F
Faithful_2_Rome
Guest
Vatican II was a GOD-SEND. One cannot blame VII for any evil and/or ignorant theolgians that has arisen from it.
- Status
S
SeanG
Guest
I wish that there could be a choice that I could accept, but there is not. Here is why.
In some respects (but not all), it simply had not been well understood or well implemented in some places and in various times.
Now one can legitimately argue that the implementation of the Council went awry in certain ways in certain places, but this is a different question.
In any case, in those places where it has been implemented well to one degree or another, I think that it has happened in part because the faithful there have either gotten past or never had to deal with the false distinction of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ (more of a strictly political distinction than a religious one).
- I wish we were in the Church of 1954, rather than 2004.
- Vatican II made many valuable changes in the role of the laity.
In some respects (but not all), it simply had not been well understood or well implemented in some places and in various times.
- They should have left the liturgy alone.
- Vatican II was a good idea, but it got hijacked by the liberals.
Now one can legitimately argue that the implementation of the Council went awry in certain ways in certain places, but this is a different question.
In any case, in those places where it has been implemented well to one degree or another, I think that it has happened in part because the faithful there have either gotten past or never had to deal with the false distinction of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ (more of a strictly political distinction than a religious one).
- There was too much stress on ecumenism, “We ARE the One True Church!”
- I can’t imagine going to a Mass with the priest facing away, praying in Latin.
B
Brian_Crane
Guest
“to convoke a General Council, except when absolutely demanded by necessity, is to tempt God” –Cardinal Manning
All ecumenical councils prior to Vatican II were called in reaction to a dangerous threat to the church. Vatican II was not a reactionary council. It was a proactive council. Many Cardinals and Bishops at the time felt that Pope John was erring by calling for the council.
“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council”–Cardinal Ratzinger
For this I believe we should acknowledge and be thankful for the presence of the Holy Spirit at the Council. This council was not dogmatic and thus not infallible.
The council **WAS **hijacked IMHO. It took three years to plan for the council, including which individuals were to be on which committees, and to complete the orthodox preparatory schemas which were to be the basis of discussion. Yet it took merely 15 minutes to secure the rejection of that material, prepared by theologians all over the world in the previous three years. This “first victory” by the well organized Rhine bishops and periti has been likened to a theological blitzkrieg, or a hijacking if you will.
T
thomist
Guest
Whooee! Struck nerves or what?
Oh well, here’s my 1.7 cents worth (> inflation).
I have met only very few critics of V2 who have actually read all sixteen documents. I have NEVER met a sniberal" (=snivelling liberal) who HAS read ANY of the sixteen documents they constantly refer to when positing their heresies and liturgical abuses. 26 years ago - in response to a heretical deacon’s sermons and comments - I started reading V2. Couldn’t put it down. Have read the entire sixteen documents 15+ times (all the way through), and read some of them almost 50 times (no, I’m not exaggerating).
NOWHERE in the Conciliar documents can any heresy be found, nor any justification for liturgical abuse. NOWHERE!
I was raised pre-V2, and because my mom gave me a bilingual missal was able to follow what was actually being said. As a kid I often wondered why we didn’t just use our own language so that anyone could understand what was being prayed. So did the Council’s bishops. Latin - once upon a time - was understood by most Europeans, while their various national languages were not, so Rome ordered the Mass be celebrated in Latin, and for two reasons:
1] for the understanding of most of the copngregation; and
2] to prevent heretical vernacular translations (which were not unknown!) from harming the faithful.
V2 said that the need for one, universal liturgical language not only no longer existed, but needed to be changed to ALLOW most of the congregation to understand.
This disturbed many Catholics in the 1960s, like my mom, who wanted the Mass to be an hour long interlude of peace and serenity in her life - the actual liturgical prayers in vernacular forced her to actually think about the Mass and not just her own workaday life. Once confronted with what Jesus says to us at Mass in a language that could not be ignored, she stopped attending.
As for the “liberal” attacks on our Faith, that did NOT, I repeat and EMPHASIZE - DID NOT! - come from V2. It sprang from the woeful ignorance of Catholics (lay and clergy) too lazy or stupid to actually read the Council documents - which would have put an abrupt end to a lot of the garbage which has now become entrenched.
The only difference I see now is that, unlike the 1970s, the two sides (“liberal” and “Catholic-anti-V2ers”) have formed associations of ignorance (‘Voice of the Faithful’; ‘Call to Action’; ‘SSPX’; and ‘If it ain’t Latin it ain’t Holy’).
