Vatican II

[pnewton]

Oh, right, thus the title.

If you support the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass being transformed into a “Liturgy Service”, merely containing the essential elements, then a more substantial defence should be available.

Why? Your terms are yours. They show where you stand. Even the belief that we laity are the defenders of the liturgy goes against what I believe. Before the modernist movement and the invention of the internet this elevation of the laity to the point they could question disciplinary matters would have seemed strange. This is ironic reversal shows that traditional catholicism is truly a matter of perspective. I am not saying I am right, for I do not know that, if such a thing can be called right or wrong. I just see that it can be seen in two distinct ways.

I know it is frustrating not to be able to set the terms of a discussion, but such is the nature of forums.

 

[Tsuwano]

Oh, right, thus the title.

I’m finding this thread to be out of gas. Those enamoured with the post Vatican II changes, most notably the Novus Ordo Mass have made their case and seem to me at least to be incapable of answering further questions. As long as the position of the NO Mass being licit and containing the essential elements gets defended primarily from the aspect of being the status quo then there’s no point in continuing the debate. If you support the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass being transformed into a “Liturgy Service”, merely containing the essential elements, then a more substantial defence should be available.

I’m not sure this thread is out of gas if we are able to move beyond debate and ask a different sort of question. I understand that many folks think the Second Vatican Council was a bad idea, was based on poor theology, tore the Church apart, and basically initiated a period of lazy catholicism and poor liturgies. On the whole, I disagree with this analysis but can accept that there are problems in the Church that many people blame on Vatican Council II. Still, we all know that nothing we write here on this forum is going to change the fact that the Novus Ordo, for better or worse, is indeed the “status quo” within the Church and the liturgy that was so well loved prior to the Second Vatican Council is not. Yet, we are Catholics, sharing a common heritage, as well as a common future if we remain faithful. So, what is it exactly, that unifies us? Do “traditional” Catholics share a vision of the Church that is held in common with those who do not wish to return to the period before the Second Vatican Council? Is there a half way ground where we can meet and acknowledge our mutual faith or are we simply left questioning eachother’s faith and insisting that the other is not truly Catholic? If this thread is simply about judging whether the Second Vatican Council was good or bad, then yes, it may indeed be out of gas. I doubt we will change anyone’s opinions with our words here. But personally, I think this is the point where the conversation takes on true importance. We may not have the will or energy to continue in this particular thread or on this particular forum, but I think the conversation will continue somewhere else.

 

[Aramis]

Tsuwano:

The biggest change in the Vatican II itself was the raising the value of the Eastern Churches and the “preserved western rites” (Trent left at least 7 other western rites permission to remain in use, counting the Dalmatian, which is simply the Roman in Church Slavonic). No longer were the eastern rites seen as merely a stepping stone to being Latin Catholics.

This paradigm shift shows a possible way for the future: to allow those who are attached to a particular expression of liturgy to be separate but still fully catholic. Archbishop Lefebvre himself had been seeking just such a solution for the Traditionalists (Source: Rev. John Fearon, O.P., DD, personal conversation, ca. 1986). It’s still a potentially viable solution.

If nothing else, the Roman church needs to strongly curtail the abuses, and bishops fostering abuses in any church need to be removed from their thrones and retired.

 

[Ockham]

Vatican II itself isn’t the problem. The problem has been the modernist interpretation of council documents, the “spirit of Vatican II”. The Pope has come out and said we interpreted the documents wrong. Therefore, the changes were wrong. The other problem is many modernists are in high positions in the Church and correcting the interpretation or reversing the changes won’t be easy. Why “traditionalists” are so vocal is that they see a direct correlation between the modernist interpretation of Vatican II and the decline in leading indicators. Thankfully our Holy Father must see this correlation too otherwise he wouldn’t have told us about the mis-interpretation, brought back the TLM, re-communicate the SSPX, only give Holy Communion on the tongue of those kneeling. What’s frustrating in these debates is the position that the "spirit of Vatican II’ changes were good and can’t be challenged because they are the status quo. Forty years ago they weren’t and unfortunately there wasn’t a lot of debate.

