Anyone here reject Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sad that this myth continues. We knew when to stand, when to sit and when to kneel. Why did we have missals? Just to stare at it? This is nonsense. The Latin Mass had Latin and we replied in Latin, and we had the English on the same page. And we sang. I was there.
 
Last edited:
Something else that I noticed at OF Masses.

Even at several parishes around here, the majority in the pews don’t bow when they’re supposed to. And most don’t strike their breast when they’re supposed to.

I know priests see this. Why they never mention it during the homily is beyond me.

Another thing that is a concern is how people will receive communion, step away from the priest, and then bow toward the empty Tabernacle.
 
edwest211 said:
Sad that this myth continues. We knew when to stand, when to sit and when to kneel. Why did we have missals? Just to stare at it? This is nonsense. The Latin Mass had Latin and we replied in Latin, and we had the English on the same page. And we sang. I was there.
Click to expand...
Exactly

“The Holy Mass is a prayer itself even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the Altar. If you wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart and mouth all that happens at the Altar. Further, you must pray with the Priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the Altar. When acting in this way you have prayed Holy Mass.”

Pope Saint Pius X

All this talk of the OF having more active participation than the EF is nonsense.

People also like to criticize what they don’t understand.

“When people prayed the rosary during Mass before Vatican II …”

People love to say little old ladies prayed the rosary because they didn’t understand the Mass because it was in Latin.

In the old prayer books, there is a form of praying the Rosary called the Eucharistic Rosary. It was recommended as an excellent way to assist Mass. And Cardinal Spellman had no problem with it.
 
We followed the crowd mostly when it came to standing, kneeling and sitting.

Few used missals and a few used missalettes.

I was there in that time frame, were you ?

Ask yourself if the Holy Spirit inspired Pope John XXII to call for Vatican II ?

If so, the argument’s against it are moot.

Jim
 
You mean some do.

Most people are saying the responses and singing the hymns

Nothing compared to the TLM before Vatican II.

Before Vatican II, we lived in a black and white culture. People accepted what the Church and government told them without question and the leaders of both institutions, got away with the most heinous crimes.

Jim
 
Last edited:
I still live in a black and white culture. We were more trusting but did not accept everything we were told by the government, but the Church? Yes.

I have a copy of the Catholic Digest from October 1958 in front of me. On the back cover is a full page ad for the St. Joseph Daily Missal. “His Holiness Pope Pius XII Tells You Why A Daily Missal Is So Important: ‘So that the faithful, united with the Priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church.’”

“Every Latin phrase is put in clear American English, every movement of the Priest is described for your understanding.”
 
Last edited:
Now Jim, that is a false dichotomy you’re presenting there. One actively participates in Mass whether in the EF OR the OF, and as someone of your age and erudition you know that quite well. Why Pope Francis himself quite recently called for more silence in Mass. Surely Pope Francis would not be trying to ‘take away’ active participation and turn us into mere ‘silent observers’. . .

It does seem to me that the problem is not in the Rites (especially when they are done properly as the rubrics and the Vatican 2 documents call for in the one, and in the way that has been ‘vetted’ by a Saint (John Paul 2) and by our Pope Emeritus as well, and which Pope Francis himself has not seen fit to change in any way, in the other.

The problem is in those who have attempted to put their own interpretation or ‘spin’ onto said rites and to hold the vast majority of the US Catholic faithful hostage for decades and keep them from experiencing, in many cases for decades, the true OF or EF that the Church has given us, but some of its members keep trying to hide away, or to substitute their own for. . .
 
Then why is it, Jim oh Jim, that the vast majority of the ‘sweeping crimes’ of members of the Church have been dated to those halcyon times of the 60s and beyond? In a non-black-and-white culture that ‘opened up’, why was it THAT time where everything was 'covered up?"
 
I’m guessing there is some truth in both of what you’re saying. 🙂 But I’m a bit scared to get in the middle, I’ll just keep flying along. Don’t mind me.
 
Reject Vatican II? No.
Reject the supposed ‘Spirit of Vatican II’? Yes.

The ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ would seem to be a movement not based on what is actually written in the 16 documents produced at Vatican II, but on a modernist interpretation which sees the documents of Vatican II as a starting point for a movement of ‘reform’ where things not in the documents (or even things that contradict what is in the documents) are justified as being of the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’. Vatican II seems to be used to justify all sorts of things that are not in the documents of Vatican II
 
Yes, that is what happened. Pope Benedict:

“Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

And shortly before stepping down as Pope:

 
Yes. Vatican II seems at times to be used as a banner to justify all sorts of modern innovations.
 
But these innovations are invented, causing confusion. I can understand why some have left, not their Catholic identity, but stopped going to Mass. When the Mass can become a mockery then what is it? It is certainly not what it is supposed to be or as sacred as it is supposed to be. “Modern” does not mean anything. When “change” is made into an idol it distorts the liturgy.
 
Then you’ll have to take it up with the Vatican for the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium states clearly:
II. The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation
  1. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.
In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.
Click to expand...
If active participation was present among the faithful as you state, Vatican II and this document was waisted exercise.

However, it wasn’t the case. Being present doesn’t constitute full participation. Instead, for the most part the faithful watched the priest and altar boys recite Latin prayers by rote. Most of the time even the Latin wasn’t heard and was recited so rapidly, it was near impossible for the average person to follow even using the missal. Remember, PA systems, when they finally came into being, were not as we have today.

Jim
 
It seems to me that both in the OF and in the EF, the faithful can participate in a fully conscious and active manner. That’s why those missals were so popular. Everyone in my family had a missal for Sunday Mass. I got my first one in second grade. Even so, participation does not necessarily mean following every word of the Mass. We join with the priest in offering the one sacrifice of Jesus to the Father.
 
Last edited:
Fr Z posted this on his site.


There is a special poignancy in a year like this, when Septuagesima precedes Candlemas; when preparations towards Easter have begun ere the light of Christmas has quite passed.

It is as if the seasons are re-arranging, in an unearthly kaleidoscopic dance, where what comes after precedes what came before. I think of T.S. Eliot’s Little Gidding
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
Are you sure they’re not bowing to the altar instead?
Click to expand...
I don’t know I can’t read their minds. But more often than not I noticed that the ones that do bow and do not partake of the Precious Blood when it is offered walk right by without so much as a glance or bow. That doesn’t mean of course that they are not acknowledging it in their mind as they pass by.

As a child in training to serve at Mass Fr. told us that priests kiss the altar in veneration of the relics in them.

But that’s the rubrics of the priest praying the Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top