This is God’s Church, we were INVITED members - NOT charter members. It was His Council, and He ordained it FOR us. But, as St. Thomas Aquinas said, “Grace builds upon nature”, it does not supplant it! God ordered the documents written, but He doesn’t FORCE any of us to actually read them - He invites us.
Get a grip, READ 'EM.
Oh well, here’s my 1.7 cents worth (> inflation).
I have met only very few critics of V2 who have actually read all sixteen documents. I have NEVER met a sniberal" (=snivelling liberal) who HAS read ANY of the sixteen documents they constantly refer to when positing their heresies and liturgical abuses. 26 years ago - in response to a heretical deacon’s sermons and comments - I started reading V2. Couldn’t put it down. Have read the entire sixteen documents 15+ times (all the way through), and read some of them almost 50 times (no, I’m not exaggerating).
NOWHERE in the Conciliar documents can any heresy be found, nor any justification for liturgical abuse. NOWHERE!
I was raised pre-V2, and because my mom gave me a bilingual missal was able to follow what was actually being said. As a kid I often wondered why we didn’t just use our own language so that anyone could understand what was being prayed. So did the Council’s bishops. Latin - once upon a time - was understood by most Europeans, while their various national languages were not, so Rome ordered the Mass be celebrated in Latin, and for two reasons:
1] for the understanding of most of the copngregation; and
2] to prevent heretical vernacular translations (which were not unknown!) from harming the faithful.
V2 said that the need for one, universal liturgical language not only no longer existed, but needed to be changed to ALLOW most of the congregation to understand.
This disturbed many Catholics in the 1960s, like my mom, who wanted the Mass to be an hour long interlude of peace and serenity in her life - the actual liturgical prayers in vernacular forced her to actually think about the Mass and not just her own workaday life. Once confronted with what Jesus says to us at Mass in a language that could not be ignored, she stopped attending.
As for the “liberal” attacks on our Faith, that did NOT, I repeat and EMPHASIZE - DID NOT! - come from V2. It sprang from the woeful ignorance of Catholics (lay and clergy) too lazy or stupid to actually read the Council documents - which would have put an abrupt end to a lot of the garbage which has now become entrenched.
The only difference I see now is that, unlike the 1970s, the two sides (“liberal” and “Catholic-anti-V2ers”) have formed associations of ignorance (‘Voice of the Faithful’; ‘Call to Action’; ‘SSPX’; and ‘If it ain’t Latin it ain’t Holy’).
This is God’s Church, we were INVITED members - NOT charter members. It was His Council, and He ordained it FOR us. But, as St. Thomas Aquinas said, “Grace builds upon nature”, it does not supplant it! God ordered the documents written, but He doesn’t FORCE any of us to actually read them - He invites us.
Get a grip, READ 'EM.
D
deogratias
Guest
What was hijacked was essentially the liturgy. I count myself as one who has read all the documents at least once, some more and I think traditionalists and Post-Vatican II persons may both probably not lay claim to havin read them all or even the most current documents.
I think it may be fair to say most SSPX folks are not encouraged to read the writings of JP II.
There is a short but interesting article in this week’s Wanderer *Where’s The Rest Of Us? ***By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK **
It is a critique on Andrew Greeley’s article entitled *Why Our Churches Are Not Full. *I am not a Greeley fan but I agree with Fitzpatrick that Greely got quite a bit right in this article as when he said
,
thewandererpress.com/b7-15-2004.htm
I think it may be fair to say most SSPX folks are not encouraged to read the writings of JP II.
There is a short but interesting article in this week’s Wanderer *Where’s The Rest Of Us? ***By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK **
It is a critique on Andrew Greeley’s article entitled *Why Our Churches Are Not Full. *I am not a Greeley fan but I agree with Fitzpatrick that Greely got quite a bit right in this article as when he said
,
Where Fitzpatrick and Greeley disagree is on who is to blame. This is a short read but interesting and is available online at
thewandererpress.com/b7-15-2004.htm
F
Fullsizesedan
Guest
The council changed the paradigm and demands on Catholics, giving them newly worded prayers , not just to listen to, but read as well. It introduced new music, new visual surroundings, just a total re-do.
And the changes aren’t through yet, its been reported that new translations, new rules and rubrics are in the offing, as well as a possible Latin redoux.
