All Your Church Are Belong To Us

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='19 February 2010 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1266561957' post='2059335']
Interesting article. From what I hear Vatican II wasn't exactly the uhhh subtlest or soundest er idea in the history of the Church.
[/quote]


Vat II was guided by the Holy Spirit the same as Vat I, Trent, all the Lateran Councils, and every other Council were, it's just that many people took Vat II as being something it wasn't (i.e., a "do whatever you feel like" card, a "protestantization" of the Church, a declaration that all things liberal (birth control, homosexuality, ordaining of women, etc.) were now okey doke within the Church, an abolition of the EF of the Mass, and so forth). There's nothing wrong with the Council itself, just the way certain people interpret what its intent was.

Edited February 20, 2010 by USAirwaysIHS

[Veridicus]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='20 February 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1266692306' post='2060002']


Vat II was guided by the Holy Spirit the same as Vat I, Trent, all the Lateran Councils, and every other Council were, it's just that many people took Vat II as being something it wasn't (i.e., a "do whatever you feel like" card, a "protestantization" of the Church, a declaration that all things liberal (birth control, homosexuality, ordaining of women, etc.) were now okey doke within the Church, an abolition of the EF of the Mass, and so forth). There's nothing wrong with the Council itself, just the way certain people interpret what its intent was.
[/quote]

The author of the article actually made a similar comment: the same bishops who wrote such eloquent documents (with a few exceptions...many councils have had points of contention in documentation in the years following them) turned around and implemented the call for renewal in the Church in a way that was over and against what the Council actually said. The error lied in the human implementation of the call of the Council, not the Spirit behind the documents of the Council.


People who use the phrase "the spirit of the Council" to justify their capricious innovations which sit in contempt of the traditions of the Church and the actual documents of the Council do a great disservice to the Spirit who inspired the Council's documents. And the people who deny the inspiration of the Council on the grounds of the flawed innovations which followed the Council equally do a disservice to the Holy Spirit who inspired the documents of the Council by equating the Spirit's worth to the flawed bias and agenda of the implementers.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Veridicus

[Nihil Obstat]

Out of curiosity, does anybody else know of any other councils through history that were misinterpreted in the decades proceeding and had to be "re-reformed"?

Edited February 20, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='20 February 2010 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1266693023' post='2060005']
Out of curiosity, does anybody else know of any other councils through history that were misinterpreted in the decades proceeding and had to be "re-reformed"?
[/quote]

Sounds like a topic for a new thread.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='20 February 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1266693349' post='2060006']
Sounds like a topic for a new thread.
[/quote]
That's a good idea. Except I'd rather not start a thread that actually has very little material to go on.

[KeenanParkerII]

[quote]Vat II was guided by the Holy Spirit the same as Vat I, Trent, all the Lateran Councils, and every other Council were, it's just that many people took Vat II as being something it wasn't (i.e., a "do whatever you feel like" card, a "protestantization" of the Church, a declaration that all things liberal (birth control, homosexuality, ordaining of women, etc.) were now okey doke within the Church, an abolition of the EF of the Mass, and so forth). There's nothing wrong with the Council itself, just the way certain people interpret what its intent was.[/quote]



If the decisions rendered in the council allow for such a wide range of transgressions, especially where there weren't any before, how can we say that was a product of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit can preside over a council and yet the people can still willfully impose their own personal interests on it. Perhaps the instigation of the council itself was an act of the Holy Spirit, but I have a very hard time reconciling myself with the idea that the products of the council (as well as the human interpretation) were of the Holy Spirit. But then again, I don't know how explicit the Vatican is on the participation of the Holy Spirit in the council itself.

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='19 February 2010 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1266559136' post='2059302']
I didn't get that, US. I think his point was that the [b]liturgy didn't need reformation[/b]. If the Church wanted to approach modernity, then the way to do that was through proper catechesis and increased emphasis on why we believe what we believe...not by changing centuries of venerable liturgical tradition to make people feel better.

Now, I am not a traddie per se. I attend the NO liturgy, and when it is done by a faithful priest with solemnity, it is a wonderful liturgy. However, the problem is not that the Church needed to change itself to suit the world. The world needs to change to suit God, and His Church is the way that can happen.

Thanks Rex, I enjoyed this article immensely.
[/quote]


I think the Church did need to reform the Liturgy. The reason I think this is because the Holy Spirit thought it first.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='20 February 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1266697209' post='2060032']
I think the Church did need to reform the Liturgy. The reason I think this is because the Holy Spirit thought it first.
[/quote]

The liturgy is an organically developing thing which the Spirit has propelled throughout history. The relative paucity of reform between 1600 and 1900 is an exception to the preceding centuries. There were minor reforms in the Liturgy in the decades leading up the 2nd Vatican Council. I agree that, as in centuries past, there was room for reform and revitalization within the Liturgy and I think the Spirit was calling for this at the Council. I think there is plenty of room for debate on the effectiveness of the post-conciliar implementation of the reforms suggested by Sacrosanctum Consilium, however.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Veridicus

[Apotheoun]

A question that has troubled me for some time about the "reform" of the liturgy of the Roman Church is this: How is the creation of a completely different missal a "reform" of the liturgy?