 

[ncjohn]

Oh, right, thus the title.

I’m finding this thread to be out of gas. Those enamoured with the post Vatican II changes, most notably the Novus Ordo Mass have made their case and seem to me at least to be incapable of answering further questions. As long as the position of the NO Mass being licit and containing the essential elements gets defended primarily from the aspect of being the status quo then there’s no point in continuing the debate. If you support the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass being transformed into a “Liturgy Service”, merely containing the essential elements, then a more substantial defence should be available.

Ockham, I think if these are the terms under which you insist the “debate” be conducted that it likely is indeed out of gas. I for one have tried to approach this very differently, from a standpoint of understanding that a false dichotomy has been created around this idea that different liturgical preferences are really the issue, but it is just as frustrating from my side that the attitude of objective “superiority” of liturgical preferences seems to be taken as a “given” and that any challenge to that idea is seen as an inability to converse intelligently.

I am thoroughly in support of Vatican II. I am not thrilled with all of the results that we have seen so far, and most certainly don’t support liturgical abuses that have sometimes resulted, though I disagree from my own experience that they are as severe and as common as many make them out to be. I also disagree with your conclusion that the Pope’s acknowledgment–as JPII did before him–that there has been some shoddy implementation implies that everything that happened after Vatican II was wrong, or that the liturgy that resulted from it was wrong. Just as every council has needed time to get its teachings firmly and correctly planted, so will this one.

The fact that you perceive the OF to be a “liturgy service” and have continually expressed it to be inferior does not make it objectively so. The fact that you believe that it is responsible for a decline in indicators does not make it objectively so. There are far more societal indicators that correlate to a far greater extent than does the liturgy. The mere fact that those indicators change dramatically from area to area and are completely different when one gets away from the “developed” countries gives strong indication that it is more the cultural changes in the developed countries than anything else that has influenced the indicators. Society and prosperity have largely defined God to be unneeded and irrelevant and governments have been more than willing to support that idea. Scripture is full of Israel continually falling away and then crying out in need when their culture has totally abandoned their God. It is the normal pattern of humanity to lose one’s perceived need for God and religion during prosperous times and have to be reminded, sometimes through severe chastisement, of who is in charge.

And again, the fact that you seem unwilling to accept the Church’s stated position, along with the Pope’s specific statements, that the liturgies are of equal dignity basically leaves those of us who do accept that premise, and want to promote that equality and a unity of purpose, out in the cold and inferior in your judgment. As long as the majority of Catholics who prefer the OF are considered to just be a bunch of liberal modernist heretics (with the occasional odd exception) while those who prefer the TLM are considered to be “the Remnant” and only true Catholics left, I’m not sure how one even can carry on a discussion.

It’s pretty ironic since, as others have noted, “tradition” was that you didn’t question the authority of the Church, and certainly not that of the Pope. Yes, one must always be vigilant and ready to stand up for the Truth, but once the Church–who traditionalism seems to agree can be the only ultimate authority for what its teachings mean–has spoken on a matter, it should be accepted with docility and obedience.

At times it all sounds like those disciples who wanted to rain down fire on the group that was preaching in Jesus’ name but not part of their band. As I recall Jesus had some pretty harsh words on that concept. We really need to remember what it is we go to Mass for: to hear the Word of God so we can go out and act on it for the glory of His name. Whichever liturgy works best for the individual to have that happen is the best one for them. I’m glad you hear it so clearly through your preferred TLM. Is it truly not possible for you to conceive that lots of others hear it just as clearly through the Pauline Mass?

If not, you’re probably right that at least for you the “debate” has run out of gas.

And I’ll apologize here in case you really weren’t interested in my opinion and I wasn’t supposed to answer.

Peace,

 

[diggerdomer]

Ockham, I think if these are the terms under which you insist the “debate” be conducted that it likely is indeed out of gas. I for one have tried to approach this very differently, from a standpoint of understanding that a false dichotomy has been created around this idea that different liturgical preferences are really the issue, but it is just as frustrating from my side that the attitude of objective “superiority” of liturgical preferences seems to be taken as a “given” and that any challenge to that idea is seen as an inability to converse intelligently.

