Traditional Catholics - Do They Understand the Context of Vatican II

[EcceAgnusDei]

…]in fact a limiting the church to the latin mass and ideology of traditionalists is quite dangerous, counterproductive to the movement of the Holy Spirit and it works in a manner that does not build an inclusive place within the church for all peoples.

This is an unfounded assumption on your part. You assume that traditional Catholic spirituality is contrary to the Holy Ghost, which is simply ludicrous. Catholicism IS traditional. We take what we receive and we hand it on. What was done after VII was mainly not based on the documents of VII but instead based on faulty and erroneous interpretations of VII, some of which ran directly counter to what the Council actually said. All of this was excused with “the spirit of VII,” which is a phrase you have used multiple times. The spirit of VII was just a flimsy excuse to ignore the actual documents and do whatever someone wanted, which primarily followed the tenets of modernism as condemned by multiple popes.

As an Aborignial person (and my culture is a gift from God too) …]

God places us in the context in which we found ourselves and it is our duty to search for God’s will within that context. So yes, it was God’s will that you were born an Aborigine, just as it was His will that I was born in Utah in an extremely devout Mormon family. However, I think it is a stretch to say that every culture is a gift from God, especially since often the most influential aspect on a culture is its religion, and there is only ONE religion that comes from God. The rest are man-made and, to the extent that their falsehoods lead us away from the Church of Christ, influenced by the father of lies. This may be blunt and forward, but it is true. Non-Catholic religions are not God’s gift to anyone.

…] through an aboriginal lens…because that is who I am, I cannot be anything BUT an Aboriginal Catholic…and I sometimes see the narrow perspectives of traditional Catholics as a slowly closing door to me expressing my full Aboriginal heritage and the fullness of my expereince as Catholic.

What if I were to say the same thing about my Mormon heritage? The Mormon church was founded in 1830 and my first ancestors joined in 1835. They moved, following the Mormon church, from Missouri to Ohio to Illinois and then to Utah. From there some were sent to Idaho, Arizona, and Wyoming. They were involved in every major event in Mormon history. Every relative I have is Mormon, except for one cousin, but he is still married to a Mormon and living in Utah. My point is this: my family is Mormon through and through. My upbringing is Mormon, through and through. The culture in which I was raised was Mormon, through and through.

So what if I were to argue that the Catholic Church should accomodate my Mormon background? That the worldview in which I was raised was Mormon (it absolutely was) and by not including Mormonism the Catholic Church is stifling my understanding? What if I were to argue for a Mormon Mass, where the symbols of Mormonism were used. You mentioned earlier a Mass using peace-pipes, drums, sweetgrass, and other sacred objects of Native religion. Could we not have a Mormon Mass that also includes Mormon sacred symbols? How about a Hindu Mass? A Muslim Mass? An Aztec Mass?

I hope you see what I’m getting at here.

…] I also see emerging trends within the chruch to move away from the energy and spirit of Vatican II - (which I believe inspired by the Holy Spirit)

This is again another unfounded belief based upon the assumption that what occurred after Vatican II was what was supposed to happen and what is concurring now is running contrary to the Holy Ghost. If one looks at the official documents, the actual Magisterium, which is the primary instrument that the Holy Ghost uses to guide the Church, then you will see that what happened after Vatican II was not in line with the Holy Ghost and what has been happening over the past years is. The “energy and spirit” of Vatican II was not the energy and spirit of the Holy Ghost, but the energy and spirit of man parading around as the Holy Ghost. Again, this is clear when one actually reads the Vatican II documents and the other official statements from the Magisterium and compares them to the actions done in the name of the spirit of Vatican II.

…] towards a more legalistic church and a church of thou shalls and thou shall nots, hardly motivating to spiritual growth and experience of our Creator…

The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church, the One Church of God, is a Church of thou shalls and thou shall nots. It is a legalistic Church. Attacking the legalisms of the Church, attacking the commandments, attacking the structure and heirarchy, is exactly what the protestants do. When people inside the Church do this, they are eroding the Church from the inside out, turning Her into something She is not, and removing her divine Catholic Identity. God has given us heirarchy and commandments so that Church can be governed and so that we can save our souls. The end goal is salvation, of which “spiritual growth and experience of our Creator” are means, not an end. Salvation is the end goal, a very direct and clear end goal. Spiritual growth and experience of God are laudable and help lead to that goal, but are not in and of themselves the goal, especially since they are nebulous and can be easily twisted to mean about anything. I can have spiritual growth and spiritual experiences and still end up in hell.

