What do you make of this Benedict XVI and Vatican II

[carnes88]

Ten years after the Council, Cardinal Ratzinger had the following sad commentary on its implementation (“Ratzinger Report,” p. 29-30), “It is incontestable that the last ten years have been decidedly unfavorable for the Catholic Church. Developments since the Council seem to be in striking contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI… What the Popes and the Council Fathers were expecting was a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension which — to use the words of Paul VI — seems to have passed over from self-criticism to self-destruction. There had been the expectation of a new enthusiasm, and instead too often it has ended in boredom and discouragement. There had been the expectation of a step forward, and instead one found oneself facing a progressive process of decadence that to a large measure has been unfolding under the sign of a summons to a presumed ‘spirit of the Council’ and by so doing has actually and increasingly discredited it.”

 

[basinite]

Yes, Vatican II was a disaster.

Next question please…

 

[FightingFat]

I think it’s too early to be sure. I mean, I agree with what Papa Ratzinger says in that statement, but having studied the documents, it is hard to understand, as a 40 year old Catholic loyal to the Magisterium, how so much was twisted so badly.

I think history shows us that after a great council there is often a wobble this way then the other way, and I have faith that the Holy Spirit is in charge, and will guide us where He wants us to go. We have to have faith and pray that we authentically interpret God’s will for us and His Church.

 

[MsgrPlante]

Benedict XVI is probably the last “Council Father” who is still in active ministry. He was 34 years old when he served at the council as a peritus to the Archbishop of Cologne. I believe he is committed to the Council, and indeed is gearing up for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Council. Why else would he schedule a Synod of Bishops to discuss “The New Evangelization” on the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Council? It is of no use to dismiss the “spirit” of the Council if you are not going to read the “Letter” of the Council. Read the Documents and you will see the vision that the Fathers had and realize how much the New Evangelization is about a call to Catholics to live that vision in the world today.

 

[laszlo]

The real question should be: do the documents of the XXI Ecumenical council support the following development, the so called ‘Spirit’ of Vatican II?

The answer to this question is no.

The XXI Ecumenical council redefined the Concept of the Church under the hierarchy. Abusing the Spirit of Vatican II either liberal or traditionalist laymen believe that they are the appointed judges.

The XXI Ecumenical council ordered only minor changes related to the liturgy, most of them accomplished by 1967 (adoremus.org/Interoecumenici.html and adoremus.org/TresAbhinc.html) abusing the spirit of Vatican II the self appointed judges either rewrite everything or deny the legality of any change.

The XXI Ecumenical council acted under the strict guidance of the Holy Spirit on the same way as the previous 20 Ecumenical councils did. It helped the church. The abusive human pride, the self appointed rulemakers and judges make the harm.

 

[RSD]

I have two thoughts on this.

First: If someone is very ill with a tumor, the immediate medical treatment, surgery and radiation, is very likely to make the patient seem sicker than they were before medical treatment began. However, that actually is part of the healing process.

Second: We know from Scripture and from many lives of saints that when a person makes a new and deeper commitment to live out God’s call they are very likely to be assailed with unprecedented difficulties and temptations. I believe that the same is likely to be true of the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

The XXI Ecumenical council ordered only minor changes related to the liturgy, most of them accomplished by 1967 …

But one could use the argument that today’s Latin OF, celebrated with the pipe organ and Gregorian chant of course, is in line with the documents of the Council as well. Or at least it should be the PRIMARY form, allowing for some vernacular in those areas where that may prove to be of advantage (i.e, where there exist illiterates, perhaps?)

However, the documents weren’t isolated and also dealt with ecumenism and collegiality. These were the deeper issues; at least this is what I read from the SSPX-Vatican talks.

 

[laszlo]

However, the documents weren’t isolated and also dealt with ecumenism and collegiality. These were the deeper issues; at least this is what I read from the SSPX-Vatican talks.

Ecumenism:
The Jews in the Old Testament were restrictive: primarily only the Jews are saved, and everyone else is saved through them. Jesus Christ broke this restriction, and expanded his religion to the whole world, as the first example of the ecumenism. His principle did not changed: the Christianity is for everyone, we shall embrace everyone instead of restrict ourselves from the world.

Collegiality:
This is the meaning of the Ecumenical councils: the bishops together, the college of the bishops. The Trinitarian and Christological dogmas, as well as the dogmas related to the grace or papal infallibility were defined by ecumenical councils, not by individual popes. Nothing changed in the 20th Century related to the role of the collegium of the bishops, the ecumenical councils.

In this points also the self appointed agents and judges are causing harm, not the XXI Ecumenical Council which acted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Catholicpotato]

I think history shows us that after a great council there is often a wobble this way then the other way, and I have faith that the Holy Spirit is in charge, and will guide us where He wants us to go.

I have often heard this in defense of V2, but does history really show us that? I am really asking the question, I dont know I just know that it is something people say and others nod their heads… After say, the council of nicea was there a shift of taking the creed too far?

It interests me. Sometimes I think it is just a way to excuse some inexcusable things.

