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.
VociMike said:
Somebody recently made a claim that Vatican II called for thing X, which the Council did not call for. That got me thinking we should form a list of all the things that Vatican II did not call for, but which many people might mistakenly assume the Council did call for. The issue is not whether any of these things are right or wrong, but just a list of things since Vatican II that Vatican II did not call for. Please, let’s keep this an objective list, not an argument. I’ll start with a few:
  • Mass entirely in the vernacular
  • A new Missal
  • Priest saying Mass facing the people
  • Removal of altar rails
  • Communion in hand
  • Communion standing
  • Abandonment of Latin and Gregorian chant
I can think of more, but I’ll let others add them.
Click to expand...
this is one of the most edyfying threads I have EVER read!! thanks so much to all
 
johnstown_johnn said:
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
Click to expand...
Actually, Deacons could always give homilies.

Starting with St. Stephen onwards. St. Francis (a Deacon, not a priest) gave homilies. And St. John Chrystom gave many of his famous homilies as a Deacon.
 
Here is something that **it did call for **but has been ignored:

Dei Verbum 8.0
Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, **warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all **

Here is something that it did not call for: A priest giving the final blessing dressed in a barney costume
youtube.com/watch?v=fHi_VZLtcQ8&mode=related&search

Non Catholics like President Bill Clinton receiving Holy Communion.
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A056rcClintonCommunion.htm
 
batteddy said:
Honestly, I would argue that “Vatican II” properly speaking didnt call for ANY liturgical changes.
Click to expand...
The intentions behind Vatican II were not so much to “call” for changes, but to dismantle and undermine the Doctrines of the faith, by producing Vatican II documents filled to the brim with ambiguity. The modernist clergy**** began to interpret as they saw fit or as they desired and what has resulted was the gradual breakdown of the Faith. As I stated before, and as asserted by Pope Paul VI himself…“The smoke of satan has entered the sanctuary”.
 
labernadette said:
The intentions behind Vatican II were not so much to “call” for changes, but to dismantle and undermine the Doctrines of the faith, by producing Vatican II documents filled to the brim with ambiguity. The modernist clergy began to interpret as they saw fit or as they desired and what has resulted was the gradual breakdown of the Faith. As I stated before, and as asserted by Pope Paul VI himself…“The smoke of satan has entered the sanctuary”.
Click to expand...
It is absolutely ridiculous to ascribe those “intentions” to the Vatican II council. I have no problem with people who disagree with the results, but to claim that the purpose of the Council was to “dismantle the Doctrines of the faith” is delusional.
 
40.png
batteddy:
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.
Click to expand...
Dear batteddy,

Your argument carries no weight. Can you find any theologians who teach such nonsense…no, of course not. Where are you getting this stuff anyway…did you come to these conclusions by yourself or did you read it somewhere. Why don’t you give us your sources so we can examine them?

Gorman
 
rlg94086 said:
It is absolutely ridiculous to ascribe those “intentions” to the Vatican II council. I have no problem with people who disagree with the results, but to claim that the purpose of the Council was to “dismantle the Doctrines of the faith” is delusional.
Click to expand...
There is no delusion involved, I have read the history of the Council and I would suggest you do too. Look at the statistics, clearly the Church has suffered severely since Vatican II. Just because you deny the facts does not mean that they will go away.
 
Your argument carries no weight. Can you find any theologians who teach such nonsense…no, of course not. Where are you getting this stuff anyway…did you come to these conclusions by yourself or did you read it somewhere. Why don’t you give us your sources so we can examine them?
Click to expand...
Tell me. Why did the document so heavily discuss liturgical reform in mainly the Latin Rite and under the assumptions of mainly a Latin Rite liturgy??

The whole council may have signed it (still, it is disciplinary, not dogmatic) but I find it a sort of underhanded tactic to have the Eastern Bishops sign a heavily western document just to lend the Roman Rite the weight of “ecumenical council” when arguing in favor of the liturgical changes it wanted to implement.
 
batteddy said:
Tell me. Why did the document so heavily discuss liturgical reform in mainly the Latin Rite and under the assumptions of mainly a Latin Rite liturgy??

