Anyone here reject Vatican II?


I wish it were a joke.
But he wrong like over a hundred pages on the causes and effects of the masses, doesn’t strike me as a joke.

I wish it were. But I doubt someone who loves the Eucharist would joke about it.


I agree that it is a pathetic reason.


My question has always been this: why can’t Catholic Parishes do the same thing? Even if it’s Sat night or the crack of dawn on Sun? Why can’t a Catholic Parish have at least one mass with traditional hymns and A LITTLE BIT of Latin every once in a while.

Priest’s fluent in Latin are not available for the most part and most Catholics prefer Mass in the vernacular. Just mimicking the Latin words by rote is nonsense and often just to feel more Catholic. This is the way altar boys memorized the Mass in the 50’s. I know I was there.

Even the Benedictine Monastery where I go, the nuns and monks struggle signing the responses to the Mass in Latin. They’d be better to do like the Trappists have done and translate the chant hymns into english.

It’s even worse on Thursdays when the entire OF is said and chanted in Latin.

Most parishes do not have the resources to put together choirs led by a person with expertise in Gregorian Chant.

Heck, the two organists in my parish are converts to Catholicism and have no idea about how to do Gregorian chant in Latin.



I have been reading Pope Benedict XVI lately – actually homilies he wrote as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – and I understand that he is strong on the concept of a community or fellowship of faith. On the other hand, he also writes against collectivism, that is, suppression of the self.

As I understand it, each of us is created and loved as a person by God. Each of us has an individual relationship with God. Each of makes moral choices as an individual. As Ratzinger wrote, fellowship is created by each being ourself and turning toward each other. Fellowship requires the person.

I think you are both right.


I’m willing to read 100 pages to better understand your position. Have a link?


True, but that’s not what I meant by “a little Latin.” I just meant the typical Latin hymns that Pope Paul VI said every Catholic should know.

I didn’t mean the canon of the mass.

But again, I would simply be happy with Salve Regina in English


What? People are at various levels of faith? So how does that affect liturgy?




So Reverend know it all does exist. Appreciate the link. Will give it a read.


He does joke, but it’s mixed with serious concerns. He says,
“Some clergy actually used coffee and doughnuts for Mass, though I myself never participated in a Dunkin’ Donuts Liturgy” and reiterates, later saying “…the coffee table Masses that tried to consecrate donuts, these were all attempts to make the faith more reasonable”

From searching for coffee in the document, here’s a link


I enjoy researching to study the process into the development that summarized the implementation of the current teaching, so much as it is revealed through Church approved channels. The development is also a wonderful unfolding of a truth.The Church is pleased that I do so. To categorize my position on the forum I think Fr. Ripperger comes closest to describing my traditional character in this way.

“…For this reason, the fundamental difference between neoconservatives and traditionalists is that the neoconservative looks at the past through the eyes of the present while the traditionalist looks at the present through the eyes of the past. Historically, the mens ecclesiae or mind of the Church was expressed through the extrinsic tradition. That is to say that the Church, since it receives both its teaching from the past and the labor of the saints and previous Magisterium by tradition, always looked at the present through the eyes of the past. In this, she looked at the present not as man under the influence of modern philosophy looked at the present, but through the eyes of her Lord Who gave her His teaching when He was on earth (i.e., in the past). Only at the time of Christ was it possible to look authentically at the past through what was then the eyes of the present, since Christ was the fulfillment of the past. But once the work of Christ became part of history and He ascended into heaven, we must always look back to Christ and to our tradition for an authentic understanding of the present…”

If I were to find an inconsistency, or not understand a point, I would automatically assume I am in error. My position now becomes a personal one of self correction, all the while carrying out my roll as outlined in the new teaching just promulgated.


“…the traditionalist looks at the present through the eyes of the past.” That is me.


I label myself as a trad, and I love pope Francis.

Dont make such broad generalizations.


You won’t get a mature spiritual level of people attending as you will at a monastery or some other Mass experience.

Parishes are made up of young and old as well as spiritual and those who go to Mass out of guilt because it’s an obligation.

You’ll rarely if ever get the same experience in a parish as you get in a monastery or even a TLM which the participants had to travel out of their way to attend.



Not understanding why people at different levels in their faith lives mean they deserve poor liturgy. Is there a piece missing in the explanation?


Perhaps the problem is that you label yourself ?



Poor liturgy is a misnomer.

The average parish church is going to have people of different spiritual maturity, as well as those who practice religion without spirituality.



Okay, but why can’t they have high-quality liturgy that Vatican Ii says we are to have, no matter their faith level?!


It can only be what people put into it and how deep they are in their relationship with Jesus Christ.

We still have Catholics who go to Mass out of obligation and are the first heading to their cars once the priest has left the church.



… if not prior…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit