misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

[FAB]

That’s an interesting take on the subject. I would also like to see evidence that the misapplications and misinterpretations of VII DID NOT cause the devestatation of th Faith.

Where I believe you are mistaken is the all too often heard argument about the change of Rites. It is precisely the changes towards man and away from God seen in these Rites and Ritual that are the cause of these discussions. It is not the Rite itself which is under discussion, but the Theological shifts, some subtle and some not, which belie the changes which are being discussed, and have lead us where we find ourselves: empty Churches, seminaries, monasteries and convents.

To make the argument that somehow the changes made by the council are detrimental to the Church, one also has to believe that the Holy Spirit stopped giving direction during that time. That would fly in the face of Church teaching. Even to say that it wasn’t the council, but the “spirit of the council” that caused all the problems would once again deny His guidance

There could be an argument that the Holy Spirit is now calling us to go back, but time and prayer is the only way to truly know, but some how, I doubt that is the case.

 

[edwest2]

I invite everyone to read the following:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_present-card-arinze_en.html

Parts 1, 2 and especially 3, I think, answer some questions.

Peace,
Ed

 

[At_Trent]

One of the problems that I see with using this terminology is that it implies that there are two Churches. The one before Vatican II and the one after Vatican II. That is just plain wrong.

There is one Church, and it has always been a post-conciliar Church. You really can not call the Church before Vatican II a pre-conciliar Church because then it was post Vatican I, so it was a post-conciliar Church as well.

How do you indicate the time period before Vatican II. How about “before Vatican II”?

Same meaning I see your point, but I’ve heard/read churchmen use the term pre-conciliar.

Better than "glory days "

 

[FAB]

I invite everyone to read the following:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_present-card-arinze_en.html

Parts 1, 2 and especially 3, I think, answer some questions.

There should be a distinction between abuses in the liturgy and all the perceived ill’s in the Church. “REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM” gave clarification and instructions to the 1962 Missal, please notice that it didn’t turn back the clock. Even within the documents it preserves authority to the local ordinary to make adjustments for local customs, keeping in mind that the church is universal and one rule may not fit all circumstances.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ProVobis]

I invite everyone to read the following:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_present-card-arinze_en.html

This is good. I especially like this part:

… The ordained priest remains indispensable for a Christian community and the roles of the priests and of the lay faithful should not be confused (Instruction, 42, 45). Laypeople have their proper role. The Instruction stresses that this does not mean that everybody has to be doing something. Rather it is a question of being fully alive to the great privilege that God has given them in calling them to participate with mind and heart and their entire life in the liturgy and through it to receive God’s grace…

 

[CradleCath]

CradleCath;7478394:

There was no huge exodus. Not in Detroit. I was there. The priest celebrated Mass facing the people. Life and being Catholic went on. We went to Stations of the Cross and observed the Holy Days. The problems in the Church were nothing compared to what was going on outside.

The dissidents inside and outside the Church pushed for these changes. Vatican II never even suggested them. See this article:

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,876637,00.html

You’ll note the writer’s reference to the secular god, Change on page 10. Since this was written in 1970, it’s safe to say that Change is on its way out. That sacred tradition is returning and reverence before God in Church. The only thing that happened was rank and file Catholics were distracted by Hippies chanting freedom, while at the same time rejecting authority and sexual morality. These alternative lifestyles were offered to Catholics. Some accepted.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, you & I have had this discussion before. While I didn’t read the whole 10 PAGES of the article you referenced, I read some. You do realize that it was written less than 6 months after the first Novus Ordo Mass was prayed in the U. S. Look for figures on the VAST EXODUS of our priests & nuns from 1970-1975 & get back to me.

One more thing, the Catholic Church can withstand much abuse when it comes from outside the faith. One only has to look at it’s history to see that. Society is not responsible for bringing us to the place we are today, for the Church has always taught that we are "In
the world, but not OF the world.

During this latest Catholic “war”, the enemy comes from within.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

edwest2;7478927:

Ed, you & I have had this discussion before. While I didn’t read the whole 10 PAGES of the article you referenced, I read some. You do realize that it was written less than 6 months after the first Novus Ordo Mass was prayed in the U. S. Look for figures on the VAST EXODUS of our priests & nuns from 1970-1975 & get back to me.

One more thing, the Catholic Church can withstand much abuse when it comes from outside

the faith. One only has to look at it’s history to see that. Society is not responsible for bringing us to the place we are today, for the Church has always taught that we are "In
the world, but not OF the world.

During this latest Catholic “war”, the enemy comes from within.

Can you provide any proof that it was either Vatican II or the Ordinary Form of the Mass that caused these priests and religious to leave?

This is a typical post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy that many fall into.

A lot was going on in the 1970’s in society. I have also heard that the actual exodus started years earlier.

It takes a long time for the process to be completed for a secular priest to be laicized and it is even a longer process for a religious to be release from permanent vows.

