Q's for Traditionalists who believe Vatican II and NO were wrong/invalid:

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

The fruits of the Council and the NO Mass that many complain of can also be traced to other sources and need NOT be blamed on the council, the popes, or the Mass. Those fruits can be blamed on the times (which contributed to the “Spirit of Vatican II,” something entirely different, indeed, entirely ALIEN to that council). Finally, when it comes to judging fruits, our opinions should not be contrary to the Church. There’s no such thing as a bad question, but there are certainly bad conclusions.

The Pope and the Synod of Bishops don’t seem to take as gloomy an outlook as Uxor and Gorman, though they acknoweldge problems. From Sarcamentum Caritatis:

"In a particular way, the Synod Fathers acknowledged and reaffirmed the beneficial influence on the Church’s life of the liturgical renewal which began with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (5).

You have utilized the word ‘contrary’ concerning opinions and the Church. I clicked on the link you provided and visited Unitatis Redingratio. I remember reading literature concerning Chapter 2 No. 11, Could you explain what is the meaning here, because it is evident that the first two statements are in CONTRADICTION? Are these contradictory texts of the Second Vatican Council and if so where is the blame to be placed?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

And the next time somebody says to me the Tridentine Mass is not the same Mass as instituted by Christ at the Last Supper you can be assured I will ask about drums and guitars, handshakes and smiles, liturgical dancing, cell phones, extra eucharist ministers and the English language not spoken by Christ or the Apostles at the Last Supper…

Get a liferaft

.

Exactly, It is simply unbelievable how many of the New Order Mass goers fail to comprehend this.

 

[bear06]

Exactly, It is simply unbelievable how many of the New Order Mass goers fail to comprehend this.

Someone else has apparently been drinking the Kool-aid.:hypno:

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Someone else has apparently been drinking the Kool-aid.:hypno:

Are you suggesting they use Kool-Aid at the NO Mass now? In addition to guitars, drums, extra eucharist ministers, etc.? Please Elaborate for this thread.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennan:

This was Dr. Bonhoffer’s prudential judgement (and I have nothing, but respect for him), and if the popes’ or the councils’ prudential judgement can be questioned, then certainly his can be as well. Nonetheless, that has not been the issue under discussion with Uxor, if you look back through this thread and the one for which I provide you a link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=140811

It’s my prudential judgement that the Pauline Rite, all that I’ve ever known in terms of the Mass, save one occasion at the TLM, hasn’t had a fair shot because of all that has been foisted upon it. As difficult as this is for some to wrap their brain around, some of us love the Pauline Rite as much as others love the TLM. We don’t love the abuses, we love the Mass. I don’t think it lacks anything (it was at the Pauline Mass that I first felt the presence of the anima naturaliter Christiana for Christ, the Epiphany of God, in His full supernatural glory), but then again, that’s simply my prudential judgement.

I posted this because the original part of the thread talked about the differences between dogma and discipline along with infallibility. I wasn’t relating it to any particular post.

I also fully agree that this is Dietrich von Hildebrand’s (not Bonhoffer’s) prudential judgment (at least the the quote about the liturgy) and one is free to disagree with him.

He elaborates on the subject of the liturgy in the link I provide in my signature line, “The Case for the Latin Mass.”

 

[CatholicNick]

Are you suggesting they use Kool-Aid at the NO Mass now? In addition to guitars, drums, extra eucharist ministers, etc.? Please Elaborate for this thread.

eh? Whats kool-aid?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I posted this because the original part of the thread talked about the differences between dogma and discipline along with infallibility. I wasn’t relating it to any particular post.

I also fully agree that this is Dietrich von Hildebrand’s (not Bonhoffer’s) prudential judgment (at least the the quote about the liturgy) and one is free to disagree with him.

He elaborates on the subject of the liturgy in the link I provide in my signature line, “The Case for the Latin Mass.”

Whoa-ho! Got my Dietrichs confused when I was typing!!!

