Benedict XVI on Vatican II

Why they began with liturgy
Vatican II

Vatican II

The following comes from a February 15 report from Vatican Information Service.

Following are ample extracts from the Holy Father’s warm and friendly chat yesterday with the clergy of Rome, which was held in the Paul VI Hall.

“We went to the Council not just with joy, but enthusiastically. There was an incredible expectation. We hoped that everything would be renewed, that a new Pentecost, a new era in the Church, had truly arrived, …

“In retrospect, I think that it was very good to begin with the liturgy, showing God’s primacy, the primacy of adoration. … The Council spoke of God and this was its first act: speaking of God and opening everything to the people, opening the adoration of God to the entire holy people, in the common celebration of the liturgy of the Body and Blood of Christ. … The principles came later: comprehensibility, so as not to be locked in an unknown and unspoken language, and active participation.

“Unfortunately, sometimes these principles are misunderstood. Comprehensibility does not mean triviality because the great texts of the liturgy — even when they are, thanks be to God, in one’s mother tongue — are not easily understandable. Ongoing formation is necessary for Christians to grow and enter more deeply into the mystery so they might understand.

“… The basis for dialogue is in difference, in diversity, in the faith of the uniqueness of Christ who is one, and it is not possible for a believer to think that religions are variations on the same theme. No. There is a reality of the living God who has spoken and who is one God, an incarnate God, therefore one word of God who is truly the Word of God. But there is also a religious experience, with a certain human light on creation, and therefore it is necessary and possible to enter into dialogue and so to open oneself to others and to open all to God peace, all His children, all His family….

“I would like to add still a third point… the Council of the media. It was almost a Council itself and the world saw the Council through it. The ‘Council of the journalists’, of course was not carried out within the faith but within the categories of today’s media. That is to say, it was outside of the faith, with a different hermeneutic … a political hermeneutic. For the media, the Council was a political struggle, a power struggle between the Church’s different strands….

“There was a triple problem: the Pope’s power transferred to the power of the bishops and to the power of all: popular sovereignty. The same thing happened with the liturgy. They were not interested in the liturgy as an act of faith but as something where things are made understandable, a type of communal activity. … These translations, the trivialization of the idea of the Council were virulent in the practice of applying liturgical reform; a vision of the Council outside of its proper interpretation, that of faith, was born.”


To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.


  1. Tinkering with the liturgy has been nothing less than a disaster. Martin Luther and the protestant ‘reformers’ could not have done a better job destroying the Mass than the likes of Cardinal Bugnini. I pray the next pope will restore Holy Mass in the Latin tongue and ad orientum and with the the novelties installed by the modernists removed.

  2. The end result of Vatican Council II was a disaster now easy to see in any of our guitar masses. The Fathers and Paul VI may have had nice intentions but they lost millions of souls. The transfer of power from the Pope to Bishop Conferences, then to bishops, pastors and laiety was a failure too. They forbade the Traditional Mass for 40 years and admitted homosexuals in the Seminaries. The rest is history.

    It will take 50 years to right the wrong interpretation of the council egged on by the media. So please: no new councils for 100 years.

    • Anton L. Seidl says:

      Gratias: The National Bishops Conferences were one of the most devastating errors to emerge from Vatican2.
      The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was fragmented beyond recognition. I am still waiting for someone within the hierarchy to admit frankly that Vatican2 was a monumental act of cultural vandalism.

      • The only reason they need bishops conferences is money. In that they have these conferences, the secondary need is defense of the money flow. The purpose for the chanceries is the allocation of the money. “He who has the gold, makes the rules”: Thus the money makes the rules. The money changers change the rules to make the money. All of this is simple and easy to see if one opens one’s eyes.

  3. Rod McKuen says:

    Hermeneutic of discontinuity.

  4. Larry from RI says:

    Questions that the pope should have answered were:

    Why was the original schema for VII thrown out and a new schema brought in?

    Why didn’t they just take the direct English translation from the Latin Mass and use that as the New Mass? (The missals we used in our poor parish church at the time had the Latin on the left hand page and the direct English translation on the right hand page.)

    Shortly after VII, I attended a funeral at an Episcopal church and there was our new English mass, word for word. Our new English Mass was the Episcopal English Mass.

    AS one of the progressives at VII, BXVI should be able to answer these questions very easily.

    • Anton L. Seidl says:

      Larry from R.I.: Your logic is unassailable!

    • Larry from RI, EWTN news has the Vatican translation of the Pope’s remarks in three parts. Feb 19, 20 and 21. It may shed some light on your questions. I can’t say that there is a direct answer to your direct questions but he says that the Council Fathers wanted to do things for themselves, not out of rebellion but out of responsibility. It began on the first day when they would not vote on the lists of electors to the Commissions. On why they did not just use the English translation of the Latin: he says that there was a liturgical movement to make the liturgy of the people and the liturgy of the altar one single liturgy.

    • Languages do not translate “directly”; that would be called “transliteration”, and typically does not convey the meaning well.

  5. Undo Vatican 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. “Unfortunately, sometimes these principles are misunderstood. Comprehensibility does not mean triviality because the great texts of the liturgy — even when they are, THANKS BE TO GOD, IN ONE’S OWN MOTHER TONGUE [emphasis added] — are not easily understandable. Ongoing formation is necessary for Christians to grow and enter more deeply into the mystery so they might understand.”

    The Holy Father’s insights about the value of celebrating Mass in the vernacular are a healthy antidote to those who insist that Latin is the only way to celebrate Mass.

    Reverence, whether one is saying grace before meals, praying spontaneously for a person in trouble, saying Mass, or anointing the sick, does not require Latin, Greek or Aramaic. It requires a spirit of awe, a spirit of respect and dignity, a knowledge that God is present and active in our prayer.

    • You’re missing the boat, once again, Mackz. It’s not all about Latin; it’s about reality, truth, authority, and charity.

      • Skai: The use of Latin worldwide didn’t start until the infamous 1600s and it is amazing that the dance halls and bar rooms were full and the Churches, of which, all were Catholic, were empty. Our Lady has told us to join in the Mass and follow the readings prayerfully, something of which, cannot be done, unless a person knows Latin and can actually hear the Priests as he mumbles to the Alter Boys. Learn you faith. +JMJ+

      • That’s very charitable of you, Skai, but I’m just talking about the vernacular.

        (Otherwise, you wouldn’t have been able to understand me…)

    • Mackz, the theory propounded might sound intriguing but with almost fifty years of Mass in the vernacular, the situation only is getting worse. The subtle underlining of “vernacular power” is the presumption that being able to understand what is written in one’s own language will benefit the pew warmers … but the results have shown that this is a false hope.

  7. The Tridentine Mass was renewed for all the faithful under Pope Benedict the XVI… JP II gave us the indult, but Benedict brought it back for all time… never should have left. I use my 1962 missal at the Tridentine, went yesterday in fact… the beauty, solemnity and somberness kindle feelings of all that is sacred…

  8. Thank God for Vatican II as it was given to us by the Holy Spirit, the same Holy Spirit that has been not allowed to be active in the Catholic Church for almost 1500 years with the so-called Latin Mass. Pope John Paul II told the American Bishops to move the Tabernacle back to the center of the Church, restore the Altar rails, remove the heritics from the Church, keep their collars on and for the sisters to put their habits back on. Most of the Bishops have poor hearing as this hasn’t happened on a large scale. +JMJ+

    • John Feeney says:

      Oh sure, the Latin Mass is terrible and full of problems. The only problem with the Novus Ordo is deciding whether to go to the clown mass or the one with liturgical dance.

      • If the Latin Mass WERE terrible and full of problems, few people would notice.

        They don’t know the language and just hope, fervently, that the priest is doing his job properly.

        Now to put my new bumper sticker on my car: “Sona si latine loqueris.”

        (“Honk if you speak Latin.”)

        • How many “holy saints” celebrated and attended the “Tridentine mass” solely…the overwhelming number of saints tells me something “special” about this rite….

        • Not true. The 1962 Missal that most have who regularly attend the Extraordinary Form (Latin) of the Mass has Latin on each page with the opposite page in English.
          If one can is literate they will learn.
          Latin is still the primary language of our Roman/Latin Church.

          If you see abuses in either the Ordinary (vernacular) or Extraordinary (Latin) Form of the Mass contact your Bishop.
          If not, the abuses that continue will be YOUR OWN FAULT.

          GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) is on the Vatican web site.
          The 1962 Missal contains the correct liturgy for the Latin Mass.

          Both forms of the Mass are Holy.
          Please do not argue about which one you think is better. Because each person has different needs.

      • You gots it down, Feeney.

    • As if the Holy Spirit can be “allowed or not allowed”, JMJ … incredible thought process. Would you enlighten us on the best horse to bet on in the fifth race next wednesday?

  9. “In retrospect, I think that it was very good to begin with the liturgy, showing God’s primacy, the primacy of adoration. … The Council spoke of God and this was its first act: speaking of God and opening everything to the people, opening the adoration of God to the entire holy people, in the common celebration of the liturgy of the Body and Blood of Christ. … The principles came later: comprehensibility, SO AS NOT TO BE LOCKED IN AN UNKNOWN AND UNSPOKEN LANGUAGE, and active participation.”

    Hurray for Pope Benedict XVI!

