Vatican II and its necessity...where do i belong?

[Armor_of_Light]

Hello all-

I’ve been reading with great interest some of the posts here in the traditional forum, and am still trying to determine if I am one of ‘you’. So…2 multi part questions:

1. What drove the need for vatican II? was it a knee jerk reaction to the hippies or something? I was not around yet, so i have no frame of reference other than my dad complaining about it from time to time. If it was not ‘needed’ to address issues of doctrine or dogmatic principles, then why was it held? Is it possible that the Holy Spirit was guiding our beloved church down this road for a reason? Could it be that God knew that we should have the changes ushered in by vatican II because it would bring about a greater good and a stronger church? I know that currently that is not the case, but…
2. Yesterday at mass, we started by greeting each other warmly. Then we had a financial pitch after a short homily. Then we ‘affirmed’ and applauded all the birthdays. Then the same for all the anniversaries. etc, etc, etc… It is all too much!! Are there any reverent OF masses and parishes left? Not around here I think. I am more frequently annoyed at mass!! Horrible!! I have trouble reconciling this annoyance with the joy of the mass. I know this is a personal thing, and related to ‘feelings’, but do I just suck it up (acceptance) as a faithful catholic, or am I experiencing a ‘just’ annoyance? Is this a common experience with traditionalists, ultimately resolved by finding communities of like-minded catholics? I worry about all this being driven by pride.

Thanks for reading

 

[Luvtosew]

I believe many good things came from Vatican II, I didn’t like the Mass in Latin,
but I have never heard of applauding for birthdays or anniverseries and nor have I
ever heard appaulding at all at Mass. I would not like that. We there to worship
God not everyones passage in life.

 

[Rich_C]

1. It was called by Pope John XXIII in 1962, and ended in 1965, a few years before the peak of the cultural revolution and hippies. Historians on both sides of the table agree that the council was derailed on day one (some think for the better, some for the worst) when a vote of the bishops rejected the pre-prepared agenda put together by the holy father’s curia and decided to run things differently. Thus it’s hard to connect what happened at the council to the pope’s aims when he called it.
2. In many places modernism has overrun parishes, and the worship of God is pushed aside for man-centered humanist self-adulation. But it’s not like that everywhere, believe me. Some Ordinary Form parishes and most Extraordinary Form parishes hold true to the Faith in their teachings and practice.

I know the pain of seeing Our Lord ignored at church, and hearing error preached or applauded. I get enough of that in the world, so I found a parish where I feel protected from irreverence and error and I can let my guard down and just pray. I hope you find one like it.

 

[floresco]

1. Yesterday at mass, we started by greeting each other warmly. Then we had a financial pitch after a short homily. Then we ‘affirmed’ and applauded all the birthdays. Then the same for all the anniversaries. etc, etc, etc… It is all too much!! Are there any reverent OF masses and parishes left? Not around here I think. I am more frequently annoyed at mass!! Horrible!! I have trouble reconciling this annoyance with the joy of the mass. I know this is a personal thing, and related to ‘feelings’, but do I just suck it up (acceptance) as a faithful catholic, or am I experiencing a ‘just’ annoyance? Is this a common experience with traditionalists, ultimately resolved by finding communities of like-minded catholics? I worry about all this being driven by pride.

All this stuff bothers me too and I don’t think it is pride. I’m not thinking that I am better than these people. I just feel really unhappy and uncomfortable there.

This past weekend the logistics for getting to the EF were looking pretty complicated and I suggested to my husband that maybe I should go to the OF. Even though that is the form he prefers himself, he wouldn’t let me. He just can’t stand to see what it does to me and he insisted I go to the EF.

About your other question, I think that Vatican II was an attempt to address a real need, but I question whether an ecumenical council was the best way to do it. Normally a council defines doctrine and some of the confusion that surrounds this one is due to it not defining doctrine. It was more of a reflection on the Church in the modern world. This topic did need some reflection.

Another reason for VII was that Vatican I was interrupted by war and never finished. If Church councils were movies, it ended with a cliff-hanger and therefore needed a sequel.

 

[ProVobis]

About your other question, I think that Vatican II was an attempt to address a real need, but I question whether an ecumenical council was the best way to do it. Normally a council defines doctrine and some of the confusion that surrounds this one is due to it not defining doctrine. It was more of a reflection on the Church in the modern world. This topic did need some reflection.

