What is it with liberal Catholics and the "Spirit" of Vatican II?

[ncjohn]

Confiteor:

Given all the other issues in the Church, it is not surprising that pastors and bishops have refrained from discouraging the gesture, but nonetheless, it is out of sync with what we’re supposed to be about at this part of the Mass. Also, the bishops in submitting US adaptations to mass postures for approval deliberately opted to try for approval of the orans position at the Our Father in order to avoid people continuing the hand holding posture. (This request does not appear to have been approved.)

I really don’t like even addressing this again since it has been beaten to death on numerous threads here. The long and the short of it is that people have made an issue of this for decades now and the Church, most recently in Redemptionis Sacramentum, has specifically NOT taken any steps to stop it. It is up to the local Bishop, and their opinions vary widely. From the USCCB site:

Many Catholics are in the habit of holding their hands in the “Orans” posture during the Lord’s prayer along with the celebrant. Some do this on their own as a private devotional posture while some congregations make it a general practice for their communities.

Is this practice permissible under the current rubrics, either as a private practice not something adopted by a particular parish as a communal gesture?

**No position is prescribed ** in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer.

While the question addresses the Orans, the answer is clear that *no position * has been prescribed, which of course would also include the folding of hands or anything else.

“Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (54)

Likewise, if you reread the GIRM, you will see it DOES mention the use of Latin. See section 41:
www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/GIRM.pdf

Again, here is the actual section from the GIRM:

Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lords Prayer set to the simpler melodies.

First, while it does say that it is “fitting” there is no command to do so. Regardless of that, I’ve not been in any parish that did not use at least Latin occasionally, especially during Advent and Lent, so I really would think that this is being done overall. There may be some parishes around that don’t; heck there may be a *lot * of them for all I know, but I’ve not had that experience personally. I don’t disagree that as part of our long history with Latin that there should be at least some familiarity with it.

Thanks,

 

[ncjohn]

palmas85:

When charity is done only in the public view and in search of self fulfillment it totally loses any real substantive value. That was the point of the post.

And as to whether I ever have or have not helped anyone, I feel that is between God, them and I. No one else needs to know.

Hi Palmas,

Thanks for the clarification.

I fully agree with you, especially on the above. Jesus made it very clear that those who perform their works for public appreciation have already received their reward. If I do something for someone and feel hurt because they don’t seem to be appreciative, I really have to ask what my motivation was. Being human, that still happens occasionally, but at least I catch myself now so maybe I’m making some progress.

As to your personal actions, I was just confused by your statements originally as they seemed to imply that none of that stuff had any value and that people are incapable of acting unselfishly. I couldn’t imagine that was what you meant which was why I asked the question.

Thanks again for clarifying.

 

[Confiteor]

ncjohn:

I really don’t like even addressing this again since it has been beaten to death on numerous threads here. The long and the short of it is that people have made an issue of this for decades now and the Church, most recently in Redemptionis Sacramentum, has specifically NOT taken any steps to stop it. It is up to the local Bishop, and their opinions vary widely. From the USCCB site:

Many Catholics are in the habit of holding their hands in the “Orans” posture during the Lord’s prayer along with the celebrant. Some do this on their own as a private devotional posture while some congregations make it a general practice for their communities.

Is this practice permissible under the current rubrics, either as a private practice not something adopted by a particular parish as a communal gesture?

**No position is prescribed ** in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer.

While the question addresses the Orans, the answer is clear that *no position * has been prescribed, which of course would also include the folding of hands or anything else.

Again, here is the actual section from the GIRM:

Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lords Prayer set to the simpler melodies.

First, while it does say that it is “fitting” there is no command to do so. Regardless of that, I’ve not been in any parish that did not use at least Latin occasionally, especially during Advent and Lent, so I really would think that this is being done overall. There may be some parishes around that don’t; heck there may be a *lot * of them for all I know, but I’ve not had that experience personally. I don’t disagree that as part of our long history with Latin that there should be at least some familiarity with it.

Thanks,

Hi John,

I hope you’ll take the time to read through the references I posted. If you’d like one that addresses interpreting Redemptionis Sacramentum on the issue of holding hands:
catharchdioceseokc.org/sooner/past%20tharp/tharp3132005.htm

It seems at best to miscontrue the theological meaning of the vertical prayer to the Father to insist on hand holding.

