Schism in the church

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

Other than liturgical matters, can you identify what other Vatican II changes this group does not care for?

Canges in the mass like the priest facing the people, joining hands, sign of peace, using the vernacular language, contemporary music, standing to receive communion in one's hands versus kneeling and receiving on tongue. Women not wearing head coverings. I don't know how they feel about lay people giving the readings or acting as Eucharistic Ministers and other functions, but I'd assume they don't like this either. Changes allowed more roles for and participation by and between the laity.

[Anonymous]

^^and also, they don't want changes to any rules about divorce, birth control, etc., but I didn't mention that because I think it goes without saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

Other than liturgical matters, can you identify what other Vatican II changes this group does not care for?

Canges in the mass like the priest facing the people, joining hands, sign of peace, using the vernacular language, contemporary music, standing to receive communion in one's hands versus kneeling and receiving on tongue. Women not wearing head coverings. I don't know how they feel about lay people giving the readings or acting as Eucharistic Ministers and other functions, but I'd assume they don't like this either. Changes allowed more roles for and participation by and between the laity.

I am hoping you realize all those thing are simply liturgical matters.

I don't think you can name any non-liturgical issue from Vatican II that the people who prefer Latin mass disagree with because for the vast majority there is no disagreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^and also, they don't want changes to any rules about divorce, birth control, etc., but I didn't mention that because I think it goes without saying.

Vatican II didn't change anything with respect to divorce, birth control etc.

[Anonymous]

Not sure one can paint Pope’s into political boxes of right and left the way we do with public officials. I am generally conservative but admire Leo greatly for his message of peace and concern for the poor. At the dame time, I don’t think he is going to change church doctrine with respect to gay marriage or make women priests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

They can attend Latin Mass. For me, the folk mass of the 70s is where it's at. Everybody doesn't have to be a clone, there are many ways to celebrate. Do you really care if I go to a folk Mass while you go to a Latin Mass? I assure you, God doesn't care which music is played.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure one can paint Pope’s into political boxes of right and left the way we do with public officials. I am generally conservative but admire Leo greatly for his message of peace and concern for the poor. At the dame time, I don’t think he is going to change church doctrine with respect to gay marriage or make women priests.

Well, of course not. For starters, no Pope was able to vote in the U.S. before now. U.S politics has nothing to do with the Church itself. And in the U.S. Catholics are in all the different political parties. These thing are more separate than people seem to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

Other than liturgical matters, can you identify what other Vatican II changes this group does not care for?

Seems like many of those people are dead, or very old. Soon they will all be gone. What they want is immaterial.

Note sure what you mean. The greatest support for Latin masses is coming from younger generations.

I am guessing PP can't name anything other than liturgical issues that this younger group doesn't care for in Vatican II.

Which younger group? How many people are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Because there was a specific purpose for moving towards the vernacular Mass, and celebrating the Latin Rite communicates some degree of opposition to that purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

They can attend Latin Mass. For me, the folk mass of the 70s is where it's at. Everybody doesn't have to be a clone, there are many ways to celebrate. Do you really care if I go to a folk Mass while you go to a Latin Mass? I assure you, God doesn't care which music is played.

Really? You can assure us of what God doesn't care about?? Then why did the Catholic Church change from Latin to the vernacular? Why did priests start facing the congregation instead of the altar? Please tell us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Because there was a specific purpose for moving towards the vernacular Mass, and celebrating the Latin Rite communicates some degree of opposition to that purpose.

And yet, Syriac Catholics have always celebrated their mass in Syriac, the dialect of Aramaic the Jesus spoke, even though most congregations are in areas where Syriac has not been spoken for hundreds of years.

So whatever this purpose was, which you have not explained, it somehow was not intended for them but for all other Catholics. Or should the Vatican force them to worship in Arabic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

They can attend Latin Mass. For me, the folk mass of the 70s is where it's at. Everybody doesn't have to be a clone, there are many ways to celebrate. Do you really care if I go to a folk Mass while you go to a Latin Mass? I assure you, God doesn't care which music is played.

Really? You can assure us of what God doesn't care about?? Then why did the Catholic Church change from Latin to the vernacular? Why did priests start facing the congregation instead of the altar? Please tell us.

Actually, the documents of the Second Vatican Council specifically call for priests to be very well trained in Latin and for it, Gregorian Chant, etc., to retain pride of place in what was directed to be a minimally changed rite.

The rubrics of the Mass likewise make clear even today that Mass facing the people is neither required nor necessary; the custom of celebrating while facing the people is the result of a (deliberate?) misinterpretation of the official texts.

And the idea that the changes in Church culture that occurred in the 60’s and 70’s and going forward were all “led by the Holy Spirit” is at least disingenuous, given the massive loss of priests and religious they triggered (even to the point of the near destruction of religious life), the massive departure from regular religious practice that also occurred, and the appalling doctrinal confusion that arose subsequent to the Council and continues to develop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

They can attend Latin Mass. For me, the folk mass of the 70s is where it's at. Everybody doesn't have to be a clone, there are many ways to celebrate. Do you really care if I go to a folk Mass while you go to a Latin Mass? I assure you, God doesn't care which music is played.

Really? You can assure us of what God doesn't care about?? Then why did the Catholic Church change from Latin to the vernacular? Why did priests start facing the congregation instead of the altar? Please tell us.

Men made those changes. Men in dresses and funny hats. And pp is right that God doesn't care about those things, because God is not real. But the men in dresses and funny hats are real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

They can attend Latin Mass. For me, the folk mass of the 70s is where it's at. Everybody doesn't have to be a clone, there are many ways to celebrate. Do you really care if I go to a folk Mass while you go to a Latin Mass? I assure you, God doesn't care which music is played.

Really? You can assure us of what God doesn't care about?? Then why did the Catholic Church change from Latin to the vernacular? Why did priests start facing the congregation instead of the altar? Please tell us.

Actually, the documents of the Second Vatican Council specifically call for priests to be very well trained in Latin and for it, Gregorian Chant, etc., to retain pride of place in what was directed to be a minimally changed rite.

The rubrics of the Mass likewise make clear even today that Mass facing the people is neither required nor necessary; the custom of celebrating while facing the people is the result of a (deliberate?) misinterpretation of the official texts.

And the idea that the changes in Church culture that occurred in the 60’s and 70’s and going forward were all “led by the Holy Spirit” is at least disingenuous, given the massive loss of priests and religious they triggered (even to the point of the near destruction of religious life), the massive departure from regular religious practice that also occurred, and the appalling doctrinal confusion that arose subsequent to the Council and continues to develop.

Really? Mass facing the people was neither required nor necessary? My Dad told me that priests hated it, but did it because they were ordered to, and that the people didn't particularly like it either.

[Anonymous]

If you want Latin Mass you obviously don't prioritize Christ in your Christianity, so convert to Judaism or Islam where you can enjoy praying in a language you don't understand don't have to deal with the uncomfortable feeling of knowing what the prayers say.