List all the things Vatican II did NOT call for

[BobCatholic]

But the people did.

Vatican II did not authorize them to do so.

Something else did. It was shiny. And had a nice reflection.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And it deserves to be smashed.

 

[Apocalypse_12]

So if Vatican 2 did not call for these things, is it sinful to attend a church where these flagrant abuses are committed?

Not to get too off topic, of course. I’m kind of a newbie in the whole Vatican 2 debate. Perhaps my question has been discussed before.

One thing I can contribute to this thread:

*Things that Vatican 2 did NOT call for:

-Masonic symbols on the stained glass doors of the Church*

(My church has the “All-seeing eye of God” symbol, similar to the one on the dollar bill, on one of its glass doors. The deacon has vehemently defended it being there.)

 

[paramedicgirl]

Vatican II didn’t say to ditch Gregorian Chant.

Sacrosanctum Concilium 116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

 

[valdeere]

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

I think I’m pretty lucky…we use bells and we have incense at every mass, not just special occasions. We say the Lamb of God in Latin.

They are also available for reconciliation every day over the noon hour, and every saturday for two hours before 6 o’clock mass…and sometimes mass starts late because they are not done hearing confessions. They have also never said anything to me about my daughter and I NOT receiving communion in the hand.

My biggest fear is that they are going to transfer my priests to another parish!

 

[BobP123]

*Things that Vatican 2 did NOT call for:

-Masonic symbols on the stained glass doors of the Church*

(My church has the “All-seeing eye of God” symbol, similar to the one on the dollar bill, on one of its glass doors. The deacon has vehemently defended it being there.)

After all I’ve personally gone through, that would definitely disgust me. I would report that to the bishop first, then the Vatican. Perhaps that deacon may reconsider his position.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Things that Vatican 2 did NOT call for:

-Masonic symbols on the stained glass doors of the Church

(My church has the “All-seeing eye of God” symbol, similar to the one on the dollar bill, on one of its glass doors. The deacon has vehemently defended it being there.)

I noticed the “All-seeing-eye” thingamajig in one of the larger prominant mosaics at the Cathedral Basillica of St. Louis during Friday’s ordination - I don’t think it is a strictly masonic symbol. Generically, it’s a symbol signifying Divine Providence.

DustinsDad

 

[VociMike]

So if Vatican 2 did not call for these things, is it sinful to attend a church where these flagrant abuses are committed?

Just to clarify, I would not go so far as to say that anything now being done which was not authorized by Vatican II is an abuse, although if their originators falsely claimed Vatican II as their justification then they could be called abuses of Vatican II’s mandate.

One thing I can contribute to this thread:

*Things that Vatican 2 did NOT call for:

-Masonic symbols on the stained glass doors of the Church*

(My church has the “All-seeing eye of God” symbol, similar to the one on the dollar bill, on one of its glass doors. The deacon has vehemently defended it being there.)

 

[BobP123]

So if Vatican 2 did not call for these things, is it sinful to attend a church where these flagrant abuses are committed?

Could be. But what constitutes abuse is something that may be very individual and/or what canon law refers to as “spiritual advantage,” or disadvantage, in this case. You are allowed to go to any Catholic rite where that advantage is maximized rather than simply avoid one which you find “sinful.” At least that’s my interpretation of Canon Law.

 

[ncjohn]

Another thing that Vatican II didn’t call for:

People to proclaim the liberty to condemn the Church for exercising Her legitimate rights in proclaiming disciplines.

Vatican II did not have to call for the N.O. Mass. The Church was within Her right to institute it regardless. Vatican II did in fact, however, call for substantial changes in the Mass, including making it more understandable and generating greater participation by the laity, which the N.O. Mass does. And actually, since the TLM does not fulfill the changes specifically called for, one could legitimately say that its suppression, or at least substantial modification, was at least indirectly called for.

