FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Vatican II
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Having received some satisfactory answers on my JPII thread, I thought I would change the subject of the question.  Apart from the rampant and disgusting abuses of Vatican II, what specifically are trads up in arms about over the council itself?  I know that the list and details could go on forever, so I guess I would ask what are the three biggest problems that each respondent has with the council (anything about it: documents, intentions, power plays and struggles, whatever)?  Thanks very much.

Jon
Are we part of some term paper?
False ecumanism,
collegiality, and
a novel approach to religious liberty.
No, sorry.  I'm curious and not entirely clear where trads agree and disagree on the council. 

Jon 
Being new to the Tridentine Mass and discovery of the Church pre-V2 I find it odd and unsettling to see adjectives such as "trad" tossed around by fellow Catholics.  We are supposed to be united, universal, and apostolic.

I suppose I just gave you my answers.  However, from my research, it wasn't V2 itself that caused the break from tradition.  V2 left enough ambiguity for anti-Church modernists to attack our heritage.  The new mass, new catechism, moral relativism in Catholic schooling, all led to a lessening of the faith either in depth or breadth.  The leading Cathlic Indicators testifies to these effects.
"trad" was used for convenience, as I suspect it always is.

jon
Let me start with my 3 biggest (simple) problems with the N.O. Mass..
1) receiving by hand
2) not kneeling when receiving (the last time I received at a N.O. Mass, kneeling, the priest looked at me as I had nine heads
3) Altar girls...or alter girls
just mt opinion for starters 
Ockham Wrote:Being new to the Tridentine Mass and discovery of the Church pre-V2 I find it odd and unsettling to see adjectives such as "trad" tossed around by fellow Catholics.  We are supposed to be united, universal, and apostolic.

Sure enough I've ranted at length against the rise of adjective-Catholicism in the last fifty years. It's a bad phenomena. Nonetheless, I'm slowly coming to terms with the reality that this is one of the limits of language we just have to accept. It sucks, but oh well.
Quote:so I guess I would ask what are the three biggest problems that each respondent has with the council (anything about it: documents, intentions, power plays and struggles, whatever)?  Thanks very much.


1.) The intention behind calling it. While Vatican I was interrupted and many popes had wanted to continue it, there is something strange about the pope's reasoning. He spoke critically of those 'prophets of doom' and wanted to use 'medicine of mercy' instead of 'severity.' Now like Christ, the Church, His Bride, should be severe but also mercy. The idea of having a Council to present Catholicism in 'nicer' ways isn't that bad. But why would you choose the 1960s as a time to NOT be severe?

Our Lady of Fatima was calling for penance and told us Communism was the punishment for man's sins. Was the pope referring to her when he spoke of the 'prophets of doom'? I think Bl. John XXIII was well intended in his desire for opening the Council. I don't believe he was secretly a Freemason trying to destory the Church.

No I think he was too optimistic and trusting in the decency of men. I think he should have looked to Fatima for peace(as was promised if it's directives were followed) instead of the bishops.

2.) Ambiguity and Pastoral Nature. Vatican II is very uniquue and almost un precented. It was the first Council that deliberately avoided invoking the infallibility of the Church. It was also the first not called in responce to a crisis. It also didn't command, define or bind any Christians to believe. It just states. For this reasons there is debate whether or not anyone is bound to follow or believe it.

And yet we have had Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI saying that the Council can only be interprited in light of previous traditions and when it contradicts is to be discarded. Now if the popes who support and promote the Council don't completely trust it why should we?

For a Council that was supposed to adress the modern world it failed to adress anything really modern. In order to let Schismatic Russians attend in a spirit of goodwill, the pope promised the Soviets there would be no condemnation of Communionism. Imagine living in the Cold War era and you call a Council to adress modern problems and you leave out COMMUNISM!

The Council also seemed to completely ignore the pressing issues of abortion and contraception. While these were condemned by Paul VI in his own encyclycal it does make one wonder why these were not brought up by the world's bishops.

The Council's statements are also very vague on the issues of the Church, relationship with the Jews and religious liberty. Arguments and discussions are still continuing on about it.
 
3.) The Spirit of Vatican II. Actually the Council itself wasn't the problem but the interrpritation of it by the liberal clergy. These men took advantage of its ambiguity to preach their own doctrines and dogma and in a sense set up their own "church" wherever their teachings took hold. Denial of Extra Ecclesium Nalla Sullas was promoted in the "Spirit of Vatican II." After all Vatican II wants us to be "nice" to Protestants and it's not "nice" to tell them to abondon their false religions in order to sae their souls.

Credo Wrote:Sure enough I've ranted at length against the rise of adjective-Catholicism in the last fifty years. It's a bad phenomena. Nonetheless, I'm slowly coming to terms with the reality that this is one of the limits of language we just have to accept. It sucks, but oh well.


Sage advice.  I still remember the day, ten years ago when I first heard anyone in the Church regarded as "left wing".  A couple years after that I became an organist (thus choir director) in my parish.  The left/right wing distinction was extremely clear with the other two choir directors.  One was lobbying for a pipe organ in our new church to be constructed, the other for liturgical dance.

I've been quite aware of it ever since, even more so now that I've discovered our true heritage.  A couple weeks ago there was a guest priest at the NO I attend.  He started his homily by making fun of exorcism, spoke of a Lutheran minister as one of the best persons he has ever met, and gave the final blessing as "The Lord IS with you."  It's quite clear what side of the divide he's on.

Western society has suffered from the "left wing" influence.  As sad as it may be, this current financial crisis may just swing the pendulum back in the right direction.
Pages: 1 2 3 4