Vatican II and its necessity...where do i belong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Armor_of_Light
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Big_Feet said:
Actually, it is considered BOTH (it is the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church)
Click to expand...
I stand corrected on that point; everything else I said (that with the availability of EF, we no longer have to sit through OF masses if we don’t care to, and that Vatican II defined, to my knowledge, no new dogmas or doctrines) is true.
Big_Feet said:
If you are unable to find a EF of the mass, you are required to go to a celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy each Sunday, and if that requres that you attend an OF mass, then you are obliged to go.
Click to expand...
This is clearly not what I meant, so I’m unsure why you even posted.

My point is that, given that Catholics now have the option of attending the liturgy that predates Vatican II, and given that Vatican II to my knowledge defined no new doctrines or dogmas that are relevant to the laity, it is perfectly reasonable and possible for a layperson to organize and live his spiritual life as if it never happened.
 
You are obliged to believe all the doctrines proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council.
 
Big_Feet said:
I don’t think that any Catholic living in 2012 can or should live and be Catholic without living as if all 21 ecumenical councils happened. They are a fact, and they have not been contradicted in their infallible teachings.
Click to expand...
True but not all teachings from councils are infallible. When they’re reinforced, however, they do take on added authoritative strength.

A Pope, for example, cannot come along and say (or imply) that the councils did not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which has been stated in many council documents.
 
Big_Feet said:
If you are unable to find a EF of the mass, you are required to go to a celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy each Sunday, and if that requres that you attend an OF mass, then you are obliged to go.
Click to expand...
And if you are in some area in which it is impossible to find the OF, you are required to go to an EF. Although I can’t think of a lot of places where that would be the case, I’m sure they exist.
 
YoungTradCath said:
And if you are in some area in which it is impossible to find the OF, you are required to go to an EF. Although I can’t think of a lot of places where that would be the case, I’m sure they exist.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct.
 
Big_Feet said:
If you are unable to find a EF of the mass, you are required to go to a celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy each Sunday, and if that requres that you attend an OF mass, then you are obliged to go.
Click to expand...
And if the only OF you have is in a language other than yours, the obligation holds as well.

You can also attend a Divine Liturgy, by the way.
 
Rich_C said:
I don’t don’t get how Vatican II was supposed to change the way we practice our faith. I see that life did change for everyone, but now very learned Catholic leaders tell us most of the changes were not what the council intended.

How do you think Christ wanted to change our lives with Vatican II?

Please tell me what I’m doing wrong.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry I did not elaborate further and that you took my post as an insult. That was not my intent and it shows the power of words as a weapon. I’m sorry I did not elaborate further.

My point was not to denigrate your choice of spirituality or Mass or anthing else. My point was simply to express that all the councils, all the Traditions, the entirety of scripture, all are beatiful parts of our faith and should be taken in their totality. My point is that one cannot piecemeal Catholicism as one cannot piecemeal the Bible - we all know where that winds up.

I did read your subsequent post to which mine was a response and see that I did have a knee jerk reaction. Your position is more subtle and nuanced than I originally thought. I took your statment “Live like it never happened” as a statement that it was useless, irrelevant, invalid, even harmful to our faith. I understand that is not what you were saying.

The last thing I wanted to do was insult and upset you. I hope you can accept my apology.

-Tim-
 
ProVobis said:
And if the only OF you have is in a language other than yours, the obligation holds as well.

You can also attend a Divine Liturgy, by the way.
Click to expand...
On the language - of course!
and with regards to Divine Liturgy - that is why I called it a Eucharistic celebration, not a Mass, as there are many options out there outside the Roman rite that are valid alternatives.
Just because we think “Catholic,” it does not mean exclusively “ROMAN Catholic!”
 
Read something interesting, recently. A lot of bishops voted ‘no’ at the Council. They weren’t required to recant. This suggests that this Council wasn’t like the one which proclaimed Papal Infallibility.

What are the things propounded by the Council, which, if you deny them, make you a heretic or schismatic?
 
