Vatican II was a good thing

[Boulder257]

You did a good job explaining why I prefer to attend the EF, I don’t have to suppress my thoughts about hand-holding or lay use of the orans position or EMHC, they simply do not exist in the EF. You are absolutely correct that to brood about such things is not spiritually healthy, it is better to avoid the occasion of such thoughts than attempt to suppress them.

I think we are in violent agreement. Peace.

I like that term, “violent agreement.” Made me chuckle a bit.

Sadly though, I disagree. That’s a neat attempt at twisting my words, but that was not the point of my post, nor was it the argument I was making. You seem to have skipped over most of what I said and just extrapolated one portion, out of context I might add, to make an argument that works both ways. Sorry, but your argument works both ways and supports the EF as much as it supports to OF.

violent agreement…I hope you don’t mind but I am going to steal that one from you and use it!

By the way, I like to refer to people by their name, especially their first name just because I think it is a kind way to talk to people. I mean no disrespect and if you would prefer I call you something else, or nothing at all , I will comply.

 

[jam070406]

I like that term, “violent agreement.” Made me chuckle a bit.

Sadly though, I disagree. That’s a neat attempt at twisting my words, but that was not the point of my post, nor was it the argument I was making. You seem to have skipped over most of what I said and just extrapolated one portion, out of context I might add, to make an argument that works both ways. Sorry, but your argument works both ways and supports the EF as much as it supports to OF.

violent agreement…I hope you don’t mind but I am going to steal that one from you and use it!

By the way, I like to refer to people by their name, especially their first name just because I think it is a kind way to talk to people. I mean no disrespect and if you would prefer I call you something else, or nothing at all , I will comply.

I didn’t see him as twisting your words, rather giving an honest answer. You first stated that we are blessed that the Church has given us options to nurture our spiritual well being. He chooses the EF to do this. You are essentially accusing him of acting in pride by stating you conform to HIS Church. Presupposing he somehow doesn’t because he chooses an option (approved by the Church) that allows him to avoid practices that bother him, while you choose to deal with the same issues that bother you, in a different manner.

 

[Boulder257]

I didn’t see him as twisting your words, rather giving an honest answer. You first stated that we are blessed that the Church has given us options to nurture our spiritual well being. He chooses the EF to do this. You are essentially accusing him of acting in pride by stating you conform to HIS Church. Presupposing he somehow doesn’t because he chooses an option (approved by the Church) that allows him to avoid practices that bother him, while you choose to deal with the same issues that bother you, in a different manner.

Fair enough and I understand your point. I say that because he seemed to miss the larger portion of my argument. Furthermore, he took pieces out of context to make his argument that the EF is better. That is certainly not what I was arguing I was arguing that they both have positive attributes. He twisted my argument to be in favor of the EF and that was not my argument.

I don’t want to infer he “twisted” in such a horrible way, but I am sure that even he will agree that he was trying to cleverly use my words against me and in support of his particular preference. I took no offense to it. I found it quite clever!

 

[Dirt]

One must consider the Second Vatican Council and it’s aftermath in full context of the times in which it occured.Just as we need proper historical interpretations to understand fully Sacred Scripture. Blessed Pope John XXIII felt that the Church needed some “fresh air”. H.H. Pope Paul VI helped guide and closed the Council. What occurred next can be debated ad infinitum, but sufice it to say certain elements took the ball and ran of the field. Considering every other aspect of western society was under assault, the actions of some to the new interpretations of the Council Fathers does not surprise me. I do believe that had the average Pew Sitter been more informed as to what was In the Documents, the changes at the Parish level may have been much more restrained. But one must remember that during the leadup to V-II, most Catholics were catechized to trust their Preists and Bishops without question. So if a particular Preist or Bishop chose to take a very liberal license with the Documents, who would challenge them? As i posted earlier. we now have the greatest device every developed for the access of information, the internet. And I do believe that as average Catholics continue to access site such as The Vatican and its archives, a return to actual continuity will increase. That is why i beleive our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI is calling for a new Evangilization. Just as Bishop Sample pointed out in His “Lost Generation” article, we all need to be re-catechized to the Faith. And that Catechising will do wonders for restoring much of what has been lost in Tradition. Just look at how many of the old Sacramentals and Novenas are being revived in Parishes across the Country. And Eucharistic Adoration is speading everywhere when not so long ago it was rare indeed. I am very confident that a re-awakening has started. And considering the age in which we live, it is none to soon.

