Another over zealous convert ...
Lamont says,
"There is now, however, a further reason why the Council is important, which is that the basic Catholic teaching it sets forth, taken for granted at the time, are now widely rejected"
By whom exactly are the teachings of Vatican 2 rejected? By the Pope himself? Are there any statistics to prove his case, or is this just another case of wishful thinking on the part of yet another traditionalist lay pope?
On August 1st, 2005, I posted a piece entitled "New light on Vatican II & its aftermath," in which I wrote: "I've just read one of the most significant articles on Vatican II and its aftermath written in the last twenty years." I there promised that I would publish the piece in its entirety on this site on September 1st by agreement with the publisher. Here it is.
Anyone who, like the commentator who calls himself "Lovehandles," must ask for statistics to back up the claim that the teachings of Vatican II (as opposed to its so-called "spirit") have not been enthusiastically embraced either has no acquaintance with the Vatican II documents, or has no perception of what has transpired in the Catholic Church over the last 40 years.
Senor Blosser,
Its not a question of what YOU think has transpired over the years, its a question of whether or not the teachings of Vatican II are "widely rejected" as is claimed in this article.
In all my years as a Catholic in the UK I have hardly ever come across the sentiments expressed in this blog, except occasionally in some of my own grandmother's remarks (incidentally she converted in the late 1930s), although even she would not go so far as to question the legitimacy of Vatican II.
I think this stated rejection of Church teachings is largely confined to a vocal minority within the United States, which is why I asked whether or not you had FIRM EVIDENCE to prove otherwise.
Clearly you reject the teachings, however, or you wouldnt have posted Lamont's piece.
"Another over zealous convert ..."
A shame they keep infecting one's perfect church.
He didn't read the article. Or he didn't understand what he was reading. Which is, after all, the very problem set out by Lamont.
Philip:
More to the point, I don't know that one can say that the teachings of the Council have been consciously rejected: 95% of the Catholics I know have almost no idea what the Council taught, apart from authorizing the vernacular in the liturgy.
You can't really--knowingly--reject what you don't understand. The hellishly-bad catechesis of the past two generations has ensured that there is very little understanding of what the Church has taught. The pervasive neoclericalism that genuflects before What Some Priest, Professor or Other Guy With A Degree Says About What The Church Teaches only deepens the problem.
However, Lamont goes too far in trashing the NO Mass, and raising the tattered, straw-stiffed scarecrows of Bugnini (who, lest we forget, also produced the 1962 Missal) and the supposed capitulation to the Protestants. The bare text of the NO (esp. the Roman Canon) squares well with Tradition and the goals envisioned by the liturgical movement of the early 20th Century. But the unsupervised implementation of the NO has led to a revolutionary break with Tradition in far too many places. The problem is that the liturgical bolsheviks took the NO and ran far, far away from SC. I've seen the NO done right (Assumption Grotto in Detroit), and clearly read in accord with SC. It can be done. Too many bishops just don't want to do it. And the Vatican has given them plenty of escape hatches to help them avoid it.
Ralph:
I got that distinct impression, too.
And, er: that isn't addressed only to Our Gracious Host--it's an open comment.
My internal editor needs a vacation.
Dale,
After what your diocese went through with the late Bishop Untener, I can understand how a well-behaved celebration of NO might seem wondrously sufficient. The Masses I watch on EWTN are similarly attractive, especially the wonderfully reverent choruses.
Still, I have reservations about the idea that NO can be completely dissociated from the legions of buskers, performance artists, showboating priests, and casts of thousands of EMHCs, who have so thoroughly taken it over and made it their own that truly reverent celebrations of it, celebrations, let us say, fully in line with V2 liturgical intentions, seem, well, so ODD.
I can't imagine the tridentine rite being similarly maltreated. There is a natural reverence and gravity to it that simply repels the huggers, priest-imitators, and tambourine-slappers. The NO lacks this gravitas. And the protestantizing fillips are undeniable, however impatient you may be with hearing about them.
All in all, though, a very good article. I clearly need to dust off my V2 paperbacks and get cracking.
Mr. Roister-Doister (that name always cracks me up!),
Yes, I did read the article. I would satirise it's main points thus :
(1) Vatican II was not really necessary.
(2) Or maybe it was, because it was still a good thing.
(3) The liturgy has been "vandalised" by Rome and other modernists, which has offended the sensibilities of tight-assed traditionalists.
(4) There is some spurious connection between liturgical reform and the daily morality of Catholics.
(5) Catholic bishops and clergy have been affected by this prevailing spirit modernity and have become "habitually dishonest" and even sexually perverted as a result.
(6)But in fact Vatican II never intended to create all of this trouble, and its all down to a misreading of the small print.
(7) In reality there was no need for change and therefore Vatican II should never have happened.
Listen up, traditionalist dudes, Vatican II happened! People wanted to hear the mass in their own language, so they could understand what they were being taught! Maybe society has got more secular over the last 50 years, but Vatican II was a necessary RESPONSE to this, not a SYMPTOM of modernism!
I also fully fail to see the alleged connection between a loss of so-called liturgical purity and the various scandals which have rocked the Church. If you really want to know why the Church hid paedophile priests for so long (and continues to do so) you should ask Ratzinger ... that was (and remains) his department.
The point is that Vatican II didnt actually contain any new "teachings" as such ... all that happened was the clergy were given greater scope to present the already existing (and immutable) teachings in a way relevant to their congregations.
