Traditional Catholics - Do They Understand the Context of Vatican II

[TrueLight]

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-

Then it was a worthy attempt. I do believe in an authentic living of one’s Christianity because of my background. Our Catholicism should not be all about routines.

Whatever the original aims of Vat II were, was there not a modernist agenda from some that caused Vat II, at least in its application, to morph into something less worthy?

 

[floresco]

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.

I agree. I don’t think there is a problem with people not understanding the context of Vatican II as much as a problem with the way that Vatican II was implemented. Take liturgy, for example. One of my main concerns with the Ordinary Form of the Mass is that it does not seem to follow the changes called for in the Council document, Sacrosanctum Concilium. In practice, the Mass often directly contradicts this document. I don’t have problems with what it actually says, but with what was done, using the Council as an excuse.

 

[TimothyH]

Then it was a worthy attempt. I do believe in an authentic living of one’s Christianity because of my background. Our Catholicism should not be all about routines.

Whatever the original aims of Vat II were, was there not a modernist agenda from some that caused Vat II, at least in its application, to morph into something less worthy?

I don’t know. Clearly that is what some believe. I don’t know. From our limited perspective, yes, probably. But time will tell.

The Church has never really had to deal with what was happening after World War II and what continues to happen now. In many places the most educated person was the priest. For the first time in history there was an educated laity, and in many cases they layman was more educated than the priest. Instant communication was possible where it never was before. Jets were replacing sailing ships. Now look at the internet.

We spent 450 years fighting the reformation by telling people not to read the bible and that they should leave theology to those who are educated, and it wasn’t doing any good. The errors of Lutheranism and Calvinism had given way to Fundamentalism, Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Telling people not to read the Bible and to leave theology to professionals wasn’t working, and in some case had spawned the idea that not only should theology be left to professionals, but that holiness should be left to professionals. That’s the very reason why St. Josemaria Escriva is a saint.

Opening up the teaching of the Church was inevitable. Telling people not to read the Bible wasn’t working. The only way to combat errors was to open up the Church to the world, and I guess that is where the arguments start. Some say it went backward, the world entering the Church instead of the Church being let into the world. Some of that is clearly true.

But there have always been times of upheaval after every great council.

I think the restoration of the Permanent Diaconate after 1000 years of disuse is the biggest thing to hit the Church since Martin Luther. That’s one of the reasons why I am discerning. Who knows what the release of tens of thousands of permanent, public ministers ordained to serve not only the Church herself but the entire world - who knows what God has planned for them. That’s just one example of something which Vatican II has done but which is not well understood and not appreciated enough.

Blessed John Paul II. Opus Dei. Theology of the Body. The Permanent Diaconate. These are all products of the same times and same circumstances which brought about Vatican II. There will always be radical progressives and radical reactionaries but where God is taking the Church with all this remains to be seen. 100 years from now, I think it will be good.

-Tim-

 

[TrueLight]

I think the restoration of the Permanent Diaconate after 1000 years of disuse is the biggest thing to hit the Church since Martin Luther. That’s one of the reasons why I am discerning. Who knows what the release of tens of thousands of permanent, public ministers ordained to serve not only the Church herself but the entire world - who knows what God has planned for them. That’s just one example of something which Vatican II has done but which is not well underst

-Tim-

Can you go a little more into that? I’m not really sure of the role of the permanent Diaconate in the Catholic Church as I don’t think there are any in traditional parishes. I could be wrong.

What would these deacons do? Catechesis?

 

[TimothyH]

Can you go a little more into that? I’m not really sure of the role of the permanent Diaconate in the Catholic Church as I don’t think there are any in traditional parishes. I could be wrong.

What would these deacons do? Catechesis?

It’s probably a good topic for another thread.

Diacanoia is service. It is Christ washing the feet of the disciples. Deacons have a threefold ministry - litury, word, charity - and wherever service is needed, a deacon is a public minister of the Church ordained to the role of the servant, and he goes there to serve.

Our Church has a very specific hierarchy. Christ is the head. Just below Christ are the poor. The poor are at the top of the Church, just below Christ who always assocated with the poor - Christ’s body must do so as well. Then comes the laity. Then the Bishops and the Holy Father. Then priests. Deacons are at the lowest level - servants. That’s what they told us in the inquiry meeting. You are aspiring to the lowest rung on the ladder. They said that you will even loose your name. You will become “The deacon” instead of Joe or Bill or Tim. Great…

What do deacons do? Serve. What does that look like? It looks like whatever job needs to get done, and it doesn’t matter if the person is Catholic, Christian, rich, poor, whatever. Deacons serve. And they wear the collar as public ministers of the Church - the Church herself entering the world as a servant. A deacon is the sacramental presence of the visible Church serving the world.

