Vatican II

[Aramis]

V II’s biggest contribution was a recognition of, and instruction to continue, delatinizations of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and the removal of the barrier for translation from the latin church to the ECC’s. It changed, formally, the role of the EC Churches (from the roman view) from a means of bringing the orthodox to rome to being partner churches of equal value. It brought to fruition the state change towards the Eastern Rites and Churches in union that had started 30 years before.

 

[Hypothesis]

Maybe its time for Vatican III?

 

[Aramis]

Historically, all general councils have taken several decades to actually be implimented properly; there is always a period of misconstrusion of the instructions. V II is no different… but it’s definitely NOT time for V III.

 

[Hypothesis]

Historically, all general councils have taken several decades to actually be implimented properly; there is always a period of misconstrusion of the instructions. V II is no different… but it’s definitely NOT time for V III.

 

[I_Believe]

I think that there should be a forum dedicated to Vatican Council II.

All the documents could be discussed, and all the opinions could be hashed out right there.

Japhy has exactly that on a thread he started in the Book Club Forum. A dedicated thread at least.

 

[Ockham]

Historically, all general councils have taken several decades to actually be implimented properly; there is always a period of misconstrusion of the instructions. V II is no different… but it’s definitely NOT time for V III.

All twenty one councils?

 

[ncjohn]

I’vd read that people attending the first Masses wore sandals. I suppose we all should be doing that too.

I’m really confused by the relevance of this. I’ve not seen anyone here advocating going back and doing what was done in the early home-based liturgies.

Can I ask you a direct question though? You have a couple times now brought up the idea of creating a “modernist” forum. In those posts, along with several others there is always an association of the Pauline Mass with all manner of heterodox beliefs, even ignoring the fact that “modernism” is a specific defined heresy. Are you truly of the belief that all of us who prefer the Pauline Mass are just a bunch of heretics and that, in opposition to what the Pope has declared, the TLM has some kind of objective superiority? I’m just really trying to get a grasp on why there is such antagonism for other’s liturgical preferences.

Peace,

 

[palmas85]

Catholics as a whole pre Vatican II were not encouaged to read the bible for themselves. The laity was feed certain parts then told what it meant by the clergy. There may have been a crack before VII but certainly not open.

The best example are the Jesuits in Japan in the middle ages. The Japanize had and still do hornor thier dead. The Jesuits realizing the depth of this custom aske Rome for permission to incorporated this practice of honoring forfathers into catholic faith. Rome refused and as a result the church was expelled for 200 years.

Now there are pastoral councils, made up of the laity, not only on parish levels but on diocesan levels, for the cleargy to consult before making decisions. This is a major change. Problems occur when the laity refuses to step up and take on their role in the church.

For those who have problems witth VII, you need to stop looking at the past with rose colored glasses.

Peace,
FAB

Wow. I guess you have really done your research. However, you have missed just a few things.

Pope St. Gregory I **
“The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life’s advantage—and yet you neglect to read them eagerly. Study them, I beg you, and meditate daily on the words of your Creator. Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that you may sigh more eagerly for things eternal, that your soul may be kindled with greater longings for heavenly joys.”
**
Pope Leo XIII “The solicitude of the apostolic office naturally urges and even compels us…to desire that this grand source of Catholic revelation (the Bible) should be made safely and abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus Christ…For sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Ghost, it contains things of the deepest importance, which in many instances are most difficult and obscure. To understand and explain such things there is always required the ‘coming’ of the same Holy Ghost; that is to say, His light and His grace…It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration is not only essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.” Providentissimus Deus
**
Pope St. Pius X ** “Nothing would please us more than to see our beloved children form the habit of reading the Gospels - not merely from time to time, but every day.”
Pope Benedict XV Ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." He expressed his desire that, “… all the children of the Church, especially clerics, to reverence the Holy Scriptures, to read it piously and meditate on it constantly.” He reminded them that, “…in these pages is to be sought that food, by which the spiritual life is nourished unto perfection…”

**Pope Pius XII ** In 1943 he wrote, “Divino Afflante Spiritu” “Our predecessors, when the opportunity occurred, recommended the study or preaching or in fine the pious reading and meditation of the sacred Scriptures.This author of salvation, Christ, will men more fully know, more ardently love and more faithfully imitate in proportion as they are more assiduously urged to know and meditate the Sacred Letters, especially the New Testament…”

Indulgences have been repeatedly granted by the Church to encourage reading scripture.

