Just the opposite really. The more I've been reading it, Vatican II is more open while traditionalists were more elitists (such as calling for a return to the Latin mass and condemning any deviance from that mass).
In the Anglican church, there is a similar schism with the "High" church and "Low" church. The High church is the elitist church that focuses on tradition to every jot and tittle. The "Low" church is more down to earth with the people. We still use The Book of Common Prayer but we are much more casual in service letting the Spirit guide, if you will. (not in an irreverent way of course).
This Pope seems to be somewhere between Pope John Paul II (Vatican II) and Benedict (Traditionalist).
Just the opposite really. The more I've been reading it, Vatican II is more open while traditionalists were more elitists (such as calling for a return to the Latin mass and condemning any deviance from that mass).
Elitist? That is odd. In our parish (very untraditional Vatican II church) the priest likes to change the words to the prayers to things he thinks are "relevant," as I am sure he feels the Spirit moves him. And does that mean that we get to change our responses if we feel similarly moved? Nope, anything but. We still have to say what we are told to say, but he can change his parts. Why? Because he is the priest. That is elitism. When he says things like "Happy are we who are called to this loving banquet of the Lord" just try saying "Oh, God, thank you for giving me this opportunity to partake of this beautiful meal of love and peace in your house of worship that we now stand in which doesn't expect us to be sectarian in any way before each other, who are really more than just friends and neighbors but really connected by a deep abiding love in your person" and find out how you are different than the clergy. That, my friend, is the very spirit and definition of elitism.
Doing things as demonstrated by tradition protects all of us from thinking we are God's oracle for deciding what others get to say. When we celebrate the Mass the way the Church has approved for generations we participate in something bigger than us. Tradition is the cure for elitism.
The inclusion of women in the rite is problematic for some because it could be seen as an opening of sorts to women's ordination. [The washing of the feet during the Holy Thursday liturgy represents Jesus washing the feet of His Apostles, the bishops of His Church, who were men.] The Catholic Church restricts the priesthood to men, arguing that Jesus and his 12 apostles were male [Crazy talk!].
Francis is clearly opposed to women's ordination. But by washing the feet of women, he jolted traditionalists who for years have been unbending in insisting that the ritual is for men only and proudly holding up as evidence documentation from the Vatican's liturgy office saying so.
This is no trivial thing. No one would have had a problem with him washing anyone's feet outside of the Holy Thursday liturgy.
Does the reaction seem hysterical?
Yesterday, at Mass, our deacon (a priest in formation) stated, "thankfully, it only took 2000 years of evolution..."
Judging from the reaction of our young deacon, I'm afraid that this act will reawaken the spirit of disobedience (to put it kindly) that practicing Catholics have been trying to tamp down for the last 40 years.
John XXIII and Vatican II. Not John Paul II.