misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

[JRPO]

The following comes from realcatholictv.com

It’s been a long time in coming … but better late than never … especially in this case.
There is a growing clamor from faithful Catholics that the Holy Father directly address
the corruption that followed in the wake of Vatican II by issuing a formal statement that
says what the errors have been.
Let’s be clear here. We are not talking about Vatican II itself. We are talking about the
horrible destructive misinterpretations and subsequent misapplication of the documents
of Vatican II.
Whether these misinterpretations and misapplications were well intentioned or a
deliberate attempt to reshape the Church isn’t the issue. Its likely that both was the case.
But that isn’t at issue here either.
Was it at issue is that in the wake of Vatican II, people of influence in the Church,
meaning bishops, priests, nuns, religious orders, in short many who had authority went
hog wild and remade the face Catholicism and caused a serious rupture with the past.
The laity, by and large, were victims, at least initially, in all this. They say by and
watched father rip out the communion rails. They sat by and watched father turn the altar
around backwards so he could now face the people.
They say by and watched as “liturgical experts” went about “correcting” the problems
with the 1500 year old Mass. They say by as the organ got thrown out and tambourines
came in … as Gregorian chant was switched off and Protestant hymns and syrupy half-
Catholic ones took their place.
The laity were told to stop kneeling before Almighty God as they were about to receive
him in Holy Communion. They were told to stick out their hands … no their tongues.
They were told we were at a meal … not a participants at a sacrifice.
Facing the people … father now had to be as much entertainer as priest. He had to worry
about pleasing the people more than his God.
And the theology got shoved aside. No more talk of sin. Now we spoke only of being on
a spiritual journey. No more talk of Hell and eternal separation from the Loving Father.
Now we only spoke in terms of God is Love.
Well at long last … voices who have witnessed the bull-dozing of the Faith and have had
enough are finally speaking up. And the voices are not insignificant ones.
1
Bishop Athanasius Schneider … a brilliant holy and humble bishop if there ever was one …
and there have been many … recently gave a presentation where he requested that Pope
Benedict issue a formal statement condemning the errors that have arisen from the
misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II.
He made his presentation the week before Christmas in Rome before a large number of
bishops and cardinals. His message got across. Nothing in Vatican II said dump Latin.
As a matter of fact … it said quite the opposite. Vatican II said Latin has place of primacy
in the liturgy. So what happened to all the Gregorian Chant?
Nothing in Vatican II ever said turn the altar around and make it a table with the priest
facing the people. Again just the opposite. In the norms for the Mass … there is a
direction for the priest that tells him to turn around at a particular moment of the Mass
and address the congregation. Well, as you undoubtedly figured out instantly, if he has to
turn around to face the people, then he must have been facing away from them in the first
place. Again, if he is supposed to be facing the same direction as they are – why the
change? Who said to do it?
Nowhere in Vatican II does it say to receive the sacred body and blood of Our Lord in our
hands. That was a special permission case granted by the Vatican back in the late 60 and
early 70’s in which the American bishops of the time took advantage and made it the
usual practice here. It is NOT the norm for the Church. It is the exception! Again, how
did it come to be the case?
These are just a few of the points that Bishop Schneider brought up in his presentation
and is asking the Pope to address.
We are going to be talking more this week about the growing movement in influential
Church circles to end the madness and get back to the basics of the faith. But one thing is
absolutely certain. What happened to the Church after Vatican II has been destructive of
the Faith for tens of millions of souls … perhaps hundreds of millions if you add up all the
souls over the 45 years or so.
A great confrontation is in the offing between those who recognize the destruction and
are intent of correcting the disaster and those who like things the way they are and are
hell-bent (pun intended) of keeping them this way. Sooner of later … we are all going to
have to choose.

 

[Warrenton]

I am not so sure this would be a good idea. If there was a problem with Vat II, then it was its verbosity.

We simply do not live in an age where governments can speak clearly and concisely.

Better to change the abuses than waste words analyzing them. Analysis invites more quibbling.

We know what altar rails are for. Just put them back. We don’t need to convene “an altar rail synod.” A short letter from the Pope will do nicely.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Realcatholictv.com is hardly a church organ. It is made up of arch-conservatives, who hate the post Vatican II Church. it is hardly anything that should be relied upon for any real teachings of the church.

 

[ProVobis]

Realcatholictv.com is hardly a church organ. It is made up of arch-conservatives, who hate the post Vatican II Church. it is hardly anything that should be relied upon for any real teachings of the church.

