S
savienu
Guest
If you are going to ignore the rest of my post, then I see no reason to continue this discussion with you.
- Status
F
Frosty
Guest
I can’t speak for anyone else but it does seem reasonable to me that if one wishes to discuss a certain document, one should read that entire document not simply one or two passages of it. It’s easy to pick and choose certain passages that either we do or don’t agree with but that method is really misleading because then one is missing the whole context of the document. That doesn’t mean that one has to read all the documents from Vatican II to discuss one particular document. How can one participate in an honest and intelligent manner unless one knows what the entire document is about?
Look at it this way: Say someone wanted to engage you in a discussion about JRR Tolkein’s “The Lord of the Rings”. It’s a long slog through the three books so you decide to only read the last chapter “the Scouring of the Shire” of the third book “The Return of the King”. Could you honestly say that you know from reading only that small part of the whole trilogy that you really understand what the story is about or that you even have any business entering into the discussion in the first place? IMHO it is intellectually lazy and dishonest not to go directly to the source and try to understand it before pretending to be capable of ponticating on a subject or even stating an opinion. We are free to have our own opinions but on a subject as vitally important as our faith, it is necessary for us to do our own homework and not base our opinions on what someone else says on an Internet forum or website.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I agree with you there. In regards of Vatican II, I don’t know what the big deal is about the council documents and its teachings. They don’t contradict Catholic faith and there is absolutely no reason to criticize them. Yes there are things that were misinterpreted by some, but not all. Why criticize the council?? If we accept the council there is no argument. The argument lies with people’s private interpretation. We can safely criticize the people, but the council itself needs no criticisism. What stemmed from Vatican we must accept. Like it or not. All some people see is false accusations and they don’t read the texts in full and the jump to conclusions. Can anyone name me one thing that Vatican II is worth criticizing??? To the people that have a problem with the council and its teaching. Accepting, but not following the church, get over it. What has been done has been done. Read the documents and think before you make false claims and openly say bad things about the council. If you have problem with the council then either talk to a priest or just join Protestants
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Point taken about reading all the documents. I’ll work on reading them all before posting about them.
But I must clarify - I didn’t criticize the Vatican II documents. Unless you think calling them ambiguous is a criticism, but I thought I made it clear that the ambiguity was done on purpose, and therefore is not a flaw.
S
savienu
Guest
Anything short of “Vatican II was the best thing to happen to the Church” is “criticism” to some people here, Neil.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Looks that way doesn’t it.
A
authenticity
Guest
I was reading over the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II. There is no where (of course) that explicitly says that, from here on out, we will glorify man instead of God.
However, I think the Vatican II documents led to the subjective experience of the laity being more important than upholding the Tradition of the Church. Priests were instructed to place more emphasis on the participation of the laity in the liturgy. That in itself isn’t a bad thing, but the result was that instead of consecrating the people to God, the people conformed God to their experiences, feelings and philosophies. I do not believe it was ever the intention of the Holy See that this would be the case.
I think they wanted what I explained to my son the other day before we did the rosary… I said, “Praying the rosary is a privilege, not an obligation.” I think that is exactly what the Holy See expresses in Vatican II: for us to be engaged in our relationship to God and not just fulfilling an obligation because we were told to do so.
The music, saying Mass in the local language, adding local cultural artifacts, bringing the laity into the sanctuary, turning the altar around to face the people instead of the Tabernacle… this was all done to make the laity feel a “part of”. But the question arises, “A part of what?”
From Sancrosanctum Concilium:
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.
…
- With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy both internally and externally, taking into account their age and condition, their way of life, and standard of religious culture. By so doing, pastors will be fulfilling one of the chief duties of a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God; and in this matter they must lead their flock not only in word but also by example.
- It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.
- To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.
- Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.
- Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.
K
Kook
Guest
Does this mean that we can’t even acknowledge whether or not a council was successful? It’s not like Lateran V was anything to write home about. Or that Florence or Lyons II accomplished a solid reunion with the East?
I’m also unsure of how one can deny ambiguity in Vatican II. Every book written about the history of the council shows that there was a group that wanted to change Church teaching on a number of subjects and made passages deliberately vague in order to implement such changes via “interpretation.”
This isn’t just from Michael Davies or Romano Amerio. Gary MacEoin, Paul Blanshard, Oscar Cullman, Robert MacAffee Brown, etc. all said the same thing. Dr. Marcellino Ambrosio has said that The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber is probably the best history of the council. Fr. Wiltgen is clear in that book that deliberate ambiguity was the order of the day.
I’m also unsure of how one can deny ambiguity in Vatican II. Every book written about the history of the council shows that there was a group that wanted to change Church teaching on a number of subjects and made passages deliberately vague in order to implement such changes via “interpretation.”
