Pope Ratzinger Certifies the Council – The Real One

[buffalo]

Pope Ratzinger Certifies the Council – The Real One

In his pre-Christmas address to the Roman curia, Benedict XVI demolishes the myth of Vatican II as a rupture and new beginning. He gives another name “reform,” to the proper interpretation of the Council. And he explains why

ROMA, December 23, 2005 – Benedict XVI has on two occasions satisfied the great curiosity about his comments on Vatican Council II, at the fortieth anniversary of its conclusion.

The first was on Thursday, December 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception.

The second was on Thursday, December 22, during the traditional meeting between the pope and the Vatican curia for the exchange of Christmas greetings.

more…

Mod note: Please limit quotes from linked articles to three paragraphs, max. Thanks.

 

[Vatican_II]

Anyone who is willing to take the time and read the major constitutions of Vatican II will find themselves greatly shocked. For instead of finding all the changes subsequently made “in the spirit of Vatican II” they will find much that was a revalidation of church teachings prior to Vatican II. Latin was not eliminated from the mass. There is no mention of the priest-celebrant facing the congregation. While the lay faithful were allowed greater participation in the mass as acolytes, lectors, ushers and extraordinary ministers of the Holy Eucharist, the priest-celebrant retained his unique and unchallenged authority. The participants of Vatican II took great efforts to ensure that their recommendations to the Pope in no way contradicted the teachings of the Church as layed down by the Apostles and prior ecumenical councils. Changes as a result of poor translations, and the unrestrained “reform” in certain parts of the world caused many unintended transgressions for Vatican II. A more recent correction of the unrestrained “reform” came with the revised GIRM which returned virtually all handling of sacred vessels used in Holy Communion to the attending ordinary ministers of the mass and restricted the eucharistic ministers’ presence in the sancturary until after the priest-celebrant has consumed both the body and blood of Christ

 

[tee_eff_em]

While I am pleased and expect to continue to be so that Pope Benedict is authentically interpretating and implementing the work of the council, I find it difficult to give attention to a “news” article which refers, in the headline no less, to “Pope Ratzinger”

:twocents:
tee

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Vatican II:

Anyone who is willing to take the time and read the major constitutions of Vatican II will find themselves greatly shocked. For instead of finding all the changes subsequently made “in the spirit of Vatican II” they will find much that was a revalidation of church teachings prior to Vatican II. Latin was not eliminated from the mass. There is no mention of the priest-celebrant facing the congregation. While the lay faithful were allowed greater participation in the mass as acolytes, lectors, ushers and extraordinary ministers of the Holy Eucharist, the priest-celebrant retained his unique and unchallenged authority. The participants of Vatican II took great efforts to ensure that their recommendations to the Pope in no way contradicted the teachings of the Church as layed down by the Apostles and prior ecumenical councils. Changes as a result of poor translations, and the unrestrained “reform” in certain parts of the world caused many unintended transgressions for Vatican II. A more recent correction of the unrestrained “reform” came with the revised GIRM which returned virtually all handling of sacred vessels used in Holy Communion to the attending ordinary ministers of the mass and restricted the eucharistic ministers’ presence in the sancturary until after the priest-celebrant has consumed both the body and blood of Christ

Although there is much in the Council that is in clear continuity with the past, some things have proved a headache: like fish-bones, these things have stuck in some people’s craws, understandably enough. Things such as ecumenism, and documents such as Dignitatis Humanae.​

So there are elements in the Council’s documents which are not self-evidently in accord with the teaching of the CC as experienced before the Council; it was not a purely conservative Council, by any means. It would have been strange if it was.

In addition, reactions to the Council can’t be understood fully if the documents alone are taken into account: one also has to bear in mind the character of the Catholicism which preceded the Council. ##