The best things about the reforms of Vatican II

[KSU]

I don’t think this will probably be acceptable to discuss on here since there are many traditionalists (or jusLefebvre ) who would differ with nearly all of the “reforms” of Vatican 2. So, I don’t think its a good idea to discuss this and I will leave my opinions to myself

Pax.

Help me out, please; I’m new to this “Traditional Catholicism” forum and don’t want to step on any toes. When you folks say “traditionalists” (small t), are you referring to the Lefebvre dissidents who broke with the Magisterium, i.e., the people who often are called Traditionalists or Trads (capital T)?

How about “regular old Catholics before 1960’s”? Are they a group other than today’s orthodox, faithful, practicing, salt-of-earth Catholics like me who grew up before the 1960’s?

This is a sincere question because I don’t differ with any of the changes intended by VCII. The problem is almost none of the intended changes have yet been implemented.

The only changes most practicing Catholics are aware of were unintended by VCII, so I would agree with ProVobis: rephrase the title of the thread.

 

[KSU]

CORRECTION: My post #21 should begin as follows:

I don’t think this will probably be acceptable to discuss on here since there are many traditionalists (or just regular old Catholics before 1960’s) who would differ with nearly all of the “reforms” of Vatican 2. So, I don’t think its a good idea to discuss this and I will leave my opinions to myself

Pax.

The incorrect quote in my post #21 obviously was the work of a Spirit of VCII poltergeist from the old International Commission on English in the Liturgy.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think we have seen all the positive fruits of V2 yet. It takes a while for such changes to percolate.

I think we’ve inadvertently lost some good things due to what Pope Emeritus Benedict calls the “spirit of Vatican II,” but in the long run it will be seen to be be positive and necessary.

Pope Benedict made another reference:

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii/

ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/

I can find no reference to “the spirit of Vatican II.”

Ed

 

[baliano]

Are we allowed to discuss this?

I agree. This is almost a baiting for those of us with not so kindly views on the topic.

 

[OraLabora]

I think the one single successful and beneficial reform after the Council is the current Liturgy of the Hours.

While I think there are many others, I agree with you completely on this one.

Moreover we are now equipped to do it in Gregorian chant since 2008! A nice juxtaposition of tradition and modernity.

 

[eddie_too]

I think the aggiornamento that was a response to the Holy Spirit and that was the immediate cause of the council was one of the best things about it. I realize this is not a specific reform, but it does underlie everything else, positive and negative, that resulted from the council.

I am in awe of how God remains so present to the world through apostolic succession.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Mass in the vernacular which allowed for full active and conscious participation of the laity.

 

[Magdalena59]

At first I was thinking and wasn’t sure of what I could think of because I am not too crazy about some of the changes but after reading other peoples post I do agree that it has helped people get more in to Scripture and I do like the LOTH.

 

[Corki]

Help me out, please; I’m new to this “Traditional Catholicism” forum and don’t want to step on any toes. When you folks say “traditionalists” (small t), are you referring to the Lefebvre dissidents who broke with the Magisterium, i.e., the people who often are called Traditionalists or Trads (capital T)?

How about “regular old Catholics before 1960’s”? Are they a group other than today’s orthodox, faithful, practicing, salt-of-earth Catholics like me who grew up before the 1960’s?

This is a sincere question because I don’t differ with any of the changes intended by VCII. The problem is almost none of the intended changes have yet been implemented.

The only changes most practicing Catholics are aware of were unintended by VCII, so I would agree with ProVobis: rephrase the title of the thread.

Small “t” traditional Catholics are simply those with a fondness for some of the more traditional practices. The dissidents are an extreme example but there are lots of traditional Catholics all over. For some, it’s a preference for the older form of the Mass; for others it is more a preference for some of the traditional devotions such as praying the Rosary, wearing a veil, having a May crowning or observing Friday abstinence outside of Lent. For still others, it might be a preference for more traditional music or art in the Church. They don’t have to be from pre-1960. My kids go to a Catholic high school and there’s a significant group of students who are traditional Catholics. Those kids are barely pre-2000.

It’s a big tent.

 

[KSU]

Small “t” traditional Catholics are simply those with a fondness for some of the more traditional practices. The dissidents are an extreme example but there are lots of traditional Catholics all over. For some, it’s a preference for the older form of the Mass; for others it is more a preference for some of the traditional devotions such as praying the Rosary, wearing a veil, having a May crowning or observing Friday abstinence outside of Lent. For still others, it might be a preference for more traditional music or art in the Church. They don’t have to be from pre-1960. My kids go to a Catholic high school and there’s a significant group of students who are traditional Catholics. Those kids are barely pre-2000.

It’s a big tent.

Thanks, Corki, that’s what I hoped the answer would be.

My confusion stems from the title of this forum, “Traditional Catholicism.” Why are we traditionalists assigned our own forum? I would bet that we (regardless of the form of Mass we prefer) are the majority of orthodox, faithful, practicing Catholics; the 25 percent of people in the U. S. who claim to be Catholic.

 

[felsguy]

I don’t think this will probably be acceptable to discuss on here since there are many traditionalists (or just regular old Catholics before 1960’s) who would differ with nearly all of the “reforms” of Vatican 2. So, I don’t think its a good idea to discuss this and I will leave my opinions to myself

Pax.

On the other hand, it might be interesting to hear a young teenager’s impressions of the past fifty years.

