Pope: 2nd Vatican Council, work of Holy Spirit but some want to turn back the clock

[FAB]

Was not the 1962 Missal in Latin, part of the Mass reforms begun in 1948, restored by our shepherds (2 Popes, many Cardinals) as well? Where’s the enthusiasm in implementing their wills on this?

Your talking about 50 and 70 years ago respectively, not even certain how that comes into the conversation since it is long past, the popes have died and no doubt the cardinals as well. The church has moved on.

 

[russet1]

We have to be very careful not to reduce Vatican II to the mass. I’ve been noticing this tendency on CAF for a number of years. Why not speak about what Vatican II said on any of these other subjects? Does anyone even care to know?

That is a very good observation.
Most of the opposition and debate involve the liturgy. If this could be separated out Vatican II would lose much of it’s opposition.
We could have real discussion about theological things. About salvation and the continuity of the Magisterium throught time.

The liturgical experimentation and subsequent fighting have only muddied the waters more.

It is time to drop the idea of liturgical innovations and gimmicks just as it is time to drop the idea that one form is better than another. Both forms should be celebrated correctly and that should have nothing to do with Vatican II at all!

 

[GangGreen]

Your talking about 50 and 70 years ago respectively, not even certain how that comes into the conversation since it is long past, the popes have died and no doubt the cardinals as well. The church has moved on.

Was not the Pauline Mass implemented only a few years later? That’s a not so long past.

 

[JReducation]

Here’s my observation. This is a new forum. The article says that the Holy Father spoke about the need to implement Vatican II.

As a fair minded person, I feel obliged to discuss Vatican II, which is what the pope is talking about, not to discuss the form of the mass, which is not what the pope is talking about.

Once the thread shifts to the mass for more than three pages, we have done a disservice to the Holy Father. We have completely ignored him and moved on to a subject that we feel is important, not the one that he says is important.

Right now, Pope Francis is not concerned about the celebration of the mass. He may speak about this at some other point. Right now, he wants us to focus on Vatican II, the entire thing. We’re not doing that.

Vatican II called on Catholics to pay attention to many things. None of them have been discussed in this thread. This happens each time a pope speaks about Vatican II. Last October, Pope Benedict spoke about Vatican II on the even of the 50th anniversary. For days people posted about nothing other than the liturgy. Then people wonder why priests, brothers and sisters pay them very little attention when they try to speak to us. The reason is simple. Hearing the same old same old about the liturgy and Vatican II gets old.

We want to talk about what Vatican II says regarding Sacred Scripture and Revelation, what Vatican II said about the apostolate of the laity, or what Vatican II said about social communication, which is very important to us because we use it everyday to communicate on CAF and other forums. But do we know what Vatican II said about the use of social communication? Do we take that guidance into account before we post a scathing comment about other people, including the pope himself? It doesn’t look like it.

If people had read that document, they probably would be much more careful and sophisticated in using the means of mass communication.

We need to take the whole of Vatican II, because that’s what the pope wants to focus on, not the liturgy in isolation. Otherwise, this thread is not about the article, but about the liturgy.

As I saw above, a good discussion on the use social communication, sacred scripture and revelation, East - West relations between Christians, apostolate of the laity, and so many other powerful topics need to be fleshed out. That’s what the pope wants us to do.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

It seems likely that Pope Benedict had some concerns about the loss of Latin, considering that he established an academy to promote its use, at which time he made a speech about Latin’s importance. If you are trusting the leaders of the Church to know what is best for us in this area, you would be studying Latin.

Yet he never once said that it was required, and he never once said that masses that did not include Latin were wrong. Liking something and wanting to encourage it are one thing. And it is not the same thing as saying something is right and everything else is wrong.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

or maybe they haven’t taken swift action to bring it back because it would cause a divide in the Church?

Yesterday, I went to a Mass at a different parish than normal. My normal parish has a quite reverent OF Mass, not the best that I could imagine, but I haven’t been to many better. However, this parish had guitars and flutes playing with the choir. I had never experienced this and was frightened. I literally prayed “Lord, what are they doing?”

