Can someone explain traditionalism to me?

[authenticity]

Well, I didn’t read all twelve pages, but I think something is lost in the concept of tradition when you add the -ism on the end. It is saying that there was this point in time prior to Vatican II where things were right and now they are wrong. That idea of tradition would mean that Christ is dead because tradition becomes something historical and it is through tradition that we know and commune with Christ.

There is something awry when spiritual reality becomes something we determine through legalism. It’s not just with traditionalists, but many other Catholics. Is the Trinity real? Do you worship a living God? When you pray for the intercession of Saints, are they listening? Do you know the difference between some wafers and wine and the body and blood of Christ? Would the Savior himself be acceptable in the eyes of the traditionalist? Which way was the table facing at the last supper?

I am interested in learning Latin. I would thoroughly enjoy a Latin Mass. Not because it is the right and true form of Catholicism, but because it is part of my heritage as a Catholic. There is a difference between heritage and tradition, however.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Well, I didn’t read all twelve pages, but I think something is lost in the concept of tradition when you add the -ism on the end. It is saying that there was this point in time prior to Vatican II where things were right and now they are wrong. That idea of tradition would mean that Christ is dead because tradition becomes something historical and it is through tradition that we know and commune with Christ.

There is something awry when spiritual reality becomes something we determine through legalism. It’s not just with traditionalists, but many other Catholics. Is the Trinity real? Do you worship a living God? When you pray for the intercession of Saints, are they listening? Do you know the difference between some wafers and wine and the body and blood of Christ? Would the Savior himself be acceptable in the eyes of the traditionalist? Which way was the table facing at the last supper?

I am interested in learning Latin. I would thoroughly enjoy a Latin Mass. Not because it is the right and true form of Catholicism, but because it is part of my heritage as a Catholic. There is a difference between heritage and tradition, however.

Previously, there was no ‘traditionalist’ wing, As Vatican II itself said (but it was not followed), any future changes must in some way grow organically from what has gone before. Cdl Newman in the19th Century wrote brilliantly about Development of doctrine, developing and expanding the work of S. Vincent of Lérins.

During the two centuries prior to Vatican II, a very pernicious movement grew up in the church. Previous conflicts had nearly always been conducted with clearly drawn lines: but the “Modernist heresy” sneaked in under the guise of faithful Catholicism. The popes perceived this clearly. Pope Pius X’s Pascendi was only one of the many encyclicals on the subject, although the most comprehensive,

At Vatican II, by various manoeuvers, the Modernists gained control of the agenda and succeeded in having many of their ideas inserted in the council documents, some of which had previously been condemned paractically word for word.

This leaves the ordinary layman in an almost unprecedented dilemma.

As for the TLM, I refer you to the Ottaviani Intervention, which is widely available on the Web. You will see that there really is a doctrinal issue - the beauty of the trad. liturgy is only a side-effect of the integral trugh of The Faith.

There really might have been a good case for more of the liturgy to be in some of the main, developed, standard vernacular languages of the world –

[not, however, in each and every one of the tribal languages, some of which simply lack the concepts: some have no numbers, for example, higher than five. They count “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, many”. Some languages have no native word for ‘love’. Native speakers of English do not always appreciate the difficulties.]

What has actually happened, however, (the apparent imposition of radical changes going far beyond what Vatican II could legitimately be construed to recommend) has caused a huge derailment of any progress in legitimate development. Pope Benedict is clearly trying to get it back on track.

 

[numealinesimpet]

to be a traditionalist is not about just what mass you go to. it is so much more. it is a lifestyle.

its if you want to trust your children to learn their faith you better teach them and not trust other people to do it.

its Bible readings and discussions and daily rosary with your family.

its dressing modestly inside and outside of Church and not caving to modern indecent ways.

its respecting God’s hierarchy in all His creations especially, home and His Church.

it is outwardly showing as much reverence as we can during mass ( examples: women covering their heads to show humility to God and kneeling before God Himself at Holy Communion). and protecting the Host at all cost by placing the Host in your mouth so there is no way the Host can be taken and desecrated.

it is honoring God through honoring His saints.

its you child getting the sacramental of the scapular at their First Communion.

it is trusting your priest can do a mass just fine without you and being able to focus on witnessing and not participating.

its saying the “Our Father” to your God the Father all by yourself as it was originally intended and not as a “community”.

its community time outside of mass (example: donut day in the auditorium, or a school play they children performed, mothers day luncheons, and protesting at abortion clinics.) not during mass. mass is only for Christ not community.

i think i covered enough of them for you to get the picture.

