Do you think Vatican II will ever be reversed?
#11
I have no doubt that the Church will be resurrected one day, whatever is good in the Vatican II reform will be kept, and whatever is evil will be swept away. When that happens I don't know, we might have to pass through something much worse than what we're going through now.
Reply
#12
I think that the only way it will be reversed is if Our Lady Of Fatima's instructions for the Consecration of Russia are performed in the FULL way she asked. The Holy Rosary  and petitioning the Holy Father are the only weapons we have against the present "conciliar" church's present errors.
Reply
#13
There is no need to reverse it because it did not create any new dogma. The constitutions just need to be buried and forgotten. I hope eventually the novus ordo rite will be reformed to reflect the Catholic faith in its fullness. 
Reply
#14
The most extreme thing that I think could possibly happen is how the Council of Constance was treated by Pope Pius II--ie a general condemnation of certain errors in general, without impugning the Council at all.  He condemned the heresy of conciliarism generally, while praising and reiterating his adherence to the Council of Constance which enabled its spread doing great harm to the Church. As a result, the loyalties of princes and the people to the Pope were detached for a significant period of time so that the Reformation was eventually able to "stick.".

Not only did this Council promulgate an explicitly heretical decree (Session 5) when not under the presidency of the Pope (although never explicitly repudiated by the Pope or any Pope or Council since), other decrees which were received and enacted by Pope Martin V were utterly imbued with the spirit of conciliarism (if the spirit of Vatican II is modernism, the spirit of Constance was conciliarism). Most notable is that from Session 39 which required an ecumenical Council to always either be convened or to be anticipated--when one Council ended it was required by this decree to set down the date and place for the next Council to be convened in no more than 10 years time after the preceding. While there is nothing explicitly contrary to the faith in this decree, it reflects an understanding of the Church as being governed supremely by Councils and not the Pope (in fact, it stated the Pope could not even set down the place for the next Council without the previous Council's approval).  Pope Martin complied with the decree convoking the Council of Pavia/Siena and then Basel in which conciliarism more explicitly flourished leading to another schism doing great harm to all of Christendom (Pope Eugene IV was elected, the Council split, he was "deposed" by the conciliarist council remaining in Basel who elected an antipope while he moved the papalists to Ferrara and then Florence).

Anyway, Pope Pius II (a former leading conciliarist himself who had participated in the conclave at Basel electing the conciliarist antipope Felix V) upon becoming Pope definitively condemned conciliarism in the decree Excecrabilis. He also did not ever summon an ecumenical Council as Constance required, and yet, in "In Minoribus,"the very Bull where he retracted his own past errors (especially that of conciliarism), he said of Constance :

Pope Pius II, In Minoribus Wrote:With these authorities, we recognize the power and the authority of a General Council as it was declared and defined in our age at Constance when the Ecumenical Council was assembled there. For we revere the Council of Constance and all Councils that were approved by our predecessors.

All that being said, Vatican II explicitly conditions a lot of its decisions on particular circumstances.  For example, the first note in Gaudium et Spes, it explicitly says some of its decisions have "only a transitory" value and that "[ i]nterpreters must bear in mind—especially in part two—the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves."  As another example, the interpretive relatio for Dignitatis Humanae also notes it is "not a dogmatic treatise" but is being approached from a "practical point of view" with reference only to the circumstances of "contemporary human and civil societies" of the time.

So it's a lot easier to just say circumstances have changed (since they have) and to reform those decisions accordingly.
Reply
#15
Vatican Council What?
Reply
#16
(11-03-2014, 05:05 AM)Pacman Wrote: There is no need to reverse it because it did not create any new dogma.

It sure created errors, though. The reason is the ambiguous language that was used. The use of ambiguous language has been admitted to. The 'errors of Vatican II' have been pointed out by many high-ranking clergy now, including at least one pope. I just don't know why they haven't done anything sooner.

All that is needed is a syllabus of errors, and liturgical reform. Yes, I even believe the new mass can be saved! Also these 'confrence of bishops' things need to be ended. These guys just make up their own little churches that live off the Catholic 'brand name' so to speak.

What really freaks me out is how unwilling those at the top have been to do anything. What Pope Benedict did was out of this world. But what was Pope John Paul II doing? Was he really too busy just flying off across the world, or did he love the errors? I don't know, but I don't like it one bit. As each year passes, it get sharder and harder to excuse their sins of omission.
Reply
#17
There needs to be a definitive clear and no nonsense papal clarification on all the problematic parts of Vatican II. This is desperately needed. I don't think the Novus Ordo with the 3 year lectionary is really worth saving. It's a stripped down committee created mess. Any reform of the liturgy or rather renewal, should come from the 1962 Missal at the very least but preferably the pre 1955 one without the revised Holy Week and not the committee concoction of the Pauline Mass.

In the meantime the Church should tighten up the Novus Ordo, requiring ad orientem worship,use of the propers and gregorian chant instead of random marty haugen and david haas hymns,communion on the tongue,a return to bare minimum use of EMHC's,an end to altar girls and lay lectors,the abolishment of the sign of peace and Eucharistic Prayer 2....

There need to be less options. I once read someone say the Pauline Missal is basically a "create your own Mass" kit. The amount of options coupled with original sin ensures the use if the shortest, easiest and least offensive options almost always. I wouldn't be surprised if the bishops didn't send memos to priests telling then they MUST use EP II. it's just weird that it's the ONLY canon you hear at the Novus Ordo practically everywhere in the world.

