If Vatican II never happened

[ravenonthecross]

Agreed, i merely attempt to assert, that the preservation, and the promotion of Gregorian chant, Latin, reverent vernacular, and the usage of externals such as incense, traditional-style vestments, the Priest facing God and the altar, silence during mass, dressing modestly for the Lord, reception of the Eucharist on the Tongue while kneeling at the communion rails, although have various options, these used with the Novus Ordo, these in particular can encourage a renewal and restoration of sacrality and sacredness, and reverence that is due to God in the Lord, and the to ensure, and promote the transcendence of the Mass, so as to allow one to focus on things of God and heaven, and not so much as a upon his or her self.

 

[TuEsPetrus]

I think that we would have more Theological writings that actually make sense were it not for Vatican II.
It is the Church of Christ and the Holy Ghost was present, but whether or not anyone was actually listening, I haven’t the slightest clue, but I’m sure only a minority were being true to the Catholic Faith and attentive. Perhaps the rest had a Vatican II golf tournament they were preoccupied thinking about?

Why are the documents of Vatican two so ambigious and “wishy washy”.

And what about that “Theology of the Body”…I tried to read it…it was boring and quite painful. I’m sure it has helped a lot of people, but when it comes to topics of love, I’ll stick to something else when learning what goes on between man and woman…
Has anyone ever read Pope Leo XIII’s “Letter to Newlyweds”?
I read only one chapter which discussed fidelity and I thought it to be far more beautiful to read.
Actually, all of the older writings are better than new…maybe it’s just that the modern society really has lost all sense of romance and the sacred? Why is it I’m only 28 and hate modern thought?

Why oh why can’t people just get straight to the point in something that important.

Oh, I don’t know, perhaps it is a good thing…that way the council was left “open” just enough that even though the devil messed everything up and confused the outcome, we traditionalists could still have a scapegoat, and a reason to call for true reform ushering back the Traditional Latin Mass again…

God Willing, the Traditional Latin Mass will take over the world!!!

First of all we must study Vatican I and study which Popes also wanted to call the Second Vatican Council but did not because they knew that it would be a disaster for the Church. All the Popes from St. Pius X and on wanted to call the council too, but they were adviced not too by many of the Cardinals b/c they knew it would be a disaster. You see Vatican I was never finished so the excuse was too finish it but all it needed was a few things that the first one could not finish because of political reason’s such as the war that was going on and so on. Notice that it was in the 1960’s that the revolution started. Let us remember that it is Satan who commands all revolution. There was only like 3 or prolly less “revolutions” i can think of that were actually necessary. One of them was the Cristero’s to the Mexican Government and some other’s in ancient history.

 

[Bob_Byrnes]

I believe the opposite. I believe the defenses and model that the Church presented prior to the Council would have limited the damage the 60’s limited on Society.

The fact that the Church “changed” at least in its policies from what many thought was previously unchangeable reinforced the belief that nothing was solid.

Malcolm Muggeridge said that “Just as the world was ready to surrender to the Church, the Church surrendered to the world” (paraphrase)

Had Vatican II not happened, there would be no “Spirit of Vatican II”.

The motivations and essential ideas of John XXIII were noble but the timing and his general policy was wrong.

Add to that his refusal to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady. (He thought it would be imprudent because he wanted Russian Orthodox at the Council) And it’s no wonder that the council has really never lived up to its promise.

The Holy Ghost doesn’t promise good fruit to a Council, especially if the Council doesn’t promulgate anything of real value to the Church. A strong clear condemnation of Communism, a more prominent clarification on our Lady’s privileges and a clear call for conversion to the Catholic Church from the separated sects and Churches might have produced much better fruit.

Vatican II was too accomodating to political ideologies and consequently produced confusion in its very sloppy texts.

This is probably the most arrogant statement I have ever read on the Catholic Answers Forums !!!

 

[passioncrosslov]

Malcolm Muggeridge said that “Just as the world was ready to surrender to the Church, the Church surrendered to the world” (paraphrase)

This quote caught my attention. Could you elaborate more on what Malcom Muggeridge meant by this quote according to your knowledge? I would really like to understand. Thanks!