Anyway, maybe these people like that, I don’t know, but what would happen if these people walked into Mass one day and suddenly all they heard was Gregorian chant and prayers in Latin? Maybe some would like it; some would just accept it since it’s the Church’s doing; and others would hate it, leave and maybe never come back. This is what happened after Vatican II and I’m sure the Church would like to avoid that happening again. Any change that occurs will be slow and over longer periods of time. It may take a couple generations for any change to truly take hold.

I don’t think this is the case. I think the fact is that they are going to continue to encourage Latin, but I do not think it will ever be required again. If they had any plans of going that direction, I think they would have forced at least some Latin to be included in the missal and not just approved an all English missal.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Just because the Church is permitting something does not mean there is no problem with it. We a discussing a statement by Pope Francis that the Church has still not done everything that Spirit called her to do through the 2nd Vatican Council. This means that the way things are right now is not necessarily the ideal of how they ought to be. The Pope is telling us to look at the Council to figure out how they ought to be. When we look at what the Council says about language of the liturgy, we see that there should be Latin.

I don’t think the Pope was making a point about Latin.

Second of all, they don’t just permit all English - they approved it.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

The Council documents gave specific recommendations about which parts of the Mass should be in Latin and which in the vernacular. There was no recommendation for a completely vernacular Mass. The fact that the current norm does not match the recommendations suggests that further changes in the celebration of the Mass are called for. Given the comments of Pope Francis, it further suggests that people who are stubbornly clinging to the current norm are resisting the Holy Spirit.

That is quite a charge against people when you have no facts for what the Pope was talking about as he did not go into specifics. The fact that the current norms do not reflect the council may have to do with the fact that decades have passed and things have changed and the Church does not think that it needs to revisit all of these things.

Now, I am not saying that the Church is not going back to Latin. They very well may. We will have to wait and see. What I am saying is that the all vernacular mass has not just been permitted, it has been approved. That being said, I don’t think anyone should be accused of resisting the Holy Spirit when they are participating in a mass that has been approved by the Church.

 

[crazzeto]

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/04/16/pope:_2nd_vatican_council,_work_of_holy_spirit_but_some_want_to_tur/en1-683419

In his homily at Mass today, Pope Francis talked about the Holy Spirit and Vatican II:

Any thoughts about what changes he thinks are needed? How do we change and avoid turning back the clock?

Considering it could well be argued this counsel was never implemented in the first place, I agree with the Holy Father completely. I am joyful to hear he intends to move forward with implementation of the Second Vatican counsel. I do however, in my heart of hearts he allows the traditional for to continue being preserved as his predessesor has (in terms of the Mass).

 

[CatholicGeek1]

[Square brackets are my addition]

Notice how many of those phrases are in the 1st person. Everything is about “me” and how “I understand”, but that has never been the Catholic way. In fact, the emphasis on the self come out of the Modern period (especially the philosophies of Descartes and Kant). In the Modern sense, everything becomes about how I see the world.

But that’s not how our Faith works. The proper way to read a Church document like Vatican II is through the eyes of the Church, because the Church is the sole authentic interpreter. And you learn about interpretation through external actions.

How do I know that is how you understand? Because that’s how Jesus taught us to understand. For example, the 3rd Commandment is “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work”. If I were to read that you know what I would think? That the Pharisees in the Gospel have the right interpretation because it says that “You shall not do any work”. But Jesus, through his actions (healing, picking grain, etc) shows us that this is not the correct interpretation of that Commandment, even though you can’t really find a logical inconsistency in how the Pharisees interpreted it.

In the same way, it is through the actions of the Church that you understand what the teachings authentically mean. It is not for me to interpret, but only for me to watch what the Church does. I trust the Church to lead me to salvation because the Holy Spirit guides Her.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

Please return to the topic of the original post.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Here’s my observation. This is a new forum. The article says that the Holy Father spoke about the need to implement Vatican II.

As a fair minded person, I feel obliged to discuss Vatican II, which is what the pope is talking about, not to discuss the form of the mass, which is not what the pope is talking about.

Once the thread shifts to the mass for more than three pages, we have done a disservice to the Holy Father. We have completely ignored him and moved on to a subject that we feel is important, not the one that he says is important.

