The "Proper" Vatican II

[FrancisB]

How so? The Council of Trent was considered to be a most doctrinal council.

Were you aware that the many reforms were already suggested by the Synod of Pistoia in the 18th century? These of course were condemned later by the Papacy.

newadvent.org/cathen/12116c.htm

Notice how many of the proposals, however, were later adopted by the Church.

First of all the Synod of Pistoia was not an oecumenical council, so no matter what it discussed, it would have had no authority to impose such changes on the church. Second of all, the only change that I see there that is actually a part of Vatican II is the use of the vernacular, and the question of the vernacular is one with a much too robust history to discuss here. It would derail the whole thread. If you want to talk about that, start a new thread for it. And to be clear, I prefer Latin, so I’m not going to argue against it too much; just enough to play devil’s advocate to present some reasonable representation of of history.

And as for Trent, what it did was effectively try to stop the natural development of the mass in order to protect the church from Protestantism. That is also one of the main reasons that the use of the vernacular was resisted for so long. So careful was Trent to avoid liturgical innovation that it abrogated any rite that did not have more than 200 years of history before Trent. That was an extremist stance to take, and it was done for the right reasons, but I reject the idea that subsequent councils lack the ability to overturn disciplinary measures of previous councils. The rubrics of the mass are not dogmatic and they were changed in small ways even during St. Pius V’s rule immediately following Trent. It’s time for us to come to terms with what Protestantism did to the church, both by those that were duped into accepting parts of the heresy and by those that were so careful to protect us from it that they rejected what had previously been authentic parts of our Catholic tradition.

 

[edwest2]

…and some of us would like to see ALL the reforms of Vatican II implemented, including those which were stymied by JPII.

The doors were thrown open, the Spirit was invited in…and the doors were shut again. I take comfort in knowing that nothing can keep out the Spirit and the future will see the fruition of the reform.

We’re ONLY 40 years into the changes – and changes like these take much, much longer to be fully embraced. According to a priest who is an internationally known Church historian and liturgist, the turmoil we’ve seen is nothing compared to what Pope Gregory the Great wrought in the 6th-7th centuries.

There is a moderate rise in conservatism in the Church, especially according to those on CAF – but I’m part of the last generation to have known the Church before and after Vat II – (and I’m quite a bit younger than Benedict) – and I hope that this rise will be short lived and that real reforms (especially to the clericalism, sexism and monarchism) will begin. The “law” can only take you so far – at some point, Jesus’ message of love must triumph.

I have no idea what reforms you are referring to. For me, the word sexism does not exist. It is a made up word to be used to start a confrontation and is not productive.

I am very glad that Pope John Paul II began to put the breaks on at least some of the work of the dissenters and that Pope Benedict XVI is applying more corrective measures. The dissenters, both inside and outside the Church, have had their day and the overall effect has been negative. Now, today, there is a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

The Church is not about change. It is about spreading the Gospel.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ProVobis]

And as for Trent, what it did was effectively try to stop the natural development of the mass in order to protect the church from Protestantism. That is also one of the main reasons that the use of the vernacular was resisted for so long. So careful was Trent to avoid liturgical innovation that it abrogated any rite that did not have more than 200 years of history before Trent. That was an extremist stance to take, and it was done for the right reasons, but **I reject the idea that subsequent councils lack the ability to overturn disciplinary measures of previous councils. **The rubrics of the mass are not dogmatic and they were changed in small ways even during St. Pius V’s rule immediately following Trent. It’s time for us to come to terms with what Protestantism did to the church, both by those that were duped into accepting parts of the heresy and by those that were so careful to protect us from it that they rejected what had previously been authentic parts of our Catholic tradition.

I agree with most of what you say except what I have bolded. The canons of Trent which attached anathemas to them could hardly be called simple disciplinary measures.

Also note that Vatican II did not explicitly overturn any canon of Trent so that theory has yet to be tested. Unless I missed something along the way.

 

[edwest2]

While I agree with you that we should return to the Tradition, I’m not sure that we can say clearly that decreased faith, mass attendance, and vocations can be traced directly to the aftermath of Vatican II. These are trends that exist in religion in general in an increasingly secular culture. I don’t think the turmoil drove people out so much as it failed to fight the tide of a much larger trend in Western civilisation.

And the point about our Lord is well made, Marie, but I don’t think he would want us to stop having the discussion.

Would you mind identifying this “much larger trend” and its origin?

Thank you,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I fear this may be the case, but I do not wish to put words in any one else’s mouth. That is why I asked. I am very curious as to what these lost initiatives were. It seems to me that Paul VI and to a lesser extent even John Paul II were progressive enough to usher in some changes that had nothing to do with the council’s directives. We see some of them being reversed now by Benedict. Some day soon, I hope, the altar girls will go away for good.