 

[passioncrosslov]

A priest once mentioned that why not combine the two… I’ve seen the reverence in the TLM and NO, they’re both beautiful; however, no matter how beautiful they are, people are still people, same old habits and weakness. What I like best about the TLM is receiving Our Lord kneeling. One thing I don’t like about the NO is the actual words of Christ, the consecration, has changed; that reminds me what He said, something like “the world may change, but my words will never change…” (bad memory, HELP!). But then again, they are both valid.

 

[patrick457]

A priest once mentioned that why not combine the two… I’ve seen the reverence in the TLM and NO, they’re both beautiful; however, no matter how beautiful they are, people are still people, same old habits and weakness. What I like best about the TLM is receiving Our Lord kneeling. One thing I don’t like about the NO is the actual words of Christ, the consecration, has changed; that reminds me what He said, something like “the world may change, but my words will never change…” (bad memory, HELP!). But then again, they are both valid.

What the Lord said was, 'Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but My word shall not pass away."

Yep. It might be good if the Ordinary Form would take a leaf out of the EF’s book; revise it to conform with the actual liturgical traditions of the Western Church (and if possible, translate the Latin text correctly and accurately, conforming with the Latin; note that the Church did NOT change the words of the Consecration, it was those who translated the Mass into English that did so).

 

[GerardP]

This is probably the most arrogant statement I have ever read on the Catholic Answers Forums !!!

So? What’s your point? Do you care to discuss it or are people only allowed to promote your point of view?

 

[GerardP]

Malcolm Muggeridge said that “Just as the world was ready to surrender to the Church, the Church surrendered to the world” (paraphrase)

This quote caught my attention. Could you elaborate more on what Malcom Muggeridge meant by this quote according to your knowledge? I would really like to understand. Thanks!

What Muggeridge meant was that the Church had held strong during all of the turmoils that the 20th Century brought. Nations were virtually destroyed, dangerous philosophies had had their day and the Utopian dreams and experiments of the Nazis, the Italian Fascists, the Communists had all proven to be a bust.

And just when the world was poised to look for the answer in the correct place, the Catholic Church. The “church” (ie. churchmen) decided to “greet the world” and make a wonderful society.

That is not the mission of the Church and that is why Vatican II has been and will continue to be un-implementable in a positive way.

A good short reading suggestion is “Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II” by the late, great Micheal Davies.

He shows exactly how in liturgical matters the lack of distinctions and various loopholes in Vatican II justify most of the abuses we see today.

 

[Bob_Byrnes]

So? What’s your point? Do you care to discuss it or are people only allowed to promote your point of view?

Over the years I have been vilified for criticizing some of Pope John Paul’s policies (e.g. tightening contols over Bishops, no ordination of women and anti condoms in Africa to reduce AIDS).
I guess when I saw your criticisms of John XXIII I overreacted. Of course you have the right to criticize John XXIII just as I have the right to criticize John Paul. My apologies. Perhaps I have found a fellow Catholic that doesn’t believe in “creeping infallibility”.

 

[Ampatamia]

Vatican II actually limited the damage that our society was causing our Church if anything. Don’t make yourself bigger than the Church. We can’t pick and choose what councils we don’t want to accept. Remember, to accept Vatican II is to accept all the other councils before that. It’s that simple. If you think Vatican II was a mistake, then you agree w/ Mel Gibson.

Many, many dittos on the abovemetioned point. Some people who wonder what the Church would be like if Vatican II never existed are playing with the idea that they and their version of the Church is MORE CATHOLIC THAN THE POPE! BE CAREFUL HERE! The next stop on this slippery slope is to begin to believe that the Chair of St. Peter is empty, and has been empty for some time. Jesus has told us that upon the rock of St. Peter, the Church is built, and the gates of hell will not prevail against her. If St. Peter’s Chair is empty, Jesus has abandoned His Church and we all know that this is a lie from Hell itself. Many kudos to Mel Gibson for having the chutzpah to create the Passion of the Christ, but I will never agree with his and his father’s sede-vacantist understanding of the Church. I hope that you do not either.

