Vatican II, love it or hate it, you have to agree it was probably the most significant event in Institutional Church history, far surpassing Trent or any other council. Note I said the institutional Church.
There are a number of books floating around that attack Vatican II and the “fruits” thereof. Most seem to center around the theory that the whole concept of Vatican II was to de catholicize the Catholic faith, protestantize it, modernize it, or make it more ecumenically appealing and less forbidding.to the separated brethren.
Much has been said about Archbishop Bugnini, who was suspected of being a freemason, a charge he repeatedly denied to anyone that would listen and who from 1948 until 1975 was deeply involved at different levels, agencies and commissions within the Vatican in the formation of new liturgies and the Novus Ordo mass. In 1964 he was appointed Secretary of the Consilium, to oversee the implementation of the reforms reccomended by the council and in 1969 was appointed secretary of the Congregation of Divine Worship, which was set up to oversee the Liturgy. In 1975 he was in essence fired from that post when the Congregation of Divine Worship was suppressed by Pope Paul VI for unknown reasons. It is interesting that the Congregation lasted only six years, before suppression, It was the equivalent of warp speed for a decison to be made on anything at the Vatican. The Archbishop was then appointed Papal Nuncio to Tehran, Iran, which to many observers seemed to be an exile of sorts… While probably not a freemason, documents are inconclusive, there is little doubt that the Holy Father at the very least, suspected Bugnini was. In fact in letters to the Holy Father Bugnini denied those very allegations. . Archbishop Bugnini was considered, by even his most rabid supporters, to be a staunch secular humanist and those beliefs and ideals deeply influenced the Novus Ordo Mass and Liturgies. .
A lot is made of the fact that five or six Protestant Ministers were present also. There were actually, 16 or 17 observers from both the Orthodox Churches and various Protestant sects. In addition there were theologans of different types and faiths as well. Some say they were merely advisory, some say they were actually involved in the drafting of the documents. It is known that they had (name removed by moderator)ut in discussions, roundtables as it were, and engaged in dialogue throughout.They all received copies of all documents floating about, and took part in all of the meetings. As to what influence and or impact they had, who really knows? It all depends which position you choose to believe. Documents abound supporting both sides of the argument.
While no doubt true Vatican II was a valid council, some of its reccomendations did indeed harm the faith. Not in what they said or what they anticipated, but rather in the way they were implemented. There is no denying that the Church in the past forty years has suffered tremendously directly as a result of the implementation of some of the reccomendations.
If there is a good book supporting Vatican II, I have yet to find it. Most of the ones that I have seen, fall under the same category as the ones that attack Vatican II, that is entirely one sided and slanted to support the authors views.
I wish there was a book that presented the facts, only the facts of the state of the Church at the time of the Council, the council itself, and the state of the Church after the reforms, with emphasis on how the reforms were implemented and what impact they had, if any on the faith today…
If anyone knows of sucsh a book, please let me know.
I think such a book is long long overdue, and could dispel some of the ideas and theories floating around out there.
