Pope Francis emphasizes that Second Vatican Council is the work of the Holy Spirit [CWN]

[Lormar]

So true. While I was a seminarian with the SSPX, I heard any number of alleged citations from Trent, the Vatican Council (Vat. I) and Vatican II, to support one side or the other. Most were spurious to say the least, some were complete fabrications, but all in all unless they were simply manipulations of the actual documents, the original sources never existed, and the original authors knew nobody would ever check the Council documents.

One misrepresentations was that the Council of Trent mandated that all Masses be offered in Latin, and that no other language would confect a valid Mass. Well what the Council actually pronounced was a reply to the Protestant insistance that the Mass should always be in the “language understood of the People,” The Council did not require latin, but replied that there was nothing that prevented the Mass from being offered in Latin. If it had mandated that only Latin be used, then the Latin Rite when it was offered in other languages as was the case of the Roman Missal in Croata where it was the Roman Rite in Slavonic, and all the Eastern and Oriental :Liturgies would be deemed invalid. But the Church in her wisdom, guided by the Holy Ghost, never said what it was alleged.

Another example are the arguments that the Canon could not be changed or touched, and the removing Mysterium Fidei would invalidate the consecration. The Canon while fairly stable from around the 6th Century did include the commemoration of the local King, and the Holy Roman Emperor at one time. And the Council of Trent was only affirming that the words inserted by the Church into the words of insitution were legitimate when addressing the opposition to them being there in the Roman Rite. Not that they were necessary for vailidity, only for licity in the Roman Rite.

Far too often we see arguments from both sides that only muddy the water and cause non-issues to become stumbling blocks to true obedience to Christ and His Church.

Well enough of all my pontificating, I’ll be starting a weeklong retreat tomorrow, so I humbly ask for everyone’s prayers.

I don’t know if we were purposely lied to, or if the people wishing to bolster their “side” didn’t know these things, but whatever it was, it is hurtful to know that we were taken advantage of. I am finding things out know that I never knew.

You know you have my prayers! When you return, please feel free to “pontificate” some more!

 

[Lormar]

I am finding things out know that I never knew.

That should read “now” instead of “know”. Sorry.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I’m glad this link includes the this part:

"But after 50 years, have we done everything that the Holy Spirit said to us in the Council? In the continuity of the growth of the Church which was the Council? No."

The original link I saw from CNS was not the full text, it was broken up by commentary, and it didn’t include the bolded phrase. I think this one phrase is very important here, since it references not just Traditionalists who want to go “back”, but also the “spirit of Vatican II” crowd that has not properly implemented what the Council actually called for.

Very good catch! The original I read from EWTN did not have it either. That made it sound like the Pope was saying everything today that people do in the name of the council should be accepted and those who oppose such actions are wrong.

But that one phrase puts everything in to perspective.

 

[hudson]

I want to go back. Back to full churches. Back to full monasteries and convents. Back to full seminaries. Back to reverent liturgies. Back to good catechesis. If that makes me a fool then so be it.

Right on. Fool for Jesus.

 

[McCall1981]

Very good catch! The original I read from EWTN did not have it either. That made it sound like the Pope was saying everything today that people do in the name of the council should be accepted and those who oppose such actions are wrong.

But that one phrase puts everything in to perspective.

Yeah, it modifies the context of the whole homily. I wish they hadn’t published the translation without it, pretty unfortunate. I’ve seen one translation completely without it, one that mentions it in the commentary, and a couple now that include it. This is why I wish the would only publish full texts, commentaries are uneeded.

 

[choliks]

I want to go back. Back to full churches. Back to full monasteries and convents. Back to full seminaries. Back to reverent liturgies. Back to good catechesis. If that makes me a fool then so be it.

We all want that. And there are people who want those, too, but just throw hissy fits. I’m not sure how that would accomplish anything.

 

[JReducation]

I want to go back. Back to full churches. Back to full monasteries and convents. Back to full seminaries.

We don’t want them full of people who don’t belong there, which is what we had for more than 100 years. We want convents, monasteries, friaries, priories, seminaries that are faithful to the vision and charism of the founders, not those what existed between 1850 and 1990, which were a deviation from the original. We want religious houses where their is equity as there was during the early days of religious life, where there is respect for the dignity of the religious, as there was in the beginning, where there is fraternity and not clericalism.

If a person wants to go back to what was before Vatican II, he or she is asking to return to the greatest deviation of religious life since the Renaissance.

