Vatican II Review

[Lormar]

I did not say that Tradition had been changed; I said it had been ignored. I said it has been removed! Walk into just about any post V-II built Parish and show me the statues of The Blessed Virgin, or St. Joseph, or any other Saint for that matter. If it were not for the Stations of the Cross you would think it was a protestant church. And for the record, I have seen your argument of Tradition VS tradition and it does not wash. It is a nice apologetic for V-II, but I do not by it. This is about re-training the lay faithfull into a new version of what Catholic means and it appears to have worked very well. Until the advent of the internet many Catholics were oblivious to what went on durring and after Vatican 2. Now we can read the documents, read first hand accounts from the dissenters who were there and read the Encyclicals from previous Popes and their warnings on the Modernist assault on Holy Mother Church. At the root of all of this is the simple fact that one Council, called not for the defense of the Faith, nor to stop a heresy, but to “Modernize” the church opened the doors for those who would re-create the Church to their own whims, and we can now see the end result of that effort after 40+ years.
Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I did not say that Tradition had been changed; I said it had been ignored. I said it has been removed! Walk into just about any post V-II built Parish and show me the statues of The Blessed Virgin, or St. Joseph, or any other Saint for that matter. If it were not for the Stations of the Cross you would think it was a protestant church. And for the record, I have seen your argument of Tradition VS tradition and it does not wash. It is a nice apologetic for V-II, but I do not by it. This is about re-training the lay faithfull into a new version of what Catholic means and it appears to have worked very well. Until the advent of the internet many Catholics were oblivious to what went on durring and after Vatican 2. Now we can read the documents, read first hand accounts from the dissenters who were there and read the Encyclicals from previous Popes and their warnings on the Modernist assault on Holy Mother Church. At the root of all of this is the simple fact that one Council, called not for the defense of the Faith, nor to stop a heresy, but to “Modernize” the church opened the doors for those who would re-create the Church to their own whims, and we can now see the end result of that effort after 40+ years.
Lets just agree to disagree.

See, it doesn’t matter whether or not you buy it. It boils down to what the Church says, not what some anonymous poster on the internet thinks. The Church differentiates between “Tradition” and “tradition.” It won’t matter that you think there is no difference or that you don’t like VII. It simply won’t matter.

 

[gospel_life]

Sacrosanctum Concilium never asked for a more vocal Mass.

It most assuredly did.

From Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.

It did not state any added dialogue.

I have no idea what you mean by this. What is to be said at Mass is spelled out in the GIRM with the exception of the homily.

The changing position of the altar and ad populum also is not in the defining document.

I’m not aware of anyone saying it is. It was part of the legitimate charge of the commission to determine what the changes should look like and for the Pope to approve, both of which happened.

I’m not sure what your point is in any of that anyway though. All of these things are legitimately approved by the Pope which is all that is necessary regardless of when they took place. As I noted previously, the current Mass reflects things that came from several different sources but all are approved, valid and licit.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Vatican II is not optional for Catholics, and they may not reject it.

With all due appreciation for Onegin’s excellent and erudite contributions on this thread, the above quote should be the final and ultimate word in this discussion.

I say this, of course, as someone who has already left the Roman Catholic Church over Vatican II. But I fully agree with David Joseph on one very important point: Vatican II is non-negotiable. The Holy Spirit was either there or was not. It is absurd to suppose that the Holy Spirit guided the Council piecemeal depending on what one does or doesn’t agree with. And it is equally absurd to suppose that the thousands of bishops who were at the Council, on the commissions, and formulating the documents somehow had the wool pulled over their eyes by “radicals.” The lasting proof of their loyalty to the Council lies in how very few of them found sympathy with the contra-conciliar arguments of the Lefebvrists and sedevacantists. The defense of the Council and the Mass was strident by a vast majority of the attending bishops.

Comparisons with St. Athanasius and the Arian heresy are also spurious. Heterodoxy always grows from grass roots up and out, and in the end it is cut down by the final word from either a Synod or an ecclesiastical court. With Vatican II, the paradigm is inverted. Any apparent contradiction with tradition (either upper-case or lower-case “t”) in Vatican II must be reconciled with the fact that this time the word has come from the top down, with the Holy Spirit invoked. Roma locuta, causa finita.