Thank you, weepixie71. In the late Sixties, I was living in Australia. My circle of friends included several Catholic and non-Catholic families. One of my non-Catholic friends was intrigued, and mentioned once that the Catholics, with their lifestyle, had something different and extra, but he could not quite put his finger on it. But he practically said in so many words that they had grace – oblivious of the theological implications of the word. The lifestyle he was commenting on has now practically disappeared except for the trads… A few things have been added to the lifestyle, of course, in response to the hardening of modernist attitudes and the minority situation the ‘trads’ now find themselves in.

Much later, in the ‘Noughties’, when we began homeschooling, we were immediately struck by the large number of homescholing families who adopted the tradcat lifestyle as well (both those supporting the SSPX and those not). Although this was not black-and-white, there was a very high correlation.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Again, I’m not trying to pick a fight but I just want to try to understand your point of view.

Based on the answers I’ve been given there seems to be a certain amount of spiritual “arrogance” among Traditionalists.
…

I have a lot of problems with what has happened in the Church since V2, some of which I see getting fixed, however slowly, but not all change is bad.

Agreed.

I don’t mean doctrinal change but changes in the outward trappings. How does the Eucharist change because you receive it in the hand?

S, Thomas Aquinas answers that one. He says that, if we were angels, the material ‘clothing’ of a spiritual fact would be completely irrelevant; but that, because we humans are precisely the beings that live in both worlds – the material and the spiritual – therefore, what happens in the material realm does affect our spiritual life.

Any teacher will be able to tell you that the mere physical makeup of the classroom can have a major, even decisive, effect, on the behaviour & even attitude, of the pupils. Perhaps all of us (even us Mere Males) know what an effect it has on our behaviour and demeanour when we wear different styles of clothes. When we took the advice of our parish priest & began dressing our young daughters in skirts and dresses instead of pants, we noticed an extraordinary change in their demeanour immediately.
Holy Mother Church, therefore, in her age-old wisdom, has known the value of making holy things look holy. The previous regulations that made the Sacred Host sacrosanct really did keep alive in Catholics the Reality of Transubstaniation.

How is the Mass any less a re-presentation of Jesus’ sacrifice at Calvary because it’s not in a language it wasn’t in originally?

No, the language as such has only minor significance. The much-slandered Mgr Lefebvre actually said that he would prefer the Old Mass in the vernacular than the New Mass in Latin. I haven’t heard the former, but I submit that the latter only succeeds in combining the worst of both worlds.

In short, why are these things you guys have mentioned an issue? Who cares? Is there anything of any real substance that differentiates Traditionalists from the rest of the Church?

The rate of vocations. Of course, some in the “Conciliar Church” adopt the ‘heads-I-win-tails-I-lose’ argument: that the decline in vocations is actually a strength, as it throws the onus onto the laypeople. I only wonder what they would have said if vocations had rocketed. But the dismal fact is that, in my own country at any rate, that gave thousands of vocations every year for centuries to the Church and the world, we are now down to just one ‘mainstream’ diocesan seminary. And the vocation Rate amongst trads is 400x the rate of the mainstream. (See my posting on the thread about Bp Williamson).

Not to mention the birth-rate. It was a commonplace saying amongst the Protestants in the North that ‘the papists live like pigs and breed like rabbits’. Like pigs? That refers to the fact that they were sytematically excluded from good jobs & good housing. Breeding? since their situation depended on a gerrymandering of electoral boundaries, note the undercurrent of fear.

Now I never hear anything like that, except about what are now called the Traditionalists.

 

[garysibio]

With all due respect, we are NOT spiritually arrogant as you put it.

Nor do we believe in locking the Church in 1963.

I went to my first TLM and it was amazing! The reason for our love of the ancient form of the mass is: latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

Dietrich von Hildebrand, one of the best moral philosophers of the 20th century, wrote that. Pope Pius XII called him a “modern doctor of the Church” (unofficially).

