What do people have against Vatican II Council?

  • Thread starter Thread starter minkymurph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ItalianBoy1993 said:
In every church, the sign of peace comes right after the consecration. That is the order of the Novus Ordo.
Click to expand...
Actually it does not do so everywhere. Priests do things in the Mass that do not always follow the rubrics, or haven’t you noticed that?
 
BillyT92679 said:
I cannot fathom why any Catholic who claims in good conscience to be so would have any issue whatsoever with an Ecumenical Council of the One True Church. Sure, take issue with how some implemented it, but to say the Council is flawed is to say the Holy Spirit committed error.
Click to expand...
Billy, your a man after my own heart. In response to the above quote, men of tradition, I have nothing against tradition, but I would question the reason for their implementation. Did Jesus not say the Pharasses had made the word of God invalid because of their tradition? Tradition is nothing if not implemented with love. It doesn’t mean the tradition itself is wrong or bad, but it’s purpose should be to draw people to the God and the motivation should be love. If it does not serve that purpose and that is not the motivation, then the implementation of tradition then I think the Church is right to re-evaluate. I agree with another poster who said they respected traditionalists, so do I and I don’t want things to become crazy and over the top. I understand what they say that there are abuses but if we were all honest about it, were there not a few abuses before Vatican II? If the Church is in no need of reform, then it is impeccable and I don’t think we’ve quite reached that stage yet.
 
I’ve been reading this thread for a while and I think it’s interesting that many of the comments include not caring for the placement of the sign of peace just before communion. This isn’t a profound comment, but I don’t think it belongs there, either.

The consecration is a very sacred thing and then you get all these people in your face, running around, and it’s very disruptive. Besides, the very same people who give you the sign of peace also cut you off in the parking lot after Mass.
 
I have been reading this thread without commenting for a while because (to be honest) most of those posting seem very well versed with many of the documents concerned, but there are two points that seem to come to mind that I would like to add…before I do, let me say that I prefer most things traditional. I believe that most of the beauty and reverence of the old rites has been lost and agree that most of the issues that have been discussed in this thread have to do with implementation of Vatican II and not with the Council itself.

First, infallibility has to do with faith and morals, not discipline. Specifics of language, music, etc do not have to do with faith and morals UNLESS they directly imply something that directly contradicts something that is a matter of faith and morals.

Second, regardless of whether or not a Church document is to be considered as meeting the criteria for infallibility (such as SC), Catholic Christians are still bound by moral obligation to be obedient to Church authority. For example, if the Church asks that the sign of peace be celebrated at a certain place in the Liturgy, then it would be an act of disobedince to legitimate authority to move it. I have not once (I could be wrong) seen in this thread any reference to obedience to authority regardless of whether something fits the criteria for infallibility.

I’d be interested to hear thoughts…
 
First, infallibility has to do with faith and morals, not discipline. Specifics of language, music, etc do not have to do with faith and morals UNLESS they directly imply something that directly contradicts something that is a matter of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
This is false. Where did you learn this? Provide some source for it, if you would.

What you are saying is that Church disciplines have nothing to do with faith and morals…when the truth is that heretics have always tried to corrupt the liturgy and other disciplines in order to corrupt the faithful. Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters.

The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. It is not opinion…is is certain.

Gorman
 
SPQR333 said:
First, infallibility has to do with faith and morals, not discipline. Specifics of language, music, etc do not have to do with faith and morals UNLESS they directly imply something that directly contradicts something that is a matter of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
Not always a cut and dried issue. For example, where exactly does doing penance on Friday fall into? It is doctrinal, after all, that Christ died on a Friday. By removing the penance, wouldn’t that undermine this doctrine?
Second, regardless of whether or not a Church document is to be considered as meeting the criteria for infallibility (such as SC), Catholic Christians are still bound by moral obligation to be obedient to Church authority.
Click to expand...
So if your parents say one thing, the priest says another, the bishop says still another, the Pope still another, and Canon Law still another, can you pick and choose which one you should be obedient to? Just a question, I respect your adherence to principles.
 
Beachcomber said:
I’ve been reading this thread for a while and I think it’s interesting that many of the comments include not caring for the placement of the sign of peace just before communion. This isn’t a profound comment, but I don’t think it belongs there, either.

The consecration is a very sacred thing and then you get all these people in your face, running around, and it’s very disruptive. Besides, the very same people who give you the sign of peace also cut you off in the parking lot after Mass.
Click to expand...
I can honestly say, I personally have never been to a Mass were people run around or are in your face. People offer the sign of peace at the Masses I attend to those beside them and those who are immediately in front or behind them. Perhaps even that is too much for some people. Yes, they do do things like cut you off in the parking lot after Mass, or let the door go in your face when your coming out of the Church or don’t acknowledge you when they pass you in the street and worse as do many of those who don’t like offering the sign of peace and recieve Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling.
 
gorman64 said:
This is false. Where did you learn this? Provide some source for it, if you would.
Click to expand...
**2035 **The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.

gorman64 wrote: "What you are saying is that Church disciplines have nothing to do with faith and morals…"

I am NOT saying that. Discipline reflects belief. Indeed, *Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. *Discipline reflects what we believe and a change in discipline CAN reflect a different belief. But discipline can change without changing (or reflecting a different) belief. If Church disciplines were infallible, they could not change. I do agree though, that sometimes changes can be significant enough to reflect a difference in belief. This doen’t mean that discipline is “opinion”, but rather still ought to be observed since Holy Mother Church asks it be observed…because of her authority, not because it is infallible.
 
