A couple of thoughts on Vatican II

[IHeartAquinas]

…from someone born twenty-some years after.

I was born into an Irish family (I say Irish because even though I’m seventh generation in America, my family’s geneology is 100% Irish back to the day they all stepped off the boat) that attended a Parish with a strong Irish-Catholic heritage. So strong, in fact, that a foreign-exchange student from Ireland commented that our music for the Gloria and Alleluia were the same as hers back in Donegal. The deacon was an Italian immigrant and the priest was probably close to ninety years old and still filled with the energy of a man fresh from seminary (though to my eyes at the time as a child, he looked positively ancient). It was this combination of Europe, continuous heritage, and age that instilled in me very early a very traditional sense of mystery surrounding the Church, the Eucharist, and Catholicism in general. Then, I became a teenager.

Between 16 and 21 I probably attended Mass twice. Over the past couple of years (I’m to turn 23 in September) I have begun attending Mass much more regularly, reading books on theology and apologetics, and studying my faith in ways I never thought I would when I was younger. Yet, the parish I attend now that I’m out of my parents’ house does not instill in me the same sense of mystery I once held. My faith has reinvigorated the sense of majestic mystery (and mysterious majesty!) I once held, but the Cathedral which I attend has a much less well-defined heritage than the little parish church I grew up in, and the varied customs in regard to masticating the host, crossing yourself throughout the Mass, and holding/not holding hands during the Our Father (I prefer not to), and kneeling until the tabernacle is closed versus kneeling until the priest gets tired and sits down early makes it seem as though the catechesis here is in an abysmal state of cardiac arrest.

Though I do not usually ascribe the title “Traditional Catholic” to myself, I find myself with greater and greater respect for the Traditionalists who are much more critical of Vatican II than those who applaud it for all its myriad “advances.” I will enumerate my own biggest criticisms below, but I want to assure anyone reading this that I do not intend to offend if I inadvertently misrepresent the Traditional stand, as it is not my intent. I am more interested in seeing if people agree with me and if not, why not.

1. The Sacred Language of the Mass: Vatican II truncated the use of the sacred language. Joseph Campbell in The Power of Myth talks about the use of sacred language in all ancient cultures and all religions predating the modern world, except post-Vatican II Catholicism. He describes the use of sacred language as an integral part of the experience of the sacred, not just the viewing of it. In Buddhism and Hinduism, repetitive chanting that borders on sub-audial droning (I actually really do enjoy listening to Buddhist mantras from time to time) creates a psychological change in the brainwaves of those hearing the mantras, let alone those participating in them. The use of ancient Hebrew in Judaism and old Arabic in Islam maintains a cultural continuity with the religious culture’s past that not only reinforces the monumental sense of history the congregation has, it also provides a written record that cannot be accused of falsification in translation–a problem the USCCB is currently dealing with in regards to the English translation of the Mass. Secondly, the discontinuation of the sacred language destroys the universal access one has to the Mass. If I had a Latin Missal in 1949, I could travel to France, Russia, China, Brazil, or anywhere in the world and attend Mass and be able to understand what was happening in the liturgy (I might not understand the homily, but the liturgy is of course the most important part). Now this is impossible unless I know the local language. My access to the Mass has been deeply impacted, and considering the slight variations in the Mass structure between here and a parish fifty miles away, I can only imagine what I would have to acclimatize myself to if I were to go to Russia and seek to attend Mass.
2. The movement of the Tabernacle: When the Tabernacle was the focal point of the altar, and the altar was in such a position that even the Priest was facing it, the focus of the Mass was understood. The personage of Christ being present in that space, and the sacred majesty of that space, was understood. The entire congregation could direct its prayers and intentions to the one place where the connection between the earthly and divine was most manifest. Growing up, my parents’ parish had maintained the old altar and maintained the Tabernacle’s housing there while constructing a new altar in front of it. I had a visual reference with which to focus so that my mind did not wander while I was praying.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

(continued)