The traditional form of the mass does HAVE something to offer the contemporary church! This is the way Catholics worshipped for 1500 years! It establishes an amazing sense of the sacred, a sense of the supernatural.

The TLM will develop as will the NO.

Give the TLM a try mate! I’m 19 and didn’t see the post-conciliar changes. But I am loving the TLM.

I have been to Latin Masses. I’m old enough that I remember when they were the only option.

I used the term “arrogant” here because it seemed to me that there is an attitude of “I’m a better Catholic because I go to a Latin mass”. As far as locking the Church in a pre-1963 mode, Seamus_L wrote “In simplest terms, we’re like the entire Catholic Church was before all the craziness of the 1960’s. Back then the term Traditional Catholic would have made no sense because we were all the same back then.” (Msg #14)

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Your are completely missing the point. Obviously, the Eucharist doesn’t change because you receive it in the hand. However, it should be avoided because it is a lack of reverence. Only the priest should touch it because only his hands are consecrated. Plus, handling it in the hand could leave to pieces and such falling off. Receiving on the tongue is reverent and reinforces and imbues the realization of the Real Presence. There is a reason why the early Christians evolved from receiving on the hand to the tongue and why the protestants went back to receiving on the hand.

As for the Mass, it’s not just about the language! The preservation of the Mass in Latin is important because it is the universal language of the Church and unites Catholics worldwide. The Mass is still re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary. However, the Novus Ordo is deficient in conveying that. It emphasizes community and meal rather than the Sacrifice. Look at the Offertory prayers of the TLM vs the N.O. Also look at the Ottaviani Intervention.

First of all, there is no way of receiving the Eucharist without coming into contact with it. I personally prefer receiving it on the tongue but the host still comes in contact with me even if not my hands.

Your argument about Latin is unconvincing. The first Mass was in Aramaic, not Latin. Latin was used later because it was widely understood. That is no longer the case and I see no reason to insist on its continued use.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

After looking over this thread after an absence because I wasn’t being notified that people were posting to it, I have come to the conclusion that Traditionalism has nothing to offer the Church but more confusion. Thank you all for saving me from wasting any time investigating it.

Gary

 

[RyanML]

After looking over this thread after an absence because I wasn’t being notified that people were posting to it, I have come to the conclusion that Traditionalism has nothing to offer the Church but more confusion. Thank you all for saving me from wasting any time investigating it.

Gary

If we are talking about doctrine, then every Catholic should be a “traditionalist”, since the truth does not change. What was believed 2000 years ago, 1500 years ago, 500 years ago, is still true today.

If we are talking about practices and spirituality, then you won’t find one set definition of traditionalism. I consider myself a traditionalist in that I believe that the traditional prayers and devotions of the Church are important and need to be preserved. Prayers like the Divine Office and devotions like the Rosary and Eucharistic adoration. Also, I attend the traditional Mass because I find the orientation of worship is more logical and the reverence and solemnity, even in a low Mass, is what Catholics should see and experience at every Liturgy. Unfortunately the language of the Novus Ordo (in its current translation) is banal and the reverence and solemnity is lacking, atleast in my experience. I applaud what Pope Benedict XVI is trying to do in reforming the Liturgy so that it actually mirrors what the Council Fathers envisioned. The Pope does not share your view that tradition has nothing to offer the Church and I would encourage you to look into yourself rather than be swayed by the opinions of others on a forum.

 

[Sarah44]

Hi Gary,
I hear you. I too was upset by the insanity going on all around me in my Novus Ordo parish. Examples:

1. In his preparation for First Communion at the parish school, our son was taught that we are to know, love and serve the community. When I attempted to speak the the teacher about knowing loving and serving God, she humphed at me, pulled herself up to her full height and spit out the words, “I am a master catechist,” and this is our new understanding.
2. Another son in preparation for Confirmation at the parish school, was subjected to a horrendous pro-condom diatribe. This was a Confirmation class! Another parent and myself made an appointment with the aged Irish pastor to complain. The other parent discouraged me from getting other parents involved and then didn’t show up, The pastor told me he had had no other complaints. I said, “Just ask them whether or not she said that we as ‘parents have the responsibility to teach our sons and daughters to use condoms and if we do not we are failing our responsibility as parents’.” This is an exact quote of what she said.
   3.One day at Mass the Deacon was giving a homily and he said (exact quote) “Communion is not about us and Jesus; Communion is about community.”
3. At the Christmas Eve Mass, our son, his wife and their new baby were to dress as the Holy Family and process up and stand over to the side during the Children’s Mass. (By this time I was attending the Holly Sacrifice of the Mass, the Mass of all time, the Mass of the Saints – where we do not bring our cell phones into the presence of Jesus Christ on the altar.) To my surprise, I hear a cell phone ring. To my horror, it was on the altar. To my greater horror, the priest picked up the cell phone and began a conversation with Santa Claus who said he was flying over St Bruno’s Church and he was so happy to see so many cars in the parking lot.
   Sad to say, I could go on with the heresies and abuses I witnessed. Our Latin Mass bulletin says on it “We believe as you always believed. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then; if you were right then, we are right now.”
   That part of why I attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in which the priest represents the people and faces God.
   Sarah

 

[foxscape]

Well put.

They ask you to finish the sentence when you say “John Paul the Great”… the great what?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=300666

I find this an exceptionally odd comment since many, even many secular people, consider John Paul II to be perhaps the greatest trancendant moral figure of the twentieth century. To denegrate his memory in the way that you have done with this comment really does damage to the Catholic Church’s importance in the history of the twentieth century.

Ciao,
JRB

 

[DorianGregorian]

I noticed alot of people use the subject “we” when we refer to Traditional Catholics. Please do not group every one of us with your personal views.

To briefly summarize my personal views as a Traditionalist:

• I attend the Mass of Blessed John XXIII as approved by the Holy Father in his Motu Proprio, in addition I follow the Calendar of Saints as it was in 1962.
• I receive Communion in the mouth, whether I’m at the MBJXXXI or the Mass of Pope Paul VI (sometimes mistakingly referred to as the Novus Ordo).
• I pray in Latin whenever possible.
• I learn Latin, so that I may be able to read the Bible in the Vulgate, which I believe is authoritative.
• When a passage of Scripture is beyond my ability to read Latin, I use the Douay-Rheims Bible, I do not prefer the newer versions of the Bible as I feel they are misinterpreted.
• I read Theology by Aquinas and Bonaventure, not “inspiration”.
• I generally do not incorporate the Luminous mysteries, also I generally do not recite the Divine Mercy Chaplet (an exception to both of these is when I am reciting in a group).
• I try to pray the Divine Office every day, and I still refer to it as the Divine Office.
• I wear a Scapular when I pray the Rosary.
• I attend Confession generally weekly, as well as attending Mass in a suit when possible.
• When in doubt, I follow what the Church says.
• I am obedient to Rome and the Pope as well as Church authority.

Note that some of the above are not exclusively Traditionalist…

A Traditionalist does not:

• Self-proclaim the Church invalid or illicit.
• Adhere to the schism referred to as “Sedevaticanism”
• Ignore what has happened in the Church since 1962.
• Refuse to attend the MOPPVI solely on the basis that it is “invalid” or “Protestant”.
• Ignore what Vatican II has stated nor doubt it’s validity.
• Pretend to know what Vatican II means without reading the many documents that show it is a continuation, not a transformation, of the Church.
• State that the Church today is not Traditional, because all Catholicism is Traditional.

As St. Thomas Aquinas stated best: “Hold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church.”

I seriously doubt St. Thomas would of used his intelligence to attack the Church, rather he would of used it to show how those who attacked it were wrong!

(Just a factual note: Latin was not picked as the language of the Church for no reason, in it’s day, it was the Vernacular!)

Laus Deo

 

[DorianGregorian]

Just wanted to also state, that while there is some abuse in the Church:

1. The Priests at my Parish are very respectful, they dress properly, stick to the Rubrics, and they are good Priests.
2. In my RCIA class (I am not a convert, I simply never received Confirmation in my youth for a number of reasons) we were not taught by a lay person. We were taught by a Deacon (transitional) who used the Apostles Creed as the base of the course.