I’m glad you’re in favor of some Latin in the liturgy because it seems like that is the direction in which the Church is going, as evidenced by Pope Benedict’s address here:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050628_compendium_en.html

God bless…

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

ncjohn:

Hi Diane,

It makes me so sad when I hear things like what you are saying here and what I’ve heard from Netmil(name removed by moderator). While Net apparently feels I’m being “superior” and insulting here, I have tried to do exactly the opposite and to make it clear that it takes all of our gifts and that it takes both prayer and action to do God’s will. I can also see though that when you have had the kinds of experiences you describe that it’s going to color one’s perceptions and make one suspicious. As YinYangMom said, there have been some things that have been taken too far, and we as a whole need to be brought gently back to the center.

Hi John,

I do believe it is possible that there are “pockets” where persecution of devotional Catholics and their practices take place. And, I believe there are pockets that have been immune to it. You may experience one thing in a part of Los Angeles, for example, and if you were in a certain area of Nebraska, you may not have experienced the same thing.

Growing up in the 70s, my dad tried to teach me the Rosary and other traditional devotions - things prayed and recited by Catholics for hundreds, and in some cases, over a thousand years. In my neck of the woods, it all died suddenly with Vatican 2. That’s when confession began to fade to the levels it is at now. If I go to any number of contemporary parishes around me, I’ll be lucky to see three elderly people waiting on a given Saturday. Set foot in my parish on Saturday at 3:00 or on Sundays before the 9:30 and Noon masses and you would be shocked at the lines and number of confessionals open (typically 3-4 and sometimes 5). While we are fortunate to have a Holy Order working on the grounds that gives us some extra priests, and a visiting Marist from Nigeria, any parish with more than one priest can have confession the half hour prior to Mass. In some cases, the pastors won’t allow it, despite the call from Pope John Paul II otherwise.

As my “spirit of V2” neighbor says, “Oh, the Catholic Church did away with that confession stuff years ago when they did away with the need to attend Mass every Sunday”. I could not convince her otherwise. I’ll bet confession was “by appointment only” in the parish she was in before she lapsed away.

“Spirit of Vatican 2” folks are also those running seminaries where young orthodox men are considered “rigid” because they wish to pray the rosary and other devotions. Or, because they stick to the church’s teaching on Homosexual practices and are more in line with the works of organizations like Courage which help gay and lesbian people to live their lives chastly. It’s amazing how many “spirit of Vatican 2” organizations that “support homosexuals” have no mention of chastity anywhere in their programs. But words like tolerance and accepted are overused. Nor do they call out that homosexual acts are not acceptable any more than pre-marital sex. That’s a real “Spirit of Vatican 2” agenda, imho.

Traits of “Spirit of Vatican 2” from my perspective:

• Don’t follow the Church’s line on homosexual acts
• Won’t be found to promote the Sacrament of Penance
• Don’t like the word sin and rarely discuss it.
• Dislike visible acts of reverence to our Lord and will point to those who do show reverence as trying to draw attention to themselves.
• Are not into devotions and can be found poking fun at anything devotional as if it is for the immature.
• Not Marian and even question her place as defined in the deposit of faith.
• Most notorious for changing the words and acts of the liturgy to support their desires to make the Mass more flamboyant or entertaining or “interesting”.
• Want to sanitize Latin translations into English in such a way as to lessen its meaning or impact as was originally intended (and hence, why the Vatican is finally about to put out new translations now that much exposure has been given to the outrageous translations we’ve been living with).

That’s just a few. For those who do not support these traits, then you may be using “spirit of Vatican 2” in a different way, but this list represents how I see it.

 

[fix]

Lux_et_veritas:

When I think of “Spirit of Vatican II” I think of all those people who tried to strip Catholicism of those things that fueled it, in lieu of “feel-good” practices devoid of real sacrifice and discipline required for devotions. Kum-bah-yah time replaced silence in adoration. Of course as long as people get to sing and hold hands constantly, you never have to dive deep into the abyss of the heart where interior change really takes place.

Well said. Often those who talk about the “spirit” of VII seem to proclaim "social justice"as their god with the minimizing of personal holiness and ongoing conversion.

Helping each other is not exclusive to living the faith as we are called to do. One problem is social justice is a vague term and can be twisted to meaning what we want it to mean as opposed to what the Church actually states. Another problem is that things termed social justice and the spirit of VII may contradict what the Church actually expects from us.

We can’t buy our way into heaven. All the social work in the world will not save us if we reject the moral law and reject the authority of the Church.

 

[dennisknapp]

The reason I started this thread was the term was used by someone who wrote an opinion piece for our local paper. I will post it here:

jsonline.com/news/editorials/oct05/362628.asp

Here is what she said that got me wondering.