No other church, not the Baptists, not the Methodists, not the Pentecostals, has ever just totally redone the procedures for their services as the RCC has done, and its real difficult for the people, particularly the old people. Its tough enough for folks to get use to cell phones, PCs, ATM machines, all sorts of things in the secular world. But if you add in innovations in religion as well, its enough to push a lot of folks over the edge, and one of the reasons why Catholic attendance is generally down, just frustration in keeping up with the changes.
And the changes aren’t through yet, its been reported that new translations, new rules and rubrics are in the offing, as well as a possible Latin redoux.
No other church, not the Baptists, not the Methodists, not the Pentecostals, has ever just totally redone the procedures for their services as the RCC has done, and its real difficult for the people, particularly the old people. Its tough enough for folks to get use to cell phones, PCs, ATM machines, all sorts of things in the secular world. But if you add in innovations in religion as well, its enough to push a lot of folks over the edge, and one of the reasons why Catholic attendance is generally down, just frustration in keeping up with the changes.
B
Brian_Crane
Guest
**
Perhaps no justification, but would you deny that there was vague language inserted into the documents which opened the door for abuse? Consider this passage from Sacrosanctum Concilitum:
In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.
Hmmm, What does full and active participation mean to you? I bet you can interpret that differently from someone else. I bet a modernist priest or bishop could have lots of fun with that. I do admit that I am one of those faithful “too lazy or too stupid to actually read” ALL of the documents, much less 15+ or 50 times. You are to be commended. However, I have read much of them. I have probably skimmed over most all of them. I have read accounts of the council in action. I believe that there is vague language in some of the documents, lawyerly language, which has been abused. All of this abuse could have been dealt with over the years, but has not for whatever reason. (Topic for another thread)
**
Perhaps no justification, but would you deny that there was vague language inserted into the documents which opened the door for abuse? Consider this passage from Sacrosanctum Concilitum:
In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.
Hmmm, What does full and active participation mean to you? I bet you can interpret that differently from someone else. I bet a modernist priest or bishop could have lots of fun with that. I do admit that I am one of those faithful “too lazy or too stupid to actually read” ALL of the documents, much less 15+ or 50 times. You are to be commended. However, I have read much of them. I have probably skimmed over most all of them. I have read accounts of the council in action. I believe that there is vague language in some of the documents, lawyerly language, which has been abused. All of this abuse could have been dealt with over the years, but has not for whatever reason. (Topic for another thread)
D
deogratias
Guest
Hey - I’m an old folks (71) but I love technology, obviously computer literate, like cell phone but really can no longer afford one, the more gadgets I can use in the kitchen the better and this is where progress belongs - it is going somewhere as are better cars, space ships and so on.
But I don’t want my religion to “move forward” when it seems more backward (this is the way it was in Christ’s day I often hear) - probably nothing is more personal to you, and to me, regardless of our age, than the sense of the sacred. I only find that in the TLM, others may find it in the N.O.- but the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and the Teachings of Christ are the same for all Catholics.
True too many Catholics today are caught up in materialism, modernism and disobedience to the commandments but this I believe is due to secularism and lack of good formation of conscience and catechesis, not liturgy.
But I don’t want my religion to “move forward” when it seems more backward (this is the way it was in Christ’s day I often hear) - probably nothing is more personal to you, and to me, regardless of our age, than the sense of the sacred. I only find that in the TLM, others may find it in the N.O.- but the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and the Teachings of Christ are the same for all Catholics.
True too many Catholics today are caught up in materialism, modernism and disobedience to the commandments but this I believe is due to secularism and lack of good formation of conscience and catechesis, not liturgy.
I
Iohannes
Guest
Vatican II removed the Anathema Sit and the Oath of Modernism which were some of the safeguards against heresy.
D
deogratias
Guest
What safeguarded the church against heresy before the Oath of Modernism? Wasn’t this written by Pius X?
I
Iohannes
Guest
There are many others, but I think it was a big mistake to remove Anathemas.
The others included the Holy Inquistion (which is still here today, under a new name) and the Anathemas of Trent.
D
deogratias
Guest
Even though Pope John XXIII did away with it would sure be useful with some politicians today. I guess it is not something that could not return if another Pope so decided to impose the penalty of anethema again.
I think there was a discussion on Anathema Sit on another forum. Some wise acre said if ever got a dog, he was going to name it Anathema just so he could say, “Anathema - Sit”.
M
Marie
Guest
Speaking of Anathemas and Holy Inquistion, it seems some people who dislike Vatican II are boardering quite close to heresy themselves these days.
