Traditional Catholics - Do They Understand the Context of Vatican II

[Rich_C]

Ironically, IMO some of Vatican II’s greatest successes are within the traditional catholic movement where people have recognized the spiritual treasure that exists in the millenia of devotions, liturgies and pious practices that have lead countless saints to know God and fall ever more deeply in love with him.

I never thought about it that way before, but it rings true.

I’ve said elsewhere in this forum that I don’t know how to apply Vatican II to my life so I almost live like it didn’t happen. Well maybe that isn’t true. Perhaps what I got out of it is that as a layman I take responsibility for learning the Faith and that I try to share it whenever I can. Is that what Vatican II was all about?

 

[YoungTradCath]

There’s a difference between:

A beautiful stained glass window portraying a white Mary and Jesus in a church in France versus an equally-beautiful stained glass window portraying, say, an Asian Mary and Jesus in a church in Japan.

and

Let’s change the parts of the Mass and have it in an indigenous hut even though we have a perfectly good church building down the road.

The former is very legitimate, while the latter is not at all. (Unless of course there is no transportation)

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

What we DO object to is being told that our OWN heritage is worthless, archaic and should be tossed in the scrap heap of theological history.

Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, the current ideas of tolerance and multiculturalism usually contains a direct attack on traditional Catholic (and European) culture. This is, of course, highly ironic and hypocritical. I see it clearly among my counter-cultural friends, for whom any religion or spirituality is accepted with the blatant exception of Christianity (and Catholicism in particular).

The question of cultural relativism is bound to arise in such discussions. Is one culture better than another? Obviously it depends on the measuring stick. If that stick is “eternal salvation for the greatest number of souls,” then the culture that is most influenced by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church might well win the competition. If another standard is used, then perhaps another culture comes out on top. So that takes us to judging the standards being used, and I think Church teaching has been quite clear over 2000 years what the most important things are.

The Church has also had an excellent history of absorbing various cultures into Her Body. I think looking at the history of that proselytizing and absorption would be more useful than trying to come up with a new way of doing it today. A Mass that specifically caters to the previously held religious beliefs of a certain culture shows disunity, not unity. The most sacred prayer of the Church, the highest liturgy of the Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, should not be played with in such a way.

An excellent book that deals with relativism (cultural and intellectual) is Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind.” I’d recommend it to anyone. I’d even say just read the introduction as many salient and relevant points are made.

• PAX

 

[Mrs_Sally]

You are exactly right, which is why a traditional parish is the ideal, with all of the wonderful traditions, devotions, and orthodox teachings that go along with it, instead of just having the EF on Wednesday night at the local seminary.

• PAX

Absolutely agree. And very happy that I am in a parish like that!

 

[manualman]

There’s a difference between:

A beautiful stained glass window portraying a white Mary and Jesus in a church in France versus an equally-beautiful stained glass window portraying, say, an Asian Mary and Jesus in a church in Japan.

and

Let’s change the parts of the Mass and have it in an indigenous hut even though we have a perfectly good church building down the road.

The former is very legitimate, while the latter is not at all. (Unless of course there is no transportation)

Ah, but here it gets tricky. Are you suggesting that a cruciform shaped church with soaring ceiling and stained glass windows is a universally applicable portion of the faith? It is innately superior to, say, a pavillion structure with a thatched roof, no or removable walls and statues made of mud/straw mixtures painted in the local style - even if this place was in the poor tropics? Personally, I won’t go there. I think it would be wrong for MY parish to build something like this given our culture, history and geography, but I don’t believe it is universal.

Now if someone proposes rice/honey loaves and beer instead of real bread and wine, we’ve got problems. But I believe there is a major difference between imposing a particular artistic style and those portions of liturgy which convey theological content. I think that is the line that shouldn’t be crossed. I still maintain that we’re fools for throwing out a legacy of beatiful artistic expression, but that isn’t the same as imposing it on foreign cultures. I think organ hymns are beautiful, but I don’t think that means we must tell African villages they must burn their drums and save up for an organ…

 

[YoungTradCath]

Ah, but here it gets tricky. Are you suggesting that a cruciform shaped church with soaring ceiling and stained glass windows is a universally applicable portion of the faith? It is innately superior to, say, a pavillion structure with a thatched roof, no or removable walls and statues made of mud/straw mixtures painted in the local style - even if this place was in the poor tropics? Personally, I won’t go there. I think it would be wrong for MY parish to build something like this given our culture, history and geography, but I don’t believe it is universal.