Anyhow, from the perspective of an “old but not old-time” Catholic that is, one who grew up in the 40’s and 50’s, I would list the following: *

1. the renewal of the liturgy
2. the reinstatement of the baptismal catechumenate (RCIA)
3. the acknowledgement of God’s presence beyond the Church
4. seeing the world and it’s inhabitants as essentially good

Note: I have selected these from a list compiled by Father Bernard Doerger, OFM in the Catholic UPDATE: Ten Achievenments of Vatican II

 

[Corki]

Thanks, Corki, that’s what I hoped the answer would be.

My confusion stems from the title of this forum, “Traditional Catholicism.” Why are we traditionalists assigned our own forum? I would bet that we (regardless of the form of Mass we prefer) are the majority of orthodox, faithful, practicing Catholics; the 25 percent of people in the U. S. who claim to be Catholic.

I don’t dare try to speak for the moderators, but I think the separate forum is simply an organizational tool. Without it, every thread in the Liturgy forum would turn into a traditional vs. modern discussion.

 

[edwest2]

Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Ed

 

[felsguy]

Thanks, Corki, that’s what I hoped the answer would be.

My confusion stems from the title of this forum, “Traditional Catholicism.” Why are we traditionalists assigned our own forum? I would bet that we (regardless of the form of Mass we prefer) are the majority of orthodox, faithful, practicing Catholics; the 25 percent of people in the U. S. who claim to be Catholic.

If I understand correctly, the titles of the forums are meant to describe the subject matter to be discussed in each and not the characteristics of those who choose to post in one or the other.

See Thomas Casey’s sticky Post Correctly at the top of the first page of this forum.

 

[RosslynV]

Vat 2 taught that salvation may be gained through other religions. Big plus-- more souls getting into Heaven!

 

[Abu]

andon13 #11
there are many traditionalists (or just regular old Catholics before 1960’s) who would differ with nearly all of the “reforms” of Vatican 2.

Then it would be very salutary to listen to the great Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI who clearly expressed reality:
"I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the ‘true’ Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp. The cardinal exhorts all Catholics who wish to remain such “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 28-31].

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).

Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).

RosslynV #35
Vat 2 taught that salvation may be gained through other religions. Big plus-- more souls getting into Heaven!

This was understood and taught long before Vatican II.

Pope Pius IX:
“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.). Hence, Pius IX distinguished between those who have knowledge of the Church and Her divine foundation, and those who have no such knowledge due to a number of mitigating circumstances.

 

[edwest2]

Then it would be very salutary to listen to the great Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI who clearly expressed reality:
"I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the ‘true’ Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp. The cardinal exhorts all Catholics who wish to remain such “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 28-31].

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).

Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).
This was understood and taught long before Vatican II.

Pope Pius IX:
“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.). Hence, Pius IX distinguished between those who have knowledge of the Church and Her divine foundation, and those who have no such knowledge due to a number of mitigating circumstances.

Thank you.

Ed

 

[SonShine135]

Sacrosanctum Concilium by far was one on the best documents to come out of Vatican II. Many people confuse the changes in the Liturgy as being a byproduct of Vatican II, but this document proves otherwise. Latin, chant and polyphony, and the pipe organ, were all to be retained. It was ignorance of this document that lead the liturgy where it is today.

The “Spirit of Vatican II”; however, is much different. That is what lead to the wholesale throwing out of the baby with the bathwater. They often used VII as the basis of this deconstruction, but the truth is that these individuals were waiting in the wings and found it to be convenient excuse. The most harmful thing that I think happened, but happened in parallel rather than as a result, is the death of solid, black and white catechisis. People are often very afraid to share Catholic beliefs, even inside the pews. The Magisterium is often seen as archaic. Indifferentism has risen tremendously, and we have lost huge chunks of our Catholic Identity.

 

[edwest2]

Sacrosanctum Concilium by far was one on the best documents to come out of Vatican II. Many people confuse the changes in the Liturgy as being a byproduct of Vatican II, but this document proves otherwise. Latin, chant and polyphony, and the pipe organ, were all to be retained. It was ignorance of this document that lead the liturgy where it is today.

The “Spirit of Vatican II”; however, is much different. That is what lead to the wholesale throwing out of the baby with the bathwater. They often used VII as the basis of this deconstruction, but the truth is that these individuals were waiting in the wings and found it to be convenient excuse. The most harmful thing that I think happened, but happened in parallel rather than as a result, is the death of solid, black and white catechisis. People are often very afraid to share Catholic beliefs, even inside the pews. The Magisterium is often seen as archaic. Indifferentism has risen tremendously, and we have lost huge chunks of our Catholic Identity.

This was done by dissidents inside and outside the Church in subtle and very obvious ways, over a period of decades.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Magdalena59]

Sacrosanctum Concilium by far was one on the best documents to come out of Vatican II. Many people confuse the changes in the Liturgy as being a byproduct of Vatican II, but this document proves otherwise. Latin, chant and polyphony, and the pipe organ, were all to be retained. It was ignorance of this document that lead the liturgy where it is today.

The “Spirit of Vatican II”; however, is much different. That is what lead to the wholesale throwing out of the baby with the bathwater. They often used VII as the basis of this deconstruction, but the truth is that these individuals were waiting in the wings and found it to be convenient excuse. The most harmful thing that I think happened, but happened in parallel rather than as a result, is the death of solid, black and white catechisis. People are often very afraid to share Catholic beliefs, even inside the pews. The Magisterium is often seen as archaic. Indifferentism has risen tremendously, and we have lost huge chunks of our Catholic Identity.