The best things about the reforms of Vatican II

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU
…My confusion stems from the title of this forum, “Traditional Catholicism.” Why are we traditionalists assigned our own forum? I would bet that we (regardless of the form of Mass we prefer) are the majority of orthodox, faithful, practicing Catholics; the 25 percent of people in the U. S. who claim to be Catholic.

If I understand correctly, the titles of the forums are meant to describe the subject matter to be discussed in each and not the characteristics of those who choose to post in one or the other.

See Thomas Casey’s sticky Post Correctly at the top of the first page of this forum.

Thanks, Felsguy. I overlooked that sticky because its title implies general posting rules. In fact, the sticky is crucial to an understanding of this particular forum.

GO BUCKS!

 

[aTraditionalist]

RosslynV:

Vat 2 taught that salvation may be gained through other religions. Big plus-- more souls getting into Heaven!

Please explain how this is even remotely true. Our Lord was very clear that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or there would be no life within us. It is a doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church. It’s sad, frustrating, depressing, but true.

If all religions are equal then why bother with this one? If the Church as founded by Christ is true then how can you give equal standing to false religions? Our Lord stated that few are saved. So which is it? Many are saved or the few? I’m being as “charitable” as I can be. False ecumenism does nobody any favors when we, in the spirit of “charity”, let others persist in error because we as Catholics don’t want to rock the boat. Souls are at stake and only the hard truths will make a difference.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[KSU]

Please explain how this is even remotely true. Our Lord was very clear that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or there would be no life within us. It is a doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church. It’s sad, frustrating, depressing, but true.

If all religions are equal then why bother with this one? If the Church as founded by Christ is true then how can you give equal standing to false religions? Our Lord stated that few are saved. So which is it? Many are saved or the few? I’m being as “charitable” as I can be. False ecumenism does nobody any favors when we, in the spirit of “charity”, let others persist in error because we as Catholics don’t want to rock the boat. Souls are at stake and only the hard truths will make a difference.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Reread the last paragraph of post #34.

 

[aTraditionalist]

KSU:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aTraditionalist

Please explain how this is even remotely true. Our Lord was very clear that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or there would be no life within us. It is a doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church. It’s sad, frustrating, depressing, but true.

If all religions are equal then why bother with this one? If the Church as founded by Christ is true then how can you give equal standing to false religions? Our Lord stated that few are saved. So which is it? Many are saved or the few? I’m being as “charitable” as I can be. False ecumenism does nobody any favors when we, in the spirit of “charity”, let others persist in error because we as Catholics don’t want to rock the boat. Souls are at stake and only the hard truths will make a difference.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Reread the last paragraph of post #34.

Invincible ignorance has always been implied in these conversations. I fear that this defense applies to too few people.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Abu]

aTraditionalist #42
It is a doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.

The need for real Catholics is to understand what the Church actually teaches, not some speculation.

Christ’s Church knew from the beginning that non-Catholics could be saved:
Pope St Clement knew that non-Catholics could be saved from the beginning, for he wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus (literally, “outside the Church, there is no salvation”). Some people have wished to understand this saying in the most literal sense: that is, that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. The Church has condemned such an interpretation (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

This is not to say that the maxim is false. Properly understood, it is quite true. The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].

Fancy still querying this after the clarity in Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D., of Pope Pius IX.

If all religions are equal then why bother with this one?

Where on earth has such a fallacy been hatched?

It is important not to confuse a traditional Catholic who recognises the value of the Tridentine Mass and the *Ordo Missae *Mass with a “traditionalist” who is as described below by James Likoudis in his book review.

The Great Facade, Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church, a book review by James Likoudis from which we find the “traditionalist” position: “A traditionalist is someone who believes that the postconciliar novelties especially the new liturgy and the new ecumenism ought to be abandoned.”