    (Although it’s rather amusing he made his resignation announcement in LATIN, and some of the cardinals present could not understand him…)

    • The readings from “Sacred Sripture” were always in the vernacular at the Tridentine Mass…as was the sermon….only the prayers for the “rite” itself were in latin, which one could easily follow along with in the missal…I do it and enjoy it immensely! Latin was always the language of the Church for a very important reason…latin meant what latin said…no ambiguity in the words and their definition…

      • Sorry Gator, but Latin was NOT always the language of the Church. It wasn’t used for at least 500 years when the Church abandoned the works of the Holy Spirit and it was not universal until the 1600′s. Very few people can follow the Mass by using the missal as the Priest is not loud enough and we can see the people flipping through the missals looking for the prayers. It is no wonder that they do their rosaries or go to confession during the Mass as they are being left out of the picture and only the altar boys and the choir are in. Our Lady has told us to pray and follow the Mass, which means that we have to know the language that is being spoken. The Mass is much more than feeling good, it is about worshipping Jesus and thanking Him for coming down to us once again. Pope John Paul told the Bishops to replace the Tabernacle and the altar rails, but sadly, our Bishops have mostly refused to do so. The Apostles didn’t have an organ and I doubt that their “music” would have made you happy as they sang the Psalms in honor of God in the manner of their Jewish background. +JMJ+

        • The early Christians were primarily gentiles, JMJ. The number of gentiles rapidly overwhelmed the number of Jewish Christians. Also, the Church never abandoned the works of the Holy Spirit as you claim … and for 500 years?!?

        • Paleobotanist says:

          JMJ…when precisely did the Church abandon the works of the Holy Spirit, as you proclaim she did?…Please proceed…

          • Paleobotanist says:

            One more thing JMJ…it’s better that “they” pray their rosary at my parish during mass…then play on their i-phones, like they do in many parishes…very probably even yours…

        • JMJ, do you know what language was spoken by Adam and Eve?

  10. I attend a very reverent Novus Ordo mass at my parish…as well as the Tridentine… You would marvel at how reverent and solemn the novus ordo is celebrated at my parish…”no altar girls”, “no Eucharistic ministers’”…everyone receives “at the altar rail…on the tongue”, with paten placed under the chin… the pipe organ and a reverent, solemn choir, sing and chant beautiful Catholic hymns during the liturgy…The confession lines are always full…

  11. Benedict XVI prays penultimate Angelus: “The time of testing is here, let us focus on God again”

    During today’s Angelus prayer Benedict XVI spoke about Jesus’ temptations before a crowd of 50 thousand faithful, asking them to “Pray for me and the next Pope”


    “The time of testing is here. We must not use God for our own ends.” Resignation is a testimony of faith. “Don’t be afraid” “to fight the evil spirit,” what is important is that we do it alongside Christ the Victor,” the Pope said during today’s Angelus before a crowd of 50 thousand faithful, urging them to turn to “the Mother Mary.” “Let us trust in the intercession of the Virgin Mary in this time of testing, “ he added. “Through her we will feel the powerful presence of his divine Son, so we may ward off temptation with the Word of Christ and place God at the centre of our lives.” We must reject the false images of the Messiah as Jesus did when faced with the temptations “the Temptor presented him with,” the most serious of which is “using God for one’s own ends,” Benedict XVI said during the course of the Angelus prayer.

    • Thank you Catherine.
      The Pope’s words are a warning.
      People do not listen.
      He has been asking everyone including Bishops and Priests to read/study the CCC so they will know their Faith in entirety. Yet, they ignore him. He even put it out in a Motu Proprio – ‘Porta Fidei’ and they ignore him.
      Then some Bishops and Cardinals wonder why people are disobedient to them – when one reason is that they are disobedient to our Pope.

      • If you spend much time reading the CCC, you may find as I did, that you’ll have to read the references, as I did, and then that you’ll have to read the Bible, as I have many times. It is all explained more clearly in the Bible; there is nothing in the CCC that contradicts the Bible … although there are nebulous and inconclusive texts in the CCC because bureaucrats simply cannot come close to the brilliance of the Bible text. How could anyone even imagine a large bureacracy of an organizaztion that the Pope says is overdone with “filth” even compete with Holy Scripture. Note: Holy Scripture but not Holy CCC … Anyone notice this?

  12. Excuse me, but I don’t think some of the commenters here have even read what the Holy Father said about the Council and the Mass. He did not disparage the Novus Ordo, he did not call that Vatican II be revoked, he did not say that the Traditional Latin Mass is the only way to go.

    You’re wrong if that’s how you’re interpreting the Holy Father’s words. Read it!

    • When I worship at my parish, it is solemn, holy and always spiritually enriching. On occasion (out of necessity) I have been forced to attend an out of town parish… my wife and I often feel spiritually unfed, and are disgusted by the clapping, hand-holding, altar girls and overall lack of reverence and solemnity, particularly toward those receiving the Eucharist… kids playing on their i-phones during mass, and young women and their mothers dressed very inappropriately. Sadly, in many parishes, this is THE NORM! I’ve seen this at many, many parishes, with loud, almost vulgar music being played by the rock-band, who provides the liturgical music.

      The parish we attend is very traditional and the solemnity of the mass is reverent and always spiritually edifying, altar rails, no altar girls, beautiful processions into the Church before each mass, also the confession lines are always full at our parish, even during mass! Worshiping at most other parishes is, for us, like worshiping in two completely different churches… the abuses and lack of reverence are that glaring in some of the other parishes we have attended, like I said out of necessity.

      • Notwithstanding the abuses happening at the liturgy in certain parishes, the Holy Father NEVER called for the Novus Ordo be discontinued, nor did he disparage it.

        NOR did he call Vatican II a mistake, which is what some of you here are saying.

        • False, jon; you didn’t read the Pope’s book where he favors getting rid of the novus ordo by means of changing it. He also says in that book that he prefers the traditional Latin Mass.

          • Who cares what he “prefers?” Being German, he also probably “prefers” Sauerkraut and such, but his preferences are of no importance.

          • Totally wrong. No where did Pope Benedict say what you claim he says. NO WHERE!

          • So, here we have batman and robin; the one saying that what popes say is irrelevant, and the other saying that what popes say is always the command of God. They, together, demonstrate the old “either/or syndrome”, not the mark of the beast but the mark of one two many glasses of sherry.

          • Wrong again Skai. What is wrong is your assertion that Benedict wants to get rid of the Novus Ordo. No where did he say that.

          • Another thing Skai: no where did Benedict say he prefers the TLM more than the Novus Ordo. Already you are practicing historical revisionism within hours of the end of his pontificate.

            Let me put it to you this way. If Benedict did prefer the TLM, how come he NEVER celebrated it publicly as Pontiff? Eh?

          • Mackz, what is the name for the theological error that discounts the preferences a person has? Utilitarianism?

          • jon, I don’t follow all the Pope’s Masses, and am not aware if he has said the TLM publically, following the crackdown about 45 years ago.

        • Pope Benedict XVI wrote that he expects the novus ordo to continue morphing … he also commented that he thinks there to be a problem with the novus ordo. jon, have you read everything written by Pope BXVI?

          • Skai, no where did Benedict ever use the word “morph” nor does he think there’s a problem with the Novus Ordo. There is NOTHING WRONG with the holy sacraments of the Church.

    • Pope BenedictXVI has disparaged the novus ordo in the sense that he is not in favor of it, and thinks it needs to be revised and expects that this will happen eventually.

      • He HAS NEVER disparaged the Novus Ordo in any way! Skai, this is your personal flawed interpretation of Benedict’s words and views. You’re flat wrong.

    • You read it first, jon.

      • No, the onus here is FOR YOU TO PROVE YOUR POINT! Quote him!

      • Skai, did you not read his comments last week on Vatican II? He was at Vatican II as an theologian and he was involved in the reform of the liturgy. He said the TLM was like having two different Masses going on-one at the altar and one in the pews.

        • Anon, you need once again to look into the context of what you say the Pope said about TLM being two Masses, one on the altar and one in the pews. If the soul in the pew does its own thing instead of join or unite with the priest who is saying it, then obviously and of course you’d have something like two Masses going on, but with the one in the pews not being Mass at all. Don’t you see what the Pope is getting at? The TLM binds together the willing with the unwill; however, novus ordo lets all the souls run off wherever their inclination leads them.

  13. I have attended novus ordo masses where much of the mass was recited in latin as well… in fact Bishop Ward used to use much latin in his novus ordo masses… know, I served a number of his masses as acolyte.

    • Well, we must have run into each other, Gator, as Bp Ward’s parish was my first, although I have long since been out of that area.

  14. CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: 891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” ABOVE ALL IN AN ECUMENCIAL COUNCIL (emphasis added). When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

    Those who attack the Second Vatican Council attack the teaching authority of the Church, the infallibility of the Holy Father, and the Church’s firm belief that the Holy Spirit guides Holy Mother Church when she gathers for an Ecumenical Council.

    You may not like certain THINGS that have happened since Vatican 2 (such as idiot priests doing idiotic things at a particular Mass), but to reject Vatican 2 is…heresy? Uncatholic? Just plain dumb? Choose your words.

    Unlike Mrs. Smith claiming the Blessed Mother appeared in her kitchen, or Mr. Jones claiming that Jesus appeared in a tree, or Fr. Kookalini getting on his own t.v. program for some rant, an Ecumencial Council of the Catholic Church is her (i.e., Holy Mother Church) teaching the faith at the very highest level.

    • Mackz, if an ecumenical council is without error, then why do they keep having them?

      • Paleobotanist says:

        Nothing “dogmatic” was ever proclaimed at VCII…it was a pastoral council….

        • Wrong. It may be a “pastoral council” insofar as it did not articulate any new dogma, but the documents of Vatican II are indeed doctrinal, AND DOGMATIC

          • Paleobotanist says:

            wrong again Jon… name one “new” dogmatic proclamaton that came from VCII.

          • Palebot, read my previous comment ok? I had just said that Vat2 is a “pastoral council INSOFAR as it did not articulate new dogma” but that its documents ARE INDEED DOGMATIC AND DOCTRINAL!

          • jon, come up with an ex cathedra statement that every document of Vatican II is dogmatic or doctrinal.

