Pope Francis emphasizes that Second Vatican Council is the work of the Holy Spirit [CWN]
- Status
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
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.
F
Filioque
Guest
Thus far I’ve not seen or heard the Holy Father say that any rite of the Church, EF, OF, or any of the Eastern or Oriental Rites need to be abolished. He has upheld the Traditional Moral and Dogmatic teachings of the Church. His liturgical praxis may be a bit more simple than I prefer, but what I’ve seen of it as minimalist as it would appear, is still quite Catholic.
I think that given the shell shock that many of us are still exposed to, from Clown Liturgies and Pro-Abortion “Nuns” etc, we can confuse the Pope’s call to renewal as being in accord with the “Spirit of Vatican II” crowd. However the Church has traditionally called for us to reform our lives, and grow spiritually. The Corporal works of mercy which Pope Francis is calling us to recall, although in “updated” terminology is fully consistant with the Traditional Catholic ethos.
I think when we (I speak of EF minded folk like myself) unite with the Holy Father, praying for him, and making ourselves both known and having our (name removed by moderator)ut and active participation in our Local parishes, be they OF or EF we will find a stronger voice to restore some of the practices we long for, and will encourage more younger parishoners to find out about more practices, which have falled to the wayside, which will encourage vocations, and a return to the former Glory we crave.
I think that given the shell shock that many of us are still exposed to, from Clown Liturgies and Pro-Abortion “Nuns” etc, we can confuse the Pope’s call to renewal as being in accord with the “Spirit of Vatican II” crowd. However the Church has traditionally called for us to reform our lives, and grow spiritually. The Corporal works of mercy which Pope Francis is calling us to recall, although in “updated” terminology is fully consistant with the Traditional Catholic ethos.
I think when we (I speak of EF minded folk like myself) unite with the Holy Father, praying for him, and making ourselves both known and having our (name removed by moderator)ut and active participation in our Local parishes, be they OF or EF we will find a stronger voice to restore some of the practices we long for, and will encourage more younger parishoners to find out about more practices, which have falled to the wayside, which will encourage vocations, and a return to the former Glory we crave.
M
McCall1981
Guest
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.
"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.
M
McCall1981
Guest
This is very true. I mentioned this in another thread, but if you think about it objectively, in a vacuum so to speak, everything Francis said here is perfectly true, even for the most Traditionalist Catholics (the ones in union with Rome at least). Its just that we know, practically speaking, that this will be used by the “spirit of Vat II” crowd to justify abuses, and that is why we cringe.
I have felt the same way about several other things the Pope has done, like the foot washing fiasco. On its own in a vacuum, I’m fine with it, its just that we know it will used by others to further liturgical abuse, so we know there will be unintended negative results (the phrase collateral damage comes to mind).
I think Pope Francis is calling us to all move forward with the authentic version of Vat II, (the Council of the Fathers, not the Council of the media as Benedict put it). But for some, myself included, its hard to get over the shell shock from all the bad stuff we have seen, so we are very sensitive to calls for renewal and growth and such
L
Lormar
Guest
F
Filioque
Guest
Well I think we need to both educate ourselves and the “Spirit of Vatican II” Crowd. When silly comments are made by either side about what the Pope has done or said, we should (prayerfully) re-educate them on what the Church really teaches. And refocus them on what the Pope really did, or did not do.
When they quote about Communion in the hand out of context, I remind them that the entire history was that it was an extraordinary manner of administering Holy Communion when there was danger of arrest, and communion had to be distributed rapidly, and that women had to cover their hands with a scarf or other cloth. It confuses them when they are presented with the whole story and not a trunkated one which only supports their misguided instruction.
As to the Foot washing, I have to remind Traditionalists as well as reformers that until the 1955 reforms of Holy Week, the mandatum (Foot washing) was a separate ceremony in the Missal and not obligitory, in 1955 it was incorporated into the ceremonies of the Mass and the Triduum. It only became obligitory then, And if one was to celebrate the Triduum in the parish, one had to have all three days, as well as all the rites. The Mandatum did not become universal in the west until the 12th Century, and the Pope at one time washed the feet of 12 sub-deacons after Mass, and 13 beggars after he had supper. So what we sometimes hold as an unchanged tradition is not always historically the fact.
Lastly, as Pope he is the lawgiver and not subject to the Law, He has no obligation to follow any rubric you can throw at us, (aside of course from the requirements that the elemets be offered to the Father, the words of institution be spoken at the consecration and the priest offering the Mass consume the consecrated elements) Everyone else from the highest ranking Cardinal to the newest ordined priest has to follow the rubrics according to their office, unless an indult has been granted. So the Pope, and the Pope alone can dispense himself, and it is not our position to judge him. If we do, then we are departing from Catholic tradition and law…
When they quote about Communion in the hand out of context, I remind them that the entire history was that it was an extraordinary manner of administering Holy Communion when there was danger of arrest, and communion had to be distributed rapidly, and that women had to cover their hands with a scarf or other cloth. It confuses them when they are presented with the whole story and not a trunkated one which only supports their misguided instruction.