Paint labels on everything? Real teachings of the church cover 21 councils and many Papal encyclicals. How many of them do you accept?

 

[maurin]

Realcatholictv.com is hardly a church organ. It is made up of arch-conservatives, who hate the post Vatican II Church. it is hardly anything that should be relied upon for any real teachings of the church.

Please provide substantiation for your libel. Please cite specific examples of how Mr. Voris is an Arch Conservative, rather than a serious Catholic, and please cite specific examples of how he hates the Church. Because if you really believe that the Church is the same today as it was yesterday, how can there logically be either a pre or post Church?

More sequiturs, please, sir, and less non sequiturs.

 

[laszlo]

Please provide substantiation for your libel. Please cite specific examples of how Mr. Voris is an Arch Conservative, rather than a serious Catholic, and please cite specific examples of how he hates the Church. Because if you really believe that the Church is the same today as it was yesterday, how can there logically be either a pre or post Church?

My problem with Mr. Voris is that he yearns for the traditional times, but misses a basic control from the traditional times: the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, the control of the local bishop over his teaching.

For your question: As everyone is born as child and some became adults, but there is only one person; so there is pre and post Vatican Church. In this later laity is considered adult. (although some lay speakers, like the one who indicated that homosexuals are victims are not adults in their mind)

More sequiturs, please, sir, and less non sequiturs.

 

[Brooklyn]

My problem with Mr. Voris is that he yearns for the traditional times, but misses a basic control from the traditional times: the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, the control of the local bishop over his teaching.

For your question: As everyone is born as child and some became adults, but there is only one person; so there is pre and post Vatican Church. In this later laity is considered adult. (although some lay speakers, like the one who indicated that homosexuals are victims are not adults in their mind)

I yearn for “traditional times”, too. Times when there were would be long lines every Saturday afternoon for confession, times when Mass would be so crowded on Sunday that you could barely get in. Times when people would never think of talking unnecessarily in Church, and all children older than 2 or 3 would sit quietly during Mass without toys. Times when not everyone would receive Communion because they recognized sin for what it was and didn’t think of communion as their “right.” I long for times people would genuflect or bow every time they passed in front of the Tabernacle. I long for times when people would have never thought of such things as clown Masses or puppet Masses.

In short, I yearn for “traditional times” when people knew who they were and who God was, and believed that salvation was a gift, not a right.

 

[At_Trent]

Bishop Athanasius Schneider is a very informed and prudent churchman.

THE CHALLENGE OF OPPOSING INTERPRETATIONS

by Athanasius Schneider

. . .] For a correct interpretation of Vatican Council II, it is necessary to keep in mind the intention manifested in the conciliar documents themselves and in the specific words of the popes who convened and presided over it, John XXIII and Paul VI.

Moreover, it is necessary to discover the common thread of the entire work of the Council, meaning its pastoral intention, which is the “salus animarum,” the salvation of souls. This, in turn, depends on and is subordinate to the promotion of divine worship and of the glory of God, it depends on the primacy of God.

This primacy of God in life and in all the activity of the Church is manifested unequivocally by the fact that the constitution on the liturgy occupies, conceptually and chronologically, the first place in the vast work of the Council. . . .]

The characteristic of the rupture in the interpretation of the conciliar texts is manifested in a more stereotypical and widespread way in the thesis of an anthropocentric, secularist, or naturalistic shift of Vatican Council II with respect to the previous ecclesial tradition.

One of the best-known manifestations of such a mistaken interpretation has been, for example, so-called liberation theology and the subsequent devastating pastoral practice. What contrast there is between this liberation theology and its practice and the Council appears evident from the following conciliar teaching: “Christ, to be sure, gave His Church no proper mission in the political, economic or social order. The purpose which He set before her is a religious one” (cf. “Gaudium et Spes,” 42). . . .]

One interpretation of rupture of lighter doctrinal weight has been manifested in the pastoral-liturgical field. One might mention in this regard the decline of the sacred and sublime character of the liturgy, and the introduction of more anthropocentric elements of expression.

This phenomenon can be seen in three liturgical practices that are fairly well known and widespread in almost all the parishes of the Catholic sphere: the almost complete disappearance of the use of the Latin language, the reception of the Eucharistic body of Christ directly in the hand while standing, and the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice in the modality of a closed circle in which priest and people are constantly looking at each other.

