Vatican II

[edwest2]

To sum up things so far in an impersonal manner:

Regardless of what Vatican II did or did not say, the vast majority of Catholics have been told that Vatican II was a watershed “win” for the “liberals” of the Church. They have no reason not to believe this because as far as they can perceive with their senses, this is absolutely true, and here perception is just as important as reality.

Vatican II’s tainted zeitgeist is slowly being killed, and even the “liberals” agree; pop on to NCR sometime and you can almost hear the groans. Almost everyone of an orthodox-leaning persuasion–and I grant that there is a stratum here–agrees that Vatican II has been grossly misinterpreted. The difference is that some also believe that the next logical step, that it has been grossly misapplied, is also true, while others do not.

There is also disagreement over whether or not the letter of what the Council said in some places was prudent, and whether what some would consider problematic areas should be redacted in practice–effectively ignored, which the readership is reminded does have precedent–even if it actually is part of what the Council actually said.

Furthermore, there is significant disagreement on whether or not this misinterpretation and potential misapplication has been bad or not and whether it should be rectified at all. There is also significant disagreement on why it happened in the first place.

Perhaps most importantly there is vehement disagreement on what, exactly, Vatican II was intended to do in the first place: embrace modernism or, as some say, embrace modernism to ultimately condemn modernism.

I believe this is a sensible and quite honest assessment of the overall post-Conciliar historical theme of the situation, in a manner of speaking.

First, it was the “liberals” and dissidents with the loudest voices that presented this idea most strongly and certainly not the Church. In the 1960s, we were taught obedience and lived in strong Catholic communities and we loved and trusted our priests and nuns.

I was there before and after Vatican II. I obeyed when the Mass went to the vernacular. I obeyed when the priest said Mass facing the people. I did not love God less after the Council.

Only the dissidents inside and outside the Church kept on repeating the lie that Vatican II and the meaningless “Spirit of Vatican II” caused anything.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

A booklet was published in 1962 titled “The 2nd Vatican Council” by The America Press. From this booklet, the following is by Father Donald R. Campion. He refers to Pope John XXIII’s encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram issued on June 29, 1959. This encyclical appeared just a few moths after the Pope’s announcement of his plan for holding a council.

“In it, the Pope stated that ‘the most pressing topics will be those which concern the spread of the Catholic faith, the revival of Christian standards of morality and the bringing of ecclesiastical discipline into closer accord with the needs and conditions of our times.’”

"… in the Apostolic Constitution Humanae Salutis (December 25, 1961) … John XXIII also indicated the spirit in which the Church under his leadership would approach this labor:

‘The upcoming ecumenical council will be held … [three dots in original] at a moment when the Church is caught up by an ever more consuming desire to restore and fortify its faith, to draw renewal of spirit from contemplating the image of its own remarkable unity. It likewise experiences a quickening sense of its duty not only to increase the efficiency of its life-giving efforts and advance the sanctification of its members, but also to further the diffusion of revealed truth and update all its other activities.’"

Father Campion also states that “… the reform in the context of the Second Vatican Council will mean evolution rather than revolution.”

---

Keep in mind that the “Baby Boomers,” those born between 1946 to 1964, had increased the population, and some already had their Confirmation by 1962.

Peace,
Ed

 

[sw85]

I would not presume to know your personal diposition. I am responding to your post.
These words in particular represent an attitude I am trying to contrast:

“”**What I’m saying are errors **are the strategies the conciliar and postconciliar Church adopted…""

I prefer to simply accept with obedience all the Church teaches, whether I think it is erroneous or not. If my bishop says his priests can wear sandals and cutoffs and long hair, I’ll show up at Mass and be reverent before almighty God. If the Pope rebukes him and requires the Latin Mass tomorrow, same difference, I’m going. I’m not finding errors and problems and attending a Parish 30 miles away or worse.

Does anyone stop to contemplate the divine in the council? Is it just possible that the language is challenging and seemingly ambiguous by God’s design? What higher purpose can come of the documents of V2 that maybe is being overlooked?