Since none of us have the time to read and interpret every line of the Vatican II documents, let us start looking at various summaries.
First Summary:
What Vatican II taught
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
by George Weigel
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
On Jan. 25, 1959, Blessed John XXIII stunned his audience at the Roman basilica of St. Paul Outside-the-Walls by announcing his intention to summon an ecumenical council, to prepare the church for a new millennium of witness and evangelization.
Catholics have been arguing about what the Second Vatican Council meant ever since. One good way to clarify what the council meant is to learn what the council taught.
Perhaps a brief summary of the key teachings of the council, with references to the location of those themes in the council's documents, will serve as an invitation to rediscover Vatican II in this new year of grace:
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
The distinctive mission of lay Christians is to evangelize
and sanctify society -- in the family and the workplace,
in the culture and in political life.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
What Jesus Reveals: Revealing the face of the merciful Father, Jesus also reveals the true meaning of our humanity, which is to be found in self-giving love. ("Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," 22, 24.)
The Universal Call to Holiness: All Christians are called to a life of holiness. The church exists to sanctify its members, through whom the world is sanctified. ("Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," 39-42.)
Sharing the Ministry of Christ: All Christians share in the threefold mission of Christ. All the baptized share Christ's prophetic mission by speaking the truth. All the baptized share Christ's priestly mission by worshiping truly. All the baptized share in Christ's kingly mission by living lives of service. ("Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," 34-36.)
The "Communion" of the Church: While the church has many dimensions - institution, evangelist, sacrament, servant - the fundamental and unique reality of the church is that it is a communio, a "communion," of believers who are members of the Body of Christ and who share a relationship within the church that is unlike any other relationship in their lives. ("Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," 1-8.)
What "Revelation" Is: God reveals himself, not just propositions about himself, first, in the history of Israel, and then definitively in Jesus Christ. ("Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," 2.)
What Worship Means: In the church's liturgy we participate fully, actively, and consciously in the liturgy of heaven, where the angels and saints give glory and praise to God. ("Constitution on the Sacred Li
How anyone can read Lamont's article and come to Lovehandles' conclusions about it is simply beyond my capacity to explain.
I had read it.
The fruits are there for those who want to see them: Vatican II was not necessary and it was not a good thing. It was very important, that's for sure. Like the Russian Revolution was important.
Never mind, Jordan.
I think the key phrase in Bernard's post was:
"What Worship Means: In the church's liturgy we participate fully, actively, and consciously in the liturgy of heaven"
This is a hard thing to do if you dont speak Latin (for example).
Actually, the key phrase in Mr. Meyer's fine comment was this:
"The distinctive mission of lay Christians is to evangelize
and sanctify society -- in the family and the workplace,
in the culture and in political life."
Perhaps the most important call of the Council--certainly part of the top tier--is the summoning of the laity to full adulthood as disciples of Jesus Christ.
Oops.
Which is where the continuing profound ignorance of Catholics concerning what the Church teaches comes in--there is no way for the laity to meaningfully answer the call when all you've been taught is "God is love and it's nice to be nice. Oh, and how do you feel about that?"
Far from bringing the laity to adulthood, the implementation of the Council has instead co-opted a select few into quasi-clerical status as scholars, liturgists, catechists, and so forth. The clericalist mindset, far from being shattered, has instead been extended to cover certain "elite" laity (and what a bang-up job they've done, too!). Meanwhile, a world continues to burn, dying for the water of life.
Ralph:
Oh, and BTW: I'm not a full-timer in the Diocese of Saginaw--I was raised in the area, and my parents still live there. I actually live in the Archdiocese of Detroit. I end up attending Mass in the parishes of the diocese about 6+ times per year--or rather at a traditionally minded parish in the Diocese of Gaylord, with a very orthodox priest.
I've tried to suppress a lot of the memories of Saginaw worship, alas.
As to the celebration of reverent NOs, I won't dispute the point that the Assumption Grotto/Brompton Oratory/St. Agnes approach is rarer than hen's teeth. Rarer certainly than the number of indult parishes, which gives me pause. But the fact they exist is evidence that the showboater culture can be broken. It's just not easy--nor much encouraged, which is worse.
New Catholic:
I'm pretty sympathetic to traditionalist critiques, but I can't agree. I can't get past this argument, to be blunt:
If the Church was in such great shape in 1962, why did things crumble so quickly?
Something was wrong, and the illness ran deep.
Who said the Church was in great shape? I said the fruits of the Council are bad. Whatever has been good or at least neutral in the past 40 years has been salvaged from pre-conciliar Catholicism.
One cannot underestimate, though, the powerful synergy of a gigantic movement "forward" based on the notion that the past was "bad" and "gloomy" and the future looks "joyful" and "hopeful".
New Orleans was still a lovely city and the fragility of its defense structures do not make its loveliness bad. That was the Church before the Council. So many popes had tried to fix the breach! St.Pius X had reinforced the levees and walls wonderfully: they withstood the Lake Pontchartrain of heresies for 60 years!
One pope saw the saw promising clouds in the horizon and thought it was a promising rain. Alas, it was the Katrina of the Churh: Hurricane Vatican II.
...a promising rainfall...
...Katrina of the Church...
Dale,
Who says things were great in 1962? Modernism did not commence with the release of the first Grateful Dead album. It was a curse throughout the last century, and it contributed to the Church's problems long before John XXIII's Big Idea. If the laity were spiritual vegetables before V2, was it not in large part the clergy's reluctance to confront modernism that made them so?