I am thoroughly in support of Vatican II. I am not thrilled with all of the results that we have seen so far, and most certainly don’t support liturgical abuses that have sometimes resulted, though I disagree from my own experience that they are as severe and as common as many make them out to be. I also disagree with your conclusion that the Pope’s acknowledgment–as JPII did before him–that there has been some shoddy implementation implies that everything that happened after Vatican II was wrong, or that the liturgy that resulted from it was wrong. Just as every council has needed time to get its teachings firmly and correctly planted, so will this one.

The fact that you perceive the OF to be a “liturgy service” and have continually expressed it to be inferior does not make it objectively so. The fact that you believe that it is responsible for a decline in indicators does not make it objectively so. There are far more societal indicators that correlate to a far greater extent than does the liturgy. The mere fact that those indicators change dramatically from area to area and are completely different when one gets away from the “developed” countries gives strong indication that it is more the cultural changes in the developed countries than anything else that has influenced the indicators. Society and prosperity have largely defined God to be unneeded and irrelevant and governments have been more than willing to support that idea. Scripture is full of Israel continually falling away and then crying out in need when their culture has totally abandoned their God. It is the normal pattern of humanity to lose one’s perceived need for God and religion during prosperous times and have to be reminded, sometimes through severe chastisement, of who is in charge.

And again, the fact that you seem unwilling to accept the Church’s stated position, along with the Pope’s specific statements, that the liturgies are of equal dignity basically leaves those of us who do accept that premise, and want to promote that equality and a unity of purpose, out in the cold and inferior in your judgment. As long as the majority of Catholics who prefer the OF are considered to just be a bunch of liberal modernist heretics (with the occasional odd exception) while those who prefer the TLM are considered to be “the Remnant” and only true Catholics left, I’m not sure how one even can carry on a discussion.

It’s pretty ironic since, as others have noted, “tradition” was that you didn’t question the authority of the Church, and certainly not that of the Pope. Yes, one must always be vigilant and ready to stand up for the Truth, but once the Church–who traditionalism seems to agree can be the only ultimate authority for what its teachings mean–has spoken on a matter, it should be accepted with docility and obedience.

At times it all sounds like those disciples who wanted to rain down fire on the group that was preaching in Jesus’ name but not part of their band. As I recall Jesus had some pretty harsh words on that concept. We really need to remember what it is we go to Mass for: to hear the Word of God so we can go out and act on it for the glory of His name. Whichever liturgy works best for the individual to have that happen is the best one for them. I’m glad you hear it so clearly through your preferred TLM. Is it truly not possible for you to conceive that lots of others hear it just as clearly through the Pauline Mass?

If not, you’re probably right that at least for you the “debate” has run out of gas.

And I’ll apologize here in case you really weren’t interested in my opinion and I wasn’t supposed to answer.

Peace,

Thank you.

I would also add (despite the apparent fact that my opinions are undesirable here to some) that a claim such as:

The Pope has come out and said we interpreted the documents wrong. Therefore, the changes were wrong.

makes it very hard to have constructive dialogue. The above is imho a sweeping generalization that cannot be reasonably discussed without much more information. Would such a statement mean EVERYTHING in VII documents is wrong? Everything SINCE VII is wrong? That’s one interpretation that is eminently reasonable from the statements. I of course would not read it that way, and hope no one would…but I certainly couldn’t rule it out. Is that what the Pope said, that plain and simple the Church interpreted Vatican II incorrectly, with no clarifications, details, or nuances? Really…where and when? If not…then let’s talk specifics without engaging in unwarranted generalizations, and stick to objective sources as a common ground, and not only go on what we individually like/dislike.

Thank you again for your well-thought out and reasonable contributions, I’ve learned much.

 

[Tsuwano]

Tsuwano:

The biggest change in the Vatican II itself was the raising the value of the Eastern Churches and the “preserved western rites” (Trent left at least 7 other western rites permission to remain in use, counting the Dalmatian, which is simply the Roman in Church Slavonic). No longer were the eastern rites seen as merely a stepping stone to being Latin Catholics.