Another reason for VII was that Vatican I was interrupted by war and never finished. If Church councils were movies, it ended with a cliff-hanger and therefore needed a sequel.

That’s an interesting point.

Sort of begs the question whether everything the council stated could have just as easily been decreed by the Pope with some advisors. I’m referring to Pope John XXIII, who incidentally never signed any of the Vatican II documents.

 

[Ohana]

I believe many good things came from Vatican II, I didn’t like the Mass in Latin,
but I have never heard of applauding for birthdays or anniverseries and nor have I
ever heard appaulding at all at Mass. I would not like that. We there to worship
God not everyones passage in life.

Well, I agree that these celebrations are a bit disruptive at times. At our former church, we used to do these after the last blessing. However with regard to these celebrations, consider this:

We are a church of sacraments and a community which celebrates life. Celebrating birthdays and anniversaries does both. Our individual lives are celebrated with our birthdays, and longstanding marriages are a sign of the sacrament of marriage. With abortion as a means of “birth control” and most (!) marriages ending in divorce, I think both are appropriate within this context. We celebrate so many of the other sacraments in community - First Communion-Eucharist, Sacrament of the sick,Confirmation, Baptism, and even have communal reconciliation services. What we really need to celebrate publicly is the continuing commitment of those who have received Holy Orders, Priest, Deacons, Bishops, etc.!

 

[TimothyH]

Part of why the council was called was the increasing education of the laity.

For the first time in history we had a laity which was often more educated than the clergy who were leading them. Previously the clergy were often the most educated members of the parish but now we had increasing numbers of white collar workers with college degrees. Higher levels of eduction led to more questions about the faith and so the Holy Father wanted to open the Church’s teaching up to the world which was now able to read books on theology and understand them.

Previous generations had sometimes even been discouraged from reading the Bible. Biblical scholarship, philosophy and theology were seen as subjects best left to the experts. The place for blue collar workers was in the pew praying the rosary. There was often a view of holiness itself as only accessible to the clergy.

This is what was so groundbreaking about Fulton Sheen and his radio and television programs. He was doing in 1930 what the council called for thirty years later. He was bringing theology, and holiness to ordinary people.

This is also part of what makes St. Josemaria Escriva a saint. He realized that holiness was not just for the clergy, that ordinary people could aspire to saintliness. Opus Dei’s mission is to make saints through ordinary life, and in founding Opus Dei, St. Josemaria Escriva was confirming to ordinary people that just because you were a housewife or a ditch digger, that should not stop you from being a saint, that you didn’t have to be a monk or a nun to become a truly holy person.

Fulton Sheen, St. Josemaria Escriva and people like them were doing what the Council called for decades later and were in many ways catalysists for the council.

Don’t forget two World Wars, six million Jews exterminated and the rise of communism. Even the US Civil War had only been fought one hundred years earlier with 622,000 men dead and 4.5 million slaves being freed. The grandchildren of slaves in the US in the years leading up to the council were becoming educated and moving into society too.

Telephones and television had been invented making communication instantaneous. Jet travel was a reality and now a bishop could get to Rome in a day instead of on a sailing ship for six weeks.

It was a time of great change and great upheaval, and the middle class was growing in education. For the first time in history, most people could read.

-Tim-

 

[Theophorus]

1. Yesterday at mass, we started by greeting each other warmly. Then we had a financial pitch after a short homily. Then we ‘affirmed’ and applauded all the birthdays. Then the same for all the anniversaries. etc, etc, etc… It is all too much!! Are there any reverent OF masses and parishes left? Not around here I think. I am more frequently annoyed at mass!! Horrible!! I have trouble reconciling this annoyance with the joy of the mass. I know this is a personal thing, and related to ‘feelings’, but do I just suck it up (acceptance) as a faithful catholic, or am I experiencing a ‘just’ annoyance? Is this a common experience with traditionalists, ultimately resolved by finding communities of like-minded catholics? I worry about all this being driven by pride.

