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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Armor_of_Light
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you’ve just touched on why I’m confused…Can we really live like it never happened? Isn’t that in itself being dis-obedient to some degree? Or…I guess I should ask: Do traditional catholics so want the previous ways to return that it is seen as a kind of ‘statement’?

It seems to me that in my lifetime (46 years) that the ‘holy’ aspect of being catholic (meaning set apart) has been eroded. It is beautiful, mysterious, elevated, and deep. Now its not so easy to pick up on those things and I’m confused.
I was there before and after Vatican II. I did not love God less after. The “changes” were never even mentioned by Vatican II. Yes, Modernism - a desire for novelty and change - crept in. Before the late 1960s, the “holy” part was accepted by society and the media in general. As the years passed, what was wrong, scandalous and perverted was gradually fed to us on TV and in the movies. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) woke up one day and decided “You can’t have a Nativity in front of a public building!” “You can’t have a cross at a certain kind of cementary!” “You can’t have Christian monuments in public buildings!!!”

While I was growing up, our faith was lived in our communities. Then, small groups of radicals rejected all authority, including Mother Church, mom, dad, priests, nuns.

A year or so ago, I thought I’d never in my life see a little kid cussing out mom in the parking lot of a supermarket but I saw it.

Peace,
Ed
 
All you have to do is learn the truth:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Read this and know that the Council was good and appropriate. I was there before and after Vatican II. I did not love God less after.

Peace,
Ed
Excellent article friend and thanks for sharing.

It is quiet surprising how many things some of our priests and Bishops got away with by using Vatican II as a scapegoat for all their diabolical ideas.

I have had the luxury of visiting RC churches in the Eastern part of the world which follow the new mass and all of the things listed in the article, including the alter rails are still present and used. None of the art-work or statues were destroyed and in-fact, even the newly built churches after Vatican II have them.

One of the things that need to happen today in the church, especially in our part of the world, is the swift identification of priests, bishops and cardinals who invent such things and possibly excommunicating them. That will put a stop to them misleading the faithful in other matters as well.
 
An old Dominican historian/priest told me historically it takes about a hundred years for things to settle after an ecumenical council. The proper interpretation takes years to sort out and be properly implemented. We are in the middle phase.
 
An old Dominican historian/priest told me historically it takes about a hundred years for things to settle after an ecumenical council. The proper interpretation takes years to sort out and be properly implemented. We are in the middle phase.
 
I’m sorry I did not elaborate further and that you took my post as an insult. That was not my intent and it shows the power of words as a weapon. I’m sorry I did not elaborate further.

My point was not to denigrate your choice of spirituality or Mass or anthing else. My point was simply to express that all the councils, all the Traditions, the entirety of scripture, all are beatiful parts of our faith and should be taken in their totality. My point is that one cannot piecemeal Catholicism as one cannot piecemeal the Bible - we all know where that winds up.

I did read your subsequent post to which mine was a response and see that I did have a knee jerk reaction. Your position is more subtle and nuanced than I originally thought. I took your statment “Live like it never happened” as a statement that it was useless, irrelevant, invalid, even harmful to our faith. I understand that is not what you were saying.

The last thing I wanted to do was insult and upset you. I hope you can accept my apology.

-Tim-
Tim, of course I accept your apology. Although I stand by my position, I realize that it could come off as inflammatory if I explained myself badly or if someone were to read it casually. There is baggage on both sides of this issue that anyone writing about it has to live with.

I hope that here in the “Traditional Catholicism” subforum we can build one another up and explain our particular views to Catholics exploring the EF Mass and the spirituality and piety that dominated the Church before 1970, and which still lives for a devout minority of Catholics.

I have come to realize that there are probably more active posters in this subforum who come at traditional Catholicism as an outsider than there are those who feel at home in it. That’s something I didn’t expect and it can be exhausting as thread after thread involves another full-scale defense of the right of Catholics to live the Faith traditionally (every time I use that word I invite a debate over its meaning).

What I really wanted to convoy to the OP is that a Catholic can still live the faith just like his great-grandfather did (adding fun Internet discussions and the Dogma of the Assumption, of course) and remain simply, a Catholic, without further adjective, stigma, or ‘statement.’