The expulsion of the Church from Japan had absolutely noting to do with the denial of ancestor worship. Actually the Church in Japan introduced both Buddhist and Shinto elements into the faith to aid in the evangelization of the people. They were actually successful. Very successful. So successful in fact that the Japanese leaders became convinced that the western powers, Spain and Portugal primarily, intended to subjugate and conquer the country with the missionary activities of the Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans being the first step of a coordinated effort. The rulers began a relentless persecution of Christianity sometime in the late 1500’s. .Somewhere around 300,000 converts and missionaries were tortured and between 3000 and 7000 martyred. The cities of Nagasaki and Edo were apparently the centers of these persecutions. Crucifictions and burning alive were favored ways to execute the converts and missionaries. In 1626, ALL Christianity was banned, not only Catholicism.

True there are pastoral councils. Often these result in hopelessly deadlocked debates on minutae and political correctness. I somehow doubt the Holy Father debated with a pastoral council before implementing his recent actions. Nor should he. He knows a lot more about the subject than do you or I. And so do most Bishops and Priests. Problems arise when the laity thinks it can do a better job than can the clergy in running the Church.

For those who have problems with the pre Vatican II Church, you need to take off the blinders that the promoters or revisionist history have placed on your eyes and see what really happened and the way things really were.

 

[Malkin71]

I’m just beginning to learn about Catholicism. I’ve been reading all the books I can, and I’ve recently been learning about the changes that took place after the Second Vatican Council.

I’m wondering what the average Catholic thinks about these changes. A good thing? Bad? Both?

Thank you!
Heather

I was born in the year that the O.F. Mass was put into use. I grew up in the Post VII atmosphere. When I was growing up I was taught that VII was about the Mass was in English no more in Latin. That the old Mass was same as the new Mass except that it was in English.

While in school we had Religion Class not Catechism. I can remember my Grandmother looking at my Religion book in the 8th grade pointing to a picture of a boxer in a boxing match saying, “this should not be in a religion book”. The reason why it was there was because the picture said we should fight the fight between good and evil. She also mentioned that we should be learning about the early history of the church and the Saints.

She was right. Besides my family making sure to pass on the Catholic teachings only 3 years that I learned about my faith was in 5t 6th and 7th grade. In 5th grade I had a nun teach us about Fatima and Saints. 6th Grade I learned more about the traditional prayers and more devotion to the Rosary. In 7th grade I was drilled in a crash style, cliff notes version of the Baltimore Catechism.

Since the Advent of the Internet and finding books on Catholicism I have taught and reeducated myself on my Faith. I am thankful for my family and the years that I did get a good education. I wish the education style of old Baltimore Catechism was not taken out of the Catholic School System. Also I felt I was robbed of not being taught Latin in school. The only time We had a choice to learn a foreign language was in high school was a choice of Spanish or French.

In my opinion through my 12 years of Catholic schooling. I believe VII did do harm to the schools.

 

[Malkin71]

Maybe its time for Vatican III?

I would not want that. Given the State of the USSCB of their seal on the voting guide to Catholics in the Fall. I would be afraid of the outcome. Also with the Bishop from Germany stating that “Christ did not die for our sins” I o would not want a VIII. I would rather have The Holy Father have a reform of the reform and change the O.F. to reflect on the E.F. and make the ruberics more strict. Demand a stop to all the “Clown Masses”. Make all the Bishops answer to the Holy Father and make it know to the Priests and the laity.

 

[Hesychios]

I would not want that. Given the State of the USSCB…

Is it your opinion that the episcopal ranks of the church are somehow flawed?

Have they lost their ability to speak as the teaching authority?

 

[Malkin71]

Is it your opinion that the episcopal ranks of the church are somehow flawed?

Have they lost their ability to speak as the teaching authority?

It is sad to say not all but a majority of the ranks I will say Yes.

 

[Ockham]

I’m really confused by the relevance of this. I’ve not seen anyone here advocating going back and doing what was done in the early home-based liturgies.

Can I ask you a direct question though? You have a couple times now brought up the idea of creating a “modernist” forum. In those posts, along with several others there is always an association of the Pauline Mass with all manner of heterodox beliefs, even ignoring the fact that “modernism” is a specific defined heresy. Are you truly of the belief that all of us who prefer the Pauline Mass are just a bunch of heretics and that, in opposition to what the Pope has declared, the TLM has some kind of objective superiority? I’m just really trying to get a grasp on why there is such antagonism for other’s liturgical preferences.