To many, V2 has, in effect if not intent, ratified that reluctance. Certainly, it didn't make things better -- on that point I think we have no trouble agreeing.
Lamont's article has given me reason to reconsider the substance of V2, but even if his analysis is exactly right, there remains forty years of anguish that one can't help feeling could have been avoided, to say nothing of the messy trench warfare ahead to save council documents from their modernist deconstructors.
But I suppose that's why they call this place a vale of tears.
From the standpoint of a Catholic worldview and understanding of things, it is simply untenable to assert that Vatican II, or any oecumenical council, was not a good thing. Such a view is irreconcilable with the Catholic faith. The faith teaches us that councils are guided by the Holy Spirit, and since the Spirit guides and protects the Church, the calling of a council is something that arises from God's will. It is therefore logical to conclude that Vatican II was good for the Church and something that the Church needed -- not, as Lamont said, in the sense that the Church wouldn't survive without it, but that the Church had some problems that had to be addressed on a conciliar level. But, as I and others have pointed out before, virtually every council has been followed by a pastoral mess, and it is centuries before the true benefits of a council become evident to everyone. It's only been 40 years since Vatican II -- give the Holy Spirit another 200 years, and then let's see if you still think Vatican II was neither necessary nor a good thing.
"...it is simply untenable to assert that Vatican II, or any oecumenical council, was not a good thing. Such a view is irreconcilable with the Catholic faith. The faith teaches us that councils are guided by the Holy Spirit, and since the Spirit guides and protects the Church, the calling of a council is something that arises from God's will..."
Jordan, I'm sorry, but this statement is the one which is untenable with the Catholic faith. The Church is protected from error, but that does not mean that all Councils are "guided" by the Holy Spirit -- some times, the guidance may be only in the sense that the committee-like declarations do not violate the previous magisterium.
If you mean that Vatican II was guided in the sense that a miraculous hand avoided that outright error wer introduced in its documents, then I agree with you. To go further than that borders on the superstitious.
Another summary: from: http://nov55.com/rel/sumva.html
"Vatican-II Events Summarized
in a letter to an editor
Your central concern, that modernists are responsible for the degradation of the Catholic Church, is not correct. The modernists were only the facilitators who moved in on vulnerabilities. It was the theologians who weakened the religion to a point where it could not stand up to the modernist assault. As long as you support the theology, you cannot correct the problem.
It is my interpretation of history, being in college at the time of V-II, that the reason why priests and bishops felt a need for a council was because theological problems had become irreconcilable with modern awareness. There were two major areas of concern.
The most significant concern was in telling the kiddies in catechism that their classmates were not going to get saved if they were not Catholics. The kids that I knew weren't buying it. Instead they saw the theology as archaic and corrupted, and they became skeptical of church authorities.
The second problem was that the theology of Thomas Aquinas was not up to modern standards of rationality. Greek logic is not how realities are derived or evaluated nowdays. Instead of stating two premises as a basis for conclusions, all evidence must be evaluated, and all conclusions must be tentative and subject to further criticism.
God's word is viewed as an exception. It is taken as fact regardless of arguments. But Thomistic theology was based upon a pretense of logic. Thomas Aquinas had no authority to speak for God. While that point seems not to concern conservative church authorities, the methodology of Thomas Aquinas is indefensible in modern discourse.
So there was a need to modernize. When the Vatican officials pulled out traditional theology as a starting point for V-II, the voting bishops threw out the Vatican material, because it was the problem.
The most significant fact about V-II is that it determined that nonCatholics get saved. This point is sometimes denied by conservatives, but it was the central purpose and result of the Council.
V-II was called an "ecumenical" council, because the purpose was to reach out to Protestants, and they were invited as observers. A later rationalization by some persons was that ecumenical meant all of the bishops would attend. But that was not how ecumenism was conveyed through the media at the time. And of course, a major attempt was made to reach out to Protestants during and after V-II.
With nonCatholics getting saved, the whole house of cards crumbles for Church theology. First, the concept of nonCatholics getting saved contradicts centuries of supposed infallible theology. If the theology changed at V-II, then it never was infallible. Secondly, the clergy do not hold the indispensable "keys to heaven." Many traditionalists priests say they have no other reason to be priests than to administer them.
Without an infallible magisterium an
Mr. Roister-Doister,
"Modernism did not commence with the release of the first Grateful Dead album. It was a curse throughout the last century"
This is very true. Some would even say that the modern age began with the discovery of perspective in the painting of the great Florentines. Indeed, I am sure that there were many burghers in the old Tuscan cities who regarded the representation of God in 3-dimensions as an appalling sacrilege. Not.
All that modern society is doing is exploring the human condition. None of these terrible scientists and psychologists can actually prove the non-existence of God. Even if ID scientists are worse than useless, nothing can disprove the realisations of the mystics over the ages.
However, what CAN lead to a falling away from God is a blind clinging to false ritual as a substitute for true spirituality. Vatican II realised this truth.
"The most significant fact about V-II is that it determined that nonCatholics get saved. This point is sometimes denied by conservatives, but it was the central purpose and result of the Council."
Really???? Well, I believe the result of the council was that all people may believe that they will be saved, no matter what.
To say that IT ("the Council") "determined" that "noncatholics get saved" is ludicrous. As always, the Council was unnecessary also in this issue, as the possibility of salvation of non-Catholics, under strict conditions, and always through the Church (even if unknowingly) had always been Church doctrine.