"We have many wise, compassionate and hardworking priests who don’t happen to support every new doctrine from Rome. Our churches are filled with many dedicated, enthusiastic parishioners who hope that someday we will return to the progressive spirit fostered by Vatican II.

These are good people, living decent lives and making moral judgments based on their hearts as much as their faith. They remain loyal to the Catholic Church because they’re not advocates of the “love it or leave it” mentality.

They’re willing to fight for the changes they believe in. How long can they hold out before fatigue and disillusionment take over?"

Peace

 

[robertaf]

Lux_et_veritas:

Hi John,

In my neck of the woods, it all died suddenly with Vatican 2. That’s when confession began to fade to the levels it is at now. If I go to any number of contemporary parishes around me, I’ll be lucky to see three elderly people waiting on a given Saturday. Set foot in my parish on Saturday at 3:00 or on Sundays before the 9:30 and Noon masses and you would be shocked at the lines and number of confessionals open (typically 3-4 and sometimes 5). While we are fortunate to have a Holy Order working on the grounds that gives us some extra priests, and a visiting Marist from Nigeria, any parish with more than one priest can have confession the half hour prior to Mass. In some cases, the pastors won’t allow it, despite the call from Pope John Paul II otherwise.

As my “spirit of V2” neighbor says, “Oh, the Catholic Church did away with that confession stuff years ago when they did away with the need to attend Mass every Sunday”. I could not convince her otherwise. I’ll bet confession was “by appointment only” in the parish she was in before she lapsed away.

Traits of “Spirit of Vatican 2” from my perspective:

• Don’t follow the Church’s line on homosexual acts
• Won’t be found to promote the Sacrament of Penance
• Don’t like the word sin and rarely discuss it.
• Dislike visible acts of reverence to our Lord and will point to those who do show reverence as trying to draw attention to themselves.
• Are not into devotions and can be found poking fun at anything devotional as if it is for the immature.
• Not Marian and even question her place as defined in the deposit of faith.
• Most notorious for changing the words and acts of the liturgy to support their desires to make the Mass more flamboyant or entertaining or “interesting”.
• Want to sanitize Latin translations into English in such a way as to lessen its meaning or impact as was originally intended (and hence, why the Vatican is finally about to put out new translations now that much exposure has been given to the outrageous translations we’ve been living with).

That’s just a few. For those who do not support these traits, then you may be using “spirit of Vatican 2” in a different way, but this list represents how I see it.

I agree that it must be where you happen to live. I have lived in Southern California, Northern California and Eastern Washington.
I have been involved with the Charismatic Renewal for about 35 years.
Most Charismatics that I have known over these years are very much into the Sacrament of Penance. We in leadership are expected to go to Confession every month. We recommend this for everyone.
We love the Blessed Mother and the Rosary.
We certainly like visible acts of reverence. We use body language in our Praise and Worship as you may know.
We spend much time, some of our folks commit to an hour at times such as 2:AM to sit in perpetual adoration.

We strive to be obedient to Holy Mother Church, our Liaisons to our Bishops keep the leadership and the Priests informed of any abuses that he is brought aware of.

Yet, many call us Liberal to a fault.

 

[buffalo]

MrS:

They understand that to “participate fully” in the liturgy means that they should control, re-design, manipulate, and dictate what we know see as abuses-turned-norms.

Active participation, to them, is only visible,… not as it was intended - to be spiritual and reverent.

The Mass of VaticanII - Fr Fessio

…
I did a little research into previous uses of that expression in papal and other ecclesial documents. The first papal usage was in 1903 by Pope St. Pius X, whose motto was “Omnia Instaurare in Christo” (To restore all things in Christ). He considered himself a pope of renewal. He was elected in August of 1903 and in November, he issued one of the first documents of his pontificate, a motu proprio called Tra Le Solicitudini, that is, “Among the Concerns.” This was a document on the renewal of sacred music. In it, the Holy Father states, “In order that the faithful may more actively participate in the sacred liturgy, let them be once again made to sing Gregorian Chant as a congregation.”

That’s what the term “active participation” meant when it was first used in a papal document. But it had been used ten years earlier in another document, issued by Pius X before he was pope. He was the patriarch of Venice, and the document — as it turns out — was actually written by a Jesuit, with the wonderful name of Angelo dei Santi (“angel of the saints”). Sounds like a fictitious name.