 

[Boulder257]

One must consider the Second Vatican Council and it’s aftermath in full context of the times in which it occured.Just as we need proper historical interpretations to understand fully Sacred Scripture. Blessed Pope John XXIII felt that the Church needed some “fresh air”. H.H. Pope Paul VI helped guide and closed the Council. What occurred next can be debated ad infinitum, but sufice it to say certain elements took the ball and ran of the field. Considering every other aspect of western society was under assault, the actions of some to the new interpretations of the Council Fathers does not surprise me. I do believe that had the average Pew Sitter been more informed as to what was In the Documents, the changes at the Parish level may have been much more restrained. But one must remember that during the leadup to V-II, most Catholics were catechized to trust their Preists and Bishops without question. So if a particular Preist or Bishop chose to take a very liberal license with the Documents, who would challenge them? As i posted earlier. we now have the greatest device every developed for the access of information, the internet. And I do believe that as average Catholics continue to access site such as The Vatican and its archives, a return to actual continuity will increase. That is why i beleive our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI is calling for a new Evangilization. Just as Bishop Sample pointed out in His “Lost Generation” article, we all need to be re-catechized to the Faith. And that Catechising will do wonders for restoring much of what has been lost in Tradition. Just look at how many of the old Sacramentals and Novenas are being revived in Parishes across the Country. And Eucharistic Adoration is speading everywhere when not so long ago it was rare indeed. I am very confident that a re-awakening has started. And considering the age in which we live, it is none to soon.

Another wise post from someon in SC!

 

[SenorPaulito]

Having been in the Church before and after Vatican II, I have found the following article helpful when discussing the changes which occurred afterward.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Peace,
Ed

A very interesting article. Thank you.

 

[Warrenton]

I read the entire article on L’Osservatore Romano that Sirach2 pointed to.

I read it also, and the analysis of it in a subsequent article, and the profession of faith which it refers to.

The short response: this analysis does not provide us with the specific parameters of what we must accept, and what we are free (within bounds) not to accept.

As they say, the devil is in the details.

Unlike some traditionalists, I do not cast blame on Rome for this. Part of the problem is within traditionalism itself. After Vatican 2, when efforts to preserve the old liturgical forms and rituals failed, traditionalists began looking at other ways to approach the problem. At the same time, vast numbers of faithful began to leave the Church. Traditionalists conflated some of the easier theological issues (the classic: nulla salus) and apostasy with the liturgical issues. This has made things harder, not easier.

The sheep is in major need of shearing.

The real issue is the way we perform our rituals. This is patently obvious from the numbers alone. If, for instance, the Church said “SSPX can perform the rituals in their 1962, or 1948, or 1900 form in perpetuity and any priest can join them,” a few million people would be brought securely, unambiguously into the fold immediately.

If, in contrast, the Church said “We were wrong, you gotta be Catholic to be saved,” we might lose a dissident German philopsopher or two.

This is not to make light of the theological aspect of the dispute - merely to put into what I think is a realistic perspective.

The experience of many of our separated bretheren teaches the same things, my friends.

This is why, while personally believing that many documents of Vatican 2 are not expressed in an optimal manner, especially in view of the stated aims of the council, I am unwilling to claim “it’s all bad.” As Sirach noted, who can argue with a document that says “the Church is a hierarchy,” or “most members of the Church are lay people?”

However, the council will bear more of its intended fruits the sooner that the real issues affecting the bulk of the faithful are addressed clearly.

 

[jmj1984]

This a very complicated and contoversial topic, for that reason I’ll limit myself to saying that I heartily recommend 'Iota unum: A study of changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century by Italian Theologian and Philospher Romano Amerio (R.I.P). It deals with all the changes since the council in incredible depth as well as the build up to the council, events in the council etc… with incredible depth and meticolous citations to popes, the L’Observatorio Romano, eyewitnesses, cardinals, bishops, saints, earlier councils and in short pretty much anyone and anything that matters. Its some 650 pages long and is frankly a masterpiece, I mention it because it deals with the issues in a way that a thread on a forum never can and helps us understand just what has happened since the council, what led up to the council and what the council actually was.

 

[Dirt]

This a very complicated and contoversial topic, for that reason I’ll limit myself to saying that I heartily recommend 'Iota unum: A study of changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century by Italian Theologian and Philospher Romano Amerio (R.I.P). It deals with all the changes since the council in incredible depth as well as the build up to the council, events in the council etc… with incredible depth and meticolous citations to popes, the L’Observatorio Romano, eyewitnesses, cardinals, bishops, saints, earlier councils and in short pretty much anyone and anything that matters. Its some 650 pages long and is frankly a masterpiece, I mention it because it deals with the issues in a way that a thread on a forum never can and helps us understand just what has happened since the council, what led up to the council and what the council actually was.

