Should We Turn Back The Clock?

[Joannm]

No Mass is not bible study…but it is where the Word of God is proclaimed. What is wrong with proclaiming as much as possible?

Now…as far as homilies are concerned…I think that is where the church is not doing justice to the 3 readings. When do you ever hear a homily where the homilist is trying to explain the cultural implications of the time these things were written? They are full of richness and all apply to today…but when is it explained to the people just how important they were to the people of the time. For instance…

Jesus on the cross telling John that Mary is his mother. Mary would have nobody to care for her had Jesus not giving her John. Jesus had no brothers.

Jesus talking to the Samaritan at the well. OMGosh…a male Jew talking to a Samaritan woman ALONE.

The widows mite. The significance of loosing any money.

There are lots more…but never fully explained to the people.

Oh…another favorite. The parable of the prodigal son. That isn’t about the son…it’s about the forgiving Father. Our Father in heaven that is always looking to welcome us back to the fold. It’s the parable of the Forgiving Father!

In my parish these things are always explained.

 

[ProVobis]

Humanae Vitae was the turning point.

HV was damage control. There were leaks coming out of the Vatican that with the issuance of Progressio Populorum and the summons to Rome by the Pope of many moral theologians who favored ABC, the Church was in the process of approving the birth control pill. In the meantime, most priests were instructing their congregations to “use their consciences.”

But even with allowing the Mass obligation to be met on Saturdays and most thinking the Church was letting up on its birth control position, many stopped attending Mass every week.

 

[Malleus_01]

Humanae Vitae was the turning point. The Sexual Revolution was the counterattack. The Hippies who threw marriage out the window, smoked dope and had ‘free love’ with whoever. A coordinated attack that would wreck the sanctity of marriage and even the womb. By 1973, the worst damage had been done. it would be followed by No-Fault Divorce in the 1980s. The family had to be destroyed. The intergenerational bonds had to be dissolved

I agree. I think alot of the problems weren’t Vatican II, it was the times. The 1960’s and 1970’s were strange times. I grew up then and to look back at that, it’s embarrassing. I remember in my young years of Catholic school in the early 1970’s all of us young girls being taught by a nun how to sing “I Am Woman” by Helen Reddy and then singing it for the priests of the parish.

Also, besides the hippies and the Sexual Revolution being a problem there were other issues. During a talk I had heard on EWTN titled “What Went Wrong with Vatican II,” one of the points made was that after Vatican II happened Catholic leaders, nuns and priests, would do things in what they called the “spirit of Vatican II” not following the rules of Vatican II or for that matter any rules set down by the Church. Little by little things got worse and now we are where we are today.

A bright spot is many Catholics today are homeschooling and teaching their children more traditional Catholic education, bringing back the catechism and reverence during Mass and just plain knowledge of their faith. This is a very fast growing movement.

Seeing alot of churches adding latin to the English mass and the new Missal coming soon, I think things will get better. Catholic leaders are realizing mistakes and trying to make corrections.

We didn’t get to where we are overnight and it will take a while to change. Maybe things won’t be like they were in the 1940’s but I thing we can bring back alot.

Malleus: I agree with much of what you say having grown up during the same time period. However - I approach it from the Spiritual perspective. When the Sacraments themselves were changed by Paul the VI and the changes implemented - the very things you saay occured - occured immediately. Are we as Catholics merely to chalk these things up to coincidence? I am not so certain.

And as for returing to Tradition - that is a fact. As Catholics return to Tradition and we see the movement gaining momentum by the day - we see morality improving. The outrage over immorality improving. And the realization of many Catholics being awakened to the fact that we have thopse immoral things today because we have been remiss in our faith and guilty of accepting novelty and excess. Vatican II Played a larger role than Society in the Spiritual realm.

Pax

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Excellent post. [SIGN]I agree![/SIGN]

I have to say, the lack of reverence was NOT caused by Vatican II. Step outside of the Church and take a good look at history at this time, particular here in America. Free “love”, rampant drug use, and a general sense of “I don’t need tradition, I know what’s best” pervaded our entire culture. Society was in the process of massive changes, and we can see many of the effects today in our media, our educators, etc.

