The Reforms Of Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Seamus_L

Guest
Has anyone noticed how we have people like Fr Corapi and several others who regularly claim that V2 never mandated the ransacking of church interiors, the removal of sacred art, altars etc and yet I’ve seen church histories,archdiocese histories, books about architecture, statements from bishops, homilies and articles from priests etc that say in no uncertain terms, things like, the altar, statues, stained glass were removed in order to bring us in line with the reforms of Vatican II and to return to the simplicity of our ancient Christian heritage.
So what's the answer here. Did V2 allow for the removal of sacred art or was it misunderstood ?
 
Vatican II never mandated many things that have been done in the name/spirit of Vatican II. There is NO document from Vatican II or anything afterwards mandating the removal of altar rails. The Novus Ordo and GIRM do not even have a rubric (as far as I know) that mention altar rails, even whether or not the gate shouldbe closed during Mass.

In Sacrosanctum Consilium, which is the Vatican II document “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” there was never talk of a fully vernacular Mass nor the slightest movement of the altar itself, let alone ad populam celebration.

I have read the above document 3 times. It is fairly shrt actually. It also, as far as I can recall, makes no mention of removing statues, stained glass, nor whitewashing the walls!
Here’s the link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Hope this has helped!

Pax
 
I see alot of the 7th chapter as problematic because it contains all the justification that was used by priests and bishops around the world to ruin the interiors of once magnificent churches.
 
Seamus L,

That kind of thing unfortuantely began before the Council and was done in order to achieve what was known as a “singularity of image.” Here’s a section of an article about a priest who renovated his parish in such a way in 1957:

usml.edu/liturgicalinstitute/exhibits/hillenbrand%20exhibit/sacred%20heart%20parish.html

The whole article about this priest is helpful to understand the ideas which shaped the liturgical reform–it begins here:

usml.edu/liturgicalinstitute/exhibits/hillenbrand%20exhibit/HB%20Introduction.html

Here’s another short little article with a bunch of pictures (all pre-Vatican II) showing the same thing:

alcazar.net/liturgical_reform.html
 
Genesis315 said:
Seamus L,

That kind of thing unfortuantely began before the Council and was done in order to achieve what was known as a “singularity of image.” Here’s a section of an article about a priest who renovated his parish in such a way in 1957:

usml.edu/liturgicalinstitute/exhibits/hillenbrand%20exhibit/sacred%20heart%20parish.html

The whole article about this priest is helpful to understand the ideas which shaped the liturgical reform–it begins here:

usml.edu/liturgicalinstitute/exhibits/hillenbrand%20exhibit/HB%20Introduction.html

Here’s another short little article with a bunch of pictures (all pre-Vatican II) showing the same thing:

alcazar.net/liturgical_reform.html
Click to expand...
Very interesting. As grade school students in the Detroit Archdiocese during the early 40’s, we sang at our high masses and chanted replies to some of the Latin prayers of the priest. I am under the impression that this was not done in a lot of other places. Then in the late 50’s I was active for a time in Young Christian Students in the Chicago area. We never realized that these things came out of the Liturgical Reform. Thank you for the history lessons. 🙂
 
Seamus_L said:
Has anyone noticed how we have people like Fr Corapi and several others who regularly claim that V2 never mandated the ransacking of church interiors, the removal of sacred art, altars etc and yet I’ve seen church histories,archdiocese histories, books about architecture, statements from bishops, homilies and articles from priests etc that say in no uncertain terms, things like, the altar, statues, stained glass were removed in order to bring us in line with the reforms of Vatican II and to return to the simplicity of our ancient Christian heritage.
Code: 
                       So what's the answer here. Did V2 allow for the removal of sacred art or was it misunderstood ?
Click to expand...
what does it matter? that is what has been done. those who protested such a thing have been excommunicated and are not allowed to be in the Church. i am talking about the SSPX. they are the ones in line with the VII, yet they are no allowed in the Church. go figure.
 
Genesis315 said:
Seamus L,

That kind of thing unfortuantely began before the Council and was done in order to achieve what was known as a “singularity of image.” Here’s a section of an article about a priest who renovated his parish in such a way in 1957:

usml.edu/liturgicalinstitute/exhibits/hillenbrand%20exhibit/sacred%20heart%20parish.html

The whole article about this priest is helpful to understand the ideas which shaped the liturgical reform–it begins here:

usml.edu/liturgicalinstitute/exhibits/hillenbrand%20exhibit/HB%20Introduction.html

Here’s another short little article with a bunch of pictures (all pre-Vatican II) showing the same thing:

alcazar.net/liturgical_reform.html
Click to expand...
this the martin luther that stayed in teh Church to do his deed. i guess he succeeded against the naive bishops and Catholics at the time.
 