Now if someone proposes rice/honey loaves and beer instead of real bread and wine, we’ve got problems. But I believe there is a major difference between imposing a particular artistic style and those portions of liturgy which convey theological content. I think that is the line that shouldn’t be crossed. I still maintain that we’re fools for throwing out a legacy of beatiful artistic expression, but that isn’t the same as imposing it on foreign cultures. I think organ hymns are beautiful, but I don’t think that means we must tell African villages they must burn their drums and save up for an organ…

No, I’m not suggesting that.

 

[TrueLight]

Is traditional catholicism open to aboiginal forms of a mass? That is where I am leading to with respect to a new openess (albeit with mistakes) envisioned by Vatican II…by the way, I am old enough to remember the traditional mass when it was the “mass of the day”…and I am truly a Vatican II kind of baby-boomer

Bruce

You started a few threads on the topic of aboriginal catholicism months ago.

 

[trickster]

You started a few threads on the topic of aboriginal catholicism months ago.

And…?

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Traditional catholics do not necessarily oppose cultural adaptation of liturgy and practices to the cultures that are receiving them. What we DO object to is being told that our OWN heritage is worthless, archaic and should be tossed in the scrap heap of theological history. Other cultures accepting Christ can and will bring their own adaptations to the externals of church life. The trick (no pun intended) is to discern the essentials from the peripherals. Diversity in the latter, uniformity in the former…

When I speak of cultural adaptations of liturgy and practices within an aboriginal context I am not talking about changing what cannot be changed in the liturgy…your right, the church has always been flexible. We know the Jesuit history in Asia and later the Oblate tools used in North America. Also the Franciscans used the kiva when talking to Pueblo’s (La Salinas Mission - in Arizona or New Mexico)…

I certainly would share your objection that European, or western heritage and how that culture(s) have contributed to the beautiful expression of love for God and Jesus within the european church …that is not acceptable…that expression should be an expression of that culture and we cannot let it go or forget it ever happened,… I am with you there…

I also agree with you that we cannot change the essentials BUT we can describe, explain and understand those essentials employing cultural models, etc… if that makes any sense…The Oblates on Vancouver Island used a Jacob’s ladder model that was modeled ont he west coast talking stick to explain the Genesis stories…that is what I am talking about…not changing the teachings of the church but creating a foundation for that teaching to speak to and engage (as well as be engaged by cultural diversity)…we can all grow and benefit and to a degree that is the fullness of the gospel spreading thoughout the world…

Vatican II did not call for everybody to invent their own catholicism. How it came to popularly stand for that is arguable, but IMO has a lot to do with personal agendas of clergy in place after the council. But what those old guys tried to do with Vatican II is less important than what the Council ACTUALLY says. We finally are arriving at the point where the agitators are retiring and the next generation is reading the council documents themselves, not manifestos of the innovators who claimed to speak in its name, but didn’t.

Not sure what you mean by IMO…can you elaborate on the “popularity stand” comments? I’m not getting your connection or jist in this respect. What “agitators” are you talking about? Thanks.

Bruce

 

[trickster]

I never thought about it that way before, but it rings true.

I’ve said elsewhere in this forum that I don’t know how to apply Vatican II to my life so I almost live like it didn’t happen. Well maybe that isn’t true. Perhaps what I got out of it is that as a layman I take responsibility for learning the Faith and that I try to share it whenever I can. Is that what Vatican II was all about?

I think that maybe your right on the increased role of the lay person in the church today…that is truly a joyful development coming out of the post-Vatican II church…a true reflection of the early church…

Bruce

 

[trickster]

There’s a difference between:

A beautiful stained glass window portraying a white Mary and Jesus in a church in France versus an equally-beautiful stained glass window portraying, say, an Asian Mary and Jesus in a church in Japan.

and

Let’s change the parts of the Mass and have it in an indigenous hut even though we have a perfectly good church building down the road.

