Are Catholics Bound to Assent to Vatican II?

[commenter]

the PNCC and SSPX are not comparable as is evident simply with how Rome relates to them. Talks with the PNCC come under the dicastery responsible for ecumenism because they are separated Christians. The SSPX instead come under the Ecclesia Dei commission, and now subsumed into the CDF, because it is an internal matter.

Would you agree that “having their own Laity” is a bigger sticking point than “ascenting to Vatican 2” for SSPX, (or the PNCC, for that matter)?

We’ve had 7593 threads on “Do we have to fully ascent to all of the flawed Council” and few if any on the Elephant in the Room.

 

[GLam1761]

I saw ONE RCC which I subscribed to on Youtube
which have the Priest Facing the Altar, back to the
assembly of the Faithful!! The mass was said in the
Vernacular and has the Roman Rite as Liturgy, VERY
reverent and worshipful!! I enjoyed it very much altho
I am USED to the priest Behnd the altar Facing the
assembly!

 

[stpurl]

The term for this Mass would be with the priest ‘Ad Orientem”. Which means, facing East.

Most churches prior to Vatican II did not have free-standing altars as the main altar, although there were some that did. Most altars were fixed, and the buildings were constructed, for the most part, so that a person standing in front of that altar was facing “Liturgical East’.

So it wasn’t (and isn’t) a question of the priest “turning his back on the people’. Ever. It was that both the priest and the people in the pews were united In facing ‘toward the East’.

It is still a proper posture. There never were documents of Vatican II which mandated the removal or disregard of standing altars, the construction in EVERY Church of a freestanding altar, and the priest then standing ‘versus populi’ or ‘facing the people’. All these things were changes that came about not from “The Vatican” or Vatican II, but from people who were themselves caught up in a diabolical Spirit of Vatican II (there are those who maintain there was a good Spirit of Vatican II. If so, it is certainly possible that there also existed a ‘bad’ spirit as well, when one looks at things which were done to the Catholic faith in virtually every sphere at that time which caused great harm. If ‘great good’ happened to some, it certainly did not happen to ‘all.)’ Certainly there was a great spirit of disobedience that affected many, since the TLM (known as the EF to many) was absolutely never abrogated but for nearly 40 years was, in spite of that, effectively removed from the practice and conscience of the entire Catholic world save for a few handfuls available to certain religious.

And even though, as noted, the ‘change’ from ad orientem to versus populi was absolutely never a directive or mandate for all Masses starting in late 1969, there has been such a disinformation movement and strongly prejudiced and vitriolic attack on the ad orientem posture that when a modern Cardinal (Cardinal Sarah to be exact) proposed that OF priests should strongly consider offering some Masses in this posture, he was smacked down as if he had proposed some heinous abuse.

Makes a person wonder just how much of what we have ‘been taught is our gift from Vatican II” really was ‘true’. . .

 

[Margaret_Ann]

We’ve had 7593 threads

How did you arrive at that number?

 

[Dovekin]

There never were documents of Vatican II which mandated the removal or disregard of standing altars, the construction in EVERY Church of a freestanding altar, and the priest then standing ‘versus populi’ or ‘facing the people’. All these things were changes that came about not from “The Vatican” or Vatican II, but from people who were themselves caught up in a diabolical Spirit of Vatican II

The only thing “diabolical” is the attempts to deceive. You may not remember praying for the success of the Council, hoping for it to inspire a “New Pentecost”. It may be that some say, “scoffing, “They have had too much new wine.”“ (Acts 2:13) but calling it diabolical is a step too far.

“The Vatican”, through the GIRM, certainly did recommend a free standing altar and mass versus populum. It did not come directly from the Council, but it was part of the Vatican’s implementation of the Council, not some rogue distraction.

The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. Moreover, the altar should occupy a place where it is truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.
GIRM 299

 

[stpurl]

I specifically said that, in addition to a ‘good spirit of Vatican II” there seemed to be a diabolical spirit as well.

Didn’t Pope St Paul VI refer to the smoke of Satan having entered the Church?