It would appear the “altar girls” are a negative development.

God bless,
Ed

 

[FrancisB]

Would you mind identifying this “much larger trend” and its origin?

Thank you,
Ed

The trend is secularisation. The abandonment of traditional religious values. It isn’t just a Catholic phenomenon. It’s happening across the board in the Western World. As to the origin of this trend, I’m not entirely certain. I didn’t claim to have all the answers. I just don’t see how we can blame Vatican II for something that was happening before the council was convened and is happening in a similar way to the Orthodox, the Protestants, the Jews, and so forth. Certainly Vatican II didn’t encourage Reform Judaism to keep the Jews from practising their faith, right?

 

[FrancisB]

I agree with most of what you say except what I have bolded. The canons of Trent which attached anathemas to them could hardly be called simple disciplinary measures.

Also note that Vatican II did not explicitly overturn any canon of Trent so that theory has yet to be tested. Unless I missed something along the way.

You see, we are not so far from disagreement, ProVobis. But, let us be honest, there is only one part of Trent that ever comes up as a true issue: Quo Primum. Surely the canon to which you refer is the one that says the mass is never to be changed? And the mass, which was never to be changed, was changed the following year. A small change, for certain, but a change none the less. To be sure, the Missal of Paul VI is a much larger departure than any before it, but the Missal of Paul VI is also not expressly called for in the documents of Vatican II. I think the missal overstepped what the council requested. That, it would seem, would be not an issue of Vatican II, but of it’s aftermath.

 

[GloriousOrder]

I must say that what I’ve observed as an outsider to the Church, through its history and practices, conforms to the complaints given by the initial post in this thread.

One day, I decided to begin listening to popular podcasts by Catholic priests. Fr. John Corapi has not entered my headphones yet, but Fr. John Riccardo did so early this year. It is a singular fact that the first lecture I heard by the reverend father was in regards to the Mass. He used a small series of hour-long meetings to discuss “The Spirit of the Liturgy” by Cardinal Ratzinger. I was particularly struck by the fact that a lay attendee stood up and asked why exactly so much of Ratzinger’s orthodox advice (facing the altar vs. facing the people, Latin, & c.) has not been picked up in the Church, especially now that he is the Pope. Father Riccardo, in complete contrast to his usual confident manner of speaking, uttered a half-dead, half-empty “I don’t know”, especially when pressed on why so many bishops had destroyed High Altars and removed altar rails. He never says “I don’t know” to any question.

If Vatican II had really been so horribly abused by the alteration of sanctuaries, the “closed circle” (priest-altar-congregation vs. altar-priest-congregation), and the lack of facing east, why had they not been corrected? An abuse of the glorious sacrifice of our holy Mass is wrong, and so it is contrary to majesty and proper worship. Why can’t this orthodox Pope simply suggest that more … anthropologically-minded bishops curtail their architectural ideas? It can’t be that difficult, he being the steward of Christ’s Church. Anyway, the 2011 Missal has already been partially-released in preview, and the Ordinary very plainly instructs priests when he should be facing the altar, and when he should be facing the people. There is no reason to do anything otherwise.

 

[FrancisB]

There is no 2011 missal. The missal is from 2002. All of the red rubrics in it are already binding. The first missal of Paul VI already contained instructions about turning around at the “Orate, Fratres” and other moments in the mass. They were simply ignored. The new translations will be printed English text in books. Whether or not the bishops, priests, or faithful will actually adhere to them remains to be seen. Plenty of ad-libbing is already occurring; it won’t be hard to ignore the changes and just say what you are used to saying and there are alternate Eucharistic prayers and such that were approved for use and not part of the Roman Missal (and therefore not part of the new translation). This could provide a loophole for those that are seeking one.

All that said, we are seeing signs of improvement. John Paul II worked vigilantly during the middle and end of his pontificate to slow and eventually stop the leftward slide of the Church and took some measures to preserve tradition for when we were ready to return to it collectively. Benedict has started the process of the return to tradition. I, however, don’t want to see this done in one quick step, though. It will throw everything back into turmoil for another forty years.

Forty years, by the way, is a mystically significant amount of time. The number forty is often associated with exile in the church. I would take this as a sign of hope. The missal wasn’t published until 1970, and it took some time for the translations to be released. We haven’t really even been in this exile for a full forty years yet, and we’re already headed back out. It was just a brief excursion and not the first. We’ve survived them in the past and we’ll survive them again.