I personally agree with our Popes that the TLM does need to be available for those who truly want it, and do still hope that widespread availability does come about. But I, like many others, do get tired of the gratuitous sniping at the legimately-adopted N.O. Mass, which is beloved by many even if some do not care for it.

No, Vatican II did not call for the abuses that have occurred. But it certainly didn’t call for people to throw out the baby with the bathwater either, as so many here are eager to do. If you have a problem with the abuses, work on stopping the abuses, though most here aren’t really interested in that at all, but in abolishing it completely, and having the TLM alone. If you want the TLM, may God grant you the opportunity. And in so doing, hopefully allow you to leave in peace those who just prefer the N.O.

The carnage here needs to stop!

Peace,

 

[Joysong]

:clapping:

Well said, ncjohn.

 

[VociMike]

The carnage here needs to stop!

Yep. But it must also be recognized that the carnage need never have begun. I am unaware that the era following any other council has had the carnage we have had in the past 45 years. So while it is true that the carnage must stop, the reasons for the carnage after this council must finally be faced and not ignored or minimized. This carnage has cost millions of Catholics their faith. It has led hundreds of thousands of priests and religious to reject their vows. The list could go on and on. The reasons for such carnage to the Church must be squarely adressed, and we must all say “never again!”

And lest some be too quick to assume, I attended the N.O. Mass in English today, and I do not question for a moment that it is a legitimate Mass and the normative Mass of the Church.

 

[BobP123]

Vatican II did not have to call for the N.O. Mass. The Church was within Her right to institute it regardless.

Really? Then please explain this Trent anathema to us:

Canon XIII.—Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbates Ecclesiæ Catholicæ ritus, in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos, aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.

Canon XIII.—If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones: let him be anathema.

Personally I find the above translation a little bit weak as it leaves out the word “whomsoever” but in any case Vatican II did not violate Trent.

 

[ncjohn]

Really? Then please explain this Trent anathema to us:

Personally I find the above translation a little bit weak as it leaves out the word “whomsoever” but in any case Vatican II did not violate Trent.

You know the answer to your own question Bob, regardless of the fact that you apparently choose to ignore it.

No Pope can bind a future Pope in matters of discipline. We are not talking about “ministers” or “Pastors”, which is what that anathema addresses, but the Pope himself, who does in fact have that authority as all Popes have.

I’m pretty convinced though that you in fact just deny the validity of Vatican II, though you seem unwilling to either confirm or deny that. Regardless, your disdain for it shines brightly.

I can fully respect your preference for the TLM and the traditions associated with it, and I myself practice many of them. It’s a shame that you can’t return the favor to those of us for rightly follow what the Church tells us today we are to do.

Peace,

 

[paramedicgirl]

And lest some be too quick to assume,** I attended the N.O. Mass in English today, **and I do not question for a moment that it is a legitimate Mass and the normative Mass of the Church.

So did I. It was a valid, uninspiring Mass.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I sit on the other side of the aisle from my friend and brother NCJohn but we’re still in the same church. I was a teenager during and just after Vatican II and I am awaiting the MP so that I can once again go up to the altar of God, the God of my joy and my youth.

John, I understand completely where you are coming from. You and I are of an age but whereas you found “grateful coolness in the heat” after Vatican II, I have felt a huge disconnect. The MP will not bring back the church of my youth and there are many things about V II for which I am eternally grateful (e.g. ecumanism - we had to get permission from our parish priest to attend my grandmother’s protestant funeral in 1967). Or to not be able to sing wonderful Anglican anthems which use the KJV as the source.

Maybe it’s just me. I sang in the choir for my Catholic high school. In 1968 we still sang in Latin for the class of 68’s Mass. When I graduated in 1969, we sang a’strummin’ and a’grinnin’ and a’swayin music with guitars. Can you honestly tell me that I should not feel righteous indignation from having to sing Simon and Garfunkle’s Brigde Over Troubled Waters and Sounds of Silence at my own Catholic high school graduation Mass in 1969?

