Catholic FAQ


We were unable to reach our goal for the summer but we have reached 98%
Please consider donating if you can and keep us in your prayers.


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Catholic Living > Spirituality
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Jan 20, '11, 8:57 am
JRPO's Avatar
JRPO JRPO is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 13, 2009
Posts: 538
Religion: Fortunate enough to be very Catholic
Default misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

The following comes from realcatholictv.com

It’s been a long time in coming .. but better late than never .. especially in this case.
There is a growing clamor from faithful Catholics that the Holy Father directly address
the corruption that followed in the wake of Vatican II by issuing a formal statement that
says what the errors have been.
Let’s be clear here. We are not talking about Vatican II itself. We are talking about the
horrible destructive misinterpretations and subsequent misapplication of the documents
of Vatican II.
Whether these misinterpretations and misapplications were well intentioned or a
deliberate attempt to reshape the Church isn’t the issue. Its likely that both was the case.
But that isn’t at issue here either.
Was it at issue is that in the wake of Vatican II, people of influence in the Church,
meaning bishops, priests, nuns, religious orders, in short many who had authority went
hog wild and remade the face Catholicism and caused a serious rupture with the past.
The laity, by and large, were victims, at least initially, in all this. They say by and
watched father rip out the communion rails. They sat by and watched father turn the altar
around backwards so he could now face the people.
They say by and watched as “liturgical experts” went about “correcting” the problems
with the 1500 year old Mass. They say by as the organ got thrown out and tambourines
came in .. as Gregorian chant was switched off and Protestant hymns and syrupy half-
Catholic ones took their place.
The laity were told to stop kneeling before Almighty God as they were about to receive
him in Holy Communion. They were told to stick out their hands .. no their tongues.
They were told we were at a meal .. not a participants at a sacrifice.
Facing the people .. father now had to be as much entertainer as priest. He had to worry
about pleasing the people more than his God.
And the theology got shoved aside. No more talk of sin. Now we spoke only of being on
a spiritual journey. No more talk of Hell and eternal separation from the Loving Father.
Now we only spoke in terms of God is Love.
Well at long last .. voices who have witnessed the bull-dozing of the Faith and have had
enough are finally speaking up. And the voices are not insignificant ones.
1
Bishop Athanasius Schneider .. a brilliant holy and humble bishop if there ever was one ..
and there have been many .. recently gave a presentation where he requested that Pope
Benedict issue a formal statement condemning the errors that have arisen from the
misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II.
He made his presentation the week before Christmas in Rome before a large number of
bishops and cardinals. His message got across. Nothing in Vatican II said dump Latin.
As a matter of fact .. it said quite the opposite. Vatican II said Latin has place of primacy
in the liturgy. So what happened to all the Gregorian Chant?
Nothing in Vatican II ever said turn the altar around and make it a table with the priest
facing the people. Again just the opposite. In the norms for the Mass .. there is a
direction for the priest that tells him to turn around at a particular moment of the Mass
and address the congregation. Well, as you undoubtedly figured out instantly, if he has to
turn around to face the people, then he must have been facing away from them in the first
place. Again, if he is supposed to be facing the same direction as they are – why the
change? Who said to do it?
Nowhere in Vatican II does it say to receive the sacred body and blood of Our Lord in our
hands. That was a special permission case granted by the Vatican back in the late 60 and
early 70’s in which the American bishops of the time took advantage and made it the
usual practice here. It is NOT the norm for the Church. It is the exception! Again, how
did it come to be the case?
These are just a few of the points that Bishop Schneider brought up in his presentation
and is asking the Pope to address.
We are going to be talking more this week about the growing movement in influential
Church circles to end the madness and get back to the basics of the faith. But one thing is
absolutely certain. What happened to the Church after Vatican II has been destructive of
the Faith for tens of millions of souls .. perhaps hundreds of millions if you add up all the
souls over the 45 years or so.
A great confrontation is in the offing between those who recognize the destruction and
are intent of correcting the disaster and those who like things the way they are and are
hell-bent (pun intended) of keeping them this way. Sooner of later .. we are all going to
have to choose.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Jan 20, '11, 10:23 am
Fatima Vision Fatima Vision is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2010
Posts: 182
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

I think its truly sad how many people, including many Catholics, view Vatican II like it was some sort of big mistake. Many great things came out of Vatican II, and I also believe that many speak on VII when they don't even know what they are speaking about.

"Let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together."