I believe that when the new rubrics are followed properly, it is just as reverent and traditional as TLM. It is when the Priest takes liberties that things go wacky. I think all Catholics (myself included) have to remember one of our most important characteristics: obedience!

Laus Deo

 

[numealinesimpet]

Hello. do you mind if I respond?

I noticed a lot of people use the subject “we” when we refer to Traditional Catholics. Please do not group every one of us with your personal views.

Quite right.

To briefly summarize my personal views as a Traditionalist:

• I attend the Mass of Blessed John XXIII as approved by the Holy Father in his Motu Proprio, in addition I follow the Calendar of Saints as it was in 1962.

• I receive Communion in the mouth, whether I’m at the MBJXXXI or the Mass of Pope Paul VI (sometimes mistakingly referred to as the Novus Ordo).

• I pray in Latin whenever possible.

• I learn Latin, so that I may be able to read the Bible in the Vulgate, which I believe is authoritative.

It is. S. Jerome had direct access to innumerable manuscripts that are now lost forever. The Council of Trent (and possibly before that - perhaps someone can confirm this) declared it to be normative. On the other hand, the original edition did have a few errors of translation that do not affect Faith or Morals. A revised edition in Latin was produced around the time of the Counter-Reformation.

• When a passage of Scripture is beyond my ability to read Latin, I use the Douay-Rheims Bible, I do not prefer the newer versions of the Bible as I feel they are misinterpreted.

There is an interesting contrast between the Douay & the King James. Both versions worked to enrich the English language, which was not yet sophisticated enough to express all the thoughts in the Bible. The King James was intended for vernacular worship, and attention was paid to stateliness of diction. But the translation was ‘spun’ to suit, as far as possible, the Protestant heresy. (although this has not stopped some Eastern Europeans I know from converting from “Lapsed Communism” to the Catholic church on the basis of what they read there) … hence it is notably elegant in its diction. The Douay version, on the other hand, was a Study Edition that was at pains to give the exact meaning of the Vulgate (with reference to the available Greek text). Hence the grammar is a little Latinised. NB also that there was a bit of snobbery attached to the Protestants taking their translation from the Greek: the manuscripts used were about 12th Century – far more recent than the Vulgate –and they were mostly from the manuscript tradition known as the textus receptus, which is not as pure as the other three manuscript traditions. We are better off with the Vulgate.

As for the modern translations: the Bible has many layers of meaning. Modern translators often pick one of the possible meanings and then express that in clear, modern English: yet the original text actually said more than this. The (Old) Jerusalem Bible was particularly notable for this: highly readable, yet misleading. As for the modern ones edited to be non-sexist … no comment.

• I read Theology by Aquinas and Bonaventure, not “inspiration”.

• I generally do not incorporate the Luminous mysteries,

Pope John Paul II explicitly wrote that they were optional. I also opt to keep to the ‘Dominican’ Rosary of 15 decades.

also I generally do not recite the Divine Mercy Chaplet (an exception to both of these is when I am reciting in a group).

• I try to pray the Divine Office every day, and I still refer to it as the Divine Office.
• I wear a Scapular when I pray the Rosary.

If I may ask: Why not wear it 24/7? And kiss it morning and evening? Thus one gains all the indulgences: and remember the great promise from Our Lady to S. Simon Stock: “Whoever dies wearing my Scapular will not see the eternal fire”.

• I attend Confession generally weekly, as well as attending Mass in a suit when possible.
• When in doubt, I follow what the Church says.
• I am obedient to Rome and the Pope as well as Church authority.

Always. But in this age of confusion one must be on guard. Not everything we are told is accurate. For example, did you notice that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is declared infallible, whereas the New Catechism promulgated by Pope John Paul II says in the Introduction that it is only advisory? Hence, in case of doubt, follow the former.

Note that some of the above are not exclusively Traditionalist…

I dislike the label, yet it describes my position in a reasonably accurate way. But I have refused to lie quiet in a corner (there are those in recent decdes who have worked hard to ostracise the trads and then accuse them of being sectarian and schismatic, whereas the isolation has been imposed on them, they did not choose it) …, & keep active in our mainstream parish, while going to the SSPX for the TLM and actively supporting them, as a debt of gratitude and justice. I asked our Parish Priest for a TLM under the new motu proprio, & he refused. So be it.