Thanks for reading

I don’t think we can blame the Second Vatican Council for banal human-centered Liturgies, the council document on the sacred liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t allow for most of the innovations we now see in the OF, let alone mandate them, rather they are the result of the ‘spirit of the council’ or the various interpretations of ‘what the council really ment’. A proper reading and application of the council documents in the life of the church would IMO clean up alot of the garbage we see in our parishes.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Well, I agree that these celebrations are a bit disruptive at times. At our former church, we used to do these after the last blessing. However with regard to these celebrations, consider this: We are a church of sacraments and a community which celebrates life. Celebrating birthdays and anniversaries does both. Our individual lives are celebrated with our birthdays, and longstanding marriages are a sign of the sacrament of marriage. With abortion as a means of “birth control” and most (!) marriages ending in divorce, I think both are appropriate within this context. We celebrate so many of the other sacraments in community - First Communion-Eucharist, Sacrament of the sick,Confirmation, Baptism, and even have communal reconciliation services. What we really need to celebrate publicly is the continuing commitment of those who have received Holy Orders, Priest, Deacons, Bishops, etc.!

Yes–agreed. Marriage/family are all great and I agree that celebrating and affirming those parishoners is wonderful. Just not during the mass. We don’t do baptisms during mass, either, and I always liked that…seems totally logical to welcome the little ones during mass. After the last blessing as in your former parish is a good time.

So…do I call every parish around and ask if they would annoy me?
Really…can I call around and ‘interview’ them, or is that a little…y’know…‘uppity’?

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Part of why the council was called was the increasing education of the laity. For the first time in history we had a laity which was often more educated than the clergy who were leading them. Previously the clergy were often the most educated members of the parish but now we had increasing numbers of white collar workers with college degrees. Higher levels of eduction led to more questions about the faith and so the Holy Father wanted to open the Church’s teaching up to the world which was now able to read books on theology and understand them. Previous generations had sometimes even been discouraged from reading the Bible. Biblical scholarship, philosophy and theology were seen as subjects best left to the experts. The place for blue collar workers was in the pew praying the rosary. There was often a view of holiness itself as only accessible to the clergy. This is what was so groundbreaking about Fulton Sheen and his radio and television programs. He was doing in 1930 what the council called for thirty years later. He was bringing theology, and holiness to ordinary people. This is also part of what makes St. Josemaria Escriva a saint. He realized that holiness was not just for the clergy, that ordinary people could aspire to saintliness. Opus Dei’s mission is to make saints through ordinary life, and in founding Opus Dei, St. Josemaria Escriva was confirming to ordinary people that just because you were a housewife or a ditch digger, that should not stop you from being a saint, that you didn’t have to be a monk or a nun to become a truly holy person. Fulton Sheen, St. Josemaria Escriva and people like them were doing what the Council called for decades later and were in many ways catalysists for the council. Don’t forget two World Wars, six million Jews exterminated and the rise of communism. Even the US Civil War had only been fought one hundred years earlier with 622,000 men dead and 4.5 million slaves being freed. The grandchildren of slaves in the US in the years leading up to the council were becoming educated and moving into society too. Telephones and television had been invented making communication instantaneous. Jet travel was a reality and now a bishop could get to Rome in a day instead of on a sailing ship for six weeks. It was a time of great change and great upheaval, and the middle class was growing in education. For the first time in history, most people could read. -Tim-

Ahhh…good point there. That is why I asked the question. Keep it coming!! Educate me!!

 

[michaelmas]

I agree with your 2nd question, it has become far to much to have those kinds of things going on in a Prayer.

From what I understand the proper way to address these is before or after mass. I am often irritated that during the homily we get a speech on Catholic schools or the financial situation of the church or the Dioceses appeal.

The argument is that the church can reach the most by doing these announcements during the mass. Do them before the mass starts or after the final blessing.

As for your first questions, I was a member of the Pius V movement and I loved it for the mass, the message, and the devotions. I left because the group was excommunicated and I thought it had become cultish with infighting about such and such a bishop in Vietnam ordaining so and so, etc. I miss the use of incense to purify the altar, the congregation, and before the gospel. I miss reading the last Gospel, John 1, at the end of mass.

I am pleased with the changes that are happening within the church with the changes of language back to the direct Latin translations. I would like to see more reverence around the alter and bringing back the communion rail.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

I don’t think we can blame the Second Vatican Council for banal human-centered Liturgies, the council document on the sacred liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t allow for most of the innovations we now see in the OF, let alone mandate them, rather they are the result of the ‘spirit of the council’ or the various interpretations of ‘what the council really ment’. A proper reading and application of the council documents in the life of the church would IMO clean up alot of the garbage we see in our parishes.