The Pope needs to tighten up,allow for less options and more reverence.
Reply
#18
"formerbuddhist" Wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if the bishops didn't send memos to priests telling then they MUST use EP II.
Yeah, the 2nd eucharistic prayer is everywhere. Last week I couldn't go to a Tridentine Mass. I was so surprised to hear about Abel, Abraham, Melchisedec and all those that hold and teach the catholic and apostolic faith that I couldn't help smiling. It was actually the first time in my life that I heard this prayer (obviously I don't hear it during the TLM).
Reply
#19
(11-03-2014, 05:37 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
"formerbuddhist" Wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if the bishops didn't send memos to priests telling then they MUST use EP II.
Yeah, the 2nd eucharistic prayer is everywhere. Last week I couldn't go to a Tridentine Mass. I was so surprised to hear about Abel, Abraham, Melchisedec and all those that hold and teach the catholic and apostolic faith that I couldn't help smiling. It was actually the first time in my life that I heard this prayer (obviously I don't hear it during the TLM).

Ha, see,it's  everywhere around the world, not just here in the USA. Last time I was at a Novus Ordo it was ad orientem, in English, with a Communion rail, decent hymns and EP III but there were hordes of woman EHMC's giving Communion in the hand from behind the rail. A hybrid bizzaro Novus Ordo if I ever saw one.  The more orthodox the priest is the less likely they are to use EP II, a canon that is not really Hippolytan nor Eastern but committee created and perfectly acceptable to Methodists and Lutherans. Like the dewfall indeed.


Seriously though, I think there must have been some sort of pressure on seminarians and priests to stick to EPII above all else. It's way to ubiquitous to be just the one option that the majority of priests offering the Novus Ordo seem to choose in practically every mainstream parish on the planet.
Reply
#20
(11-03-2014, 03:53 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: There needs to be a definitive clear and no nonsense papal clarification on all the problematic parts of Vatican II. This is desperately needed. I don't think the Novus Ordo with the 3 year lectionary is really worth saving. It's a stripped down committee created mess. Any reform of the liturgy or rather renewal, should come from the 1962 Missal at the very least but preferably the pre 1955 one without the revised Holy Week and not the committee concoction of the Pauline Mass.

In the meantime the Church should tighten up the Novus Ordo, requiring ad orientem worship,use of the propers and gregorian chant instead of random marty haugen and david haas hymns,communion on the tongue,a return to bare minimum use of EMHC's,an end to altar girls and lay lectors,the abolishment of the sign of peace and Eucharistic Prayer 2....

There need to be less options. I once read someone say the Pauline Missal is basically a "create your own Mass" kit. The amount of options coupled with original sin ensures the use if the shortest, easiest and least offensive options almost always. I wouldn't be surprised if the bishops didn't send memos to priests telling then they MUST use EP II. it's just weird that it's the ONLY canon you hear at the Novus Ordo practically everywhere in the world.

The Pope needs to tighten up,allow for less options and more reverence.

I completely agree.  I think a series of papal enyclicals addressing the modernist errors of theologians today, and the more ambiguous points of the Second Vatican Council, are a must.  I also thin a general change in tone would go a long way.  If bishops and priests started preaching repentance and the realities of sin from the pulpit, things would change almost overnight.

The liturgy... I think that this has to be handled differently.  The reality is that we've lost the traditional liturgy.  I assist at the Extraordinary Form as often as I can and I stick with the 1962 Divine Office.  But it will never be the norm again.  I have recourse to the Extraordinary Form, not out of a belief in the ability to restore it, but because it's simply the best option available in the Roman Church right now.  The Ordinary Form will have to be reformed, and there's going to have to be sacrifices made.  It is so easy to destroy, but it takes so much longer to rebuild.

Latin as a liturgical language is essentially dead, regardless of what the Second Vatican Council called for.  Generations of Catholics have now been divorced from their Latin patrimony, it's very alien to them, and I don't think we can impose Latin on the faithful now.  It would be a pastoral crime and it would drive millions of Catholics away.  We'll be able to keep some Latin though.  Our hymns, and chants for particular parts of the Mass (like the Gloria, and the Kyrie in Greek).  These are familiar to Catholics today, even in Latin.  But gone are the days of Latin Collects and Introits.

I think the best way to reform the Ordinary Form would be...

1.  Restore ad orientem worship as mandatory.
2.  Suppress all the Eucharistic Prayers except for the Roman Canon, impose the use of Latin again to protect its integrity, and mandate that it must be recited silently by the priest.
3.  Restore the old seasonal cycle of the Church.  The period of Septugesima, Time after Pentecost, Ember Days, etc.
4.  Restore the old lectionary.
5.  Give proper catechesis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
6.  Restore the recitation of the Psalms being 150 within a week.
7.  Reform the mess of the antiphons not having anything to do with their respective Psalms.
8.  Remove the obligation on secular clergy to recite all of the Hours and only impose Lauds and Vespers on them, and strongly encourage them to do so publicly, even under pain of mortal sin unless it genuinely cannot be done.
9.  Choose a Benedictine monastery from every nation and tell them to work together on developing a vernacular chant which adapts Gregorian chant smoothly and fluidly to the vernacular words, and make it simple so that the lay people can truly participate.
10.  Improve translations.
11.  Impose a strict Latin-only use in the liturgy of all religious.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)