          • There is no need to “come up” with anything. Just read the documents of Vatican II. It teaches the doctrines and dogmas LONG HELD by the Church.

          • jon, do you mean that there is new dogma but it has yet to be articulated.

      • Skai, you can find the answer to your question at the New Advent website. Catholic Encyclopedia entry General Councils.

    • Problem, Mackz, with ” in virtue of his office”, because without a pope there is no papal office, but only a fiction otherwise known as a Platonic form … Platonic forms cannot be proved to exist, Mackz, mainly because they are like idols or abstract ideas. The papacy exists only when there is a pope … in between popes there is no papacy. The errant thinking here in this document is of the same order as “guns kill people”, ie kind of a sloppy style of rhetoric. This is why the Church is always changing the text of canon law and catechisms … but the Church does not change dogmatic documents, although many are always trying to do so. Again, in view of the Pope saying the Church is infected with filth, why would you stake your salvation on some document, no matter how “official”, that is nebulous and subject to change?

  15. Paleobotanist says:

    Vatican II was a “pastoral council”…nothing dogmatic came from it…

    • Paleobotanist says:

      Jon… you have not answered my question either… what do you call an Archbishop, who was given proof that one of the priests in his archdiocese sexually assaulted children… and instead of removing that priest from active ministry, he chose to move him to yet another parish, where he proceeded to sexually assault more children?

      • This is an erroneous statement by Palebot. There is indeed dogma and doctrine articulated in the documents of Vatican II. I mean, just read Lumen Gentium, or Sacrosanctum Concilium, or Gaudium et Spes—there’s a LOT OF DOGMA and DOCTRINE from these documents’ pages! These are not new doctrines, but they are indeed so!

        • jon, “paleo-bota-nist”, the word, combines “paleo” which means “old”, and “bota” which means wineskin, giving the overall meaning of “old wine skin”; if I were you I would not mess with this dude too much.

          • And, jon, in my case it would be “paleogotanist” or, “paleo” “gota” “nist”, meaning “old goat”, so my advice to you is, you simply will not prevail over Catholic faith.

  16. Paleobotanist says:

    My point exactly Jon…these are not “NEW” doctrines…only clarified by the holy father in Rome…that is why VCII was a “pastoral” and not dogmatic council…I am right yet again…you only confirmed it…thank-you…and you have yet to answer my question….

  17. Paleobotanist says:

    Theoretically, a Catholic can believe that vatican II is not infallible…and still be in good standing with the Church…as it was a pastoral and not a “dogmatic” council…if you disbelieve me Jon…contact a canon lawyer…

    • The phrase “Catholic in good standing with the Church” means nothing except that you haven’t done something so bad that the church won’t give you a funeral or let you be a godparent. There is no definition of what being in good standing with the Church means. I have seen lists like obey the precepts of the Church. I attended Mass at a Church who declared that one had to contribute to the Church using parish envelopes to be a Catholic in good standing. I have read online that a Catholic was denied being a godparent because they were not registered in a parish and was thus, not a Catholic in good standing. So it seems that it is a very subjective thing and there is no real definition of being in good standing with the Church.

      • Great observation, k!!! You’ve discovered that there are important things of the Church which are not codified in legal terminology, or even in theological terms … because Catholicism is not a “religion of the book” at all, as some have suggested, but a religion of God, as “suggested” by the Holy Eucharist.

      • k, if you follow the trail of “Catholic in good standing”, you might come up with something along the line that St Francis of Assisi discovered … that there is a lot of hype going down in the Church. Take note of that Saint’s solution to the problem.

  18. Another erroneous statement from Palebot is saying that “Theoretically, a Catholic can believe that vatican II is not infallible…and still be in good standing with the Church.”

    This is of course truly false and mistaken. If a Catholic were to believe that there is any error in any of the doctrines and dogmas expressed in any of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, then that person is guilty of dissent.

    If you Palebot believe that Vatican II is erroneous, remember the current Canonical status of SSPX. They have no official and licit ministry in the Catholic Church.

    • Paleobotanist says:

      You are wrong Jon…consult a canon lawyer

    • Paleontoligist says:

      Never said that Jon…don’t put words in my mouth…you know, you’re good at that…I said it was not “dogmatic”…and still is not…

      • Pale, there is doctrine AND dogma in the documents of Vatican II. You may correctly call the Council “pastoral” for surely it is, however be informed that Vatican II teaches both doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church.

      • Pebot, when the Pontiff with the rest of the bishops pronounce teachings together on matters of faith and morals—as they did at Vatican II—infallibility in conferred on their teachings inasmuch as they are guided by the Holy Spirit Who preserves the Church from error on these matters. Therefore to say that Vatican II is not infallible is wrong!

  19. The Second Vatican Council is indeed binding on all the faithful:


    891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” ABOVE ALL IN AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL [emphasis added]. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.”

    I’M SO TIRED of cafeteria Catholics trying to discard the Second Vatican Council by saying, over and over again, that it was “just pastoral.” For goodness’ sake, everything we do as Christians is or should be “pastoral,” as we follow El Buen Pastor, Jesus Christ!

    • It would, perhaps, be binding, Mackz, were it not for Jesus who set us free.

    • Paleobotanist says:

      Wrong…consult a canon lawyer…nothing “new” dogmatically was ever proclaimed at Vatican II, that I… as a Catholic… have to believe, in order to be saved…consult a canon lawyer…

      • Anonymous says:

        “in order to be saved”???? A canon lawyer???????

        • Paleontoligist says:

          the “state of saving my immortal soul”…by denying “dogmas” of the faith, a member becomes an excommunicate…thereby jeopardizing their immortal soul…

      • Palo, again be informed that although no new doctrine was articulated in Vatican II, the Council nonetheless espoused and taught doctrines and dogmas long held by the Church.

      • “Paleontologist”: Hey, now I get it …”Pale” “Ontologist”; hence, a pale student of being, or a student of being pale, or the being of paleness. Steadily we’re cracking that code name.

    • Catherine says:

      For goodness sake or for the sake of….Talking the talk without really walking the walk..”

      “For goodness’ sake, everything we do as Christians is or should be “pastoral,” as we follow El Buen Pastor, Jesus Christ!

      And for goodness sake max said, “KARL HAVE YOU BEEN SNIFFING TOO MUCH INCENSE?” No El Buen. : (

      But I would like to commend you on your Christian pastoral kindness to Dana when she came close to leaving. That was very kind. We need Dana! Dana does not confuse Church teaching. Dana would also want you to show more respect to faithful priests and not mock them because they love the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

      • Anonymous says:

        Finding fault with your neighbor, again? You can do better. Obey Jesus Christ!

      • Anonymous says:

        By obedience to the truth you have purified yourselves for a genuine love of your brothers; therefore, love one another constantly from the heart. 1Peter 1:22

        • Anon, would you care to explicate the verse you supplied, taking care to explain each concept in it and how it applies to this thread?

      • I thought Dana was only temporarily leaving, as a Lenten practice.

  20. Paleobotanist says:

    no “new” dogmatic proclamations on “faith and morals” was proclaimed at VCII…this is a “fact”, without equivocation…VCII was a pastoral council…

    • What does that mean? Pastoral council? It was an ecumenical council.

      • Nonetheless, Pabot, doctrines and dogmas long held by the Church are indeed found in the pages of Vatican II. No new dogmas and doctrines. But dogmas and doctrines nonetheless.

        • jon, no doctrine, no matter where you find it, contradicts anything in the Bible.

        • jon, if you keep morphing Paleobotanist, such as your Pabot, you’re going to end up perhaps changing “o” to “s” and coming up with Pabst … why don’t you heist a few yourself? It’s not bad for the price.

      • k, it does not really matter how it is labeled. The documents have no authority; do you understand that there is a difference between documents and God? Jesus never guaranteed any documents; rather He guaranteed the Church. k, the Church is not a collection of documents. At best these documents record what Church authorities have said. The critical traditions have been handed down by men and women, not by documents. The Sacraments have come to us not by documents but by men and women. The bishops cannot hand down tradition if they are deaf to God, no matter how many documents they might have memorized. No one else has any authority to enforce or interpret a Church document … all we can do is give opinion. Many people learn from discussing opinion; many do not.

        • This statement of Skai’s is not only totally false but also totally self-contradictory.

          Of course the documents of Vatican II have authority! The teachings therein are binding (on issues of morals and faith) and are to be adhered to!

          Also, Skai’s words are self-contradictory. The documents of Vat. 2, upon the death of the last Father of the Council, will soon be part of the Tradition of the Church, if it isn’t already so!

          He asserts that the Sacraments were handed down by men. Surely they are. But guess what—so was Vatican II handed down by men!

          • jon, documents are authored, not authors. You still do not see the difference between man and document. Do you envision heaven as a place where both man and books walk around? What if you set a collection of Vatican documents on a table in a seminary library. Would it radiate authority rays into the seminarians and cause them to adhere to its words of authority? Yep, betcher boots, that’s what you believe.

          • Moreover, jon, betcha if you walked by a gun store, you’d start running just in case one of the guns might come flying out and chase you. “Matthew 23:19 Ye blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?” jon, the documents are the gifts, and are not greater than the altar. The bishop sanctifies the altar but not the documents, and there is a reason for this, jon. There is a reason that the critical part of the Mass is the Eucharist and not the readings. The authority of God engages us through the unity created through the Eucharist. There is no such authority in the documents, jon. Anyone can access the documents, but only some people can access unity with God, which is created only through the Eucharist.

