Priestly Formation According to Vatican II

[RoryMcKenzie56]

This thread is prompted by the comments of a fellow Catholic calling himself “truevaticanii” who points out that if one examines the Vatican II document on the liturgy, one is surprised to discover that the 1962 Missal of John XXIII more closely resembles the norms propsed than does the Novus Ordo Mass which claims its existence from the document Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Thinking about that, I was reminded of the very wise and prudent norms the Council proposed for priestly formation in light of the growing influence of modern and often atheistic philosophies in our times. I’ll begin with my response to truevaticanii.

truevaticanii
The answer to the following question may shock some people:

Which Mass is closer to the Mass described in SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM?

Rory
A question, the answer to which I agree is shocking. I had never quite thought of it that way. I wonder how many of those who both support and attack the Council have ever read all of the documents? That might be shocking too.

I would suggest another shocker. Reading the biography of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, I recall how there was a consciousness of the Vatican II proposals for priests in the seminary of the priestly fraternity he founded. Ironically it was the very success of his traditional seminary, in contrast to the progressive anti-Vatican II seminaries (!) of the French bishops, which made the Archbishop and his seminary the subject of so much vilification in the 1970’s by his fellow French bishops.

Optatum Totius was promulgated on Oct. 28, 1965. I’ll give a few quotes to show the Traditional formation the Council recommended for its future priests:

The philosophical disciplines are to be taught in such a way that the students are first of all led to acquire a solid and coherent knowledge of man, the world, and of God, relying on a philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid and taking into account the philosophical investigations of later ages. This is especially true of those investigations which exercise a greater influence in their own nations. Account should also be taken of the more recent progress of the sciences. The net result should be that the students, correctly understanding the characteristics of the contemporary mind, will be duly prepared for dialogue with men of their time.
The history of philosophy should be so taught that the students, while reaching the ultimate principles of the various systems, will hold on to what is proven to be true therein and will be able to detect the roots of errors and to refute them.

—para. 15

Note “the philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid”. This is a clear reference to Scholastic philosophy. It is to be relied upon in connection with learning modern philosophy with a view “to be able to detect the roots of errors and refute them.” It will be clearer after the next quote that the Council intended Thomism to be that philosophical foundation they are to be “relying on.”

Pope Pius XII, in the previous decade had spoken explicitly in regard to the “philosophia perennis” as Thomism had come to be called, in his encyclical Humani Generis, para. 31:

If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy “according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,” since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both of teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with Divine Revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.

—This is the immediate context of “the philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid” spoken about in Optatum Totius 15. There is no other candidate but St. Thomas.

In paragraph 16 of Optatum Totius is a specific reference to the need for adherence to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas while learning well the Church’s traditional theology:

Dogmatic theology should be so arranged that…biblical themes are proposed first of all. Next there should be opened up to the students what the Fathers of the Eastern and Western Church have contributed to the faithful transmission and development of the individual truths of revelation. The further history of dogma should also be presented, account being taken of its relation to the general history of the Church. Next, in order that they may illumine the mysteries of salvation as completely as possible, the students should learn to penetrate them more deeply with the help of speculation, under the guidance of St. Thomas, and to perceive their interconnections.

Not surprisingly, but in some respects, ironically, it would be a son of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a priest formed in the seminary of the Society of St. Pius X who would offer the universal Church, a refutation of the “roots and errors” of the anti-Thomistic philosophies. Beginning with Martin Luther, and moving on to Kant, Schleiermacher, Bergson, and others, he attempts to show how these philosophies are incompatible with Traditional Catholicism and the priestly formation demanded by the Second Vatican Council.

It is not my purpose here to argue that Fr. Dominic Bourmaud’s book, translated into English under the title of One Hundred Years of Modernism, is thoroughly correct. That is no the point of this thread. I am suggesting that his work reflects the pre-eminent importance attached to Thomistic philosophy and theology as outlined in the Vatican II document Optatum Totius. It appears to me that other than a few Traditionalist seminaries, this Vatican II reform is missed by those who would appeal to the “spirit” without reading the words of Vatican II.

Thanks for your consideration.

Rory

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

This was my first attempt after five years here in starting a thread. Over 60 of you peeked in. No one responded. I am a little surprised and disappointed. I don’t think the problem is with the subject matter. It still seems to me to be controversial and pertinent to what we call Traditional Catholicism. It seemed to me like I was opening myself up for criticism from both sides. It seems like it had to be the presentation.

Apparently, my opening post has flaws which make it either unreadable or uninteresting. Since there appears to be no interest in the subject matter as it appears here, I would welcome any constructive speuclations on why perhaps no one at all responded. Was it too long? Was it boring? I would be especially interested in hearing from some of you 60 plus folk who were interested enough by the thread title to look in, but were unmotivated to make a response.

I’ll take your answers “off the air” if you will. I’ll look in before I leave this afternoon probably, but I have to be away from the computer until Friday when I’ll be able to check again.

Thanks for your consideration.

Rory

 

[thistle]

This was my first attempt after five years here in starting a thread. Over 60 of you peeked in. No one responded. I am a little surprised and disappointed. I don’t think the problem is with the subject matter. It still seems to me to be controversial and pertinent to what we call Traditional Catholicism. It seemed to me like I was opening myself up for criticism from both sides. It seems like it had to be the presentation.

Apparently, my opening post has flaws which make it either unreadable or uninteresting. Since there appears to be no interest in the subject matter as it appears here, I would welcome any constructive speuclations on why perhaps no one at all responded. Was it too long? Was it boring? I would be especially interested in hearing from some of you 60 plus folk who were interested enough by the thread title to look in, but were unmotivated to make a response.

I’ll take your answers “off the air” if you will. I’ll look in before I leave this afternoon probably, but I have to be away from the computer until Friday when I’ll be able to check again.

Thanks for your consideration.

Rory

Sorry but what is your actual question or point?

 

[ncjohn]

For me personally, since the opening statement about the Pauline Mass not representing what was envisioned by Vatican II is patently false since what the document provided was nothing more than a starting point for the commission to consider and was not in any way a “blueprint” for what the mass was to look like, I really didn’t go much further. I have had enough contact with the poster who so erroneously considers him/herself “true” Vatican II to know that the views expressed do not reflect the views of the Council fathers but more revisionist opinions of what is “wished” had happened. I am one who has read all the documents numerous times, along with many background works from both “sides” of the debates, and it never ceases to amaze me the way things continue to be misrepresented, again from both “sides”.

I also didn’t find any particular question relating to what Vatican II said about priestly formation beyond attacks on what some think *should *have been said. Overall it seems to be another view that there is some break in continuity in the Church. Been there, done that with that debate and don’t really need to rehash it again.

Peace,

 

[diggerdomer]

Sorry but what is your actual question or point?

ditto