Then WHY does it continue to go on?? Rhetorical question I know. I find myself wondering… If the Pope just happened to show up for the 11:45 AM liturgy at my parish, if everyone would freak out and wonder ‘gee should we really clap and joke around?’ How would the mass be if he showed up? Would it be more reverent? I hope so…but we might be so immune to it all by now that we’d wonder why he wouldn’t hold our hands during the “Our Father”

 

[OurBeloved]

Hello all-

I’ve been reading with great interest some of the posts here in the traditional forum, and am still trying to determine if I am one of ‘you’. So…2 multi part questions:

1. What drove the need for vatican II? was it a knee jerk reaction to the hippies or something? I was not around yet, so i have no frame of reference other than my dad complaining about it from time to time. If it was not ‘needed’ to address issues of doctrine or dogmatic principles, then why was it held? Is it possible that the Holy Spirit was guiding our beloved church down this road for a reason? Could it be that God knew that we should have the changes ushered in by vatican II because it would bring about a greater good and a stronger church? I know that currently that is not the case, but…
2. Yesterday at mass, we started by greeting each other warmly. Then we had a financial pitch after a short homily. Then we ‘affirmed’ and applauded all the birthdays. Then the same for all the anniversaries. etc, etc, etc… It is all too much!! Are there any reverent OF masses and parishes left? Not around here I think. I am more frequently annoyed at mass!! Horrible!! I have trouble reconciling this annoyance with the joy of the mass. I know this is a personal thing, and related to ‘feelings’, but do I just suck it up (acceptance) as a faithful catholic, or am I experiencing a ‘just’ annoyance? Is this a common experience with traditionalists, ultimately resolved by finding communities of like-minded catholics? I worry about all this being driven by pride.

Thanks for reading

Whats important to understand first is that the earthly motive for Vatican II would not give us any reason to accept or discard the teachings that come from the council. Even if it originated purely from human motives, the council would be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit to ensure that nothing false was asserted as teaching.

The second important thing to understand is what was actually asserted as teaching and the difference in what was understood by many as teaching.

Vatican II, apart from its teachings, also had decisions made that the church should take a different approach to accomplish certain matters (Ecumenism for an example). There were assertions made teaching-wise regarding these perspectives which we are called to give full assent to. But there were decisions made by some priests and Bishops, after the council or as it was happening, as to how best accomplish these things. This we are free to disagree on.

Take Ecumenism as an example, for some priests and Bishops, this meant there was no need for conversion. What mattered was everyone just stayed a good Buddhist, Muslim or Protestant. For some it meant distributing communion to even non-Catholics for the sake of Ecumenism. Some of these actions were wrong because they were inconsistent with what has been taught in the deposit of Faith (example of distributing communion to everyone). Some other actions were wrong because they lacked the foresight and was scandalous to followers who were already Catholic.

But all of the above, are not teachings of Vatican II. They were ideas on how best to implement some of the changes in perspective that were recommended in Vatican II. When the implementations are contrary to prior teachings or simply ineffective or scandalous to the faithful, we are fully within our right to reject such implementations and have a duty and an obligation to do so.

The reason why so many people left the church after Vatican II and formed groups like SSPX was mainly due to Priests and Bishops trying to shove their own implementation ideas down the throats of everyone as if it was infallible. It was clear to some people that some of these implementations were outright diabolical and opposed to the faith. As a result, even changes that were legitimate like that of the Ordinary Form in the Vernacular were viewed with suspicion. So for some, rejecting these incorrect implementations amounted to rejecting everything that came from Vatican II.

But that need not or should not be the case. These incorrect implementations, which even raise its ugly head today through some of the faithful/priests/bishops/cardinals should be opposed and rejected. The teachings that were asserted in Vatican II should be accepted and embraced by all Catholics just as they accept Council of Trent for an example.

What we have today is on one side we have a group that has erroneous and outright dumb implementations trying to justify their ideas as being asserted and supported by Vatican II while rejecting the teachings, warnings and heeding of other Councils before it. Then on the other side we have the SSPX and other groups who are against those implementation ideas and do so on the grounds of rejecting Vatican II completely. This approach has in-fact made the ‘‘traditional’’ Catholics easy to be disregarded as misguided individuals.

What needs to take place is for all Catholics to embrace all Councils but educate themselves clearly on what was asserted as teaching at each of the councils. We must also spend some time to understand the reason behind warnings and heeding of each Council so that we better understand how to design a more **prudent **course of action that does not accomplish the very things that were warned or heeded against.