The above quote came from the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Second Vatican Council. I think this is a point that needed to be made, and I also think it needs to be reiterated to people who are living in these times. Anyone can pick up Scripture and read it, but we have to come humbly before God with repentance in our hearts, and put him as the creator and ourselves as the creatures, and ask Him to teach us. I truly believe if we don't do that, we can read Scripture all day and learn nothing. Thats why it's so important to read Scripture through the eyes of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

This also reminds me of last week when I stopped into a restaurant for coffee and I overheard a table of older people talking that were close to me. There was an old man sitting at the table that kept dumping on the Catholic Church, saying things like: "The Catholic Church supports the Mafia." I wanted to get up and walk over and slap this man, but patience got the best of me. There are many heretics out there telling people what they think the Catholic Church stands for, and they are making grave mistakes, because they are driving away souls in need of mercy with their half witted comments.

This also reminds me of a comment that I heard Arch Bishop Fulton Sheen say one time, and it seems those words he said will never leave me.

"There are not a thousand people in the world that hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate the Church, because of what they've been taught by others."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Jan 20, '11, 5:03 pm
Crumpy Crumpy is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2006
Posts: 2,970
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

I lived through the council with a lot of anticipation.

If it weren't for the local diocesan Catholic newspaper, I might have missed the council entirely.

I thought then as I do now, that the bishops should have come home and explained the council to the rest of us who didn't go to Rome.

I've lived in several parishes, and I hardly saw a ripple of exposition come out of the council.

Oh, yes, eventually we had the Mass in English, facing the people. I dislike that Mass prayers that I was used to were eliminated or made optional.

In over 45 years, I have not seen a surge in the quality of English music for the Mass. If you watch EWTN Mass, they use the same dirge-like Mass hymns, that lack excitement even on the holydays when we're supposed to be really whooping it up and celebrating.

That's the worst dumbing-down aspect of the Mass that I find simply incredible.

It may not be a general phenomenon, but a past bishop we had removed all the crucifixes in all the churches. So, now we have this resurrecting Jesus, with His arms upward.

To address the OP question, the quality of the Mass was left up to the local bishop, who decides everything. This was the council of the BISHOP, as the first Vat Con was of the POPE.

When it comes down to the parish level, you're basically stuck with the preferences of the organist of the parish. If he/she wants bubble gum music or rap music, that's what you're going to get. NO NO NO, there is NO democracy about this. Get that out of your head.

Did you ever see a "feedback" form or a complaint form? Well, that should tell you something. Your opinion is not important, neither is mine.

What we have is the tyranny of the bishop's inner circle, of which you and I are not a part and not welcome. So, respectfully, don't expect the Pope to open this can of worms.

Now, the "misinterpretations" and "misapplications" -- again, up to the bishops and national bishops councils. Again, you and I are not welcome.
__________________
I rejoiced when they said to me, let us go up to the house of the Lord.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Jan 21, '11, 1:12 am
JRPO's Avatar
JRPO JRPO is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 13, 2009
Posts: 538
Religion: Fortunate enough to be very Catholic
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpy View Post
I lived through the council with a lot of anticipation.

If it weren't for the local diocesan Catholic newspaper, I might have missed the council entirely.

I thought then as I do now, that the bishops should have come home and explained the council to the rest of us who didn't go to Rome.

I've lived in several parishes, and I hardly saw a ripple of exposition come out of the council.

Oh, yes, eventually we had the Mass in English, facing the people. I dislike that Mass prayers that I was used to were eliminated or made optional.

In over 45 years, I have not seen a surge in the quality of English music for the Mass. If you watch EWTN Mass, they use the same dirge-like Mass hymns, that lack excitement even on the holydays when we're supposed to be really whooping it up and celebrating.

That's the worst dumbing-down aspect of the Mass that I find simply incredible.

It may not be a general phenomenon, but a past bishop we had removed all the crucifixes in all the churches. So, now we have this resurrecting Jesus, with His arms upward.

To address the OP question, the quality of the Mass was left up to the local bishop, who decides everything. This was the council of the BISHOP, as the first Vat Con was of the POPE.

When it comes down to the parish level, you're basically stuck with the preferences of the organist of the parish. If he/she wants bubble gum music or rap music, that's what you're going to get. NO NO NO, there is NO democracy about this. Get that out of your head.

Did you ever see a "feedback" form or a complaint form? Well, that should tell you something. Your opinion is not important, neither is mine.

What we have is the tyranny of the bishop's inner circle, of which you and I are not a part and not welcome. So, respectfully, don't expect the Pope to open this can of worms.