God bless.
 
While Vatican II did not proclaim any new dogmas or canons or anathemas, it DID promote certain ways of viewing existing teaching.

For example, certain views on scripture and scriptural interpretation, certain views on what our proper understanding is to be of other faiths, and how we are to relate to people of other faiths, and so on.

While the Council documents did not enshrine these views in canon or dogmatic pronouncement, they nonetheless promoted them with the force of the Ordinary Magisterium, and we owe religious submission of intellect and will to their teaching.

‘Living as if they never happened’ does not, to my mind, approach anywhere near the proper attitude of religious submission of intellect and will.

And saying, as one poster here has, that the newer form of the Mass is in and of itself less reverent and so on is treading dangerous ground.

The Council of Trent anathematized anyone who asserts that the rites and ceremonies employed by the Church are ‘incentives to impiety’. The new Mass fits well within the definition of a rite or ceremony employed by the Church. And saying that of itself, absent abuses of its rubrics, it lessens reverence comes dangerously close to saying it is indeed an incentive to impiety, and so flirts with anathematized views.
 
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
  1. Vatican II has brought much good.
  2. There are many reverent OF masses and parishes. You’ll see even more of this on the weekdays.
I know many orthodox members who strongly prefer their mass, their rites, their language (which in some cases came about before the latin translation). So when we talk about traditionalism, it’s important to note that every “traditionalist” out there, including the orthodox, and EC’s, have no set standard as to what constitutes a traditionalist. Traditionalism is sort relative to your own faith. I think of the analogy that those who drive faster than a car are maniacs, and those who drive slower are morons. My brother is a speeder, and he says it like this: “I race to stop”. In our faith, we must be careful not to focus so much on the concept of traditionalism that it becomes a form of pride and serves as a divisive element to our own faith and growth within our congregation and our church.

Some say traditionalism is to go back to the way things were in the early 1900’s, others say, we gotta go back to 1400s, others say to 600 ad, and still some to the 300s. Now the 300’s that was catholic church! We have some orthodox congregations who literally attend service all night until sunset, others do not receive the body while menstrating, others still use aramaic, and yet we call ourselves traditionalist because we want to strike our breast during Agnus Dei, hold service in latin (which incidentally is a dead language yet it was popular when used by the church in rome), and reject the idea of interfaith prayer for the purpose of strengthening community relations, and proudly proclaim that the orthodox church must accept the pope and join in communion with the vatican to be considered true catholics and eligible for heaven while stating in another post how hurtful it is when they themselves are not called “catholic’s” because their bishop is not in communion with the vatican.

Having seen some very very traditional masses, I’d say that Love is as equally important as reverence. Whether it’s a smile that sits upon your face, or a tear that streams down your check, common, adoration, and congregation can be moving and stirring. What I love about catholicism, is the openness to various levels of faith and worship.

Now, for those traditionalists out there, my normal advice is this. If you are really that driven, and that bothered to see joy, and love in mass and you feel it must be done with such reverence that it looks like a funeral (if you feel this is rude then go back up and read the OP again), then I recommend you start the rosary amply before mass to finish a mystery. You’ll need a couple friends, keel down in different parts of the church and say it. Just say it! You’ll find that many catholics will quickly join in with joy and eventually you will change the tone and demeanor of the entire service over time. I found this works most of the time, but you’ll need the permission of the priest before doing this during mass or the rector for a regular rosary. We even did this when Mother Theresa came to visit because the congregation was very early and there was a lot of small talk and not focus on christ our community or anything regarding our faith that we could divulge (but I don’t complain about that, I lead through my faith and prayer or my friends do). The big issue in the larger parishes on sundays is usually timing, as our church has 5 masses that day, and only 3 would have time for a rosary (and in my parish I believe there is a rosary in 2 with the 3 one having a rosary on occasion) but these are done by the laity on their own.

If feel the father’s announcements are making it difficult to concentrate, then talk to father and ask him to please move that to the bulletin because it distracts your faith in church. Or perhaps first, you can ask him why he does that, and then think and pray on it for a bit with a focus on love and hope and faith. Further, if you feel there is not enough teaching of the young, teach as a minister during faith formation. If you feel there is not enough prayer, ask to start a prayer group. If you feel there is not enough outreach, form up with or start an outreach.
 