Have you read the Vatican II documents? They are extraordinary. The eternal truths of our faith are presented to a changing culture that is much less interested in the One, True Faith. The mass in the vernacular has been difficult to apply (due to some weak translations) but all in all have encouraged a greater understanding by the laity of what is going on. Vatican II encourages more lay participation in evangelization and parish ministry, which is wonderful. The role of the priest is administering the Sacraments and shepherding Christ’s flock, the laity SHOULD be involved in evangelizing, we are ALL disciples, not just the ordained.

The bad religious education, liberal theology, and other things we have seen in the wake of Vatican II are NOT a cause of the council and documents themselves. They are 1 products of the general elitist, “I can do what I want” mentality that has taken over our society and 2 the fact that many priests and religious left the Church during this time, leaving teaching, theology, etc. in the hands of liberal, perhaps incompetent people.

So, to answer your question, did Vatican II cause these problems? Absolutely not. In fact, if the same liberal and often devastating changes had occurred and the Church had NOT implemented Vatican II, what would we have? The same culture that rejects tradition and history…looking at a Church that worships in Latin, and seems utterly unapproachable to the “modern” person.

It’s great to worship in many pre-Vatican II traditions. But, remember, they are traditions with a lower-case “t”. They can and often should be changed; they are not essential to Catholic faith. I love the prayers in Latin, Gregorian chant is my favorite type of music, but there is room in the Church for many tastes and “t” traditions.

Looking at history, it has general taken the Church about 30-50 years to effectively and successfully implement the changes of a major Church council. Given the history at the time, I believe we are just now getting to the point where Vatican II is seeing it’s proper role, mostly because now people have read and understood the documents, rather than misinterpreting them as a liberal free-for-all, which it was never meant to be.

I strongly suggest everyone pick up a copy of the Vatican II documents, it can be found paperback rather cheaply, and it is well worth the study.

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

 

[Mrs_Sally]

But you do understand that many people were getting a good Catholic foundation during that same time. And that others, in other times in history, only learned the God was a harsh judge who was counting and recording the least of their sins. There is an ebb and flow in religious education all throughout history. We usually only hear about the precocious education of those who became Saints and don’t know much about the education of ordinary Catholics. I assure you that even in the US or Europe in the 1950s, every child wasn’t getting picture perfect Baltimore catechism education. It is unfortunate that so many didn’t get a good foundation, but you can help correct that now by volunteering to teach CCD at your parish.

I know, right? I attended CCD since Kindergarten, and missed only 2 years in late middle school, before returning for several years before confirmation classes. I was a high school JUNIOR before I ever, ever heard that the Catholic church was the Church founded by Jesus, that St Peter was the first Pope, etc. I was OUT of CCD classes and learning on my own via the internet before I ever heard about mortal sins. All I ever heard growing up was, All you have to do to go to Heaven was believe in Jesus. Period,. That’s all. I never knew why we genuflected, why we bowed. We never learned about the rosary or prayers to saints in CCD, and FORGET about Queen Mary, or ANY Bible. At all. I was, again, a junior, before I ever even SAW a Bible in my CDD classes. All that was ever taught was feel-good, Jesus loves you, watered down spirituality.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

On an unrelated topic, I have been spending some time trying to sort out how to express how change is viewed, both by those who lived through it and those who have come later.

People who were not part of the Church before Vatican 2 have rose-colored glasses on when they nostalgically look back on what they think was a far better time, just as the history students have no real clue what life was like back when the USSR was doing its best to take over the world. We don’t need to go back; we need to authentically live out the Gospel. That does not preclude the EF in any way, but it does mean, for example, that people by and large knew little about the rubrics when the OF was introduced, but immediately appreciated the use of the vernacular. And failing to understand the power of the vernacular is going to frustrate those who love the EF and can’t understand why it makes so little overall impact. There is room for both, and as Benedict 16 said in his accompanying letter, he hoped that both forms would learn form the experience of the other. He invisioned changes to the OF; in that letter he also said he invisioned changes to the EF.