 

[edwest2]

edwest2;7478927:

Ed, you & I have had this discussion before. While I didn’t read the whole 10 PAGES of the article you referenced, I read some. You do realize that it was written less than 6 months after the first Novus Ordo Mass was prayed in the U. S. Look for figures on the VAST EXODUS of our priests & nuns from 1970-1975 & get back to me.

One more thing, the Catholic Church can withstand much abuse when it comes from outside

the faith. One only has to look at it’s history to see that. Society is not responsible for bringing us to the place we are today, for the Church has always taught that we are "In
the world, but not OF the world.

During this latest Catholic “war”, the enemy comes from within.

There were dissidents within the Church, but these people wanted the Church to conform to the outside world in some ways. The visible presence of a counter-culture evangelizing their message to everyone was the problem. Their core beliefs: no respect for any authority, no respect for sexual morality or marriage, and dope smoking.

I find the concept that “society is not responsible” certainly not representative of what actually happened. In fact, “society” was gradually manipulated by a handful of people with money, influence and highly paid lawyers. How else to explain the ACLU waking up one day and yelling Unconstitutional to a Nativity that had been placed in front of a public building for years?

catholicinsight.com/online/culture/article_621.shtml

The loud, shrill voices we hear today came from the time period in question.

Peace,
Ed

 

[malphono]

It takes a long time for the process to be completed for a secular priest to be laicized and it is even a longer process for a religious to be release from permanent vows.

From my recollection, many of them just left. And often times it was a case of “the dish ran away with the spoon” meaning that a good number of priests ran off to the nearest wedding chapel with religious sisters.

To say it was simply coincidence doesn’t really work. Probably the largest number of those who left (whether canonically released or not) were products of the 1950s seminary and convent overflow. Most probably, the bulk of them shouldn’t have been admitted in the first place. (I knew a good number of them personally.)

I seem to think it was the “spirit of Vatican II” that triggered the exodus, and it was likely that same “spirit of Vatican II” that gave them a sense of liberation. Oh sure, there were a few who left (mostly older folks) because of a broken heart, but the cause was, I think, quite the same as with the others: what was considered sacrosanct was all of a sudden determined to be dispensable. The “liberated” crowd was thrilled and went off on their merry way with big smiles, while the others were torn to the soul and went away in tears.

The funny thing is that most of the die-hard “spirit of Vatican II” people (what I often call "fugitives from the '60s) who are still around are also products of that same 1950s overflow system, and it shows.

I’ve only looked at parts of this thread, so forgive me if this has already been said.

 

[edwest2]

This “spirit of Vatican II” was certainly not created by Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council did not suggest the changes some attribute to it. Vatican II has been made the scapegoat for some internal and mostly external pressues. Dissident theologians listening to the outside world calling for a relaxation of the celibacy rule. All I have to say is The Pill and Sexual Revolution, followed by the start of the graphic porn industry coming into our neighborhoods. The Church caused that? Give me a break.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ed_Normile]

I know nothing works so easily in real life situations, but it seems it would be prudent to just invalidate anything that has came out since VatII that was pushed through with the “spirit of VatII” anything that was not specifically called for in this council should be dismissed with prejudice, that would set a lot of things back to a more reverent worship environment.

I like the mass in the common vernacular, it seems much like way back when the Apostles were traveling to evangelize and were given the gift of tongues through the Holy Spirit where they could teach in the language of those they were teaching, I am sure this greatly expanded the spread of the faith. Could you see the difficulties they would have faced trying to reach syrians, phillistines, and others using their native Aramaic language?

ed

 

[malphono]

Could you see the difficulties they would have faced trying to reach syrians, phillistines, and others using their native Aramaic language?

It’s extraneous to this thread, but none. Aramaic was spoken in Syria (it still is in certain areas). And, having been absorbed into the general population by that time, there were really no “Philistines” around.

 

[FAB]

From my recollection, many of them just left. And often times it was a case of “the dish ran away with the spoon” meaning that a good number of priests ran off to the nearest wedding chapel with religious sisters.

To say it was simply coincidence doesn’t really work. Probably the largest number of those who left (whether canonically released or not) were products of the 1950s seminary and convent overflow. Most probably, the bulk of them shouldn’t have been admitted in the first place. (I knew a good number of them personally.)

I seem to think it was the “spirit of Vatican II” that triggered the exodus, and it was likely that same “spirit of Vatican II” that gave them a sense of liberation. Oh sure, there were a few who left (mostly older folks) because of a broken heart, but the cause was, I think, quite the same as with the others: what was considered sacrosanct was all of a sudden determined to be dispensable. The “liberated” crowd was thrilled and went off on their merry way with big smiles, while the others were torn to the soul and went away in tears.

The funny thing is that most of the die-hard “spirit of Vatican II” people (what I often call "fugitives from the '60s) who are still around are also products of that same 1950s overflow system, and it shows.

I’ve only looked at parts of this thread, so forgive me if this has already been said.