The Cathedral I attend, by contrast, has created a separate devotional space in the west wing of the Cathedral. What bothers me most is that in my old parish, if a priest inadvertently sat down before the Tabernacle was closed, the congregation (save a few visitors) would remain kneeling until it was closed. Now, the Cathedral’s congregation uses the priest as their visual guide. We had a visiting priest once that was clearly in ill health and could not stand for very long (several times during the preparation of the Eucharist, he had to brace himself against the altar) and did sit almost immediately after communion was over, leaving the cleaning up to the extraordinary ministers. Almost the entire congregation sat down. I had to contain my indignation for fear of spiritual pride, but to be raised to treat the Eucharist with such respect, such devotion, and such mystery and majesty and then to see an entire congregation regard it as merely bread not to be troubled about, I became indignant to the point of actual anger. I did call the parish office later that week to express my displeasure, but unfortunately was out of town the following Sunday so I never did find out if the resident priest addressed the situation (I did find out that I was not the only one expressing displeasure).

1. Bishops’ and Priests’ negligence and ambivalence about Church law: I have read dozens of stories on these boards concerning Priests and Bishops that are rather ignorant if not negligent in their knowledge of Church Law. People genuinely and rightly concerned about the validity of their marriage, baptism, etc. or even just the state of their immortal soul turn to the only people they trust to be able to answer their questions and they are told “not to worry about it.” WHAT!? Most of these ordained men hold advanced degrees in theology and canon law. Pairing the two, they should understand and be sympathetic to the concern these people have. Especially concerning the validity of a sacrament such as baptism, a Priest who disregards a baptism that could truly be invalid will incur mortal sin by continuing to administer the Eucharist to the person in question who will also be incurring sin because their confessions have all been invalid. And a Priest will tell them not to worry about it? I do not doubt that such Priests existed before Vatican II, but I refuse to believe that it was as widespread a problem. The rigors of the Church’s training and the insistence on examining one’s immortal soul far outstripped the same training and the same self-examination we have today. The mystery of the Church has largely become something we can pay lip service to without truly experiencing. And the ambivalence of the clergy is a big part of it.

In short, I am highly critical that Mass has become a chore for the great multitude of Catholics that simply attend out of habit anymore. I am critical of the Priests and Bishops that allow this to go on and actually foster this atmosphere. In such an atmosphere, a community cannot grow, it can only wither. And we see this every day. Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book “Salt of the Earth” alluded to his fear that Catholicism is on the retreat and will soon be found only in small pockets putting up fierce resistance to the evil forces assailing her. This is not only because of a renewed attack against the Church by the media, the politicians, and the atheists in general, it is because of a cancer within the Church known as ambivalence that in the cases of the shepherds of the flock is akin to criminal negligence. This all has its roots in the problems that arose after Vatican II. I commend Vatican II for a great many things, but all of them pale in comparison to the harm the Council did. Unfortunately, it has taken forty years to get the die-hard liberals out and get the work underway to correct these problems that should have been corrected thirty years ago.

 

[TheDoctor]

Before we can agree or disagree, it is important, especially when talking about such a hot button topic, to get our facts straight so we can all speak from a common starting point and learn from each other. You have said a lot, so let me take it one step at a time:

1. The Sacred Language of the Mass: Vatican II truncated the use of the sacred language.

Respectfully, I don’t think so, but I may be wrong. Can you please show me where in the documents of V2 the council said that we were not to use Latin in our Mass anymore? As you are looking, keep in mind that V2 did not change the Mass, that was done by Paul VI (apologies if you already knew this - I just want to make sure we are on the same page).

 

[damooster]

Respectfully, I don’t think so, but I may be wrong. Can you please show me where in the documents of V2 the council said that we were not to use Latin in our Mass anymore? As you are looking, keep in mind that V2 did not change the Mass, that was done by Paul VI (apologies if you already knew this - I just want to make sure we are on the same page).

Sacrosanctum Concilium states that although Latin is “to be preserved in the Latin rites,” it also says that “the mother tongue can be used where it is beneficial.” V2 did not outright get rid of Latin, but it did allow people to mistake the intent of the Council by being too vague, and therefore allowing people to make their own interpretations. I think we’ve all heard the argument “Jesus didn’t speak Latin!” This is the mindset people have towards Latin nowadays.

