Why is there opposition to Vatican 2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gracepoole said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Church does’t “need to innovate”, innovation (or change) is a fact of life. Christianity is by nature radically innovative. It it wasn’t, we’d all be doing ancient Jewish traditions. We do have deep roots in Judaism, and at the same time Christ changed everything.
Those people in the middle ages all the way up to my older brothers and sisters in the 1950;s went to Mass, many of them, out of societal pressure.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’d give a thousand likes if I could.

I’ll just add one other thing. Don’t ever make obstacles before the pure message of God:

“You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter." - Matt 23:13
 
goout said:
40.png
gracepoole:
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.
Click to expand...
The Church does’t “need to innovate”, innovation (or change) is a fact of life. Christianity is by nature radically innovative. It it wasn’t, we’d all be doing ancient Jewish traditions. We do have deep roots in Judaism, and at the same time Christ changed everything.
Those people in the middle ages all the way up to my older brothers and sisters in the 1950;s went to Mass, many of them, out of societal pressure.
Click to expand...
Yes, innovation is a fact, even for the Church. What’s the connection, however, between this point and your claim that Catholics of the past attended Mass “out of societal pressure”? Are you claiming that this should be avoided and innovation (even if natural and needed) combats this? If so, how do you explain plummeting Mass attendance since Vatican II?

Further, is it your view that those of the past who attended Mass “out of societal pressure” benefited less from participation?
 
Last edited:
Plummeting attendance is a sign of much more in our times. I think it’s absurd to lay it on VII. Just look at all of the changes in the world in general, since then… that have nothing to do with the church.
 
straykat said:
Plummeting attendance is a sign of much more in our times. I think it’s absurd to lay it on VII. Just look at all of the changes in the world in general, since then… that have nothing to do with the church.
Click to expand...
I actually didn’t “lay it on VII.” Instead, I’m trying to folllow the logic offered by goout. If innovation helps to drive participation, why hasn’t it done so recently? Even despite what’s taken place culturally?
 
That’s a good question, but I think the things that are unchangeable are what drive people away. No matter pre or post VII, the Church still demands repentance and humility. It’s unfortunate that change in presentation doesn’t invite more, but the average person knows that the Church still teaches we shouldn’t live in sin. So they go elsewhere, looking for messages they’d prefer to hear… rather than the truth.
 
I would also add that the kinds of Evangelical churches that grow in attendance aren’t often teaching this. Many have “prosperity” gospels and are rife with emotionalism.

If you don’t know what the prosperity gospel is, it’s soothsaying in the extreme. “Peace, peace” where there is no peace.
 
Last edited:
I’ll just suggest you pray about it. 🙂

I’ve already spoken at length myself. Obviously I’m never going to be of any help.
 
gracepoole said:
40.png
straykat:
Plummeting attendance is a sign of much more in our times. I think it’s absurd to lay it on VII. Just look at all of the changes in the world in general, since then… that have nothing to do with the church.
Click to expand...
I actually didn’t “lay it on VII.” Instead, I’m trying to folllow the logic offered by goout. If innovation helps to drive participation, why hasn’t it done so recently? Even despite what’s taken place culturally?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that innovation drives participation, I said that innovation (change) is a fact of life. Do you disagree?

You said:
The Church needs to innovate because it’s dying in the West.
Click to expand...
The Church is always journeying. It is always changing. Change is not an act of desperation, it’s a sign of a living Church. Change and innovation are not for their own sake.
Yet when it didn’t innovate (say, during the Middle Ages), it wasn’t dying.
Click to expand...
to say the Church didn’t innovate in times past is just patently not true. Latin itself is an innovation.

In the middle ages, in Western Europe, if you weren’t part of the Church you were probably an outcast.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
I didn’t say that innovation drives participation, I said that innovation (change) is a fact of life. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...
Again…from post #138:

Yes, innovation is a fact, even for the Church. What’s the connection, however, between this point and your claim that Catholics of the past attended Mass “out of societal pressure”? Are you claiming that this should be avoided and innovation (even if natural and needed) combats this?

Also…again…from the same post:

Further, is it your view that those of the past who attended Mass “out of societal pressure” benefited less from participation?
 
straykat said:
I’ll just suggest you pray about it. 🙂

I’ve already spoken at length myself. Obviously I’m never going to be of any help.
Click to expand...
Come, come now. You can do this.
  • Mass said in a person’s own language
  • The choice of how to “abstain” on Fridays
  • Helping people not to be afraid of God.
Which, as you said, is not like the others?
 
Isn’t it obvious? 😃 My only presence in this thread is repeatedly about one thing: Appealing to use of vernacular. I hope traditionalists find it in their hearts to appreciate God’s word in this… but I understand your concerns about other things.

Even the Orthodox can show the beauty of Chrysostom’s liturgy in English… without sacrificing it:

 
Last edited:
straykat said:
Isn’t it obvious? 😃 My only presence in this thread is repeatedly about one thing: Appealing to use of vernacular.
Click to expand...
Ah – yes, that part is obvious. 🙂

Margaret42 included this before the list of changes she included: “Pope John 23rd i think wanted to bring more people back into the Catholic church, by compromising in Christian ways.” So in that vein, when you say one of those changes is not like the others, I’m confused as they all seem to be compromises in Christian ways. No?
 
I see nothing inherently Christian about Latin. It’s just another earthly vehicle for God’s word, which is where true value lies… but there are many vehicles.

“God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones.”
 
Last edited:
So you agree with Margaret42, then, that like giving people a choice of how to abstain on Fridays and helping people not to be afraid of God, Mass said in the vernacular is a compromise in a Christian way? If so, then you don’t see one of those things as unlike the others. See what I’m driving at?
 
I do hope it’s obvious to every poster here (and every Catholic on CAF) that Latin remains the official language of the Roman Rite and of the Vatican. It certainly has some level of import, then.
 
I’m not the one making this connection, you are when you claimed that the Church of the middle ages did not innovate and was thriving.
I am not claiming this cause and effect relationship.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top