Prisons. Hopspitals. Hospice. The poor. Families who have just had a child die. The elderly. Autism. In one place in Germany, deacons in formation are told to go out and create their own ministry. Porn addiction is a new scourge and I would like to work there somehow. Catechesis, yes, and baptism, benediction, blessing, homily, prayer, prayer, prayer. Word-Liturgy-Charity. But what you see a deacon doing at Mass is only a small part of what he does.

There is a good book titled “The Emerging Diaconate” by Bill Ditewig if you want to explore further. I really don’t want to derail the thread into a discussion of the theology of the diaconate.

-Tim-

 

[Diana_Catherine]

We spent 450 years fighting the reformation by telling people not to read the bible and that they should leave theology to those who are educated, and it wasn’t doing any good. The errors of Lutheranism and Calvinism had given way to Fundamentalism, Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Telling people not to read the Bible and to leave theology to professionals wasn’t working, and in some case had spawned the idea that not only should theology be left to professionals, but that holiness should be left to professionals. That’s the very reason why St. Josemaria Escriva is a saint.

Opening up the teaching of the Church was inevitable. Telling people not to read the Bible wasn’t working. The only way to combat errors was to open up the Church to the world, and I guess that is where the arguments start. Some say it went backward, the world entering the Church instead of the Church being let into the world. Some of that is clearly true. -

The Church telling the faithful not to read the Bible is a myth. I used to think that, too. While I was in the protestant church and homeschooling, I read a lot of tales of how the church refused to let people read the bible, with excuses like we better not let them know what’s in it or they will know things we don’t want them too.

After returning to the Catholic faith I have found that isn’t true. What they didn’t want was Catholics reading protestant bibles as there were many side notes or want them attending protestant bible studies because as history shows doing such things leads Catholics away from the Catholic church putting ones soul in danger. They did want you to read it but under the guidance of the church, not with your own interpretation or a protestant interpretation.

*POPE PIUS THE SIXTH.

BELOVED SON : Health and apostolic benediction. At a time that a vast number of bad books, which most grossly attack the Catholic religion, are circulated even among the unlearned, to the great destruction of souls, you judge exceedingly well, that the faithful should be excited to the reading of the Holy Scriptures : for these are the most abundant sources which ought to be left open to every one, to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which are widely dis*seminated in these corrupt times : this you have seasonably effected, as you declare, by publishing the sacred writings in the language of your country, suitable to every one’s capacity …
Given at Rome, on the calends of April, 1778, the fourth year of our pontificate.

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903 AD)

“The solicitude of the apostolic office naturally urges and even compels us…to desire that this grand source of Catholic revelation (the Bible) should be made safely and abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus Christ”

“… For sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Ghost, it contains things of the deepest importance, which in many instances are most difficult and obscure. To understand and explain such things there is always required the ‘coming’ of the same Holy Ghost; that is to say, His light and His grace…It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration is not only essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.”
[Providentissimus Deus ( Nov. 18, 1893)]

“An indulgence of 300 days for reading the Holy Gospels is granted to all the Faithful who read these Holy Scriptures for at least a quarter of an hour, with reverence due to the Divine Word and as spiritual reading. A Plenary indulgence under the usual conditions is granted once a month for the daily reading.” 
Pope Leo XIII. December, 1898, Preces et Pia Opera, 045. (Enchiridion Indulgentiarium

Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922 AD)
“Our one desire for all the Church’s children is that, being saturated with the Bible, they may arrive at the all surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ.”
15 September AD 1920

He repeated St. Jerome’s statement:
“Ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”*

 

[TimothyH]

The Church telling the faithful not to read the Bible is a myth. I used to think that, too. While I was in the protestant church and homeschooling, I read a lot of tales of how the church refused to let people read the bible, with excuses like we better not let them know what’s in it or they will know things we don’t want them too.

After returning to the Catholic faith I have found that isn’t true. What they didn’t want was Catholics reading protestant bibles as there were many side notes or want them attending protestant bible studies because as history shows doing such things leads Catholics away from the Catholic church putting ones soul in danger. They did want you to read it but under the guidance of the church, not with your own interpretation or a protestant interpretation.