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Let us continue with, Q’s for Traditionalists who believe Vatican II and NO were wrong/invalid shall we?

Concerning Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican II:

Is it not clear that in Sacrosanctum Concilium #37 and #40.1, the Vatican II Council is heretical against the teaching of Modern Worship according to Pope Pius X in Pascendi?

Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the Worship of Modernists:
“THE CHIEF STIMULUS IN THE DOMAIN OF WORSHIP CONSISTS IN THE NEED OF ADAPTING ITSELF TO THE USES AND CUSTOMS OF PEOPLES, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage.” (The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 83.)

Also in Sacrosanctum Concilium #34 and #50, Again Vatican II is in contradiction to authoritative doctrine of the Church
As posed by Pope Pius VI: Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28. 1794, # 33: “The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, ‘by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice…’” – Condemned as rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.(Denzinger 1533.)

These direct contradictions of dogmatic constitution of the Church assert the invalidity of the New Order Missae. If they do not in your opinion please elucidate.

 

[MTD]

Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the Worship of Modernists:
“THE CHIEF STIMULUS IN THE DOMAIN OF WORSHIP CONSISTS IN THE NEED OF ADAPTING ITSELF TO THE USES AND CUSTOMS OF PEOPLES, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage.” (The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 83.)

Compare:

“The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded.” (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, no. 59)

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28. 1794, # 33: “The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, ‘by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice…’” – Condemned as rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.(Denzinger 1533.)

Compare:

“The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.” (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, no. 60)

What have you to say about these quotes from Mediator Dei, ThereCanBeOnly1?

Maria

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Compare:

“The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded.” (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, no. 59)

Again there is a maturing and heretical radical change. You must understand the diference do you not ? Let me see if I can clarify:

In the Vatican II sect:
Sacrosanctum Concilium # 30 encourages bodily self expression (?) among other things, and Sacrosanctum Concilium # 40 presses the more radical adaptation of the liturgy.

It is for this reason we have seen Masses with guitars, rock music, Native American rituals in Mass, extra eucharist ministers, all sorts of other music, balloons, dancers, priests dressed in sport jerseys conducting mass, drastic drop in church members, church bankruptcies, court cases, abuses, etc. The list goes on.
However Pope Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons, and Pope Clement V at the Council of Vienne, authoritatively condemned all these abominations:

Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274, Constitution 25:
“Churches, then, should be entered humbly and devoutly; behavior inside should be calm, pleasing to God, bringing peace to the beholders, a source not only of instruction but of mental refreshment… In churches the sacred solemnities should possess the whole heart and mind; the whole attention should be given to prayer. Hence where it is proper to offer heavenly desires with peace and calm, let nobody arouse rebellion, provoke clamor or be guilty of violence… Idle and, even more, foul and profane talk must stop; chatter in all its forms must cease. Everything, in short, that may disturb divine worship or offend the eyes of the divine majesty should be absolutely foreign to the churches, lest where pardon should be asked for our sins, occasion is given for sin, or sin is found to be committed… Those indeed who impudently defy the above prohibitions… will have to fear the sternness of divine retribution and our own, until having confessed their guilt, they have firmly resolved to avoid such conduct in the future.”(Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 328. )

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 22, 1311-1312:
“There are some, both clergy and laity, especially on the vigil of certain feasts when they ought to be in church persevering in prayer, who are not afraid to hold licentious dances in the cemeteries of the churches and occasionally to sing ballads and
perpetrate many excesses. From this sometimes there follows the violation of churches and cemeteries, disgraceful conduct and various crimes; and the liturgical office is greatly disturbed, to the offense of the divine majesty and the scandal of the people nearby.(*** Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 378***.)