This way of praying – without everyone facing the same direction, which is a more natural corporal and symbolic expression with respect to the truth of everyone being oriented toward God in public worship – contradicts the practice that Jesus himself and his apostles observed in public prayer, both in the temple and in the synagogue. It also contradicts the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and of all the subsequent tradition of the Eastern and Western Church.

These three pastoral and liturgical practices glaringly at odds with the law of prayer maintained by generations of the Catholic faithful for at least one millennium find no support in the conciliar texts, and even contradict both a specific text of the Council (on the Latin language: cf. “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” 36 and 54) and the “mens,” the true intention of the conciliar Fathers, as can be seen in the proceedings of the Council.

In the hermeneutical uproar of the contrasting interpretations, and in the confusion of pastoral and liturgical applications, what appears as the only authentic interpreter of the conciliar texts is the Council itself, together with the pope.

One could make a comparison with the confused hermeneutical climate of the first centuries of the Church, caused by arbitrary biblical and doctrinal interpretations on the part of heterodox groups. In his famous work “De Praescriptione Haereticorum,” Tertullian was able to counter the heretics of various tendencies with the fact that only the Church possesses the “praescriptio,” meaning only the Church is the legitimate proprietor of the faith, of the word of God and of the tradition. The Church can use this to fend off the heretics in disputes over true interpretation. Only the Church can say, according to Tertullian, “Ego sum heres Apostolorum,” I am the heir of the apostles. By way of analogy, only the supreme magisterium of the pope or of a future ecumenical council will be able to say: “Ego sum heres Concilii Vaticani II.”

In recent decades there existed, and still exist today, groupings within the Church that are perpetrating an enormous abuse of the pastoral character of the Council and its texts, written according to this pastoral intention, since the Council did not want to present its own definitive or unalterable teachings. From the same pastoral nature of the texts of the Council, it can be seen that its texts are in principle open to supplementation and to further doctrinal clarifications. Keeping in mind the now decades-long experience of interpretations that are doctrinally and pastorally mistaken and contrary to the bimillennial continuity of the doctrine and prayer of the faith, there thus arises the necessity and urgency of a specific and authoritative intervention of the pontifical magisterium for an authentic interpretation of the conciliar texts, with supplementation and doctrinal clarifications; a sort of “Syllabus” of the errors in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

There is the need for a new Syllabus, this time directed not so much against the errors coming from outside of the Church, but against the errors circulated within the Church by supporters of the thesis of discontinuity and rupture, with its doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral application.

(the rest here)
newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/01/excerpt-from-bishop-athanasius.html

 

[At_Trent]

Seems these days, it’s not just the SSPX or traditionalist laity who are speaking out.

 

[maurin]

My problem with Mr. Voris is that he yearns for the traditional times, but misses a basic control from the traditional times: the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, the control of the local bishop over his teaching.

For your question: As everyone is born as child and some became adults, but there is only one person; so there is pre and post Vatican Church. In this later laity is considered adult. (although some lay speakers, like the one who indicated that homosexuals are victims are not adults in their mind)

Not an answer at all, laszlo, I must say, along with my apologies, sincerely, if I offend. Do you mean to say that laity were considered as not adult before the Council? Do you mean to say that after the Council it is “adult” that 1 out of 4 self-identifying Catholics regularoly attend Mass, half of whom only acknowledge a symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Many of whom ignore the Church’s Teachings on birth control, abortiona d same sex “marriage?” That doesn’t sound very adult to me.

 

[maurin]

Bishop Athanasius Schneider is a very informed and prudent churchman.

Thanks for posting that, At Trent. A true ‘aggiornamento’ from a real Prince of the Church.

 

[SouthpawLink]

A misinterpretation isn’t the problem, Vatican II is the problem. Get rid of that ambiguous mess and return to pre-Vatican II Scholastic terminology (which is clear and in line with the language used by the Magisterium from the time of Lyons II - 1274 - to the papacy of Ven. Pius XII - 1958).

 

[At_Trent]

Thanks for posting that, At Trent. A true ‘aggiornamento’ from a real Prince of the Church.

Thank the Good Bishop

Have you watched the interview liked to in my sig ?

 

[CradleCath]

The following comes from realcatholictv.com

It’s been a long time in coming … but better late than never … especially in this case.
There is a growing clamor from faithful Catholics that the Holy Father directly address
the corruption that followed in the wake of Vatican II by issuing a formal statement that
says what the errors have been.