This paradigm shift shows a possible way for the future: to allow those who are attached to a particular expression of liturgy to be separate but still fully catholic. Archbishop Lefebvre himself had been seeking just such a solution for the Traditionalists (Source: Rev. John Fearon, O.P., DD, personal conversation, ca. 1986). It’s still a potentially viable solution.

If nothing else, the Roman church needs to strongly curtail the abuses, and bishops fostering abuses in any church need to be removed from their thrones and retired.

I agree that the Latin Church’s greater recognition of the Eastern Churches represents a paradigm shift, not only in the way each rite views the other rites, but also how each rite views itself. The irony of the brotherhood each rite shares with the other is that our brotherly love compels us to recognize and value our differences without having to acknowledge a separation. Through Christ our prayer and liturgical sacrifices are united as an offering to God, though the expression of that prayer is different and unique. In a sense, each rite is less authentic and less united with Christ, if the other rites in our union are not fully themselves and are less authentic in their cultural expressions of prayer. For the Roman Rite to be fully Catholic, there must be a unity with other rites that are fully expressive of the cultures from which they arise. The same holds true with the Eastern Rites in their union with Rome. We cannot be authentic signs of Christ’s universal, or catholic, love if in our worship we are striving to imitate or be an inauthentic reflection of a different rite. These are simply private reflections and I do not know the theological underpinnings for such views.

 

[diggerdomer]

I agree that the Latin Church’s greater recognition of the Eastern Churches represents a paradigm shift, not only in the way each rite views the other rites, but also how each rite views itself. The irony of the brotherhood each rite shares with the other is that our brotherly love compels us to recognize and value our differences without having to acknowledge a separation. Through Christ our prayer and liturgical sacrifices are united as an offering to God, though the expression of that prayer is different and unique. In a sense, each rite is less authentic and less united with Christ, if the other rites in our union are not fully themselves and are less authentic in their cultural expressions of prayer. For the Roman Rite to be fully Catholic, there must be a unity with other rites that are fully expressive of the cultures from which they arise. The same holds true with the Eastern Rites in their union with Rome. We cannot be authentic signs of Christ’s universal, or catholic, love if in our worship we are striving to imitate or be an inauthentic reflection of a different rite. These are simply private reflections and I do not know the theological underpinnings for such views.

Amen. Thanks. As a cradle Catholic I admit it was only much later in my life than I’d like to admit that I was aware of the reality of the diversity of the Catholic faith regarding the numerous Rites. Thanks be to God that Vatican II raised this up to our consciousness!

 

[Aramis]

I agree that the Latin Church’s greater recognition of the Eastern Churches represents a paradigm shift, not only in the way each rite views the other rites, but also how each rite views itself. The irony of the brotherhood each rite shares with the other is that our brotherly love compels us to recognize and value our differences without having to acknowledge a separation. Through Christ our prayer and liturgical sacrifices are united as an offering to God, though the expression of that prayer is different and unique. In a sense, each rite is less authentic and less united with Christ, if the other rites in our union are not fully themselves and are less authentic in their cultural expressions of prayer. For the Roman Rite to be fully Catholic, there must be a unity with other rites that are fully expressive of the cultures from which they arise. The same holds true with the Eastern Rites in their union with Rome. We cannot be authentic signs of Christ’s universal, or catholic, love if in our worship we are striving to imitate or be an inauthentic reflection of a different rite. These are simply private reflections and I do not know the theological underpinnings for such views.

You have basically synopsized one of the commentators from the committee on the Eastern Rites…

 

[Tsuwano]

Vatican II itself isn’t the problem. The problem has been the modernist interpretation of council documents, the “spirit of Vatican II”. The Pope has come out and said we interpreted the documents wrong. Therefore, the changes were wrong. The other problem is many modernists are in high positions in the Church and correcting the interpretation or reversing the changes won’t be easy. Why “traditionalists” are so vocal is that they see a direct correlation between the modernist interpretation of Vatican II and the decline in leading indicators. Thankfully our Holy Father must see this correlation too otherwise he wouldn’t have told us about the mis-interpretation, brought back the TLM, re-communicate the SSPX, only give Holy Communion on the tongue of those kneeling. What’s frustrating in these debates is the position that the "spirit of Vatican II’ changes were good and can’t be challenged because they are the status quo. Forty years ago they weren’t and unfortunately there wasn’t a lot of debate.