Does this clarify the position the Church Holds against what you are saying?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Compare:

“The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded.” (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, no. 59)

Maria

For the sake of being complete I will make another addition:
The Vatican II sect in Sacrosanctum Concilium # 119 endorses and encourages PAGAN MUSIC TRADITIONS TO BE INCORPORATED in CATHOLIC WORSHIP.
Again this is contradictory to the dogmatic constitution of the Church. This pagan ritual addition was already condemned:

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Session 22, Decree on things to be observed and avoided at Mass: ” And they should keep out of their churches the kind of music in which a base and suggestive element is introduced into the organ playing or singing, and similarly all worldly activities, empty and secular conversations, walking about, noises and cries, so that the house of God may truly be called and be seen to be a house of prayer.( Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 737.)

** Pope Pius XII, Musicae sacrae (# 42), Dec. 25, 1955: “[On Liturgical Music]** It must be holy. It must not allow within itself anything that savors of the profane nor allow any such thing to slip into the melodies in which it is expressed ( The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), pp. 283-284)

And Maria let me put an end to you argument with this:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 13, ex cathedra:
“If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema.” (Denzinger 856.)

If this post and posts #163 and #165 do not suggest invalidity and heretical teaching of the Vatican II sect ( Sacrosanctum Concilium) contrary to the dogmatic constitution of the Church, I do not want to know what is.

 

[AMDGJMJ2]

A.M.D.G.
J.M.J.
+
Dear ThereCanBeOnly1,
Are you basicly trying to say that Vatican II and the NO are invalid and heretical, because that it what it sounds like?
I have some friends who think so…but anyways…

May God bless all!

Yours in Christ through Mary,
Deeds

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

A.M.D.G.
J.M.J.
+
Dear ThereCanBeOnly1,
Are you basicly trying to say that Vatican II and the NO are invalid and heretical, because that it what it sounds like?
I have some friends who think so…but anyways…

May God bless all!

Yours in Christ through Mary,
Deeds

Please read through this thread and its posts including mine (#156, #163, #165, #166). Check the cited references over yourself and by all means verify them on the Vatican website.
These are the words of Popes of different eras, at their words speak for themselves.

For example (and there are many): In Ad Gentes, this is the Vatican II sects Decree on Missionary Activity, there is this heresy:

Vatican II document, Ad Gentes # 6: “For although the Church possesses totally and fully the means of salvation, it neither always nor at once puts or can put them all into operation, but is subject to beginnings and stages in the activity by which it strives to bring God’s plan into effect. Indeed, at times, after a successful start and advance, it has to grieve at another reverse, or at least it halts in a certain state of semi-fulfillment and insufficiency.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1015. )

The Vatican II sect position is that the Catholic Church is not sufficient for salvation (that is what it is saying). This is a total rejection of Catholic Church dogma, that being, Outside the Church There is No Salvation. This is in contradiction because *Since there is No Salvation Outside the Church, then the Church is Most Definitely Sufficient for the Salvation of Man.
*

As can be further substantiated here:
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”(Denzinger 423.)

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.” (Denzinger 570b.)

 

[gorman64]

Vatican II document, Ad Gentes # 6: “For although the Church possesses totally and fully the means of salvation, it neither always nor at once puts or can put them all into operation, but is subject to beginnings and stages in the activity by which it strives to bring God’s plan into effect. Indeed, at times, after a successful start and advance, it has to grieve at another reverse, or at least it halts in a certain state of semi-fulfillment and insufficiency.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1015. )

How can you even know what this means? I think it is indeterminate at best. And btw, I am not defending it…merely pointing out the utterly unclear nature of it.

 

[TNT]

How can you even know what this means? I think it is indeterminate at best. And btw, I am not defending it…merely pointing out the utterly unclear nature of it.

It doesn’t matter! The ONLY thing that matters is
You have to obey it!
At a minimum you have to “**grieve at another reverse”
**And also you have to Believe that "it halts in a certain state of semi-fulfillment and insufficiency.”

 

[bear06]

Please read through this thread and its posts including mine (#156, #163, #165, #166). Check the cited references over yourself and by all means verify them on the Vatican website.
These are the words of Popes of different eras, at their words speak for themselves.

