misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

[JReducation]

Really? Maybe you should explain it to many of the bishops then because after VII the church really fell apart.

That’s not quite fair either. The world is in a state of moral chaos. That is not the fault of Vatican II. We must never lose sight of the fact that Catholics, including bishops, are not born in bubbles. Right now, we live in a world of confusion.

The Church has always suffered along with the world around her. Look at the early Church, the Middle Ages, the Reformation era, the French Revolution, the east after the Communist take over and today. The Church has always been a victim and a player in world affairs. More and more, as time goes by, she becomes more of a victim as he loses political power.

In all of these situations, the Church has had to regroup. That’s what we need to do today. Pointing fingers at bishops is not regrouping. That’s just being angry. Anger can be a very good motivator for working harder to fix something; but it can also be a danger against virtue. The best example that I can offer on how to deal with righteous indignation in a peaceful and fruitful manner are men and women like: Benedict, Bernard, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Vincent de Paul, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Their indignation bore fruits of great charity and they never said a single word against bishops.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Really? Maybe you should explain it to many of the bishops then because after VII the church really fell apart.

It has? Gates of Hell triumphed? I do not agree that the Church has fallen apart, but then that depends on one’s perspective. Therefore, there is nothing to explain.

The Church has many serious issues in this modern era. Vatican II’s reprecussions is not one of them.

 

[Timothy17]

The Church has been in much sadder states than this. We are blessed to have a good, sound Pope right now who unambiguously condemns immoral behaviours, especially by clergy. Imagine if the Pope was literally attacked by immoral world leaders’ armies or if Synods of local bishops popped up defending, against the Pope’s explicit orders, immoral practices or trying to depose him, etc. The 10th century Church was in a sad condition, for example, and the reforming Popes of the 11th century went through hell, as it were, trying to return discipline and holiness to the clergy. See the biography of Pope St Gregory the VIIth, for example.

The “misinterpretations and misapplications” of Vatican II were largely done by proxy ; i.e., in secondary bodies like committees. One committee is not more authoratative than another, future committee. Any damage done can be undone.

JR, posting above, is correct. I believe what the Church needs is a council or pope who is determined to counter the false ammoral and immoral revolationary mentality of the past three hundred years, as earlier popes and councils succesfully countered the erroneous reformation mentality before them. This mentality has brought disaster to the social order and harmony of Christian states, breeding confusions and licentiousness.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[Warrenton]

The best example that I can offer on how to deal with righteous indignation in a peaceful and fruitful manner are men and women like: Benedict, Bernard, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Vincent de PaulBr. JR, OSF

You might at least have called then Mr. Benedict, Mr. Bernard and Mr. Dominic, etc.

This first name basis thing must be one Vat 2’s worst legacies!

 

[JReducation]

You might at least have called then Mr. Benedict, Mr. Bernard and Mr. Dominic, etc.

This first name basis thing must be one Vat 2’s worst legacies!

Actually, this has nothing to do wiht Vatican II. It has to do with Franciscan tradition and grammar.

In Franciscan tradition, which goes back to 1209, we don’t list saints and blesseds with titles. In speaking about one, we would use his or her title, for example: St. Augustine of Hippo.

In grammar, it’s a little convoluted, because some are saints and some are blesseds. If you start your list with Saints, X, Y, and Z, it would be inaccurate. They are not all saints. You would have to go St. X, St. Y, and Bl. Z.

If you observe the canon in the EF and the Eucharistic Prayer in the OF, when they list the saints they do not use their titles. They simply name them: “Peter, Paul, [insert other Apostles and Fathers] Cletus, Cornelius, Titus, Clement, Francis, Bonaventure, Lawrence, Fidelis, Clare, Agnes and all the saints.” Sorry, but I know the canon from the Roman-Franciscan Missal best. Those are the saints on our list.

If I were to name them the way that we name them on our (Franciscan) list, they would be:

St. Benedict the Abbot

St. Bernard of Clairveux

Our Holy Father, Francis or The Seraphic Father, Brother Francis of Assisi

Our Holy Father, Dominic

St. Vincent de Paul

Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta

That’s a litte long and cumbersome for a fluid Englsih sentence.

However, I believe that I made my point well enough.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Warrenton]

…for a fluid Englsih sentence.

However, I believe that I made my point well enough.

And made fluidly, at that!!!

 

[JReducation]

And made fluidly, at that!!!

 

[Timothy17]

I believe that this is where we see the theological genius of men like Pope John XXIII, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI. Number 77 is not a sustainable position for today. It was at the time when it was stated

Retract this statement JR or I will be forced to shun you as a publican and colour everything you say with the suspicion of a wicked and evil intent, being of a person both duplicitous and dishonest.