        • Skai, I have never heard a Catholic use the term “guaranteed the Church.” We need the documents, Skai. Because there is the risk of error without them. Look how many errors there are because people just believe what they want. Or fill in the gaps of knowledge with their own assumptions or opinions. Heard the one about the sin of Sodom being inhospitality? or the muliplication of the loaves and fishes being the miracle of sharing? or the sign of the cross going up and down for the relationship between us and God and back and forth for the relationship of the community? The documents are written from the heart and mind of the Church. I understand that you are saying that the Faith is handed down by people. Just like the Jewish faith was handed down by people until it was written down and still after. Just like the Gospels were transmitted by people in oral form before they were written and still are today.

  21. Paleobotanist says:

    Read Pope Paul the VI’s closing statement from the VCII…nowhere does he state that the council defined “any new” dogmatic beliefs…that Catholics must believe…on matters of faith and morals…

  22. Paleontoligist says:

    Even if a Catholic supports the “death penalty”…as I do…this is not in conflict with my dogmatic beliefs as a catholic…I am in accord with the Church…even though the Pope and the Church do not approve of it…it is not a matter of faith or morals…fact

    • There were more murders by strangulation than by rifles last year in the USA.

    • With limitations, the Catholic Church is not against the death penalty.
      True teaching of the Church are in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” from the Magisterium.

      CCC: ” 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty,
      if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
      If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
      Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

      • The death penalty is an aspect of the just war theory, and should be used for the same purposes. To say that there are practically no circumstances today for employing the death penalty is irrational, no matter who says it … in the sense that there is not hope for improving the journey for peace on earth; however, in the sense of eternity, yes, there is no reason anyone should die. The problem with these statements by cloistered or in effect cloistered popes and bishops is that the gap in understanding these two aspects of hope is so significant as to discredit the rhetoric used to make these claims using the new language rhetoric of Vatican II, namely jargon, vague words, sentence construction that renders the sentences meaningless or capable of all sorts of meanings. The death penalty was approved by dogma from the beginning of Christianity, and continues despite wishful thinking. Popes have also made statements that many have construed to mean they expect world peace to be brought forward by the United Nations … well, obviously this is not going to happen, so what exactly then were these popes trying to convey? The flat affect people in exactly the same mold as the flat earthers simply cannot see more than 20 miles. In other words they have no clue that there is more to reality than they are told on nightly news.

      • On the contrary, The Blessed John Paul and Pope Benedict called for the end to the use of the death penalty. And according to Lumen Gentium, the mind and will of the Holy Father should be adhered to with a religious submission of mind and will (Lumen Gentium, 25).

        Therefore, to go against the clear teaching of John Paul and Benedict is clearly dissent, in according with this doctrinal teaching of Vatican II.

        • You are wrong Jon.
          When Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in 2004 – he was very explicit on this topic.

          He stated in writing:
          QUOTE: ” 3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
          For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.
          While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.
          There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. ” UNQUOTE.

          Everyone can find this on the internet under: ” WORTHINESS to RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION General Principles ” – Cardinal Ratzinger. (Written to US Bishops).

          The misinterpretation of the Documents of Vatican II, is a significant reason for Confusion and the lack of Unity within the Church. Please do not misinterpret documents in the public media.
          Lumen Gentium does not discuss the death penalty

          Vatican II did not reject former Councils dogmas which allow for the death penalty under certain circumstances. This is the reason for Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement above.
          For more info on this Church teaching go to page 451 of the “Catechism of the Council of Trent” under “execution of criminals”.
          Further, you are denying the following when you deviate from the teachings in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” –
          “ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II. (CCC pg 5)

          • Paleobotanist says:

            Jon needs to speak with a canon lawyer…his understanding of dissent, heresy and infallibility are flawed, in light of the Church’s teaching…still he will not answer my question, which I have posed to him repeatedly…

          • Pabtat, I can assure you, if you were to go to a Canon lawyer, he/she will agree with me wholeheartedly. Why?

            Because Lumen Gentium 25 is very clear. The obligation to all Catholics is to adhere to the teachings of the Pontiff (including on the death penalty) with a religious submission of mind and will.

  23. Paleontoligist says:

    VCII was not infallible…did not claim to be…and repeatedly said that it was not….Pope Paul the VI, never spoke from the “Chair of Peter”…proclaiming it was a “dogmatic” council…in fact he expressed just the opposite…if you disbelieve me…consult a canon lawyer, in your local diocese…this will clear up all ambiguity…hopefully

    • Anonymous says:

      I understand what you are saying however your words could mislead the ignorant or innocent. Vatican II produced 4 constitutions-2 of which are dogmatic. A constitution is the highest proclamation in the Church. They must be consented to. There is no such thing as a dogmatic council or a pastoral council. These are layman shorthand that has developed and I believe a lot of it has been promoted by schismatics or rebellious groups. No one has permission not to assent to any of the documents from Vatican II. Will you lose your immortal soul if you don’t accept something? There are things in those documents-though not a newly declared dogma, that if you do not assent to them, it would be heresy. There are other things where it would be error or rebellion. There are groups like the SSPX who will not assent to certain things and therefore are not in full communion with the Church. You have not said what you don’t accept or even that you don’t accept things, but you could lead another person astray by what you are saying.

      • There has been no new dogma since the First Century, Anon.

        • Skai is clearly wrong. The dogma of the Assumption of Mary was not defined until November 1, 1950. Clearly, dogmas were defined solemnly after the first century.

          • Paleobotanist says:

            Not defined dogmatically before 1950…but the reality of our Lady’s Assumption, was a “reality” before it was dogmatically proclaimed…

  24. Palobot, “pastoral” as it applies to the Council does not mean devoid of doctrine and teachings. Let the words of Pope Benedict set your thoughts right:

    “Pastoral,” Pope Benedict writes, “should not mean nebulous, without substance, merely ‘edifying’—meanings sometimes given to it. Rather what was meant was positive care for the man of today who is not helped by condemnations and who has been told for too long what is false and what he may not do.”

  25. Pebot, no one needs to consult a Canon lawyer. Why?

    Because the Second Vatican Council itself has said that when the Council teaches on issues of faith and morals (and there are many such teachings in Vat2), that these teachings are binding!

    As for other Conciliar teachings not pertaining to faith and morals, the Council Fathers admonishes that these teachings “ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council.”

    All this can be found in Lumen Gentium! Therefore your issue of “infallibility” is moot. Whether or not it is (and the issue is indeed moot), ALL the teachings of Vatican II is to be adhered to. If you do not, then you are dissenting.

  26. FROM THE VATICAN’S WEBSITE: General Audience ON March 17, 1993

    It should be noted that the Second Vatican Council also calls attention to the Magisterium of the bishops in union with the Roman Pontiff, stressing that they too enjoy the Holy Spirit’s assistance when they define a point of faith in conjunction with the Successor of Peter:

    “The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme Magisterium with the Successor of Peter…. But when either the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops…which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church” (Lumen Gentium 25).

    The Council also says:

    “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the Successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, GATHERED TOGETHER IN AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL [emphasis added], they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith. And this infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends” (Lumen Gentium 25).

    …………..once again, the Second Vatican Council was not some zany meeting of loony people who said stuff we can just ignore. It was the Church gathered and teaching authoritatively.

    • Paleobotanist says:

      Never said it was “zany”…you’re as bad as Jon…no one said this…it is not…and never will be a “dogmatic” council…it was “pastoral”…furthermore…it was not infallible…you are wrong…as is Jon…nothing “dogmatic” was proclaimed at this council…consult a canon lawyer if you disbelieve me…

    • Mackz, no looney people in the vc2? How do you know? The Pope is saying that “filth” has infiltrated the Vatican, the curia, and he has not been able to stop it. Jesus guarantees the Church, not the various councils. There has been no new dogma since St John died in the first century. It’s all rehash.

  27. Paleontoligist says:

    You can argue all day and night Jon… you are wrong… period… consult a canon lawyer… it was not, is not, nor ever will, be a council where “new” dogma was proclaimed… even Pope Paul the VI said so, at its closure in 65… it was a “pastoral” council.

  28. Paleobotanist says:

    VCII is not now…nor will ever be defined as an “infallible” council…this is a fact, without equivocation…read the very words of Pope Paul the VI…”the truth is a liberating and sobering reality”…

  29. Paleobotanist says:

    As evidenced by the return of the Tridentine mass…after the introduction of the “novus ordo”…see my point?

    • Throughout history, the Church has seen many types of worship — and still does, if you look at the various Eastern Rites, and of course now the new Anglican Rite.

      At one point, things got so whacky, and there was so much chaos, Holy Mother Church decided to crack down and try to get some uniformity in worship — which is the Church’s right.

      Later, the Church had to crack down and try to educate her priests, who could barely speak the Latin of the Tridentine Mass and just mumbled through it with little reverence. This is when seminaries were established, to try to make the clergy less dumb.

      • Mackz, why do you perpetuate the myth that Latin is difficult to learn? Priests are supposed to be educated. A man who can become educated is plenty capable of learning Latin … the problem is not bothering to do it.

  30. In the the Pope quit, the curia is also out. The next pope will appoint his curia … hopefully he will have the intel done by BXVI to appoint an untainted curia.

    • An untainted Curia?

      The Curia is made up of men, not angels, and will thus include sinners and saintly types, the whole schmear. No one on this planet is untainted, but we can strive for greater holiness.

      • Mackz, you still don’t understand Catholicism; you in effect mock the Holy Spirit by claiming that Catholics should be led by men who are not holy, thus claiming that there is no need for a union between God and man for salvation. Your anti Catholic theology is both a belief in magic and a belief that Jesus is not relevant since man can get to Heaven without following Him.

      • Paleobotanist says:

        Good example is Cdl Mahony…

      • Mackz, many holy clerics have led the Church. Today there are none in the top positions. Not a single one of the papal hopefuls demonstrates any particular holiness … as I’ve said, they all seem to be “company men”, those who go along with the bureaucracy because they lead where followed.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Pope Benedict XVI’s last homily on Ash Wednesday includes a reflection on ‘the importance of witnessing to faith and Christian life, for each of us and our community, so that we can reveal the face of the Church and how this face is, at times, disfigured. I am thinking in particular of the sins against the unity of the Church, of the divisions in the body of the Church. Living Lent in a more intense and evident ecclesial commnion, overcoming individualism and rivalry is a humble and precious sign for those who have distanced themselves from the faith or who are indifferent.”

