How has Vatican II helped the Church

[choliks]

1. After several decades of living a certain way, some people wouldn’t be happy with going back to the original charism. They could have requested to leave, as the order going back to the founder would not resemble what they signed up for.

Bro. JR affirms this even with the Franciscans. For a couple of centuries, the Franciscans were forced to provide priests for parishes which is not originally what St. Francis intended when he founded the order. This consequently created a division among the ordained and non-ordained brothers. When they were ordered to go back to the original charism which was to bring Christ to the poor and the poor to Christ, foregoing any distinction between the ordained and the non-ordained, a lot of them left because it felt so alien to them.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

OK, let’s be technical.

Religious “orders” in the commonly used sense of the term (i.e. as “college” is used for “university” or “institute”).

Many if not most of the largest and most prominent (teaching, hospitals) of religious congregations/societies/institutes of women in this nation are among these that were founded in the past two centuries and suffered drastic declines in membership since the late 60s.

Here is one post from a thread Br. Jay contributed to quite a bit. This will give you just a snippet of why things are the way they are. I strongly suggest that you do an advanced search of the topic.

 

[Melchior_1]

OK, let’s be technical.

Religious “orders” in the commonly used sense of the term (i.e. as “college” is used for “university” or “institute”).

Which is a part of the problem; people call Societies of Apostolic Life “orders” but they aren’t. And that’s actually a big deal, because the actual religious orders have a little thing called the “right of exemption”. Which, I may add, was being trampled on by Bishops for decades and centuries leading up to the Second Vatican Council. The right of exemption means that the Bishop can’t touch them, and isn’t in charge of them. Oh sure, the Bishop can remove them from diocesan ministries, but he cannot kick them out or discipline them.

Yet they were doing just that. We had Dominicans and Franciscans strongarmed to live outside their communities, and breaking their vows of poverty, for example. We had orders become clerical when they really should have been. Example; Franciscans don’t ordain everyone. They actually ordain very few. But they were being forced to ordain several people, and wouldn’t you know when Blessed John Paul II enforced the documents that V2 produced on this matter the Bishops listened.

Our local Archbishop sends our seminarians to another city, largely because their formation in our city wouldn’t be as good due to the teachers at the school. Could he send them t the local Dominican run school? He’d have to ask first. And even then, they’d get a DOMINICAN education, learn about community living. This is not a good thing for a secular priest who’ll be living on his own.

The SSPX is not an order, they are secular. At the end of the day, they must respect and submit t the local Bishop. So too does the FSSP the Companions of the Cross, and others.

The Dominicans, all branches of them, do not report to the Bishop. Including the Lay Dominicans. When I’m done my formation and I get approval to start a ministry in a diocese, only my superior can kick me and my wife out of the place.

Ironically, the documents concerning religious orders were VERY traditional (and Traditional), yet a few traditionalists seem to dislike it.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Here is one post from a thread Br. Jay contributed to quite a bit. This will give you just a snippet of why things are the way they are. I strongly suggest that you do an advanced search of the topic.

The point of posting here isn’t to defend myself or be right, but I want to point out for the sake of the rest of the thread, at least, that I did not say that all religious have to wear habits, etc., or that not wearing a traditional conception of a habit is some kind of modernist heresy or whatnot.

I am completely aware that the original charism of some “orders” (forgive me, but I am going to continue to use the word as I meant it in the first place for convenience’s sake) - including at least one or two I’m familiar with founded in the 19th century - did not instruct their members to wear habits.

My point is about religious orders that did have habits as part of their founding, but dropped them suddenly in the name of “getting with the times” in the 1960s/70s.

 

[Melchior_1]

My point is about religious orders that did have habits as part of their founding, but dropped them suddenly in the name of “getting with the times” in the 1960s/70s.

And these groups and people within are being dealt with. If the founder said to wear a habit, then they should be wearing a habit and will be told to get in line. Failure to abide by the Rule leads to harsh punishments.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

And these groups and people within are being dealt with. If the founder said to wear a habit, then they should be wearing a habit and will be told to get in line. Failure to abide by the Rule leads to harsh punishments.

I am with you. Things are getting better in the Church all the time.

 

[choliks]

My point is about religious orders that did have habits as part of their founding, but dropped them suddenly in the name of “getting with the times” in the 1960s/70s.

In Bro. Jr’s words:

"There are many religious who deviated from the vision of the founder and they paid a dear price. "

Actually it also depends on the constitution of the congregation, society, etc… if it allows for a change in what or what not to wear, then our opinions really won’t mean a thing to them.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

In Bro. Jr’s words:

"There are many religious who deviated from the vision of the founder and they paid a dear price. "

Yep. It’s sad.