Sincerely,

Ampatamia

 

[GerardP]

Over the years I have been vilified for criticizing some of Pope John Paul’s policies (e.g. tightening contols over Bishops, no ordination of women and anti condoms in Africa to reduce AIDS).
I guess when I saw your criticisms of John XXIII I overreacted. Of course you have the right to criticize John XXIII just as I have the right to criticize John Paul. My apologies. Perhaps I have found a fellow Catholic that doesn’t believe in “creeping infallibility”.

It’s quite alright. I’m definitely against rampant papalotry. It doesn’t sound like we’ll agree on too many Catholic issues though.

(not to derail the thread, but as a side note AIDS in Africa is not the same as AIDS in America or Europe. You don’t even need to have HIV in order to be diagnosed with AIDS in Africa. virusmyth.net/aids/data/tbmbeki.htm )

 

[TuEsPetrus]

Actually Mel Gibson is part of the SSPX, and his dad is Sede-Vacantist. So dont confuse the both please. No there is no such things as something Less Catholic or More Catholic you know why? Because there is only the way the Saints would do something and Vatican II is not infallible and even the Popes have said that so. Vatican I was infallible, if you wanna debate that with me I am more then ready to do so. So if you wanna claim that Vatican II is free of error you will be wrong and if the V II Popes have said so becaused it was never declared as infallible like Vatican I did. So if an error can lead to a mistake and a mistake can lead to Hell and Heresy, you be my guest. Also Vatican II said that if you wiosh to follow the traditions in the church of the past, you can do so. For example if you wanna fast 3 hours before mass actually it is encouraged. The Saints were build on the old way and only way. On the true imitiation of Christ with sacrifice and full faith not partial faith or faith that is doubtful and on true obedience. There has been so many martyrs in the Church that have martyred themselves not to offer 3 grams of incence to the false God’s. Yet (not being Judgeful here just stating the facts I will let God decide his true intentions) Pope JP II put the mark of Shiva in public before millions and millions of Catholics something that thousands and thousands of martyrs have died for. THere is not one Saint I can think of that had the spirit of “ecumenism” it was either the Catholic way or the Catholic way no other way. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Any Questions or Rebuttals are welcomed.

 

[Genesis315]

Actually Mel Gibson is part of the SSPX, and his dad is Sede-Vacantist. So dont confuse the both please. No there is no such things as something Less Catholic or More Catholic you know why? Because there is only the way the Saints would do something and Vatican II is not infallible and even the Popes have said that so. Vatican I was infallible, if you wanna debate that with me I am more then ready to do so. So if you wanna claim that Vatican II is free of error you will be wrong and if the V II Popes have said so becaused it was never declared as infallible like Vatican I did. So if an error can lead to a mistake and a mistake can lead to Hell and Heresy, you be my guest. Also Vatican II said that if you wiosh to follow the traditions in the church of the past, you can do so. For example if you wanna fast 3 hours before mass actually it is encouraged. The Saints were build on the old way and only way. On the true imitiation of Christ with sacrifice and full faith not partial faith or faith that is doubtful and on true obedience. There has been so many martyrs in the Church that have martyred themselves not to offer 3 grams of incence to the false God’s. Yet (not being Judgeful here just stating the facts I will let God decide his true intentions) Pope JP II put the mark of Shiva in public before millions and millions of Catholics something that thousands and thousands of martyrs have died for. THere is not one Saint I can think of that had the spirit of “ecumenism” it was either the Catholic way or the Catholic way no other way. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Any Questions or Rebuttals are welcomed.

There are plenty of threads where the alleged errors of Vatican II are addressed and shown not to be errors. If you have any specific allegations, start a new thread.

As for the “mark of shiva” that’s not what he was receiving.

"A letter dated November 22, 1994 from the Pontifical Council for Social Communications explains the custom and its role in Indian society:

"Indian Catholics…use “Aarti” when a child returns home after receiving First Holy Communion, and when a newly married couple are received by their respective families. Nowadays, “Aarti” is often performed to greet the principal celebrant at a liturgical event, as it was on the occasion shown in the photograph. On such occasions, “Aarti” is usually offered by a Catholic married lady, and certainly not by a “priestess of Shiva” as has been alleged…Use of the “Aarti” ceremonial by Indian Catholics is no more the worship of a heathen deity than is the decoration of the Christmas tree by American Christians a return to the pagan rituals of Northern Europe.’