Another excellent post! [SIGN]I agree![/SIGN]

 

[BettyM]

Though those times gave us poor religious education there are many bright spots today. We have many great Catholic books out there. The Catechism is great and is very helpful in learning our faith and we have places like this that we can talk and get answers.

One way to help bring changes is the need to be passing down to our children the things we weren’t taught. I didn’t learn so many things and that is why I think it is so important to pass it down to the next generation so we don’t make the same mistakes. I feel so sorry for parents of the past who sent their children to Catholic schools thinking they would be taught the faith and they came out not knowing very much of it at all.

Some of the problems after being out of the Church for 14 years I see is the Church trying to act like the protestants in order to attract the protestants. We need to remember we are Catholic and learn our Catholic faith and be that kind of a light.

As a protestant I was not content either as so many of my friends weren’t. We bounced from church to church with the same little expression, “I am not being fed.”
Despite all the problems the Catholic church might have after being fed at the Eucharistic table I knew where home was. Sometimes when I hear all the problems I just have to remember how hungry I was before. It took me along time but I know now the Catholic Church is the place to be. I tell my son that Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and that means that the gates of hell are going to try to prevail against the Church and we just have to remember Jesus promised He would never leave us and He is always present in the Catholic Church leading and guiding and protecting it.

 

[CWBetts]

Malleus: I am not insulting you. I am asking you to stop pontificating about how we have to follow what you believe or believe how you believe. Why would that be insulting to you? Do you even read what you write? And perhaps you need to get down off your soapbox.

The Original question is “Should we turn back the Clock?” Its been 45 years and as others have pointed out (like ProVobis) statistically - an uttter and complete failure.

Benedict obviously sees value in Tradition or there wouldnt be a Motu Proprio would there? As for what are the “Evils” of Vatican II - False Ecumenism - Religious liberty and Religious Indifferentism Chiefly. Couple that with people like you who claim to follow the Teachings of Vatican II - like for example - Dignitatis Humanae: (And I quote

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

Malleus: You claim to follow Vatican II and all its precepts to the letter - perhaps you might want to explain why you insist that Traditional Catholics follow it to the letter when you have aptly demonstrated today in this forum that you do not.

Pax

I do follow it! I have tried to lead you to Truth. I have not used force or coercion. I have used reasoned arguments. The document you quote ant any rate is not directed towards individuals who use arguments to evangelize, but towards those that have the power to attempt to force conversion, a kind of power I do not have.

 

[pnewton]

I am not suprised that many here want to go back, especially when I see people refer to the TLM as The Mass. Some doubt the legitimacy of the current Mass and others simply do not prefer it. I recall that in Spirit of the Liturgy, then Cardinal Ratzinger tied the two forms of Mass together, speaking of both the benefits and dangers we have with the Mass today. I will stand by what he said. “There can be no question of going back.” There may be elements that change and we might return to, ad orientem, for example, but we will not go back.

 

[Aramis]

**Would **decline? The Church has been in a great decline since V2. Take a look at the “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators.”

The church was in decline well before VII.

The major issues brought up at the council, the need for the council in the first place, and the massive attendance at the council show that all was NOT hunky-dory prior to the council.

 

[otjm]

I really don’t quite understand your tone - it was a simple question. Was genuinely curious about why. So, perhaps you could tone down the sarcasm a tad? Especially because never said any of the stuff you are insinuating.

I don’t think adding scripture ot Mass for the sake of hearing more Scripture is a good reason. I agree we need to and should read Scripture. What I disagree on is the Mass being the forum for that. We have 167 other hours to do that with.

By diminish I meant that it breaks up the continuity of the liturgical year. The liturgical year should be a closed cycle. Each individual reading should point towards the Mass of that day and towards the cycle itself. By making it a 3 year cycle you are making it an open cycle.

OK, I took your comment as a bit snide, referring to it as a bible study. If you were not being snide, I will tone it down.

