The "Proper" Vatican II

[rben20]

I am honestly fed up with Vatican II should haves could haves concerning the Pauline Mass. Whether people want to admit that it’s not what Vatican II intended or not, one point is clear…the Church has no problem with it.

If the Church really had a problem with its “improper” implementation they would be working diligently to fix it, but they are not. It seems even more odd that they would try to fix it after 40 years of FINALLY realizing its not what was intended. Hell, just go back to 1969, they would have made sure that it was properly implemented, but I guess they got it all wrong right? No! They were fine with the changes…until numbers started going down! I honestly think its all bogus. We all want to kid ourselves that the Church actually wanted to retain its heritage and what not, but it simply isn’t true. If the Church really cared it wouldn’t have let this mess happen to begin with. The Church simply changed and now that it clearly is suffering they have back tracked and suddenly care about the old rite.

Lets just be honest with ourselves and realize the Catholic Church is fine with charismatic masses, CITH, guitar hymns, vernacular and no latin and some cases even promote this and marginalize the traditional crowd…as upsetting as it is to me to have all these innovations in the Mass, 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?

Sorry for my rant, but I can no longer believe that that Vatican II was improperly implemented or wasn’t done as intended. This has only developed in light of declining numbers. If the numbers were high no one would have a problem with the OF Mass…

 

[FrancisB]

There was fall out after ever council. Go back and look through them and you will see that holding an ecumenical council ultimately leads to schism and divide. It also didn’t help that Trent calcified the liturgy for four centuries, and the liturgy is the most common interaction most people have with the church. By 1900, it was clear that changes needed to be made. St. Pius X made a few, as did each of his successors. But then when the council was convened there was an opportunity for change and we had four centuries of change unleashed in the course of the next forty years. Of course much of it is not appropriate and needs to be corrected, but because it hadn’t been addressed for so long, there was too much to deal with all at once. We see even during the pontificate of John Paul II some of the first moves toward regulation of the new mass and the condemning of some of the most egregious practices. You have to remember, though, that things were addressed in order of importance. Heresy had to be combated before distastefulness. We had to get rid of the goddess worshipping crowd that wanted to ordain women before we worried about communion in the hand, the use of the vernacular, or the use of folk music in the mass. All three of these things had predecessors in the church, and all of them need to be examined. I personally am not a fan of any of these changes, but we must nevertheless admit that in the early church communion was taken in the hand, the mass was in the vernacular (that’s how we got Latin in the first place), and there was an influence of popular and folk music on the mass since the earliest written records of music that we have.

So let’s have a little faith. Things will settle down. They’ve already started. I know you may feel that forty years is too long, but I don’t think anyone really wants the Church to move as quickly as it did in the 1960’s ever again. An equally quick motion back to tradition will only alienate people. Instead there were measures put into place to preserve and protect the tradition, and then a slow movement put in place to guide us back without alienating people. The new translation will be a great boon in this next year. And I still suspect we will see further changes in the years to come. Some of these changes are as simple as the wave of a pen, but others are going to take longer.

 

[challam2010]

…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.

 

[FrancisB]

What reforms that were actually written into the texts of the council documents were stymied by John Paul II? This sounds to me more like you are looking for changes that you think should have been there than ones that were there and weren’t implemented.

 

[Adeodatus]

…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.

So in your opinion, Catholicism has been opposed to “Jesus’ message of love” for two thousand years and only now, since the radicalism of the 1960s, can that message truly overthrow the wicked Church and bring us into the Aquarian age of women’s ordination, contraception, socialism, etc.?

I note your rebellion against monarchy. Jesus Christ is my monarch. I will defend His crown to the death, comrade.

 

[challam2010]

So in your opinion, Catholicism has been opposed to “Jesus’ message of love” for two thousand years and only now, since the radicalism of the 1960s, can that message truly overthrow the wicked Church and bring us into the Aquarian age of women’s ordination, contraception, socialism, etc.?

I note your rebellion against monarchy. Jesus Christ is my monarch. I will defend His crown to the death, comrade.

Sorry, I have no interest in continued dialogue with someone who puts words in my mouth, assigns specific idealism where none has been stated nor exists, and resorts to childishly calling names…“comrade.”

 

[FrancisB]

But what change were you waiting for that you feel were stymied by John Paul II, Challam?

 

[SouthpawLink]

challam2010,
There are plenty of statistics available to show just how “fruitful” have been the reforms of Vatican II (e.g., decreased faith, Mass attendance, vocations, etc.). It’s time to return to Tradition, not only with regard to the Holy Mass, but also with regard to the Faith itself, which in former times was unambiguous and clearly presented (because the Church used to champion Scholasticism/Thomism and had all priests trained by the principles, methods and doctrines of the Angelic Doctor… now that’s been replaced by the garbage known as modern philosophy). Ecumenism used to mean the return of dissident Christians to the Catholic Church… now, however, I couldn’t tell you, at least given its new understanding by the PCPCU.

 

[Marie5890]

When I read the different threads about traditional Catholicism and post-Vatican 2 changes…the different views and what was wrong/what was right etc…

There is only one thing that always trouble me with such…and I am not diminishing either dialogue…

There is always talk about the Church…rightfully so…

But talk of Christ is always absent…
I always find that troublesome…Where is Christ in the equations of dialogue of the Mass, in the changes?..