I admire the passion of “traditionalist” Catholics, but the Novus Ordo isn’t going away and neither is the post-conciliar attitude in general. The Latin Mass may be accruing a certain popularity right now, but its future is likely the same as that of the high church Anglicans: as a minority movement. A hamster may do a lot of running on the wheel, but he isn’t going anywhere. Kyrie eleison.

:coffeeread:

 

[ProVobis]

The Latin Mass may be accruing a certain popularity right now, but its future is likely the same as that of the high church Anglicans: as a minority movement. A hamster may do a lot of running on the wheel, but he isn’t going anywhere. Kyrie eleison.

And that’s why the SSPX talks at the Vatican are no big deal.

 

[Yggdrasil]

And that’s why the SSPX talks at the Vatican are no big deal.

Irresistible force, immovable object.

I’m willing to pull a Joe Namath on this one. There’ll be no reconciliation. “I guarantee it.”

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

The lasting proof of their loyalty to the Council lies in how very few of them found sympathy with the contra-conciliar arguments of the Lefebvrists and sedevacantists.

Lefebvre was never a sedevacantist and the SSPX have spoken out against the sedevacantists on numerous occasions. The society has even published a small book entitled *Sedevacantism, A False Solution To a Real Problem. *

Actually the sedevacantist theory didn’t even become public until 1973, and it was theorized by the Mexican Jesuit Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga in his public declaration entitled Sede Vacante.

God Bless

 

[ProVobis]

There’ll be no reconciliation.

But the SSPX will still bother those who wish to see the EF totally eliminated. Never say never, though. Despite all the attacks against them and him, the Pope still lifted the excommunications. That probably broke a few banks in Vegas.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And that’s why the SSPX talks at the Vatican are no big deal.

It’s always a big deal when the Church is earnestly trying to save the souls of those who are or who may seperate from her.

 

[Onegin]

It’s always a big deal when the Church is earnestly trying to save the souls of those who are or who may seperate from her.

Then they should get to work on the Protestants and other non-Catholics. The SSPX are at no risk of separating from the Church because they never left it to begin with.

Also, with due respect to Yggdrasil, there were technically no “Lefebvrists” at the Council as Archbishop Lefebvre signed all of the Vatican II documents (save two I think? correct me if I’m wrong) and did not ordain the Bishops until 1988. So the SSPX was not in the contemplation of any of the parties at Vatican II. Even Archbishop Lefebvre, for all intents and purposes, approached the Vatican II council as valid and with the best of intentions. His own writings on the subject suggest that he was enthused about the potential that Vatican II promised at the outset.

For the actual “dissenting” (if one wants to really call it that) during the council, I would suggest reading the Ottaviani intervention.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

No, an ecumenical council cannot be in heresy. That is Tradition and applies to ALL ecumenical councils. If Vatican II could proclaim heresy the same would be true of any other council and the traditional teaching of the Church would be nullified. You can’t be a “traditionalist” and reject the Tradition of the Church. You cannot reject an ecumenical council and be in communion with the Church. You can disagree with the prudence of disciplinary items that arise from a council, though you are still required to accept and obey them while they are in force, but you cannot reject or claim the portions that refer to doctrine to be in error.

Further, as has been pointed out before, to claim that the council is heretical is to proclaim that the Popes during and since the council who have supported it are teaching heresy. A true Pope cannot teach heresy so if they have taught heresy they cannot be true Popes. Thus, to reject the council as heretical is to reject that there is, or has been since the council, a true Pope. This is, by definition, sedevacantism which is why one cannot reject the council and be in communion with the Church. Yes, there are many traditionalists who reject the council but they are not in communion with the Church.