Right now, Pope Francis is not concerned about the celebration of the mass. He may speak about this at some other point. Right now, he wants us to focus on Vatican II, the entire thing. We’re not doing that.

Vatican II called on Catholics to pay attention to many things. None of them have been discussed in this thread. This happens each time a pope speaks about Vatican II. Last October, Pope Benedict spoke about Vatican II on the even of the 50th anniversary. For days people posted about nothing other than the liturgy. Then people wonder why priests, brothers and sisters pay them very little attention when they try to speak to us. The reason is simple. Hearing the same old same old about the liturgy and Vatican II gets old.

We want to talk about what Vatican II says regarding Sacred Scripture and Revelation, what Vatican II said about the apostolate of the laity, or what Vatican II said about social communication, which is very important to us because we use it everyday to communicate on CAF and other forums. But do we know what Vatican II said about the use of social communication? Do we take that guidance into account before we post a scathing comment about other people, including the pope himself? It doesn’t look like it.

If people had read that document, they probably would be much more careful and sophisticated in using the means of mass communication.

We need to take the whole of Vatican II, because that’s what the pope wants to focus on, not the liturgy in isolation. Otherwise, this thread is not about the article, but about the liturgy.

As I saw above, a good discussion on the use social communication, sacred scripture and revelation, East - West relations between Christians, apostolate of the laity, and so many other powerful topics need to be fleshed out. That’s what the pope wants us to do.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I decided to go back to Father Z’s blog where I had originally seen the post which spoke about 'turning back the clock".

This is what was said: it was posted on April 16.

"Francis quoted Stephen before he was killed, according to the Vatican Radio piece which I checked against the Italian… and you can see how cut up this is:
“the Holy Spirit upsets us because it moves us, it makes us walk, it pushes the Church forward.” He said that we wish “to calm down the Holy Spirit, we want to tame it and this is wrong.” Pope Francis said “that’s because the Holy Spirit is the strength of God, it’s what gives us the strength to go forward” but many find this upsetting and prefer the comfort of the familiar.
Nowadays, he went on, “everybody seems happy about the presence of the Holy Spirit but it’s not really the case and there is still that temptation to resist it.” The Pope said one example of this resistance was the Second Vatican council which he called “a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit.” But 50 years later, “have we done everything the Holy Spirit was asking us to do during the Council,” he asked. The answer is “No,” said Pope Francis. “We celebrate this anniversary, we put up a monument but we don’t want it to upset us. We don’t want to change and what’s more there are those who wish to turn the clock back.” [The Italian says: “Ci sono voci che vogliono andare indietro… there are voices which want to go back”] This, he went on, “is called stubbornness “essere testardi”] and wanting to tame the Holy Spirit.”
The Pope said the same thing happens in our personal life. “The Spirit pushes us to take a more evangelical path but we resist this.” He concluded his homily by urging those present not to resist the pull of the Holy Spirit. “Submit to the Holy Spirit,” he said, “which comes from within us and makes go forward along the path of holiness.”

So the ITALIAN (which is what the Pope was speaking) said, "voices which want to go back’ and the English is "turn the clock back’.

There is a difference, I think. Wanting to ‘go back’ could reflect many things other than a return to a particular 'time and place". A person who is lost in the woods doesn’t want to go back to a time before he entered the woods; he simply wants to retrace his steps to the point before he got lost.

But the phrase “turning the clock back” does not have that kind of connotation. It is associated with wanting to go back to some STATIC time and to force others to return, even those who are ‘not lost’. This would be a person who is lost in the woods and DOES want to go back to say 1870, when these woods had been ‘clear cut’, and so he wouldn’t be in them to be lost in the first place --quite a different scenario than wanting to be back in a place before he got lost!

Anyway, that’s how I see it, or my 2 cents.

 

[markomalley]

Here’s my observation. This is a new forum. The article says that the Holy Father spoke about the need to implement Vatican II.

As a fair minded person, I feel obliged to discuss Vatican II, which is what the pope is talking about, not to discuss the form of the mass, which is not what the pope is talking about.

