What was your first encounter with the "Spirit of VCII"?
#31
(06-29-2009, 12:23 PM)JonW Wrote:
cgraye Wrote:They also had a thing where during the Prayers of the Faithful, anyone could yell out an intention.  One time I yelled out that we should pray for the conversion of my Jewish cousins.  Yeah, that...didn't go over well

Funniest quote so far, I think.  Which reminds me... The "spirit of VII" is a tragic and, I'm sure, evil influence  in the Church.  However, I think that a part of restoring the Church is to face the problem with seriousness, diligence, prayer, faith, and mirth.  I'm just as angry as the next trad, but I also think that God gave us laughter for very good reason.  Now, a convert's story, which is anything but funny...

I converted to Catholicism from atheism a little over three years ago.  I became a Catholic a little over two years ago.  My great great grandfather was a Ruthinian Rite Eastern Catholic priest who was moved to the states from Georgia, with a wife and family, etc.  He was also a very good religious artist.  One of the churches he designed and painted was St. Clement's in Chicago.  I had been to St. Clement's before, and it stood out to me as a beautiful Catholic church, so I thought I would do RCIA there (I was a very naive convert).  The RCIA class was headed by a fairly conservative woman with multiple degrees from Notre Dame.  It was also run by several other members of the congregation, most of whom were embedded dissenters and open homosexuals.  We never opened the Catechism and when we read the scripture passages on Sunday, we were asked how we felt about them.  Almost everything we talked about was heavily tinged with the social justice stuff (even the stuff the head woman talked about), and on the few occasions when she wasn't there, all we talked about was how backwards the Church was and had always been, how some day there would be women priests, married clergy, full endorsement of homosexuality, etc. etc.  We were told to dissent, and how to go about it.  I remember Call to Action being mentioned several times.  Things were more tame when the head woman was there, which I still find strange.   Finally , I had to leave the parish when, after the election of Obama, the parish decided it would have a clebration party.  Most of the priests there have their heads in the right place  (for NO priests), but are (as far as I could tell) completely at the mercy of these dissenters.  This was confirmed for me later when one of the priests confided in me that he was on medication for stroke-level high blood pressure because of the criticisms he would undergo from the embedded dissenters, about everything under the sun.  He got tons of flack from them once because he said the word "marriage" in a sermon, because "they" can't get married.  Maybe they've changed their tune now that, in many cases, they can...

So it's not always about bad clergy.  I think at least equally often, it's embedded dissenters in a parish.  The priest also told me that some left after Benedict became pope because they could no longer be members of a "homophobic" church, if you can believe it.  But he said that many stayed and have dug in their heals in order to change the Church from the inside.  Very scary stuff...

I think this brings up an important point, and it's something I've been pondering ever since talking to my mother (a very "Spirit of VCII" Catholic  ;)). I assumed after VCII that it was her leadership that changed- that she was told birth control was no big deal, that all religions are equal, that the "pro-abortion" democratic party is the "moral" party, etc. However, she told me that during her pre-Cana classes the priest flat out told them that birth control was sinful, but she was contracepting anyway (she also had sex before marriage but isn't convicted it is a sin because it was with my father, the man she married, and the man she "loves.") She was contracepting already, at the altar. When I asked why she would go directly against what her priest told her, she said "Everyone else was doing it, and they told me it was man's law, not God's." I haven't figured out who the "they" are she is talking about, but clearly it wasn't her direct leadership.
Reply
#32
I remember getting my First Holy Communion on my knees at the altar rail which would have been around 1966.  I don't really remember the changes much.  I do remember my mother telling me we didn't have to cover our heads and we could wear pants to church now.  We all thought it was a good thing.  Our parish church stayed pretty conservative, but I went to Catholic school and by high school we were having guitar Masses and all.  I played the guitar and sang at them.  Groovy!  In our religion classes we were learning that you didn't have to be Catholic to get into Heaven.  At the time, it appealed to me.  The nuns still wore habits but they were changing - becoming less nun-like.  My favorite nun was the choir director (duh).  In the bus, on choir trips, she would take off her veil and she had really long hair.  All the other nuns cut their hair.  Sr. Pat was "cool".  We were a rockin' choir.  We even sang and danced to Jewish songs.  Then one night at choir practice, she came in high as a kite.  I don't know what she was on but she started going on about free love and "sex is beautiful", etc.  Then she took a tumble down the bleachers.  Fortunately, she wasn't seriously hurt.  But I was horrified.  I felt so betrayed.  They ended up transferring her and last I heard she had left the convent.