 

[FAB]

An issue with realcatholictv.com is that they sow seeds of dicontent by questioning the interpertations of Vatican II. They cherry pick specific comments to support their point of view and then broadcast it as fact.
There were many problems and issues with the pre Vatican II Church which had been bubbling and looking for answers for more than 100 years in many cases.
It is a dangerous habit to keep looking back with rose colored glasses wishing for the return of something that never was, instead of looking ahead and seeing and accepting how the Spirit is guiding the Church today and into the future.

 

[maurin]

Thank the Good Bishop

Have you watched the interview liked to in my sig ?

I’m not able to watch videos at Gloria TV. Internet on the phone only. Its safer for my soul that way.

 

[maurin]

An issue with realcatholictv.com is that they sow seeds of dicontent by questioning the interpertations of Vatican II. They cherry pick specific comments to support their point of view and then broadcast it as fact.
There were many problems and issues with the pre Vatican II Church which had been bubbling and looking for answers for more than 100 years in many cases.
It is a dangerous habit to keep looking back with rose colored glasses wishing for the return of something that never was, instead of looking ahead and seeing and accepting how the Spirit is guiding the Church today and into the future.

there are problems in every age. I suspect that underlying your line of reasoning above is a denial of the devestation of the Faith, a denial of the very real numbers which tell us many self identifying Catholics deny some of the most fundamental tenets of our Faith, and the Morality which necessarily flows from It.

Noone has looked back with rose colored glasses wishing for something that never was. What used to be was a high percentage of Catholics living the Faith, believing It in packed Churches. Where you could bet the same quality Sermon was being preached from bangor, Maine to Newort Beach, California. In a quiet church, save for bells, organ and chant.

There’s a lot more than that. There’s the Mass, in a Sacred Tongue, oriented toward God in Heaven, THE Holy and unbloody Sacrifice of our Incarnate God on the Altar.

That’s what people are looking back on. No rose colored glasses there. Just the millenia old Ritual, Cult and Culture. When culture actually flowed from Cult, and not the other way around, cult flowing from Culture as many of these supposedly revelant Liturgies are today.

 

[dmorgan]

However the restoration occurs, this is going to be nasty. We have over forty years of poor catechesis to try and repair. Most Catholics today do not remember the pre-conciliar church. Many have no idea what it is that many of us wish to restore. As regular readers of this forum have witnessed, there are many who either do not believe there is a problem in the Church, or are simply adamant that a restoration of the faith to pre-conciliar methods is a giant step in the wrong direction. You see their responses to every post concerning the issues with V-II. We may loose many, but I humbly pray daily for a restoration. For all of you who are like minded, I encourage you to support all of the clergy that are calling for the Holy Father to address this issue. It is time.

Pax Christi

 

[JKirkLVNV]

However the restoration occurs, this is going to be nasty. We have over forty years of poor catechesis to try and repair. Most Catholics today do not remember the pre-conciliar church. Many have no idea what it is that many of us wish to restore. As regular readers of this forum have witnessed, there are many who either do not believe there is a problem in the Church, or are simply adamant that a restoration of the faith to pre-conciliar methods is a giant step in the wrong direction. You see their responses to every post concerning the issues with V-II. We may loose many, but I humbly pray daily for a restoration. For all of you who are like minded, I encourage you to support all of the clergy that are calling for the Holy Father to address this issue. It is time.

Pax Christi

I, too, hope that there will be a clarification in the future on what Vatican II means and what it didn’t mean. I disagree, however, with the good bishop, that things like CINTH (though I do not practice it) and or the use of the vernacular are “anthrocentric.” I’ve never seen WHY (and I’ve been quoted the standard arguments), though I’ve tried to see it, Latin is to be prefered over a congregations native language. God doesn’t need for it to be in Latin. What does it hurt if the congregation CAN understand it (or even hear it, in the case of the OF)? How does it diminish it’s sacredness, unless where using slang or jargon, which I’ve yet to hear in the context of the Mass? There is nothing ontollogically sacred about Latin. I think it’s useful for the Church, an international institution, to have it’s own language, but I don’t think it has to extend to every parish at every Mass. And it doesn’t matter what Vatican II said, the vernacular Mass exists by legitimate authority: national bishops conferences were permitted to determine, dependent upon the Holy See’s ratification of their request, to what extent the liturgy would be in the vernacular. The Holy See granted their requests.

