The Reforms Of Vatican II?

[PJM]

=Polycarp1;6764899]I don’t get that God expects material grandor when it is possible necessarily extends to buildings. Certainly the tabernacle should be as glorious as possible as that contains the Real Presence as the Ark of the Covenant did.

Many have also left after seeing the splendor as well. I certainly don’t agree with anyone leaving the church for any reason, but it does happen.

I guess its a matter of perspective. One could say that the old style Churches had to many distractions compared to later styles, but again as I said earlier I love the grand old churches and have been in many of them around the world. But I can’t say that I felt any closer to God in Saint Peters Basilica than I do in our neighborhood parish as I know He is equally present in both.

***Friend may I respectfully suggest you reread Exodus and Kings. Yahweh is very specific about a great deal more than just the Ark. Therefore so ought we be.

As to those who may have left because of the splendor of God’s Houses. More to piity them and there lack of understanding. As long as the “Bridegroom” is with us; are we to act as though He is not?***

 

[garyfigurski]

If the Queen of England were to come to St. ? church, what would happen? You would put on your best clothes, set out the best china with a great deal of pomp! THIS IS JUST A PERSON, How much more does our God deserve in this most holy of holy!

 

[garyfigurski]

I forgot to add, can we change the title to THE CHANGES OF VATICAN 2. Reform it was not. I would like to hear from anyone what good they have done!

 

[patrick457]

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 .

Come to think of it, why do we even call it ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ when it’s clearly not the authentic spirit of the letter? I might as well say that a hamburger is ‘in the spirit of fish-and-chips’.

It’s also funny how Vatican II, out of all the Councils the Church has made throughout 2000 years of its existence, gets to have this phrase. I’ve yet to hear of a ‘Spirit of Jerusalem’, ‘Spirit of Nicaea’, ‘Spirit of Ephesus’ or ‘Spirit of Trent’.

 

[Bbigam]

and it was mandated and accomplished. so far no one has come out to fix the problem. they continue in their saga to go forward with the nonsense. while the True Mass has continued being undermined and suppressed. and so far i have heard everyone talking about charity and acceptance, yet i have not heard anyone besides the Traditional Catholics come in defense of the Liturgy, the Worship to God… the Worship of God has been treated as a third class… you know what.
in the meanwhile progressists such charismatic Catholics are taking over the Church with their modernists ideas helping destroying the Faith evenmore.

the Tratidional Catholic are out for a big fight for the Faith. a Faith preserved through the ages with the blood of the Saints long forgotten.

when was the last time you heard about the Saints of the Church in your Parish. i sure havent. i hear about some protestant pastor writings. which it has nothing to do with us. they keep shoving down their protestants views in the throats of Catholics, yes, inocent Catholics that cannot defend their Faith for they are clueless about what really is going on.

Oh please. There are many people out there working to to “fix the problem.” Look at FSSP and ICRSS, and the New Liturgical Movement. Look at bishops like Cardinal Justin Rigali who remodeled the Cathedral in Philadelphia to put a beautiful high altar with tabernacle in a central location under the baldacchino in the sanctuary. Look at Bishop John D’Arcy who mandated that all tabernacles in his diocese be moved to the center of the sanctuary. Look at Archbishop Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, who is a huge supporter of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Look at our Holy Father, who has kneeling to receive on the tongue at his Masses, sometimes celebrates ad orientem, and issued Summorum Pontificum, so that bishops no longer have the authority to ban the Extraordinary Form. The “True Mass” has continued being suppressed? Well, it’s true that the Ordinary Form has often not been celebrated as it should. But I know you (inaccurately) mean the Extraordinary Form. Yes, so it was long suppressed in many places, and that was bad, but it’s becoming more and more common all the time.

When did I last hear about the saints? Hmm, well last week I heard about Sts. John Fisher and Thomas More (in another parish). And just a few weeks ago in my parish we had a St. Anthony Procession with Benediction.

I know there’s still a lot of madness out there. But there are also so many people working for a restoration of reverent liturgy, and this is not limited to the Extraordinary Form, which is only one form of the true Eucharistic Liturgy that also includes the Ordinary Form, and Eastern and Oriental Rites.

 

[Genesis315]

It’s also funny how Vatican II, out of all the Councils the Church has made throughout 2000 years of its existence, gets to have this phrase. I’ve yet to hear of a ‘Spirit of Jerusalem’, ‘Spirit of Nicaea’, ‘Spirit of Ephesus’ or ‘Spirit of Trent’.

That’s not really true actually. While I’ve never seen the specific phrase used, there was a “Spirit of Constance”–it is the heresy of Conciliarism, which says the Pope is subject to a Council, rather than the body being subject to the head. Of course, the Council of Constance apart from the Pope passed an explicitly conciliarist decree, but this was not received as part of the Ecumenical Council’s authoritative decrees. However, the following decree was received by Pope Martin V as authoritative:

**[On general councils] **
The frequent holding of general councils is a pre-eminent means of cultivating the Lord’s patrimony. It roots out the briars, thorns and thistles of heresies, errors and schisms, corrects deviations, reforms what is deformed and produces a richly fertile crop for the Lord’s vineyard. Neglect of councils, on the other hand, spreads and fosters the aforesaid evils. This conclusion is brought before our eyes by the memory of past times and reflection on the present situation. For this reason we establish, enact, decree and ordain, by a perpetual edict, that general councils shall be held henceforth in the following way. The first shall follow in five years immediately after the end of this council, the second in seven years immediately after the end of the next council, and thereafter they are to be held every ten years for ever. They are to be held in places which the supreme pontiff is bound to nominate and assign within a month before the end of each preceding council, with the approval and consent of the council, or which, in his default, the council itself is bound to nominate. Thus, by a certain continuity, there will always be either a council in existence or one expected within a given time. If perchance emergencies arise, the time may be shortened by the supreme pontiff, acting on the advice of his brothers, the cardinals of the Roman church, but it may never be prolonged. Moreover, he may not change the place assigned for the next council without evident necessity. If an emergency arises whereby it seems necessary to change the place–for example in the case of a siege, war, disease or the like–then the supreme pontiff may, with the consent and written endorsement of his aforesaid brothers or of two-thirds of them, substitute another place which is suitable and fairly near to the place previously assigned. It must, however, be within the same nation unless the same or a similar impediment exists throughout the nation. In the latter case he may summon the council to another suitable place which is nearby but within another nation, and the prelates and other persons who are customarily summoned to a council will be obliged to come to it as if it had been the place originally assigned. The supreme pontiff is bound to announce and publish the change of place or the shortening of time in a legal and solemn form within a year before the date assigned, so that the aforesaid persons may be able to meet and hold the council at the appointed time.

While not explicitly Conciliarist or contrary to the faith, it fed the fire of the Conciliarists and their heresy flourished–and Constance was always used as their justification. To appease them, merely five years later, Pope Martin convoked another council in Pavia (which moved to Siena due to the plague) which was intended to be ecumenical. This council was dissolved when the Conciliarists began to take control. Again, in 1431 Pope Martin convoked *another *Council intended to be ecumenical in Basel. Conciliarism gained the upper hand at this Council. Pope Eugene IV, who succeeded Martin during this Council tried to dissolve it, but this time the Council continued in schism (Eugene continued a legitimate Council is Ferrara and then Florence). Due to Conciliarist influence, many princes either sided with the Conciliarists or took a stance of neutrality–most significant being the neautrality taken by the Germans. This whole ordeal lasted almost a generation. The fact that so many peoples lived for so long without any distinct loyalty to the Apostolic See is what ultimately caused the Reformation to gain a lasting foothold.

The spirit of Constance most surely had a devastating effect on Christendom.

 

[PJM]

---

Oh please. There are many people out there working to to “fix the problem.” Look at FSSP and ICRSS, and the New Liturgical Movement. Look at bishops like Cardinal Justin Rigali who remodeled the Cathedral in Philadelphia to put a beautiful high altar with tabernacle in a central location under the baldacchino in the sanctuary. Look at Bishop John D’Arcy who mandated that all tabernacles in his diocese be moved to the center of the sanctuary. Look at Archbishop Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, who is a huge supporter of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Look at our Holy Father, who has kneeling to receive on the tongue at his Masses, sometimes celebrates ad orientem, and issued Summorum Pontificum, so that bishops no longer have the authority to ban the Extraordinary Form. The “True Mass” has continued being suppressed? Well, it’s true that the Ordinary Form has often not been celebrated as it should. But I know you (inaccurately) mean the Extraordinary Form. Yes, so it was long suppressed in many places, and that was bad, but it’s becoming more and more common all the time.

When did I last hear about the saints? Hmm, well last week I heard about Sts. John Fisher and Thomas More (in another parish). And just a few weeks ago in my parish we had a St. Anthony Procession with Benediction.

I know there’s still a lot of madness out there. But there are also so many people working for a restoration of reverent liturgy, and this is not limited to the Extraordinary Form, which is only one form of the true Eucharistic Liturgy that also includes the Ordinary Form, and Eastern and Oriental Rites.

***RIGHT ON! I agree completely with your post.

Welcome HOME friend, and welcome to the Forum.

EXTREMELY WELL DONE! ***

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Bbigam]

---

***RIGHT ON! I agree completely with your post.

Welcome HOME friend, and welcome to the Forum.

EXTREMELY WELL DONE! ***

Love and prayers,
Pat

Thanks! Sometimes it’s easy to forget that there are many friendly voices on this sub-forum. You are a great reminder of that!

 

[Victorious]

I don’t believe that somebody put something that they thought was ugly in their church on purpose.

Santa Monica, Madrid, Spain:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The scrap-metal tabernacle at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Los Angeles, California:
http://www.csulb.edu/misc/beachreview/archives/images/DeMossTabernacle.jpg

Sacrilegious bust of Bl. Restituta Kafka by Alfred Hrdlicka, Communist “artist.” This disgusting piece of filth, which purports to depict a Franciscan Sister of Charity whom the Nazis beheaded in 1943, was commissioned for, and put up in, St. Stephen’s Cathedral, Vienna, Austria.

http://karmelblume.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/restituta-hrdlicka1.jpg

 

[Genesis315]

Unfortunately, bad art is not a novelty of Vatican II. St. Bernard laments some of the bad are in the churches of his day:

“What is the point of this ridiculous monstrosity, this shapely misshapenness, this misshapen shapeliness? What is the point of those unclean apes, fierce lions, monstrous centaurs, half-men, striped tigers, fighting soldiers and hunters blowing their horns? In one place you see many bodies under a single head, in another several heads on a single body. Here on a quadruped we see the tail of a serpent. Over there on a fish we see the head of a quadruped. There we find a beast that is horse up front and goat behind, here another that is horned animal in front and horse behind…Good Lord! If we aren’t embarrassed by the silliness of it all, shouldn’t we at least be disgusted by the expense?”
fordham.edu/halsall/source/bernard1.html

 

[edwest2]

“bad art”? Like individual people, we sometimes don’t know the intentions of the artists or exactly how and why some of these works were taken in.

God bless,
Ed