Friday, April 7, 2017

MY "WHAT VATICAN II TAUGHT" POST TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME HAS BEEN EXACERBATED IN A RUFF WAY



Progressive post-Catholics hijacked what Vatican II's documents actually taught or implied and then falsely, maliciously and deviously taught their own ideologies and "spirit" of Vatican II heterodoxy by saying this is what Vatican II taught. And the laity who did not read the documents of Vatican II or understand the theological terms employed in these documents bought what was being sold to them hook, line and sinker.

How many times I heard this over and over from the beginning of the end of the Council in 1965 and through my seminary training in the late 1970's knowing full well that what I read of the Vatican II documents, especially on the Liturgy, did not match what those claiming the authority of the Vatican II documents were teaching us.

And they did and do it so glibly and pathologically as in "liar." For example take what the liturgist and musician expert in Gregorian Chant wrote recently about Robert Cardinal Sarah in the UK's The Tablet:

Cardinal Sarah attaches excessive weight to Summorum Pontificum as if it is the fulfillment of Vatican II, when it is contrary to the intent and clear directives of the Vatican II liturgy constitution. His claim that Vatican II did not abandon the Missal of Pius V is simply mistaken.

 We can add this lie, falsehood and downright malicious false news that Vatican II abandoned the Missal of Pius V to other lies and falsehoods shoved down our Catholic throats the last fifty years by a variety of post-Vatican II ideologues such as:

--old churches had to be stripped of artwork such as high altars, statues and the like because Vatican II said these were distraction.

--altar railings had to be removed because Vatican II said these were a barrier to the laity's participation and made them feel like second class citizens.

--Vatican II taught that the laity are to stand to receive Holy Communion and to receive "it" in their hand and because they are a part of the priesthood they have a right to distribute Holy Communion

--Vatican II taught that the laity have a right to be readers, communion ministers and that the choir must be a part of the sanctuary and face the congregation in order to lead the congregation and that cantors need to compete with the priest at the altar in extending their arms in a priestly fashion to lead the congregational singing.

--Vatican II ordered that altars be reoriented so the priest can face the people and that the pews be oriented around the altar and the altar be lower to the congregation's level so the laity will feel like they are celebrating Mass with the priest.

--Vatican II taught that Latin must be abandoned in favor of the vernacular, the propers can be substituted with hymns of the choir director's choosing, that the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar need to be removed as it is too clerical, that the Mass's order must be revised, the Gradual and Tract be eliminated in favor of a responsorial Psalm, that the older offertory prayers are redundant to the Eucharistic Prayer and need to be completely revised and that the Last Gospel is out of date and must be removed as it delays the conclusion of the Mass by adding to its false endings. 

--Vatican II taught that the priest should let his personality shine through especially his gregarious and welcoming smile and actions as well as ad libbing all parts of the Mass for pastoral reasons.

--Vatican II taught that all Catholics must receive Holy Communion when they attend Mass because the priest does and they should too, no matter what or else they are second class citizens.

--Vatican II taught that the organ and Gregorian Chant must be done away with to allow additional instruments especially pianos and guitars as well as contemporary music which is a sign of the times, Sacred words set to Broadway melodies or rock, rap or the like are most preferable as is worship and praise music from our non denominational brothers and sisters. 

--Vatican II taught that we must go back to the way things were done in the Church during the first two centuries because they got it right, especially how they celebrated the Eucharist and everything that developed after the first two centuries especially after Constantine were a corruption that needed to be eliminated. Updating the Church means going backwards to the Apostolic Period.

--What else have you been taught that Vatican II said?????????

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

You failed to mention the clown mass. Also when V2 was put into action, the popular music of the day was folk music. Why did popular liturgical music end with that genre? Where is the heavy metal mass, or the grunge mass, or the punk-rock mass, or the hip hop mass. Get with the times! We are not fulfilling V2 as it is intended to be!

Anonymous said...