The same thing happened to sacred music, for example. In Musicam Sacram, the Council states that Gregorian chant “should be given pride of place,” but a few blocks later, it allows “new works” to be used.

So while V2 didn’t get rid of Latin, it was not specific enough regarding when the vernacular could be used and therefore people abused it.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

The fact that the vernacular is permitted at all necessarily means that Latin is truncated, by definition.

 

[ncjohn]

So while V2 didn’t get rid of Latin, it was not specific enough regarding when the vernacular could be used and therefore people abused it.

Actually SC did specify a minimum starting point of where the vernacular was to be used, with additions to that to be determined by the conferences of bishops based on the the desires of their constituencies.

Since the final form and the amount of vernacular was ultimately approved and promulgated by the Pope, I think it would be inaccurate to say “people abused it.”

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Since the final form and the amount of vernacular was ultimately approved and promulgated by the Pope, I think it would be inaccurate to say “people abused it.”

The Pope could entirely change every single Sacrament (which happened after Vatican II), could reduce the fast days of the Church to nearly nothing (as we have today), could reduce the number of holy days significantly (as we have today), and he could even remove the Church’s obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays (perhaps, reduce it to simply Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, or something along those lines). Just because he can do it and did do it doesn’t mean it’s not an abuse. I think all of those things are abuses of Papal authority and are terrible errors of judgment on his part.

 

[Magnus467]

The Pope could entirely change every single Sacrament (which happened after Vatican II), could reduce the fast days of the Church to nearly nothing (as we have today), could reduce the number of holy days significantly (as we have today), and he could even remove the Church’s obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays (perhaps, reduce it to simply Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, or something along those lines). Just because he can do it and did do it doesn’t mean it’s not an abuse. I think all of those things are abuses of Papal authority and are terrible errors of judgment on his part.

Is he not the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ? Padre Pio would probably be very upset with you. The sacraments are still in the same form, just certain parts are different. These are traditions that can change and should from time to time and are not an “abuse of authority”. I think people need to respect the Pope more even if they disagree with his decisions. Also, I believe Greek was the language before Latin and probably Aramaic before that and clearly it has changed. Latin is a dead language as is Aramaic and ancient Greek.

 

[cathdoki]

The Pope could entirely change every single Sacrament (which happened after Vatican II), could reduce the fast days of the Church to nearly nothing (as we have today), could reduce the number of holy days significantly (as we have today), and he could even remove the Church’s obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays (perhaps, reduce it to simply Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, or something along those lines). Just because he can do it and did do it doesn’t mean it’s not an abuse. I think all of those things are abuses of Papal authority and are terrible errors of judgment on his part.

What Sacraments have been changed?

 

[ncjohn]

The Pope could entirely change every single Sacrament (which happened after Vatican II), could reduce the fast days of the Church to nearly nothing (as we have today), could reduce the number of holy days significantly (as we have today), and he could even remove the Church’s obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays (perhaps, reduce it to simply Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, or something along those lines). Just because he can do it and did do it doesn’t mean it’s not an abuse. I think all of those things are abuses of Papal authority and are terrible errors of judgment on his part.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, however much I might fully disagree.

 

[rwoehmke]

The desirable “traditions” tend to be what we experienced in our youth and whixch we imagined to have been unchanged for the past two thousand years.

 

[cathdoki]

The desirable “traditions” tend to be what we experienced in our youth and whixch we imagined to have been unchanged for the past two thousand years.

You my friend have hit the nail on the head!

 

[ljubim]

I totally agree with the OP It would be nice to find an OF parish that preserves the sense of the sacred and the mystery of the faith, but that’s so rare that you’re more likely to find an EF parish. Our older Catholic friends, especially those in power, seem to think that those who want sacredness in the liturgy can just be relegated to the Old Latin Mass… but we need every Mass to be as sacred and reverent as these, like the Masses they have at the Vatican.