“Traditionalist” does describe those individuals who pursue their own prejudices and dissent as they choose. A faithful and traditional Catholic assents to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

The central traditionalist criticism of Vatican II is that it fundamentally changed the Church’s orientation in a direction that tended to undermine her divine mission. Such dissent is gravely in error…

 

[KSU]

It is important not to confuse a traditional Catholic who recognises the value of the Tridentine Mass and the *Ordo Missae *Mass with a “traditionalist” who is as described below by James Likoudis in his book review.

Good post, Abu.

It’s also important not to confuse a faithful conservative Catholic who recognizes the value of both the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Mass with a "traditionalist."

Secular media and even some orthodox Catholic media get sloppy* and/or devious with the now widely-used, here-to-stay term, “conservative Catholic”. The term can be useful shorthand, provided its original, true meaning is understood.

• catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1004

 

[edwest2]

Let’s not forget that confusion is still being sown.

Ed

 

[OraLabora]

Before we get pulled down into the rabbit hole of criticizing Vatican II, here’s another good outcome of Vatican II: restoration of religious orders to the original rule of their founders. The impact for this for Benedictines has been the abolishment of the clericalist distinction of dividing monks into two castes, choir monks and lay brothers to do the actual physical work of the monastery. St. Benedict never made this distinction in his Rule, and felt that all monks regardless of clerical state were equal and were to live by the sweat of their brow.

 

[FAB]

What is the best thing about the contemporary Church since the council in your opinion. Don’t kill each other over this. I’m just curious.

Thanks and God bless

Re institution of the Permanent Deaconate
Three year cycle for readings
ecumenicism and interfaith relations
involvement for the role laity
Ordinary Form of the mass in the vernacular
Recognition of the work of the Holy Spirit in all faiths
Encouragement to read and study the scriptures
New Evangelization and the laity’s part in it.
Just a few

 

[johnnyc176]

Another good thing about Vatican II was the insistence that the Latin language be preserved. I think having that stated in the documents made it easier for Summorum Pontificum to be issued.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Another good thing about Vatican II was the insistence that the Latin language be preserved. I think having that stated in the documents made it easier for Summorum Pontificum to be issued.

Do you think that it has been preserved? I certainly haven’t seen that.

 

[KSU]

Before we get pulled down into the rabbit hole of criticizing Vatican II, here’s another good outcome of Vatican II: restoration of religious orders to the original rule of their founders. The impact for this for Benedictines has been the abolishment of the clericalist distinction of dividing monks into two castes, choir monks and lay brothers to do the actual physical work of the monastery. St. Benedict never made this distinction in his Rule, and felt that all monks regardless of clerical state were equal and were to live by the sweat of their brow.

As I told you in another thread, it appears that you folks truly merit commendations for keeping beauty and reverence alive and prospering in Canada. We traditional/conservative (pick your own label) Catholics are all about that, and we salute you.

But, my friend, may I ask, why do you think we on this thread may be “pulled down into the rabbit hole of criticizing Vatican II”?

 

[Abu]

Catholics may be politically or socially conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, laborites, or whatever titles a given nation may use for its political parties. Catholics are none of these as to faith and morals – they are either faithful or unfaithful to the teaching of the Church.

No Catholic teaching is “liberal” or “conservative” on anything, as these terms are political and may be interpreted in multitudinous ways, and Vatican II did not sanction political terminology for Catholicism.

 

[johnnyc176]

Do you think that it has been preserved? I certainly haven’t seen that.

My point is that it being in the documents made it easier for Summorum Pontificum to be issued which in turn made the EF (TLM) more accessible. It may not have been preserved in the OF but the EF is more available so in essence Latin has been preserved.

 

[KSU]

Catholics may be politically or socially conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, laborites, or whatever titles a given nation may use for its political parties. Catholics are none of these as to faith and morals – they are either faithful or unfaithful to the teaching of the Church.

No Catholic teaching is “liberal” or “conservative” on anything, as these terms are political and may be interpreted in multitudinous ways, and Vatican II did not sanction political terminology for Catholicism.

Absolutely, positively correct and important regarding Church teaching.