 

[Adeodatus]

And as for Trent, what it did was effectively try to stop the natural development of the mass in order to protect the church from Protestantism. That is also one of the main reasons that the use of the vernacular was resisted for so long. So careful was Trent to avoid liturgical innovation that it abrogated any rite that did not have more than 200 years of history before Trent. That was an extremist stance to take, and it was done for the right reasons, but I reject the idea that subsequent councils lack the ability to overturn disciplinary measures of previous councils. The rubrics of the mass are not dogmatic and they were changed in small ways even during St. Pius V’s rule immediately following Trent. It’s time for us to come to terms with what Protestantism did to the church, both by those that were duped into accepting parts of the heresy and by those that were so careful to protect us from it that they rejected what had previously been authentic parts of our Catholic tradition.

I don’t agree with your theses about Trent. I think that Trent did a fine job of protecting the liturgy, and the Church in general, from the increasingly grave errors of the secular world. The best evidence for that is the utter disastrous ruinations which have befallen us since Vatican II.

If we’re walking through a minefield and one fellow haughtily discards his mine detector, I’ll take it as a lesson to keep my mine detector turned on and at the ready when he promptly gets his legs blown off.

Now I don’t necessarily say that Vatican II was a discarding of Trent. But many people have taken it that way, and we have been laid waste as a result (much to the delight of our massed enemies). Many outside the Church salivate over our destruction, and many inside the Church openly welcome it. You don’t have to look very hard to find someone in the Church for whom the cause of socialism or feminism or homosexualism is a greater priority than the cause of Jesus Christ.

Now I’m not very sophisticated regarding how to handle all of this, partly because I distrust complicated solutions to relatively more simple problems. I’m a Texan by birth but also a Northman by blood. When I read in the sagas about a man chopping off another man’s head over a feud, or burying an axe in the cranium of an insolent man, I’m not really baffled by the sentiment. Mass firings, defrockings and excommunications sound like a reasonable approach to me… if you throw someone out on his behind and he really wants back inside, he will knock, won’t he? And ask to be let back in? If someone acts like your enemy, treat him like one and if there’s a misunderstanding then it can be sorted out.

The social revolutionaries of the 60s are like dinosaurs. What we need is Pope Comet I to wipe them out. I love Pope Benedict XVI but he isn’t nearly hard enough on our enemies.

 

[FrancisB]

I didn’t say that it didn’t do a good job protecting the liturgy. What I said was so careful to protect the Catholic liturgy as it was in that very moment at that particular time that it did away with what might have been perfectly natural changes to the liturgy from the preceding two centuries and the following four. The subsequent four centuries didn’t destroy liberalism and innovation; they forced them underground to fester together.

There were ultra-liberals in the church well before Vatican II. Leftist bishops didn’t spring up overnight in the pontificate of Paul VI. Why was St. Pius X so concerned about modernism? Was it because it was on the church’s doorstep and trying to come in? No. It was because it was already in the church. It had grown up in the church. It was informed by Protestant thought in many ways, but it was in the church and there were many Catholic priests and bishops that had already bought into it by the early 1900s. That is why a formal renunciation of modernism was necessary.

Vatican II didn’t create these problems; it merely let them into the light. I know it led to a period of turmoil, but in simple terms, think of it like this: it’s much easier to fight your enemies when you can see them. And let us not forget that the past 100 years hasn’t been a period of turmoil just for the Catholic Church. It has been a period of turmoil for the whole Western world. Vatican II didn’t start that; in fact it was happening well before the council and in parts of society that had nothing to do with the church. We could look to the works of men like Darwin and Freud and Nietzche in the late 1800s as the start of the trend, but then if we look further back, we can find similar trends in the Enlightenment and in the subsequent revolutions that followed it. Further back, even before the Reformation there were liberalising trends in the Renaissance that were scandalous at the time. We go back further and find that people were ought raged by the reforms that Charlemagne imposed upon the church. Then again the Jews were outraged by the liberal views held by Jesus and his followers.

How far back would you like me to go? The church managed to get through all of the turmoil of the first 1900 years of its existence. We’ll get through this too. I’m just not sure that it was so much that Vatican II opened the doors as it was that Trent had closed them for four centuries. What we’re experiencing now is the tail end of the explosion that happened when the pent up changes of four centuries were unleashed in less than a decade. This time, I hope, we will be able to keep true to the unwavering faith passed onto us by the Apostles without trying to make dogma out of discipline. There is a time for tradition and a time for innovation, but both ought to be informed out of the Tradition of our faith.

And before you go painting me as a liberal again, I’m not defending the liberal agenda in the church. I’m just pointing out that it has been there for as long as the church has existed. Major rifts and heresies occurred routinely throughout the history of the church. They’re nothing new. If we go rigidly dismissing everything that happened after 1563, though, we would lose a lot of wonderful devotions. I’m sure that there are many more that are going to arise in the coming decades and centuries. Dogma is unchanging. Disciplines and devotions are not and they shouldn’t be for a reason.