I think one reason “traditionalists” are so vocal is because they are angry. Many of them feel betrayed by the Church and by what happened at Vatican II and tend to use the hazy term “modernists” in order to focus their anger. In a sense, they feel that their entire spiritual journey prior to the Second Vatican Council, the experiences that tended to distill their catholicism into a common culture that offered security and identity where ever they found themselves, were somehow invalidated, made to seem outdated and useless, almost superstitious, and meaningless in the present life of the Church. I can hardly blame anyone who feels this way from being angry. I think the irony is that many “traditionalists” have a lot in common with those women who feel they have a vocation to the priesthood or homosexual Catholics who feel confused as to how it is possible to practice their faith and yet acknowledge and and explore their sexuality. When one feels that one’s spiritual experience, which seems holy and true to the individual, is invalidated or questioned by the Church for whatever reason, there is a common impulse to grow angry, accuse the Church of misunderstanding or of wavering from the true path of Christ or of being cruel and vindictive. And yet, most Catholics, even those who feel deep anger at the Church, are very reluctant to dismiss her or leave her or deny the common heritage that all Catholics share. There is a recognition that the Church dwells in an aura of truth and that the Holy Spirit is present in her, even if, in this one particular area, they believe the Church is wrong. The question then becomes do I bow to the will of the Church, which the Church believes and the faithful attest, is the will of God or do I leave the Church spiritually, if not physically, and deceive myself and others by pretending to be a faithful Catholic when I’m really not. Those who choose to remain within the Church either smoulder in their anger, becoming bitter toward the Church and its structure, or they find a spiritual and theological position beyond anger and are able to have a new spiritual experience which the Church can validate. What does it mean to find a new position beyond anger and what does it look like for those who have felt betrayed by something they believe in and wish to continue believing in? I think this is a major question for “traditionalists” and all those who find that, on some level, the spirituality or spiritual journeys that have been a part of their life, is no longer dominant or goes unrecognized by the Church. The question is just as pertinent for those who are not angry with the Church, whose experiences are more recognizable, and who, with genuine Christian love, long to reach out to their brothers and sisters and soothe their pain.

 

[Ockham]

I think one reason “traditionalists” are so vocal is because they are angry. Many of them feel betrayed by the Church and by what happened at Vatican II and tend to use the hazy term “modernists” in order to focus their anger. In a sense, they feel that their entire spiritual journey prior to the Second Vatican Council, the experiences that tended to distill their catholicism into a common culture that offered security and identity where ever they found themselves, were somehow invalidated, made to seem outdated and useless, almost superstitious, and meaningless in the present life of the Church.

You make some good points and I think I can see where you are coming from. I’m not trying to set terms on this discussion but do feel a level of frustration with it.

I don’t condemn Vatican II or think everything since was bad. It’s reasonable to assume most “traditionalists” don’t either. We do get hung up here with semantics and labels, especially since the word “modernist” is associated with heresy. I wish it didn’t as it’s secular definition works well to describe those with “new” ideas.

Part of the frustration is a seemingly contradiction in defences. The “modernist” loves to state, “it’s in the GIRM!” to defend new practices such as Communion in hand. However, it wasn’t always in the GIRM and was actually first described as a liturgical abuse. Popes, saints, and theologians clearly point out what is wrong with the practice, but because it has become status quo that seems to be all the defence needed. In defending the NO the “modernist” will profess the Vatican II documents without actually citing a specific passage authorizing such a change as use of the venacular.

The “modernist” seems oblivious to the dramatic decline in Church numbers since the sixties, doesn’t see any correlation with the “spirit of Vatican II” changes, and boldly asserts if it wasn’t for all the changes we’d be in even worse shape.