• PAX

 

[giuseppeTO]

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

What would be interesting, IMHO, would be to examine the original schema that the preparatory committee came up with as the intended agenda of the Council. Perhaps, we would all see how the council fathers thought leading into the council and what they intended to discuss and discern.

As most know, those original schemas were almost immediately discarded in favor of an “alternate” agenda over the protests of some, if not many.

 

[TrueLight]

As most know, those original schemas were almost immediately discarded in favor of an “alternate” agenda over the protests of some, if not many.

Sounds like a great idea for a thread!

 

[giuseppeTO]

Sounds like a great idea for a thread!

I wish they still existed to examine but I don’t believe they have survived in tact.

 

[wasserfall]

Timothy H:

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.

Could you point me to where this heirarchy is specifically stated, as I have never heard of it and it totally contradicts what I was taught prior to Vatican II. Not saying you are wrong, but I would like to see it from some official source.

Good catch Mike.

I’m not sure what hierarchy Tim is talking about, but that is not the divinely constituted hierarchy of the Church.

I hope that Tim’s diocese is not claiming that the “hierarchy” he mentioned is the hierarchy meant when we speak of the Church being a hierarchical organization, for that would be false.

But I can see the “hierarchy” he mentioned as being a useful thought construct to consider relationships between those who are served and those who are doing the serving, just as long as no one takes it to be the hierarchy referred to in this canon of Trent:

If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.

 

[edwest2]

Ed I agree totally with your point that the “change” resulting in our faith community since the completion of Vatican II has been totally blamed on Vatican II when many of these “changes” were well intention, theologically challenging to the status quo, theologically supportive of moving the church to be more involved in the world but seperate initiatives than John XXIII’s wish to explore how the teachings, structure and spirit of the church could be engaged in the world of the 1960’s and perhaps the 21st century…that would make sense…and put Benedict’s XVI statements about Vatican II as consistent evolution of the church by defining change as either destructive to the church OR connective…

I sense that each of the changes (i.e. removing communion rails, turning the alter around, etc.) must be examined on a case by case basis…question…so are there any founding Vatican II documents that allow for the flexibility and diversity we saw since Vatican II?

Thanks.

Bruce

Nothing in the documents. All the “changes” attributed to Vatican II were not even suggested by Vatican II.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

I have no idea what you mean by flexibility and diversity. There is a common fiction that time causes change. Only people cause change. All of the changes commonly attributed to Vatican II were not necessary. Not one.

"In his outstanding book, “Spirit of the Liturgy,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the ancient and venerable practice of offering the Holy Sacrifice ad orientem, in which both priest and people face east:

“It has been the practice in the entire Church, East and West from time immemorial. Contrary to a prevailing misconception, there is no evidence for celebration of Mass versus populum in the first nineteen centuries of the Church’s history, with rare exceptions.”

“Despite all the variations in practice that have taken place far into the second millennium, one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying toward the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again.”

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[floresco]

believe it or not, my questions, statemetns, etc. are a genuine effort to get insights from all sides of the issue(s) so that I can become a better thinker…and given that I am so not conservative, what better place to go to test my ideas than a conservative Catholic webiste.

Since you are only making a genuine effort to get insights, you might not realize how your posts come across. Let me help you out by informing you that they are consistently annoying and subtly insulting to many people with an affinity for conservative or traditionalist views.

Since your own views remain unchanged and do not appear to incorporate any of the insights you are exposed to here, you do not come across as valuing these insights. You seem interested in provoking reactions rather than engaging in dialogue.

I hope this helps you to become a better thinker.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Sounds like a great idea for a thread!

OK TL, you talked me into it.

V2 Original schemata

 

[floresco]

Floresco, I think you hit it on the head…“the way that Vatican II was implemented”…while it was an energetic time of renewal in our church, creativity and renewal also have elements of chaos and confusion and I think God sent us JP to help us steer towards a balance of the overall history fo the church with the movement of the Holy Spirit called for by John XXIII. As an aboriginal catholic I often think about pedagogy of teaching catechsim as an example, and want to draw more upon our onw peoples’ experiential knoweldge to explain (NOT CHANGE) church teaching from a cutlural perspective…

I like how you see that particular point(s) of the liturgy.

Bruce

You have misunderstood/ misrepresented my position. I do not agree with you at all. I do not think you will be able to gain many insights from people if you use their words as springboards for launching your own ideas.

 

[TrueLight]

Let me help you out by informing you that they are consistently annoying and subtly insulting to many people with an affinity for conservative or traditionalist views.

Or not so subtly.