  32. Paleobotanist says:

    And one more thing…”Gaudium et Spes” is not a “dogma” of the Church…never was…for all those faithful, who do not understand what a “dogma” of the Church is…I suggest you look it up!…the information is readily available…Praised be Jesus Christ

  33. Paleo, don’t know why you keep trying to minimize the Ecumenical Council, but it IS the teaching of the Church which the faithful are to embrace.

    This is why, for example, the Lefebrve groupies are STILL in hot water: they refuse to obey Rome and accept all aspects of the Second Vatican Council, including the Decree of Religious Freedom. The Holy Father made it clear, over and over again, that they must assent to the teachings of Vatican II if they are to be considered fully obedient and a loyal part of the flock.

    The document Lumen Gentium states clearly:

    #18: “This sacred synod, following in the steps of the First Vatican Council, teaches and declares with it that Jesus Christ, the eternal pastor, set up the holy Church by entrusting the apostles with their mission as he himself had been sent by the Father (cf. Jn. 20:21). He willed that their successors, the bishops namely, should be the shepherds in his Church until the end of the world. In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided he put Peter at the head of the other apostles, and in him he set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and of communion. This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful, and, proceeding undeviatingly with this same undertaking, it proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of the apostles, who together with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the whole Church, direct the house of the living God.”

    • Paleobotanist says:

      If the Lefebvere groups are in “hot” water as you say… what kind of “hot” water must a Lutheran or Presbyterian be in?… I shudder to think…

  34. P.S. EVERY Ecumenical Council is believed by the faithful to be infallible, because it is led by the Holy Father and the Bishops of the world (hence the word “ecumenical,” meaning not just the Italians).

    If you don’t believe in the teaching of the Church’s Ecumenical Councils, you are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off base.

    • Paleobotanist says:

      Are you trying to convince me….or you Mackz?

    • The Church has always existed even with one after another councils, Mackz … the councils are not necessary. Jesus is necessary. The councils do not guarantee the Church or salvation; Jesus does this.

  35. It seems clear to me that those who diss the Ecumenical Councils of the Church, i.e., the Lefevbre groupies, are trying to sow discord among Catholics for their own ends.

    Fellay did this just recently in describing Jews as “enemies of the Church,” which brought a swift condemnation from the Holy See.

    For heaven’s sake, does Fellay think that Jesus, Mary and Joseph were Lutherans? From Belgium? They were Jews, God’s chosen people to spread the light.

    • Paleobotanist says:

      Most modernist Catholics have more appreciation and respect for the Lutherans than they do for the Society of St. Pius the X… go figure.

      • I totally agree Mackz that these folks from SSPX are sowing seeds of division and dissent. I must say that at times I detect the foul sulfuric odor of their acidic dissent and schism in some of the commenters who visit here.

        I will tell you something that I think frightens them. The more diocesan priests and seminarians learn the TLM (and they are learning), people hopefully will start dropping out from their chapels. I mean, why go to an illicit Mass by the SSPX and risk your soul, when the diocesan Church down the road is offering the TLM?

        They had a great chance under Pope Benedict to be reintegrated into the Church. They may have missed their boat!

        • Paleobotanist says:

          Not really, they can very easily be reconciled…they have to acknowledge the Pope and the Council of Vatican II and the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae…they have been given the TLM, and can say it solely, if they choose, without ever having to say the Novus Ordo…fact!

          • Wrong again Patanist. The SSPX’s hardness of heart, hubris, and contempt for the Novus Ordo and those who adhere to Vatican II will make it difficult for them to want to get reconciled. They had a strong chance in the last pontificate and they blew it. This is what happens when one dissents from the Magisterium of the Church: they turn into their own little world, cut off from the Vine.

        • They don’t believe what the Church teaches. At least they didn’t lie about it.

  36. Peblat, the “return” of the Tridentine Mass DOES NOT PROVE that Vatican II is infallible. Benedict himself had said that Vatican II never abrogated the TLM.

    In fact, if you were to read what Benedict wrote about the Council and particularly about the Novus Ordo compared to the TLM, Benedict is clearly impressed by the elegant simplicity of the Novus Ordo, in comparison with the TLM with its accretions of needless and accumulated gestures and rituals.

    • Paleobotanist says:

      LOL!… dream on… VCII was not dogmatic… you know it… I know it… Gaudium et Spes is not a “dogma” of the Church… you and I both know the truth of it Jon….

      • Sorry to have to tell you again Palot, but you’re wrong. Why this time? Because Gaudium et Spes definitely taught dogmas and doctrines. It may not have “defined” any new one, but there are definitely dogmas and doctrines in Gaudium et Spes, to which every Catholic must adhere.

      • Anonymous says:

        The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2nd edition cites Gaudium et Spes over 170 times. Here are some examples of the Catechism text that reference it:
        Christians believe that “the world has been established and kept in being by the Creator’s love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen to break the power of the evil one…” GS2
        “The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history” GS10
        “The Church… believes that the key, the center, and the purpose of the whole of man’s history is to be found in its Lord and Master.” GS 10, 45
        God created everything for man GS 12, 24,39
        “Man, enticed by freedom, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history.” GS 13
        Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus ‘the last enemy” of man left to be conquered. GS 18

        • Paleobotanist says:

          Gaudium et Spes are existing beliefs…only re-articulated for the 20th century man…nothing new was established…the theological content and and it’s meaning always existed…only clarified, and again, not a NEW dogma…it wasa pastoral Council, not dogmatic…

          • Patot you have just proven my point that you are wrong for saying that there are no dogmas in Vatican II.

    • Paleobotanist says:

      My point exactly Jon…that’s why it was not a “dogmatic” council…it was pastoral…

      • Maybe there was a misprint in jon’s pitch, and he meant to say Vat II was a “diplomatic” council instead of a “dogmatic” one.

    • Paleobotanist says:

      That’s because it was not a DOGMATIC council , but a PASTORAL council…the dogmas you and I discuss, are not “new”…they already existed, only clarified for the 20th century…furthermore, the council was not infallible either

      • Wrong Pletot! The dogmas and doctrines taught by Vatican II which pertain to faith and morals ARE infallible for the Holy Spirit guards the Magisterium on these matters.

  37. Pobot, If I could make it even simpler for you, because I believe you are confusing yourself:

    1) The Second Vatican Council DEFINITELY taught dogmas and doctrines.
    2) The Second Vatican Council did not define new dogmas.
    3) The Second Vatican Council nonetheless taught dogmas and doctrines that the Church has ALWAYS taught. ok?

    Therefore, to say that Vatican II is not infallible is not accurate. If we give way to your wrong assertions, that would mean that the dogmas in the Council which pertain to morals and faith are wrong, are fallible. And that is a BIG error! It’s tantamount to heresy, if not heresy itself. Ok?

    • Anonymous says:

      Infallibility has to do with the certainty of a Truth; it is a Truth that cannot be wrong. That does not mean that the teachings of the Church which are not declared infallible are wrong or even possibly wrong. It does not mean that Catholics have permission to disregard or disbelieve them. The Catechism is not infallible; however, it is sure. You can trust it. You are bound to accept and believe it.

  38. There are 16 total documents of Vatican II consisting of: 4 Dogmatic Constitutions; 3 Declarations; 9 Decrees.
    These can all be found on the Vatican web site. Within the Vatican web site search: ” Documents of the II Vatican Council “.
    (Note: When you go to this site containing the Documents, you will also find: “Catechism of the Catholic Church” which was completed only 20 years ago under Pope John Paul II.)

    Dogmatic Constitutions consist of:
    Dei Verbum: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation;
    Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church;
    Sacrosanctum Conscilium: Constitution on the Liturgy;
    Gaudium et Spes: Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.

    Declarations consist of:
    Gravissimum Educationis: On Christian Education;
    Nostra Aetate: Relation to non-Christian Religions;
    Dignitatis Humanae: Religious Freedom.

    Decrees consist of:
    Ad Gentes: Mission Activity of the Church;
    Presbyterorum Orinis: Ministry and Life of Priests;
    Apostolicam Autuositatem: Apostolate of the Laity;
    Optatam Totius: Priestly Training;
    Perfectae Caritatis: Renewal Religious Life;
    Christus Dominus: Pastoral Office of Bishops;
    Unitatis Redintegratio: Ecumenism;
    Orientatlium Ecclesiarum: Catholic Church Eastern Rite;
    Inter Mirifica: Media.

  39. Paleobotanist says:

    Gaudium et Spes is not dogmatic…and the Council was not dogmatic…in fact…Pope Paul the VI at the Council’s closure stated that it was not “dogmatic”…it was pastoral then…it is pastoral now…not “ONE” single article of faith came from VCII, that is “dogmatic” on “faith and morals”, that a Catholic must believe for salvation…fact…contact a canon lawyer, if you disbelieve this…

    • “ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium.
      I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II. (CCC pg 5)

      “….the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” – Pope John Paul II (CCC pg xiv)

      The CCC also incorporates the Church teaching from the II Vatican Council (even though the CCC was completed just over 20 years ago.)

      All Catholics are REQUIRED to adhere to all the teachings in the CCC.
      This is required for the Salvation of Catholics.
      Ignorance is not an excuse for the literate, because the CCC is so readily available in the USA.

      Canon lawyers are NOT the Magisterium of the Church.
      Theologians are NOT the Magisterium of the Church.
      Phd’s are NOT the Magisterium of the Church.