Most of the priests at the school were gay.  The freshman religion teacher was a real flamer and he made no secret about which boys he found the most attractive.  But I had no idea how really bad it was until years after I had graduated.  There was an article in the newspaper.  They arrested the principal (whom I never suspected of being gay) for spreading AIDS among the boys at the school.  I had already lost my faith by then but I certainly added it to my arsenal when arguing against belief in God.

Edited to add:  The school closed its doors for good last year.
Reply
#33
Nic, again I take your point, but I'm not from the post Vatican II type formation. I was baptised into the Ancient Faith, and I never went to a Bugnini Mass, I left at that point. The folks I am speaking about are causalities of the changes. We were taught the Baltimore Catechism, by Sister's with habits that knew Latin. We were taught music  like Tantum Ergo, O Salutaris Hostia. We were steeped in the Tradition. Yet many many of us left the Church, and that continues today,but I was referring to my contemporaries particularly.Here is the kernel in what I am saying, if you sum all of the Traditional Priests, there are not enough to cover all that left immediately for the changes. Those are the ones I was asking about, rhetorically. Being brutally honest, the current young generation of Traditional Catholics put way to much emphasis on knowing minutiae and way to little emphasis on charity. To be kind, it is an over intellectualization which has set in.  The Lord said He will judge us on how we helped the least, and I doubt very much there will be an essay questions asking our opinions parsing the Documents of Vatican II.
tim
Reply
#34
I was 20 years old when in 1959 January Pope John XXIII announced the Council. I was in a conservative seminary, in the time when every priest should take the Antimodernist oath, and the Spirit of the Syllabus (Pius IX) and Antimodernist oath (Pius X) was taken seriously.

We took the announcement of the council  with great expectations. The last comprehensive council was the Tridentinum (Vatican I declared the papal infallibility and was dissolved early due to the French-German war), the Church was governed by papal encyclicals, what we regarded with great honor but there was no synthesis. Everyone expected that the bishops and the pope will make proper adaptation to the modern world, and will finalize the changes made by the papal encyclicals.

A few months later Cardinal Ottaviani was named as head of the preparatory commission, and his name was guaranty for the good direction.

The council opened in 1962. At least from Hungary no change was seen from the original concept: the council will provide the synthesis of the development since the Tridentinum.

The first documents came out in 1963 (Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Liturgy and Inter Mirifica on the media) The LIturgical constitution was interpreted that Chapter I declares the principles, basically the promotion of the actuosa participatio started by St Pius X. There was some confusdion about the practical chapters (II-VII), but everyone believed that the 'soup is not eaten as hot as it is cooked'. The decree on the media was interpreted as common sense opinion, in line with the traditional teaching.

The tension became clear in 1964. The liberal wing took over the council, and was using much more effective tactics that the conservative wing. Still at the closing of the council we believed that nothing irreversible happened, due to the tension the council was not able to synthesize the traditional teaching of the Church, but the documents could be interpreted as 'orthodox' (Archbishop Lefevbre signed the documents), and we should interpret them as benevolently.

The 'spirit of Vatican' in the recent negative sense born sometimes in 1968 not before or during the council.

At the closing of the council we all believed and I still believe that the collegium of the bishops is infallible only if they declare their document infallible (what did not happen due to the internal tension among them) but still their voice should be considered with obedient benevolance.

laszlo
Reply
#35
(06-29-2009, 01:58 PM)glgas Wrote: I was 20 years old when in 1959 January Pope John XXIII announced the Council. I was in a conservative seminary, in the time when every priest should take the Antimodernist oath, and the Spirit of the Syllabus (Pius IX) and Antimodernist oath (Pius X) was taken seriously.