Yes, but when they uses wording such as Missa vulgari lingua non celebretur as Trent did, I think their intentions were pretty clear. Just sayin.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.ix.html

This was a pastoral statement, not a doctrina.one. It was made for pastoral reasons. We must never forget that the most important product of any council is its pastoral direction. At the end of the day, the daily life of Catholics is guided by pastoral care, not by dogmas. Dogmas inform, but they must be taught within a pastoral context.

 

[ProVobis]

At the end of the day, the daily life of Catholics is guided by pastoral care, not by dogmas. Dogmas inform, but they must be taught within a pastoral context.

Br JR, this is a good case for the easily memorizable Baltimore Catechism IMO.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, this is a good case for the easily memorizable Baltimore Catechism IMO.

The Baltimore Catechism was very good. The only problem is that it was rejected by the Vatican. Most people don’t know this.

 

[ProVobis]

The Baltimore Catechism was very good. The only problem is that it was rejected by the Vatican. Most people don’t know this.

I didn’t know that. It was around for a long time.

 

[A_Augustinus]

The Baltimore Catechism was very good. The only problem is that it was rejected by the Vatican. Most people don’t know this.

What??? Now you’ve piqued my curiosity. Why on earth was it rejected?

 

[Eufrosnia]

This was a pastoral statement, not a doctrina.one. It was made for pastoral reasons. We must never forget that the most important product of any council is its pastoral direction. At the end of the day, the daily life of Catholics is guided by pastoral care, not by dogmas. Dogmas inform, but they must be taught within a pastoral context.

So what exactly took place that all of a sudden, the Western part of the church required a new form of pastoral care that in many ways contradicted the care given till then?

The same Catholic Church in other parts of the world hold up the pre-Vatican II pastoral care, Cardinals, Bishops included. But specifically the Western part of the Church was the one to take a new pastoral care approach. Add to that the sex abuse scandal involving the Church in nearly all major Western countries, reduction of the society to the level of Catholics supporting abortion and gay marriage or contraception, those Catholics who actively work to try and get these things promoted in the rest of the world, and this pastoral care change does not make sense.

All I see is a part of the Church, particularly that of the West, that seemed to have read some imaginary Vatican II documents that the rest of the Church didn’t seem to have read. Nearly all the “pastoral care” gimmicks have been repeatedly shown by Vatican II analyst to not even be supported by Vatican II documents.

So it seems to me like within 50 years, the Western part of the Church has developed a new set of traditions using what it thought was from Vatican II while neglecting all prudence and traditions from before. Now it wants to uphold that as the pastoral direction of the council. I don’t think the Pope even approves of such a thing.

Now it would be easy for others to join in with this new tradition if it shows blooming results. Instead, you seem a very gloomy outlook.

As you sometimes speak of actions speaking louder than words, perhaps the problem people have with the council is that the actions that resulted from it seem so gloomy and that speaks to them more than the words of the council.

 

[JReducation]

I didn’t know that. It was around for a long time.

What??? Now you’ve piqued my curiosity. Why on earth was it rejected?

There is a very interesting history behind it. You can look it up. It’s all over the Internet, probably under US Catholicism or simply under Baltimore Catechism.

Here is what I know about it.

Apparently, the American bishops proposed a catechism that spoke to the American culture. This alone is interesting, because today’s traditionalists cringe when one mentions culture and Catholicism in the same sentence, but many want the Baltimore Catechism.
**
“A catechism shall be written which is better adapted to the circumstances of this Province; it shall give the Christian Doctrine as explained in Cardinal Bellarmine’s Catechism (1597), and when approved by the Holy See, it shall be published for the common use of Catholics” [First Council of Baltimore (Decr. xxxiii)]. ** The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith added that the catechism use Bellarmine’s Catechism as a model.

In the Third Plenary Council (1884) many bishops were in favor of a “revised” edition of a 1775 catechism by Irish Archbishop Butler, but finally the matter was given into the hands of a committee of six bishops. “A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Council of Baltimore” was published in 1885.

The first Baltimore Catechism was not the catechism that the Holy See wanted. The Holy See never recognized it as the official catechism for the Catholic Church in the USA. It was printed with the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, because it had nothing contrary to the faith. But it was not to the liking of Rome.

In later years, several editions appeared, all with the name Baltimore Catechism, but none of the with the approval of the US Bishops. They were copies of the original. Each copy tried to rework the language so that it was more appealing to American Catholics. Some copies actually reworked the language so that the English was very simple. This was not a bad idea. This catechism was being used with immigrant children whose first language was not English. It was important to keep the questions and answers very simple. None of these catechism ever enjoyed the blessing of Rome and most did not enjoy the blessing of the US Catholic bishops. It was usually the local bishop who approved it.