New Catholic,
"even if unknowingly"
would you care to expound on this? *S*
Read your dusty Baltimore Catechism (no. 3 or no 4). It's there.
"Jordan, I'm sorry, but this statement is the one which is untenable with the Catholic faith. The Church is protected from error, but that does not mean that all Councils are 'guided' by the Holy Spirit"
You couldn't be more wrong, New Catholic. All valid councils are guided by the Holy Spirit in such wise that the councils' teachings are rightly to be characterised as the teachings of the Holy Spirit, as we read in Acts 15:28 -- "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us . . ."
"V-II was called an 'ecumenical' council, because the purpose was to reach out to Protestants."
That's wrong, Bernard. It's called an 'ecumenical' council because it involved and applied to the entire "household" (oikumene) of faith. Whether or not non-Catholics are invited to a council has nothing to do with its status as oecumenical. This letter writer you quoted doesn't have his or her facts straight.
oh, for a discussion about the definition of "ecumenical" ...
Phil et al:
You might want to have a look at a discussion of just the same topic at Pontifications.
I except New Catholic from the invitation, since he was involved in that discussion too.
Vatican II is not the Apostolical Council of Jerusalem, Jordan.
It is not Nicaea, either, but if you want to make a statement based on ancient data, use Nicaea.
Actually, don't use anything. There had never been anything like Vatican II before Vatican II: a Council without clear purpose and which did not define anything. "It seemed good to the Spirit of God and to us to... speak in ambiguous terms..."?
As I had said, it is one thing to believe in the guidance of the Holy Ghost (especially in the documents of Vatican II, which did not define anything) as a miraculous hand, forbiding clear error. But not in a positive sense, as it happens in the definition of a clear doctrine (which Vatican II avoided on purpose).
Michael,
re. Vatican II and the article you link to.
The Australian critic Robert Hughes calls this sort of phenomenon the "shock of the new". This is something which is always responded to in different ways according to the psychological condition of the person who experiences the said "shock".
Of course the Second Council was a psychological shock for may conservatives and has caused repercussions, but the Vatican must have felt (and I agree with them) that such a radical step was necessary.
Please see http://www.christusrex.org/www1/...w1/CDHN/
v1.html for a great review of all that was accomplished at Vatican II.
The only failure in my opinion was not opening the priesthood to all qualified persons.
Perhaps we should all read what the council wrote instead of inferring a purpose from what we were poorly taught or from what we wish the Council had said?
Vatican II didn't "throw a bone" to the "conservatives": if it did that, and only that, but was intended to open the Church to be a truly "oecumenical" council, then it was a hoax perpetrated by the enemies of the Church who have infiltrated within her very veins, and the charges that John XXIII was a Mason must be taken seriously.
Fortunately, as I said, it didn't "throw a bone" to the "conservatives". Pope Benedict XVI observed many years before he became Pope that there was only one right way to read the Council: in CONTINUITY with the Councils which had gone before and the constant magisterium of the Church. When we do this, the "permissions" with regard to mission lands can't be understood as open season on what is now wrongly called traditionalism.
Perhaps before anyone else opines about the Council, we should all get out our copies and use actual quotes from the Council?
The actual quotes from the conciliar documents may be used and have been used for contradictory purposes. It is impossible:
-1)to separate the council from its fruits;
-2)to separate the council from the way it was immediately interpreted in the aftermath of its works.
The fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium may be read (it may, it is a fact) to mean something like the Traditional Latin Rite with very few changes and to mean the Novus Ordo clearly show the great problems of most of its texts.
And I do not even go to the most problematic texts. How exactly does one read, v.g., Unitatis Redintegratio in continuity with Mortalium Animos? And even though I love Dominus Iesus, is there any doubt in any sensible mind that the famous "subsistit in" in LG MAY be read differently (which could never be done with the previous "est", mentioned, for example, in Mystici Corporis), that it is objectively ambiguous?
Which is why "liberals" believe that Pope John Paul was a "restorer", and that Pope Benedict is a "ultra-conservative arch-fundamentalist". Because when you read the Council not only in continuity, but ACCORDING to the 1900 years of ecclesial Tradition, you are left with... the pre-Conciliar Tradition.
"Vatican II is not the Apostolical Council of Jerusalem, Jordan."
Irrelevant. It was still a valid council to whose teachings we are bound to give our assent.
"It is not Nicaea, either, but if you want to make a statement based on ancient data, use Nicaea.
Actually, don't use anything. There had never been anything like Vatican II before Vatican II: a Council without clear purpose and which did not define anything. 'It seemed good to the Spirit of God and to us to... speak in ambiguous terms...'?"
Before Jerusalem, there had never been anything like Jerusalem, and before Nicaea, there had never been anything like Nicaea. The Church does not seem to be aware of the principle your comments suggest -- that councils that don't define doctrines or that make statements that require mental effort to understand are bad things.
"As I had said, it is one thing to believe in the guidance of the Holy Ghost (especially in the documents of Vatican II, which did not define anything) as a miraculous hand, forbidding clear error. But not in a positive sense, as it happens in the definition of a clear doctrine (which Vatican II avoided on purpose)."
In other words, Vatican II taught no error, which means Vatican II taught the truth, which means we are to give heed to and to believe what Vatican II teaches.
Complaining that the Council defined no doctrines and make statements that require the use of one's mental faculties in order to understanding won't advance the Church's mission a single ell.