OK. There is really not a lot of daylight between us. What I’m saying is that I don’t like the mess but I accept it and do my part in it. I’m not obliged to like the mess, just to accept it, so that’s what I’m doing.

Does it have to be either/or? I think it’s more subtle than that. First of all modern times is not necessarily equal to modernist heresy. Modernist heresy has existed in the Church for over a century! And it’s an an enemy from within. I suspect the true enemy of the modern world is less modernism and is rather secularism that leads to a rudderless unchurched society.

I think also there are other factors. For one, the recognition that the Church was becoming less Euro-centric with rapid growth outside Europe and Europe’s child cultures. That perhaps a wider less Eurocentric vision was needed to avoid the taint of cultural imperialism

To look at it entirely through the lens of modernist heresy is, I think, to miss the point of Vatican II entirely.

When we talk about modernity as an historical epoch, we generally mean the 17th century onwards, i.e., post-medievality. In its strictest sense, “modernity” is thought to have begun around 1905, which still encompasses the rise of modernism. Of course we mean different things when we talk about “modernism” and “modernity” – the former is an ideological bastardization of the latter. But it’s not a very interesting objection, because the former is what makes the latter objectionable. That includes secularism.

 

[aragonjohn1]

None of the changes commonly blamed on Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

There were dissidents inside the Church in the 1960s and 1970s.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html

Pope Benedict regarding the Latin Mass:

"My dear Brother Bishops,

"With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

"News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

"This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”

Full document here:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Peace,
Ed

God bless You !!!

Shalom

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

The danger with the Vatican II documents is that:

1. Some/All are loosely worded, thus …
2. They can be interpreted conservatively or liberally.

Some say:

1. They are infallible. You must obey what they say AND assent that they are infallible pronouncements. You may not debate them.

Problem: Assuming 3 is correct, go back to 2. What interpretation do you obey?

In practice, I think populist masses and doctrine-lite are going to go down the sacrarium of history, but it won’t happen fast enough for trads. Once you ‘get’ that you are supposed to be kneeling at the foot of the Cross of Calvary at Mass, the novelties look well out of place.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Some recent thoughts from our Holy Father.

 

[pnewton]

The danger with the Vatican II documents is that:

1. Some/All are loosely worded, thus …
2. They can be interpreted conservatively or liberally.

Some say:

1. They are infallible. You must obey what they say AND assent that they are infallible pronouncements. You may not debate them.

Two of the documents are dogmatic constitutions. I would say that the answer to you question is that one listens to what the Church teaches instead of attempting to teach the Church.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Some recent thoughts from our Holy Father.

But alas, no clarification that V2 = vernacular masses versus populum, in obedience.

 

[clem456]

The danger with the Vatican II documents is that:

1. Some/All are loosely worded, thus …
2. They can be interpreted conservatively or liberally.

Some say:

1. They are infallible. You must obey what they say AND assent that they are infallible pronouncements. You may not debate them.

Problem: Assuming 3 is correct, go back to 2. What interpretation do you obey?

I really like this statement which is from Augustine by way of paraphrase from Benedict Goreschel:
“If you find a God you think you understand, you’ve built yourself an idol".

I trust the Holy Spirit working through the Church, even when teaching is confusing and seemngly ambiguous. Like the Trinity…completely absurd to human reason, yet the relationship of Father Son and Holy Spirit is real and manifests itself.

In practice, I think populist masses and doctrine-lite are going to go down the sacrarium of history, but it won’t happen fast enough for trads. Once you ‘get’ that you are supposed to be kneeling at the foot of the Cross of Calvary at Mass, the novelties look well out of place

.

Would we recognize Calvary? If we recognized it would we hang around, or head down the street for something more suitable to our tastes?
Or would we be unwilling to accept the uglilness and failure of it all, and take flight like most of the disciples?

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Would we recognize Calvary? If we recognized it would we hang around, or head down the street for something more suitable to our tastes?
Or would we be unwilling to accept the uglilness and failure of it all, and take flight like most of the disciples?

I think we should keep our personalities out of the rite and attend in silence and humility.