 

[bear06]

NIce find, Genesis. Traditio.com is not a good place to get info. I double check everything I see on there. Not much is accurate. This is why it might not be a good idea to perpetuate everything we find scandalous. If we truly found it scandalous, then we’d be spreading scandal by bringing it up relentlessly, wouldn’t we?

 

[TuEsPetrus]

Ok now there is where the real problems lies why dont u Wikipedia Aarti or Google it. It is a Hindu Practice where u place some inscence on a metal plate and u place it on the forehead and u use it on idols. This is not Catholicism so please dont argue some Un-Catholic custom and try to make it a Catholic custom for it never was one and never will be on unless you want to reject the Council of Trent wholly and declare yourself an Anathema. There is absolutely no compromise to the faith we have its the whole package. There are several places in Brazil where they mix vodoo and Catholicism and some other spiritist stuff so dont go claiming that this is a Catholic practice but rather admit it what it is that most ppl would call it “liturgical abuse”. I am not a sede-vacantist or anything of the sort just when you defend the faith please use arguments that are Catholic. So wherever you got that unless u mispelled the word Aarti then I may be wrong.

 

[TuEsPetrus]

The custom you talking about is Aarati and here is a website for those of you who like to read on some of that stuff. jloughnan.tripod.com/shiva.htm. I havent read all of the refutations yet. But I know as a fact that in order for a custom to be implemented in the Church it must be 200 year’s old and correct me if I am wrong that was said in the Council of Trent. Give me some time to give you the actual documentation. Please tell me if any other Cardinals/ Popes/ Bishops in the India in the past 200 years have actually received the “catholic custom” from the past. It must be a tradition that is completely imbedded in the custom of that country in order for that to be considered valid.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, people, or I will have to close the thread. Take side issues to new threads in the appropriate fora. Thank you.

 

[highlander]

This is probably the most arrogant statement I have ever read on the Catholic Answers Forums !!!

You may be right, but how much MORE arrogant is it to abrogate centuries of tradition to follow some revolutionary ideas propagated “in the spirit of Vatican II”?

 

[highlander]

Many, many dittos on the abovemetioned point. Some people who wonder what the Church would be like if Vatican II never existed are playing with the idea that they and their version of the Church is MORE CATHOLIC THAN THE POPE! BE CAREFUL HERE! The next stop on this slippery slope is to begin to believe that the Chair of St. Peter is empty, and has been empty for some time. Jesus has told us that upon the rock of St. Peter, the Church is built, and the gates of hell will not prevail against her. If St. Peter’s Chair is empty, Jesus has abandoned His Church and we all know that this is a lie from Hell itself. Many kudos to Mel Gibson for having the chutzpah to create the Passion of the Christ, but I will never agree with his and his father’s sede-vacantist understanding of the Church. I hope that you do not either.

Sincerely,

Ampatamia

Ampatamia:
St Paul withstood St Peter to his face when St Peter refused to eat with gentiles. Likewise, St Anathasius opposed Pope Liberius for his weak stance on arianism. So opposing the pope when he is in error (and obviously not speaking ex cathedra) is not a sin, but a meritorious act.
I guess St Paul and St Anathasius were “more Catholic than the pope”?

 

[patrick457]

IMHO, it may be permissible at times to question an action of a Pope (after all the Pope is human like the rest of us; he still can do mistakes and faults) but to say things like the Church is run by Freemasons or that the Post-VII Popes are spawns of the devil or that all who attend the Ordinary form and/or are part of the Church (meaning the Church as it is post-VII) are sinners (which sadly, many people on the internet promulgate) is not a criticism; it would be defamation. These people give the true definition of the term ‘More Catholic than the Pope’.

For short, criticizing a Pope is the same as criticizing everyone; you need to draw a line between (constructive) criticism and false speech.

Just my 2 cents.