misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have trouble with the use of the term “pre-conciliar” to describe anything within the Church.

The Church, since the first Ecumenical Council (or you could even look to the council in the Book of Acts) has always been a post-conciliar Church.

It just seems that those who chose to use this term do so in a way to denigrate, and dismiss, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.

 

[At_Trent]

How else can we indicate the time period before VII ?

 

[maurin]

I have trouble with the use of the term “pre-conciliar” to describe anything within the Church.

The Church, since the first Ecumenical Council (or you could even look to the council in the Book of Acts) has always been a post-conciliar Church.

It just seems that those who chose to use this term do so in a way to denigrate, and dismiss, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.

Maybe, but I think there is at least one poster on this forum who has used it to denigrate and dismiss what came before. Furthermore, it was the architects of the changes which lead to so much devestation themselves who coined the phrase. Read the archives of L’9sservatore Romano from the early 70’s.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

How else can we indicate the time period before VII ?

ByzCath has a point. I wonder how many of those who thought Peter and Paul and the Apostles were wrong at the Council of Jerusalem huffed around about their “pre-conciliar” Church.

 

[rben20]

I guess the term is used in light of a “pastoral” council instead of a “dogmatic” one. Vatican II to my understanding reaffirmed much of what the previous councils taught but had a vague approach in changing the Mass.

Old Medic doesn’t know anything about realcatholic.tv. The site in no way “hates” vatican II. They actually make sure people know it is not the council they have trouble with but the interpretations and implementations that followed after which is true but largely ignored.

Personally, I feel we need a new syllabus of errors from the Pope. I hope the Bishop’s presentation certainly convinces the Pope. Priests are doing whatever they want and bishops seem to only care about being politically correct. Laity have no power and are forced to put up with all this. The only way laity have some power is if they have the backing of a priest.

 

[archangel04]

I guess the term is used in light of a “pastoral” council instead of a “dogmatic” one. Vatican II to my understanding reaffirmed much of what the previous councils taught but had a vague approach in changing the Mass.

Old Medic doesn’t know anything about realcatholic.tv. The site in no way “hates” vatican II. They actually make sure people know it is not the council they have trouble with but the interpretations and implementations that followed after which is true but largely ignored.

Personally, I feel we need a new syllabus of errors from the Pope. I hope the Bishop’s presentation certainly convinces the Pope. Priests are doing whatever they want and bishops seem to only care about being politically correct. Laity have no power and are forced to put up with all this. The only way laity have some power is if they have the backing of a priest.

That’s the problem with almost everyone that hates or dislikes realcatholic tv. They only see 1% of the entire ministry. They see the Vortext because it’s available and immidialty think that the entire thing is like Bill Oriley. It really isn’t and there are hours upon hours of good solid orthodox Catholic education for it’s members, and they also have a news segment. Many times I’ve heard you don’t do this, or we don’t do that anymore because Vatican II said so. It’s amazes me that with a simple read of some of the documents and anyone with a half-working brain will realize that many things we see today were not things that the council father imagined for the Church. Even those who left in a gran Exodus from the Church will have to give account’s to God for leaving the faithdul behind.

 

[white_sheep]

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.

Just think of how much good they might have done had they stayed in the trenches. I sometimes think about this when I’m faced with a difficult situation.

 

[FAB]

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.

Any time I see this kind of augment, I would like to see the empirical evidence that the Changes that came from Vatican II caused any of it. they fail to take into account social, communication and global changes and events that effected all institutions including the Church. All the rites could have remained the same and the Church could still be facing these same issues, but even more, since it would not have the flexibility ( relative term when speaking of the Church) that Vatican II gave it to address modern issues.

 

[maurin]

Any time I see this kind of augment, I would like to see the empirical evidence that the Changes that came from Vatican II caused any of it. they fail to take into account social, communication and global changes and events that effected all institutions including the Church. All the rites could have remained the same and the Church could still be facing these same issues, but even more, since it would not have the flexibility ( relative term when speaking of the Church) that Vatican II gave it to address modern issues.

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.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How else can we indicate the time period before VII ?

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”?

 

[Dan-Man916]

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.

FAB makes excellent point. However, the onus would be on you to demonstrate how Vatican II caused these problem. You come from a position of assuming that Vatican II did cause them, when you asked for proof that VII DID NOT cause these problems.
That is a position of assuming guilt. It doesn’t work that way.

 

[ProVobis]

However, the onus would be on you to demonstrate how Vatican II caused these problem. You come from a position of assuming that Vatican II did cause them, when you asked for proof that VII DID NOT cause these problems.
That is a position of assuming guilt. It doesn’t work that way.

Either way, it’s a pointless argument unless you start breaking down exactly what Vatican II said or what its objectives were. Has anyone addressed what it was supposed to do? We all seem to know what the Council of Trent was called to do. Was Vatican II called to undo what 20 some years of Trent and 400 years of its effects accomplished? Some food for thought maybe.

 

[maurin]

FAB makes excellent point. However, the onus would be on you to demonstrate how Vatican II caused these problem. You come from a position of assuming that Vatican II did cause them, when you asked for proof that VII DID NOT cause these problems.
That is a position of assuming guilt. It doesn’t work that way.

It seems to me that the evidence and proof you are asking for can be found in abundance, not only on this forum, but in many, many local Parishes.

I t also seems to me, with all sincere and due respect, that your reply conveniently shifts the onus of responsibility to offer evidence for your own standpoint: that which quiote honestly seems to ignore that the misapplications and misinterpretations of VII are the cause of the devestations.

Can you point to me, from the documents produduced by the Council Fathers, where the Altars are to be free-standing, and every Priest must turn his back to the Tabernacle and toward the people? Directly from the same documents where no Tabernacle ought to remain on the Altar?

From the same documents, where the Council Fathers changed the ordinary mode of Reception of the Blessed Sacrament?

Can you? From the Council Documents themselves?

 

[laszlo]

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

The article as historical document proves that there was exodus.

As for priests, the Vatican acknowledges that it has on file at least 10,000 requests from priests asking to be dispensed from their vows, and there are undoubtedly thousands more who have left without asking at all. In the U.S. alone, an organization called Bearings for Re-Establishment, which helps former priests, ministers and other religious find their way into the secular world, handles about 165 new priest-clients each month—2,000 per year—and this may be less than half of the total number in the U.S. who leave.

The article also indicates that mostly rationalist/progressive/liberals left the Church

Says Jesuit Sociologist Eugene Schallert, who has just completed a study of 317 departed priests: “Those who are leaving are some of the best men in the church—some of the most intelligent, most enterprising, most charismatic. They are occupationally top men, capable of holding down really good jobs.”

My theory (viewing the huge surge of the number of priests in the US between 1045 and 1965 and the following exodus, and the fact that the US seminaries quickly turned toward the rationalist/progressive/liberal ideas)) is that agents were sent to the Church, and those who could not stick as tenured scholars left the Church.

The article also shows that the change was against the magisterium:

But many others are seeking new modes of Christian life outside institutional structures because “the possibility of creating such new forms seems temporarily denied by the power structure within the Roman Catholic Church, most critically by Rome itself.”

 

[edwest2]

Either way, it’s a pointless argument unless you start breaking down exactly what Vatican II said or what its objectives were. Has anyone addressed what it was supposed to do? We all seem to know what the Council of Trent was called to do. Was Vatican II called to undo what 20 some years of Trent and 400 years of its effects accomplished? Some food for thought maybe.

Here is the opening speech to Vatican II by Pope John XXIII:

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

edwest2;7478927:

The article as historical document proves that there was exodus.

As for priests, the Vatican acknowledges that it has on file at least 10,000 requests from priests asking to be dispensed from their vows, and there are undoubtedly thousands more who have left without asking at all. In the U.S. alone, an organization called Bearings for Re-Establishment, which helps former priests, ministers and other religious find their way into the secular world, handles about 165 new priest-clients each month—2,000 per year—and this may be less than half of the total number in the U.S. who leave.