Armor_of_Light said:
Hello all-

I’ve been reading with great interest some of the posts here in the traditional forum, and am still trying to determine if I am one of ‘you’. So…2 multi part questions:
  1. What drove the need for vatican II? was it a knee jerk reaction to the hippies or something? I was not around yet, so i have no frame of reference other than my dad complaining about it from time to time. If it was not ‘needed’ to address issues of doctrine or dogmatic principles, then why was it held? Is it possible that the Holy Spirit was guiding our beloved church down this road for a reason? Could it be that God knew that we should have the changes ushered in by vatican II because it would bring about a greater good and a stronger church? I know that currently that is not the case, but…
  2. Yesterday at mass, we started by greeting each other warmly. Then we had a financial pitch after a short homily. Then we ‘affirmed’ and applauded all the birthdays. Then the same for all the anniversaries. etc, etc, etc… It is all too much!! Are there any reverent OF masses and parishes left? Not around here I think. I am more frequently annoyed at mass!! Horrible!! I have trouble reconciling this annoyance with the joy of the mass. I know this is a personal thing, and related to ‘feelings’, but do I just suck it up (acceptance) as a faithful catholic, or am I experiencing a ‘just’ annoyance? Is this a common experience with traditionalists, ultimately resolved by finding communities of like-minded catholics? I worry about all this being driven by pride.
Thanks for reading
Click to expand...
  1. Here is the opening address to the Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII:
ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

The Hippies weren’t around yet. Vatican II started in 1962. And yes, it’s a long read but the reasons were clear. What else was going on in 1962? The Russians had positioned nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba and when the US found out, President John F. Kennedy stopped what could have been World War III. None of the “changes” that are blamed on Vatican II were not even suggested by Vatican II. It has been made the scapegoat - the false reason - why problems occurred later on.
  1. If your Church, your priest, is allowing things you think have no business being part of the Church service, carefully and politely ask him why things are the way they are. Depending on his answers, I would contact your local Bishop as well. Mass is supposed to be reverent, and what you describe is not reverent.
Peace,
Ed
 
TempleServant said:
You are obliged to believe all the doctrines proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council.
Click to expand...
Again, I’m not aware of any doctrines or dogmas proclaimed by the council, at least not ones that bear on the ordinary life of lay Catholics such that pretending the council never happened would constitute living sinfully. Lots of what the council seems to have touched on besides liturgy (the changes to which no one is obliged to like) involve things like the theology of being a bishop and the manner in which institutional Catholicism ought to relate to other religions.
 
sw85 said:
Again, I’m not aware of any doctrines or dogmas proclaimed by the council, at least not ones that bear on the ordinary life of lay Catholics such that pretending the council never happened would constitute living sinfully. Lots of what the council seems to have touched on besides liturgy (the changes to which no one is obliged to like) involve things like the theology of being a bishop and the manner in which institutional Catholicism ought to relate to other religions.
Click to expand...
Few, if any, of the changes to liturgy came from the Council. It taught that the Mass should retain Latin while adding some vernacular. It taught that Gregorian chant should be given pride of place. The people who got rid of these things are acting like Vatican II never happened (in the bad way, not how RichardC means it.)
 
Rich_C said:
I don’t don’t get how Vatican II was supposed to change the way we practice our faith. I see that life did change for everyone, but now very learned Catholic leaders tell us most of the changes were not what the council intended.

How do you think Christ wanted to change our lives with Vatican II?

Please tell me what I’m doing wrong.
Click to expand...
All you have to do is learn the truth:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Read this and know that the Council was good and appropriate. I was there before and after Vatican II. I did not love God less after.

Peace,
Ed
 
Theophorus said:
I don’t think we can blame the Second Vatican Council for banal human-centered Liturgies, the council document on the sacred liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t allow for most of the innovations we now see in the OF, let alone mandate them, rather they are the result of the ‘spirit of the council’ or the various interpretations of ‘what the council really ment’. A proper reading and application of the council documents in the life of the church would IMO clean up alot of the garbage we see in our parishes.
Click to expand...
Whenever we see error being preached or strange additions to the Mass, ask your priest politely to explain it to you. Then, if that does not work, contact your Bishop with all the facts. We do not need to be passive but neither do we need to be confrontational. Vatican II called for a greater involvement of the laity. Recently, on Catholic Radio, I heard a priest say, “We cannot do this by ourselves.” The laity must stand up and with respect for our fellow Catholics, speak up. Remaining silent victims will only allow the strange and errors to continue.

Peace,
Ed
 
Big_Feet said:
If you are unable to find a EF of the mass, you are required to go to a celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy each Sunday, and if that requires that you attend an OF mass, then you are obliged to go.
Click to expand...
Most Catholics know this. I think some are bewildered when someone is willing to drive for 2 hours to get to an EF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top