In any case, the first use of actuosa participatio, i.e., active participation, referred explicitly and exclusively to the restoration of the congregational singing of Gregorian Chant. In 1928, Pope Pius XI reiterated the point in his Apostolic Letter, Divini Cultus. Nineteen years after that, in the Magna Carta of liturgical reform, Mediator Dei, issued by Pius XII, the same term was used with the same meaning. So until the Second Vatican Council, the term “active participation” referred exclusively to the singing of Gregorian Chant by the people.

more…

 

[fix]

dennisknapp:

The reason I started this thread was the term was used by someone who wrote an opinion piece for our local paper. I will post it here:

jsonline.com/news/editorials/oct05/362628.asp

Here is what she said that got me wondering.

"We have many wise, compassionate and hardworking priests who don’t happen to support every new doctrine from Rome. Our churches are filled with many dedicated, enthusiastic parishioners who hope that someday we will return to the progressive spirit fostered by Vatican II.

These are good people, living decent lives and making moral judgments based on their hearts as much as their faith. They remain loyal to the Catholic Church because they’re not advocates of the “love it or leave it” mentality.

They’re willing to fight for the changes they believe in. How long can they hold out before fatigue and disillusionment take over?"

Peace

• The Church prohibits most forms of fertility treatment. Frankly, I have no idea if this is a new policy, because I’ve never heard it discussed at Sunday Mass. I had always thought of the Catholic Church as being uncompromisingly pro-fertility, but I learned otherwise in newspaper articles about Italy’s anti-fertility legislation. Pope Benedict XVI promises that our spiritual fatigue can be overcome by a renewed “zest and joy to know Christ.” Yet zest and joy are alive and well in Milwaukee’s Catholic churches.

We have many wise, compassionate and hardworking priests who don’t happen to support every new doctrine from Rome. Our churches are filled with many dedicated, enthusiastic parishioners who hope that someday we will return to the progressive spirit fostered by Vatican II.

Yep, that is what some call the spirit of VII. In other words, not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of error.

 

[bear06]

More on Mass postures:
adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html

 

[ncjohn]

Traits of “Spirit of Vatican 2” from my perspective:

• Don’t follow the Church’s line on homosexual acts
• Won’t be found to promote the Sacrament of Penance
• Don’t like the word sin and rarely discuss it.
• Dislike visible acts of reverence to our Lord and will point to those who do show reverence as trying to draw attention to themselves.
• Are not into devotions and can be found poking fun at anything devotional as if it is for the immature.
• Not Marian and even question her place as defined in the deposit of faith.
• Most notorious for changing the words and acts of the liturgy to support their desires to make the Mass more flamboyant or entertaining or “interesting”.
• Want to sanitize Latin translations into English in such a way as to lessen its meaning or impact as was originally intended (and hence, why the Vatican is finally about to put out new translations now that much exposure has been given to the outrageous translations we’ve been living with).

That’s just a few. For those who do not support these traits, then you may be using “spirit of Vatican 2” in a different way, but this list represents how I see it.

Hi Diane,

I tend to think maybe we’ve come to the crux of the problem here. I think what we have is that there is no acceptable definition of what a “Vatican 2 Catholic” is. If that is the case, then using the term is not only counter-productive, it is downright dangerous.

I would ask you straight out if you have seen anything in what I’ve posted that fits your description above? I don’t think there is yet I consider myself a “Spirit of Vatican 2 Catholic.” I would further be willing to bet that there are people all along the continuum, just as there are with “traditionalists,” who believe some, all, or none of what you’ve listed and yet consider themselves to be in line with V2. I would bet there are even some traditionalists who understand what V2 is really saying and consider themselves to be V2 Catholics.

If that is the case, then I would make the argument that we can’t legitimately use the term because it has no meaning and only leads to incorrectly categorizing apples with oranges because they both claim to be “fruit.” That does nothing but sow division and suspicion.

It is human nature to want to categorize people into “my group” and “NOT my group” and to imply that anyone that is not in my group is by definition inferior, if not even evil. There are at least three problems with this approach.

First, we are all sinners and in need of mercy. We also don’t have all the answers yet so we can’t be sure that “my group” is even actually right.

Second, we are all mixtures and fall all along the continuum. I may differ from you on a single point and no longer be able to qualify as part of your group. For example I might have a prayer group who all like to pray rosaries, except one person who prefers to do chaplets. By virtue of that difference we’ll separate that person even when there’s nothing wrong with what they are doing; it’s just different from what “we” are doing.