Thank you, Lazlo, that was a very illuminating post.
Reply
#36
This is what binds us all, The Church Founded By Jesus Christ Our Lord, and handed over (traditio) to us by Peter, the Rock, and through the Tradition from the Apostles to the present day. Too, too many have been wounded in this young and old. Your stories convince me this can not be fixed without the direct intervention of Providence. May God have mercy on us all, including the fallen away.
tim
Reply
#37
(06-29-2009, 01:58 PM)glgas Wrote: The 'spirit of Vatican' in the recent negative sense born sometimes in 1968 not before or during the council.

Hungary probably kept her traditions a little better than some. 

However, the spirit of Vatican II hit in some places of the U.S. fairly early, i.e, during the council.  There was at least one U.S. bishop who had friends among the Rhine Group in Europe, and this bishop came back from the early sessions of the council and began implementing "the spirit," which manifested itself in one of his parishes building a brand new parish church with a freestanding altar, no tabernacle, which was dedicated during the council. 

The parish next to the parish of my youth did the same thing.  It was built in 1964.  Looks like a big barn.

My parish stopped using the communion rail in 1966/67.  The nuns dropped their habits by 1967.  Mass facing the people began in my parish immediately after the council.  By 1967, Latin was completely gone.  All those things happened before 1968.
Reply
#38
Benno, the story of your childhood is absolutely endearing.  I hope that my children grow up with memories very similar to yours... minus the catechetical weirdness that creeped in, though.  Many blessings to your parents!
Reply
#39
timoose Wrote:We were steeped in the Tradition... Traditional Priests... Traditional Catholics

Be careful with capitol letters. There might be "traditional Catholics," but there are no "Traditional Catholics."
Reply
#40
It is a mystery for me, why the western word changed so fast. I left Hungary in 1981, a table faced the people but the original altar and tabernacle was unchanged, and except the vernacular that change in the mass was hardly recognizable, people confessed before communion, communion was distributed at the communion rail to a few who kneeled. In 1981 and 82 a spent a time in Bavaria (Munich)  very similar picture.

When I came here I was surprised that no confession and everyone is lined up for communion. Sometimes I fantasized that may be the large increase in the ordinations in the sixties was explained by agents sent by the liberals to destroy the true spirit of the American Catholics.

As for Vatican II this is the paragraph about the altar:
Quote:128. Along with the revision of the liturgical books, as laid down in Art. 25, there is to be an early revision of the canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provision of material things involved in sacred worship. These laws refer especially to the worthy and well planned construction of sacred buildings, the shape and construction of altars, the nobility, placing, and safety of the eucharistic tabernacle, the dignity and suitability of the baptistery, the proper ordering of sacred images, embellishments, and vestments. Laws which seem less suited to the reformed liturgy are to be brought into harmony with it, or else abolished; and any which are helpful are to be retained if already in use, or introduced where they are lacking.

According to the norm of Art. 22 of this Constitution, the territorial bodies of bishops are empowered to adapt such things to the needs and customs of their different regions; this applies especially to the materials and form of sacred furnishings and vestments.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...um_en.html

It did not 'dedicated' the hidden tabernacle and altar in the center Churches. Legally the Mass facing people and vernacular was allowed first in 1965 with the law that the National Conferences of the Bishops would make the rules approved by the Holy See.

(06-29-2009, 05:16 PM)DJR Wrote: Hungary probably kept her traditions a little better than some. 

However, the spirit of Vatican II hit in some places of the U.S. fairly early, i.e, during the council.  There was at least one U.S. bishop who had friends among the Rhine Group in Europe, and this bishop came back from the early sessions of the council and began implementing "the spirit," which manifested itself in one of his parishes building a brand new parish church with a freestanding altar, no tabernacle, which was dedicated during the council. 

The parish next to the parish of my youth did the same thing.  It was built in 1964.  Looks like a big barn.

My parish stopped using the communion rail in 1966/67.  The nuns dropped their habits by 1967.  Mass facing the people began in my parish immediately after the council.  By 1967, Latin was completely gone.  All those things happened before 1968.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)