 

[pnewton]

I have come to the conclusion that the Church’s leaders seem to be on the fence playing both sides the traditional and charismatic…and in this case the charismatics bring in more so who do you think they play to primarily?

Yes. As Paul said:

[1 Cor 9:22](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some

 

[ProVobis]

The number forty is often associated with exile in the church.

Sorry but numerology is not a basis for our faith.

 

[ProVobis]

If Vatican II had really been so horribly abused by the alteration of sanctuaries, the “closed circle” (priest-altar-congregation vs. altar-priest-congregation), and the lack of facing east, why had they not been corrected? An abuse of the glorious sacrifice of our holy Mass is wrong, and so it is contrary to majesty and proper worship. Why can’t this orthodox Pope simply suggest that more … anthropologically-minded bishops curtail their architectural ideas? It can’t be that difficult, he being the steward of Christ’s Church. Anyway, the 2011 Missal has already been partially-released in preview, and the Ordinary very plainly instructs priests when he should be facing the altar, and when he should be facing the people. There is no reason to do anything otherwise.

Vatican II effectively defined the (new) roles of bishops within the Church. One could argue that the current structure of collegiality (vernacular, synods, 2/3 vote, etc.) has severely limited the power of the Pope in matters of discipline and culture changing. The very bishops whom the Vatican appoints are acting against the documents of the Vatican and wishes of the Pope. IMO this needs to be addressed before we ask the Pope to “correct” any or all of the abuses within the Church.

 

[FrancisB]

Sorry but numerology is not a basis for our faith.

It’s not numerology, and that kind of use of numbers is, in fact, used in the Bible and was common in the ancient and mediaeval church. The significance of numbers was understood by Christ, and comes out of a Jewish sensibility that as carried through into Christianity. Don’t you notice all of the references to repeated numbers in the Scriptures? People travel through the desert for 40 years or 40 days, depending upon the episode. There are other numbers that also have mystical significance: 3, 7, 12, 666. They appear in both the Old and the New Testaments.

 

[edwest2]

The trend is secularisation. The abandonment of traditional religious values. It isn’t just a Catholic phenomenon. It’s happening across the board in the Western World. As to the origin of this trend, I’m not entirely certain. I didn’t claim to have all the answers. I just don’t see how we can blame Vatican II for something that was happening before the council was convened and is happening in a similar way to the Orthodox, the Protestants, the Jews, and so forth. Certainly Vatican II didn’t encourage Reform Judaism to keep the Jews from practising their faith, right?

I think we need to have some degree of certainty. We, meaning people in general, have some degree of certainty regarding events that occurred 2,000 years ago, so why not about something that occurred in 1962? Some of the participants are still around.

Reform Judaism is a good example. The Orthodox are in Israel and they are catching a certain amount of flak for holding onto their traditions and practices.

Without some certainty, I don’t think we can simply point to some vague concept of secularization and say that’s all we know.

Starting in the late 1960s, there was a planned, deliberate and coordinated attack on the Catholic Church. None of the “changes” attributed to Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II but this cover story is being widely published and/or believed by people, including some on this forum. There are parts of the story that Catholics need to to understand and get right.

Since I was there, I can tell you that the cry for what they called “freedom” came from self-described artists and intellectuals in all media. I’m not saying that every artist and intellectual was for sexual freedom but I’m focusing on those that effectively changed the concept of Western sexuality and moral norms. When the X-rated movie Deep Throat came out in 1972, it was banned from release in 22 States. Certain songs were banned from the radio. In 1985, musician Frank Zappa appeared before Congress about censorship in music. He insisted on the Johnny Carson Show that certain words were “just words,” implying they should be ignored. What he was actually saying was that they should be allowed.

What was being sold to people in general, starting in the late 1960s, was that the obscene, the immoral, the pornographic and the base, should be allowed entry into American culture. Adult Bookstores did not open themselves or produce the pornography they sold by themselves. There were networks of content creators, photographers and filmmakers, plus distributors, advertisers and marketers.

That created porn and sex addicts. When the interenet opened for business, it spread the poison far and wide. None of this was caused by Vatican II.

God bless,
Ed

 

[pnewton]

Sorry but numerology is not a basis for our faith.

Besides, the Church is not in exile. I feel kind of ridiculous having to point this out.

 

[HCC]

Interesting short article about the shortcomings of the “Vatican II Effect”:

ad2000.com.au/articles/2001/nov2001p12_725.html

Thoughts?