The Reforms Of Vatican II?

[wisdomseeker]

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.

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.

 

[PJM]

=Seamus L;6721122]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 ?

This is a topic I have researched in GREAT depth.** Father is 100% corrdect**

The culpert is a booklet entitled ***Environment an Art in Catholic ***Worship It was the instrument of distruction and revolt! It’s very liberal agenda followed the lead of then Cardinal Berdine and his “Seamless garmet” theology which proclaimed if we can’t convert them; then we need to change to be more like them. …

The book was authored clandestinaly by “a Bishops sub-comittee,” NOT ONLY NOT SET TO ROME FOR APPROVAL ,[and absolute mandate] BUT NOT EVEN SUBMITTED TO THE ENTIRE BODY OF BISHOPS FOR A VOTE.

After the destruction was acomplished; a great many laity, some priest and a few Bishops began to make us aware of the farse; the travesty. The Book was recalled; and replaced by only a slightly better “***Built of Living Stones” ***document; which was summitted to the Bishops Conference but I don’t beleive to Rome?

**EACW **was the “bible of reck-o-vation.” Presented as mandates that were nothing more than seriously flawed subjective opinions.

The situation is now to return the Geni to the bottle; a near impossibility as four generations have now been given nothing BUT the errors of these “let’s be like them” men and women. These folks assume because they know no other way; that what is ; is because God wants it so.

OH HOW WRONG THEY ARE!

 

[edwest2]

Nothing is impossible for God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[mrearly2]

“iconclastic spirit”? Give me a break. None of the so-called reforms attributed to Vatican II were authorized by Vatican II. It matters.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

God bless,
Ed

Not authorized by Vatican II, but by instigating changes in the way people worship, it led to the destruction of the Faith, churches, holy organizations (monasteries and convents), etc.
I like to think we would all be much better off, if we could ignore the pastoral (not doctrinal) Vatican II Council and its many bad fruits.

 

[edwest2]

Vatican II can no longer be made a scapegoat for decisions made by dissidents and others.

harvestingthefruit.com/

God bless,
Ed

 

[PJM]

Vatican II can no longer be made a scapegoat for decisions made by dissidents and others.

harvestingthefruit.com/

God bless,
Ed

WOW Ed, this is the second time in a few minutes that I find myself in complete agreemnt with you. Are U physic?

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Polycarp1]

I don’t think that the trappings of the church infrastructure, i.e.; statues, windows, alter rails etc are that important or have much impact on the holiness or sinfullness of the faithful. The early church had none of these things. What is important is the doctrine of the church, and that has remain unchanged since Christ authorized and commissioned His church.

 

[jam070406]

I don’t think that the trappings of the church infrastructure, i.e.; statues, windows, alter rails etc are that important or have much impact on the holiness or sinfullness of the faithful. The early church had none of these things. What is important is the doctrine of the church, and that has remain unchanged since Christ authorized and commissioned His church.

I guess we’re all entitled to our opinions. :tiphat:

 

[Victorious]

I don’t think that the trappings of the church infrastructure, i.e.; statues, windows, alter rails etc are that important or have much impact on the holiness or sinfullness of the faithful. The early church had none of these things. What is important is the doctrine of the church, and that has remain unchanged since Christ authorized and commissioned His church.

Of course they have an impact, just like the condition of your home or your office has an impact on your overall attitude. Can you concentrate on work when your office looks chaotic? And did you ever know a married man who liked coming home to a dirty house? Similarly, when you go into a church that looks like a warehouse, you don’t feel like you’re in a church; you feel like you’re in a warehouse. And if you feel like you’re in a warehouse, you’re eventually going to act accordingly.

But even more than our attitudes, we ought to give a church all the beautiful trappings we can give it because it’s God’s house. If we fail to go out of our way to give God’s house the best we can give it, don’t you think that sends the message that God is no big deal? Wouldn’t you think that impacts people’s faith?

I don’t know what they had in the early Church. But in an age when the Church was white-hot with faith and fervor, despite heavy persecution, I feel confident they did the very best they could with what they had. That’s more than we’ve been doing in recent decades.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t think that the trappings of the church infrastructure, i.e.; statues, windows, alter rails etc are that important or have much impact on the holiness or sinfullness of the faithful. The early church had none of these things. What is important is the doctrine of the church, and that has remain unchanged since Christ authorized and commissioned His church.

That is true. But we are humans with physical bodies. Our physical side respond to this material imaging of the divine realities.

That is why the sacraments always have physical signs.

I read of a priest who was jailed in some country (can’t remember probably communist) who maintained his faith by manufacturing a rosary and a cross out of the materials at hand.

I would say however that some churches are way over the top with regards these statues that they tend to become in some ways a hindrance rather than a help.