      CCC: ” 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. ”

      CCC: ” 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals.
      To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. “

  40. Paleobotanist says:

    Dogmatic constitutions, were reiterated at the Council…and were already existing beliefs for the faithful…merely clarified for the 20th century…no new existing “dogmas” were explained…I said “NEW”…and furthermore… the Council was not infallible and was not dogmatic…these were the words of Pope Paul the VI, at the Council’s closure…

    • Paleobotanist, I do not see anything in the closing statement of Pope Paul the VI where he says it is not infallible. I see something where he says it is authoritative in paragraph 16. It also says there that the council did not wish to make extraordinary doctrinal pronouncements. Have you misunderstood this? I see a lot of schismatic websites use this to say that Vatican II was not infallible. There is one schismatic website that is honest enough to say that it is infallible if you believe Pope Paul VI was a true Pope.

      • Sorry, my mistake. It is in the address of Pope Paul VI during the last general meeting (not the closing statement) and it says “But one thing must be noted here, namelyy, that the teaching autority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extroaordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative statement on a number of questions which today weigh upon men’s conscience and activity, descending ., so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force…”

      • Nothing new in the Council, k; thus, no point in having it.

        • I guess God did not see that it way.

          • k, what was the point in having VII? My guess is that you will not come up with one. At best, you’ll come up with some quote but you still will not know what the point was.

        • Of course there was point in having the Second Vatican Council! Skai, in this instance as in many others, I’d rather side with The Blessed John XXIII who saw the point of having the Council, rather than siding with you!

          • jon, he hoped there was a point, and now decades later “Peter” has thrown up his hands in disgust and walked away.

      • It is not infallible, k, because too many bishops disagree and too many have second thoughts on it. You will not find a Pope explicitly validating every point made in the documents. They can’t, because the Church is guaranteed by Jesus Christ.

  41. Paleobotanist says:

    In 1972…7 years after the close of VCII, his Holiness Pope Paul the VI proclaimed in a sermon, that “the smoke of satan has entered the Church”…what do you think he meant by this statement Jon?

  42. Paul VI’s words do not prove your point Pobot that Vatican II is fallible; it doesn’t prove that Vatican II is not dogmatic (for there are dogmas taught in it, albeit it didn’t define new ones); and Paul VI’s words do not prove that Vatican II is wrong.

    The documents of Vatican II, ALL OF THEM, are handed down by the Magisterium of that time (Paul VI and his bishops), and ARE TO BE ADHERED TO.

    • jon, “The documents of Vatican II, ALL OF THEM, are handed down by the Magisterium”: So, you’re implying that there was no point to having the VII council, none at all since all the documents were already in print?

      • Paleobotanist says:

        I tried to explain this to Jon…that’s why it was a pastoral council…he still doesn’t get it Skai…I don’t think he ever will

      • Dan Catholic says:

        Skai, I don’t think you’ll get a response from Jon about this particular comment either. It’s pedantic, incorrect, and out-of-touch with the whole point.

  43. Paleobotanist says:

    Jon…you have yet to answer my question regarding Cdl Mahony…and his “shuffling” of known pederast priest’s from one parish to another…”what would you call an Archbishop who commits this act Jon?…what would he be guilty of of?…

  44. Paleobotanist says:

    One point of clarification… I am not opposed to the VCII… nor ANY of its teachings… quite the contrary… if many people followed VCII, they would be far more traditional than is evidenced in may parishes, where modernism has become the norm…

  45. Paleobotanist says:

    I fully endorse VCII…I am a traditional Catholic, who has witnessed many abuses in the liturgy…things are changing

    • : )

      • There may be abuses in the Novus Ordo in some places, but that does not take away from its elegant simplicity compared to the TLM. Benedict’s words comparing the Novus Ordo with the TLM is very informative. Just listen to what he wrote:

        “Ritual rigidity [of the TLM], which almost obliterated the meaning of individual actions, had to be defrosted. The liturgy of the Word had to be restored: the proclamation of the Word of God once more had to call and speak to man. The dialogical nature of the whole liturgical celebration and its essence as the common service of the People of God had to be once more fully emphasized.”

        Compare the Novus Ordo to the TLM, the former is WAY MORE elegant in its simplicity and deliberate in its involvement of the People of God. And this elegant simplicity is due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit on the Fathers of Vatican II.

        The solution to your claim of “abuses” in the liturgy is to reclaim the Novus Ordo in accord to the true vision of the Council, and not necessarily to abandon it in favor of the TLM.

        • Dan Catholic says:

          Very Good comment Jon! Right on the dot correct and faithful to the Church!

        • Some problems of the OF Mass –

          Not kneeling to receive Our Lord Jesus Christ shows and teaches a lack of respect – when the Bible states from St. Paul –
          ” Philippians 2:10-11: “ At the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father . ”

          The activity and noise of shaking hands, some incorrectly holding hands or putting their arms in the air to mimic the Priest during the Lord’s prayer is – NOISE and DISTRACTION – from paying honor to God.
          The words of the Prayers in the OF Mass are not nearly as beautiful as the EF Mass. I challenge everyone to read them both so they can decide for themselves.
          It would have been better if the Latin Mass was merely changed to vernacular language.

          And sometimes the music in the OF Mass is not uplifting or inspiring at all.
          This Mass is too Protestant, but for the majority under age 45, it is all they know. Young families are starting to attend the EF (Latin) Mass when they find out the difference.

  46. Paleobotanist says:

    The Tridentine Mass is not only solemn, beautiful and edifying, it has produced a multitude of saints who worshiped in this modality, for hundreds of years, the litany is staggering…I can’t think of any abuses that have taken place, because of the celebration of the Tridentine mass… yet, since the close of VCII, sadly, the Novus Ordo Missae, has been replete with an unending amount of abuses and sacrileges and scandals, e.g. “clown masses”, “hippie masses” and the “diabolical liturgical dance”, which is forbidden worldwide, except for use in the “Zaire Rite”… since it’s inception, the Novus ordo, has been a source of many abuses…attempting to disparage the holiness of the Tridentine mass is sacrilege and gravely sinful…

  47. Dr. Carl Stoner says:

    Many abuses have come from the secularization of the liturgy. This has been an outgrowth of the modernism that has continued to burgeon in the Church, since the close of the Second Vatican Council

  48. False Cindy. Young families are not flocking to the TLM. Even in parishes where there has been the TLM for several years now, the attendance at the Novus Ordo Masses is WAY MORE!

    The TLM will never gain the popularity and the love of the people of the 21st century, and I am saying this as someone who goes to the TLM on occasion. How come it will never be as common and as popular?

    1) The Novus Ordo is more suited to the New Evangelization which John Paul and Benedict had called for.

    2) The Novus Ordo involves the active participation of the People of God.

    3) The Novus Ordo is authentically Catholic. There is nothing Protestant about it at all. Are you kidding??

    Remove the abuses and banality that has attached themselves to the celebration of the Novus Ordo in some locations, and you have a Mass that is truly reverent, solemn, prayerful. Reverting to the TLM is NOT the solution for the future.

    • Paleobotanist says:

      It’s WAY more Jon… because WAY more Novus Ordo masses are said! At my parish the TLM is always full to overflow, with seats outside of the church, to welcome parishioners who can’t gain access inside, because the church is full!

    • jon, the TLMs I’ve attended have vastly more young people, and yes they are overwhelming the old people. One of the problems with the TLM is that some of the people are fresh outta the OF tradition and have never learned how to keep their kids quiet or in their seats … it is distracting, and so much so that sometimes the priest cannot be heard even with amplification.

      • “Vastly”? I believe you exaggerate. Young people are not “vastly” found in the TLM. There are may be young people there, but they are not “vast.”

        • jon, “vast
          vast: listen to American pronunciation/væst/ adj [-er/-est only]
          › extremely large:

          The vast majority of our students – nearly 90 percent – graduate within four years.” (Cambridge Dictionary Online … American English)

          • jon, more than 90% of the congregations I find at TLM is young people, teeming with children. “teeming”:


            Topic Areas

            teeming: listen to British English pronunciationteeming: listen to American pronunciation /ˈtiːmɪŋ/ adjective
            › full of people: ” (Cambridge Dictionary, Learner’s English)

        • OK, jon, then the TLM is vastly found among the young.

    • The novus ordo, jon, was constructed by Protestant clergy and signed off on by the Pope, who thought it was going to be continued in Latin and not vulgar languages.

  49. The reason that a few younger folks appreciate the TLM is because of the Novus Ordo which has ingrained in the soul of Catholics after Vatican II the ESSENTIAL PARTS AND ELEMENTS of the Mass!

    Those of you who are all too willing to throw away the Novus Ordro for the TLM, remember that it is because of the simplicity and elegance of the Novus Ordo—and HAVING POST-VAT2 CATHOLICS EXPERIENCE IT—that Catholics of today know what the parts of the Mass are! Having thus known it, they can follow and appreciate the TLM.

    Therefore, without the Novus Ordo, no contemporary Catholic would be even drawn to appreciate the TLM. I don’t think pre-Vatican II Catholics ACTUALLY KNEW what was going on at the TLM. For my grand parents’ generation, that Mass was “the priest doing his own thing, while we do our own devotional prayers in the pews!” It was the Novus Ordo that made the Mass accessible.

    We have much to be thankful for the Novus Ordo, for it has instilled in Catholics for the last 40 days what the structure of the Mass is!

    The call is to restore the Novus Ordo to its elegant simplicity eliminating any banality. The solution is not to run backwards to the TLM.

  50. that should read “40 years” in my last comment.

  51. Paleobotanist says:

    Man…Jon you sure do have a lot of contempt for the TLM…methinks you protest to strongly….

  52. If I have contempt for the TLM, I would not have been attending it on a regular basis. That suitably shoots down your presumption.