I didn’t protest the Viet Nam war, I enlisted. I never had long hair and never did any of the other things our generation did. But on the other hand, I freely admit that the MP brings me hope. I attend a perfectly reverent NO cathedral parish and as you know I sing in the choir. Did you know that in 1983 I had to get a letter from my local parish to join the cathedral parish? Did you know that when I told my pastor that I wanted to join the cathedral parish because it sang traditional music that father got in my face? Oh, yeah, John, in my face because I wanted to sing what we had sung and not the a’strummin’ and a’grinnin’ and a’swayin’ with guitar stuff. And I received a letter freeing me from my parish but also saying that if I was in danger of death Fr. so and so would not respond…;

My point is this. I attend an entirely orthodox and reverent NO cathedral parish. But it ain’t me. I remember. My conscience was formed before Vatican II and I remember. John, the most concrete thing I can say to you to explain my prefernces is this:

More than anything else I believe that Our Lord is present in the Eucharist - body, blood, soul, and divinity. That meant something to me - from second grade making my first Communion and the instructions as to what to do if the host got caught in the top of your mouth. Remember that? You didn’t reach in and probe it out with your finger. I’m 55, John and of an age as you. I have never received Communion in my hand. Ever.

I don’t hold myself as superior to you my friend. But I am looking forward to once again being able to kneel and receive the Eucharist. And to have blessed silence in Church. We’ve pretty much had the music for the last 15 years or so.

I’ve been doing a lot of soul searching lately in response to all these threads. I’m ready to go back to being a Catholic as I knew it when I was a kid before Vatican II. This is no reflection on anyone but me.

 

[labernadette]

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.”

But wasn’t there an intention to bring the church into the modern world? And wasn’t the intention to water down the faith and make it more ecumenical, and more pleasing to other faiths? Isn’t the New Mass one that is very similar and in cases indistinguishable from a Protestant service? Certainly many bishops were taken unaware, and those goals I spoke of would apply to the progessivist “periti” at the council. You cannot say that the “periti” had held fast to tradition, so it follows that they had designed it for change.

If they had no “intent”, then what were they doing?

 

[ncjohn]

Hi Brother,

I fully understand what you’re saying. And I understand the reasons for your preference, even if I don’t share it. My mother would likewise greatly prefer the Mass of our youth.

And as I’ve said on numerous occasions, I have no quibble at all with anybody’s preference for which liturgy they attend. I know many good and holy people on both sides, who show no need to deprive each other of that which they feel called for.

The only place where I have issues is with those who believe that their preference is the “one, right way” for everyone, and who deny Church teaching that that just ain’t the case. And when I say that I include both those who attempt to quote Trent ad infinitum and those who would squash the TLM if they could.

We are one body. Christ cannot be separated. Some seem to suspect that I have some superiority agenda, or something else that I’m not able to identify. My only agenda, and my only purpose for posting at this Forum, is to try to help bring peace between the people of God, and stop the bloodletting.

Nobody here, at least that I’ve seen, has any problem with the Eastern Catholics using their liturgies, or thinks there is anything wrong with them. But there is a willingness to chop each other into little bits over a liturgy preference within the Western rite, and I find that incredibly sad and damaging to the Body.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut Brother. I hope it won’t be long before you can be able to seek God how you hear Him calling.

Peace,

 

[rlg94086]

But wasn’t there an *intention…/*quote]

As your original post and my first response were both removed by the moderators, I will assume it is uncharitable for us to continue this dialogue.

Pax,
Robert

 

[labernadette]

labernadette;2363424:

But wasn’t there an intention…/

quote]

As your original post and my first response were both removed by the moderators, I will assume it is uncharitable for us to continue this dialogue.

Pax,
Robert

Robert,

I acknowledge the deletion of the posts. I will not go so far as to believe it uncharitable to speak of the truth.

Bernadette

 

[Nino]

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.