FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you (/showthread.php?tid=29485)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - SCG - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 07:17 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: My father tells me that many Catholics back in the 50s didn't really understand or engage in the mass.  This is hard for most traditional Catholics to understand today because the Latin Mass has become a rallying point for a return to all traditional practices and an active faith that extends beyond Sundays.  We look at the Latin Mass, its sense of grandeur and ceremony, its reverence, and its beauty as a means of bringing back not just reverence in general but the cultural practices that made Catholicism extraordinary and different.  We all want a time when morals are not considered relative and there are clear boundaries that define goodness and truth.  

I'm thinking out loud now (and will probably pay for it later lol):  Sometimes we don't know a good thing until it's gone. Could this deep love and appreciation for the Faith and tradition that you mention have happened without  persecution? Think about it.

Quote: According to my understanding, (based on Dad) few actually received communion back in the 50s because of their overwhelming sense of sin and lack of a desire to go to confession.

That was due to the widespread and far reaching effects of Jansenism, which I mentioned earlier. It was condemned by the Church long ago, and Pope St. Pius X put the final nail in the coffin when he encouraged frequent Communion and lowered the age of First Communicants. The latter took place almost immediately, but the overall "I'm not worthy" mindset took a while longer to shake off. There are still some who believe that the practice of infrequent Communion is better than daily Communion. But the Popes of the last 100 years or so would not agree with that.

The other extreme is the "I AM worthy" attitude of certain politicians and Catholics who neither bother to practice their faith nor mind the state of their souls before approaching the Communion rail. Out of the two extremes, the latter is worse because it's sacrilege.

Quote: Faith seemed formulaic and stagnant.  So, Vatican II was supposed to change that.  Did it?  No, it confused Catholics and allowed moral relativism in infiltrate into our culture and practice.  We went to an extreme that became frightening and downright disrespectful in some cases.

I agree with you. I don't think Vatican II did what it was supposed to do. I'm not saying some good things didn't come out of it, but you and I will never be able to review the full damage or repairs in our lifetimes. I'm just wondering if there could have been sound alternatives to remedy certain attitudes prevalent in the Church before the Council. Of course, I understand some people believe we didn't need a cure.

- Lisa


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - lamentabili sane - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 07:54 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 07:09 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: There is no reason to deface the Mystical Body of Christ with rash plastic surgery - She is how God made His Spouse to be. If the faithful did not like the way She looked, they will have to answer to God for their impudence at their death.

INP, I didn't mean the Church as a divine institution, but the human element. There can obviously be abuses by humans in the Church, past and present.

- Lisa

The changes in the Mass and discipline of the Church are not really completely "human elements". There is a doctrinal portion and a practical judgment.

An "abuse" is something that is done against the rubrics or against the disciplines. The liturgy or some discipline cannot be in and of itself an "abuse" .


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Stubborn - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 01:59 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: End of editorial. Let me turn it into a question and ask if traditional Catholics will admit that renewal (restoration) in the 20th century Church was needed? If so, how would you have effected change and/or dealt with problematic issues in the Pre-Vatican II Church if you had the know-how, the power and authority?

- Lisa

Was a "renewal" needed? I don't think so. "Renewal" of what? That one word has caused more harm than any of us will ever know while still on this earth.

If anything, a "reinforcement" of what the Church has always taught was in order, but not a "renewal".

Throughout the ages, the message of has been repeated whenever there was trouble, the reason for this is to reinforce and grow the faith, but because a "renewal" was deemed as a good thing, well, Miles said it GREAT and I will quote: Modernists often have a way of saying one thing that most people will understand as being credible, while at the same time meaning quite something else.  They are cleverly able to turn a phrase so that it seem indifferent or, worse, positive to the Faith, yet in reality the phrase may be very harmful.

Proof is in the pudding imo.



Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - SCG - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 08:18 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: The changes in the Mass and discipline of the Church are not really completely "human elements". There is a doctrinal portion and a practicle judgment.

An "abuse" is something that is done against the rubrics or against the disciplines. The liturgy or some discipline cannot be in and of itself an "abuse" .

I agree with that... I think we agree.  ???


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - SCG - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 08:22 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Was a "renewal" needed? I don't think so. "Renewal" of what? That one word has caused more harm than any of us will ever know while still on this earth.

If anything, a "reinforcement" of what the Church has always taught was in order, but not a "renewal".

"Renewal" is Vatican II speak..(mea culpa)

How about "restoration?"


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - INPEFESS - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 07:54 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 07:09 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: There is no reason to deface the Mystical Body of Christ with rash plastic surgery - She is how God made His Spouse to be. If the faithful did not like the way She looked, they will have to answer to God for their impudence at their death.

INP, I didn't mean the Church as a divine institution, but the human element. There can obviously be abuses by humans in the Church, past and present.

- Lisa

I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand what you mean or how that (i.e. "...I didn't mean the Church as a divine institution, but the human element. There can obviously be abuses by humans in the Church...") negates the role of the human element in the visible portion of the Mystical Body of Christ.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Fontevrault - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 08:17 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: I'm thinking out loud now (and will probably pay for it later lol):  Sometimes we don't know a good thing until it's gone. Could this deep love and appreciation for the Faith and tradition that you mention have happened without  persecution? Think about it.  

I certainly won't get upset.  :)  You're right.  Persecution can help us clarify our beliefs and priorities.