It seems to me that a new liturgy was issued which in some sense suppressed the older liturgy, and in so doing the organic development of the Roman Rite was broken.

[KeenanParkerII]

[quote]A question that has troubled me for some time about the "reform" of the liturgy of the Roman Church is this: How is the creation of a completely different missal a "reform" of the liturgy?

It seems to me that a new liturgy was issued which in some sense suppressed the older liturgy, and in so doing the organic development of the Roman Rite was broken. [/quote]

Bam.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='20 February 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1266698198' post='2060046']
A question that has troubled me for some time about the "reform" of the liturgy of the Roman Church is this: How is the creation of a completely different missal a "reform" of the liturgy?

It seems to me that a new liturgy was issued which in some sense suppressed the older liturgy, and in so doing the organic development of the Roman Rite was broken.
[/quote]
are you sure it's the question that's troubled you? or the answer?

[mortify]

In essence, what has happened since Vatican II is equivalent to a King saying, "The Keep I reside is strong, so let's knock down the wall and towers that fortify it, and drain the mote that surrounds it!" The end result is that keep, which represents the Deposit of Faith and other essentials, has been made vulnerable and so it's no wonder that there is apostasy and heresy abounding in our time. We have to realize that in the sphere of religion there is no such thing as a "small thing," anything that helps the spirit and ensures salvation is precious.

[Luigi]

I think a lot of people see a cause and effect relationship between Vatican II and what happened in the Church after it - that's natural to some extent, but on the other hand, the whole world was changing at the same time as the Vatican Council, and changing radically & rapidly.

The Civil Rights movement, the Viet Nam War protest movement, gay liberation, women's liberation, the pill, and efforts to eliminate colonialism in Africa and South America (to name just the most well-know) all occurred simultaneous with or shortly after the Vatican Council. Of course these aren't Catholic movements, but they would have occurred whether there ever was a Council or not. And whatever is going on in society is bound to have some impact on the Church - at least the individual practicing (or not) Catholics and perhaps various parts of the hierarchy, too. So whether John XXIII ever called a Vatican Council, the developments I mentioned would have had some impact on the Church. Since they occurred (nearly) simultaneously, many Catholics - especially those who are nostalgic for the good old days - blame any deterioration 9or even mere change) in the Church on the Council.

It woulda happened anyhow.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='20 February 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1266698198' post='2060046']
A question that has troubled me for some time about the "reform" of the liturgy of the Roman Church is this: [b]How is the creation of a completely different missal a "reform" of the liturgy? [/b]

It seems to me that a new liturgy was issued which in some sense suppressed the older liturgy, and in so doing the organic development of the Roman Rite was broken.
[/quote]

Action failed: You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

+100

Best. Question. EVER. (well... pretty much ever)

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Luigi' date='20 February 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1266727460' post='2060285']
I think a lot of people see a cause and effect relationship between Vatican II and what happened in the Church after it - that's natural to some extent, but on the other hand, the whole world was changing at the same time as the Vatican Council, and changing radically & rapidly.

The Civil Rights movement, the Viet Nam War protest movement, gay liberation, women's liberation, the pill, and efforts to eliminate colonialism in Africa and South America (to name just the most well-know) all occurred simultaneous with or shortly after the Vatican Council. Of course these aren't Catholic movements, but they would have occurred whether there ever was a Council or not. And whatever is going on in society is bound to have some impact on the Church - at least the individual practicing (or not) Catholics and perhaps various parts of the hierarchy, too. So whether John XXIII ever called a Vatican Council, the developments I mentioned would have had some impact on the Church. Since they occurred (nearly) simultaneously, many Catholics - especially those who are nostalgic for the good old days - blame any deterioration 9or even mere change) in the Church on the Council.

It woulda happened anyhow.
[/quote]

The social changes would have definitely impacted the laity within the Church whether the Council convened or not...however the liturgical reform may not 'have happened anyhow' as it did. To be honest, I lament that the liturgical movement could not have brought to fruition reasonable reform before the excrement hit the fan in the rest of the world during the 60s and 70s. I wonder how the Latin Church's 'OF' liturgy might be different were the Council convened 40yrs earlier than it was...perhaps between the Wars. If the liturgical reform could have been accomplished in the atmosphere of a more obedient Catholic laity, presbyterate, & episcopacy...alas.