The former is very legitimate, while the latter is not at all. (Unless of course there is no transportation)

AGREED YoungTradCatholic but that is not what is being proposed. No one is talking about changing the parts of the mass - no culture can do that, nor would any culture want to…what we want in an aboriginal context is an understanding of the teaching etc. of the church based on our own experience…St. Paul offered that cultural relevance to the cultures he brought the good news of Jesus (therefore the church) and that inculturation process continues today…after the greatest inculturationalist in our history, Paul himeslef.

Bruce

 

[trickster]

Ah, but here it gets tricky. Are you suggesting that a cruciform shaped church with soaring ceiling and stained glass windows is a universally applicable portion of the faith? It is innately superior to, say, a pavillion structure with a thatched roof, no or removable walls and statues made of mud/straw mixtures painted in the local style - even if this place was in the poor tropics? Personally, I won’t go there. I think it would be wrong for MY parish to build something like this given our culture, history and geography, but I don’t believe it is universal.

Now if someone proposes rice/honey loaves and beer instead of real bread and wine, we’ve got problems. But I believe there is a major difference between imposing a particular artistic style and those portions of liturgy which convey theological content. I think that is the line that shouldn’t be crossed. I still maintain that we’re fools for throwing out a legacy of beatiful artistic expression, but that isn’t the same as imposing it on foreign cultures. I think organ hymns are beautiful, but I don’t think that means we must tell African villages they must burn their drums and save up for an organ…

WONDERFULY SAID, I agree with you 150%! The only thing that I would add is that while no one is saying throw out everything traditional and western in origin…as it in its own space, time and cultural frameworks have a beauty that is undeniable…however, equally, other cultures contain their own beauty, their own experiential knowledge that would also inform the teachings of the church and the way we celebrate mass…rice and honey loaves, I too would have a problem with…but cutlure brings a great deal of context to a universal understanding of a universal church…

Bruce

 

[ProVobis]

AGREED YoungTradCatholic but that is not what is being proposed. No one is talking about changing the parts of the mass - no culture can do that, nor would any culture want to…what we want in an aboriginal context is an understanding of the teaching etc. of the church based on our own experience…St. Paul offered that cultural relevance to the cultures he brought the good news of Jesus (therefore the church) and that inculturation process continues today…after the greatest inculturationalist in our history, Paul himeslef.

Bruce

True. But cultures developed (Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, etc.) with a single Christian theme and it was possible to do so with the same common immutable worship language for over 1900 years. Imagine that.

 

[Rich_C]

I think that maybe your right on the increased role of the lay person in the church today…that is truly a joyful development coming out of the post-Vatican II church…a true reflection of the early church…

Bruce

I don’t know if it’s a reflection of the early Church or not (the NT talks mostly about bishops, priests, and deacons doing things), but it does seem like a theme drawn the latest council.

 

[TrueLight]

And…?

Bruce

And is this thread about trads and Vat II or once again about how to have an aboriginal mass?

 

[Ohana]

This seems to be true. It sometimes amazes me the number of active posters in this forum who do not attend the EF (and some have even said they would not even if given the chance),

I’m not saying that such people shouldn’t post in this forum; I just wonder why they do (perhaps I’ll start a separate thread on this). End QUOTE

---

I am one who is not a fan of the EF. I would probably attend if it was the only Mass around and a way to meet my “Sunday obligation”. Otherwise - Not.

Interestingly, I do consider myself a traditional Catholic albeit delighted to see Vatican II com around. I grew up with the legalisms that really got in the way of developing a relationship with Christ, and still does in some ways. Catholic guilt survives a long time!

I have read and posted in this forum partly as a way to reconcile this issue for myself. Can I continue to be a Catholic while adhering to my understanding of Vatican II teachings. I see the Church changing and becoming much less welcoming than it has been over the last 40 years. I have gotten some pretty good “dings” on this forum, and probably have delivered a few. Nevertheless, I really fear the rigidity I see reentering the mainstream of the Church. Hope suffers.