The Church in general has always promoted knowledge of scripture.

There were places however where the bible was banned because people were twisting scripture to promote heresy and it was even leading to social unrest.

There were specific places where bishops and priests told people “You had better leave that to us” because people were reading things in the Bible out of context and the likes of Luther and Calvin were saying, “See, it’s easy!”

It did happen. Several have posted here on CAF that they were told not to read the Bible back in the 50’s.

-Tim-

 

[Diana_Catherine]

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

I think what bothers me about questions like this is that the Catholic church is still the Catholic church it was prior to Vatican II. A lot of the changes we see happened not because Vatican II told people to do such things but because they acted in the “spirit of Vatican II”. There were changes but the council didn’t call for them.

There were some issues Vatican II dealt with but I find it disheartening when I hear people talk about the post-conciliar church as if it is totally different than it was. As I said a lot of the things we see today aren’t Vatican II but what people wanted Vatican II to be, entering in many abuses.

IMHO God is calling us back to our Catholic identity.

 

[TrueLight]

I really don’t want to derail the thread into a discussion of the theology of the diaconate.

-Tim-

Thread on Permanent Deacons

Thanks.

 

[TrueLight]

The Church telling the faithful not to read the Bible is a myth. I used to think that, too. While I was in the protestant church and homeschooling, I read a lot of tales of how the church refused to let people read the bible, with excuses like we better not let them know what’s in it or they will know things we don’t want them too.

Unfortunately, I have seen people on CAF advocating not reading the Bible on their own because it is too hard to understand and out of fear that it will lead to protestantism.

 

[clem456]

The Church telling the faithful not to read the Bible is a myth. I used to think that, too. While I was in the protestant church and homeschooling, I read a lot of tales of how the church refused to let people read the bible, with excuses like we better not let them know what’s in it or they will know things we don’t want them too.

After returning to the Catholic faith I have found that isn’t true. What they didn’t want was Catholics reading protestant bibles as there were many side notes or want them attending protestant bible studies because as history shows doing such things leads Catholics away from the Catholic church putting ones soul in danger. They did want you to read it but under the guidance of the church, not with your own interpretation or a protestant interpretation.

Well…yes and no. The church has never taken a position discouraging people from reading Scripture
However…in actual practice, bad culture being what it is, most Catholics traditionally were not encouraged to read and study Scripture prior to V2. It has taken quite a while for the faithful to grab hold of Scripture and dig into what was once considered the “Church’s” (well who is that?) responsibility. If you returned to the Church in the last 20 years or so, probably depends on where you live, you would indeed have found Catholics with a revitalized sense of responsibility towards the learning of Scripture. Lay bible studies, parish courses on the Gospel of Luke etc… This is another of the positives breathed into the laity by vatican 2. Takes time but the Holy Spirit will do what it will, according to His good pleasure, and regardless of the kicking and screaming.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

The Church in general has always promoted knowledge of scripture.

There were places however where the bible was banned because people were twisting scripture to promote heresy and it was even leading to social unrest.

There were specific places where bishops and priests told people “You had better leave that to us” because people were reading things in the Bible out of context and the likes of Luther and Calvin were saying, “See, it’s easy!”

It did happen. Several have posted here on CAF that they were told not to read the Bible back in the 50’s.

-Tim-

Yes, there would be occasions and places where people would be instructed not to because of so much false interpretation of the scriptures that continues on today that does lead people away but they were always encouraged to read the scriptures.

My parents have a bible from the 1950’s, very well worn, as a matter of fact tape is holding it together and I can still see this on the inside cover:

“An indulgence of 300 days for reading the Holy Gospels is granted to all the Faithful who read these Holy Scriptures for at least a quarter of an hour, with reverence due to the Divine Word and as spiritual reading…. A Plenary indulgence under the usual conditions is granted once a month for the daily reading.” 
Pope Leo XIII. December, 1898, Preces et Pia Opera, 045. (Enchiridion Indulgentiarium, 694).

We were always encouraged to read scripture but under the guidance of the church.

The quotes from the popes above show the Church did encourage reading the scripture and there are many more quotes where that came from.

What I have read and come to understand the telling of people not to read the scriptures came more because people were following protestant bible studies and leaving the church so people were instructed to be sure and have a priest at your bible study or come to a priest with your questions you do not understand and that a majority of this happened after Vatican II as more and more people began to leave the church and would have biblical excuses for doing such. Even today that is a lot of the reasons people leave the church, they follow either their own interpretation of scripture or a protestants. There are hundreds of websites by catholics who left the church since Vatican II, who claim it is because of what believe they read in scripture on their own interpretation or a noncatholic leading them.