As for your suggestion that Lovehandles read his dusty Baltimore Catechism, one shouldn't assume that a subject of the British crown has long been an owner of a catechism that U.S. Catholic bishops wrote for U.S. Catholic children.
New Catholic, have you read any of the documents of Vatican II? Even a single one, all the way through? I've read three of them all the way through, and parts of a few others others.
Jordan, I've read ALL the documents of Vatican II. ALL OF THEM. Why do you assume I didn't??? And why do you confuse ambiguity with "something which req
As for lovehandles, how was I supposed to know that he does not have a Baltimore Catechism.
Correction (I had pressed enter by mistake):
Jordan, I've read ALL the documents of Vatican II. ALL OF THEM (even Inter Mirifica!). Many of them more than once. Why do you assume I didn't??? And why do you confuse ambiguity with "something which requires mental effort"??? Perhaps you are also an unwilling victim of conciliar-confusion, since most documents of Trent require MUCH more "mental effort" than the mellifluous and prolix Constitutions of Vatican II.
As for lovehandles, how was I supposed to know that he is a "British subject"?
Now, do you really want to know what our problem is, and the reason why we are never going to agree on this (at least not in the foreseeable future)? It is because we have two quite different mindsets, two different worldviews regarding the Church and the Katrina Council. You can glimpse why we are so close yet so different in our approaches in this wonderful and short article: http://
www.latinmassmagazine.com..._Ripperger.html .
Now, I appreciate most of your thoughts and I do not want to highlight our differences. Which is why I end my arguments here. Read the above article and you will at least understand from where I'm coming.
See you.
Laudes et gratiae sint omni momento
Sanctissimo et Divinissimo Sacramento!
I took up Michael's suggestion and linked over to Pontifications. Then I went a step further and read George Sim Johnston's article. He has a point, but he drives it so hard that he dulls it.
His article begins with perhaps the most challenging passage from scripture, at least for affluent American Catholics, the story of the rich young man, the man who has always kept the law, but cannot rise above it. Johnston says of this man, "Christ offers him precisely the challenge that Vatican II made to the Catholic world. . . . a challenge both personal and deeply supernatural . . . to Catholics to break from their harness of legalism and externalism." Catholics, he says, must follow the call of V2 and "stop compartmentalizing their religion and risk a transformation in grace." Exclusive reliance on dogma and the commandments -- "rules-oriented Catholicism" -- only gets one so far.
Would anyone, from NewCatholic to Spirit of Vatican II, deny this? I certainly wouldn't. But Johnston is so bent on driving home the transformational nature of the V2 message, that he overlooks, in my opinion, the danger of it all, the same danger that has ravaged the Church for the past 40 years: the corruption of "transformation in grace" into "transformation in ego" -- a danger from which only faithful observance of those pesky "legalisms", to use the pejorative, can save us. What is the ultimate source of dogma and doctrine, if not the grace of the Holy Spirit?
What was the difference between Arius and Athanasius? Both, I'm sure, believed themselves to be transformed by grace, and driven by it to speak the truth. What, if not the prevailing truth of those "legalisms", allowed Athanasius to vanquish the heretic? Or is it only "personal experience", in which the apprehension of grace is inevitably claimed, that matters?
I don't think that John PaulII, who Johnston works hard to characterize as the most Emersonian of popes, was really that cavalier concerning matters of doctrine. Not for nothing are the modernists so scornful of his achievements, or skulkily fearful of his successor.
"Jordan, I've read ALL the documents of Vatican II. ALL OF THEM (even Inter Mirifica!). Many of them more than once. Why do you assume I didn't???"
I didn't assume you didn't. I asked if you had. Most Catholics haven't -- as I mentioned, I haven't read them all. I wanted to know if you had, because it seems to me that you have argued here against the validity and binding nature of Vatican II, which is a position no Catholic may hold.
"And why do you confuse ambiguity with 'something which requires mental effort'???"
I don't. However, all ambiguity requires mental effort to understand, and so far as I can tell, quite a lot of the Councils have made ambiguous statements.
"Perhaps you are also an unwilling victim of conciliar-confusion, since most documents of Trent require MUCH more 'mental effort' than the mellifluous and prolix Constitutions of Vatican II."
That's not been my experience. I read rather more of Trent's documents than I have of Vatican II's. The difference is striking -- Trent is far more plain and direct and to the point than anything from Vatican II.
"As for lovehandles, how was I supposed to know that he is a 'British subject'?"
He's mentioned it here more than once, even this very week.
And what are those scare quotes for?
"Now, do you really want to know what our problem is, and the reason why we are never going to agree on this (at least not in the foreseeable future)? It is because we have two quite different mindsets, two different worldviews regarding the Church and the Katrina Council."
I rather expect we do. Broadly, my view is acceptance of the Council, yours is vehement rejection. Certainly that's how it seems to me, anyway.
You're not, perchance, affiliated in some way with the SSPX, are you? (Note, I'm not assuming you are -- I'm asking if you are.)
I'll read the Latin Mass article you linked to and tell you what I think.
I don't "reject" the council, Jordan.
The fact of the matter is: was the Council a doctrinal renovation or a collection of policies? I do not even go to the tiresome "dogmatic v. pastoral" debate (even though both Pope John and Pope Paul made clear it was not supposed to be seen or interpreted as dogmatic), but to the content of the documents themselves.