As to the Foot washing, I have to remind Traditionalists as well as reformers that until the 1955 reforms of Holy Week, the mandatum (Foot washing) was a separate ceremony in the Missal and not obligitory, in 1955 it was incorporated into the ceremonies of the Mass and the Triduum. It only became obligitory then, And if one was to celebrate the Triduum in the parish, one had to have all three days, as well as all the rites. The Mandatum did not become universal in the west until the 12th Century, and the Pope at one time washed the feet of 12 sub-deacons after Mass, and 13 beggars after he had supper. So what we sometimes hold as an unchanged tradition is not always historically the fact.
Lastly, as Pope he is the lawgiver and not subject to the Law, He has no obligation to follow any rubric you can throw at us, (aside of course from the requirements that the elemets be offered to the Father, the words of institution be spoken at the consecration and the priest offering the Mass consume the consecrated elements) Everyone else from the highest ranking Cardinal to the newest ordined priest has to follow the rubrics according to their office, unless an indult has been granted. So the Pope, and the Pope alone can dispense himself, and it is not our position to judge him. If we do, then we are departing from Catholic tradition and law…
L
Lormar
Guest
Filioque, thank you.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Why is this whole Vatican II thing so perennially difficult in one way or another?
L
Lucky7
Guest
I was thinking something similar either yesterday or today…has there even been such difficulty over any other Council in the history of the Church? Honest question.
L
Lormar
Guest
Long after we are both dead, it will all straighten itself out.
M
McCall1981
Guest
I think some of it has to do with the timing of the Council, being that it happened right before “the 60’s”. All the other “social change” going on at that time lead to the liberal side abusing the Council towards their own agenda, which then lead to the Traditionalist side rejecting it outright (I know its an oversimplification). I bet if the council had happened in the fifties or forties the results would have been somewhat different.
F
Filioque
Guest
There have been battles which led to most of the Councils being called, and those who rejected it afterward.
After the Council of Trent, most Protestants contiued to reject the findings and decrees, in some Dioceses in Europe it took over 100 years for the decrees to be implemented most of all with regard to seminary formation of priests. With the invention of movable type, the controversies were more widespread than after previous Councils. No longer did most of the rejection of the Council have to be copied by hand.
After the (first) Vatican Council the Old Catholics rejected what the Council had defined regarding the Infalliblity of the Pope. Other issues that the Council resolved continued to be debated even though the Council had settled them.
So the phenomina is only unique after Vatican II because of the speed, audience and ability for those who misrepresent the Council on both sides to spread their personal views is far greater with modern printing and now Internet forms of media
L
Lucky7
Guest
Ok, but would it be fair to say that those councils were different than Vat 2 (ie. the whole dogmatic vs pastoral thing)? Were there even any other Councils that were similar to V2 in nature?
F
Filioque
Guest
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’ve wondered that.
And I think this is explains a lot.
It has been my observation that, while there have always been complaints about the changes/abuses after Vatican II, those complaints did not have much of a public forum until the 1990s when internet access became common in peoples’ homes.
M
Mike30
Guest
I think, and this is just my opinion, that there were within the Church as well as outside individuals and groups, all of whom had specific agendas to pursue, that used the documents of the Council in order to further their own agendas. Add to that the fact that shortly after Vatican II ended the encyclical Humanae Vitae was issued to what can best be described as thunderous disapproval by these same special interest groups and individuals. The faithful were told by religious of all ranks that they were free to disobey this encyclical as what it referred to was simply a matter of conscience. More than a few still believe that and it is still being spread.
The majority of the laity of the time period, raised to obey Church Officials, followed the lead of these special imterest groups and individuals, mostly professed religious, and pursued their own agendas as well, often having little or no understanding or even knowledge of what was actually in the documents.
Add to that the fact that experimentation was allowed, even encouraged in the Liturgy, and you can easily see the groundwork that led to what followed.
It became very easy to either blame Vatican II or praise it, depending on your own beliefs. Lets take for instance the use of Latin. Nowhere in the documents does it state that Latin was to be replaced by the vernacular. Nowhere. Yet because it did say that use of the vernacular may be of some use in** some **occasions,Latin was almost completely wiped out of liturgical functions.
Why? Answer, special interests. The anti Latin crowd. Nothing more and nothing less.
The same can be said pretty much of every abuse and perceived abuse that came about. Whichever group was promoting whatever new practice, would call upon the documents of Vatican II to back them up. And in a great many circumstances it worked.
And so, it became very easy for those not enamored with wholescale change to blame Vatican II itself for all of these things.
A very sad situation, which hopefully will improve as people become more knowedgeable about the Council itself and the documents that came out of it.
C
codefro
Guest
I like Fr. Z’s take on all this
F
Filioque
Guest
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.
P
ProVobis
Guest
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
- Status