This isn’t just from Michael Davies or Romano Amerio. Gary MacEoin, Paul Blanshard, Oscar Cullman, Robert MacAffee Brown, etc. all said the same thing. Dr. Marcellino Ambrosio has said that The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber is probably the best history of the council. Fr. Wiltgen is clear in that book that deliberate ambiguity was the order of the day.
S
savienu
Guest
I agree. I don’t see why being Catholic all of a sudden means not using our God-given intellect.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
We can acknowledge whether Vatican II was successful or not. Personally I do like some Pre-Vatican II traditions a bit better. I like to receive on the tongue instead of by hand. I have nothing against the Pre-Vatican II Latin Mass nor do I have any problem with the Novus Ordo mass. I just don’t understand why people accept this council but don’t want to follow it, look for every nit picking thing they can to criticize it and make it look bad.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
You can use your intellect. You act like Vatican II took away your beliefs. Why??? I have nothing against you or any other that has posted here in this thread. Right now I am trying to work on my charity somewhat. I am sorry if have come off a bit uncharitable.I agree. I don’t see why being Catholic all of a sudden means not using our God-given intellect.
M
maurin
Guest
A problem remains, tobinator–and yes, I have noticed you’ve ignored my requests for your distinction: is what we have today in NO the intentions of the Council, or counter to the intentions of the Council, in your opinion?
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
To answer your question. Is what we have today in the NO the intentions of the Council?? Yes and no. My church didn’t remove the statues of Mary, Joseph and Jesus. In fact the have added more statues. Although we removed the communion rail in 1981, we still have them and there are talks about putting them back in. As for some churches they have removed a lot. I have been to plenty of churches where there are communion rails and even where the are Pre-Vatican II alters as they didn’t take anything out of the church. I see maybe one abuse and that is joining hands during the Pater Noster at my church. I however don’t join hands. As far as counter to the intentions, I really haven’t seen any of the churches that fit that discription
S
savienu
Guest
Maybe because you are ignoring the meat of my posts about the nature of the council FROM THE WORDS OF THE POPES and just repeating “Vatican II is infallible” over and over again?
As far as Vatican II taking away my beliefs, I don’t know if it was the council itself, but, being born in 1984 I can tell you that the “changes” that came along after Vatican II denied me my Catholic heritage and my birth rite. I was put through 14 years of Catholic schooling and learned just about nothing about my faith in that time period, and what I DID learn was “say one thing, do another” “this or that went out with Vatican II” type things. A friend of mine, a Maronite rite Catholic, when going through first communion classes in our Latin Rite Parish School, was SCOLDED for trying to receive on the tongue during practice! That was all he ever knew in his rite, AND, IT’S STILL THE ORDINARY MEANS OF RECEPTION IN THE LATIN RITE (though you’d never know it anymore.) Latin was not taught. I learned the Hail Mary in Latin from singing it. To this day, I am still trying to learn the Our Father in Latin. Everyone around me (including the teachers) taught the Church’s social teachings but mocked them with their actions. The richness, the Truth and the beauty of my faith was all but denied access to me, and I didn’t even know it. My experience is not unique. Even Jimmy Akin talks about how poor his RCIA catechesis was. On another thread, someone talked about how their RCIA clas celebrated Obama’s inauguration.
Being Catholic used to mean something. Since the 1960s and liberal bishops using the ambiguity of Vatican II to further their own agendas, it doesn’t mean much of anything anymore, because people think they can believe whatever they want and ignore the teachings of the Church. Even those who do follow the teachings of the Church have lost a lot of richness to their faith (I have yet to see anyone show me how the Novus Ordo has more richness and color to it than the TLM), and have been deprived of the knowledge of multiple different private devotions. And to add insult to injury, we have people such as yourself on this forum saying that those who are trying to restore what we have lost and offering a fair, well-thought out, well-researched intellectual critique of the documents of Vatican II from multiple sources (most in full communion with Rome, I might add) are heretics who are no better than Protestants and Cafeteria Catholics. I’m disgusted, I’ll admit it.
M
maurin
Guest
we aren’t talking about your Parish or my Parish. We are talking about the Council itself, and its documents, and how the entire Church Universal is implementing the it.
I’ll repeat again my question: What we have today, what we are experiencing in the Church, from CITH and the disappearance of Latin and Gregorian Chant from the Liturgy (just a couple of examples from current conversations on this forum, and,again, not in any particular Parish, but in the majority of Parishes), are these direct results of the Council’s Teachings, or are they in opposition to what the Council taught?
Could you provide either any links, or any snippets of the documents which confirm your answer?
K
Kook
Guest
Read any comments from Cullman, Brown, Blanshard, or MacEoin. They certainly think the texts are reversals/changes/whatever of prior teachings. These are educated guys. When they read stuff like Dignitatis Humanae, “subsists in,” Protestant liturgies “giving access to the community of salvation,” “imperfect communion”, and so forth, they rejoice in them.
