List all the things Vatican II did NOT call for

[Nino]

to whom…it does not matter what that horrible council called for or not.its what the media did with it…they published what they wanted…so the nuns took off their habits and became marxist social workers…the vermin posing as priests started to molest innocent kids…it became a do you own thing as long as it is PC…Vatican 2 resulted for the greatest Pope of the 20th century was dead…PiusX11…and the cowards that followed became corporate shills…thousands of souls were lost…all of us have copies of the documents of that council…not bad at all…but it was the media that did it with the acceptance of their agents in the priest hood…maybe this latest Pope can clean up the mess left by Pope JP11 …lets pray so…amen and amen…Nino

 

[BobP123]

[Edited by Moderator]

In all fairness to JPII, he did provide some needed stability within the Church. True, he gave trads a little food and the other faiths a lot more, but overall he wasn’t anywheres the worst pope ever either. Now, of course, we are finding out the obstacles he was facing while he was trying to bring the Church back to tradition.

 

[BobP123]

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.

Why does Trent bother you so much? How can you try to undermine the council which has clarified so much for us Catholics and yet call yourself a peacemaker at the same time?

But then I digress (again) for the topic is Vatican II. Did it call for peacemakers? Maybe it should. Put that on my list then.

 

[brotherhrolf]

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,

John, you and I both know that I wouldn’t want to inflict upon you that which you have a problem with. But that’s exactly the problem. I’m not asking for a wholesale return to the church of our childhood for all of us. The cows are long out of the barn and there is no going back. 40 plus years under the bridge is a long, long time. We ordained a young priest here in my diocese this month who stated that being exposed to a monstrance and eucharistic adoration was what called him to become a priest.

I feel called to the Church of my childhood. I don’t think that I am unusual in this…we’re old but not that old…I think that there are a whole bunch of Catholics our age who really didn’t like what happened after Vatican II. And I am simply astounded at the number of young people who had absolutely no exposure to the Church before V II who are interested. I don’t see it as a we’re better than you thing. I see it as finally addressing the very concerns I had at my graduation Mass in May 1969.

 

[ncjohn]

Why does Trent bother you so much? How can you try to undermine the council which has clarified so much for us Catholics and yet call yourself a peacemaker at the same time?

But then I digress (again) for the topic is Vatican II. Did it call for peacemakers? Maybe it should. Put that on my list then.

Trent doesn’t bother me at all, Bob, and it was a necessary and important council. What bothers me is people’s misinterpreting of Trent in an attempt to denigrate the N.O. Mass or to try to “prove” that the Church did not have the authority to regulate its disciplines.

It is the peacemaker in me that calls for honesty and charity from both sides.

And actually, at least indirectly, Vatican II did call for us to be peacemakers in at least a couple documents.

 

[Joysong]

And actually, at least indirectly, Vatican II did call for us to be peacemakers in at least a couple documents.

It goes back even further, written right in the gospels.

 

[thechrismyster]

Vatican II did NOT intend on taking the traditional Catholic Mass, and turning into an almost cultish method of determining ones love of Christ.
I’m sure they never would have thought the traditional latin Mass would have been such a source of pride and a scourge of false honor among so many.

if i post in the other forum “List of things the tradionalists do wrong”… it’d get zapped in a minute. but this thread, and come one, there are calls for “don’t make it into an argument”… but lets not be stupid… you put a thread up with this title what do you expect? lets not play dumb and expect this thread not to ruffle feathers. you people are smarter than that.

 

[Nino]

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!

 

[Nino]

As Jesus said…one can tell a tree by its fruit…if it does not produce…cut it down…for the true believers.Vat.11 was and is a disaster…the enemies of God praise it to its limit…I suspected as much when ,right after the great PiusX11 died…the new pope…John 23d…started being pictured as just a regular guy…a funny human ole soul like a yogi berra type…see we now have a human pope etc…so the agenda was set…after Vat.11 the role of liberation theology came into being…sisters why wear those outdated habits…change your clothes and operate a soup kitchen…only in that way will you be fulfilling the was of the cross.I mean Jesus Christ.super star…Nino

 

[gorman64]

ncjohn:

Trent doesn’t bother me at all, Bob, and it was a necessary and important council. What bothers me is people’s misinterpreting of Trent in an attempt to denigrate the N.O. Mass or to try to “prove” that the Church did not have the authority to regulate its disciplines.

Dear John,

The Church has the authority of Christ. That authority is in place to teach and to govern. This authority accomplishes two things; (1) the authentic witnessing to the doctrine of Christ, and (2) the authoritative enforcement of it. The first element belongs to the Power of Orders, the second to the Power of Jurisdiction.

Trent cannot be reinterpreted. Yes, disciplines can and do change… but this does not mean that such laws ought to be changed frequently or lightly … I suggest you look at St. Thomas on this.

Remember too, that the doctrinal portion of human or ecclesiastical law is protected from error by the assistance of the Holy Ghost. The Church can never issue a discipline that contains doctrinal error or that does not express that same doctrinal content as before.