How would He feel? What would He say over the lack of charity over both sides? What about His Mother?

Would He be offended? Would He be more tolerant? I know the Pharisees got on His nerves in a general sense often times, though He did have amongst His disciples those who were Pharisees (esp later on with Paul)…

It just troubles me that people (understandably so) get upset about this that or the other…but never mention Christ in that upset-ness…Would He be as upset over the things that upset us?

 

[FrancisB]

challam2010,
There are plenty of statistics available to show just how “fruitful” have been the reforms of Vatican II (e.g., decreased faith, Mass attendance, vocations, etc.). It’s time to return to Tradition, not only with regard to the Holy Mass, but also with regard to the Faith itself, which in former times was unambiguous and clearly presented (because the Church used to champion Scholasticism/Thomism and had all priests trained by the principles, methods and doctrines of the Angelic Doctor… now that’s been replaced by the garbage known as modern philosophy). Ecumenism used to mean the return of dissident Christians to the Catholic Church… now, however, I couldn’t tell you, at least given its new understanding by the PCPCU.

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.

 

[Adeodatus]

But what change were you waiting for that you feel were stymied by John Paul II, Challam?

I strongly suspect that will turn out to be women’s ordination, famously quashed by JP II and his henchman, Joseph Ratzinger.

 

[Aramis]

challam2010,
There are plenty of statistics available to show just how “fruitful” have been the reforms of Vatican II (e.g., decreased faith, Mass attendance, vocations, etc.).

Only if you trim the graphs to start at VII… the declines predate VII by decades.

 

[PA650]

…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.

With regard to the liturgical developments following the Second Vatican Council, you are certainly entitled to your particular opinion of those various changes. Nevertheless, as a recent convert to the Catholic Church and only a recent graduate from university, thus alluding to my young age, I and fellow Catholics of my age group are very much drawn to the traditions of the Church and its nearly 2000 years of liturgical developments. In the end, I am very much in favor of the hermeneutic of continuity that our Holy Father has consistently voiced approval of instead of a hermeneutic of rupture so apparent in some clergy and laity in the Church. Lastly, have you by any chance read Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy, even though it seems you may have some disagreements with its contents?

 

[FrancisB]

I strongly suspect that will turn out to be women’s ordination, famously quashed by JP II and his henchman, Joseph Ratzinger.

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.

 

[Adeodatus]

Some day soon, I hope, the altar girls will go away for good.

Looks like we’re going to turn out to be friends after all.

 

[FrancisB]

Looks like we’re going to turn out to be friends after all.

That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.

 

[archangel04]

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.

I pray to God this will be so, as well for COTH and the return of ad-orientum.

 

[FrancisB]

Patientia virtus est, Archangele. Things must be addressed in due course. These things will disappear; it’s just a matter of time.

 

[ProVobis]

It also didn’t help that Trent calcified the liturgy for four centuries, and the liturgy is the most common interaction most people have with the church. By 1900, it was clear that changes needed to be made.

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.

 

[HCC]

I am honestly fed up with Vatican II should haves could haves concerning the Pauline Mass. Whether people want to admit that it’s not what Vatican II intended or not, one point is clear…the Church has no problem with it.

If the Church really had a problem with its “improper” implementation they would be working diligently to fix it, but they are not. It seems even more odd that they would try to fix it after 40 years of FINALLY realizing its not what was intended. Hell, just go back to 1969, they would have made sure that it was properly implemented, but I guess they got it all wrong right? No! They were fine with the changes…until numbers started going down! I honestly think its all bogus. We all want to kid ourselves that the Church actually wanted to retain its heritage and what not, but it simply isn’t true. If the Church really cared it wouldn’t have let this mess happen to begin with. The Church simply changed and now that it clearly is suffering they have back tracked and suddenly care about the old rite.

Lets just be honest with ourselves and realize the Catholic Church is fine with charismatic masses, CITH, guitar hymns, vernacular and no latin and some cases even promote this and marginalize the traditional crowd…as upsetting as it is to me to have all these innovations in the Mass, 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?

Sorry for my rant, but I can no longer believe that that Vatican II was improperly implemented or wasn’t done as intended. This has only developed in light of declining numbers. If the numbers were high no one would have a problem with the OF Mass…

And that, my friend, is why Hans Kung, key figure at Vatican II, is now calling for “The Global Ethic.” Because Kung believes all religions are the basis for all the world’s wars, strife and problems, discounting all of the good religion has brought to the world. We (all societies) need to move our people away from religion and toward a common, agreed upon, shared ethical system. He calls this “The Global Ethic.” Out of all the key players at Vatican II only he and Benedict remain. And they are clearly on divergent paths.

He wrote an open letter to all bishops back in the spring, as a last ditch effort, to save the dying, withering, “Spirit of Vatican II.” Here it is in full: indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=15996

George Weigel’s response: firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/04/an-open-letter-to-hans-kung

So, yes, Rben20, one does wonder what these Vatican II fathers really intended. Why was Vatican II and its subsequent liturgical changes never implemented correctly in the first place?