Why is that?
Or look at Dei Verbum 11. How many heretics have tried to use that language to claim that the inerrancy of Scripture is limited to matters of faith and morals? Are you aware of how Paul VI was deliberately deceived on this point to the extent that he actually wept when finding out about it?
How many other councils needed a Nota Praevia?
Why is Black Week referred to by that name?
The list goes on.
Granted, I concede that the Pauline Mass is pretty far afield from what the council actually says, especially as it is offered these days.
R
RosaryCrusader
Guest
Saying it’s not alright to criticize the council is plain stupid. Cardinal Ratzinger criticized the council and still does as Pope. Various Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, and respected historians, liturgists, philosophers etc. have criticised the council and when people bring up arguments criticising the council they’re usually just repeating what the above already said.
Heck, even amongst the novus ordos the most “conservative” or “orthodox” and thus the most popular Priests are those who go against the common perceptions of the council. So even those here who are squealing against criticising the council have their own “conservative” brand of criticism. It’s okay for the likes of Fr. Corapi or Mr. Angelica to say her bit - it’s just not okay for more traditional clergy to do so.
Heck, even amongst the novus ordos the most “conservative” or “orthodox” and thus the most popular Priests are those who go against the common perceptions of the council. So even those here who are squealing against criticising the council have their own “conservative” brand of criticism. It’s okay for the likes of Fr. Corapi or Mr. Angelica to say her bit - it’s just not okay for more traditional clergy to do so.
R
RosaryCrusader
Guest
Back to the original poster - I already brought up a couple of instances in Gaudium et Spes that brings up references to the exaltation of man while I neglected the most obvious - the very theme of the Council itself:
**Updating the Church to suit ‘modern man.’ **
The very concept of aggiornamento within the Church to accommodate “modern man” smacks of enlightenment - and the glorification of man- as if somehow more technologically advanced gadgets enlightens us to the point of a higher consciousness; a new breed of man.
My question is: If modern man was the man of the 1960’s what are we today? Post-Modern-Men? Super-enlightened man? Mega? No, ULTRA!!!..
Ahhhh… yesssss… Ultra-man!
**Updating the Church to suit ‘modern man.’ **
The very concept of aggiornamento within the Church to accommodate “modern man” smacks of enlightenment - and the glorification of man- as if somehow more technologically advanced gadgets enlightens us to the point of a higher consciousness; a new breed of man.
My question is: If modern man was the man of the 1960’s what are we today? Post-Modern-Men? Super-enlightened man? Mega? No, ULTRA!!!..
Ahhhh… yesssss… Ultra-man!
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Please explain why you feel that you have been denied your Catholic heritage and birth right?? I too was born after Vatican II. I was born in 1982. I also attended Catholic school grades 1-6. Our town doesn’t have a Catholic high school or else I would have went to that. We never had a problem with people who want to receive by tongue. When prepping from 1st Communion we were shown how to receive by tongue and by hand. Latin wasn’t taught at my Catholic school either. Our Church does have its share of Latin inscriptions inside and yes I do know what they say and mean. I do not know much about our RCIA program, but they are taught and given not only the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but the Baltimore Catechism itself. I too have both those books at home. CCD we were taught a lot of different things. My CCD instructors grew up Pre-Vatican II so we knew how things were done before Vatican II. We were taught fasting and abstinance. There was only so much that could be taught in elementary. Yes I even had a nun. Since I have been out of High School for 9 years and I did go to CCD every week after I entered public school, I took intiative to learn things about the church that I didn’t know. I wouldn’t listen to Jimmy Akin myself, I think he is a terrible apologist. I prefer the likes of Scott Hahn, Fr. Corapi and Fr. Mitch Pacwa. How can you say such a thing as that being Catholic used to mean something??? I have come from 2 cradle Catholic families and they very proud to be Catholic. Lost richness in faith??? Maybe some have, but I have gained a lot of richness in faith over the years. Especially the last 2 years. I for one don’t believe the Novus Ordo mass has more richness and color than the TLM or vise versa. They are on equal grounds. I do find the TLM very beautiful and would like to attend one. I have only seen them on TV. I do get a lot wonderful chills up and down my spine. I beg to differ about the private devotions. I don’t feel we’ve lost anything. The TLM has always been there, private devotions have always been there, fullness in truth has always been there. Maybe it is just me, but I grew Post Vatican II, but knew very much how Pre-Vatican II was. If the Novus Ordo mass and the council documents are what you have problems with, then my friend I really suggest talking talking to a priest. I see no reason to put Vatican II or its documents down by criticizing it and comparing it to Pre-Vatican II.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
can you give links to these threads. I want to review them before I give an answer
- Status