Once the thread shifts to the mass for more than three pages, we have done a disservice to the Holy Father. We have completely ignored him and moved on to a subject that we feel is important, not the one that he says is important.

Really good point, Bro. Jay. We are down a rabbit hole.

Getting back to Vatican II, did you read the piece on the Homiletic and Pastoral Review website written by Fr. Scanlon (OFM, Cap):
Fifty Years Later–Vatican II’s Unfinished Business

It starts off as follows:

Fifty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council, the Church in the United States is in the throes of a struggle. Loyal Catholics are showing renewed vigor and vitality, and are helping the Church to move forward in unity. At the same time, the Church is also being exhausted and drained from within by a vocal movement of other Catholics who continue to dissent from Church teachings, particularly the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

Dissent is entrenched in the Church in the U.S.
For most American Catholics over 50, it is an accepted fact that dissent from the magisterium of the Church is widespread, tolerated, and, in some quarters, even welcomed. The breaking point, of course, was Paul VI’s 1968 prophetic encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which condemned contraception as “intrinsically disordered.” The encyclical became one of the most controversial documents of the century, if not many centuries. The widespread dissent by Catholics was led with enthusiasm by huge numbers of Catholic theologians, professors and intellectuals. The onslaught of bright, articulate academics turning on the Pope encouraged many Catholics in the pews to do the same.

It’s rather longish compared to blog entries, but it is a rather insightful assessment…one that would make neither right nor left comfortable.

Was that what you had in mind?

 

[floresco]

We need to take the whole of Vatican II, because that’s what the pope wants to focus on, not the liturgy in isolation. Otherwise, this thread is not about the article, but about the liturgy.

As I saw above, a good discussion on the use social communication, sacred scripture and revelation, East - West relations between Christians, apostolate of the laity, and so many other powerful topics need to be fleshed out. That’s what the pope wants us to do.

This made me curious to see how this thread ended up focusing on liturgy so I went back to check. The topic was introduced in the second response to the OP. It remained the main focus of the thread from that point on.

I am not sure how we get people thinking about the rest of the documents. I have the impression that they are not even on most people’s radar.

 

[ProVobis]

I decided to go back to Father Z’s blog where I had originally seen the post which spoke about 'turning back the clock".

This is what was said: it was posted on April 16.

So the ITALIAN (which is what the Pope was speaking) said, "voices which want to go back’ and the English is "turn the clock back’.

There is a difference, I think. Wanting to ‘go back’ could reflect many things other than a return to a particular 'time and place". A person who is lost in the woods doesn’t want to go back to a time before he entered the woods; he simply wants to retrace his steps to the point before he got lost.

But the phrase “turning the clock back” does not have that kind of connotation. It is associated with wanting to go back to some STATIC time and to force others to return, even those who are ‘not lost’. This would be a person who is lost in the woods and DOES want to go back to say 1870, when these woods had been ‘clear cut’, and so he wouldn’t be in them to be lost in the first place --quite a different scenario than wanting to be back in a place before he got lost!

Anyway, that’s how I see it, or my 2 cents.

Indeed, you make a good point and I agree. But it seems that translations must fit into the English vernacular, meaning a phrase which is used often. Unfortunately, “voices wanting to go back” doesn’t fit well. There have been a lot of instances of this in other translations as well. Good research.

 

[JReducation]

I decided to go back to Father Z’s blog where I had originally seen the post which spoke about 'turning back the clock".

This is what was said: it was posted on April 16.

So the ITALIAN (which is what the Pope was speaking) said, "voices which want to go back’ and the English is "turn the clock back’.

There is a difference, I think. Wanting to ‘go back’ could reflect many things other than a return to a particular 'time and place". A person who is lost in the woods doesn’t want to go back to a time before he entered the woods; he simply wants to retrace his steps to the point before he got lost.

But the phrase “turning the clock back” does not have that kind of connotation. It is associated with wanting to go back to some STATIC time and to force others to return, even those who are ‘not lost’. This would be a person who is lost in the woods and DOES want to go back to say 1870, when these woods had been ‘clear cut’, and so he wouldn’t be in them to be lost in the first place --quite a different scenario than wanting to be back in a place before he got lost!

