In my participation in this forum, it has become apparent that many younger Catholics in this forum, those born post Vatican II, have a negative attitude toward Vatican II, and that some how, Vatican II is responsible for the Collapse in the Liturgy, as one thread titled it.
That thread is
not about how “Vatican II is responsible for the Collapse in the Liturgy”. The latest posts in that thread make that point clear.
I happen to come across this article, which gives a good insight on Vatican II, and why Pope John XXIII called for it.
I like
this speech of Pope John XXIII from October 11, 1962, opening the Council. Here are some choice excerpts:
Illuminated by the light of this Council, the Church – we confidently trust – will become greater in spiritual riches and gaining the strength of new energies therefrom, she will look to the future without fear. In fact,
by bringing herself up to date where required, and by the wise organization of mutual co-operation, the Church will make men, families, and peoples really turn their minds to heavenly things.
and
The
greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this:
that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. That doctrine embraces the whole of man, composed as he is of body and soul. … The salient point of this Council is
not … a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects
a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The
substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith
is one thing, and
the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
As for the article you posted, I’m curious about this part, under the heading "What did the Council achieve?"
Lay ministry. Since the Council, the expanding roles of laymen and laywomen are evident in the explosion of lay ministries—whether we are speaking in terms of eucharistic ministers or of laypersons working as administrators in diocesan offices. These ministries, by and large, have become an accepted part of Catholic life today.The
Council said very little about expanding
liturgical ministries to the laity. In the documents I’ve read, I think the only concrete mention of the matter was in
Apostolicam Actuositatem n. 24: “Finally, the hierarchy entrusts to the laity certain functions which are more closely connected with pastoral duties, such as the teaching of Christian doctrine,
certain liturgical actions, and the care of souls.” These liturgical actions were not, as far as I can see, explicitly defined by the Council.
I hope
extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion aren’t becoming “an accepted part of Catholic life”. They have a very specific ministry to fulfill, and once we have more faithful men responding to God’s call to priesthood, we will no longer need this “common emergency” ministry.
Your signature failed to list the following sentence from its blogspot, which I believe tells its own story to those who have eyes to see.