All their content (that which is not simple reaffirmation of past teachings) is made of policies, disciplinary measures of one kind or another. And they failed. Miserably. And I know this first hand: even the "blossom" of the Catholic Global South (which had already started in Africa much before the Council) is based today in almost complete doctrinal ignorance and helped by an "inculturation" which is outright pagan in many places. And the state of the Church in Latin America is abysmal -- and it has never recovered from the Council and the subsequent Medellin proposals.
That's all that Vatican II was about: an attempt to re-Christianise the world, but the Church was the one which became mundane.
Policies are supposed to change when they fail. The policies of the Katrina Council have destroyed the walls of the citadel... But the citadel is still there, under the contaminated floodwaters of heresy (which were not caused, but liberated by the Council). This is not a "rejection" of the Council. But we must overcome it.
Jordan & New Catholic:
I would like your opinion(s) on the question which has plagued me for some time now. Is the Council the cause of the chaos we see around us, a symptom of it, or the Church's antidote to the 1960s?
On another point, it seems unarguable that all was well in the Church before the Council -- Fr. Teilhard's work and Fr. Wiltgen's blow-by-blow prove that -- but IF we can consider that the Council was the antidote to the 1960s or to the crisis in the Church, could it be said to have a limited shelf-life [i.e., witness how many times the documents say things such as "in the modern era", "modern man", "in our day"].
I'm at work, but I have a very interesting document on this at home.
There were always fifth-columnists inside the Church. The Council did not "cause" them, but it created the conditions for them to unleash their satanic power inside the Church. It also was perceived as allowing previously orthodox bishops and priests to "experiment" with new ideas.
As for your expiration-date idea, it seems to me you are certainly right. The Council was mostly a cultural manifestation of the 1960s. In a way, the church tried to "aggiornare" itself, as if it were able to derail the revolutionary train of modern ideas (George Neumayr had a wonderful article using this metaphor a few years ago). It wasn't.
Chris,
What do you mean when you say "it seems incontestable that all was well within the Church prior to the Council"? Better? That's certainly incontestable, but "Humani Generis" does not seem the product of an environment in which "all was well".
Ralph, Chris said it is "unarguable" that all was well within the Church prior to the Council -- that is, it cannot be argued that all was well within the Church prior to the Council. Or at least that's how I read his words.
In answer to Chris' question, I would agree with New Catholic that the Council was the Church's answer to the particular problems, challenges, and errors afflicting man in the modern age. Thus, as history proceeds, the policies and approaches adopted at Vatican II will be less relevant. I don't believe the Council can be interpreted as the cause or the symptom of the chaos of modernity, but is rather an orthodox Catholic response to it.
Right - I'm losing it - incontestably
Chris, the article I wanted to send you is “George Washington, Napoleon, John Paul II and the Future of the Vatican II Revolution”, by Fr John J. Markey, OP.
It was an eye-opening text for me. I have it in PDF file, but I do not know how to send it to you. I have not been able to find it online again, but it can probably be found in the Wayback Machine. It's also been published and it was originally part of the Vatican II 40th Anniversary symposium at Seattle University ("Jesuit")
No, it's not archived at the Wayback Machine. But you should be able to send a pdf file as an email attachment.
I studied Vatican II carefully in my seminary years, and I never at any time suspected it of being anything other than a quite sensible and solid Council. All my teachers, including Ratzinger, agreed on this. There is something very odd in the spectacle of newly converted Catholics telling us cradle Catholics that we were taken for a ride by the fathers of Vatican II (aged, conservative bishops, mostly appointed by Pius XII).
OK, Jordan.
The problem is: I don't have your e-mail and Chris'.
---
I refuse to say anything to Father O'Leary. I thought he had disappeared... {Sigh}
New Catholic:
How can you refuse to say anything to Father O'Leary? We only have the somewhat nebulous "Spirit of Vatican II". If this is Father O'Leary, I invite him to call himself such, so we can treat him as we should treat any priest.
New Catholic, try Ay-Ar-Dee-Gee-Oh-Doubleyou-Ay-En AT insightbb.com (Spelled phonetically to defeat the spam bots.)
Email received successfully, New Catholic. Thanks.
Okay, I've read Fr. Markey's lecture, and I think the ideas he advances in his lecture perfectly embody what's wrong with the Church today. The politically correct feminist shibboleths "Godself" instead of "Himself," or referring to the Holy Spirit as "she" instead of "He," are telling signs of Fr. Markey point of view and of the axe he has to grind. I think his interpretation of Vatican II is dead wrong. He makes some good points along the way, but his claims about what Vatican II supposedly was about and what it supposedly authorised are mostly a pile of baloney, sliced thick. If Fr. Markey's views were ever to become regnant in the Church -- they won't ever, but if they did -- it would be nothing other than the death of the Church, the prevailing of the gates of hell.
And now I've read Fr. Ripperger's piece from the Spring 2001 Latin Mass magazine. Overall, I would agree with Fr. Ripperger's essay. Taking his definitions of "conservative," "neoconservative," liberal," and "traditionalist" as the norm, I am apparently a traditionalist. I'm certainly not one who obeys only the current Magisterium and disregards the prior tradition. But then I also acknowledge that Vatican II is a part of the normative tradition and must be accepted, not resisted or quarantined or overcome.
Surely by Fr. Ripperger's definition, GOOD Catholics are all traditionalists? Catholics who begin with Vatican II can't stay with the Church long, because they lack the grounding to perdure in the faith. They're what Fr. Shannon Collins calls "Spiritual Geldings" or their adopted children.