The article also indicates that mostly rationalist/progressive/liberals left the Church

Says Jesuit Sociologist Eugene Schallert, who has just completed a study of 317 departed priests: “Those who are leaving are some of the best men in the church—some of the most intelligent, most enterprising, most charismatic. They are occupationally top men, capable of holding down really good jobs.”

My theory (viewing the huge surge of the number of priests in the US between 1045 and 1965 and the following exodus, and the fact that the US seminaries quickly turned toward the rationalist/progressive/liberal ideas)) is that agents were sent to the Church, and those who could not stick as tenured scholars left the Church.

The article also shows that the change was against the magisterium:

But many others are seeking new modes of Christian life outside institutional structures because “the possibility of creating such new forms seems temporarily denied by the power structure within the Roman Catholic Church, most critically by Rome itself.”

If you read the article carefully, the word power assumes that change was required of the “power structure” of the Catholic Church. Instead of waiting on God and seeking guidance from God, some simply wanted to do it their way. They were influenced by the spirit of the times, wrongly called freedom, that helped convince some that something was “wrong” with the Church.

At least one priest who signed a protest letter against Humanae Vitae, issued in 1968, has publicly regretted his decission. Humanae Vitae’s implementation had to be stopped by the Sexual Revolution - that was the problem, not Vatican II. Vatican II is simply the scapegoat. We, as Catholics, trusted some people we should not have.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ProVobis]

Here is the opening speech to Vatican II by Pope John XXIII:

I know that. But Pope John XXIII never signed any of its documents and only made short-term plans for the council. What were the objectives of reconvening the council after Pope John died?

 

[Warrenton]

I have posted it before, but I am thinking that Vat II caused the problems less and less. And believe me, I was strongly against the council.

However, there is a chap who posts frequently here called Worker Priest, and he is a traditionalist Lutheran. No V2 for Lutherans, or Episcopalians, or Orthodox. To read his very thoughtful posts, our Protestant bretheren all have problems, some even larger than ours. The troubles with the Orthodox are different, but most of them were behind the iron curtain. The ones here in the US have problems aplenty, such as refugee Episcopalians and RC’s calling themselves “This or That branch of the Ortho Church.” It’s chaos.

Look at the 20th Century. Two huge wars, countless smaller ones, total upheaval. Millions of people under too much pressure. Just as medieval society came unglued under the pounding of the Turks and the plaugue, so ours did in the 20th Century.

The clown masses and the altar boy scandals were in the cards, with or without V2.

In some ways, it’s amazing it was not worse. The terrorist stuff the Muslims have to contend with is not the sign of a strong religion, it is a sign of total confusion and self destruction.

We have our traditions, so we know what to do. We just need to get to work, and I think that is happening all over the Catholic world.

Officially rehashing a behemoth like V2 is not going to get anywhere, other than create rancour.

 

[ProVobis]

If you read the article carefully, the word power assumes that change was required of the “power structure” of the Catholic Church. Instead of waiting on God and seeking guidance from God, some simply wanted to do it their way. They were influenced by the spirit of the times, wrongly called freedom, that helped convince some that something was “wrong” with the Church.

Yet the end result, unlike Trent, was the blurring of the lines between Protestantism and Catholicism. Songs, babelization of the liturgy, ICEL introductions of now too common “And also with you” in all events, birth control, Friday meat, methods of receiving communion, etc. What identity did the Catholics have left to them? Perhaps the Vatican II documents on ecumenism were grossly misinterpreted? Certainly most of the Vatican II documents on the liturgy (Latin, Gregorian Chant, etc.) were seriously compromised.

At least one priest who signed a protest letter against Humanae Vitae, issued in 1968, has publicly regretted his decission. Humanae Vitae’s implementation had to be stopped by the Sexual Revolution - that was the problem,

Humanae Vitae came too little, too late. Disciplines had been relaxed and most sins were left to one’s “conscience.” Was this perhaps another unintended consequence of Vatican II position on ecumenism? I don’t know if I have an answer to that.

 

[FAB]

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”?

Another issue with pre and post is that many of the changes were already being formulated and proposed before the council. It is possible that many of the changes would have happened without the council but the Holy Spirit had a different time line than man’s.