Peace,

My comment about the sandals is in reference to your defence of the NO Mass resembling the earliest Masses. I agree that Jesus did not preside over a Tridentine Mass on Holy Thursday. It’s also true that the Tridentine Mass evolved over the centuries. The difference is that what took centuries to evolve was replaced by something penned by Bugnini that was a radical change in liturgical history. Further complicating this issue is that Bugnini’s Mass was to be in Latin, ad orientum, and free of the abuses we’ve seen since.

What was the reason Bugnini’s Mass was created? How did it get modified? Why was the Tridentine Mass effectively banned? How did this happen when the Council of Trent codified the Tridentine Mass? There is nothing in the documents from Vatican II to have initiated this liturgical chaos.

While many people prefer the NO Mass I can’t go along with the claims that it is just as reverent as the Tridentine. The differences are too clear: the number of prayers, genuflections, signs of the cross, reverent silence, ritual, etc, etc. The Tridentine is a re-creation of Calvary; the NO Mass is a communal supper. The Tridentine best reflects the Catholic Church; the NO Mass is an ecumenical gesture to the Protestant off-shoots.

As Catholics we have a duty to defend the Church. Institutional change does not always happen suddenly. A large number of small changes can add up to one sudden change and we might not have noticed anything diferent. For example, Communion in hand was considered a heresy by all Catholics at one time. Then one by one, parishes in Europe began adopting this Protestant practice. Eventually it spread and the Vatican was forced to allow it through an indult. Now, Communion in hand is the only way most children are taught prior to their First Communion. If enough people spoke up during the early days we’d probably still have altar rails.

Have you ever heard of the boiled frog analogy? It goes that if you place a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will immediately jump out. Conversely, if you place a frog in a pot of room temperature water it will stay there. Then gradually you can increase the temperature to boiling; the frog won’t notice the difference in temperature and soon die. If Saint Thomas Aquanus walked into a NO Mass in California would he recognize it as Catholic?

I still remember the first time I ever heard someone make a distinction of left versus right wing in the Catholic Church. My reaction was to think of that person as a zealot and a little offended by the suggestion of polemics in Christ’s universal flock. As I got more involved in the parish the distinction started becoming clearer. There is indeed a left wing, or modernist element in the Catholic Church. These are the people who brought us Communion in hand, ad populus, clamshell architecture and promote other innovations like liturgical dance and female ordination. By definition a modernist is always looking for something new to implement. If these trends continue will any of us recognize the Mass as Catholic?

 

[Ockham]

I was born in the year that the O.F. Mass was put into use. I grew up in the Post VII atmosphere. When I was growing up I was taught that VII was about the Mass was in English no more in Latin. That the old Mass was same as the new Mass except that it was in English.

While in school we had Religion Class not Catechism. I can remember my Grandmother looking at my Religion book in the 8th grade pointing to a picture of a boxer in a boxing match saying, “this should not be in a religion book”. The reason why it was there was because the picture said we should fight the fight between good and evil. She also mentioned that we should be learning about the early history of the church and the Saints.

She was right. Besides my family making sure to pass on the Catholic teachings only 3 years that I learned about my faith was in 5t 6th and 7th grade. In 5th grade I had a nun teach us about Fatima and Saints. 6th Grade I learned more about the traditional prayers and more devotion to the Rosary. In 7th grade I was drilled in a crash style, cliff notes version of the Baltimore Catechism.

Since the Advent of the Internet and finding books on Catholicism I have taught and reeducated myself on my Faith. I am thankful for my family and the years that I did get a good education. I wish the education style of old Baltimore Catechism was not taken out of the Catholic School System. Also I felt I was robbed of not being taught Latin in school. The only time We had a choice to learn a foreign language was in high school was a choice of Spanish or French.

In my opinion through my 12 years of Catholic schooling. I believe VII did do harm to the schools.

Wow. My story is nearly identical. I was born the year before Bugnini’s Mass became the standard and only knew the post-V2 Church for most of my life. My parish was one of the first clamshell designs. When I found a picture of a Masonic lodge I nearly fainted. My home parish was identical. To think I used to sit up high as an altar server, near the centre of attention - the priest, horrifies me.