Read it. Lost some sleep. Found myself re-reading Pope St. Pius X “PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS”. Yet I still believe that the intent of the Bishops was valid. And i still agree with Bishop Schneider that a new sylabus would put much of the Grey areas to rest.
Our Holy Father is a theologian. And he seems to lead gently, like a true sheperd, quietly steering the flock where it needs to go while keeping a close eye on the Wolves.

 

[jmj1984]

Read it. Lost some sleep. Found myself re-reading Pope St. Pius X “PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS”. Yet I still believe that the intent of the Bishops was valid. And i still agree with Bishop Schneider that a new sylabus would put much of the Grey areas to rest.
Our Holy Father is a theologian. And he seems to lead gently, like a true sheperd, quietly steering the flock where it needs to go while keeping a close eye on the Wolves.

Glad you read it, shame you don’t agree with its conclusions, it sheds much light on the current crisis.

 

[Warrenton]

'Iota unum: A study of changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century by Italian Theologian and Philospher Romano Amerio (R.I.P).

I’m not familiar with the work - can you provide a short synopsis of the thesis? Thanks!

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

After Vatican 2, when efforts to preserve the old liturgical forms and rituals failed, traditionalists began looking at other ways to approach the problem. At the same time, vast numbers of faithful began to leave the Church. Traditionalists conflated some of the easier theological issues (the classic: nulla salus) and apostasy with the liturgical issues. This has made things harder, not easier.

I do not think this is so. I spoke to a few old traditionalists in the UK. Even there, with the Agatha Christie indult, I think there was only one Easter Triduum in the whole of England at one point. People came from abroad to it. It was in a hotel.

The reason?

The old rite was thought to be banned. You couldn’t get priests to say it. If you found one who would, his bishop would be against it. Being a ‘trad’ priest will get you moved to a peripheral parish, even today.

As for elsewhere, I’d guess it was a desert. No priest = no mass = a generation who have no idea what it’s like and are so poorly educated they don’t know what’s going on when they do see one.

Like the classic “The priest is turning his back on us!”

Incredible, really. 1950 years of development and within 40, that’s what people think.

 

[jmj1984]

I’m not familiar with the work - can you provide a short synopsis of the thesis? Thanks!

I’ve got to go to lectures at uni lol I’ll give it a shot later, its hard to do it justice though.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’ve got to go to lectures at uni lol I’ll give it a shot later, its hard to do it justice though.

Is this the same guy that was quoted saying that religious should break away from the vision of the founders (aka Franciscans should stop working with the poor misc etc?)

 

[gregtr]

The one decree I have a serious problem with is the one on non-Christian religions.

Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.

It seems to say that Buddhism leads to perfect liberation and supreme illumination. Perhaps the Fathers were saying “this is what THEY say their ‘way’ leads to”, but still, the other interpretation is just as valid; perhaps more so, since the previous sentence had spoken of Hindu true “flight to God”.

 

[jam070406]

The one decree I have a serious problem with is the one on non-Christian religions.

**Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which **men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.

It seems to say that Buddhism leads to perfect liberation and supreme illumination. Perhaps the Fathers were saying “this is what THEY say their ‘way’ leads to”, but still, the other interpretation is just as valid; perhaps more so, since the previous sentence had spoken of Hindu true “flight to God”.

I couldn’t agree more.

 

[jmj1984]

Is this the same guy that was quoted saying that religious should break away from the vision of the founders (aka Franciscans should stop working with the poor misc etc?)

Melchior no one said that, at least no one in their right mind.

 

[Warrenton]

I do not think this is so. I spoke to a few old traditionalists in the UK. Even there, with the Agatha Christie indult, I think there was only one Easter Triduum in the whole of England at one point.

The old rite was thought to be banned.

As for elsewhere, I’d guess it was a desert. No priest = no mass = a generation who have no idea what it’s like and are so poorly educated they don’t know what’s going on when they do see one. .

Forgive me for my awkward wording, Roger - I think we are saying the same thing, and I agree with what you wrote completely. Perhaps I could add some clarifications.

I was lucky enough to be in the UK before the drought set in. I attended them at the Brompton Oratory in London.