Now, the "misinterpretations" and "misapplications" -- again, up to the bishops and national bishops councils. Again, you and I are not welcome.
Crumpy, you may find some comfort from these links. be sure to watch Part 1 and Part 2

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fpG2sQg_fg

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8P0J...eature=related
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Jan 21, '11, 6:18 am
NPC NPC is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: July 22, 2007
Posts: 1,089
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

Well, I would certainly be in favour of the Holy Father compiling some sort of a "catalogue of errors" - as you said, not of the Vatican II itself, but of certain innovations which have wrongly used Vatican II for justification: one of the most common being "the sanctuary was re-ordered in the 1970's to conform to the liturgical requirements of the Second Vatican Council"... of course, no one is ever able - not that they are routinely challenged to do so - to quote exactly which documents required a single change to the sanctuaries.

Unfortunately, there were some "liturgical time-bombs" in the Vatican II documents - i.e. that such and such a thing may be done - for the use of the mother-tongue of the people, for example, which has been gradually used to justify the elimination of Latin from the Mass. Such things would have to be addressed: if Latin was supposed to be retained in the Mass then this should be made clear: "Latin is to be used in the Mass". The same thing with Gregorian Chant; the same with Mass ad Orientem (there is no evidence that Mass facing the people was ever intended to be the norm; Vatican II only mentioned the possibility of this).

Another item which would have to be cleared up is mistranslations from the original Latin texts. With regard to the position of the altar, for example, one Latin text would translate properly as "it is better that the altar should be placed away from the wall, to allow for the possibility of celebrating of Mass facing the people"; however the English translation says "the altar should be placed away from the wall..." - in other words, the original Latin only suggests that in new (only new) churches altars should be placed away from the wall, whereas the English makes it sound like an order.

So, overall, it would be a mammoth task for Pope Benedict to undertake, but I think if anyone can correct the liturgy and bring it into line with how the Council and subsequent documents intended, he can!

With regard to you references to Bishop Athanasius Schneider - he seems to be a wonderful and holy man; I have read his remarkable book on the Eucharist Dominus Est - It is the Lord, and I recommend it to all. I hadn't heard about his address to the Holy Father, but I welcome it. He is absolutely right about Communion in the hand - Vatican II said nothing about it. The bishops of the world did not want to get rid of the practice of Communion kneeling and on the tongue - Pope Paul VI surveyed world bishops about this, and Memoriale Domini confirms that the traditional manner of receiving was to be retained. How did Communion in the hand come in then? As an abuse. Plain and simple - and then permission was granted to bishops conferences in countries where this abuse persisted at the time of the publication of Memoriale Domini to vote by a two-thirds majority to allow Communion in the hand to continue. Thus, instead of stamping out the abuse, the law was changed to ensure that nothing illicit was actually happening! Next came the snowball effect - the abuse only had to be occurring in one tiny parish to allow the entire bishops' conference to have their vote! Such things are recorded in all their complexity in Michael Davies' excellent book, Pope Paul's New Mass. Pope Benedict, by the way, is familiar with the writings of the late Michael Davies, and he commented that Davies had left the Church many important writings on the liturgy since the Council.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Jan 22, '11, 1:51 am
JRPO's Avatar
JRPO JRPO is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 13, 2009
Posts: 538
Religion: Fortunate enough to be very Catholic
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

I was kind of hoping that this thread would be more about -

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRPO View Post
the growing movement in influential
Church circles to end the madness and get back to the basics of the faith. But one thing is
absolutely certain. What happened to the Church after Vatican II has been destructive of
the Faith for tens of millions of souls .. perhaps hundreds of millions if you add up all the
souls over the 45 years or so.
A great confrontation is in the offing between those who recognize the destruction and
are intent of correcting the disaster and those who like things the way they are and are
hell-bent (pun intended) of keeping them this way. Sooner of later .. we are all going to
have to choose.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Jan 22, '11, 5:54 am
Contra Mundum's Avatar
Contra Mundum Contra Mundum is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: July 18, 2009
Posts: 4,834
Religion: Catholic, latin rite
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

It is absolutely crazy what has happened. I have much hope that Pope Benedict and whoever suceedshim will put things right. It will take a very long time because the innovations have gained the status of normal practice. Many people like the way things are and are not willing to listen to reason and facts. 'Going back' to tradition scares them. I wonder why.

Since I have discovered the whole of the church's tradition I have grown in faith so much. I'm one of the lucky people who has a TLM offered in the parish and am thankful to God for that every day.
No way I'm ever going back to protestant hymns and wishy washy theology if I can help it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Jan 22, '11, 2:16 pm
Sirach2's Avatar
Sirach2 Sirach2 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Posts: 12,431
Religion: Catholic, Carmelite OCDS
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRBO
What happened to the Church after Vatican II has been destructive of
the Faith for tens of millions of souls .. perhaps hundreds of millions if you add up all the souls over the 45 years or so.
The problem is that Michael Voris uses a lot of deceptive spin rather than official CHURCH census figures to back up his outlandish claim of “hundreds of millions.“ He is a radical traditionalist who preys on innocent Catholics without providing a shred of authentic proof. He capitalizes on the misgivings of those who are unable to do research for themselves, and distorts truth to foment disunity, rebellion and distrust of the Church. Any unfortunate Catholic who opens his eyes or ears to believe his messages is certain to lose his faith.