If people argued “in the growth of the Church’s understanding and articulation of the Truths about the Eucharist, it seems that the most fitting outward sign (as it were) of reverence and respect would be to recieve Holy Communion kneeling and having the priest place the Host on our tongues,” I don’t think anyone could really argue with that. Instead, we get the stuff about how we’re not worthy to touch the Sacred Species (which does not seem to have been the Apostles or the Patristic Church’s understanding). I don’t know about anyone else, but I sin a lot more with my tongue than I do with my hands. And again, regardless of it’s immediate history, CITH exists by the legitimate authority of the Holy See. Bishop’s conferences were given the right to petition the Holy See, which then granted their requests. I know Pope Benedict hopes to lead by example, by having the people he communicates kneel and receive on the tongue, but it is in his papacy that the indult continues and was extended in 2007 to Poland.

I see those things as different, certainly, that the immediately pre-conciliar Church, but they aren’t without precedent in the history of the Church. I don’t see them as anthrocentric, however, merely as different from immediate prior practice. Also, it IS a bit about us, you know. It’s our sins for which the Holy Sacrifice is being offered, it’s our praise and prayers that are being offered to God, it’s our lives that are being graced and hopefully transformed. I’m not saying a certain percentage should be about God and a certain percentage should be about us. I think it can be 100% about God without loosing sight of the “us,” the Church Militant, the sinners there seeking forgiveness, grace, and redemption (and I don’t mean “a job for everyone,” but I’d prefer to make the responses myself, in my own language, which is what I THINK in, and not have some third grader do it in Latin).

You speak of losing people. I’m troubled by this. On questions of doctrine, dogma, morality, yes, I’m in favor of letting the chips fall where they may. In any dialog or relationship, there are things over which we cannot bend. You don’t think artificial birth control is a sin and you’re not giving it up? You believe women can and should be priests? You don’t think you have to make auricular confession or that Sunday and Holy Days are obligations? You’re bent on engaging in homosexual relationships or “marriages?” You believe it’s abortion is a right? You think you should be able to marry any number of times without reference to the Church’s teachings? On these, on the essentials, if we end up with a smaller Church, well, let’s pray for those who’ve departed and make sacrifices and reparations for their intentions and their return. But on these non-essentials? I don’t think there’s any reason to further the ruptures in the Church. If you don’t want to recieve Communion in hand, then don’t. If you favor the EF, then by all means, attend it exclusively. But why drive people away when they need not be driven away, over something that is not essential?

I don’t think I’ve articulated this terribly well, but I find it troubling.

 

[edwest2]

JRPO;7477188:

The following comes from realcatholictv.com

.

This isn’t entirely true. I was 28 yrs. old in 1969 & remember the HUGE EXODUS of priests & nuns during the early 70’s. Many did not agree with what was happening. My city alone had 150 nuns in residence before aggiornamento. We had 10 parish schools & one high school completely staffed by nuns. By 1975, there was one nun left, who was principal of the high school. It is estimated that 69,000 priests left the priesthood during that same 5 yr. period & a vast majority of them were our brightest & our best young

priests. What was equally sad, was watching our older priests, 60yrs. & more try to adapt to something they didn’t want, didn’t ask for. They had given the Church their entire life & were now considered antiques whose presence was merely tolerated as the hippie priests, the “Paul Shanley” types took over.

Again I’ll say, that many Catholics just quit coming to Church. They just quietly left & as the years went by, some joined another Church. Most however, just “aren’t Catholic anymore” I am part of a family of 5 children who were raised pre-Vatican II. Our father paid the tuition for
all of us to attend 12 yrs. of Catholic school. I’m the only one in my
family who is still a Catholic.
As for those of us who “sat by & watched”…our choices were few. We sat by & watched or left the Church. It was a horrible time & I think that those of us who waited & prayed & PRAYED SOME MORE, should be given respect, as it was not an easy thing to do. Many times I ALMOST gave up hope

I agree with the above except for the “great confrontation”. I hope that doesn’t come during my lifetime, but the good Archbishop is correct, it
may come to that. The biggest hope we have is the fact that these "white-haired hippies of the 60’s"are getting older by the minute & the Catholic Youth are looking for something with some MEAT in it.
I quietly left my Novus Ordo parish as soon as Summorum Pontificum was promulgated & found one that offered the TLM & the theology that goes with that. Thanks be to God & Pope Benedict.

BTW. I had to cut some of the original post for brevity.

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