There is a reason that isn’t spoken of often as to the reason for men to leave the priesthood. Many were in formation are starting at the time of the council. There was a movement at the time to allow preist to marry and this was give as an insentive. When JPII came along that idea for the time was ended. There was a young preist I kinew in the lat 70’s who had entered the priesthood on that promise. When it was clear it wouldn’t happen he left and was released from his vows. It could be that part of the reason of the exodus

 

[ProVobis]

I like the mass in the common vernacular, it seems much like way back when the Apostles were traveling to evangelize and were given the gift of tongues through the Holy Spirit where they could teach in the language of those they were teaching, I am sure this greatly expanded the spread of the faith. Could you see the difficulties they would have faced trying to reach syrians, phillistines, and others using their native Aramaic language?

I imagine the Reformers also used the same arguments. The Council of Trent fathers, however, didn’t think they were valid. And Vatican II only reinforced this thinking by preserving Latin in the Mass. And it wasn’t just a suggestion.

 

[hazcompat]

Opening Speech to the
Vatican II Council

Pope John XXIII

October 11, 1962

…In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.

We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.

In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfilment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.

peace

 

[FAB]

I imagine the Reformers also used the same arguments. The Council of Trent fathers, however, didn’t think they were valid. And Vatican II only reinforced this thinking by preserving Latin in the Mass. And it wasn’t just a suggestion.

It preserved Latin as a base, but gave instructions that the mass be translated into the venacular for each language. This also was not just a suggestion.

 

[Ed_Normile]

It’s extraneous to this thread, but none. Aramaic was spoken in Syria (it still is in certain areas). And, having been absorbed into the general population by that time, there were really no “Philistines” around.

Ok I picked two bad examples in my point! Are you saying that this gift from the Holy Spirit was not needed by the Apostles, or just pointing out my example was bad. I thought the Apostles being given this gift was to spread the word, if they did not need it why did the Holy Spirit supply it. As far as being extraneous to this thread, mass in the common vernacular is one the major complaints I hear about the Novus Ordo, many say its not as mysterious or reverent.

ed

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

From my recollection, many of them just left. And often times it was a case of “the dish ran away with the spoon” meaning that a good number of priests ran off to the nearest wedding chapel with religious sisters.

To say it was simply coincidence doesn’t really work. Probably the largest number of those who left (whether canonically released or not) were products of the 1950s seminary and convent overflow. Most probably, the bulk of them shouldn’t have been admitted in the first place. (I knew a good number of them personally.)

I seem to think it was the “spirit of Vatican II” that triggered the exodus, and it was likely that same “spirit of Vatican II” that gave them a sense of liberation. Oh sure, there were a few who left (mostly older folks) because of a broken heart, but the cause was, I think, quite the same as with the others: what was considered sacrosanct was all of a sudden determined to be dispensable. The “liberated” crowd was thrilled and went off on their merry way with big smiles, while the others were torn to the soul and went away in tears.

The funny thing is that most of the die-hard “spirit of Vatican II” people (what I often call "fugitives from the '60s) who are still around are also products of that same 1950s overflow system, and it shows.

I’ve only looked at parts of this thread, so forgive me if this has already been said.

Just as you can not discount the liberating times of society of the 1970s.

Also, if as you say, many of those who where accepted in the 1950s shouldn’t have been accepted, then this was just the Holy Spirit righting the ship, so to speak, and getting rid of the dead weight.

Not a bad thing at all.

But logically speaking, one can not attribute causes to things that happen just because they seem to happen before especially in something as complex as society, there are many contributing factors.

Otherwise the argument that everyone I know who has died has eaten carrots, so I do not eat carrots so I will not die would be a valid argument.

 

[laszlo]

There is a reason that isn’t spoken of often as to the reason for men to leave the priesthood. Many were in formation are starting at the time of the council. There was a movement at the time to allow preist to marry and this was give as an insentive. When JPII came along that idea for the time was ended. There was a young preist I kinew in the lat 70’s who had entered the priesthood on that promise. When it was clear it wouldn’t happen he left and was released from his vows. It could be that part of the reason of the exodus

I do not remember any movement that existing priests can marry.

There was never tradition for that, only that married men can be ordained for priests, with the condition that if they are widowed then they shall remain celibate. This is the clear practice for the Eastern Catholics, and this is the rule for the ordained former Anglican or protestant ministers too.

 

[malphono]

Just as you can not discount the liberating times of society of the 1970s.

Yes, the two things do seem to go hand-in-hand. My take is that the hijackers used the “liberating times” to further their own agenda and pervert the Council. Which, of course, gives the “spitit of Vatican II” which essentially has nothing whatsoever to do with that Council.

Also, if as you say, many of those who where accepted in the 1950s shouldn’t have been accepted, then this was just the Holy Spirit righting the ship, so to speak, and getting rid of the dead weight.

Not a bad thing at all.

The “bad thing” about those it is that it caused scandal to the faithful. And the repercussions are still being felt.