Anyway, that’s how I see it, or my 2 cents.

I’m a fluent Italian speaker. This is an idiomatic expression used in the Piemonte region. It’s equivalent in English is “to turn back the clock”. Think of something like “you’re pulling my leg” and how it would translate literally into Italian. It would make no sense to them.

Really good point, Bro. Jay. We are down a rabbit hole.

Getting back to Vatican II, did you read the piece on the Homiletic and Pastoral Review website written by Fr. Scanlon (OFM, Cap):
Fifty Years Later–Vatican II’s Unfinished Business

It starts off as follows:

Fifty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council, the Church in the United States is in the throes of a struggle. Loyal Catholics are showing renewed vigor and vitality, and are helping the Church to move forward in unity. At the same time, the Church is also being exhausted and drained from within by a vocal movement of other Catholics who continue to dissent from Church teachings, particularly the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

Dissent is entrenched in the Church in the U.S.
For most American Catholics over 50, it is an accepted fact that dissent from the magisterium of the Church is widespread, tolerated, and, in some quarters, even welcomed. The breaking point, of course, was Paul VI’s 1968 prophetic encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which condemned contraception as “intrinsically disordered.” The encyclical became one of the most controversial documents of the century, if not many centuries. The widespread dissent by Catholics was led with enthusiasm by huge numbers of Catholic theologians, professors and intellectuals. The onslaught of bright, articulate academics turning on the Pope encouraged many Catholics in the pews to do the same.

It’s rather longish compared to blog entries, but it is a rather insightful assessment…one that would make neither right nor left comfortable.

Was that what you had in mind?

Regis and I are classmates. We went through the M.Div together and lived in the same house for several years. He’s absolutely brilliant. He’s someone that you want to hear.

His point is very similar to my own. But I’ll speak about that below.

 

[JReducation]

This made me curious to see how this thread ended up focusing on liturgy so I went back to check. The topic was introduced in the second response to the OP. It remained the main focus of the thread from that point on.

I am not sure how we get people thinking about the rest of the documents. I have the impression that they are not even on most people’s radar.

Continued from above.

Unfortunately, for most people, Vatican II is synonymous with Humanae Vitae and the liturgical reform. Neither a product of Vatican II.

Let’s begin with the first. Humanae Vitae was a much needed statement in a world where artificial birth control had become overwhelmingly popular and on the rise. It’s evil roots were often disguised. Margarette Sanger herself was a racial bigot who promoted Planned Parenthood to get rid of Black people. Later came the War. The military (not just the USA) promoted it because it permitted its recruits to go out and have a “night on the town” with the local girls in the places where they were stationed, without consequences. Later, it was expanded to young people around the globe in order to “liberate love” aka promiscuity.

This evil is not a product of Vatican II and the Vatican’s response was necessary. The connection between it and Vatican II is a remote one. Vatican II called for the Church to be a light in the world and a voice to the nations. It called for the Church to become relevant. This was certainly relevant. The evil of ABC was real and had to be addressed. Reciting the 10 Commandments was not going to put a dent on the problem. Pope Paul VI acted decisively.

The second point, the revision of the liturgy. Vatican II called for a revision of the liturgy and it gave some guidelines as to what the revision could look like. Where people get stuck is in literalism. The Council had no authority to dictate to a pope. No council can dictate to a pope, unless it’s speaking about revealed truth or revealed moral law, to which all Christians are bound. That is not the case in speaking about liturgical reform.

Pope Paul listened to the Council’s concern about the need for revision in liturgy. However, being a pope and being a lawyer, he knew what he could do and what he could not do. This is where we fail to take the Council in context. It’s not enough to say that the Council said this and that about the liturgy and the Church went beyond what the Council said.

In context we must look at several facts. 1) No pope is ever bound by any council or by his predecessors except in matters divinely revealed. The form of the liturgy does not apply here.