The “traditionalist” is trying to change things back to before all the “modernist” changes occurred justified by the “spirit of Vatican II” To many the word “tradition” is synonymous with “catholic”. The TLM is a perfect example of “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” as it evolved slowly from the time of Christ. The NO was penned by a man named Bugnini and launched in North American in 1969. The TLM was shoved into the closet and wild experiments and creativity was unleased in the new order of the Mass. Even in its most reverent and orthodox practice, the NO contains less external reverence and based on the leading indicators of Church it seems to have eroded internal as well.

Consider this story from today’s headlines. Before anyone accuses me of ad hominen attacks, all I’m doing here is connecting the dots.

NEW YORK – A Roman Catholic archbishop who resigned in 2002 over a sex and financial scandal involving a man describes his struggles with being gay in an upcoming memoir about his decades serving the church.

…]

Weakland stepped down soon after Paul Marcoux, a former Marquette University theology student, revealed in May 2002 that he was paid $450,000 to settle a sexual assault claim he made against the archbishop more than two decades earlier. The money came from the archdiocese.

…]

The revelations rocked the Milwaukee archdiocese, which Weakland had led since 1977. He was a hero for liberal Catholics nationwide because of his work on social justice and other issues,

…]

Weakland also writes about his failures to stop sexually abusive priests. In a videotaped deposition released last November, Weakland admitted returning guilty priests to active ministry without alerting parishioners or police.

…]

Weakland, a Benedictine monk, served in Rome as leader of the International Benedictine Confederation and also worked on a liturgy commission for the Second Vatican Council, which made reforms in the 1960s meant to modernize the church.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090512/ap_on_re/us_rel_gay_archbishop

Hopefully he uses profits from his tell-all book to repay the diocese the half million his indiscretions cost it. The shame he caused us all won’t be as easy to amend.

 

[ncjohn]

Those who choose to remain within the Church either smoulder in their anger, becoming bitter toward the Church and its structure, or they find a spiritual and theological position beyond anger and are able to have a new spiritual experience which the Church can validate. What does it mean to find a new position beyond anger and what does it look like for those who have felt betrayed by something they believe in and wish to continue believing in?

Here I think you have summarized the entire dilemna. Ironically I can identify with it because I experienced it from the opposite end of the spectrum.

I grew up in the “traditional” Church, pre-Vatican II. In 2nd grade, when I did first communion, I was on fire with the idea that God loved me so much that He was going to come to live in me in holy communion. It only took a year later though to find out that God was really up there watching every little thing I did, waiting for me to make a mistake that would then send me to hell. No matter how good I was, it wasn’t good enough and I saw no way I could ever be good enough to go to heaven.

Then there were my experiences with the TLM. I served at bunches of them beyond the ones I attended with my family. In my attending experiences, I saw people who appeared totally oblivious to what was going on, involved in all manner of things totally unrelated to the Mass going on before them. As I learned the Mass and began serving, the ones I served at were almost 100% abused by rushing through them, “stepping on” responses to speed things up, skipping homilies, skipping parts of the prayers, and being presided at often by priests who were either hungover or under the influence. I don’t claim this was common to other people or that it was the norm, but I’ve talked to enough other people to know that it wasn’t isolated to my experiences. It’s part of the reason I have to laugh out loud at those who imply that the TLM can’t be abused or that the OF is more abused, or that there is “objectively” more reverence in the TLM. There are plenty of us around who objectively know that that is just baloney.

So rather than stay and remain bitter, I eventually left, for many years. It was only in the beauty I found much later in the OF Masses my wife dragged me to, and a completely different kind of people who lived in joy and gratitude to God instead of fear (not the “awe” kind of fear) of God that I was able to come back and hear the call of the One who knew me before I was knit in my mother’s womb.

There is much in the Church that still displeases me, but I can find the beauty in knowing that God finds me worthy to stand in His presence and try to serve Him. And I can honestly call to others to come and try that experience, whether they feel more drawn to the OF liturgy or the TLM. I know He speaks and calls from both and dances with joy when we respond in whatever finite way we are capable of.