 

[choliks]

ooops i added an edit.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The point of posting here isn’t to defend myself or be right, but I want to point out for the sake of the rest of the thread, at least, that I did not say that all religious have to wear habits, etc., or that not wearing a traditional conception of a habit is some kind of modernist heresy or whatnot.

I am completely aware that the original charism of some “orders” (forgive me, but I am going to continue to use the word as I meant it in the first place for convenience’s sake) - including at least one or two I’m familiar with founded in the 19th century - did not instruct their members to wear habits.

My point is about religious orders that did have habits as part of their founding, but dropped them suddenly in the name of “getting with the times” in the 1960s/70s.

Would you care to elaborate on what congregations, societies you are talking about? From my understanding, when the directive came to go back to their roots, sometimes that meant that members could vote on certain aspects of life. If this was done, and a “habit” was dispensed, I am not sure I would call it “getting with the times”.

Also, from my limited understanding, the laity are not privvy to all the rules, constitutions & visons of all the founders. Who are we to judge the motives of those who live the rule?

 

[MarkThompson]

Hmmm… They essentially say the same thing.

"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants."

"Scholars think to shed light on biblical and liturgical sources from which the new texts are derived or inspired, which the Study Groups of the “Council” accomplished by using a chisel. And let’s say that often the work proceeded ‘with fear and trembling’ by sacrificing terms and concepts so dear, and now part of the long family tradition. How not to regret that ‘Mother Church- Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - deigned to revoke’ the seventh prayer? And still the love of souls and the desire to facilitate the path of union for separated brothers,** [by]***** removing a stone*** that could constitute while far-away an obstacle or motive of discomfort, have led the Church also to these painful sacrifices."
**

---

---

Well, no. As I said before, “What words are in this that aren’t in the original? – ‘strip,’ ‘Catholic,’ ‘prayers,’ ‘liturgy,’ ‘shadow,’ ‘Protestants.’” The actual article is explaining why one change was being made to one of the solemn intercessions used on Good Friday in the interim form of the Traditional Latin Mass (this was four years before the reformed version of the Mass was issued) – namely, removing language blasting as “heretics and schismatics” the people we are supposed to be trying to convert. The Lefebvre version of the quotation is carefully fabricated to make it sound like, with gleeful and wild abandon, we must strip all the Catholicism out of the entire Mass, not to mention out of all “Catholic prayers,” and not just if it were a real and substantial stumbling-block, but even a shadow of one.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Would you care to elaborate on what congregations, societies you are talking about? From my understanding, when the directive came to go back to their roots, sometimes that meant that members could vote on certain aspects of life. If this was done, and a “habit” was dispensed, I am not sure I would call it “getting with the times”.

Also, from my limited understanding, the laity are not privvy to all the rules, constitutions & visons of all the founders. Who are we to judge the motives of those who live the rule?

Maybe I did not make myself clear in my last post.

I said that there were religious societies/institutes from before even Vatican I - sometimes founded amid hostile circumstances from secular society - that did not have a habit as part of their original charism for that very reason. So for them to not have a habit in the 60s and 70s was perfectly appropriate and in keeping with both Vatican II and their original charism (basically, the same thing).

 

[Melchior_1]

If the RULE sez “habits are dumb, don’t wear them”, then you can’t wear them. Period. If the RULE sez “habits are boss, wear them at all costs” then you better be wearing one. End of discussion.

The Rule is the RULE. You break it and you get the boot.

If a STATUTE sez “habits are cool, wear them please!” and the Society votes on not wearing them for different reasons or whatever, then this can change. That’s what could have happened post V2. But we would need to look at “why’s”. If the Society was working with poor people in the middle east, it’s not very practical to have layers of clothing on, you know?

 

[Leon_Bloy]

 

[Thaelros]

So if I’m understanding this whole situation correctly… The Vatican II documents were perfectly fine, but because of their ambiguity in some aspects (perhaps the extremist liberals intended for this to occur, ahem Bugnini), some heretics in the Church took advantage of the “spirit of Vatican II” atmosphere and brought about an abuse of the liturgy and catechism classes in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. As a result of this abuse, we now have Christian rock music prevalent among many parishes (I have read that Vatican II specifically states that the Gregorian Chant should be the primary form), altar girls, a mass apostasy, a lack of proper education among many pockets of the Catholic community in the West, etc.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

So if I’m understanding this whole situation correctly… The Vatican II documents were perfectly fine, but because of their ambiguity in some aspects (perhaps the extremist liberals intended for this to occur, ahem Bugnini), some heretics in the Church took advantage of the “spirit of Vatican II” atmosphere and brought about an abuse of the liturgy and catechism classes in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. As a result of this abuse, we now have Christian rock music prevalent among many parishes (I have read that Vatican II specifically states that the Gregorian Chant should be the primary form), altar girls, a mass apostasy, a lack of proper education among many pockets of the Catholic community in the West, etc.