My education has also come from the information available on-line. A friend talked me into opening up a Facebook account. It’s primary value is to keep in touch with distant friends and family. One day on the radio I heard of a Pope Benedict XVI fan club on Facebook and so I joined it when I got home. From that club I saw another related called “Traditional Catholics for the Latin Mass”. Discovering the Latin Mass and pre-V2 Church has been both inspiring and frustrating. My personal spirituality has been greatly increased by the Latin Mass and knowledge of the traditional Church, yet knowledge of the modernist agenda worries me deeply.

 

[KC91]

The opinion of the average Catholic? Well, my two cents was that there was both some good and some bad, I personally like and prefer Latin, but no matter what even if we disagree with them, we must obey the decisions of the Holy Father and the men in Rome as they know much more about Catholicism than we do, no matter how hard we try, and because they have the holy spirit and power passed down to them by the apostles and Jesus.

 

[Ockham]

Here’s the second reading from yesterday’s Liturgy of the Hours - the feast of St. Mark. My comments are in green.

From the treatise Against Heresies by Saint Irenaeus, bishop
Preaching truth

The Church, which has spread everywhere, even to the ends of the earth, received the faith from the apostles and their disciplesthe deposit of faith - not private interpretation]. By faith, we believe in one God, the almighty Father who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them. We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became man for our salvation. And we believe in the Holy Spirit who through the prophets foretold God’s plan: the coming of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, his birth from the Virgin, his passion, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension into heaven, and his final coming from heaven in the glory of his Father, to recapitulate all things and to raise all men from the dead, so that, by the decree of his invisible Father, he may make a just judgement in all things and so that every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth to Jesus Christ our Lord and our God, our Saviour and our King, and every tongue confess him.

The Church, spread throughout the whole world, received this preaching and this faith and now preserves it carefully, dwelling as it were in one housepreserve, universa]. Having one soul and one heart, the Church holds this faith, preaches and teaches it consistently as though by a single voice. For though there are different languages, there is but one tradition.

The faith and the tradition of the churches founded in Germany are no different from those founded among the Spanish and the Celts, in the East, in Egypt, in Libya and elsewhere in the Mediterranean worldnot true today unfortunately]. Just as God’s creature, the sun, is one and the same the world over, so also does the Church’s preaching shine everywhere to enlighten all men who want to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Now of those who speak with authority in the churches, no preacher however forceful will utter anything different – for no one is above the Master – nor will a less forceful preacher diminish what has been handed downno liturgical innovation]. Since our faith is everywhere the same, no one who can say more augments it, nor can anyone who says less diminish it. this is Church teaching, not local parish liturgical committee rulings]

 

[ncjohn]

That you for your response Ockham though you really never did answer my main question of whether you consider all who prefer the Pauline Mass to be mondernists and heretics. I get the impression you do from your multiple posts associating the two along with the one complaining that the thread had been overrun by liberals promoting heterodox agendas, for which I have not been able to find a single example.

My comment about the sandals is in reference to your defence of the NO Mass resembling the earliest Masses.

I have never, here or anywhere else, made any such claim that the Pauline Mass resembles the earliest Masses. The only comment I have made is that there is little essential difference between the Pauline Mass and the TLM and Eastern Liturgies, and that all of them have the same essential elements present just as the early liturgies from which they developed did.

It is disconcerting to me that some here seem to act as if the TLM is the only liturgy that ever existed and that it was absolutely pristine and untouched by change. The truth is that the Roman Church has not at any time in its history had only one liturgical rite being used. Even after Trent and the codification of the Mass of Pius V there were other liturgical rites in use and that Mass itself has been modified numerous times through the ages. There is such a selective love of “tradition” as to at times almost seem like idolatry of the form over the function of the Mass.

I agree that Jesus did not preside over a Tridentine Mass on Holy Thursday. It’s also true that the Tridentine Mass evolved over the centuries.

Ok, something we agree on.

The difference is that what took centuries to evolve was replaced by something penned by Bugnini that was a radical change in liturgical history. Further complicating this issue is that Bugnini’s Mass was to be in Latin, ad orientum, and free of the abuses we’ve seen since.

Again I would state that this “radical change” is only in the minds of those who seem unable to allow anyone else the right to a preference in which liturgy they prefer. Relatively minor changes have been made out to be some kind of foundational change with an agenda to try to discredit Vatican II. The Web is full of sites promoting this “truth” that has been heard so many times now that it is simply accepted as “gospel” by some.

Your contention that it was to be in Latin and *ad orientum *is not true, at least in light of the documents. SC specifically addressed that the vernacular would likely be used at the least in specified places and possibly in others at the discretion of the episcopal conferences. Being ad orientum is not addressed anywhere in the documents that I can recall. And whether the liturgy was “penned” primarily by some individual is irrelevant. It was approved by the commission set up to develop it and licitly promulgated by the Pope.