And yes, the common perception was that the old mass was suppressed. That what was priests would say at the time. Clearly, the hope was that interest would die out over time.

One of the reasons it did not die out is because traditionalists “counter attacked” on a broad front. They critisized the innovations in services, the tendency to engage in interfaith services, the resistance to Humanae Vitae, the lack of spiritual rigour. Traditionalists linked the problems with the contemporary Church to Vatican 2, for the simple reason that the suppression of the old mass was linked to Vatican 2. If Vatican 2 could be discredited, then it followed that the suppression of the old mass would also be discredited.

The traditionalist riposte was successful. Ironically, it achieved greater success in the peripheral areas of Church discipline and doctrine than it did with restoring the old mass. Bl;. Pope JPII was already restoring control by the early 1980s, but as you know, no moves were made toward restoring the tridentine mass on any scale until 1987 with the foundation of PSSP. Compared with the speed the old mass was suppressed, the re-implementation of the old mass has progressed (until the past 4 years) at a pace best described as glacial.

With the recent moto proprio, at least now all the issues are on the table. The thing is, they remain all in a jumble. I suggest that the key to harmonizing Vatican 2 with traditionalist concerns is to unscramble the issues.

 

[jmj1984]

I’m not familiar with the work - can you provide a short synopsis of the thesis? Thanks!

First things first, Romano Amerio looks at the synod called before the Council which was supposed to be a model for the council and yet was completely ignored and contradicted by it, then at the schemas which were likewise ignored and contradicted and then at the council itself.

He then looks at the post conciliar church and the changes within it, then he moves onto specific trends of change for example somoloatory (the idolisation of sport) and penance, The Church and Youth, The Church and women, the priesthood, the sacraments, democracy in the church, ecumenicism etc… and of course the change in the liturgy.

In short its a very detailed work that looks at almost every area of change in the post conciliar church and he does so with quotes from popes, bishops conferences, council fathers, the official paper of the vatican and in short almost always official and approved sources.

As for his thesis its hard to condense into one post essentially he wishes to examine whether the changes in the church are fundamental or are just on the surface and whether it was an unfolding of what was already there or a dramatic transmutation. He concludes that in almost all areas the changes are fundamental and are a dramatic transmutation

In explaining the crisis he points out the problems of 'Loss of unity of worship’ and ‘Loss of unity of government’ as being key to the crisis as well as the '‘breviato manus’ or foreshortening of the hand of the church as being key as well. He points out that the church has renounced much of its error and an idea has grown up, popularised by Pope Paul VI, that one can dialogue with error and merely by showing a person that they are wrong their mind will naturally renounce their error, in short you give up the right to punish or censure.

If I read him correctly, he demonstrates that the common thread between all the post conciliar changes is a desire to accommodate and reconcile the church to the modern world, he points out that this is impossible as there must always be a conflict or antagonism between the world and the church, as there is between God and the devil. Think for example of the famous quote ‘No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon’ Matthew 6:24

He states on the subject 'One can therefore conclude to a general rule that while Catholicism’s antagonism to the world is unchanging, the forms of the antagonism change when the state of the world requires a change in the opposition to be declared and maintained on particular points of belief or in particular historical circumstances. Thus the church exalts poverty when the world (and the church herself) worships riches, mortification of the flesh when the world follows the enticements of the three appetites, reason when the world turns to illogicality and sentimentalism, faith when the world is swollen with the pride of knowledge. The contemporary Church, by contrast, is on the lookout for "Points of convergence between the Church’s thinking and the mentality characteristic of our time’ Iota Unum Page 5

Its an eye opening book especially as regards the 70’s and 80’s, where the Catholic church in France and the Netherlands (more the latter than the former) were arguably in de facto if not de jure schism. For example they published catechisms which contained serious theological errors, refused to correct them and did so without the permission of the holy see, denied the divinity of Christ, the truth of the Resurrection or the ascension, the real presence, the power of the pope etc…

And before anyone makes any rash claims, he was a faithful son of the Church and is the point of reference in much traditionalist theology for examining the modern Church, e.g Fr Z recommends him, he greatly influenced Archbishop Lefebvre later on, and is used by almost all traditionalists regardless of their particular beliefs. It should also be pointed out that many of the points raised in his theology are addressed in Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical deus caritas est and the idea of the ‘Hermenuitic of Continuity’

 

[Warrenton]

First things first, Romano Amerio looks at the synod called before the Council

Thank you very much — I have something to put on my Christmas list!!