The question is just as pertinent for those who are not angry with the Church, whose experiences are more recognizable, and who, with genuine Christian love, long to reach out to their brothers and sisters and soothe their pain.

Exactly!! And it is very painful to find that there are so many who not only don’t want to be reached out to, but want to crush those who would reach out.

It reminds me greatly of the older son in the prodigal son story. The younger son comes to realize that he has really screwed up and is welcomed joyously and unconditionally by the father. We don’t even know for sure that he has achieved actual contrition beyond realizing that he’d be better off as a hired hand than his current state. But the older brother is having none of that and cannot allow himself to rejoice for the one who has been found. There seems to be a poisonous resentment that the younger brother has openly sinned and been forgiven while he has done his best to do the right thing and received no recognition for it.

I was blessed to fall into the merciful arms of God despite my sinful nature and have since been able to live a life of joy in knowing that each time I say “If you wish it you can make me clean” that He responds “I do wish it!” I can’t help but want others to be able to experience that feeling of KNOWING the mercy of God. I have been the prodigal and can fully understand the joy he felt. I have also been the older son who resents that others seem to be getting away with stuff that I sometimes secretly wish I could try instead of trying to be “good”.

But mostly these days I’m trying to be the father, offering that sense of joy to anyone who is truly seeking the face of God. Trying to help them from their pain in whatever their sense of alienation is, especially if has somehow come at the hands of the human parts of the Church as mine did. In the end though we each have to make our choice, as you have noted, to either remain bitter or to see a different experience within the Church. It does involve letting ourselves be “pruned” so we can produce more fruit, and pruning never feels good. But I have found that the One doing the pruning knows exactly what He is doing and that He heals the scars quickly. I also know that He’s trying to do so within His Church and that He needs workers to help with the harvest. To do that effectively we need to set aside what isn’t critical and work together on what is.

Peace,

 

[pnewton]

Consider this story from today’s headlines. Before anyone accuses me of ad hominen attacks, all I’m doing here is connecting the dots.

I really think there is no sense of attack in this post at all. However, it must be acknowledged that what you call connecting the dots is a logical fallacy, even though it wasn’t done as an attack.

Person A says B
Person A is a bad person
Therefore, B is false.

I also think that you are right about the definition of modernism. Everyone should go back and refresh their mind on this periodically. The vast majority of what is attacked as modernism is just modern and has nothing to do at all to that philosphy which St. Pius X condemned. Even in your post you connected modernism with communion in the hand which, contrary to your post, is not a new practice.

 

[Ockham]

Bad logic doesn’t justify bad people modernizing our Church and liturgy.

Christ said by their fruits you shall know them and you reap what you sow.

CITH was banned for hundreds of years. It was a modernist change, one the Pope doesn’t seem to prefer.

 

[CradleCath]

=Tsuwano;5190806]I think one reason “traditionalists” are so vocal is because they are angry.

I I am one of these “traditionalists” of whom you speak. Am I angry with the** Church**? No. Have I been angry at the Amchurch hierarchy in this country. YES!! The fact that gay men, who became pederasts & abused our young boys, were ordained & hidden makes me angry. Hopefully, that made EVERY Catholic angry.

Many of them feel betrayed by the Church and by what happened at Vatican II and tend to use the hazy term “modernists” in order to focus their anger. In a sense, they feel that their entire spiritual journey prior to the Second Vatican Council, the experiences that tended to distill their catholicism into a common culture that offered security and identity where ever they found themselves, were somehow invalidated,

I am trying to think of a kind way to answer the words above. Here goes…I just don’t believe in arnchair psychiatry & your scenario is one that, imo., denies plain old common sense & emotional maturity. Vatican II happened 40 years ago. Many of those who attended & served the council are dead. Among those who are living, there are some…including our Pope…who feel that the implementation of the documents of the council was poorly handled. They have said aloud that the contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion. Among these people are several Popes. John Paul II spoke of the blending of the ordained priesthood & the laity with concern:

"A poor understanding of this complementarity (between the priests & the laity) has sometimes led to a crisis of identity and confidence among priests, and also to forms of commitment by the laity that are too clerical or too politicised.