    However, I detect in the comments above such as Cindy’s, Stoner’s, and yours a disdain for the Novus Ordo.

  53. Dr. Carl Stoner says:

    Jon…you are the only one showing contempt and hostility toward your fellow Catholic’s, but also the majesty of the Tridentine Mass.

  54. The Rose says:

    Great comments jon. I disagree wholeheartedly with Carl. There is no contempt in any of your words, jon.

    As someone who also goes to the Traditional Mass, I also believe like you that the solution for the future is not necessarily to “run back” to the TLM, but to “reclaim” the Novus Ordo from liturgical misuse.

    I also attend the Ordinary Form, and I agree that it is far simpler, more elegant, and majestic IF celebrated correctly.

  55. Paleobotanist says:

    I completely agree with Dr. Stoner…I have read all these post’s and Jon was indeed contemptuous…

  56. Marshall the Motocross Guy says:

    I have read all of these insightful post’s and must agree that Paleobotanist is spot on as usual on matters of faith and morals!

  57. Carl, Paleobotanist, and Skai have gotten wrong totally what jon’s point and sentiments are. An objective reading of all of what jon has said shows no contempt for the Extraordinary Form.

    Instead, his contempt is targeted against those who are using the abuses made in the celebration of the Ordinary Form as a means to put down Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.

    For example, I see this contempt in Carl Stoner’s accusation of the “modernism” and “secularism” of the Ordinary Form.

    Carl Stoner, why don’t you just say that there are liturgical abuses in the celebration of the Ordinary Form in some parishes, instead of hurling an accusation that it is plagued with heresy? I indeed find this sentiment contemptuous of the Second Vatican Council.

  58. Dan Catholic says:

    I believe what is really upsetting Paleobotanist, Carl Stoner, Skai and the rest is that Jon is entirely correct. The way to move forward is to purify and cleanse the Ordinary Form, not to abandon it and flee to the TLM.

    I also believe that Stoner, Paleobotanist, and Skai have read Pope Benedict’s words about the Council and about the Ordinary Form as being a great improvement on the Extraordinary Form, and that irks them.
    The truth will always annoy and rock us from our misconceived notions.

    Great work Jon, as usual.

  59. Thank you Rose, Dan, and Helen. You good people saw right through Stoner’s, Skai’s, Pobo’s, and Marshall’s (where do they get these names; sounds like just one person to me).

    Anyway, here’s more of what Benedict as Cardinal Ratizinger said about the Novus Ordo compared with the TLM:

    “We should first mention the return [in the Novus Ordo] to Christian origins and the pruning of certain accretions often enough concealing the original liturgical nucleus. The priority of the Sunday liturgy over saints’ days had to be restored because of the connection between Sunday and Easter. Mystery had to be restored to priority over devotion, and simple structure had to replace the RAMPANT OVERGROWTH OF FORMS.” —Cardinal Ratzinger.

    • Paleobotanist says:

      I was thinking the same thing with your cheering section Jon…many names, but ONE blogger…

      • One person using multiple names can easily be detected by looking at his IP address. Head’s up to you.

        • Any credit is not mine, Paleo … but I do see a certain smile at times when I say good stuff. And this makes me wonder if there is a cheshire cat in the air somewhere (Mackz, howz that for poetry?).

    • jon, it is one person; it is Jesus.

      • Jesus Christ speaks through the Magisterium of the Church. And the Magisterium 40 years ago spoke through the Second Vatican Council.

        • jon, the magisterium speaks???

        • Abeca Christian says:

          jon your comments from March 7, 2013 at 9:30 am can come off as heretical……God help us.

          • No it cannot “come off” as heretical. Educate yourself please. Yes, the Magisterium speaks, in the person of the Pontiff and his bishops. And Christ continues to teach His Church through them, the successors to the Apostles.

            If you think THAT is heresy, you really need to educate yourself on the BASICS of the Catholic faith. God help you.

      • Paleobotanist says:

        beautifully articulated skai…

        • Paleo, I get this line of reasoning from reading much of the work of Bl John Paul II. I believe that he has set the stage for the Church’s spiritual warfare for decades or centuries to come. He was more of a knower than an applier, more of a scientist than an engineer, more a philosopher than a manager. But sadly most of the bishops really do not have the grasp of what he presented. They don’t get it. Some do, many clergy do, countless laity do get it. The deadwood is being thrown out but it won’t happen over night. Most of the cardinals and bishops are blocking the way of the faithful who strive to reach the side of Christ. They will eventually disappear into the dustbins of history and faithful men will gradually replace these old anachronisms. It is not youth vs age, but faith vs the world, the flesh and the devil which have been taken as idols by these dull spirited bishops.

    • jon, too bad it didn’t work, and caused the Pope such anguish that he quit.

      • Paleobotanist says:

        I believe these scandals have caused massive heartbreak for the holy father in Rome…Pope Benedict the XVI…a wonderful, holy and astute man…his heart must “bleed sorrow” for all that has transpired….

  60. What a bunch of bull-hockey from people who want to claim that Vatican II was “all bad.”

    First, it’s heresy.

    Second, it’s incorrect.

    Third, it’s annoying.

    Ours is a hierarchical Church, and when the Church convenes for a Solemn Ecumenical Council, such as the Second Vatican Council, it must be respected and accepted by the faithful.

    If you don’t want a hierarchical Church, become a Congregationalist or something, and spout whatever you want.

    The Holy Father calls the Successors to the Apostles (our Bishops) together for such a council, and what it says sticks. Period. Even when grouchy people like the SSPX guys want to reject it because it doesn’t blame the Jews for the death of Jesus, or whatever they’ve got their noses out of joint about.

    • Mackz, VII was not all bad, as it led me to the whole Church.

    • Mackz, if the VII criticism is “annoying”, then why don’t you VII hordes end the institutions of abortion and sodomy and episcopal corruption, thus ending the source of your annoyance?

      • Oh, Skai, I’ve tried to end this messes, but no one listens to me.

        • Mackz, it’s not that they don’t listen to you, but it’s that what you say does not offer any means of ending the messes. Try saying the text of Canon 915.

  61. Paleobotanist says:

    It’s funny…never do I hear of abuses connected to the TLM…only with the Novus Ordo, and the rampant abuses, e.g. “diabolical liturgical dance”, clown masses, hippie masses, guitar masses, puppet masses, and of course the irreverence that happens during the liturgy…i-phone usage with kids, clapping, laughing, gum chewing, cross-talk, and immodest dress…sadly only do these abuses happen at the Novus Ordo missae, (which I attend reverently), yet never have these behavior or abuses taken place during the TLM…just something to reflect on…

    • Anonymous says:

      Are you old enough to remember…when Mass was a fashion show? When people ran each other down to get out of Mass? When mothers dug their finger nails into their kids arms to keep them quiet at Mass? It is not the Form of the Mass that is responsible for the abuses.

      • Paleobotanist says:

        Yeah…I have witnessed women scantily clad at the Novus Ordo missae…men ogling them and young women, dressing scandalously, because their 45 year old mother is doing likewise! You mean that fashion show?…have you witnessed any of this behavior?…I have yet to witness anything this shocking and shameful, EVER at the TLM!

        • It seems to me Pabot that it is you in fact who perhaps harbor contempt for the faithful who attend Mass. This is evident in how you have just described your fellow Catholics.

          It may be true that some folks have forgotten how to conduct themselves at Mass, but is that really a reason to abandon the Novus Ordo and belittle the Second Vatican Council? I Think Not!

  62. Abuses seem to correlate either with individuals or with parish councils, depending on whether the setting is TLM or novus ordo. The explanation is simple: The TLM connects the individual with God, whereas the novus ordo connects the idea of a group with God.

    • Paleobotanist says:

      The TLM is continuing to edify and spiritually nurture parishioners in this country and throughout the world…a groundswell of clamoring parishioners ardently await weekly at my parish in anticipation of the TLM…Praise be Jesus Christ

      • “a groundswell of clamoring parishioners ardently await weekly at my parish in anticipation of the TLM…”

        Oh, my, Mr. Paleo — you really should tell your fellow worshipers to stop clamoring in church. It sounds most irreverent.

        You, however, have definitie talents as a poet.

        • Mackz, it swells the ground, much as in the Psalms where the whole earth shall make a joyful sound unto the Lord.

  63. Pabot and Skai, honestly, your repeated tales of how objectionable people dress and conduct themselves during Mass DOES NOT prove your point that there is something inherently wrong with the Novus Ordo.

    • You are right jon, the problem is with some of the Priests of the Novus Ordo, and their Diocese Bishops who let abuses take place at Mass.
      The Pastor is in charge of the Parish, and the Bishop is in charge of the Priest.
      It is their job to adhere to the General instruction of the Roman Missal, third edition,
      and their job to do what they must to get people to act and dress accordingly.
      No Priest may make ANY changes to the rubrics of the Novus Ordo (OF Mass). If they do, report them to the Diocese Bishop.
      There are no exceptions in the USA.

      No Priest may make ANY changes to the TLM (EF Mass). If they do, report him to the Bishop.
      All TLM Masses must adhere to the 1962 Roman Missal.

      • PAT, the rules of the novus ordo are such as to let the smoke out of the Church … hasn’t happened overnight, but it’s happening.

      • Your point PAT deflects the main point of my comment, to which you are responding! My main point in this comment being the behavior of the LAITY!

        The laity must also adhere to expected norms of proper behavior and dress when they worship God at Mass. Everybody must meet certain expectations, not just the clergy!

        • Paleobotanist says:

          I have never seen “dress” being an issue at my parish, during the TLM…very seldom at the Novus Ordo either…in our parish, we have a sign on the outside and inside of the Church, which states clearly what the “dress code” is, along with prohibitions, e.g., no gum chewing, no talking, turn off cell phones and pagers, and maybe one or two others, which evade me at present…you get my point…

          • Again, the behavior of the people does not prove that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is less preferable than the TLM. IT DOES NOT!