Furthermore, I will be keeping a close eye on you from here on out, and collecting your texts, which I will happily submit after pointing out each and every heterodox and heretical opinion, suggested or implied (of which even from my memory you have produced a litany of), and submit it to all possible competent authorities, without ceasing.

You are too worldly for a supposed friar, and your words betray your brains.

You would do well to re-position your writings so that they are not so manifestly evolutionary in principle, and revolutionary in intent. I am sure you are intelligent enough to be more subtle, and thus prevent manifest absurdities as the one quoted.

Pax Christi to those poor souls around you.

Tim.

 

[malphono]

Retract this statement JR or I will be forced to shun you as a publican and colour everything you say with the suspicion of a wicked and evil intent, being of a person both duplicitous and dishonest. …

One poster is certainly entitled to disagree with another, but it seems to me the above partially-quoted post crosses the line between disagreement and attack. The entire thing is just a bit harsh, and I’m afraid it might result in the the thread being locked or worse.

 

[Timothy17]

Retract this statement JR.

Tim.

After taking some friendly advice, I offer the above as the edit to my original post, which the edit on it expired.

 

[bjryman]

I must say that I have never seen such degrading opinion regarding Vatican II as I have read in these postings. I was 18 when Vatican II came to our church and was the first Canter and First Eucharistic Ministers. I was awed and inspired.

I am now gray haired for sure…never was a hippie though. I also teach RCIA now and one of the topics I have is Vatican II.

I’ve read the raw Vatican documents as well as “Vatican II for Dummies” if you will. There are a couple of points that overwhelming lead me to believe that many of the folks that don’t like where their church has gone, don’t seem to have accepted.

1. The EARLIEST CHURCH was simple, home grown. Prayer, song of all kinds like the bible states is to be used to raise our voices to God, Breaking of Eucharistic Bread, Teaching was all done very simply. It was NOT until Constantine essentially made the Catholic Church the official Church of the State, that all the physical trappings started to appear. So Vatican II was a resetting of our basic physical trappings to the original pre-Roman secular state religion times.
2. The EARLIEST CHURCH was one of community involvement. They shared everything. Actually, they probably acted more like communists given their expectation that Christ was coming back in their lifetimes. The Bishops and Deacons were voted on by acclamation of the local church community then approved by the Magisterium. The whole organization was participative, not passive.
3. The EARLIEST CHURCH was one that used local customs and rubrics in its Christian community acitivities.

Over the years, especially when the Church became about the only working hierarchy in the middle ages, and church buildings were as much defense castles as places of worship, the rules tightened, the rituals were pulled back to the priests, bishops etc. It was a process aided by the fact that during that time the Church was in collusion with most European Fiefdoms…for their very overall survival.

So Vatican II is meant to “open the doors of the Church”. What was NOT meant was to lose some of the beautiful rituals and other ancillary trappings that makes our liturgy something special.

At our Church of 3,000 families, we are faithful to Vatican II and we include a wide variety of rituals from the past (processions, incense, latin songs) etc. into the more modern (think The Jesuits) music. We consider ourselves eccletic. I happen to play accoustical guitar and sing in a 5 man ensemble (one of four entirely different music venues offered at our church) This week we will have a guitar solo of Jesu, Man’s Desire…which is absolutely a holy, inspiring, and introspective piece.

We have an adoration chapel that is supported 24/7 by volunteers so that the Eucharist is fully displayed and opened to our congregation for prayer and adoration

…and, our Church currently has EIGHT young men in the seminary and have had several become priests in the last few years. We understand that our Church is in the top 5% of all in the USA regarding religious vocation acceptance.

In 2010 we reopened our Convent and now have six Sisters (Healing and Education) 100% supported by our Parish.

What more could a faithful Catholic wish for than this robust active, vibrant community expression of Christ’s teachings and direction?

Other churchs may have “gone over the deep end” and totally abandoned their Christian Catholic compass…but we are an example of how Vatican II is all meant to work.

Oh yeah, we have a superb Web Site as well, completed produced by one of our parishioners www.olgreenwood.org.

Fatihfully Yours
bruce

 

[Judge_Mental]

That’s great for you, but it’s not the general experience of those eating the bitter fruits of Vatican II.

Your use of the phrase “Earliest Church” suggests there was something wrong with the Later Church. Traditionalist Catholics like me look around for a quiet, solemn mass in a well ordered church with traditional hymns and find a desert, with the occasional Latin Mass oasis.

One of the grave mistakes of those deluded by the spirit of Vatican II was to throw the baby out with the bath water. There was also the ‘pick and mix’ attitude: take things out of context from our history, or other churches, and add them to our rites.

When you do that, you devalue the whole rite in the minds of attendees. If it can change so much, so easily, how important is it?