Appealing to the Second Vatican Council regarding matters liturgical cannot be taken seriously unless one gives the same authoritative weight to that Council regarding teaching regarding ecumenism, teaching regarding interfaith relations, teaching regarding the dignity of human conscience in matters of faith, etc.

Henry said...

Anonymous - Agreed. Vatican II was a council that was both a creature and a captive of its particular and transient era in history, and therefore the authoritative weight of all its prudential recommendations has now, a half century later, declined considerably, especially in the unfortunate light of their implementations.

The Egyptian said...

from my current pastor,
The mass is now "horizontal" the vertical is no longer accentuated

confession is no longer emphasized or really needed, (told to a young man thinking of the priesthood)

sloppy serving is just fine, after all we are no longer rigid, V2 and all that jazz ya know

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Fr. McD said in his post: "And the laity who did not read the documents of Vatican II or understand the theological terms employed in these documents bought what was being sold to them hook, line and sinker."

My only comment is that the laity of that time did not have the education or inclination to read the documents, and as you point out, even if they had read them they would never have understood the theological terms employed in them. It would be like trying to read a medical journal of a scientific study. Impossible to comprehend for the average lay person. Heck, I have a hard time making heads or tails of them now

It is a fact that even when the laity thought all of what was going on was totally wrong, what could they do? I can think of numerous stories I have heard along the way from Catholics in my life who told of going to the priest and complaining about one or another of these things, and being summarily rebuffed - and then 'marked,' so to speak, as a troublemaker. I have heard stories of people who escalated and wrote to the bishop, and received a cordial but bland response that basically was no reply at all. Then the story usually went that the offending pastor was immediately notified by the bishop with a copy of the letter. And again, the person was tagged as a crank or troublemaker. Most of these letters were placed in the circular file.

In fact, even today, what can a lay person do in the face of the heterodox behavior they see in church from the clergy (if they managed to somehow survive this holocaust of souls)? Because the same thing happens even now, with the same responses from the offending clergy, and same futility of taking action. As you often note, even faithful clergy are summarily mocked and scorned by the progressives (the beloved Cardinal Sarah a case in point).

It is painful to hear stories from those who sacrificed so much to remain faithful Catholics in the '60's and '70's, supporting their local parish out of their middle class incomes and sending their (most times numerous) kids to Catholic school, who would forgo the purchase of a new couch, or bed, or kitchen table, or car, so their sons or daughters could attend Catholic high schools, to be treated with such derision and disrespect as they watched in horror as the Invaders dismantled their Church - both the physical structures and the ideological underpinnings.

Please, Fr. McD, have mercy on the laity. We're just poor little lambs.

God bless,
Bee

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

@Anonymous at April 7, 2017 at 10:32 AM:

A hip hop Mass!! Okay, I am laughing, but not too sure it's out of horror or humor! Because in my mind's eye I can see Fr. Oh-So-Cool, in robes, grabbing the 'mike,' holding it close to his mouth as he does the Opening Prayer in syncopation, along with all the mouth sound effects of beatboxing (look it up. It's what they call the vocal mimicking of drum machines using one's mouth, lips, tongue, and voice.) and jive movements, with the altar servers and the lay readers also moving to the beat.

Oh man. Oh please, don't even JOKE about such a thing! (you give them ideas...) :-)

God bless,
Bee

John Nolan said...

I was a schoolboy during the Second Vatican Council but remember that the Council documents were published in booklet form by the CTS, were analysed in the Catholic Press, and in my parish there were study groups for interested lay people to meet and discuss them.

No previous ecumenical council had involved the laity to this extent. As an altar server I didn't think much of the liturgical changes, but the decision by the bishop in 1965 to allow Catholics to attend Anglican services meant that we no longer had to stand outside school assembly until prayers were concluded, and could attend the school carol service in the adjacent parish church (and enjoy the half-holiday which went with it).

So even at a young age I had mixed feelings about the Council. I now believe that directly and indirectly it inflicted more damage on the Church than did the Protestant Reformation, and could easily write a dissertation in support of that view; after more than half a century there is enough historical evidence to make a cogent argument.