As to the cycle, it is not a closed cycle but onloy a prtailly closed one; We ahve Christmas and Lent/Easter, and the readings about the Eucharist in the Summer. However, for the rest of it the cycle is not absolutely closed, as the readings do not ahve to be in lock-step with one another; in three years we get to focus during each year on one of the three synoptics. Again, not to be snide - but I don’t think you would propose throwing one of them out; and given that each of them was writing to a different audience and as a result had a different approach to the substantially same material, there is no particularly good reason to either get rid of two of them, or simply hear only one of their approaches to a specific issue. And that does not make it into a bible study; this is our Scripture and God had a reason for inspiring 4 of them to write of the public years of Christ and perhaps we can let God so inform us. Christ went to synagogue on Saturday each week, and there is no reaso to presume that in reading through the Torah, He limited it to one version of the events or their history (given there is more than one version if you have ever slogged through it). Perhaps hHe is a model for how we should approach Scripture?

There is private study and that, I agree is important. But this is not just study; it is worship. The Church teaches that Christ is present when the Word is proclaimed; why would we limit downward? Procalmation of the Good News is not the same as a scripture study; it is much more.

And as to your point that the readings towards the Mass of that day and the cycle itself, I fail to see that reading Luke one year and Mark another doesn’t do just that. However, hearing, for example of the Rich Young Man does have a different view point (perhaps subtle, but real) between the writers. And hearing the Sermon on the Mount is different, to an interesting degree, from hearing the Sermon on the Plain. They both have someting to say; which would you eliminate?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

What would happen if we reversed all of the reforms that came after Vatican II?

Would it be good if Vatican II was forgotten? The Council was not doctrinal and was pastoral in nature. We have seen what the pastoral reforms of Vatican II have produced. Would the Church prosper if the Holy Father decided to reform the reform and reinstate the previous traditions of the Church?

What effect would this have on the Church? Would it be a total disaster or would we see an immediate increase in vocations, conversions and holiness?

I haven’t read the thread. I just don’t have time. 1960 was the year that Sr. Lucia was informed that the third secret of Fatima should have been made known to the world. Pope John XXIII is reported to have opened it, read it, and said that it was “not for our times.” I would like to have seen the results of a Council held in light of the Third Secret of Fatima and the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of our Lady instead of under the table deals with the Russian government to permit a couple of Orthodox observers at the Council in exchange for a promise to not condemn atheistic communism.

In my opinion, Vatican II cannot be understood in its proper context without consideration of the refusal to save Russia in the way it was revealed to the children of Fatima. The way that requires faith, courage, and honors our Lady is salvific. Clearly, the pope wanted to reach out to Russia, and he was a man of goodness and charity. I applaud his want motive. But he did it with political shenanigans, with the eyes of a worldling, and not the light that was given him from above.

This is no denial of Pope John’s status as a Blessed. If the Church says he is heaven, I believe it. But I cannot be persuaded that his was the way Heaven had directed for the Church to approach the problem of atheistic communism, the errors of Russia, and the message of Our Lady of Fatima.

Rory

 

[edwest2]

I think a reversal would just cause more confusion and chaos. I think a true “reform of the reform” is slowly starting to happen in some parishes. I’m always bragging on my parish and our pastor, who has instituted the “true” spirit of Vatican II; our parish is deeply reverent and our pastor does not tolerate liturgical abuses.

Honestly, I believe pre-Vatican II was just a different time. The 50s were an entirely different culture than we have today. We can’t go back, folks. Both my parents were pre-Vatican II Catholics and frankly, I have a more active spirituality and more obedience to Church teachings than I believe they do today. Granted, this is no thanks to the DISMAL catechesis CCD gave me in the 80s…it is thanks to the grace of God and my own studies.

It’s my theory that we see more “piety” and “reverence” and fruits of devotions in current-day EF parishes because of the people who choose to attend them…not because of the details of the Mass. My friends who attend EF were holy BEFORE they started to attend. I and many in my OF parish are doing just fine keeping our eyes on holiness without the EF. Do I think the EF is beautiful? Yes. Do I think the OF is beautiful when celebrated correctly? Yes. Was the old Mass always celebrated with reverence in 1945? Sadly…no.

We must remember that the earliest Catholic Church had liturgy in the vernacular and different devotions than we have today (or even in the 1950s) and it produced some of Christ’s greatest Saints and Martyrs.

