Many will ascribe my attitude towards the actions and testaments of Pope Francis to a strong resistance to change such as that demonstrated by Catholics who broke or almost broke away from the Church in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. Although I was born just after the end of the Council and cannot claim any experience with the "old ways", I submit that I would have supported the Council had I lived through its changes.
The only liturgical change that I would have strongly opposed was the move to have the priest facing a direction oppose the parishioners. Note the slight difference in wording that says a lot -Liberals are fond of speaking disparagingly of the days when "the priest stood with his back to the congregation". This description is deliberately inaccurate. The intention was that all present were performing a gesture that conveyed a sense of directing our prayers towards God. Once the Priest turned around and said prayers one way while the faithful said prayers in the other direction (like we were having a conversation with each other as opposed to speaking to God), the stage was set for the horrid semi-circular churches that have the priest standing in the middle like a pop singer. My diocese has one church that was beautifully designed and built in the traditional manner but years later was subjected to a sickeningly destructive act that had the altar moved to a side wall to conform with the desires of iconoclastic liberals.
Medieval, or Church ( which has appreciable differences from Classical Latin), Latin is a wonderful language for the mass and I support the continued use of it, but I hold that in general masses in the vernacular are better for getting young children and other newcomers to properly understand the liturgy. In my opinion - a phrase employed in this blog but rarely, some Latin and the Greek Kyrie/Christe Eleison should have been retained for parts of the mass with the bulk of the liturgy being in the vernacular.
What actually went wrong after Vatican II was the attacks that were leveled on Church doctrine and discipline ( none of which was changed in the least) by Liberals, by both high-ranking clergy and lay persons. Disappointed that they did not get their way with a compete revamping of doctrine and church disciplines, the Beast (Not the demonic one but the collective human one), immediately set to work with a massive propaganda program that continues today - the false claims that any wrongful act or practice (or proposed ones) being done or called for "is in the spirit of Vatican II".
-From a previous post:
"The main problem for the Church has been the bold-faced lies that have been heaped upon her for supposed failures to implement changes that were falsely attributed to the "Spirit of Vatican II" or other vague references to intentions of the Council founders or attendees that never existed.
Again. this council has been the subject of more outright lies than any governing body/convention/committee in the history of the world.
In today's society, where honesty means little, one can pretend to be of the opinion that a Council decided on positions and practices that were completely contrary to what the actual signatories wrote and signed to document as their decisions. If that course is not chosen, then one can just pretend that the council did in fact decide or desire whatever one in his delusional mind would have wanted and hope that no one checks by reading what the council wrote.....
..[engaging in]............the worn out, patently false, claims about what Vatican II is, was, or was supposed to be. Please, pretending to be under the impression that the "Spirit of Vatican II" was not followed, realized, or brought to fruition is just ridiculous. It also insults the intelligence of all of us. The Second Vatican Council was never suppressed, cut short, failed to be put into operation, or anything else of that nature. The source of these sort of false claims originated with radical Leftists, feminists, and others who saw that the Church never had any intention to do to itself what the Episcopal would. When their dreams of deconstructing the Church were dashed with the realization that no one involved with the Council wanted any part of such action, they proceeded to Plan B- creating a whole web of lies about the intentions of those who brought about Vatican II. If they could not get Vatican II to be about things that they wanted, then they would pretend that it had been so, but that unseen forces would not let the desired changes occur.
The claim that the Second Vatican Council was supposed to actually change the doctrines or organisation of the Church may very well be the Hoax of the Century. Practices changed, not doctrines or the priesthood. We have had enough of those who identify themselves as Catholics claiming that the latter were changed or was supposed to have changed also. We don't need people completely outside the Church joining in with them.