Finally, we have the problem that we’re all on a journey and growing day by day. So if I categorize you today, when you change tomorrow and no longer fit that category, in my mind you are already “boxed” so I’ll never realize that. I know personally that my “box” has changed a lot while discussing things here–some of it in one direction, other parts in other directions. Even those who are most opposed to “my group” change over time. And more importantly, no matter how far away from “my group” someone is, they are still beloved children of God, and part of “His group” so if I want to claim to be part of His group, I have to accept the rest of the family too.

So I guess what I’m saying is that we’re all struggling to find our way to the Truth and we can do that better together, helpinig each other in our struggles, than sitting on the sidelines criticizing each other’s struggles. When labels don’t help, which I think is most of the time, it’s probably best to set them aside and deal with the individuals instead.

Peace,

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

So I guess what I’m saying is that we’re all struggling to find our way to the Truth and we can do that better together, helpinig each other in our struggles, than sitting on the sidelines criticizing each other’s struggles. When labels don’t help, which I think is most of the time, it’s probably best to set them aside and deal with the individuals instead.

Peace,

Let us stop right here because this is the heart of the issue. As Catholics we all know the Truth, or ought to. We all struggle to become holy, but we all should know the Truth. The conflict arises when many claim the Truth is not found in the CC or that the Truth is not binding on all of us.

This discussion is not about rosaries versus chaplets. It is about truth versus private opinion. It is about authority versus self will.

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

Let us stop right here because this is the heart of the issue. As Catholics we all know the Truth, or ought to. We all struggle to become holy, but we all should know the Truth. The conflict arises when many claim the Truth is not found in the CC or that the Truth is not binding on all of us.

This discussion is not about rosaries versus chaplets. It is about truth versus private opinion. It is about authority versus self will.

Actually fix, in this case, I don’t think that’s the discussion at all. If you don’t even have a working definition of what you’re talking about–and we don’t here–we have no idea how to proceed with the discussion.

I would also humbly submit that you can’t determine the “authority versus self will” question for a couple reasons.

First off, as I said in part of my post, we vary along the spectrum as to where we are. Are we talking about one issue? A few issues? A total rejection of the Catholic faith? What is the level of importance of any issue that is in contention? Is it dogma? Doctrine? Some offhand statement of the Pope or a Bishop that somebody is then taking as “Church teaching?”

Second, you have no way of knowing the mind or heart of any person, much less that of an entire non-homogenous group and have no way of knowing whether they are acting under self will or what they understand to be authority. Since no one even knows all the rules, there are many times when people act in accordance with what the understand the rules to be. That is not self will, even if it might be misinformed conscience.

Finally, I would debate whether any human being knows THE Truth. We hold that the Catholic Church holds the Truth, but no one of us knows anywhere close to all of it and I don’t think even the Church claims to “know” all of it. If they did the Catechism would never change and there would be no need for further study, synods, councils, etc.

Since we have not defined the terminology in any way, nor have any specific issues been identified, I don’t see how we can know what the discussion is about other than the finger pointing and name calling that has been going on based on each individual’s idea of what “liberal” and “spirit of Vatican 2” mean.

And in the end, is what is important being able to categorize and exclude or being able to help each other find the Truth and lead others to it?

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

Confiteor:

Hi John,

I hope you’ll take the time to read through the references I posted. If you’d like one that addresses interpreting Redemptionis Sacramentum on the issue of holding hands:
catharchdioceseokc.org/sooner/past%20tharp/tharp3132005.htm

Thanks. Interesting article but just another opinion. This one, IMHO, isn’t even as good as most. As the USCCB states, there is no prescribed posture during the Our Father. The attempt to create a parallel to changing the text, which is specifically prohibited, is weak at best.

As I’ve said, I don’t really see a need to debate this off-thread part of the issue further as it detracts from the important discussion and has been beaten to death in other places already.

Peace,

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

Actually fix, in this case, I don’t think that’s the discussion at all. If you don’t even have a working definition of what you’re talking about–and we don’t here–we have no idea how to proceed with the discussion.

I would also humbly submit that you can’t determine the “authority versus self will” question for a couple reasons.

First off, as I said in part of my post, we vary along the spectrum as to where we are. Are we talking about one issue? A few issues? A total rejection of the Catholic faith? What is the level of importance of any issue that is in contention? Is it dogma? Doctrine? Some offhand statement of the Pope or a Bishop that somebody is then taking as “Church teaching?”

Second, you have no way of knowing the mind or heart of any person, much less that of an entire non-homogenous group and have no way of knowing whether they are acting under self will or what they understand to be authority. Since no one even knows all the rules, there are many times when people act in accordance with what the understand the rules to be. That is not self will, even if it might be misinformed conscience.