 

[edwest2]

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

Yes. I was there before and after Vatican II. I’m not sure exactly which changes you are referring to, but Vatican II did not make or even suggest any of the changes associated with it.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

What I think is that some Catholics are not aware of the degree that dissidents inside and outside the Church affected certain things that have nothing to do with Vatican II.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I agree. Probably the WORST time to hold such a council. The “smoke of Satan” was permeating the air like an old-time London smog, or in the West when a forest fire is nearby, and John XXIII (Paul VI more so) threw open all the doors and windows to the Sanctuary, and was surprised when things went wrong. The reaction to Humanae Vitae gave Paul VI a clue of what had happened, but by then it was too late.

Humanae Vitae had nothing to do with Vatican II.

I think many Catholics are totally unaware of what happened at Catholic institutions of higher learning in 1967.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/outgoing-cua-president-laments-confusion-about-catholic-identity-in-higher-education/

Peace,
Ed

 

[ProVobis]

However…in actual practice, bad culture being what it is, most Catholics traditionally were not encouraged to read and study Scripture prior to V2.

I’m not quite sure about that. There were indulgences attached to reading Scripture. What was discouraged, even condemned by some, were certain translations of Scripture. (I believe there were some even on the Index of Forbidden Books.) Today I don’t think there is one translation which is considered by the Church to be better than the others.

 

[edwest2]

I have to get this off my chest- my experience with Traditionalists is that they lack joy and are not very friendly and are very uptight and don’t like change - just my observations

We don’t mind change if there’s a good reason for it. We do not worship the god of change.

Uptight: Not in conformance to changes accepted by one group. In context: “Why are people still so uptight about ].” The unspoken part being, “We’ve accepted it long ago, so why aren’t they falling in line?” Or better still. “Why are they not being indifferent to what is, to us, a settled matter?” “Why are they still complaining?”

I think you may be confusing a lack of joy among people who, even after a long time has passed, still disagree with certain things. I’m going out on a limb here, but it’s difficult to have a friendly conversation with someone who’s decided certain changes are great and should even be celebrated - “Aren’t those changes great?” And the response being: “Well, I don’t think so.” which could allow anyone who thinks otherwise that the other person is either unfriendly - because, really, where does the conversation go after that? - or uptight, as in, unreasonably resistant to change.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Do you mean the “reject Vatican II and any word related to it” kind of Traditionalist? I’m just curious…

But to answer the OP, I think Traditional Catholics do understand the context of Vatican II…it’s only as of late though that the documents of VII are even beginning to be understood correctly though.

I disagree with that. I think the original documents, and understanding them, have been buried under a thick layer of unrelated events.

harvestingthefruit.com/

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Isn’t it the Church teaching that the partner is not to feel cohersed.
Surely if a husband wants to have sex and the wife doesn’t it’s not a MORTAL SIN!!!
This is almost bordering on rape. Her situation was she was about to get married and the Priest knew she felt uncomfortable with having sex with her partner straight away and he said if she didn’t it’s a mortal sin. Where in the Bible does God or Jesus say if you don’t have sex with your spouse when they want to that’s a mortal sin?

Unless you know this woman and know what her priests knows, it’s just guessing regarding what you had overheard. Plus, is it really our business? Intimate matters should be held in confidence and not second-guessed. Who knows? If her fear was such then she may have decided, later, to not marry right away. Perhaps counseling was suggested. With all due respect, this borders on gossip of the sort that goes: “I’ll bet she doesn’t even marry the guy.” Or, “He’ll reject her right off.” We just don’t know.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rich_C]

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.

Good to know. Believe me, I’m not invested in having it one way or the other like whatever “trads” you’re talking about. The only surviving writings I’ve read from that time are the works of clergy and religious, as far as I know. It must have colored my view.

…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.

If only it had succeeded.

 

[edwest2]

Good to know. Believe me, I’m not invested in having it one way or the other like whatever “trads” you’re talking about. The only surviving writings I’ve read from that time are the works of clergy and religious, as far as I know. It must have colored my view.

If only it had succeeded.

Here’s the opening address of Pope John XXIII.

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

Vatican II was successful. Other events, which had nothing to do with the Council, caused it to be called a scapegoat for the misdeeds of others.

Peace,
Ed