 

[Irish_Polock]

I have often wondered, what would a preconciliar Pope think if he was to attend a OF Mass of today. I am thinking, that they would certainly be in shock.

 

[OraLabora]

But one could use the argument that today’s Latin OF, celebrated with the pipe organ and Gregorian chant of course, is in line with the documents of the Council as well. Or at least it should be the PRIMARY form, allowing for some vernacular in those areas where that may prove to be of advantage (i.e, where there exist illiterates, perhaps?)

And perhaps in countries which do not have a language that has any connection to Latin. For instance, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, many African languages. In these areas Latin is a very real obstacle.

I have often wondered, what would a preconciliar Pope think if he was to attend a OF Mass of today. I am thinking, that they would certainly be in shock.

If they attended a properly celebrated OF Mass like the one I attend each Sunday, they most certainly would not be shocked, they would clearly see the connection to the Mass they know. They might get a little lost here and there in the flow of things, but it would not be foreign to them, and they would be able to sing along with the Gregorian chant. Now if they attended a happy-clappy Mass somewhere you’re probably right, but I’ll wager that any Mass said or sung in the Vatican, and in many Benedictine monasteries, would not seem foreign to them.

 

[PA650]

The following interview with Dr. Alice von Hildebrand is worthwhile regarding an assessment of the Second Vatican Council:

latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SU_Hildebran.html

One point worth mentioning is that I am no apologist for the Second Vatican Council, yet I am astonished by the implementation of the council with a hermeneutic of continuity in Poland while the council was implemented with a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture in many places in the United States.

 

[FightingFat]

I have often heard this in defense of V2, but does history really show us that? I am really asking the question, I dont know I just know that it is something people say and others nod their heads… After say, the council of nicea was there a shift of taking the creed too far?

It interests me. Sometimes I think it is just a way to excuse some inexcusable things.

Definitely, the Arian heresy really took hold after Nicaea, it took a good few years to put right. It’s extraordinary when you then that popular opinion disagreed so strongly with what was taught at the Council, still the Holy Spirit prevailed and did not let the Church be led into error!

 

[Spelling]

The real question should be: do the documents of the XXI Ecumenical council support the following development, the so called ‘Spirit’ of Vatican II?

The answer to this question is no.

The XXI Ecumenical council redefined the Concept of the Church under the hierarchy. Abusing the Spirit of Vatican II either liberal or traditionalist laymen believe that they are the appointed judges.

The XXI Ecumenical council ordered only minor changes related to the liturgy, most of them accomplished by 1967 (adoremus.org/Interoecumenici.html and adoremus.org/TresAbhinc.html) abusing the spirit of Vatican II the self appointed judges either rewrite everything or deny the legality of any change.

The XXI Ecumenical council acted under the strict guidance of the Holy Spirit on the same way as the previous 20 Ecumenical councils did. It helped the church. The abusive human pride, the self appointed rulemakers and judges make the harm.

That is very well put.

 

[Spelling]

I have often wondered, what would a preconciliar Pope think if he was to attend a OF Mass of today. I am thinking, that they would certainly be in shock.

That would depend how far back you went I suppose. If you went back to early church times, I’m sure the current OF Mass in the vernacular would be far closer to what they were used to than the EF Mass.

 

[FightingFat]

That would depend how far back you went I suppose. If you went back to early church times, I’m sure the current OF Mass in the vernacular would be far closer to what they were used to than the EF Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

That would depend how far back you went I suppose. If you went back to early church times, I’m sure the current OF Mass in the vernacular would be far closer to what they were used to than the EF Mass.

You may be right there.

ecclesiadei.nl/docs/timeline.html

But why the hangup with vernacular? Many people happened to follow the Mass even though it wasn’t in their home-taught language.

 

[laszlo]

That would depend how far back you went I suppose. If you went back to early church times, I’m sure the current OF Mass in the vernacular would be far closer to what they were used to than the EF Mass.

The new rite took most of the elements (entrance process, offertory process, different canons, sign of peace of the laity) from the so called Gallican rite, present is the first half of the second millennium, and banished by pope St Pius V.

 

[ProVobis]

One point worth mentioning is that I am no apologist for the Second Vatican Council, yet I am astonished by the implementation of the council with a hermeneutic of continuity in Poland while the council was implemented with a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture in many places in the United States.

I hear you on that score. There is no doubt Asia and Africa benefitted as well, while things went on a severe decline in the West. My Polish step-mother who visited France a few years ago was astonished that only ten people showed up in a large cathedral there for Sunday Mass.

 

[NonnisiteDomine]

Perhaps, and God willing, all will turn out to be another “happy fault,” Even though I am a post V2 convert I see the lack of reverence, the distortions in the mass as a result of interpretations of V2 and this is devastating. But I believe that the need for proper education on what really happens at the Mass is so blatantly necessary now that what was lacking before V2 will be compensated for in the future. The documents of V2 read quite beautifully and I believe were intended that all might paricipate (with intimate understanding) in this Greatest Mystery fully, consciously and actively by allowing the Holy Spirit to draw us into the Sacrifice interiorly. That we all may be one.

I am thinking pendulum swing, rather than a wobble here.