Involvement by the laity becomes a form of clericalism when the sacramental or liturgical roles that belong to the priest are assumed by the lay faithful or when the latter set out to accomplish tasks of pastoral governing that properly belong to the priest."

& gave an us an indult to celebrate the TLM.

Pope Benedict has spoken of the the absence of the " hermeneutics of continuity” & the “manufactured Mass”.

All that most of us traditional Catholics ask, is that you listen to those of US…without calling us liars…who were actually part of the pre-Vatican II Church & are still members of the post-Vatican II Church. We have a lot to offer. We ask that you read the documents of the council, we ask that you investigate the role Anabale Bugnini iplayed in forming the Novus Ordo, that you check out the MESS caused by two Bishops in order to get permission for CITH. Don’t write trads off. Learn from us. We were there.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I I am one of these “traditionalists” of whom you speak. Am I angry with the** Church**? No. Have I been angry at the Amchurch hierarchy in this country. YES!! The fact that gay men, who became pederasts & abused our young boys, were ordained & hidden makes me angry. Hopefully, that made EVERY Catholic angry.

I am trying to think of a kind way to answer the words above. Here goes…I just don’t believe in arnchair psychiatry & your scenario is one that, imo., denies plain old common sense & emotional maturity. Vatican II happened 40 years ago. Many of those who attended & served the council are dead. Among those who are living, there are some…including our Pope…who feel that the implementation of the documents of the council was poorly handled. They have said aloud that the contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion. Among these people are several Popes. John Paul II spoke of the blending of the ordained priesthood & the laity with concern:

"A poor understanding of this complementarity (between the priests & the laity) has sometimes led to a crisis of identity and confidence among priests, and also to forms of commitment by the laity that are too clerical or too politicised.

Involvement by the laity becomes a form of clericalism when the sacramental or liturgical roles that belong to the priest are assumed by the lay faithful or when the latter set out to accomplish tasks of pastoral governing that properly belong to the priest."

& gave an us an indult to celebrate the TLM.

Pope Benedict has spoken of the the absence of the " hermeneutics of continuity” & the “manufactured Mass”.

All that most of us traditional Catholics ask, is that you listen to those of US…without calling us liars…who were actually part of the pre-Vatican II Church & are still members of the post-Vatican II Church. We have a lot to offer. We ask that you read the documents of the council, we ask that you investigate the role Anabale Bugnini iplayed in forming the Novus Ordo, that you check out the MESS caused by two Bishops in order to get permission for CITH. Don’t write trads off. Learn from us. We were there.

may i ask what CITH stands for?

 

[Ockham]

CITH: up to very recently, the Protestant practice of receiving Communion In The Hand. It resurfaced in some European parishes and spread like wild fire. Paul VI issued an indult permitting it in very specific exceptional places, but the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ caught wind of it and blew it everywhere.

 

[wisdomseeker]

CITH: up to very recently, the Protestant practice of receiving Communion In The Hand. It resurfaced in some European parishes and spread like wild fire. Paul VI issued an indult permitting it in very specific exceptional places, but the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ caught wind of it and blew it everywhere.

oh i see. that explains why the Church is in confusion, it seems that the people took VII as to turn into the ways of protestants. and it is getting worse. this new priest in my parish is trying to do exactly as protestants do in their services. at the end of the Mass, he says are visitors here today raise your hands. then he says come on up here. this sunday there was one family who was visiting from Virginia and when the priest invited them to come up front, they refused to go and stayed in their seats even though the priest kept insist on. i am sure was an embarassing moment. i was wondering what in the world is going here? i think the priests think they are supposed to conduct Mass as protestants do. i know this because when i complained about the annoying protestants songs during Mass, the Priest got very agitated and said. “but VII says…” i did not let him finished. i was pretty upset.

 

[pnewton]

CITH was banned for hundreds of years. It was a modernist change…

Modernist? Yes, it was banned but the practice precedes modernism by eighteen centuries.

 

[Ockham]

It was recognized as an abuse and corrected. What changed 1800 years later to make it valid?