SPQR333 said:
**2035 **The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.
Click to expand...

What document is “2035” from…I’m not familiar with it. I don’t necessarily disagree with it…it says the same thing that I’ve been saying here.
gorman64 wrote: "What you are saying is that Church disciplines have nothing to do with faith and morals…"
Click to expand...
I am NOT saying that.
Click to expand...

Well, it sounded like you were here: "First, infallibility has to do with faith and morals, not discipline."

This is simply not true.
Discipline reflects belief. Indeed, *Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. *Discipline reflects what we believe and a change in discipline CAN reflect a different belief.
Click to expand...
Yes…but if it reflects a “different belief” then what is this “different belief” other that a novelty?
But discipline can change without changing (or reflecting a different) belief.
Click to expand...
Yes, it can. That is explained in the teaching on the secondary infallibility of Church disciplines. From Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.:
Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.
Click to expand...
By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.
Click to expand...
The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:
Click to expand...
  1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
Click to expand...
  1. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.
Click to expand...
Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.
Click to expand...
The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.
Click to expand...
If Church disciplines were infallible, they could not change.
Click to expand...
This is false, as explained above in Van Noort. Btw, all of these dogmatic theology manuals say the same thing about disciplinary infallibility…because it is a theologically certain doctrine.
I do agree though, that sometimes changes can be significant enough to reflect a difference in belief.
Click to expand...
Then those changes could not have and did not come from the Church.
This doen’t mean that discipline is “opinion”, but rather still ought to be observed since Holy Mother Church asks it be observed…because of her authority, not because it is infallible.
Click to expand...
No, rather it is because the Church is infallible in the issuing of her disciplines that we know these disciplines are good and at a minimum morally and doctrinally safe.

Gorman
 
Actually, I have noticed that, but not with the Kiss of Peace. I noticed on an EWTN Mass, they skipped the Nicene Creed. This made me sick and forced me to turn it off.
 
minkymurph said:
I can honestly say, I personally have never been to a Mass were people run around or are in your face. People offer the sign of peace at the Masses I attend to those beside them and those who are immediately in front or behind them. Perhaps even that is too much for some people. Yes, they do do things like cut you off in the parking lot after Mass, or let the door go in your face when your coming out of the Church or don’t acknowledge you when they pass you in the street and worse as do many of those who don’t like offering the sign of peace and recieve Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t have minded the sign of peace so much if it had been offered in the way you describe; but in the parish I attended (and it was the only one because it was a small town), it turned into kind of a big, disruptive deal. This is just my opinion, but it would be nicer if it was at a different part of the Mass.
 
It is plainly Anti-Catholic. It was convened by a freemason, it was hijacked by protestants, and the new mass was designed by another freemason.

It was a betrayal of the Catholic Faith that plunged the church into darkness.

Listen to the Words of Marie-Julie Jahenny: 1938.

"I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the faith of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period.
“The first period is the one of My Priesthood, existing since Me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of My holy priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it.”

“They will not stop on this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go further to compromise all at once, and in one blow, the Holy Church, the clergy, and the Faith of my children.”
She announces the “dispersion of the pastors” by the Church herself; true pastors, who will be replaced by others formed by Hell: “…new preachers of new sacraments, new temples, new baptisms, new confraternities.”
 
I thought by becoming a Freemason, you automatically excommunicated yourself from the Church. :confused:
 
Our Lord said we would suffer tribulation, but did he not also say of his Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? We either have faith in Jesus words and in the Holy Spirit to keep the Church through tribulation or we don’t.
 
minkymurph said:
Our Lord said we would suffer tribulation, but did he not also say of his Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? We either have faith in Jesus words and in the Holy Spirit to keep the Church through tribulation or we don’t.
Click to expand...
And where do you sense the gates of Hell prevailing?
 
Vatican 2 was not about a liberalizing reform,but reform in the sense of retrenchment in the Church Fathers and Thomas Aquinas and the other great doctors of the Church.The true spirit of the liturgy was also stressed,under the influence of the litugical movement. It was about the clarification and delineation of the faith. Because of the spirit of the times, Vatican 2 was misinterpreted,often deliberately,by progressive theologians,bishops,and priests. The word of the progressive theologians became more important than the word of the magisterium. People took the allowance for the vernacular mass as a cue for abandoning traditions and for secularization and modernization. Our Pope,who was a key player in the Council,has written and spoken much on what really happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top