After posting on this site for a while, I have seen that there appear to be two main camps. Traditionalists and Liberals with a scattering of middle of the roaders thrown in as well as a few from outside the Roman Rite. The question that I am going to pose may cause some agitation but it is not meant to be divisive. Before anyone answers, I want them to think hard about their answer. I am just interested in seeing what people really think, feel and believe. This is kind of like AA; without complete honesty it will not work, so please be honest. Thanks HYPOTHETICAL
At a uncertain date, Pope Benedict makes a proclamation in which he totally rejects the Vatican 2 Council and all of its teachings, decisions and changes. In one fell swoop, the changes of the last 40 years are to be undone in an effort to get the Church back on track. No more receiving in the hand, no more laity receiving the chalice, no more extraordinary minister, lectors, female altar servers. The mass would return to the traditional mass. Nuns would be required to return to the habit, prayers would be returned to the pre-vatican 2 models, ecumenical dialogue stopped or curtailed, charismatic, healing and bilingual masses scrapped , debunked saints returned holy and feast days resumed, tradeitional litugy returned etc etc etc.
This was tough as worded because I think that if the Pope were to reject the TEACHINGS (as opposed to the PRACTICES of Vatican II) that it would mean the Pope was in schism. Because of that I said I would join an opposing group of Catholics. But I would never join a schismatic group.
Now if you meant the Pope just rolled back the practices (name removed by moderator)lemented since Vatican II I would be disappointed about some of them but I would obediently submit.
What about all the priests ordained in the past 30 years who don’t know one word of Latin? Would they be barred from saying Mass until they learned?
This would be a logistical and practical nightmare. While I might applaud the Pope’s action in general, I would definitely question his prudence. Besides, the Pope’s not a dictator. He has to act in concert with his brother bishops.
Having lived through the changes that came after Vatican 2, I would guess that I would live through the changes that you propose.
The thing that amuses the daylights out of me is how small the group is that is so vociferous about the changes, and how loudly they speak. And by that, I mean the changes that have actually been approved; I am not speaking of the self anointed license that some seem to feel they have.
Hmmm.
Nuns’ habits were never abrogated, according to the documents of Vatican II.
Latin was never removed entirely from the Mass, according to the documents of Vatican II.
Female altar servers, extraordinary ministers of the eucharist, female lectors, were never addressed specifically in the documents of Vatican II. Communion in the hand, changing holy days, and meat eating on non-lenten Fridays were requested specifically by bishops in the U.S., for example.
It looks as if Pope Benedict, in “changing” the things the OP listed, would not be changing the documents, or the teachings, of Vatican II AT ALL. . .unless it is “changing” what is going on in those matters to what the participants in Vatican II (as opposed to individual priests, nuns, laity or bishops) WANTED.
What about all the priests ordained in the past 30 years who don’t know one word of Latin? Would they be barred from saying Mass until they learned?
This would be a logistical and practical nightmare.
It goes beyond that , few altar servers know Latin either. Even those priests who remembered their Latin would have to say low masses solo until the rest of the liturgical entourage, including the choirs, got up to snuff on the Latin and the rules.
Knowing Latin is only half of it, the rules for saying the old Latin mass were quite detailed.
It would, needless to say, be interesting how such a scenario would work out, although I suspect that the leading bishops would not be happy to try and carry this out, and this pope’s reign would end much the same as Celestine V.
HYPOTHETICAL
At a uncertain date, Pope Benedict makes a proclamation in which he totally rejects the Vatican 2 Council and all of its teachings, decisions and changes. In one fell swoop, the changes of the last 40 years are to be undone in an effort to get the Church back on track. No more receiving in the hand, no more laity receiving the chalice, no more extraordinary minister, lectors, female altar servers. The mass would return to the traditional mass. Nuns would be required to return to the habit, prayers would be returned to the pre-vatican 2 models, ecumenical dialogue stopped or curtailed, charismatic, healing and bilingual masses scrapped , debunked saints returned holy and feast days resumed, tradeitional litugy returned etc etc etc.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
I would be in Heaven! I pray for that every day. I am not a schismatic, and accept through obedience the practise of the day, but I long for the Mass of the first two millenia of the Church. No other Mass can satisfy me in that manner.
he totally rejects the Vatican 2 Council and all of its teachings, decisions and changes. In one fell swoop, the changes of the last 40 years are to be undone in an effort to get the Church back on track
I don’t know if you are trying to imply the Pope hypothetically rejects actual teachings mentioned in the documents of Vatican 2, like stuff about Mary. I’m going to assume you don’t mean that, and are instead talking about a change in the liturgy and practices to before Vat2. I have no problem with that.
I would probably rejoin the choir and sing my heart out. (I assume they had choirs before Vat2…I’m a convert). If I were sick, I would miss receiving communion daily in the hospital, but that’s just life. There are several other things, but these are the first two that come to mind.
Actually, it is impossible for the Pope to do that because if you take a look at the Documents of Vat II there is the DOGMATIC Constitution on the Church. To do away with all of VAT II would be rejecting a Dogmatic Teaching of the Church, which would make the Pope a heretic and therefore could be removed from his ministry.
I didn’t vote because of the enormous logical flaw in the question even as a “hypothetical” one. One could just as easily ask, “What if Pope Benedict XVI decreed that he was now a Bavarian brown bear, and that from now on he would eat only honey and berries, and his hibernation would be a new liturgical season?” The Pope can eat what he wants, sleep as long as he likes, and even change the liturgical seasons of the Church, but he cannot go from homo sapiens to ursus arctos. Likewise the Pope can change any disciplines of the Church, but he cannot throw out Vatican II doctrines, even “hypothetically.”
This kind of radical change in the church would be welcome to me, I ain’t a lector or eucharistic minister, and I look fondly on the days long past where the priest said mass and the people were only expected to pray, pay and obey.
The quietude of the old mass is something I’d appreciate, it gave the people then and would give them now an opportunity to involve themselves in their devotions and provide some time off from our noisy schedules.
But these kinds of radical changes would alienate a large number of Catholics, just as the previous changes to the current liturgical sequence, alienate a lot of that generation. Many folks, many of them dead by now, never went back after hearing the novus ordo mass, it was just so different to them they felt like fish out of water.
I would hope that the pope wouldn’t make such a move, I don’t think he will, and I don’t think a plan to actually implement such a change is feasible at this time.
Bet you’ll see more young than 50-ish people.
The young are the orthodox and the 50’s are the Kumbaya Catholics.
Of course there are exceptions in both groups but this is the trend I see in my area.
depends on practices or the actual documents, some of the implementation of Vat II has been very poor.
but to say that Vat II, being an ecunemical council and hence infallible, could be so to speak revoked, even by a “infallible” papal statement is :bigyikes: :whacky: :bigyikes:
Possibly, but would he? There are many, not me, who use the same or similar arguments to say the Vatican is in heresy and schism now as a result of Vatican II.
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.