I’d say it’s time for the Pope to call a third Vatican council in order to SPECIFY the reforms of the Mass instead of simply clarifying the Mass into simpler terms. The “Clarification” has left far too much open to individual interpretation.
 
wisdomseeker said:
what does it matter? that is what has been done. those who protested such a thing have been excommunicated and are not allowed to be in the Church. i am talking about the SSPX. they are the ones in line with the VII, yet they are no allowed in the Church. go figure.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, no one’s been excommunicated for “protesting” anything. People got excommunicated for the schismatic act of consecrating bishops outside the Church. “Go figure”? You’re like someone who gets arrested for vandalizing a military installation or spitting on a soldier who bawls, “I’m getting punished merely for voicing dissent at the government’s illegal wars! Poor me, a political martyr!” Please.
 
I just wish to state that I mis-spoke. I have only read Sacrosanctum Concilium as it pertains to Liturgy. I will read it and get back to you on the art and architechure.

Pax!
 
dmorgan said:
Here is a good read with links to many articles and documents discussing what happened leading up to V-II and how the documents of V-II have been hijacked to defend what has happened to our Church.

fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html
Click to expand...
While not every church can look as fancy and plush as St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney, the before and after photos where kinda sad.

But did V2 allow for the removal of sacred art or was it misunderstood? It was missunderstood. Those who make such claims I wonder if they have ever read the docs. For eg Vat II said us faithful should be able to chant the Mass in Latin. Yep, I kid you not.

Sacrosanctum Concilium said…

Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.

Altar rails, statues of Mary, old Altars etc hardly seem repugnant or mediocre

And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful.

To be suitable there would need to be kneelers for example. Some churches do not have kneelers though.

Ordinaries must be very careful to see that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or dispersed; for they are the ornaments of the house of God.

I would have thought statues, altar rails and esp old Altars should thus not be disposed or dispersed

Laws which seem less suited to the reformed liturgy are to be brought into harmony with it, or else abolished; and any which are helpful are to be retained if already in use, or introduced where they are lacking.

And there was no subsequent law calling for the ransacking of churches

According to the norm of Art. 22 of this Constitution, the territorial bodies of bishops are empowered to adapt such things to the needs and customs of their different regions; this applies especially to the materials and form of sacred furnishings and vestments.

And yet they have never called for the removal of Altar rails etc
  1. During their philosophical and theological studies, **clerics are to be taught **about the history and development of sacred art, and about the sound principles governing the production of its works. In consequence they will be able to appreciate and preserve the Church’s venerable monuments, and be in a position to aid, by good advice, artists who are engaged in producing works of art.
 
Canto said:
While not every church can look as fancy and plush as St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney, the before and after photos where kinda sad.

But did V2 allow for the removal of sacred art or was it misunderstood? It was missunderstood. Those who make such claims I wonder if they have ever read the docs. For eg Vat II said us faithful should be able to chant the Mass in Latin. Yep, I kid you not.

Sacrosanctum Concilium said…

Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.

Altar rails, statues of Mary, old Altars etc hardly seem repugnant or mediocre

And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful.

To be suitable there would need to be kneelers for example. Some churches do not have kneelers though.

Ordinaries must be very careful to see that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or dispersed; for they are the ornaments of the house of God.

I would have thought statues, altar rails and esp old Altars should thus not be disposed or dispersed

Laws which seem less suited to the reformed liturgy are to be brought into harmony with it, or else abolished; and any which are helpful are to be retained if already in use, or introduced where they are lacking.

And there was no subsequent law calling for the ransacking of churches

According to the norm of Art. 22 of this Constitution, the territorial bodies of bishops are empowered to adapt such things to the needs and customs of their different regions; this applies especially to the materials and form of sacred furnishings and vestments.

And yet they have never called for the removal of Altar rails etc
  1. During their philosophical and theological studies, **clerics are to be taught **about the history and development of sacred art, and about the sound principles governing the production of its works. In consequence they will be able to appreciate and preserve the Church’s venerable monuments, and be in a position to aid, by good advice, artists who are engaged in producing works of art.
Click to expand...
The problem i see here is that there is no specific, therefore, it is up to anyone’s interpretation. who is right who is wrong on this?

it is very general and dangerous when such a document leave it up to the individual. now we see what happened. if it is up to the individual, we will have a mess that we have today.
 
Canto said:
While not every church can look as fancy and plush as St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney, the before and after photos where kinda sad.

But did V2 allow for the removal of sacred art or was it misunderstood? It was missunderstood. Those who make such claims I wonder if they have ever read the docs. For eg Vat II said us faithful should be able to chant the Mass in Latin. Yep, I kid you not.