Quote:  That was due to the widespread and far reaching effects of Jansenism, which I mentioned earlier. It was condemned by the Church long ago, and Pope St. Pius X put the final nail in the coffin when he encouraged frequent Communion and lowered the age of First Communicants. The latter took place almost immediately, but the overall "I'm not worthy" mindset took a while longer to shake off. There are still some who believe that the practice of infrequent Communion is better than daily Communion. But the Popes of the last 100 years or so would not agree with that.

The other extreme is the "I AM worthy" attitude of certain politicians and Catholics who neither bother to practice their faith nor mind the state of their souls before approaching the Communion rail. Out of the two extremes, the latter is worse because it's sacrilege.  

Whether or not Jansenism was condemned, its effects lingered and I truly think that was one of the reasons for Vatican II.  Of course, there were probably better ways to fix things, but I also wonder how they would have been interpreted by the hippies out there.  Honest, I think they could twist almost anything if they were so inspired.  You should hear my mother (a major "free love" flower child).  I love her but she is so negative about the faith!  It's pretty hard to take sometimes.  One week she'll be going to church and happy and the next she's foaming at the mouth about some way that the local bishop is repressing her and asserting authority "he has no right to have."  When I tried to talk to her about chapel veils (I was wondering if she had kept any of hers), she went off.  It sometimes seems like she will never really come back to Catholicism.  (Sorry - personal rant.)

You're right.  The "I AM worthy" thing is wrong and frankly sickening.

Quote: I agree with you. I don't think Vatican II did what it was supposed to do. I'm not saying some good things didn't come out of it, but you and I will never be able to review the full damage or repairs in our lifetimes. I'm just wondering if there could have been sound alternatives to remedy certain attitudes prevalent in the Church before the Council. Of course, I understand some people believe we didn't need a cure.
 

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that you should defend yourself for looking for alternatives.  That wasn't my goal.  I just know that a lot of people look back on how things were with rose colored glasses.  It's easy to think things were better and everything was perfect.  I just meant to say that every period has its challenges.

I've been reading a book you might find interesting in this vein - Greg Dues's <i>Catholic Customs and Traditions.</i>  It does defend Vatican II but also discusses the loss of traditions that once held the faith together and the importance of bringing them back.  It's rather interesting.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - Stubborn - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 08:25 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 08:22 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Was a "renewal" needed? I don't think so. "Renewal" of what? That one word has caused more harm than any of us will ever know while still on this earth.

If anything, a "reinforcement" of what the Church has always taught was in order, but not a "renewal".

"Renewal" is Vatican II speak..(mea culpa)

How about "restoration?"

I know it's V2 speak - they used all kinds of V2 speak back then.

Restoration was not needed either back then - but it is now.

By the 40s and 50s, the table was all but set for what ended up happening in the 60s.

What was needed, was to repeat - with even more fervor -  the same thing that the Church has always taught.


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - SCG - 07-23-2009

(07-23-2009, 08:31 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 07:54 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 07:09 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: There is no reason to deface the Mystical Body of Christ with rash plastic surgery - She is how God made His Spouse to be. If the faithful did not like the way She looked, they will have to answer to God for their impudence at their death.

INP, I didn't mean the Church as a divine institution, but the human element. There can obviously be abuses by humans in the Church, past and present.

- Lisa

I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand what you mean or how that (i.e. "...I didn't mean the Church as a divine institution, but the human element. There can obviously be abuses by humans in the Church...") negates the role of the human element in the visible portion of the Mystical Body of Christ.

I mean the Church is full of sinners. We mess up sometimes. Men in authority abuse their power, etc. We as individuals must constantly strive for perfection. But the Church as a divine institution cannot change her doctrine or teach error. That's what I meant.

- Lisa


Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - ResiduumRevertetur - 07-23-2009

I'm not usually very helpful in these discussions, but I do have one opinion that's been bugging me. Now I'm thinking about this in relation to the US especially because I know diddly about Europe--but in the general population, in the government, and elsewhere, as the 50s were working their way into the 60s there were so many fault lines starting to emerge that I don't even think it's fair to say, Hindsight was 20/20, we didn't know changes were happening, right? These fault lines would have made the 60s the most wrong time imaginable to convene a Council and on top of that to dump nearly every visible landmark the Faithful had by the end of the decade. It was like a perfect storm to convene a Council when the people in the pews needed continuity more than ever, not change! People can say all they want that the faith did not change during VII. Technically. Tell that to my mom. She got fed up with the Church about 1963 or 64 and stopped all together by the end of the decade. She hasn't gone back since, doesn't see it as important in her life at all. She's not angry or bitter, she just doesn't care. And she was a product of 1940s Catholic school.

I think of the Church in the 60s like a teenager whose parents are divorcing. The kid is already mixed up because of the dreaded teen years (relating to the turmoil of the 1960s, generally), then Mom says she needs to "find herself" (the Council), Dad says he's moving out and they're selling the house to boot (the total overhaul of liturgy) but everyone will be happier in the end. Really. Nine out of ten psychologists say so. The kid is going to drift away from the family, start drinking or something else destructive, and have a poor view of marriage and family, mark your calendar.

To top it off, the Modernists were rubbing their hands together while salivating waiting for this Council to begin.

So, right prescription, perhaps, but wrong, wrong, wrong time.