Oh please. I was there for the 1950s. Ask yourself. Who corrupted everything outside of the Church? Catholics? Who turned television into a little more sexuality, then a little more, every year, and who put porn on cable? The 1950s and 1960s were far more reverent than today. Why? People actually lived out their faith every day. They didn’t have to fear turning on their TV and hearing Chris Rock going on and on about graphic sex or see commercials for Viagra or dysfunctional people presented as “entertainment.”

Honestly, I think everyone needs to step back and forget about what was going on inside the Church building and ask, why did everything going on outside the Church building change so drastically?

Nuns wearing habits will cut the divorce rate? I don’t think so.

People were gradually taught that being a little disobedient was OK, then a little more and then a little more. We trusted so-called “experts” who took advantage of our Catholic trust and compassion.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Our Lady of Fatima did no such thing, and I have read what she said. You are choosing to interpret what she said and try to apply it to Vatican 2.

The OF is as much our true Mass as is the Maronite rite and the Byzantine rite. It has the same structure as the EF; Liturgy of the Word, Creed, Offeratory, Consecration and Communion and it follws in exactly the same pattern. It is far closer to the EF than is the Byzantine rite.

St Thomas keeps getting dragged out as if he was infallible. He had an opinion on the reception of Communion; as a matter of fact he ignored 1000 years of history with that opinion. He was also 180 degrees dead wrong about one of the major Marian doctrines; and the issue of reception of Communion is not a doctrine, it is a discipline. But no one talks about St Thomas when it comes to that doctrine; they just talk about him when he agrees with their position.

And to say that the Mass moves away almost completely leaves one to wonder if you even know what the Church teaches. It actually picks up more of what the Church teaches for one simple reason: the majority of wht the Church teaches comes from the Bible and the OF has expanded, not reduced, the amount of the New Testament which we now hear. So in fact it actually teaches more. I would agree that it focuses more than the EF on the Sacrificial Banquet and that has caused some to say that it no longer focuses on the Sacrifice. Perhaps a count of certain things would help.

To know is to have facts. You think that Our Lord would prefer the EF. Unless He has given you a revelation, you do not know such a thing.

I have no problem whatsoever with you liking the EF. I suspect I have attended more of the EF in the space of about 5 years than you ahve attended in your lifetime - unless you are fairly close to my age. I grew up on it. I think it should be available to anyone who wishes to attend it. Sadly, it isn’t, but very very gradually it is becoming more available. Even the Pope in his accompanying letter said he did not expect it to replace the OF. In that same letter he said that he expected eventual changes to the EF. You might read the letter thoroughly some time.

First of all, Our Lady of Fatima did warn about Vatican II. She warned of what she calls “a diabolical dis-orientation”. She said altars would be sacked, and she said many would abandon the faith. She is really talking about Vatican II. Did you read the real Third Secret of Fatima, or the one released in 2000?

No, the Novus Ordo is not our true Mass. Calling it the “Ordinary Form” makes it seem like it is the true Mass, but by calling it what it is, you get a sense that it’s a man-made Mass. Saying it is the true Mass actually makes one wonder if you know what the Church teaches, and I mean prior to Vatican II. And St. Thomas was wrong? I’m sorry, but you are the one that is “180 degress dead wrong” about Communion in the hands. Remember, he lived before Vatican II, so he was certainly correct when he said only Consecrated hands should touch the Host. Even if he lived after Vatican II and said that, he would still be right. If you think there’s nothing wrong with Communion in the hand, then that’s simply your opinion. But whether you know it or not, whether you want to hear it or not, it is wrong. Then again, if you go by the teachings of the Church post-Vatican II, they completely ignore what all Saints and previous Popes said about such things, so I would recommend the pre-Vatican II teachings. If the Church still went by those teachings, then the TLM would be the Mass said in every parish today, not the NO.

 

[cecilia97]

Oh please. I was there for the 1950s. Ask yourself. Who corrupted everything outside of the Church? Catholics? Who turned television into a little more sexuality, then a little more, every year, and who put porn on cable? The 1950s and 1960s were far more reverent than today. Why? People actually lived out their faith every day. They didn’t have to fear turning on their TV and hearing Chris Rock going on and on about graphic sex or see commercials for Viagra or dysfunctional people presented as “entertainment.”

