[quote=JKirkLVNV]No, but the things you mention are not out of hand anti-Catholic.
It’s not doctrinally or dogmatically wrong to rec. Communion in the hand, to not have communion rails, to remove statues (which they have done in some places, not in others, in some they’ve replaced perfectly beautiful plaster/marble statues with modern monstrosities, in others they’ve replaced ghastly plaster/marble statues with beautiful contemporary ones-this really boils down to a matter of taste, not truth), to have the priest face the people, none of these things are anti-Catholic.
I understand that they are not heretical, since they do not pertain to doctrine, but they manifest the spirit that was present. These things are simply the exterior manifestation of the protestant “spirit of Vatican II”. All of those things which have been done under the “spirit of Vatican II” were done by the Protestants of the 16th century - and the Council of Trent condemned all of them.
Cardinal Arinze: “**Why is it so difficult to make out where the tabernacle is located? Where is Our Blessed Mother’s statue or image? Is iconoclasm back?” **
Yes, iconoclasm has returned as one of the manifestation of “the spirit of Vatican II”, and iconoclasm was condemened by the second Council of Nicea…
I understand that it is not heresy to remove an altar rail, but my point was, these things, which have all been done under the spirit of Vatican II, and not because of what Vatican II actually taught, were the exact things done by the heretics of the 16th century.
Certainly you are not defending the “spirit of Vatican II” are you?
Actually, you are, but you don’t realize it. And that is what often happens today: people protest against these changes, and “reforms”, realizing that they are bad and claiming that they are done under the “spirit of Vatican II”, rather than what the Council actually taught; then they turn around and defend these same changes! Why not stand up against this false spirit and do some good. The Church today does not need people who will defend the indefensible - there is enough of them around.
The spirit of Vatican II is a spirit of disobedience and schism. If you have a problem with the SSPX, why are you defending reforms that have been based, not on Vatican II itself, nor on the teachings of the Pope, but on the disobedient “spirit of the Council”? Especially when these are the same “reforms” that the heretics of he 16th century employed, and which were condemend by the Catholic Church?