As long as you do just that, you are a Good, Wise Catholic who is faithful to the Church, the Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, and that is all that should matter.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

What we have today is on one side we have a group that has erroneous and outright dumb implementations trying to justify their ideas as being asserted and supported by Vatican II while rejecting the teachings, warnings and heeding of other Councils before it. Then on the other side we have the SSPX and other groups who are against those implementation ideas and do so on the grounds of rejecting Vatican II completely. This approach has in-fact made the ‘‘traditional’’ Catholics easy to be disregarded as misguided individuals. What needs to take place is for all Catholics to embrace all Councils but educate themselves clearly on what was asserted as teaching at each of the councils. We must also spend some time to understand the reason behind warnings and heeding of each Council so that we better understand how to design a more **prudent **course of action that does not accomplish the very things that were warned or heeded against. As long as you do just that, you are a Good, Wise Catholic who is faithful to the Church, the Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, and that is all that should matter.

Than you for the clear and concise answer. I guess I’ll get a few books and study up on Vatican II. I ‘feel’ traditional, but don’t want to be ‘a misguided individual’ as you say.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Yes–agreed. Marriage/family are all great and I agree that celebrating and affirming those parishoners is wonderful. Just not during the mass. We don’t do baptisms during mass, either, and I always liked that…seems totally logical to welcome the little ones during mass. After the last blessing as in your former parish is a good time.

So…do I call every parish around and ask if they would annoy me?
Really…can I call around and ‘interview’ them, or is that a little…y’know…‘uppity’?

Not sure about your Baptism statement. Are they or are they not celebrated during Mass?
If not, I think that is terrible- I always loved having Baptisms at Mass, IMHO, if we are welcoming someone new into the community, shouldn’t the whole community be there?

I would say, yes, you are being “uppity” If you want a more reverent parish, I suggest you try different places & times.
And remember, there are many things that may not be our preference,
we just have to deal with them.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Not sure about your Baptism statement. Are they or are they not celebrated during Mass? If not, I think that is terrible- I always loved having Baptisms at Mass, IMHO, if we are welcoming someone new into the community, shouldn’t the whole community be there? I would say, yes, you are being “uppity” If you want a more reverent parish, I suggest you try different places & times. And remember, there are many things that may not be our preference, we just have to deal with them.

Yeah…i re-read that and saw it was not clear…sorry.

They are NOT celebrated during mass. Former parish-YES they were.

 

[Cat]

Yes–agreed. Marriage/family are all great and I agree that celebrating and affirming those parishoners is wonderful. Just not during the mass. We don’t do baptisms during mass, either, and I always liked that…seems totally logical to welcome the little ones during mass. After the last blessing as in your former parish is a good time.

So…do I call every parish around and ask if they would annoy me?
Really…can I call around and ‘interview’ them, or is that a little…y’know…‘uppity’?

Perhaps rather than asking them what their Mass will do for you, you could ask if there is anything you could do for their Mass.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Perhaps rather than asking them what their Mass will do for you, you could ask if there is anything you could do for their Mass.

Good one.
I am a good reader at my current parish. No fear of public speaking is a gift! And I sing with all my heart!! No American Idol am I, but what can you do? My wife thinks its funny when I go for the high notes!!

 

[Rich_C]

Hello all-

I’ve been reading with great interest some of the posts here in the traditional forum, and am still trying to determine if I am one of ‘you’.

I tell anybody who will listen that I think the safest, fullest, and most joyful path to heaven is in worshipping at the traditional Mass, learning from traditional catechisms, and holding the traditional Catholic worldview – but all that is available to every Catholic (well, it’s permitted at least). You don’t have to join a group or become a “trad” to live like Catholics always lived before.

I sort of live like Vatican II never happened. Not out of disobedience to Holy Mother Church (God forbid) but incidentally, because the 16 constitutions of the council are less accessible and relevent to me than the Mass I attend or the Catholic culture I’m exposed to.

 

[floresco]

So…do I call every parish around and ask if they would annoy me?
Really…can I call around and ‘interview’ them, or is that a little…y’know…‘uppity’?

I don’t think there is anything wrong with finding a parish that is a good fit for you. While you can’t ask them if they are annoying, there are things to look for. For example, a weekly, or even better, perpetual, Eucharistic Adoration is a good sign. Also, lots of time scheduled for Confession is good.