List all the things Vatican II did NOT call for

  • Thread starter Thread starter VociMike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joysong said:
The only problem, Mike, is that the “things” enumerated are depicted in such a light as to appear that they are wrong, yet many of the “things” did flow indirectly from the Council when a Commission was directed to implement certain changes not specifically spelled out in black and white in Council documents.
Click to expand...
Hey Joysong,

How about things that WERE spelled out in black and white in the V-II documents.

such as this.

Sacrosanctum Concilium
  1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together, in Latin, those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
Click to expand...
Does your parish follow the teachings of Vatican II and take steps so that the faithful sing or sing their parts of the Mass IN LATIN?

Vatican II was a great Council, I can’t wait for it to be implemented 👍
 
“Problems,” Caesar? Why so? Because I asked that we honor and respect the Bride of Christ? Well now, if one wishes to voice their discontent in yet another N.O./V-II bashing thread, I suppose I would be viewed as problematic. It is interesting that the only posters are traditionists who see this as their golden moment, and again, “as if over these last several years, nobody ever discussed this ad nauseum before?”

Of course, there is nothing in forum guidelines that limit people from posting their malcontent, but it certainly does not live up to who we are in Christ - in my humble opinion, and in the opinion of the Saint I previously quoted.
 
I believe most the people are defending what Vatican II didn’t call for.

There has been not one person who has insulted the Holy Church or Vatican II.

Joysong, I would really recommend you read some of the documents of Vatican II you would see tradition spelled throughout. Sacrosanctum Concilium is pretty short and a very good read, it is quite different that what we see in many parishes today, especially out here in California.

We need to hold fast to our traditions by word of mouth or by letter.

In Christ
Scylla
 
I am not a “traditionalist” in the sense that I am loyal to the TLM.

I love the NO Mass when it is respectfully, honorably and properly presented.

As a young Catholic born in 1960, I have no memory of the TLM. I grew up with all of the experimentation. It wasn’t until I myself dove into the documents of the Second Vatican Council that I discovered that alot of what I have witnessed in the Mass all these years was never dictated by the Council.

The more I read, the more shocked I became.

And the only reason I had ready access to the documents was due to their availability on the Internet. I don’t know if I would have ever read them had I needed to order them or buy them from a bookstore.

I am one of those people who honors Mother Church with all my heart and definitely sees the beauty in the NO Mass. But I am convinced that most of the Masses that I’ve attended as a young adult and even now this day are far, far from the intent of the Council.

Someone took great liberties with the Mass and even those who helped formulate the documents on liturgy at the SVC argue that their intent was never realized.

Yes, Holy Mother Church is to be honored with respect at all times. But somebody blew it in allowing the Mass to evolve into the way that so many celebrate it each day. Not all, but some (alot).
 
Women/girls not covering their heads and overall dress by men and women? Not sure if this really fits into the category or not. I’m not the type that says all men should wear suits and women dresses, but sadfully a lack of modesty in dress has become the norm among some.
 
Joysong said:
“Problems,” Caesar? Why so? Because I asked that we honor and respect the Bride of Christ? Well now, if one wishes to voice their discontent in yet another N.O./V-II bashing thread, I suppose I would be viewed as problematic. It is interesting that the only posters are traditionists who see this as their golden moment, and again, “as if over these last several years, nobody ever discussed this ad nauseum before?”

Of course, there is nothing in forum guidelines that limit people from posting their malcontent, but it certainly does not live up to who we are in Christ - in my humble opinion, and in the opinion of the Saint I previously quoted.
Click to expand...
Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch.
 
Pianos
Guitars
Polka Masses
Clown Masses
Gay Masses
Liturgical dancing
Charismatic Masses
Abandonment of black vestments (or did it?)
Relegation of the tabernacle in church
Costly demolition of statues, altar railings, confessionals, etc.
Concelebration of Mass (or did it?)
Elimination of subdeacon status
Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist
Relaxation of Fasting Rules
Preaching away from pulpit
Hand-holding
 
They didn’t call for the SMOKE OF SATAN to enter the sanctuary, but they sure did provide the opening.
 