Not at all, Chris. In Fr. Ripperger's definition, Neo-Conservatives are also in most cases "Good Catholics", even if somewhat misguided.
And their confusion has been caused, in a significant way, by the vastly huge (the exaggeration is necessary here) amount of Church documents written from 1963 onwards; and, I would add (I do not believe the author says it), by the great stature of Pope John Paul II, especially when compared to the vacuum of power of the last half (1970-1978 ) of Pope Montini's pontificate.
I have little time now, but I will try to write what I think about the article I sent you, Jordan. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you could forward it to Chris (and to Dr. Blosser). I'll begin by saying that I believe Fr. Markey would have a valid point, if the documents of Vatican II were literary texts independent of any previous document; i.e., the "Spirit of Vatican II", which he represents, is "objectively" understandable, even though it is unacceptable in the light of Tradition.
I was going to write further today, but I am exceedingly saddened by the death of the last anti-Roe hero, C.Justice Rehnquist.
He won't see the iniquity of Roe overturned while on this earth.
// I invite him to call himself such, so we can treat him as we should treat any priest.
WE HAVE SEEN WHAT THAT MEANS. SUCH A LACK OF SELFAWARENESS...
Very true anonymous ... if any priest wants to be told he is unfit to be a member of the clergy, or to experience old friendships betrayed, or to see his reputation trashed in a hundred traditionalist blogs, and his photo plastered all over the internet, he knows where to come.
I shudder to think what might happen to a Bishop.
Thank you. Though I'm not sure I agree with it all, parcel and part, this is nonetheless filled with brilliant insights.
As we heard in this morning's Gospel, if he refuses to take heed of the Church, treat him as you would a publican and a gentile.
I have no difficulty whatsoever treating a priest with dignity. That said, nonsense is still nonsense, even if it comes from a priest.
"if any priest wants to be told he is unfit to be a member of the clergy, or to experience old friendships betrayed, or to see his reputation trashed in a hundred traditionalist blogs, and his photo plastered all over the internet, he knows where to come."
Not just "any priest."
Jordan,
I'm glad you agree with my assessment of Father O'Leary's treatment in here.
I didn't say that.
Sorry, you merely implied you agreed.
That's one way to interpret my comment. It's not how I meant it, but it could be interpreted that way.
I think one group of folks who are happy that Vatican II happened are the freedom fighters of Solidarnosc in Poland, who's fundamental argument for religious liberty against the Communist totalitarians was based on Dignitatus Humanae... Weigel covers this in Witness to Hope. Same thing in my country, to a lesser extent.
Having read the Latin Mass article, I'd be curious to know who the author would think of as "neo-conservative Catholics". Most of those I've read who are generally identified as such seem to me to have a deep respect both for Scripture and Tradition, and could in no way be accused to believing that the 1900 years before Vatican II are irrelevant while Vatican II is authoritative.
While I would agree with the author's assessment of "neo-conservatives" if I met one, I have rather the feeling that the author intends the label for Catholics like myself who while certainly not believing that Vatican II is the greatest and fullest expression of the Church's Tradition, nonetheless believe that it does contain much useful truth and insight, despite the chaos that has ensued in some quarters since the council.
In some quarters??? How about in all quarters? Even the "French Quarter" of Tradition, while unscathed, is left without electricity and drinking water...
To be fair, there is chaos in MOST sectors of the Church, but not all. Seminaries with a well-earned reputation for teaching and thinking with the Church are bursting at the seams. Parishes which pray the Tridentine Rite out of love for God and His Church (as opposed to other, lesser motives such as knowing better than the Pope)are going gangbusters. Exhibit A is my 6 year old, who said at Mass this Sunday "There are so many people here!" Out of the mouths of babes and baerns....
Chris
If you show me ONE seminary or church which was not included, at some point after the council, in the chaos... then I'll say you're right.
The problem is: even those orthodox seminaries which look promising now were mostly in dire straits in the post-conciliar period, but they had the good fortune of eventually being under a good bishop.
And the Traditional (so-called "Tridentine") Mass, after the introduction of the "novus ordo", did not fall from Rome. With very few exceptions, it is mostly celebrated by priests indebted in one way or another to Abp. Marcel Lefebvre's fight, whatever we think about how it ended. And that was chaos, too.
So I stay by my affirmation that there was chaos in all quarters, the fire burned throughout the City, though not in all places at all times.
Of course there is chaos in all quarters, New Catholic. What do you think history IS? Do you think there was order before 1962? I hear some nostalgic voices saying, "Before 1848, we had order..."
I certainly wasn't there, but from what I've read then bishop Wojtyla successfully turn the council into a teaching and growth opportunity for the diocese of Krakow. Indeed, his success with the diocesan synod in Krakow was one of the major considerations of the college of cardinals when they selected him as pope.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that was not the norm. Most bishops failed miserably in implementing the council -- though that honestly makes me wonder how solid they were in the first place.
There's no telling what the Church would be like today had their been no council. I can imagine several different and equally reasonable scenarios, both worse and better than our current one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a just fan of Waugh and many of the other pre VII writers (though I'm not sure that Waugh's reaction to the council exactly showcased his finer qualities). But while reading VII is in no way as deep or transcendant an experience as reading Aquinas or Dante, I think that it did provide much useful thought on "issues of the modern world".
Wonderful would it have been
had it provided only 'thoughts'...