According to St. Thomas irreverence is a violation of honor; and honor pertains to the dignity of an individual. Therefore in as much as Christ gave the Successors of St. Peter authority to make changes in the Mass or the Sacraments, it cannot be said that the use of such authority of itself will dishonor God, since that would be equivalent to saying that Christ Himself authorized His own dishonor.
Some of these current arguments here, though seemingly veiled, are in fact denials of Papal authority to issue a new Missal which in essence could, by their own misguided theolgy, be called heresy. They should be grateful the church today, does not treat them as such. The removal of the “anathema sit” gives them some leeway to promligate error without much penalty. There is a bright spot in every dark forboding theory, even for those who rail against the changes.
St. Thomas Aquinas:
According to St. Thomas irreverence is a violation of honor; and honor pertains to the dignity of an individual. Therefore in as much as Christ gave the Successors of St. Peter authority to make changes in the Mass or the Sacraments, it cannot be said that the use of such authority of itself will dishonor God, since that would be equivalent to saying that Christ Himself authorized His own dishonor.
Some of these current arguments here, though seemingly veiled, are in fact denials of Papal authority to issue a new Missal which in essence could, by their own misguided theolgy, be called heresy. They should be grateful the church today, does not treat them as such. The removal of the “anathema sit” gives them some leeway to promligate error without much penalty. There is a bright spot in every dark forboding theory, even for those who rail against the changes.
St. Thomas Aquinas:
M
mercygate
Guest
The “issues” in the Church were already known, and the Council sought to lay out a path for the future. When the earthquake of the Council they collided with the Pill and the “me generation,” it was a recipe for chaos.
C
Catholic_Eagle
Guest
Marie:
What heresy do traditionalists border on?
[Grossklas said that Traditional Catholics border on the heresies of Jansenism,Gallicanism,and Manchaeism]
Well we dishonor Christ all the time with our sins. So Popes somehow can’t abuse their authority. Somehow they have an immunity against using their power unwisely.Wrong the Pope is still a person and can abuse His authority.
What heresy do traditionalists border on?
[Grossklas said that Traditional Catholics border on the heresies of Jansenism,Gallicanism,and Manchaeism]
Well we dishonor Christ all the time with our sins. So Popes somehow can’t abuse their authority. Somehow they have an immunity against using their power unwisely.Wrong the Pope is still a person and can abuse His authority.
D
deogratias
Guest
Marie did not say that, what she said was.
If the SSPX approves of your methods, then I fear they will lose more souls than they save - your arguments are a complete turn off to anyone even remotely interested in the TLM and I say you do traditionalists and the Catholic Church no favor by them.
Not all traditionalists were included in this statement but I think it fair to say you were/are. I tell you I am getting tired of your posts and it makes it hard for the rest of us traditionalists who attend licit Masses to maintain any respect.
If the SSPX approves of your methods, then I fear they will lose more souls than they save - your arguments are a complete turn off to anyone even remotely interested in the TLM and I say you do traditionalists and the Catholic Church no favor by them.
M
Marie
Guest
Catholic Eagle:
A true Catholic Traditionalist happens to love the Latin Mass and honor the church by living good lives and seeking to meet their need for the Traditional Mass in the proper way and with proper respect and obedience. SSPX’ers and their Ilk make it an uphill struggle for true Traditionalist as Deogratias already stated. Such extreme and divisive sentiments and arguments do not serve God nor Holy Mother Church, nor Tradition.
Deogratias has answered the question you asked perfect enough so I shall not repeat it. I shall only add that a real “Traditionalist” is not divisive, nor looking under every corner, crook and cranny of the Vatican II documents to support conspiracy theories and tear down the church.
A true Catholic Traditionalist happens to love the Latin Mass and honor the church by living good lives and seeking to meet their need for the Traditional Mass in the proper way and with proper respect and obedience. SSPX’ers and their Ilk make it an uphill struggle for true Traditionalist as Deogratias already stated. Such extreme and divisive sentiments and arguments do not serve God nor Holy Mother Church, nor Tradition.
I
Iohannes
Guest
There have been councils that have failed, but it does not mean that the council was wrong or was bad. Lateran V comes to mind.
Vatican II is a legit council, but failed miserably.
When was the last time you heard Gregorian chant and Latin in Mass given pride?
How has ecumenical dialogue brought more people to the faith?
Vatican II is a legit council, but failed miserably.
When was the last time you heard Gregorian chant and Latin in Mass given pride?
How has ecumenical dialogue brought more people to the faith?
D
deogratias
Guest
not that long ago fo rme
J
Julian_Peters
Guest
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.
- Status