It did not call for a change in the Sacrament of Reconciliation to just give thanks to God.
Title for a new thread: Why were all these things added to Vat II?
 
Honestly, I would argue that “Vatican II” properly speaking didnt call for ANY liturgical changes. I don’t think the ecumenical council known as Vatican II can truly be said to have called for any changes in the Roman Rite.

Rather, I would argue that a synod of Roman Rite bishops who happened to use the ecumenical council as a convenient time to meet called for the changes (such as the abolition of Prime, etc)…

Because…did the Eastern Catholic bishops really sign the decree calling for the reform of the Roman Rite?? Does that make any sense? Why would an ecumenical council, in totum, call for changes in one particular Rite??

In the west, unfortunately, the Eastern Catholic Churches are very small. And so, since Trent at least…the acts of ecumenical councils have often been mixed ambiguously with what I would consider acts not truly ecumenical, but only applying to the Latin Rite Church, and such obviously have much less authority than truly ecumenical acts.

Confusing those liturgical decisions of only the Roman Rite specifically which were made by the Roman Rite bishops who happened to be meeting **at **Trent or Vatican II, with the ecumenical decisions actually made BY the whole college of bishops in council.

Because, obviously, an act applying to one Rite only does not carry the weight of being universal, or the involvement of the Eastern Churches.

But when the Roman Rite Church predominates the Whole Catholic Church…it’s particular decisions often get mixed in with universal decisions. When one church makes up most of the whole Church, it is sometimes hard to remember the distinction between the two.

But, by their very nature of applying to only one Rite, I would argue that the liturgical changes were not truly called for by the whole college of bishops in Ecumenical Council…but rather was a lesser document, written by a plenary synod of the Roman Rite bishops that happened to use Vatican II as a convenient excuse to meet. However, I believe the same thing about Trent’s liturgical decisions. They were not ecumenical, nor carry the weight of ecumenical council…exactly because by their very nature they were not universal, but applied only to one Rite.
 
Deletion of the St Michael’s prayer after Mass.
Banners and more banners - banners everywhere.
Standing during the consecrationt, in some parishes.
Practically no time of quiet after Holy Communion.
Allowing much (loud) talking before Mass starts.
 
BobP123 said:
Pianos
Guitars
Polka Masses
Clown Masses
Gay Masses
Liturgical dancing
Charismatic Masses
Abandonment of black vestments (or did it?)
Relegation of the tabernacle in church
Costly demolition of statues, altar railings, confessionals, etc.
Concelebration of Mass (or did it?)
Elimination of subdeacon status
Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist
Relaxation of Fasting Rules
Preaching away from pulpit
Hand-holding
Click to expand...
Black vestments are still Kosher. The Confraternity of Penitents uses lack in our Masses for the dead. Totally OK by the standards of Paul VI.
 
Black vestments are still Kosher. The Confraternity of Penitents uses lack in our Masses for the dead. Totally OK by the standards of Paul VI.
Click to expand...
True, but their use generally fell off significantly. Something never called for. Clown masses have never been officially called for either.
 
New title for this thread: All the things that bug me about the church. Since all the gripes do not fall under the jurisdiction of vatican 2, it seems the sky’s the limit on what we can post here. :rolleyes:
 
batteddy said:
However, I believe the same thing about Trent’s liturgical decisions. They were not ecumenical, nor carry the weight of ecumenical council…exactly because by their very nature they were not universal, but applied only to one Rite.
Click to expand...
That is not correct. If there were any misunderstandings, they were clarified by Pius V later. All and only those rites prior to 1370 were legitimate.

You are correct about Vatican II though.
 
Rykell said:
New title for this thread: All the things that bug me about the church.
Click to expand...
Or how about starting a new one: all the things that used to bug me about the church? But restricted only for the non-worshippers. 😃
 
Foremost is:
Code: 
    Communion in the hand  

    Protestant hymns at Mass 

   Deacons giving homilies in place of the priest 

   Tabernacles placed out of view 

   Ease of annulments
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top