 

[clem456]

Hey all. I was thinking today about why there is such an attraction for traditional catholic expressions. One of the questions I have is "do traditional catholics understand the context which drove the church to change in the early 60’s?

Bruce

Many things are blamed on Vatican 2 which are simply cultural problems. Affluence is probably the largest corrupting influence for spirituality. As people became more upwardly mobile, affluent, assimilated into society from closely knit immigrant cultures, the Church and spirituality in general became less important to them. It is revealed pretty quickly if your spirituality is a merely cultural thing, or has some true substance. Affluence can really dull the spiritual senses. People don’t feel the need for the Church, unfortunately, until someone dies or gets married. People leave the Church because secular and temporal concerns have taken charge of their spirituality. The idea that people left the Church because Vatican 2 “let them” by relaxing the standards is just absurd. Vatican 2 is an easy scapegoat for people who see the world changing against their will and have no explanation. for it.

Contrary to the idea that Vatican 2 attempts to make Catholic life easier, it more accurately challenges the heart and will, calls for a more serious spiritual committment beyond observance and form, but not to the neglect of it. It’s painful to grow, but so worth it. It’s the only way. Hopefully gone are the days when being Catholic was merely an observant and passive experience for the laity. The culture I grew up in was devoutly Catholic. It was also somewhat exlusive, neglectful, narrow in it’s outlook. It was more focused on saying the rosary during the Mass than living Matthew 25 31:46. The attitude was, pay pray and obey, Father will do the spiritual work. We have an unavoidable call to do more as Church, outside the building.

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t know if it’s a reflection of the early Church or not (the NT talks mostly about bishops, priests, and deacons doing things), but it does seem like a theme drawn the latest council.

Like it or not, believe it or not, the early Church was more - and I am going to use a word that trads don’t like - the early Church was more horizontal.

Christiantity was illegal and likely to get you killed. The hierarchy and structure of the Church was shallower and wider. You couldn’t set up shop and hang out a sign.

The idea of cursus honorum, or rising up through the ranks, was not really an attribute of the Church prior to the legalization of Christianity. The idea of cursus honorum and the vertical, hierarchical structures which came along with it were really an adaptation of secular ideas by the Church. Some of it was necessary because of the growth of the Church but the fact is that these hierarchical structures grew massivly after Christianity was legalized.

I see Vatican II in part as an attempt to recapture part of that early Church. For example, the sacrament of anointing of the sick had become a sacrament only for those who were in immediate danger of death instead of what Christ intended it to be, a healing remedy for anyone who is sick. Vatican II put the sacrament back in its rightful place.

Vatican II also restored the permanent diaconate which had been abandoned for one thousand years.

For all the cries of modernism, Vatican II actually attempted to turn the clock back to a more authentic Christianity, the way it was originally practiced.

-Tim-

 

[floresco]

This OP consistently creates threads in the Trad forum that he knows will rile trads.

Sounds like agenda posting to me.

 

[manualman]

Not sure what you mean by IMO…can you elaborate on the “popularity stand” comments? I’m not getting your connection or jist in this respect. What “agitators” are you talking about? Thanks.

Bruce

I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s. An enormous number of weird and novel things were done and taught by clergy and religious who kept a straight face while telling us that this is what Vatican II called us to become as catholics. They virtually banned the use of Latin in the liturgy for decades, they changed the posture of receiving Christ in the Eucharist from one of penitence and reverence to a posture that eerily resembles receiving a Big Mac (stand in line, walk forward, put hand out…), they told us that conscience is more important than revealed teachings, they effectively denigrated the devotions and prayers of the saints and invented ‘centering’ and pursued yoga and oriental forms of meditation, the religious abandoned regcognizable habits and ceased living in community, they designed churchs to resemble theaters instead of places of worship. They all claimed to be acting on the orders of Vatican II and nobody called them on it. It has been quite a revelation to learn jsut how many of these things fly directly in the face of the ACTUAL Vatican II documents. “Hijackers” is probably the best word for many of these clergy religious and theologians. They knew full well that their ideas were novel and were their own, but they made the straight faced claim that they had a mandate from Vatican II to teach and do what they did. I think Jesus said something about millstones regarding such people…