Unfortunately here in America especially, people don’t feel like listening to Rome. That’s just how it is. But both from the top and the bottom things are changing… youth (like us ) are being led to a longing for tradition by the Holy Spirit that won’t be satisfied with any false innovation, and new Bishops are being appointed who are fully Catholic. Not to mention all the seminarians and new priests that are clamoring to learn the TLM, often in secret as their bishops are very hostile towards these things. God’s working on it, don’t worry, just keep praying! You might say the changes coming in the Church are not made by human hands because of how God is moving millions of individual hearts to long for the same thing.

Thankfully the Post Vatican II disaster has taught us that we need to stand up for Who and what we love, even when the whole world seems to be against you.

 

[ljubim]

The desirable “traditions” tend to be what we experienced in our youth and whixch we imagined to have been unchanged for the past two thousand years.

You my friend have hit the nail on the head!

Except then why do so many people who’ve grown up with guitar Masses go to the TLM now? You cannot equivocate what is objectively correct with nostalgia.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

What Sacraments have been changed?

The rite of every single Sacrament was changed. I encourage you to compare the two side-by-side to see what has happened to the beautiful rites handed down by our fathers in the faith through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

I’m not saying it is the case, but some theologians who addressed the hypothetical situation of an heretical Pope were asked how could one recognize an heretical Pope (supposing he didn’t teach heresy outright). The answer? A Pope who would change all the Sacraments. Even the possibility was foreign to such persons during an authentic Catholic existence.

 

[cathdoki]

The rite of every single Sacrament was changed. I encourage you to compare the two side-by-side to see what has happened to the beautiful rites handed down by our fathers in the faith through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

They rites that were changed had been in existence for 2000 years? Not likely my friend. The benefit of the Sacrament is still there. BTW…the Tridentine Mass has gone through changes.

It is not correct to attribute the efficacy of the Sacrament through the rite as long as it follows the teaching of the church.

 

[edwest2]

Oh brother. I was there before Vatican II and after. I was in Catholic School. The nuns told us the change was to encourage greater participation among the parishioners. We were unaware of any behind the scenes activity. That is what we were told and I had no reason to be less reverant or less worshipful after a small altar was placed in front of the older one.

A commonly stated but incorrect belief is that Vatican II mandated or authorized certain reforms. It did no such thing:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

The Catholic Church does not beat people over the head. The real crisis came in 1968 with Humanae Vitae. A priest posted here some months back about a meeting he attended where another priest asked him to sign a letter against it. He refused. The other priest was then angry at him. Theologians took out a full page ad in the New York times against it.

The radicals all moved as a unit in that time period. It took years before Pope John Paul II removed a certain theologian’s ability to teach. The Church tends to avoid quick and unexamined actions. It prefers dialogue with the person or persons to help them see where they’ve gone wrong.

Yes, it can be frustrating. I believe Pope Benedict is continuing to move the Church in a positive direction. He certainly favors the Traditional Latin Mass.

God bless,
Ed

 

[RosaryCrusader]

…

 

[Timothysis]

In short, I am highly critical that Mass has become a chore for the great multitude of Catholics that simply attend out of habit anymore.

I’ve got news for you, the sentiment that you express in your quote was alive and well during the years of the Latin Mass. One of the reasons that the Church decided that some “fresh air” was needed was because of the mechanical way that the Catholic faith was being practiced, a realization that occurred long before 1960.

I think that you are pining for something that is more mythology than reality; people are little different today than they were years ago.

 

[BettyM]

The rite of every single Sacrament was changed. I encourage you to compare the two side-by-side to see what has happened to the beautiful rites handed down by our fathers in the faith through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

I’m not saying it is the case, but some theologians who addressed the hypothetical situation of an heretical Pope were asked how could one recognize an heretical Pope (supposing he didn’t teach heresy outright). The answer? A Pope who would change all the Sacraments. Even the possibility was foreign to such persons during an authentic Catholic existence.

Is there somewhere you can compare the sacraments. I would be especially interested in the sacrament of reconciliation. How it maybe has changed, if it has.