Sacrosanctum Concilium said…

Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.

Altar rails, statues of Mary, old Altars etc hardly seem repugnant or mediocre

And when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful.

To be suitable there would need to be kneelers for example. Some churches do not have kneelers though.

Ordinaries must be very careful to see that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or dispersed; for they are the ornaments of the house of God.

I would have thought statues, altar rails and esp old Altars should thus not be disposed or dispersed

Laws which seem less suited to the reformed liturgy are to be brought into harmony with it, or else abolished; and any which are helpful are to be retained if already in use, or introduced where they are lacking.

And there was no subsequent law calling for the ransacking of churches

According to the norm of Art. 22 of this Constitution, the territorial bodies of bishops are empowered to adapt such things to the needs and customs of their different regions; this applies especially to the materials and form of sacred furnishings and vestments.

And yet they have never called for the removal of Altar rails etc
  1. During their philosophical and theological studies, **clerics are to be taught **about the history and development of sacred art, and about the sound principles governing the production of its works. In consequence they will be able to appreciate and preserve the Church’s venerable monuments, and be in a position to aid, by good advice, artists who are engaged in producing works of art.
Click to expand...
Exactly! After reading chapter 7, I think that it, like the rest of the documents, have been interpretted very poorly. The removal of so much of the sacred was never authorized! It simply was not rebuked.
ErichK said:
I’d say it’s time for the Pope to call a third Vatican council in order to SPECIFY the reforms of the Mass instead of simply clarifying the Mass into simpler terms. The “Clarification” has left far too much open to individual interpretation.
Click to expand...
I agree that it was unfortunate the the Vatican II documents were not more specific. In regards to a Third Vatican Council, I do not believe that we are their yet. We don’t have enough traditional minded Bishops. We do not have enough Bishops promoting kneeling for Communion and ad orientam worship. I think we could be there in 10 years. I think that the talks that the Vatican is having with SSPX will help greatly in our understanding of Vatican II. What we need is people, such as the SSPX that are very knowledgeable in things pre-Vatican II to read the documents as though they are consistent with the pre-Vatican II Church. This means, interpret them in light of the past. Do not think or look at the abuses that have come about since Vatican II. However, I know that the SSPX and many traditionalists quote many things to be infallible statements that are not defined as such.

Please note, I am not a SSPXer. Simply a simpathizer with them.

Pax!
 
I am also worried by a ‘Vatican 3’. It may make matters much worse, as these liberals are getting angrier by the attempts of our Holy Father to return to a more traditional form of worship in the Latin Church. Maybe, with this new wave of younger, more traditional, priests and the ‘trendy, funky’ bishops and priests dying off, we may have a chance in the future. But not yet…
 
Not being pessimist here but seeing the end of year for priests yesterday, i just dont know, how Traditional is getting. most priests were dressed like lutherans pastors. they were sitting like they were any where but in Church. this one priest at the Eucharist Adoration had one thing in mind, it was having his camera catching the moment. this other priest was chewing gum. not wanting be critical of priests, just my observation on how these behaviors can be any good for the people. i did like the question from some of the priests.

we shall see how these young priests were tought the Faith.
 
To find out whether the stuff that has happened in the Church since Vatican II was actually mandated by Vatican II, the thing to do is read the council documents. They’re online. They’re also published in book form (though I’d avoid the “inclusive language” version, since inclusive language “translations” are frequently betrayals rather than translations).

If you read the council documents, you will find that the council actually called for the opposite of what has ended up happening.
 
DeepeningFaith said:
Vatican II never mandated many things that have been done in the name/spirit of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
It is interesting how so much has been done in the name/spirit of VII which VII never prescribed.

A priest friend of mine gave a talk on the priesthood and said that VII has overturned the common conception of priesthood that we have come to understand from Trent. He challenged us to read the VII documents so that we will be better informed.

I did. And there was nothing at all in the documents that said what he was claiming. So I said to him that it seems the source/author he was quoting was reading a different set of VII documents :D.
 
It doesn’t really matter whether the pillaging of churches and introduction of un-Godly and non-Catholic rubrics, etc., were mandated by the Vatican II documents, they WERE done in the iconoclastic spirit of Vatican II. Yes, the original V2 schema were purposely thrown out, replaced by the revolutionary documents, that were at best, ambiguous in nature. But the revolutionaries were already in the Church, so even without the V2 Council, the Protestantized mass (Novus Ordo Missae) and teachings alone would have been sufficient to shake the foundations of Christ’s Church.

To reform Something, though, usually implies the effecting of changes that will improve that Something; however, such was not the case of the Second Vatican Council. Another good example is Martin Luther’s “reforms” in the 16th century–not beneficial to anyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top