The poster who mentioned you just putting your fingers in your ears and singing “la la la” pretty much hit it on the head. The need to continue spouting this uninformed and incorrect understanding of the Church, mirroring the opinions expressed on the sedevacantist websites without question, destroys any credibility you might otherwise have and parodies the valid traditionalist movement you claim to support. The plain and simple truth is that one cannot claim to be in communion with the Church while simultaneously claiming that it is heretical, or that one supports the Pope while claiming that he is supporting and teaching heresy.

I’m not rejecting Tradition. Tradition states that the Church cannot reach out to other religions. I don’t mean the Church can’t try to convert them, I mean Vatican II didn’t try to convert them but rather invited them there and gave them “the best seats in the house”. Exactly what you saw with JPII, he wasn’t trying to convert them, he only prayed with them. Therefore, Vatican II is in violation of Church Tradition and was so close, if not spot on, to being a heretical Council. And really, just because Vatican II was teaching some heresy doesn’t make the Pope a heretic. Paul VI may have organized it but he wasn’t in charge of the reform, he hired people to do it behind the scenes. There are also rumors that Paul VI was forced to do it and that he was “truely sorry” for what he had done. So even thought some could say Paul VI was a heretic, I don’t think it’s right to say that because we don’t know exactly what his beliefs were on the subject. As rumors state, he may have been forced to do it or there may have even been two of Paul VI. I don’t think two of Paul VI is as convincing nor as easy of a thing to firuge out as the two Sister Lucias, but it’s possible.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

With all due appreciation for Onegin’s excellent and erudite contributions on this thread, the above quote should be the final and ultimate word in this discussion.

I say this, of course, as someone who has already left the Roman Catholic Church over Vatican II. But I fully agree with David Joseph on one very important point: Vatican II is non-negotiable. The Holy Spirit was either there or was not. It is absurd to suppose that the Holy Spirit guided the Council piecemeal depending on what one does or doesn’t agree with. And it is equally absurd to suppose that the thousands of bishops who were at the Council, on the commissions, and formulating the documents somehow had the wool pulled over their eyes by “radicals.” The lasting proof of their loyalty to the Council lies in how very few of them found sympathy with the contra-conciliar arguments of the Lefebvrists and sedevacantists. The defense of the Council and the Mass was strident by a vast majority of the attending bishops.

Comparisons with St. Athanasius and the Arian heresy are also spurious. Heterodoxy always grows from grass roots up and out, and in the end it is cut down by the final word from either a Synod or an ecclesiastical court. With Vatican II, the paradigm is inverted. Any apparent contradiction with tradition (either upper-case or lower-case “t”) in Vatican II must be reconciled with the fact that this time the word has come from the top down, with the Holy Spirit invoked. Roma locuta, causa finita.

I admire the passion of “traditionalist” Catholics, but the Novus Ordo isn’t going away and neither is the post-conciliar attitude in general. The Latin Mass may be accruing a certain popularity right now, but its future is likely the same as that of the high church Anglicans: as a minority movement. A hamster may do a lot of running on the wheel, but he isn’t going anywhere. Kyrie eleison.

:coffeeread:

I don’t think the Holy Ghost wanted anything to do with Vatican II. You are allowed to reject the teachings of Vatican II, which many Traditional Catholics do because Vatican II does not go by Tradition.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Then they should get to work on the Protestants and other non-Catholics. The SSPX are at no risk of separating from the Church because they never left it to begin with.

Also, with due respect to Yggdrasil, there were technically no “Lefebvrists” at the Council as Archbishop Lefebvre signed all of the Vatican II documents (save two I think? correct me if I’m wrong) and did not ordain the Bishops until 1988. So the SSPX was not in the contemplation of any of the parties at Vatican II. Even Archbishop Lefebvre, for all intents and purposes, approached the Vatican II council as valid and with the best of intentions. His own writings on the subject suggest that he was enthused about the potential that Vatican II promised at the outset.

For the actual “dissenting” (if one wants to really call it that) during the council, I would suggest reading the Ottaviani intervention.

Archbishop LeFebvre later admitted that accepting the Council was a mistake. He was trying to accept it but later found he just could not do it. You are right when you say LeFebvre and the SSPX never left the Church, they remained with it and just got ex-communicated by John Paul II.