Finally, I would debate whether any human being knows THE Truth. We hold that the Catholic Church holds the Truth, but no one of us knows anywhere close to all of it and I don’t think even the Church claims to “know” all of it. If they did the Catechism would never change and there would be no need for further study, synods, councils, etc.

Since we have not defined the terminology in any way, nor have any specific issues been identified, I don’t see how we can know what the discussion is about other than the finger pointing and name calling that has been going on based on each individual’s idea of what “liberal” and “spirit of Vatican 2” mean.

And in the end, is what is important being able to categorize and exclude or being able to help each other find the Truth and lead others to it?

Peace,

John,

Yes, we should define our terms at the start, but much of this is just a rehash.

Take a peek at the post by Dennis the OP where he has the link that is a column by a Catholic who referring to the spirit of the council. That column is a good example of what we are talking about.

Those who claim the Church is moving away from the spirit of VII are disingenuous. I am not refering specfically to you.

We are not talking about differences in theology that are all orthodox. We are talking about differences that are central to the faith. We are talking about accepting all that the Church teaches with cheerful obedience.

Sure, we can have some discussion about prudential things or certain disciplines, within reason. But, this entire enterprise that is commonly referred to as the spirit of VII is most often the spirit of rebellion.

As for classifiying things I think it is a good idea. That is how minds work. It is how we think and how we reason.

 

[fix]

ncjohn:

Second, you have no way of knowing the mind or heart of any person, much less that of an entire non-homogenous group and have no way of knowing whether they are acting under self will or what they understand to be authority. Since no one even knows all the rules, there are many times when people act in accordance with what the understand the rules to be. That is not self will, even if it might be misinformed conscience.

I can’t know one’s heart, but I can read their words.

Finally, I would debate whether any human being knows THE Truth. We hold that the Catholic Church holds the Truth, but no one of us knows anywhere close to all of it and I don’t think even the Church claims to “know” all of it. If they did the Catechism would never change and there would be no need for further study, synods, councils, etc.

We know the Church has all the truth that was revealed by Christ. That is not the issue. Catholics know the Truth. The Truth is a person, Jesus Christ.

That we fall at times does not mean we do not know Him. To say we do not know the Truth seems to be an incredible position to take?

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

I tend to agree with the assesment that “Vatican II Catholic” is a very dangerous term.

Most of we in the traditionalist side of the equation like the genuine Vatican II, yet we are afraid to say so for fear of being made out to be liberals. You see, the message of Vatican II was on target, it just came at the wrong time. It came at a time in which rebelling against the established norms was popular, and this message leaked into it to some degree.

Now, Vatican II is mistaken for the Church’s '60s rebellion against itself, or as a sort of “updating” of the Church. It was neither of those (seriously, can you see a bunch of middle-aged to elderly men who’s priestly lives were in the '30s and '40s wanting rock-and-roll in Mass?), but it was, rather, a “renewal of vows” for the Church, affirming old beliefs and practises, but putting them into context with the world, not changing them with the world.

EGO AMO S.R.E.

 

[JSmitty2005]

I totally agree with you, Servus, “Vatican II Catholic” is a dangerous term. We simply need to be faithful Catholics. That means faithful to the Second Vatican Council as well as all of the councils of the Church. For some reason, the liberals seem to think that the this recent council somehow trumps the others, but we are to obey all of the things that the Church has always taught. Like you said, Vatican 2 was right for reforming the Church in order to reach and evangelize the world, but it definately didn’t update or modernize the Church to conform to the world (even though many believe this). Truth is eternal and doesn’t need modernization. It is relevant to all ages. I think this verse sums up the real intentions behind V2:

“Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.” Romans 12:2

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Thank you, Cardinal Arinze - precisely the point…

**“So there are problems. However, some of the problems were not caused by Vatican II, but they were caused by children of the Church after Vatican II. Some of them talking of Vatican II push their own agenda. We have to watch that. People pushing their own agenda, justifying it as the ‘spirit of Vatican II.’” **

---

The Vatican prefect continued: “So, if only people would be more faithful to what has been laid down, not by people who just like to make laws for other people, but what follows from what we believe. ‘Lex orandi, Lex credendi.’ It is our faith that directs our prayer life, and if we genuflect in front of the tabernacle it is because we believe that Jesus is there, and is God.”

Full article on Zenit by Cardinal Arinze…

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=80072