Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: ... on Vatican II

Saturday, January 19, 2019

I: 1:30 "it said there should be less statues in a church, and yet some places never reading this just removed all statues."

What sense is there in having LESS statues in a church?

If a certain church is cluttered, it is for the priest to give away one or two to another church, not for the council to teleguide the decision.

That ALL churches were cluttered is nonsense.

Now, beyond the strictly local question of a church being cluttered, what can we say about having "less statues"?

If statues are licit, it makes no sense, then keep all, except when a church is cluttered and needs to give away to another church.

If statues are illicit, it makes no sense either, then it doesn't make sense to belong to a Catholicism which has endorsed statues for so long.
II: 2:26 "look at the documents and look at the footnotes in this constant reference to"

I presume, previous teaching.

Are all footnotes apt?

I mean, are all references to previous teaching apt to the footnoted place in the text of the Vatican II document footnoting it?

Does the referenced text never actually contradict the footnoting and referencing text?
III: 3:55 "hidden penances"

Any person is free to do as many as he likes ... the Church is NOT free to draft laymen to do extra such against their will, like in forcing a writer critical of Vatican II Sect to stay unpublished and homeless so the criticism can be shut down.