Have you ever read the general instruction to the Novus Ordo Missae? Therein is found many of the problems that traditionalists have with the Novus Ordo…you may not agree with us, but at least you would understand what we see as having all the appearances of “a new theology of the Mass”. There can be no “new theology”…as that is the doctrinal content of the discipline or liturgy.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The one constant twist in the verbiage at the NO Mass that never fails to be irksome to me is the calling of the Institution of the Eucharist a “MEAL.”

One does not need to be a theologian to know it is NOT a MEAL we are celebrating. Jesus consecrated the bread and wine AFTER the meal…it was an is a ritual apart from eating and drinking for earthly sustainanace.

Never ceases to irk me.

 

[BobCatholic]

As Jesus said…one can tell a tree by its fruit…if it does not produce…cut it down…for the true believers.Vat.11 was and is a disaster…

Vatican II is not to blame for what happened afterward.

What was to blame was secular society which said that mirror worshipping is OK. Selfishness is good!

You see, we got these people in the Church, called sinners. Yeah, I know, you want the Church to be a hotel for saints, but in reality, it is a hospital for sinners, with Christ as the Great Physician.

So many of these sinners went around and took the secular dogma that “selfishness is good” and used Vatican II as an excuse to do all kinds of nonsense.

If Vatican II never happened, these same people would have used Vatican I or Trent or even the Bible!

You don’t believe me?

Council of Trent
Justification
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Leftist: See? We don’t have to do anything to be a Catholic! We don’t have to fast, pray, obey the Church, or anything! This is the Spirit of Trent!

Jesus Christ: Judge not, lest ye be judged. Condemn not, lest ye be condemned.

Leftist: See? Being judgmental is BAAAAAAAAAD! We cannot judge people’s actions!

Too bad we got all these sinners in our church, eh?

 

[VociMike]

Vatican II did NOT intend on taking the traditional Catholic Mass, and turning into an almost cultish method of determining ones love of Christ.
I’m sure they never would have thought the traditional latin Mass would have been such a source of pride and a scourge of false honor among so many.

if i post in the other forum “List of things the tradionalists do wrong”… it’d get zapped in a minute. but this thread, and come one, there are calls for “don’t make it into an argument”… but lets not be stupid… you put a thread up with this title what do you expect? lets not play dumb and expect this thread not to ruffle feathers. you people are smarter than that.

What’s the alternative? The alternative is to allow anybody to do anything and claim that they’re just following Vatican II. Well that’s been tried, and it’s created a terrible mess (including creating the whole phenomenon of radical traditionalists). In the gospel of John we are told that the truth shall set us free. The more we know about the truth of what Vatican II did and did not call for, the more we can hope to be free of the errors and outright frauds that have been perpetrated in that council’s name. That is not an ignoble purpose.

Those who distorted Vatican II for their own purposes sowed the wind, and we have all reaped the whirlwind because of what they did. Sticking our heads in the sand is not the appropriate response, and neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI were afraid to point out the distinctions between what Vatican II actually called for, and the mistakes that were committed in its name.

 

[st_raphael]

The more we know about the truth of what Vatican II did and did not call for, the more we can hope to be free of the errors and outright frauds that have been perpetrated in that council’s name.

Therefore, you think everyone’s laundry list of complaints illustrating what Vatican 2 did not call for, are constructive in promoting understanding, peace and harmony between the rites? How noble!

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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

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?

I think we’re talking past each other, though. I’m not talking about the irreformability of a council’s pronouncements, simply its ability to make decisions that are binding for a time. The pope is free to demand liturgical changes, but these are also not irreformable. Arguing for his authority to make and enforce changes need not invoke his ability to make infallible pronouncements.

Batteddy was arguing that decisions affecting only a certain rite lack the disciplinary authority of an ecumenical council and should be, despite their presence in the acts of and ratification as part of the ecumenical council, regarded as no more than acts of the highest synod of that rite. I, on the other hand, am asking, "Why couldn’t an ecumenical council dictate liturgical changes in a particular rite with ecumenical authority.

For instance, let’s say the Melkites decided to remove the commemoration of the pope from their anaphora and the next council mandated that they restore it. Batteddy would have us think this action would carry the authority only of the Melkite synod, but I think it clearly seems to be an action of the ecumenical council and carry its authority. What say you?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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.

Perhaps my response to Brendan provides an example of when this might make sense. Removing the pope from the anaphora is not the end of the world, but I’m sure we could think of introducing other practices that might be easily misunderstood and which the rest of the Catholic Church feels are too dangerous to allow.

Now, in the case of Sacrosanctum Concilium, I don’t really suspect that the Eastern prelates at the Council were all too concerned with reforming the Roman Rite, so it was almost certainly in bad form to spend time at an ecumenical council working on a *particular *reform; still, I don’t think the impoliteness of using the council to mandate Roman reform takes away from the ecumenically binding force of its pronouncements on the Roman rite.