 

[Anesti33]

stpurl:

There never were documents of Vatican II which mandated the removal or disregard of standing altars, the construction in EVERY Church of a freestanding altar, and the priest then standing ‘versus populi’ or ‘facing the people’. All these things were changes that came about not from “The Vatican” or Vatican II, but from people who were themselves caught up in a diabolical Spirit of Vatican II

The only thing “diabolical” is the attempts to deceive. You may not remember praying for the success of the Council, hoping for it to inspire a “New Pentecost”. It may be that some say, “scoffing, “They have had too much new wine.”“ (Acts 2:13) but calling it diabolical is a step too far.

“The Vatican”, through the GIRM, certainly did recommend a free standing altar and mass versus populum. It did not come directly from the Council, but it was part of the Vatican’s implementation of the Council, not some rogue distraction.

The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. Moreover, the altar should occupy a place where it is truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.
GIRM 299

This is a mistranslation, and has been clarified by the CDWDS:

A US bishop “expects”, but doesn’t command, that Mass be said “facing the people” | Fr. Z's Blog

 

[commenter]

commenter:

We’ve had 7593 threads

How did you arrive at that number?

A lapse into exaggeration sarcasm. I apologise. I don’t know the true number, because the wording in thread title varies. The forum isn’t allowing me to edit it now.

My point was that the Forum tends to give extreme attention to some important things and meager attention to other important things.

 

[commenter]

I specifically said that, in addition to a ‘good spirit of Vatican II” there seemed to be a diabolical spirit as well.

Didn’t Pope St Paul VI refer to the smoke of Satan having entered the Church?

I think the pope was referring to actions taken shortly after V2, mostly by persons formed, educated, and promoted to powerful positions before V2.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

What is fishwrap?

 

[stpurl]

The National Catholic Reporter (also sometimes called the Distorter). It has been asked, REPEATEDLY, by the bishop of the diocese where it is engendered, to remove the title of “Catholic’ from its masthead but refuses to do so; therefore for the purposes of receiving authentic Catholic teachings from its pages it is not precisely useful and more geared to use as, well, wrapping fish.

 

[Dovekin]

Father Z’s translation is:

The altar should be built separated from the wall, which is useful wherever it is possible, so that it can be walked around and (so that) celebration towards the people can be carried out at it.

The assertion I questioned was:

There never were documents of Vatican II which mandated the removal or disregard of standing altars, the construction in EVERY Church of a freestanding altar, and the priest then standing ‘versus populi’ or ‘facing the people’. All these things were changes that came about not from “The Vatican” or Vatican II, but from people who were themselves caught up in a diabolical Spirit of Vatican II

The GIRM mandated building the altar away from the wall wherever possible. One purpose was so that mass could be celebrated toward the people. This is what came from “The Vatican.”

In fact, the mistranslation also came from the Vatican since it was the approved ICEL translation. It reflects not just the position of the English speaking bishops, but also approval by“CDW”. Implementation according to the mistranslation was expected.

The Churches that followed these instructions were not led by some “diabolical Spirit” but by a Spirit of obedience.

 

[ioannes_pius]

Fr. John Hardon to the rescue once again.

Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, pray for us!

 

[27lw]

stpurl:

I specifically said that, in addition to a ‘good spirit of Vatican II” there seemed to be a diabolical spirit as well.

Didn’t Pope St Paul VI refer to the smoke of Satan having entered the Church?

I think the pope was referring to actions taken shortly after V2, mostly by persons formed, educated, and promoted to powerful positions before V2.

“It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”

June 29, 1972 homily

Pope Paul VI - Wikiquote

 

[commenter]

The National Catholic Reporter (also sometimes called the Distorter). It has been asked, REPEATEDLY, by the bishop of the diocese where it is engendered, to remove the title of “Catholic’ from its masthead but refuses to do so; therefore for the purposes of receiving authentic Catholic teachings from its pages it is not precisely useful and more geared to use as, well, wrapping fish.

NCR chooses not to affiliate with the Catholic Church so it can be “independent”. Some other sites that also choose not to affiliate are 1p5, CM, LSN, Rorate, Remnant, etc.

Thus, none of them are Catholic ministries. Whether any of them are good or bad is a matter of opinion. But keep in mind things that seem to be opposite have more in common than you think.

 

[stpurl]

I was only answering Shasta’s question as she did not recognize the term Fishwrap.