 

[edwest2]

I was there before Vatican II and after Vatican II. I was in Catholic school. I had no reason to be less reverant or less worshipful after Vatican II. None.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Seamus_L]

As for myself and every Traditional Catholic I know. We do need beautiful altars, statues, paintings and stained glass, because these things greatly aid our faith. It was often those comments of progressive priests that we need to be like the early church, which led them to becoming what Michael Rose referred to as “Ugly As Sin”

 

[rapunzel77]

I think that Vatican II, at least in some of the documents are ambiguous and open to many interpretations. As a result, many bishops, priests, religious, laypeople, etc have interpreted it to mean basically “out with the old, in with the new.” They couldn’t leave stuff alone. Everything had to go. This is appalling. It reminds me of what happened during the “reformation.” We need to worship with all our senses. We need places that will elevate our minds to God. Everything has a meaning and it does lessen the faith when you take out the art, the altar rails, etc. It is saying that this is not a special place. This is not holy. Nope, its just a living room or a conference hall. How we worship DOES have an impact on what we believe.

 

[Polycarp1]

Of course they have an impact, just like the condition of your home or your office has an impact on your overall attitude. Can you concentrate on work when your office looks chaotic? And did you ever know a married man who liked coming home to a dirty house? Similarly, when you go into a church that looks like a warehouse, you don’t feel like you’re in a church; you feel like you’re in a warehouse. And if you feel like you’re in a warehouse, you’re eventually going to act accordingly. .

I don’t think people love God more or less dependent on the trappings of the building they celebrate the mass in. God doesn’t look for gold and works of art, He looks into our hearts. Our Lord was born in a stable, the first mass was celebrated in a meeting room. the early church was in caves, catacombs and basements. It wasn’t until much later in the middle ages that grand edifices were constructed and in many cases more so to underscore that the church then had political authority, than to glorify God, It certainly didn’t indicate that the people or church at that time were any more devout than their forbearers.

But even more than our attitudes, we ought to give a church all the beautiful trappings we can give it because it’s God’s house. If we fail to go out of our way to give God’s house the best we can give it, don’t you think that sends the message that God is no big deal? Wouldn’t you think that impacts people’s faith? .

I have no problem with beautiful churches as they should represent our desire to glorify God, but I just don’t think that they are that important to God or have a great impact on the actions of the Holy Spirit in peoples lives. How we live our lives is much more important than who has the nicest building. At the final judgement I don’t think we will be asked about how nice our church looked.

I don’t know what they had in the early Church. But in an age when the Church was white-hot with faith and fervor, despite heavy persecution, I feel confident they did the very best they could with what they had. That’s more than we’ve been doing in recent decades.

That should tell us something, the Church was white-hot with faith and fervor despite heavy persecution, when they had no great buildings. Now we have the buildings but are not as white-hot with faith and fervor as they were. I’m not saying the buildings are bad, but again that they are not that important in the greater scheme of things.

 

[Victorious]

I don’t think people love God more or less dependent on the trappings of the building they celebrate the mass in. God doesn’t look for gold and works of art, He looks into our hearts. Our Lord was born in a stable, the first mass was celebrated in a meeting room. the early church was in caves, catacombs and basements. It wasn’t until much later in the middle ages that grand edifices were constructed and in many cases more so to underscore that the church then had political authority, than to glorify God, It certainly didn’t indicate that the people or church at that time were any more devout than their forbearers.

Look, this bears emphasizing: Jesus humbled Himself, but it is not for us to humble Him.

God likes it when we give Him the best we have – in fact, He demands it, and as God, deserves it – and notices when we don’t. Wasn’t God more pleased with the sacrifices of Abel, who gave Him the best of everything, than with the sacrifices of Cain, who did not? And take another look at the episode in the Gospels where Mary Magdalene broke the alabaster jar of spikenard over Jesus’ head in the house of Simon the pharisee. Whom did He rebuke: her? or Judas, who complained that the jar could have been sold for 300 denarii and the proceeds given to the poor? And Jesus noticed that Simon had failed to wash His feet or anoint His head.

As for the early Church in caves, catacombs and basements, and other substandard surroundings, that was out of necessity due to persecutions. What’s our excuse now? And by the way, the catacombs are filled with works of art. Don’t you think the earliest Christians would have raised up magnificent churches if they could have? Didn’t they in fact do so as soon as the opportunity and means arose?

Gold and works of sacred art proceed from our hearts. The junk that now infests our churches also proceeds from our hearts. Whose sacrifices does the junk most resemble: Abel’s or Cain’s? Which do you think God finds more pleasing?

 

[PJM]

=Polycarp1;6762375]I don’t think that the trappings of the church infrastructure, i.e.; statues, windows, alter rails etc are that important or have much impact on the holiness or sinfullness of the faithful. The early church had none of these things. What is important is the doctrine of the church, and that has remain unchanged since Christ authorized and commissioned His church.