Honestly, I think everyone needs to step back and forget about what was going on inside the Church building and ask, why did everything going on outside the Church building change so drastically?

Nuns wearing habits will cut the divorce rate? I don’t think so.

People were gradually taught that being a little disobedient was OK, then a little more and then a little more. We trusted so-called “experts” who took advantage of our Catholic trust and compassion.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

Oh please??? I think we agree here, Ed. Society has been in a downward spiral and would have been, whether Vatican II occurred or not.

 

[CWBetts]

First of all, Our Lady of Fatima did warn about Vatican II. She warned of what she calls “a diabolical dis-orientation”. She said altars would be sacked, and she said many would abandon the faith. She is really talking about Vatican II. Did you read the real Third Secret of Fatima, or the one released in 2000?

No, the Novus Ordo is not our true Mass. Calling it the “Ordinary Form” makes it seem like it is the true Mass, but by calling it what it is, you get a sense that it’s a man-made Mass. Saying it is the true Mass actually makes one wonder if you know what the Church teaches, and I mean prior to Vatican II. And St. Thomas was wrong? I’m sorry, but you are the one that is “180 degress dead wrong” about Communion in the hands. Remember, he lived before Vatican II, so he was certainly correct when he said only Consecrated hands should touch the Host. Even if he lived after Vatican II and said that, he would still be right. If you think there’s nothing wrong with Communion in the hand, then that’s simply your opinion. But whether you know it or not, whether you want to hear it or not, it is wrong. Then again, if you go by the teachings of the Church post-Vatican II, they completely ignore what all Saints and previous Popes said about such things, so I would recommend the pre-Vatican II teachings. If the Church still went by those teachings, then the TLM would be the Mass said in every parish today, not the NO.

Is there any way to stop the posting of this heterodox nonsense?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Why should I show respect for an opinion that runs counter to the Church? Both the TLM and the Novus Ordo are valid. In fact, the Novus Ordo is a great gift to the Church, as it added more Scripture readings. You arew obsessed with Latin, which is not somehow “holier than the vernacular”

I’m obsessed with Latin just because I attend the Traditional Latin Mass? I could easily fire back and say you’re obsessed with the Novus Ordo because you prefer it over the TLM. That gets us nowhere. Latin is holier than the vernacular. If you can’t see that, then there’s nothing I can do to change you mind apparently. But whatever. And the Novus Ordo actually runs counter to the pre-Vatican II Church.

 

[edwest2]

To Carl -

Apparently not. Before, it was The Devil Made Me Do It. Now it’s, Vatican II Made Me Do It. Or Vatican II turned me into someone less Catholic.

That didn’t happen to me.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

1. Age of a Mass does not make it “more” or “less” of a mass. If you listen to the Eucharistic prayers, the focus of the Novus Ordo is the unbloody Sacrifice. The presence or absence of Latin is irrelevant, but that point doesn’t matter anyways, because the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in either Latin or in the vernacular. Communion in the hand happened in antiquity. SInce it was promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI, it is a true Mass.
2. Fatima is not required to be adhered to by Catholics. Vatican II, as an infallible council, must be adhered to. How do you know what the Lord wants? Do you know more than the Vicar of Christ?

Age might not make more or less of a Mass, but I’m not buying that it’s THE true Mass since it was man-made. I’m sticking with the TLM no matter what.

Fatima is extremely important. I’d much rather adhere to it than Vatican II. And where in my post did I claim to know more than the Vicar of Christ? I guess by stating my opinion I’m some know-it-all who claims to know more than the Pope.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What would happen if we reversed all of the reforms that came after Vatican II?

Would it be good if Vatican II was forgotten? The Council was not doctrinal and was pastoral in nature. We have seen what the pastoral reforms of Vatican II have produced. Would the Church prosper if the Holy Father decided to reform the reform and reinstate the previous traditions of the Church?

What effect would this have on the Church? Would it be a total disaster or would we see an immediate increase in vocations, conversions and holiness?

Can not be done. Whether or not it was a “doctrinal or pastoral” council it is still an Ecumenical Council and binding.