Continued…

 

[numealinesimpet]

continued…

A Traditionalist does not:

• Self-proclaim the Church invalid or illicit.
• Adhere to the schism referred to as “Sedevaticanism”
• Ignore what has happened in the Church since 1962.
• Refuse to attend the MOPPVI solely on the basis that it is “invalid” or “Protestant”.

Agreed.

• Ignore what Vatican II has stated

Well, any serious Catholic will read the actual documents, and will be very hard stretched indeed to get a clear message out of it.

nor doubt it’s validity.

Again, the careful Catholic will have discovered that the Vatican II documents state explicitly that they are not infallibe. But that should belong to a separate posting.

• Pretend to know what Vatican II means without reading the many documents that show it is a continuation, not a transformation, of the Church.

Having read the documents with some care I wish I could agree, but I cannot. The documents for the most part are rambling, without defining their terms, and leaving gigantic loopholes which have subsequently been ruthlessly exploited.

• State that the Church today is not Traditional, because all Catholicism is Traditional.

At present, the biggest problem is not what is taught from the Top, but that Middlemen (of both sexes) are teaching and doing the opposite without being stopped. And the children are not being given a clear exposition.

As St. Thomas Aquinas stated best: “Hold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church.”

I seriously doubt St.Thomas would have used his intelligence to attack the Church, rather he would of used it to show how those who attacked it were wrong!

Careful here: Archbishop Fulton Sheen noted the sad consequence of Catholic tepidity: “When the Church is holy, dissension is from the outside; when the Church is unholy, dissension is from within." That has been the situation for the past few decades. My definition of the Novo-Catholic is someone who, probably out of a sense of loyalty, insists on defending even the indefensible, so long as it has emanated from an apparent source within the Church.

(Just a factual note: Latin was not picked as the language of the Church for no reason, in its day, it was the Vernacular!)

Laus Deo

 

[numealinesimpet]

Infallibility and the Nota Praevia
On this difficult and painful issue it would be right for me to state my position at the outset. I believe that the Second Vatican Council was a validly convened Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. It enjoyed the approbation of the validly enthroned popes of the time and subsequently. However, it departed from the precedent of all previous Ecumenical Councils, not least in failing to speak in clear, precise and unambiguous language. Hence there has been justifiable controversy over is meaning and implementation ever since. Furthermore, the authorised text of the council itself contains a statement that these texts do not carry the quality of infallibility unless this is expressly stated (which in fact is never the case) or else, in cases where the text is repeating earlier statements already characterised as infallible (which was common enough). In other words, the Council itself has declared that it contains no new infallible doctrine.

The “Nota Praevia” (= “Introduction”) **
At Vatican II, the Holy Spirit precluded any errors from being promulgated precisely by preventing error from being promulgated in a binding way.
In the corpus of documents themselves this is specifically stated.
The Theological Commission makes reference to its Declaration of March 6, 1964, the text of which is:
"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. *
[This was, in fact, never done.]
The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation."*
Even though the paragraph itself is identified as a Nota Praevia - i.e. a Preliminary Note – supposed to be presented at the beginning of the document – in the actual published book this was printed as * a footnote *to Gaudium et Spes
Did the printer have authority to do this, & from whom? It is known that Paul VI ordered this Nota Praevia to be inserted only after he had been shown written statements by some of the Fathers that they had purposely left the wording of Gaudium et Spes vague, because they fully intended to interpret the words in the most extreme form after the Council. Even after he mandated this, the Nota Praevia somehow got itself printed at the end of Gaudium et Spes instead of its correct place at the beginning. I mention the above to support the point that this Nota Praevia is a fully authentic part of the documents of Vatican II.

In the edition edited by Fr Flannery O.P., however, it is, as far as I can find out, completely omitted. What was the authorisation for this?

After that, what is left? What, precisely, did Vatican II teach that is binding? What exactly have we been told to believe or to do that we were not believing or doing before the Council?

You no doubt have heard the old story about Napolean who was urged to destroy the church. His reply was that Catholics had been trying to do that for 2000 years and had not, so far at least, been successful.