It would be nice if modern Catholics realised that the old rite is a vehicle which can transmit the faith across centuries and nations, untainted by local whimsy.

 

[clem456]

I think we should keep our personalities out of the rite and attend in silence and humility.

It would be nice if modern Catholics realised that the old rite is a vehicle which can transmit the faith across centuries and nations, untainted by local whimsy.

Yes indeed. I assume you’re including “new rite” as well as “old rite” as vehicles for transmitting the faith.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Some recent thoughts from our Holy Father.

Pope Benedict has always been and likely always will be deeply formed by and devoted to Vatican II. He was a peritus and his entire career as a cleric has been almost inextricably bound up in that Council (not really in a bad way, like many, however). It is natural good that he has nice reminiscences and thoughts about the historic time of it. However, I think he also acknowledges that it is not beyond criticism, and he has afforded a great deal of his own to the Council, both in word and action.

 

[pnewton]

It would be nice if modern Catholics realised that the old rite is a vehicle which can transmit the faith across centuries and nations, untainted by local whimsy.

*Catholics *(labeling is too close to name-calling for my liking) recognize that what has sustained the Church is God Almighty, not any rite. The Mass is the vehicle. However, it is the presence in the vehicle that brings us grace in healing, not the vehicle itself. Thus the Mass (old rite, new rite, Eastern rite, Latin rite) is a Sacrament because of the Holy Sacrament, not the particular rite.

 

[PRmerger]

The danger with the Vatican II documents is that:

1. Some/All are loosely worded, thus …
2. They can be interpreted conservatively or liberally.

Some say:

1. They are infallible. You must obey what they say AND assent that they are infallible pronouncements. You may not debate them.

Problem: Assuming 3 is correct, go back to 2. What interpretation do you obey?

You obey the Church’s interpretation of the documents.

 

[YoungTradCath]

You obey the Church’s interpretation of the documents.

But what is it? That’s the point.

 

[PRmerger]

But what is it? That’s the point.

So what’s the specific question, and then I can direct you to the Magisterial document that addresses that.

 

[YoungTradCath]

So what’s the specific question, and then I can direct you to the Magisterial document that addresses that.

Is there a comprehensive explanation, from a Magisterial source, that explains Vatican II in an interpretative way? As far as I can tell, there is not. We can piece things together, but that is about it.

 

[PRmerger]

Is there a comprehensive explanation, from a Magisterial source, that explains Vatican II in an interpretative way? As far as I can tell, there is not. We can piece things together, but that is about it.

'zactly, YTC. Exactly.

That’s why we have the Church, right? (Well, one of the reasons, anyway. )

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

*Catholics *(labeling is too close to name-calling for my liking) recognize that what has sustained the Church is God Almighty, not any rite. The Mass is the vehicle. However, it is the presence in the vehicle that brings us grace in healing, not the vehicle itself. Thus the Mass (old rite, new rite, Eastern rite, Latin rite) is a Sacrament because of the Holy Sacrament, not the particular rite.

Well, that’s not saying much. God requires worship. It must have an earthly form. What form does this take? One form is the Roman Catholic mass.

Now, given that we have this rite, what do we do in it? A free for all? Obviously not, if for no other reason than a rite has to have a form and rules of behaviour.

So we have a formal rite.

Then we come to what it should look and sound like. Is someone being killed, even symbolically, in this rite? Is this an offering to a god? Then why the syrup and the smiles?

Up to 1970, we have a fine one with many pious prayers and beautiful music which a shy priest and a lukewarm congegration could do just as well, outwardly, as a fervent priest and a pious congregation. A pious person in a lukewarm congregation could go to the first type of mass and not have their peace disturbed. There wasn’t much room for the kind of personal expression that makes Catholics, who know a bit about the rubrics, wonder what’s going on.

The modern rite only makes sense as a response to excessive formalism and restriction. This, (if it ever existed as widespread as purported by the revolutionaries), is now long gone. For younger people, who are living in a vicious, post-revolutionary society, where they can self-indulge as much as they like, the continuous exhorations to rejoice and celebrate ring hollow.