Now, for those traditionalists out there, my normal advice is this. If you are really that driven, and that bothered to see joy, and love in mass and you feel it must be done with such reverence that it looks like a funeral (if you feel this is rude then go back up and read the OP again),
Since I don’t have that much time, all I can say is that I’m glad you realize how offensive you are.
 
While the Council documents did not enshrine these views in canon or dogmatic pronouncement, they nonetheless promoted them with the force of the Ordinary Magisterium, and we owe religious submission of intellect and will to their teaching.
The thing is, what were the teachings? Anthing major?

I think that many people thought that a bomb had gone off, when the New Mass was introduced. After that, anything went, because if you can change The Holy Mass so drastically, well what couldn’t you change?

So CITH and all-vernacular masses or whatever the speaker wanted was in ‘The Spirit Of Vatican II’. Ad lo, many were well-pleased with the results. So liberating!

Then after that, we had liberals quite pleased with how things were going, middle-of-the-road Catholics saying “We must have more catechecis!” and conservatives heading for the Latin Mass Societies and the SSPX, just to get away from the madness.
 
Since I don’t have that much time, all I can say is that I’m glad you realize how offensive you are.
“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?”

The problem with traditionalist comments is they are filled with opinion, and preference. I prefer mass one way. You prefer it another. But I assure you, that no matter how much you think you are upholding traditionalist values, there will always be someone who is more. It’s all comparison. Focus on the positives of each persons faith. Look for the good qualities. I like peace and quiet! I like 8 hour masses. I like vigils that go into morning. I love cantors and incense. But it’s necessary sometimes to see how those who celebrate birthdays and hug and sing “happy” modern songs feel as well. It’s necessary to flip things around a bit. Yes what is irreverent to you and to me, is quite rude to say in the way we can sometimes say it. The word used to describe the process necessary to understand what our brethren feel is called “empathy”. Empathy is to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes. Do you really think those who hug or announce birthdays think their being “Irreverent”? No! They think they are actually brining love into church. Until we traditionalists can see this, we will never get the point of Vatican II.
 
An old Dominican historian/priest told me historically it takes about a hundred years for things to settle after an ecumenical council. The proper interpretation takes years to sort out and be properly implemented. We are in the middle phase.
Do things ever settle? The authoritative parts are basically reinforced by Popes, almost by definition. The teachings on ecumenism, for example. Before the council, they were not non-existent but they were somewhat vague. Vatican II documents clarified this teaching but it still needs to be reinforced by successive Popes to really take hold, if you will. Things would get much blurred, say, if the next Pope were to downplay ecumenism but would ecumenism be vanished entirely if he did so? Some food for thought.
 
Wow!!

I missed a lot of good discussion yesterday afternoon. We were at the hospital with ‘false’ contractions…baby due in 4 weeks, but not yesterday. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and experience with me via this forum and my post.

I have heard some talks in the past that made me want to dive right into the documents of vatican II and research them for myself, but kind of considered that to be dangerous…thinking that it needs to be interpreted via the Magestarium. I now see that is not true, and we ‘Joe-catholics’ can and should study these things.

I’d like to ask:

Is the confusion that is resulting from the renegade interpretations of vatican II a world-wide thing? Have the local or regional traditions around the world also gone more loosey-goosey?
 
“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?”

The problem with traditionalist comments is they are filled with opinion, and preference. I prefer mass one way.
Well, you might ask, of the reported activities above: “When did the Mass start?”. I deplore this sort of feel-good meet-n-greet stuck into a rite of sacrifice. I think it’s a cheap way to please a crowd. It detracts and distracts. Like blowing a kazoo at a funeral.
 
The Council of Trent anathematized anyone who asserts that the rites and ceremonies employed by the Church are ‘incentives to impiety’. The new Mass fits well within the definition of a rite or ceremony employed by the Church. And saying that of itself, absent abuses of its rubrics, it lessens reverence comes dangerously close to saying it is indeed an incentive to impiety, and so flirts with anathematized views.
Fair enough but I think only one Pope called it “new.” It is now de facto officially the Forma Ordinaria of the same rite. “New” rites were also anathematized by Trent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top