 

[laszlo]

1. The EARLIEST CHURCH was simple, home grown. Prayer, song of all kinds like the bible states is to be used to raise our voices to God, Breaking of Eucharistic Bread, Teaching was all done very simply. It was NOT until Constantine essentially made the Catholic Church the official Church of the State, that all the physical trappings started to appear. So Vatican II was a resetting of our basic physical trappings to the original pre-Roman secular state religion times.

Vatican II did not do this

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. 3 … decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See

40.1 … Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

63.b These rituals, which are to be adapted, also as regards the language employed, to the needs of the different regions, are to be reviewed by the Apostolic
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

The people’s Church, where local communities do whatever they deem useful, is condemned heresy not the fruit of Vatican II. The Roman Catholic Church is strictly hierarchical Church, from the beginning and ever.

 

[ProVobis]

Your use of the phrase “Earliest Church” suggests there was something wrong with the Later Church.

I was thinking of that too. It seems the “earliest church” was in the Coliseum and in the catacombs. All except one Apostle were martyrs for Christ. The early church was far from being simple.

 

[edwest2]

Vatican II did not cause problems in the Church. What does Pope Benedict tell us today? Too many people are Indifferent. We have been taught by the media to believe the following: “Hey, what’s the big deal?” We have been conditioned to accept scandalous behavior. I recall when it became trendy for actresses and singers to divorce. When it became trendy to disrespect men. When it became trendy to use illegal drugs.

What does Father Corapi emphasize when he talks about abortion to Catholics? One word: Silence! We are silent too often.

Here is the Hippie version: “Hey man. Do your own thing. Now your thing might not be my thing and my thing might not be your thing, but that’s cool.”

Or the later version: “I’m OK, You’re OK.” Everything’s OK. Good, evil, where?

Or the current version: “Life is just shades of grey.”

Grey is the devil’s favorite color.

Dissenters within the Church went hog wild after Vatican II.

Peace,
Ed

 

[laszlo]

I was thinking of that too. It seems the “earliest church” was in the Coliseum and in the catacombs. All except one Apostle were martyrs for Christ. The early church was far from being simple.

Yes. Outside of the martyrs in the time of the Apostles were the judaizers, than the Gnostics, the the Arians; all wanting to disrupt the Church according to the their expectations, and causing deep problems in the Church.

 

[archangel04]

I was thinking of that too. It seems the “earliest church” was in the Coliseum and in the catacombs. All except one Apostle were martyrs for Christ. The early church was far from being simple.

Thank you for pointing it out, finally someone does it! It’s always funny how people always say that traditionalist look back to a time that did not exist. Yet “modernist” claim what they do is because that’s how it was done in the early Church, well those times were not the best times for anyone to proclaim they are Christian if they wanted to live or avoid prison. Simple time? Compared to today, the first 3 centuries of the Church makes ours look like a walk in the park.

 

[JReducation]

Vatican II did not cause problems in the Church. What does Pope Benedict tell us today? Too many people are Indifferent. We have been taught by the media to believe the following: “Hey, what’s the big deal?” We have been conditioned to accept scandalous behavior. I recall when it became trendy for actresses and singers to divorce. When it became trendy to disrespect men. When it became trendy to use illegal drugs.

What does Father Corapi emphasize when he talks about abortion to Catholics? One word: Silence! We are silent too often.

Here is the Hippie version: “Hey man. Do your own thing. Now your thing might not be my thing and my thing might not be your thing, but that’s cool.”

Or the later version: “I’m OK, You’re OK.” Everything’s OK. Good, evil, where?

Or the current version: “Life is just shades of grey.”

Grey is the devil’s favorite color.

Dissenters within the Church went hog wild after Vatican II.

Peace,
Ed

Everything that you’re saying about today is true. However, I would add one thing. Dissent comes in waves.

We had all the issues about the nature of Christ during the early Church.

There were the penitential movements that turned to heresy during the Middle Ages.

Then came the Reformers which gave bith to the Protestant Reformation.

There was the Modernist movement of the 19th century early 20th, which dissented from everything.

Then you have the post WW II world of dissent, not just in the Church, but across the board.

I agree that with what you say, but I won’t pin it on Vatican II. We live in a world where that which is right is suddenly wrong and that which was always wrong is suddenly right.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[archangel04]

BR JR do you think in your opinion the world maybe even including some in the Church, they are more consused when it comes to morality? Even about Jesus himself? Today one of the biggest problems we face is moral relevatism correct?

When I ask about Jesus what I mean is that many people have this definiton on who God is, and some if not most of it contradicts on what the Church teaches about the nature of God.

 

[Gregory_I]

One of the biggest problems we face today is Catholic denial of the doctrine of Original sin. All flows from there.