The whole council may have signed it (still, it is disciplinary, not dogmatic) but I find it a sort of underhanded tactic to have the Eastern Bishops sign a heavily western document just to lend the Roman Rite the weight of “ecumenical council” when arguing in favor of the liturgical changes it wanted to implement.
Click to expand...
The proper question to ask is not, “which rite did the legislation primarily affect?” but “what level of authority was legislating?” Every single church sui iuris is subject to the canons and decrees of an ecumenical council, so if councils are capable of making liturgical prescriptions, I don’t see why those prescriptions can’t be particular.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
The proper question to ask is not, “which rite did the legislation primarily affect?” but “what level of authority was legislating?” Every single church sui iuris is subject to the canons and decrees of an ecumenical council, so if councils are capable of making liturgical prescriptions, I don’t see why those prescriptions can’t be particular.
Click to expand...
If the prescruptions are particular, then, by defintion, they are not Universal, and an infallible Truth must be Universal.

The theological model we can look at is Nicea I Canon 20
Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing.
Click to expand...
here we have a prohibition on kneeling prayer on Sundays from an Eccumenical Council.

Obviously, we knee during our Sunday prayer, so we have to look at the level of Authority of this Canon.

Is it the infallible teaching of an Eccumenical Council, or the disclipinary ruling of the Magisterium.

Each has an Authority that must be obeyed, but one is an infallible, unreformable truth to be held by all the Faithful in any sui juris Church, and the other may be changed as circumstance dictate.

The prohibition on kneeling on Sundays is clearly in the Second category (no anathemas pronounced on violators), why would Sacrosanctum Concilium be any different?
 
Brendan said:
If the prescruptions are particular, then, by defintion, they are not Universal, and an infallible Truth must be Universal.

The prohibition on kneeling on Sundays is clearly in the Second category (no anathemas pronounced on violators), why would Sacrosanctum Concilium be any different?
Click to expand...
Glad you made that clarification.

Not trying to be a wiseguy and know I’m not attacking what you say but mewonders though how one would classify “will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”? Is this worse or better than an anathema?
 
Vatican II did not declare that the mirror is more authoritative than the Church.
 
Every single church sui iuris is subject to the canons and decrees of an ecumenical council, so if councils are capable of making liturgical prescriptions, I don’t see why those prescriptions can’t be particular.
Click to expand...
I agree. But why bother using the authority of an ecumenical council to dictate liturgical changes to a particular rite, when a synod of that church sui juris could handle it?

Doesn’t seem to follow the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Why would the Pope act as Pope on an issues where it would make more sense for him to act as Patriarch?

Seems like a tactic to lend more legitimacy to the destruction of the Roman liturgy than it properly deserves.
 
labernadette said:
There is no delusion involved, I have read the history of the Council and I would suggest you do too. Look at the statistics, clearly the Church has suffered severely since Vatican II. Just because you deny the facts does not mean that they will go away.
Click to expand...
I said there is nothing wrong with saying that Vatican II has caused problems for the Church. What I think is delusional is the belief that it was intentional. Right or wrong, the Bishops involved were doing what they thought was best for the Church. Their goal was not to “dismantle and undermine the Doctrines of the faith.”
 
These were things that I was taught were the mandate of VII and which later I found out to be wrong.

Artificial contraception is simply a matter of conscience

It is almost impossible to commit a mortal sin, therefore confession is not really necessary.

We have a new understanding of the Eucharist. Do not bring your daughters to First Communion in white dresses and veils. And they must receive in the hand.

The only thing we can be sure of in the Church now is constant change.

No more sanctus bells or incense 😦
 
krazykatlady said:
These were things that I was taught were the mandate of VII and which later I found out to be wrong.

Artificial contraception is simply a matter of conscience
Click to expand...
In Canada, this is what the bishops said, thirty nine years ago on Sept. 27, 1968 when they signed the Winnipeg Statement. They refused to acknowledge Humanae Vitae, based on primacy of conscience. The sad part is, to this day, they have never corrected their error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top