And that went back to a question about labels. Which I think (although I’ve been gabbing here and there) I mentioned were found on both ‘views’, whether ‘rad trad’ name calling by the Fishwrap Et al or Cafeteria Catholic by 1P5 Et al.

However, just purely my own opinion, when it comes to The Reporter I find a lot less Catholic doctrine and a lot more dissent. When it comes to 1P5 I find a lot more Catholic doctrine and a lot less dissent. While neither is ‘blameless’ and both can veer to extremes, I would rather hear, at least in this country, a call to be MORE concerned to follow authentic Catholic teaching (not always, but more often, those teachings which were more well known prior to Vatican II, with absolutely no criticism of V2 intended, simply that there was both more diversity in ethnic Catholic practices and more unity and more core knowledge in one’s Catholic faith) than the Distorter’s call to be more concerned to go searching for the loopholes and the novelties and the semiGnostic and worldly foci it promotes.

 

[Dovekin]

Thank you for the reference. It was an enjoyable read, even though my Italian is not all that great.

The Homily was given on the 10th anniversary of his papacy and is a hopeful vision of the faith in the Church. “The smoke of Satan” refers to the confusion and dissatisfaction gripping many in the Church who turn away from the Church, only to accept word of “profane prophets” in newspapers or social movements.

The conclusion is an exhortation to faith. Here is Google Translate’s rendition of the end of the Homily:

Finally, the Pope invites the faithful to a humble and sincere act of faith, to a psychological effort to find within them the impetus towards a conscious act of adhesion: "Lord, I believe in Your word, I believe in Your revelation, I believe in those who you have given as a witness and guarantor of this Your revelation to feel and feel, with the strength of faith, the anticipation of the beatitude of life that with faith is promised us ».

 

[Anesti33]

stpurl:

The National Catholic Reporter (also sometimes called the Distorter). It has been asked, REPEATEDLY, by the bishop of the diocese where it is engendered, to remove the title of “Catholic’ from its masthead but refuses to do so; therefore for the purposes of receiving authentic Catholic teachings from its pages it is not precisely useful and more geared to use as, well, wrapping fish.

NCR chooses not to affiliate with the Catholic Church so it can be “independent”. Some other sites that also choose not to affiliate are 1p5, CM, LSN, Rorate, Remnant, etc.

Thus, none of them are Catholic ministries. Whether any of them are good or bad is a matter of opinion. But keep in mind things that seem to be opposite have more in common than you think.

NCR holds itself out as Catholic, unlike the other sites you mention. It is well-known that organizations require approval from the ordinary to use the term “Catholic”, and it is known that NCR has, multiple times, had this prerogative withdrawn, yet they continue to illicitly use the term in defiance of their own bishop. That is the difference.

 

[JanR]

The Holy Spirit was present at Vatican II and guided it. While its implementation may have been questionable in the beginning, the Church seems to have straightened all of that out. We need to rejoice in the good that came out of Vatican II, which has made the Church better, overall. Who can argue with the Holy Spirit?

 

[commenter]

commenter:

stpurl:

The National Catholic Reporter

NCR chooses not to affiliate with the Catholic Church so it can be “independent”. Some other sites that also choose not to affiliate are 1p5, CM, LSN, Rorate, Remnant, etc.

Thus, none of them are Catholic ministries. Whether any of them are good or bad is a matter of opinion. But keep in mind things that seem to be opposite have more in common than you think.

NCR holds itself out as Catholic, unlike the other sites you mention. It is well-known that organizations require approval from the ordinary to use the term “Catholic”, and it is known that NCR has, multiple times, had this prerogative withdrawn, yet they continue to illicitly use the term in defiance of their own bishop. That is the difference.

Actually, it’s not just the use of the word “Catholic” that requires permission of the local bishop, but setting up any religious media.

Thus not only are rogue sites like National Catholic Reporter, Catholic Family News, and fundamentalist Mission to Catholics defying the Church, so are the other sites I mentioned, that don’t have the word Catholic in their titles.

Lots of posters on CAF refer to Taylor Marshall’s agency, Church Militant, or 1p5 as Catholic ministries. The ministries may not exactly claim to be, but may imply they are.