That’s more or less how I see it… except I don’t believe there was anything wrong in the actual documents at all - just in the way some interpreted them after their approval.

But I really think things are getting and will continue to get better inside the Church!

 

[Leon_Bloy]

So if I’m understanding this whole situation correctly… The Vatican II documents were perfectly fine, but because of their ambiguity in some aspects (perhaps the extremist liberals intended for this to occur, ahem Bugnini), some heretics in the Church took advantage of the “spirit of Vatican II” atmosphere and brought about an abuse of the liturgy and catechism classes in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. As a result of this abuse, we now have Christian rock music prevalent among many parishes (I have read that Vatican II specifically states that the Gregorian Chant should be the primary form), altar girls, a mass apostasy, a lack of proper education among many pockets of the Catholic community in the West, etc.

That’s more or less how I see it… except I don’t believe there was anything wrong in the actual documents at all - just in the way some interpreted them after their approval.

But I really think things are getting and will continue to get better inside the Church!

 

[ljsedivy]

Big_Feet;9044201:

I believe that there is a renewed understanding of the role of the laity in the Church. That we are to be active in our faith, and not just observers, or merely present as the priest does what he does. I believe that this applies to both inside and outside the liturgical functions (ie. Mass)

Music to my ears!

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi is my signature line in my emails. I just attempted to give a presentation on this Tuesday night (I say attempted because there’s soooooo so much to say and I only had 30 minutes. I also had to be very careful because it’s my parish and an OF parish at that).

I began Lent on Ash Wednesday at a TLM parish and have devoted myself to this mass exclusively through Lent. I’m praying that God will call my entire family to come to this mass. I will be asking again this week if we can go as a family there.

The Lord has planted a fire in my heart for Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. He has answered every one of my prayers asking for an understanding of our traditions in the TLM. He has many times continued pointing me there. I keep asking for reassurance which I should not. This week, in my asking, I received the message in my mind “Logics. Listen to the logics.” I have put many down on paper.

 

[ljsedivy]

Taken a step further,

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi

If how we pray is how we believe is how we live…all directly related, then we can see by this Gallup Poll how the changes in the most perfect prayer (the Liturgy) has resulted in how we believe and live (mass attendance). The following is a cut and paste (don’t have the source, I did a search for polls on belief in the Eucharist but they didn’t poll such things way back then because it just wasn’t a concern that there WASN’T belief).

GALLUP POLLS: MASS ATTENDANCE IN THE UNITED STATES

According primarily to Gallup Polls in various years, Sunday Mass
Attendance among Catholics in the United States has sunk by 400% since Vatican
II. When asked whether they had attended Mass within the past week, the
Following percentage of Catholics answered yes:

1958: 74%
1965: 71%, after the Mass was allowed to be said in the vernacular
1968: 65%, after the very words of Consecration were changed
1969: 63%, when the Novus Ordo Worship Service was first announced
1970: 60%, when the Novus Ordo Worship Service was introduced
1971: 50%, after one year of exclusive Novus Ordo worship services
1988: 48%
1993: 25%
1995: 22%
1999: 19%, after twenty years of exclusive Novus Ordo worship services
2001: 17%

Statistician Kirk Hadaway and a research team counted cars in the parking lot over a period of Several months. His finding: Americans over-report their actual church
Attendance by a marked degree by almost twice as much as actual. In two
Separate studies on Roman Catholics, he found an even greater disparity between
The numbers reported and actual attendance.

11 years later, I would be interested in what the percentage is now.

 

[Bookcat]

“In the light of all this, I have decided to announce a Year of Faith. It will begin on 11 October 2012, the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, and it will end on the Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Universal King, on 24 November 2013. The starting date of 11 October 2012 also marks the twentieth anniversary of the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a text promulgated by my Predecessor, Blessed John Paul II,[3] with a view to illustrating for all the faithful the power and beauty of the faith. This document, an authentic fruit of the Second Vatican Council, was requested by the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985 as an instrument at the service of catechesis[4] and it was produced in collaboration with all the bishops of the Catholic Church.”

"It seemed to me that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council would provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, “have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church’s Tradition … I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”[9] I would also like to emphasize strongly what I had occasion to say concerning the Council a few months after my election as Successor of Peter: “if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.”

Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20111011_porta-fidei_en.html