1. Pope Paul VI was at the Council and understood what the Council father’s meant and where they were coming from. He was no operating in a vacuum.
2. Pope Paul VI was one of the most prominent lawyers in 20th Century Catholicism. He knew the law and he knew how to use it. Everything that he enacted with reference to liturgical law is within the tradition of Church law. We’re talking about a pope who was a doctor of Church Law, not a theologian in Systematic Theology as were John Paul II and Benedict XVI. These popes would need assistance from canonists. Pope Paul did not.
3. Pope Paul went beyond what the Council suggested. However, there is nothing illegal, heretical or immoral about it, because the Council issued guidelines, not laws. Even if the Council had issued laws, the pope was within his right to revise those laws and to dispense himself from those laws.
4. Pope Paul issued the new order of the mass at a time in world history where men and women were in a state of rebellion against the “status quo”. It is no surprise that there would be a filtering of the same rebellious and “adventurous” spirit into the Church. After all, people are not born in bubbles, just because they’re priests, religious or theologians.

When we look at anything in relation to Vatican II, we must look at context.

The unfortunate part about the way that many Catholics approach Vatican II is that most of what Vatican II said is not even on the Catholic layman’s radar. Yet, there is so much there that needs to be unwrapped.

The whole question about the Church and her relationship to other faiths has never been fully unwrapped. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict tried very hard to get Catholics to pay attention to how this is to be understood, but as Pope Francis says, “Many Catholics are stubborn.” They lock their wheels in “we’ve always understood it this way and there is no room for further or even clearer understanding, even if the pope says that there is.” These folks are just as bad as those who want to throw out everything that came before Vatican II. Both are stubborn and foolish. This is what the pope’s message is about.

He’s saying, “Stop being foolish and listen to me.”

 

[markomalley]

Continued from above.

Unfortunately, for most people, Vatican II is synonymous with Humanae Vitae and the liturgical reform. Neither a product of Vatican II.

(snip)

I am far too young (51) to have a first-hand knowledge of those times. But it seems to me that the dissent Fr. Scanlon is talking about in the context of Lumen Gentium is directly related to the liturgical abuses that most (including me) complain about and the utter lack of fidelity in regards to matters of sexuality (to include support for abortion, support for artificial contraception, and support for homosexuality…to include support for active homosexuals in their midst).

Perhaps I’m a bit dim, but when I read Lumen Gentium, I just see basic catechetical instruction. I don’t see anything in there to be really excited about one way or the other. I recognize that there is rampant dissent from this document, but I don’t quite perceive how people could do so.

Frankly, the one document I have the hardest time with is Gaudium et Spes. But, as with the other VCII issuances, the problems are not so much with the document itself, but with how it has been implemented and interpreted, both by many (not all) clerics…and by many of the laity.

It seems that the Holy Father’s homily from the 19th, (reported in the Catholic media in articles like: Pope: every ideological interpretation of the Gospel is a falsification) applies, particularly in the context of Gaudium et Spes.

On the other hand, we have a comparison between Dignitatis Humanae and the writings of Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos) and Pio Nono.(the Syllabus of Errors, etc). [In my mind, these differences are a product of being written in different times…but the differences are interesting nevertheless]

And, in all cases, we have ideology forming peoples’ interpretation of those documents.

Benedict XVI, I think, nailed it in his speech given to the Roman Clergy on 14 Februrary, when he identified a Council of the Media and a Council of the Fathers (pertinent paragraphs already excerpted upthread). From my youthful (51) perspective, his analysis makes a lot of sense.

However, you say, When we look at anything in relation to Vatican II, we must look at context. When you talk about context, are you talking about the context of the Magisterium up to that point, the context of what was going on in regards to the Church and the world at that time, or the back-scenes wheeling and dealing that was going on before, during, and after the council, such as Abp Piero Marini, et al, reported in his book, A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, 1963-1975, or some combination, above?

 

[ProVobis]

…In context we must look at several facts. 1) No pope is ever bound by any council or by his predecessors except in matters divinely revealed. The form of the liturgy does not apply here.
… Even if the Council had issued laws, the pope was within his right to revise those laws and to dispense himself from those laws.

BrJR, but that’s just it. If we say the Council was the work of the Holy Spirit, how is it that any Pope gets to overrule that work, its commands, etc.? Seems like there are some theological issues as well as Church law in play here. It became even more confusing when he issued the “smoke of Satan” comment later, whether it was intended for the public to hear or not.