 

[ProVobis]

No, an ecumenical council cannot be in heresy.

That doesn’t mean that no heretics were present. Hans Kung and a host of others and other religious leaders and communists greatly influenced Vatican II, even if that influence wasn’t heavily reflected in the documents.

 

[JMJ_coder]

That doesn’t mean that no heretics were present. Hans Kung and a host of others and other religious leaders and communists greatly influenced Vatican II, even if that influence wasn’t heavily reflected in the documents.

There were often heretics at Ecumenical Councils. Do you regard those other councils as heretical?

 

[JMJ_coder]

I don’t think the Holy Ghost wanted anything to do with Vatican II. You are allowed to reject the teachings of Vatican II, which many Traditional Catholics do because Vatican II does not go by Tradition.

``…out of thine own mouth…’’

At least we know where you stand.

And once again, you are free to accept or reject whatever you want (the storm troopers won’t be knocking on your door). But, there are certain consequences of such rejection just as there are certain consequences of rejecting any other doctrine of faith that bears the mark of the teaching of the infallible Magisterium.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That doesn’t mean that no heretics were present. Hans Kung and a host of others and other religious leaders and communists greatly influenced Vatican II, even if that influence wasn’t heavily reflected in the documents.

If you’re talking about the OF, the Holy See and the Protestant observors themselves have both stated that their presence there was only as observors, that they were not consulted at all. And Communism influence in the council? Only to the same degree that communism influenced the break-up of the Berlin Wall and the fall of communism itself. Arianism could be said to have influenced the Council of Nicea in that the Council was a reaction to it!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t think the Holy Ghost wanted anything to do with Vatican II. You are allowed to reject the teachings of Vatican II, which many Traditional Catholics do because Vatican II does not go by Tradition.

Not according to the Magisterium.

And you are in absolutely no position and have no authority to speak for the Holy Spirit.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Archbishop LeFebvre later admitted that accepting the Council was a mistake. He was trying to accept it but later found he just could not do it. You are right when you say LeFebvre and the SSPX never left the Church, they remained with it and just got ex-communicated by John Paul II.

Look up the term “latae sententia.” LeFebrve excommunicated himself. It was merely confirmed by the Holy Father in Ecclesia Dei. Once again, you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[gospel_life]

I’m not rejecting Tradition. Tradition states that the Church cannot reach out to other religions. I don’t mean the Church can’t try to convert them, I mean Vatican II didn’t try to convert them but rather invited them there and gave them “the best seats in the house”. Exactly what you saw with JPII, he wasn’t trying to convert them, he only prayed with them. Therefore, Vatican II is in violation of Church Tradition and was so close, if not spot on, to being a heretical Council. And really, just because Vatican II was teaching some heresy doesn’t make the Pope a heretic. Paul VI may have organized it but he wasn’t in charge of the reform, he hired people to do it behind the scenes. There are also rumors that Paul VI was forced to do it and that he was “truely sorry” for what he had done. So even thought some could say Paul VI was a heretic, I don’t think it’s right to say that because we don’t know exactly what his beliefs were on the subject. As rumors state, he may have been forced to do it or there may have even been two of Paul VI. I don’t think two of Paul VI is as convincing nor as easy of a thing to firuge out as the two Sister Lucias, but it’s possible.

I don’t think the Holy Ghost wanted anything to do with Vatican II. You are allowed to reject the teachings of Vatican II, which many Traditional Catholics do because Vatican II does not go by Tradition.

I give up. You are so lacking in even the most basic of Catholic teachings that it is not possible to have a meaningful discussion with you. It is hard to imagine how one can remain so obstinately in error after having so many point out the specifics and the actual Church teaching.

Nobody here is asking for you to agree with them on preferences relative to disciplinary matters. It would truly be nice though if you would take the time to verify the drivel you keep putting up that is absolutely false and totally outside of actual Tradition and Church teaching.

I will pray for the scales to be removed from your eyes, as well as for my own if I fall into such error.