But, completely irrelevant to (1) the first and second English definitions of the word; (2) the common, here-to-stay usage by clergy, media and friend and foe alike; and (3) my post #44 (to which, it may be assumed, you are responding) and which was not about Church teaching.

We traditional Catholics often are attacked in the media and on the Internet by the use of the word “conservative” as a pejorative. E. G., conservatives hate Pope Francis, or conservatives don’t accept VCII, etc.

Ergo, my post #44. As St Ambrose said: Si fueris Rōmae, Rōmānō vīvitō mōre; si fueris alibī, vīvitō sicut ibi

 

[ProVobis]

My point is that it being in the documents made it easier for Summorum Pontificum to be issued which in turn made the EF (TLM) more accessible. It may not have been preserved in the OF but the EF is more available so in essence Latin has been preserved.

The OF was promulgated in Latin and the official versions are in Latin, the last being in 2002. The official Bible is also in Latin, now the Nova Vulgata.

 

[OraLabora]

As I told you in another thread, it appears that you folks truly merit commendations for keeping beauty and reverence alive and prospering in Canada. We traditional/conservative (pick your own label) Catholics are all about that, and we salute you.

But, my friend, may I ask, why do you think we on this thread may be “pulled down into the rabbit hole of criticizing Vatican II”?

See posts 40 and 42… fortunately it seems nipped in the bud. This thread is about the good things about VII, not a platform to criticize VII.

And post 49:

Do you think that it has been preserved? I certainly haven’t seen that.

Well I certainly have.

1. The Benedictine abbey I’m an oblate of In Quebec: Propers and ordinary in Gregorian chant (Latin); Lauds and Vespers in Latin Gregorian chant, Latin hymns at other hours, Latin responsory and Marian antiphon at Compline. In the Ordinary Form; plus an abbey of Benedictine nuns just outside of Montreal; still use the post-Vatican II version of the Monastic Breviary entirely in Latin, as well as the Mass in Latin on weekdays.
2. Multiple Benedictine abbeys in Europe where all or part of the Liturgy is in Latin, all in the Ordinary Form.
3. I’m a member and past director of the Gregorian institute of Canada, and we have 22 registered scholas/choirs who are members and do Gregorian chant in both forms of the Mass across Canada; I belong to one of them, a schola in Sherbrooke, Quebec, and we sing the Gregorian propers and ordinary at different parishes in the archdiocese once a month, as well as, on request, at funerals and special events. We also sing solemn Sunday Vespers in Latin as per the Liturgy of the Hours during Advent and Lent, as well as Lauds on Holy Saturday.

If you want to find places in the US and elsewhere, you can check out the musicasacra.com website.

 

[edwest2]

Catholics may be politically or socially conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, laborites, or whatever titles a given nation may use for its political parties. Catholics are none of these as to faith and morals – they are either faithful or unfaithful to the teaching of the Church.

No Catholic teaching is “liberal” or “conservative” on anything, as these terms are political and may be interpreted in multitudinous ways, and Vatican II did not sanction political terminology for Catholicism.

Thank you,

Ed

 

[blaskoman]

Another good thing about Vatican II was the insistence that the Latin language be preserved. I think having that stated in the documents made it easier for Summorum Pontificum to be issued.

Good joke! The creation of the novusordo missae was to be said in the vernacular. The Latin mass was surpressed. And latin is not being taught in most seminaries.

The best thing about Vatican II is that a future pope will condemn it.

 

[porthos11]

Good joke! The creation of the novusordo missae was to be said in the vernacular. The Latin mass was surpressed. And latin is not being taught in most seminaries.

The best thing about Vatican II is that a future pope will condemn it.

No future Pope will ever condemn Vatican II. Ever.

Vatican II was a valid ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. All this nonsense about “it was just a pastoral council” or “it defined no new dogma” are the buzzwords and excuses of the disobedient and the dissident.

One does not diss Vatican II, or any ecumenical Council and remain faithful to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

One can criticize the current form of the Mass, or the manner in which it was drafted. One can suggest ways by which it can be improved. Fine. But one does not reject the Council itself and remain a faithful Catholic.