Friend, from a human perspective you could be right; although I 'm not in agreemnt with you. Anyone who has read with understanding Exodus chapters 25 to 29; Yahweh talling Moses precisely how th Ark of His Spiritual Presence" was to be made, and the extensive use of “Pure Gold,” then reads in KINGS what God had to say about “The Temple” must understand that God knows who HE IS; even if we are unwilling to acknowledge it. And God expects places of Grandor when it is possible.

That is the embarrasing thing about many of the new “Gathering Spaces” Bishops official term for what used to be called churches; but the term was to holy, too pious]. They are all about us! They Neglect, ignore and down play the Real Presence of Christ in our Midst.

Mary are those who have come into The Church after experiencing the Awe and Wonder; the piety and splendor of God’s House.

 

[Polycarp1]

Friend, from a human perspective you could be right; although I 'm not in agreemnt with you. Anyone who has read with understanding Exodus chapters 25 to 29; Yahweh talling Moses precisely how th Ark of His Spiritual Presence" was to be made, and the extensive use of “Pure Gold,” then reads in KINGS what God had to say about “The Temple” must understand that God knows who HE IS; even if we are unwilling to acknowledge it. And God expects places of Grandor when it is possible…

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.

That is the embarrasing thing about many of the new “Gathering Spaces” Bishops official term for what used to be called churches; but the term was to holy, too pious]. They are all about us! They Neglect, ignore and down play the Real Presence of Christ in our Midst.

Many are those who have come into The Church after experiencing the Awe and Wonder; the piety and splendor of God’s House.

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.

 

[Polycarp1]

Look, this bears emphasizing: Jesus humbled Himself, but it is not for us to humble Him.

I wouldn’t dream of humbling the Lord, If I tried I know he would smile at my foolish efforts to do so, On the otherhand He doesn’t need me to increase His glory either. His glory is already o’er all the earth.

God likes it when we give Him the best we have – in fact, He demands it, and as God, deserves it – and notices when we don’t. Wasn’t God more pleased with the sacrifices of Abel, who gave Him the best of everything, than with the sacrifices of Cain, who did not? And take another look at the episode in the Gospels where Mary Magdalene broke the alabaster jar of spikenard over Jesus’ head in the house of Simon the pharisee. Whom did He rebuke: her? or Judas, who complained that the jar could have been sold for 300 denarii and the proceeds given to the poor? And Jesus noticed that Simon had failed to wash His feet or anoint His head.

We don’t know that this was Mary Magdeline as scripture doesn’t identify her but Jesus accepted this annointing as He knew His passion was beginning. His disciples and Judas looked at it as a material waste and missed the spiritual significance.

God was happier with Abel’s gift not because of what it was but because of the manner in which he gave it. Cain gave grudgingly and without true devotion. We can’t give any material thing to God that he hasn’t given to us first.

Gold and works of sacred art proceed from our hearts. The junk that now infests our churches also proceeds from our hearts. Whose sacrifices does the junk most resemble: Abel’s or Cain’s? Which do you think God finds more pleasing?

Unfortunately I don’t have any gold or sacred works of art. What you declare junk may be the best a community can do like the widow with the pennies. Not every parish can afford to build and maintain a basilica and I don’t believe God is unhappy with what they can provide. In fact that small plain church with its junk may be more pleasing to God than a great Cathedral with works of art. I doubt that He feels humbled by such a church.

 

[Victorious]

I wouldn’t dream of humbling the Lord, If I tried I know he would smile at my foolish efforts to do so, On the otherhand He doesn’t need me to increase His glory either. His glory is already o’er all the earth.

WRONG. Holy Scripture exhorts us to give glory to the Lord. Just one example: Malachi 2:2:

If you will not listen, if you will not lay it to heart togive glory to my name, says the LORD of hosts, then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings; indeed I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart.

What you declare junk may be the best a community can do like the widow with the pennies. Not every parish can afford to build and maintain a basilica and I don’t believe God is unhappy with what they can provide. In fact that small plain church with its junk may be more pleasing to God than a great Cathedral with works of art. I doubt that He feels humbled by such a church.

I think you’re deliberately misconstruing what I’m saying. If you read what I said earlier, it would be obvious I am not talking about poor parishes. I am talking about the stuff that is ugly and uninspiring on purpose. The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, for example, is as ugly as sin and costs millions of dollars.

 

[Polycarp1]

WRONG. Holy Scripture exhorts us to give glory to the Lord. Just one example: Malachi 2:2:.

RIGHT I said God doesn’t need me to glorify Him. In fact we need to glorify Him for our own sakes. (and you don’t have to yell at me) .

I think you’re deliberately misconstruing what I’m saying. If you read what I said earlier, it would be obvious I am not talking about poor parishes. I am talking about the stuff that is ugly and uninspiring on purpose. The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, for example, is as ugly as sin and costs millions of dollars.

Your pretty good at misconstruing my words too.
Again what is ugly or beautiful is a matter of perspective and taste. I don’t believe that somebody put something that they thought was ugly in their church on purpose.