vandals and Goths weren’t so cruel.
 
Why bring in the Vandals, Goths or Visigoths for that matter? They are far less known to most people than Vatican II. I was raised in a mostly Slavic community. My first language was not English. I can read Russian if it’s translated from the Cyrillic. Ancient customs and even forms of dress survive in Eastern Europe. Not long after the fall of the Soviet Union, religion regrew in Russia and the Eastern Bloc, where, during the Cold War in some countries, it was tolerated as long it didn’t pose a threat to the Party.
 
What is the primary concern of traditional Catholics regarding the Church today?
 
I’d say they’re far more concerned with what they see as potential changes to dogma, ecumenism that seems to have erased the requirement to be Catholic for salvation, the loss among the majority of Catholics in belief in the True Presence, liturgical abuses…
 
I would say liberals or ‘progressives’ are the biggest problem
 
gracepoole said:
The question isn’t whether Christ commanded the use of Latin. The question is why the language that worked to convert those in disparate countries with disparate native tongues somehow cannot do the same today.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Western Europe of the disparate tongues was evangelized before Rome switched to Latin, the vernacular at the time.

Latin did not become the standard liturgical language until Trent. Yes, it was in wide use, but it was far from universal.

hawk
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top