There must be a return to rigour, ‘clericalism’ and hierarchy, if only that some body on this earth sets a high standard for the rest to to follow. The Church has a serious mission: to save souls at the command of the King Of Justice.

On a banal level, as students, we boys never liked the teacher who wanted to come down to our level. We respected those that were confident in themselves and wanted to bring us up to theirs.

 

[clem456]

Well, that’s not saying much. God requires worship. It must have an earthly form. What form does this take? One form is the Roman Catholic mass.

Our worship of God is part of the virtue of justice. Worship belongs to God, it is right and just.

Now, given that we have this rite, what do we do in it? A free for all? Obviously not, if for no other reason than a rite has to have a form and rules of behaviour.

So we have a formal rite.

Yes we do. The Church outlines what the rite is, what is acceptable and what is not. Discipline belongs to Church authority.

Then we come to what it should look and sound like. Is someone being killed, even symbolically, in this rite? Is this an offering to a god? Then why the syrup and the smiles?

Christ died once, for all. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice in an unbloody manner. People experience different emotions. Does the particular experience of joy or happiness detract from Christ’s sacrifice? Must we sit horrified and downcast at the representation of our salvation? Who are we to judge someone’s joy as irreverence? Now we are into personal tastes and opinions.

Up to 1970, we have a fine one with many pious prayers and beautiful music which a shy priest and a lukewarm congegration could do just as well, outwardly, as a fervent priest and a pious congregation. A pious person in a lukewarm congregation could go to the first type of mass and not have their peace disturbed. There wasn’t much room for the kind of personal expression that makes Catholics, who know a bit about the rubrics, wonder what’s going on.

A fine one? Kind of like a suit of clothes? The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass always stands on it’s own as a reality. There is not a fine one and a not-so-fine one. Even if you prefer “your” Mass, you should not denigrate the Mass period. You are insinuating that everyday Catholics of today are not pious and that the music is not reverent. Please stop. It is insulting to other Catholics and to the ministers that devote their lives to the Church in these areas. Again, you are imposing your tastes, which are perfectly fine, on everyone else. The Mass is not holy or reverent because of your tastes.

I really wonder when a Catholic sees a Mass form as disturbing his peace. The Mass should certainly contribute personal peace and well being but should also be found among the community, between people. To the disciples (plural): ““Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your hearts be troubled, nor be afraid.””

The modern rite only makes sense as a response to excessive formalism and restriction. This, (if it ever existed as widespread as purported by the revolutionaries), is now long gone. For younger people, who are living in a vicious, post-revolutionary society, where they can self-indulge as much as they like, the continuous exhorations to rejoice and celebrate ring hollow

.

Catholics are rejoicing and celebrating, and it is not hollow. They are not revolutionaries, they are just Catholics. Conservative liberal etc etc. Whatever labels you’d like to pin on them. The rejoicing and celebrating will go on. Will you join?

There must be a return to rigour, ‘clericalism’ and hierarchy, if only that some body on this earth sets a high standard for the rest to to follow. The Church has a serious mission: to save souls at the command of the King Of Justice.

On a banal level, as students, we boys never liked the teacher who wanted to come down to our level. We respected those that were confident in themselves and wanted to bring us up to theirs.

You mean like Christ? Who dared to take on common human flesh, dined with mere sinners and taught them, and suffered an inglorious human death? Fortunately for us, Christ comes down to our level, and lifts us up to his. Can we try and emulate Him?

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Again, you are imposing your tastes, which are perfectly fine, on everyone else. The Mass is not holy or reverent because of your tastes.

It is rather that the local priest and his helpers are now free to impose their tastes upon me.

A mass is reverent based opon objective, dispassionate standards. ‘That’s just your opinion’, (a weak rejoinder often used on here), is a short step away from relativism. In the past, it was assumed that Catholics knew what reverence is. The were raised to it. That is not so, now.

I would like to see a solemn, reverent, quiet Mass, with beautiful prayers and Chant, said by-the-book, in every parish in the West on a Sunday. The old rite offers the opportunity to do this, ready-made.