So basically Deeds, you’re only going to get him alluding to it. He won’t actually say what he’s alluding to which always strikes me as cowardly. If someone asks if you think Vatican II was heretical, why can’t you just answer the question?.

 

[TNT]

So basically Deeds, you’re only going to get him alluding to it. He won’t actually say what he’s alluding to which always strikes me as cowardly. If someone asks if you think Vatican II was heretical, why can’t you just answer the question?.

IMHO, he did a much better job in stating his position than any position stated in most of the V_II documents.
He holds it as HERETICAL! There. The word “SECT” tells the tale.
He then bases this on a dozen or so statements of Past Popes, some canonized.
I think he’s quite brave in stating that sections of V_II ARE Heretical. That should be plenty.

[Edited by Moderator]​

I’d enjoy a couple a beers with him any time any place.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

IMHO, he did a much better job in stating his position than any position stated in most of the V_II documents.
He holds it as HERETICAL! There. The word “SECT” tells the tale.
He then bases this on a dozen or so statements of Past Popes, some canonized.
I think he’s quite brave in stating that sections of V_II ARE Heretical. That should be plenty.

[Edited by Moderator]​

I’d enjoy a couple a beers with him any time any place.

Greetings tnt. So can you please clarify the references I have cited so that all, on this thread, can get the correct meaning? It is one thing to state something that you do not agree with but you must back up your claims. So again, I ask you TNT and BEAR06
to now explain the references I have cited. All you two do is state your positions. ANYONE CAN BE A CRITIQUE, but I must admit that you (TNT) and BEAR06 have intrepid boldness to agree with contradictions of Sacrosanctum Concilium that are opposition of the dogmatic constitutions of the Church (Are they not contradictions? if not discuss). I REITERATE can TNT and BEAR06 please take us step by step and discuss with reference if possible, the true meaning of what I have cited (Since you have disagreed with them). We on this thread deserve from you both nothing less then the truth.

Respectfully and God+ Bless

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

He then bases this on a dozen or so statements of Past Popes, some canonized.

[Edited by Moderator]

Are you suggesting we do not take these statements as True? How are we to understand them? Elaborate because you and BEAR06 are very unclear.

---

I’d enjoy a couple a beers with him any time any place.

WHAT IS YOUR MEANING HERE?

 

[TNT]

Greetings tnt. So can you please clarify the references I have cited so that all, on this thread, can get the correct meaning? It is one thing to state something that you do not agree with but you must back up your claims. So again, I ask you TNT and BEAR06
to now explain the references I have cited. All you two do is state your positions. ANYONE CAN BE A CRITIQUE, but I must admit that you (TNT) and BEAR06 have intrepid boldness to agree with contradictions of Sacrosanctum Concilium that are opposition of the dogmatic constitutions of the Church (Are they not contradictions? if not discuss). I REITERATE can TNT and BEAR06 please take us step by step and discuss with reference if possible, the true meaning of what I have cited (Since you have disagreed with them). We on this thread deserve from you both nothing less then the truth.

Respectfully and God+ Bless

If you want to start a brawl just hook me up with Mama Bear. We are charitable ADVERSARIES on V_II.
I was defending yur position AGAINST what Bear was promoting.
I have always believed many parts of V_II were contrary to the Perennial Catholic Magisterium.
Indeed, that’s why it is nearly void of the same historical references for what it says. It is a-historical, thus a-traditional.
As you pointed out, Pascendi is a close point by point prophetic rebuttal of many V_II positions.
**Re
**

I must admit that you (TNT)…have intrepid boldness to agree with contradictions of Sacrosanctum Concilium that are opposition of the dogmatic constitutions of the Church…

First, show me WHERE I “agree with contradictions of Sacrosanctum Concilium that are opposition of the dogmatic constitutions of the Church” then I’ll accommodate you.