Have there been some abuses? Sure there have but there were tons of them before Vatican II also. One cannot reasonably damn a liturgy over abuses though as there will always be some who want to substitute their own judgment over what is called for. The answer to abuses is to locate them and eliminate them which has been an ongoing project.

While many people prefer the NO Mass I can’t go along with the claims that it is just as reverent as the Tridentine. The differences are too clear: the number of prayers, genuflections, signs of the cross, reverent silence, ritual, etc, etc. The Tridentine is a re-creation of Calvary; the NO Mass is a communal supper. The Tridentine best reflects the Catholic Church; the NO Mass is an ecumenical gesture to the Protestant off-shoots.

I guess you are certainly entitled to your opinion and preference, however much it may be at odds with the Pope’s and the Church’s. As long as you don’t try to proclaim it as “objective truth” I have no issue with your preference.

For example, Communion in hand was considered a heresy by all Catholics at one time. Then one by one, parishes in Europe began adopting this Protestant practice. Eventually it spread and the Vatican was forced to allow it through an indult. Now, Communion in hand is the only way most children are taught prior to their First Communion. If enough people spoke up during the early days we’d probably still have altar rails.

The Vatican forced to allow something?? Please! Perhaps their judgment was wrong on this. I wouldn’t personally care if CITH disappeared tomorrow. But if you really think that a Church that stood up to contraception when it would have been much easier to cave in light of the commission’s recommendations was too weak to say no to CITH if they really thought it was a problem, I have to wonder.

(continued)

 

[ncjohn]

(continued from previous)

I still remember the first time I ever heard someone make a distinction of left versus right wing in the Catholic Church. My reaction was to think of that person as a zealot and a little offended by the suggestion of polemics in Christ’s universal flock. As I got more involved in the parish the distinction started becoming clearer. There is indeed a left wing, or modernist element in the Catholic Church. These are the people who brought us Communion in hand, ad populus, clamshell architecture and promote other innovations like liturgical dance and female ordination. By definition a modernist is always looking for something new to implement. If these trends continue will any of us recognize the Mass as Catholic?

I don’t disagree with you that there is a modernist element to the Church, and that is worrisome. It is just as worrisome though that there are those on the other extreme who are unable to acknowledge the good things that came from V2 and feel the need to discredit it and proclaim it to be the “worst thing that ever happened to the Church.” There is a liberal-biased “spirit of Vatican II” that seeks to constantly change the Church, but there is also a traditionalist-biased “spirit of Vatican II” that seeks to deny that the same Holy Spirit that inspired the other 20 councils also inspired this one and then seeks to divide Catholics against each other over supposed contradictions and differences the Church says do not exist.

Both are a problem and both damage the unity of the Body of Christ. How do we find the way to work together to bring the Body together rather than further splintering it?

Peace,

 

[CradleCath]

You want to know what happened at Vatican II?

The site you linked us to is either an SSPX or Sedevacantist site. An excerpt:

   Heretic antipope Benedict XVI (writing as Jospeh ‘Cardinal’ Ratzinger): The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,

No true, traditional Catholic would EVER indulge in such rhetoric. Please quit presenting yourselves as Catholic, because you aren’t. You are in schism & have left the Church for a false one that belittles the successor of St. Peter.

 

[CradleCath]

The site you linked us to is either an SSPX or Sedevacantist site. An excerpt:

   Heretic antipope Benedict XVI (writing as Jospeh ‘Cardinal’ Ratzinger): The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,

No true, traditional Catholic would EVER indulge in such rhetoric. Please quit presenting yourselves as Catholic, because you aren’t. You are in schism & have left the Church for a false one that belittles the successor of St. Peter.

BTW. I’m a traditional CATHOLIC & I am not particularly fond of the way that the documents of Vat. II were interpreted, nor the very ambiguity of said documents. I despise seeing a priest dressed up as Barney while saying Mass. I find it very sad that our Churches were wrecked & that people feel that they are “degraded” by kneeling & receiving Christ on their tongue. Etc, ETC. I also believe that the council, if neccessary at all, was neccessary because of inner struggles with European “theologians” & radical Catholic clergy. However, it was a valid council…led by a valid Pope. The Popes who have come after John XXIII are valid Popes, elected by those present at the Conclaves .