vatican II

i often hear people talk about the “spirit of vaitcan II” where a great number of unauthorized things started happening in the church.

what were some of these things?

i think i missed the bulk of it since i was born in 1990 and the church has gotten pretty much back on track now, or at least i think it has.

Here’s the answer:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Yes, the Church has gotten back on track on many things, but, in other areas, there’s still a lot of work to do, especially regarding the right use of human sexuality and the strengthening of the family. But that appears to be moving in the right direction.

Peace,
Ed

The idea that Vatican II was harmful or destructive is puerile. It comes from disinformation as to what the Council taught and the harm done by those who subsequently constructed the false “spirit of Vatican II.”

The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, referred to in Christ Denied, by Fr Paul Wickens, TAN, 1982).

But before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.

The '60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.

The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.

Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against Humanae Vitae by Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism.

How many Catholics know this? The great papal teaching and guidance of popes Bl John Paul II and Benedict XVI have nurtured the reform of seminaries and the rejuvenation of the apostolate of the laity, with a resurgence of faith and action among the young, in the midst of the secular chaos of today.

The false “spirit of Vatican II” was unfortunately spread widely after the Council, but gradually that is being erased.

so no communion rails, priest facing the people, communion in the hand and the rest of the list are still not authorized? i’m confused

With all due respect, it sounds like you had already made your mind up about Vatican II before asking your question. Please forgive me if I am wrong. There is much more to Vatican II than communion rails. Is that really so important? The Eucharist is the Eucharist.

I have never understood all the hoopla over Vatican II. I find nothing wrong with it, but that is just me. I do understand how much we incorporate tradition into our religious life, so I should take that into consideration when considering the feelings of others.

When I was a part of the Anglican church, I hated it, when we gave up the 1812 prayer book. Many of us went kicking and screaming to the new prayer book. But that was that. In the end we accepted it.

Vatican II is here to stay. The 1960s and 70s are gone forever. The church is so slow to change, and rightly so, but when the Church does change, it seems leaves will always be destined to fall from the tree. It has been that way with almost every Eccumunical council that has ever been adopted. It has been over 50 years since Vatican II has been closed. Time to move on IMHO.

They are authorized, but they are not mandated by Vatican-2.

Communion rails are allowed in churches that were built with them (I attend one such church). New building codes don’t allow them. Building codes change from time to time, but V-2 did not write building codes. FWIW, the absence of a communion rail is not a new idea, but a very old one. The first Ecumenical Council of the Church, NIcea-1, issued 20 Canons (rules). The final rule was that Catholics are not permitted to kneel on Sunday. For a while, all Catholics received Eucharist (and prayed) standing. These things change (and that sort of change is OK; it’s just a liturgical practice and not a doctrine).

There is no direction in any sense (by V-2, or the Missal, or the GIRM) that says a priest must face the congregation. Unless his Ordinary says otherwise, any priest is free to move around the altar with his back to the congregation to say Mass.

Communion on the tongue is still the “ordinary” practice. Communion in the hand is allowed, but is not preferred.

[quote=DavidFilmer] Quote:

Originally Posted by angell1

so no communion rails, priest facing the people, communion in the hand and the rest of the list are still not authorized?

They are authorized, but they are not mandated by Vatican-2.

Communion rails are allowed in churches that were built with them (I attend one such church). New building codes don’t allow them. Building codes change from time to time, but V-2 did not write building codes. FWIW, the absence of a communion rail is not a new idea, but a very old one. The first Ecumenical Council of the Church, NIcea-1, issued 20 Canons (rules). The final rule was that Catholics are not permitted to kneel on Sunday. For a while, all Catholics received Eucharist (and prayed) standing. These things change (and that sort of change is OK; it’s just a liturgical practice and not a doctrine).

There is no direction in any sense (by V-2, or the Missal, or the GIRM) that says a priest must face the congregation. Unless his Ordinary says otherwise, any priest is free to move around the altar with his back to the congregation to say Mass.

Communion on the tongue is still the “ordinary” practice. Communion in the hand is allowed, but is not preferred.
[/quote]

In my opinion communion in the hand was an unchecked sacrilege. It was easier to provide an indult then to discipline some bishops.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8616

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Dissidents inside and outside the Church caused harm. That is important.

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii/

ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/

Holy Mother Church needs to be obeyed.

Peace,
Ed

You said unauthorised things started happening so you must know what they are. Please tell us what unauthorised things happened.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.