In the 1960s, 1970s and beyond, WESTERN COUNTRIES experienced a drop in Mass attendance. These same countries also saw a decline in seminary enrollments.
However ON A WORLDWIDE SCALE (especially in African countries, which embraced the revised liturgy most enthusiastically) there was a STRONG INCREASE in numbers: from 72,991 major seminarians in 1970 (the first year of the Statistical Yearbook of the Church and, coincidentally, the year of publication of the revised Roman Missal) to 113,199 in 2002. The same holds for the number of priests (again in contrast to the global trend) and for adherence to fundamental truths of the Catholic faith, as expressed by Catholics in Western countries.
The geography of the declines suggests they are part of the general phenomenon of secularism and libertarianism that these countries WERE ALREADY EXPERIENCING since the 1960s, before the liturgy was revised.
Of course some (AT THIS BLOG FOR EXAMPLE), instead attribute the declines to the changes in the liturgy, but they are of course living in cloud cuckoo land.
As one who has seen Latin American Catholicism up close for extended periods of time, I can only say that the loss of the sense of sacredness, the willful ignorance of Catholic doctrine, and the trivialisation of the liturgy have been even stronger in Latin America.
The vegetative growth of self-declared Catholics has been considerable, but in a smaller rate than that of the population itself, and the growth of the pentecostal "sects" has been much, much stronger.
New Catholic,
Can I ask what "sacredness" actually means in your book, and how exactly this "willful ignorance of Catholic doctrine" has manifested itself in Latin America? Are you referring to Liberation theology?
I also do hope you realise that without Vatican II, the people of both Latin America and Africa would have been obliged to learn Latin in order to follow the Mass. Not very practical on several levels.
I'm also not sure whether you think that the Penetecostal example is one that the Catholic Church should follow or not. Personally I think that the growth of Pentecostal sects and the like has something to do with their appealing to the indigenous religions of Latin American countries. Should the Catholic Curch follow their example? This seems to be what you are implying (and I'm not sure I would disagree!)
If Catholicism cannot even talk to people in their own language and address their own cultural contexts, then there is no hope at all of reaching them.
That is why Vatican II has been so crucial to the spread of Catholicism in Africa.
"I also do hope you realise that without Vatican II, the people of both Latin America and Africa would have been obliged to learn Latin in order to follow the Mass"
I'm sorry, lovehandles, but what is your problem? The people of Latin America had only known the Latin Mass for almost 500 years. From the Jesuits in the Paraguay Missions to the Dominicans in the Mexian forests, the Latin Mass was the heart and soul of Catholic LATIN America.
I agree, New Catholic -- what is up with our progressive, compassionate UK lad and his snotty, elitist attitude, which implies that Latin Americans and Africans -- those dusky tribes, don't you know -- are too slow or stupid to cope with a Latin Mass?
I know of people from our parish who pretty much dropped out of the Church when the Mass was changed. The wholesale, completely unprecendented change in the liturgy created a terrifying crisis in faith for them -- and they still haven't recovered, and may never recover. Even with indults in our diocese for the pre-Vatican II Mass, these people won't go, because it wasn't their love of Latin liturgy that was attacked, it was their very faith itself that was shredded. The post-Vatican II changes were also notoriously bad for priests and religious, with large numbers of them breaking their promises to Jesus and His Church and giving up their divine vocations, and often leaving the Sacrament of Salvation altogether. They are the flotsam and jetsam of the shipwreck that goes by the name of "the spirit of Vatican II."
One of my teachers in high school was a big strapping dude, handsome, aggressively outgoing, massive forearms, big booming voice, a priest I'll call Fr Luke. The kind of guy teenage boys respond to like frisky puppies. Full of V2 ecumenism, let's get a protest going about something, live the faith by pissing on the bourgeosie [like, for example, your fathers and mothers]. The Salvatorians seemed to be crammed to the rafters with guys like that.
By 1972 he was out of the priesthood, shacking up with an ex-nun [what could be more appropriate?] in NYC. A few years later the Salvatorians themselves were all but defunct. I don't know what they do to justify themselves nowadays, but back then, they were "on fire", as they say, shakin' and finger-poppin' for the New Emerging Jesus-Event, or whatever.
For this priest, the New Emerging Jesus-Event turned out to be turning his back on the Church. Glory, glory, glory.
>>>"I also do hope you realise that without Vatican II, the people of both Latin America and Africa would have been obliged to learn Latin in order to follow the Mass"
Can you spell MISSAL.
I use one every time I go to the Latin Mass, and I understand it all quite fine. In fact, I understand what is actually going on in the Mass much better now (than I did previously in the Novus Ordo). I still frequent the N.O. BTW.
Did Jesus preach in Latin?
Nope!
But Latin, Greek and Hebrew were united to Him on the Cross. English certainly wasn't. One wonders if perhaps Pontius Pilate wasn't a member of ICEL. "What is truth?"
So, is English somehow a "profane" language now?
And what do you make of the apostles speaking in tongues, that each man might hear?
In the mass there are such things as "vertical" actions (worship of the transcendent God of majesty) and "horizontal" actions (prayers that focus more on individual concerns).
The bishops of the Second Vatican Council tried to bring these "vertical" and "horizontal" prayers together into one. They realized that the worship that is most pleasing to God is the worship that brings us to our full spiritual, mental and physical potential. As St. Irenaeus said: "The glory of God is the human person fully alive!" God cannot be worshiped (vertical) by those who are not concerned for others (horizontal).
Commenting by HaloScan