    • jon, we are to put on the armor of God, as St Paul says. Why don’t you try to describe it for us?

  64. Mr. Hodges says:

    I agree with Skai and Palebot. These abuses are well known and easily identifiable. Almost any Novus Ordo missae one attends, will likely have parishioners behaving in an irreverent and often bored manner…

  65. Here are more words from Benedict comparing the Novus Ordo and the TLM. Note how inadequate he found the TLM which opened Vatican II.

    “Did it make sense for 2,500 bishops, not to mention the other faithful there, to be relegated to the role of mere spectators at a ceremoney in which only the celebrants and the Sistine Choir had a voice?

    “Was not the fact that the active participation of those present was not required symptomatic of a wrong that needed remedy?

    “And why did the Credo have to be repeated after Mass, when the Mass itself contains a profession of faith?

    “What was the need for an ornate additional liturgy of the Word, when the Mass itself contained appropriate epistle and gospel messages?

    “”Why were long litanies sung outside the Mass, when the liturgy of the Mass itself provided for the insertion of suitable intercessory prayers?

    “Two distinct liturgies had over the years been unrelatedly juxtaposed, painfully revealing the dangerous archaism which had come to enshroud the Mass since Trent, so that the real meaning of its various parts was no longer intelligible.

    “People no longer realized that the enthronement of the gospel, the profession of faith and intercessory prayers were actually contained in the Mass itself.”

    Folks, we have much to thank Vatican II for giving us the Novus Ordo which made Mass accessible to all Catholics!

    Hail the Year of Faith!
    Hail the 50th Anniversary of the Opening of the Second Vatican Council! And praise Almighty God for moving the Conciliar Fathers through the guidance of the Holy Spirit!

    • Nothing in this alleged quote makes any sense, jon. In fact the style is stilted, and the content is packed with error, as countless people find all the content that this alleged quote says does not exist or is confused. I’d guess it is either a bad translation or written by someone else. I’ve read Pope Benedict’s writings and this one does not match up.

      • On the contrary, the quoted text above is from Joseph Ratzinger’s “Theological Highlights of Vatican II,” first published in 1966 by Paulist Press, and republished by the same publisher in 2009. The above quote is found in page 21. It bears “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur.”

        As usual Skai, the truth will always unsettle you in your error.

  66. Paleobotanist says:

    Looked all night for it…just doesn’t seem to exist…in this particular form…Jon, from what source did you extrapolate this information?

  67. Paleobotanist says:

    Pope Benedict XVI “HAS NEVER” disparaged the TLM…to imply this is obvious prevarication…and gravely sinful!

  68. On the contrary Pebot, Benedict has never disparaged the TLM.

    Rather, he has expressed through the words I quoted the NEED for liturgical reform, hence precisely a need for the Council.

    This is because, as he wrote above, of “the dangerous archaism which had come to enshroud the Mass since Trent.”

    • jon, notice it’s the shroud over the Mass of Trent, and not the Mass of Trent that the Pope addressed? That is why I call for the Vatican to be disestablished; for, it seems like that archaic shroud, the whited wall filled with dead men’s bones spoken of by Jesus and St Paul.

      • Paleobotanist says:

        Beautiful point Skai…

      • Skai, please. The existence of the Vatican City-State is reliant upon the Lateran Treaty between the Republic of Italy and the Holy See, not on any “shroud” you’re talking about. Skai, frankly, your arguments are becoming odder and odder.

  69. Paleobotanist says:

    Jon’s logic would dictate that Pope Benedict the XVI disliked the TLM “soooo” much, that he brought it back for “ALL” the faithful…because “nostalgia” seemed to be lacking in the “Church Militant”, and to appease a “handful” of those nostalgic parishioners…nothing could be further from the “truth”…when I attend the TLM at my parish (though I don’t do it weekly), it is always full to overflow…so much so, that additional seats are outside the parish door, for those faithful, wishing to participate in the solemnity of the holy mass…

    • Pope BXVI says in his book that he likes the TLM more than the novus ordo, and expects that the novus ordo will eventually be improved, and amended of its shortcomings.

      • So Skai, if Benedict prefers the TLM more than the Novus Ordo, how come he NEVER celebrated the TLM in public during his pontificate?

        • How do you know he never said the TLM in public, jon? Also, explain how that, if factual, proves your point. He explains it in his book, so go read it.

          • The fact that Benedict NEVER celebrated the TLM in public casts doubt on YOUR point that he “likes the TLM more than the novus ordo,” This point of yours is not only silly, but ridiculous. That the Pope would “prefer” one Form of the Mass than the other? Ludicrous!

  70. Paleobotanist says:

    What constitutes “active participation”?…I don’t need to be actively involved “physically” throughout the liturgy…this for me is a time of reflection and meditation on the Gospel and the sermon…how “active” does one need to be?….

  71. Paleobotanist says:

    Obviously the Holy Spirit was…guiding the Church, when the TLM was given to the faithful…for “all-time”…and the Novus Ordo missae as well… the Novus ordo I attend is reverent… communion is given at the altar rail, and we have “NO” Eucharistic Minister’s, only the Priest gives provides Communion, and it is given only under the species of “bread” to the faithful, only the priest drinks from the Chalice…also, we have a beautiful choir and pipe organ, and only reverent, soul-stirring Catholic hymns are sung…no guitars, drums, synthesizers, harmonicas,et al… worshiping at my parish, is unlike “ANY” other Novus ordo liturgy I have attended, except at San Fernando Mission, which is almost a “mirror” of the reverent Novus ordo that is celebrated at my parish…

  72. Paleobotanist says:

    Calling the TLM “inadequate” is sacrilegious Jon…the TLM is celebrated validly and for spiritual enrichment providing the sacrament of Holy Communion”, to the faithful…it exists… is a reality… and many people, myself included love the solemnity of this rite…you seem to have nothing but contempt and disdain for the TLM…why Jon?

  73. Pabot, it has clearly unsettled you to realize that Benedict wrote this way about the TLM! The truth will always unsettle you in your mistaken notions!

    I do not have to answer for Benedict. Nor do I have to answer to you.

    However, all I can say to you is that I wholeheartedly agree with Benedict especially on his sentiment evident in his words of the INADEQUACY of the TLM in its lack of a call to the people to actively participate in the Divine Liturgy! Otherwise, why else reform the liturgy? Eh?

    And the Fathers of Vatican II, as they all celebrated the Opening Liturgy using the TLM immediately saw that inadequacy—that is, they all saw the NEED FOR REFORM in order to invite the active participation of Catholic and to show more vividly the parts of the Mass!

    Praise God for the Second Vatican Council!
    Praise God for the Novus Ordo!
    Praise God for the Year Of Faith!
    And God bless Benedict XVI!

    • Paleobotanist says:

      Unsettled me?…it obviously didn’t upset Pope Benedict XVI enough not to bring it back, where “all parishioners” can become edified through the graces of this “sacred rite” …in fact I have the “1962 missal”, with the Popes nihil obstat and imprimatur in it, which I purchased in Rome… quite the contrary, I enjoy attending the TLM at my parish, and the parishioner’s are attending in overflow number’s…that’s the work of the Holy Spirit Jon…guiding the faithful to the sacraments…

    • Paleobotanist says:

      reform, yes… but it has returned…and more and more people are attending…in overflow number’s Jon…somebody is finding the graces of the TLM efficacious enough to attend regularly…Praised be Jesus Christ

  74. Here are more words from Benedict describing excited emotions of the Fathers of the Council, being almost thwarted by the ceremony which welcomed the opening of the Council. Note carefully what he says about the ceremony:

    “Yet there was a certain feeling of exhilaration at the opening of the Council in Rome, the mysterious sense of new beginning that has a way of stirring man and propelling him forward….

    “The diversity of tongues…the prospect of rich new encounters, the promise of what was coming—all this made one forget for the moment the secret anxieties he had, so to speak stuffed in his luggage when he left for the Council.

    “This strange ambivalence of feeling was there at the opening ceremonies in St. Peter’s. The mighty basilica, the grandeur of the ancient liturgy, the colorful diversity of the visitors from all over the world—all this was magnificently impressive.

    “YET there was, on the other hand, an undeniable uneasiness, whose most obvious symptom was annoyance with the endlessly long ceremonies.

    “This was surely no objective criterion, but it did reveal something DEEPER: namely, that the opening liturgy DID NOT REALLY INVOLVE ALL WHO WERE PRESENT, and it had little inner coherence.” (Emphasis mine)

    As valuable as the TLM is, and I attend it regularly, it eventually gave way to the Ordinary Form which has taken its rightful place in the life of the Church.

    • Paleobotanist says:

      I can think of over 100 canonized saints Jon, who found the TLM not only coherent, but the conduit to their salvation…

      • This statement, Pabot, is a red-herring. Who said that the devotion to the TLM produced no saints? No one, least of all me.

        However, you should also remember that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is presently producing saints!

  75. Paleobotanist says:

    The Holy Spirit is working Jon…in the TLM …for all-time…all those who say otherwise are speaking a grave sacriliege…

  76. Paleobotanist says:

    “Summorum Pontificum” 2007…you need to read it Jon…the Pope states that he wants “ALL” parishes to offer the TLM for all parishioners, who wish to worship by attending the TLM, to be side by side with the Novus Ordo liturgy…you can google it Jon..the Pope refers to the TLM as a spiritual “treasure”…he said… “what generations held as sacred, remain’s sacred”…Praised be Jesus Christ forever

  77. jon, why have you not yet used the term, “the reform of the reform”?

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 250 words, and should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Post your comment

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 250 words, and should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.