Today, there is a wonderful edition of the Baltimore Catechism that takes what’s in the CCC and puts it out in Q & A. It even has quotes of different Church documents, Patristic writings, Scripture and other sources. I believe it is published under the title of St. Joseph’s Baltimore Catechism. It has a number after the name.

 

[Megan7]

The Baltimore Catechism was very good. The only problem is that it was rejected by the Vatican. Most people don’t know this.

EDIT:

Brother JR,

I posted something at the same time of your reply, did not notice…

Thank you.

 

[robert7685]

What??? Now you’ve piqued my curiosity. Why on earth was it rejected?

I have a better question… is there a source for this? I find it very hard to believe on its face that such a widely used catechism was outright rejected by the Vatican. Also, I can’t find anything to confirm that from Google.

 

[choliks]

There is a very interesting history behind it. You can look it up. It’s all over the Internet, probably under US Catholicism or simply under Baltimore Catechism.

Here is what I know about it.

Apparently, the American bishops proposed a catechism that spoke to the American culture. This alone is interesting, because today’s traditionalists cringe when one mentions culture and Catholicism in the same sentence, but many want the Baltimore Catechism.
**
“A catechism shall be written which is better adapted to the circumstances of this Province; it shall give the Christian Doctrine as explained in Cardinal Bellarmine’s Catechism (1597), and when approved by the Holy See, it shall be published for the common use of Catholics” [First Council of Baltimore (Decr. xxxiii)]. ** The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith added that the catechism use Bellarmine’s Catechism as a model.

In the Third Plenary Council (1884) many bishops were in favor of a “revised” edition of a 1775 catechism by Irish Archbishop Butler, but finally the matter was given into the hands of a committee of six bishops. “A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Council of Baltimore” was published in 1885.

The first Baltimore Catechism was not the catechism that the Holy See wanted. The Holy See never recognized it as the official catechism for the Catholic Church in the USA. It was printed with the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, because it had nothing contrary to the faith. But it was not to the liking of Rome.

In later years, several editions appeared, all with the name Baltimore Catechism, but none of the with the approval of the US Bishops. They were copies of the original. Each copy tried to rework the language so that it was more appealing to American Catholics. Some copies actually reworked the language so that the English was very simple. This was not a bad idea. This catechism was being used with immigrant children whose first language was not English. It was important to keep the questions and answers very simple. None of these catechism ever enjoyed the blessing of Rome and most did not enjoy the blessing of the US Catholic bishops. It was usually the local bishop who approved it.

Today, there is a wonderful edition of the Baltimore Catechism that takes what’s in the CCC and puts it out in Q & A. It even has quotes of different Church documents, Patristic writings, Scripture and other sources. I believe it is published under the title of St. Joseph’s Baltimore Catechism. It has a number after the name.

Hi Bro. May I know why the Holy See didn’t want it?

 

[JReducation]

Hi Bro. May I know why the Holy See didn’t want it?

The Holy See wanted Bellarmine’s catechism to be translated. There was a translation of Bellarmine’s catechism being used in Boston. The US Bishops felt that it did not fit the American culture. My take is that the Vatican did not know that this catechism was already translated into English and had been tried in the USA.

 

[JReducation]

I found this explanation of Pope Francis’ sermon to be rather insightful.

catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1072

 

[Dempsey1919]

The Church is obsessed with Vatican II. Why? As far as I’m concerned, Vatican II brought nothing productive. The Church has been in crisis since Vatican II. Why can’t the hierarchy just admit that the implementation of Vatican II was a disaster?

The Church needs to be honest and admit that the springtime promised by Vatican II never happened. In fact, Vatican II brought a deep, dark winter.

This crisis in the Church will end only when we return to tradition.

 

[Lucky7]

In the mind of the Church there is no such distinction. While Pope Paul VI and others have commented that the Second Vatican Council delt primarily with Pastoral issues, an Ecumenical Council is and Ecumenical Council, and the directives of that Council are not up to personal interpretation or rejection by anyone.

Both those who reject Vatican II by resisting all valid changes, or those who reject it by adding to it what was never said or mandated are simply taking the liberty to take the authority into their own hands.

I’m not talking about rejection or not. I’m talking about the response to this particular Council as opposed to the response to others (regardless of whether said response was okay or not). Has there ever been a council LIKE this one with respect to liturgical changes and the like? Was this ecumenical council like others? What were the others? and what was the response like?

The examples you gave were very different focuses. They were in response to doctrinal issues or groups taking issue with Church teaching.