Quote:
A great confrontation is in the offing between those who recognize the destruction and are intent of correcting the disaster and those who like things the way they are and are hell-bent (pun intended) of keeping them this way. Sooner of later .. we are all going to have to choose.
Again, his message to those who are presently at peace with the way the Church has led us, is that they are "hell-bent?" I am most disturbed that you are promoting his arrogant and rash judgment in this spiritual forum. It appears that you bought the lie.

Quote:
"those who recognize the destruction"
And that would be whom? An ultra-trad (Voris et al) inflamed with his own opinion?
__________________


May the thoughts of my heart and the words of my mouth find favor before you,
O Lord, that I may always be pleasing to Thee.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Jan 22, '11, 3:09 pm
Sirach2's Avatar
Sirach2 Sirach2 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Posts: 12,431
Religion: Catholic, Carmelite OCDS
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

JRBO,
In truth, I may never be able to reach Voris, but I pray that you will consider a few points that I share in charity for your spirit's edification. It is rather easy for me to rebut his errors with the authority of Church documents, but that is not needed for the moment. Instead, I offer this verse from Ps. 15 found in Week 1 Monday evening prayer (LOTH).

"Lord, who shall be admitted to your tent and dwell on your holy mountain?
He who does no wrong to his brother, who casts no SLUR on his neighbor ..... "

Slur is defined thus in Webster:
an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo - aspersion
a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation
shaming or degrading effect - stain, stigma

One may hear "slurs" repeatedly in Voris's videos, though he has tamed them down slightly since complaints have reached his ears. These charges are aimed, nonetheless, at Holy Mother Church and Her lawful representatives - a crime for which Core and his band of rebels were terminated by God when they rose up against Moses. http://www.fisheaters.com/core.html

"Forty years, I loathed that generation...." [mostly because they were gripers, complainers, and dissatisfied hotheads] "They shall NOT enter into my rest." (Ps. 95:10)

To miss entering into the Lord's "rest" and presence is one of the greatest losses man can experience. It is a most unruly member, our tongue, and unless we submit in humility to the Authority God has placed over us in the Church, we can't even know the greatness of the blessing which we deprive ourselves of when we engage in these seemingly innocent rants against the Magisterium. Many are blind to the danger and believe they are acting defensively for the good of the Church. I find no godly provision that lay people are permitted to be insurrectious and spread division among Catholics.

God bless you!
__________________


May the thoughts of my heart and the words of my mouth find favor before you,
O Lord, that I may always be pleasing to Thee.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Jan 22, '11, 5:46 pm
Sirach2's Avatar
Sirach2 Sirach2 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Posts: 12,431
Religion: Catholic, Carmelite OCDS
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

Some readers may appreciate this site review of RealCatholicTV by Catholic Culture:

"RealCatholicTV is particularly concerned with the inroads of secularism into the Church, and users should be aware that a great many of the programs attempt to expose ecclesiastical shortcomings, with considerable criticism of Church leaders.

The site opened with the support of various bishops in the U.S., though as its programming has become increasingly critical of the Church, some bishops have withdrawn their support.

While thoroughly approving many of the fine videos made available through this site, CatholicCulture.org recommends caution for two reasons: An apparent animus against the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, contrary to the clear mind of the Church; and a tendency to over-simply complex cultural, ecclesiastical and theological problems, leading sometimes to the assertion of mere opinion as the "real Catholic" position."
__________________


May the thoughts of my heart and the words of my mouth find favor before you,
O Lord, that I may always be pleasing to Thee.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Jan 22, '11, 7:00 pm
JRPO's Avatar
JRPO JRPO is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 13, 2009
Posts: 538
Religion: Fortunate enough to be very Catholic
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

Sirach2.

No matter what your views of Michael Voris, perhaps you would do better to focus on what Bishop Athanasius Schneider had to say and the fact that Pope Benedict has told the Priests of the world that they do not need permission from the Bishops to give the Latin Mass. Michael Voris aside ( he does have a degree in Sacred Theology by the way) what are Bishop Schneider and Pope Benidict leading to.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Jan 23, '11, 8:33 am
Sirach2's Avatar
Sirach2 Sirach2 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Posts: 12,431
Religion: Catholic, Carmelite OCDS
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRPO
Bishop Athanasius Schneider .. a brilliant holy and humble bishop if there ever was one ..and there have been many .. recently gave a presentation where he requested that Pope Benedict issue a formal statement condemning the errors that have arisen from the misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II.
I should read what this bishop had to say? What did he say???
There is nothing written in your OP other than this single sentence. His opinion is just that --- his opinion. It does not reflect the opinions of the entire body of bishops globally. I note also that Pope Benedict has not responded with his request. Most certainly if he had done so, traditionalists would have shouted it from their rooftops.

As for your comments about the latin mass not needing permission from the bishops, yes I know that. There are many other issues that prevent this mass from being celebrated. I will try to find the thread where this was explained in detail. It has nothing to do with lack of permission, so in that sense, Michael Voris has misrepresented facts as "personal opinion" --- just as Catholic Culture reported.

You spent a great deal of time typing out the entire video, probably to make sure everybody "got the message." In that respect, I have no doubt that you agree with it, and as I said earlier - bought the lie.
__________________


May the thoughts of my heart and the words of my mouth find favor before you,
O Lord, that I may always be pleasing to Thee.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Jan 23, '11, 1:00 pm
Sirach2's Avatar
Sirach2 Sirach2 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Posts: 12,431
Religion: Catholic, Carmelite OCDS
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

Jim, I found the thread I mentioned above. Our bishops have to regulate circumstances that conflict with the ordinary permission stated in the Motu Proprio, and few are aware of these difficulties. It pains me to hear the charges made by Voris and others because they cause much harm in the Body of Christ by voicing these unfounded accusations to the clergy.

Quote:
Now the directive from the Pope regarding the TLM states that, although there is the freedom to celebrate without the permission of the bishop, the pastor cannot substitute it for the regular Sunday Ordinary Form and must celebrate the regular liturgy for the people. So …. which of the ONE Sunday masses would you suggest the bishop allow for the TLM? If the priest were to advertise in the bulletin (required) that the Saturday vigil is going to be TLM, and 25 people loyal to that liturgy attend, where would there be pews enough to support the entire parish the next morning at their ONE mass? As for the partner parish that is without a Saturday vigil and only one mass on Sunday, they will never be in a position to offer the TLM. Period.
More detail in these posts:

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....2&postcount=40

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....0&postcount=24

God's peace, brother. May He enlighten you.






__________________


May the thoughts of my heart and the words of my mouth find favor before you,
O Lord, that I may always be pleasing to Thee.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Jan 23, '11, 2:24 pm
ProVobis ProVobis is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Posts: 27,553
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by NPC View Post
Unfortunately, there were some "liturgical time-bombs" in the Vatican II documents - i.e. that such and such a thing may be done - for the use of the mother-tongue of the people, for example, which has been gradually used to justify the elimination of Latin from the Mass. Such things would have to be addressed: if Latin was supposed to be retained in the Mass then this should be made clear: "Latin is to be used in the Mass". The same thing with Gregorian Chant; the same with Mass ad Orientem (there is no evidence that Mass facing the people was ever intended to be the norm; Vatican II only mentioned the possibility of this).
Most would agree that the correct English translation was "The use of Latin is to be preseved in the Mass." (36. § 1. Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.) It could have been made stronger by "anathema sit" against anyone who held contempt against using Latin such as Trent did with anathematicizing anyone who supported an all-vernacular liturgy. But Vatican II didn't use such strong language.

But one also has to look at an encyclical Veterum Sapientia which was written in the same year as Vatican II convened. Pope John XXIII effectively banned (modern) vernacular in the liturgy in that document. So the question is was it even necessary for Vatican II to address it, not to mention add a loophole. An added eye-popper: Pope John never signed a single document of Vatican II.

Last edited by ProVobis; Jan 23, '11 at 2:37 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Jan 23, '11, 2:40 pm
Sirach2's Avatar
Sirach2 Sirach2 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Posts: 12,431
Religion: Catholic, Carmelite OCDS
Default Re: misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

Quote:
An added eye-popper: Pope John never signed a single document of Vatican II.
Of course not - he was dead. His successor, Pope Paul VI, is the one who approved and ratified the usage of the vernacular in the liturgy. Do you need the source?
__________________


May the thoughts of my heart and the words of my mouth find favor before you,
O Lord, that I may always be pleasing to Thee.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Catholic Living > Spirituality

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8296Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Paula Hurworth
5061CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4348Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: Marla Frances
4033OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: 3DOCTORS
3849SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3599Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3256Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3210Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3180Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3063For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: ineeda



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:56 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.