Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you
#21
(07-23-2009, 08:34 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: I've been reading a book you might find interesting in this vein - Greg Dues's Catholic Customs and Traditions.  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.

I think we have that at our store. I'll look into it. Thanks! :)
Reply
#22
Res Rev -

beautiful.

+1.
Reply
#23
Was something needed?  Yes.  What what came out of the Vatican II Council the thing that was needed?  No.

Briefly, the people that were causing the trouble in the 30s, 40s, and 50s went into the council, changed the agenda, and used it to get all kinds of ambiguous nonsense ratified to enable the junk we see now.

The problem was not a lack of involvement by the laity because the laity rarely got involved any more in 1650 than in 1950.  We have seen extreme involvement by the laity post-V2, and, it obviously turned out not-so-hot.
Reply
#24
(07-23-2009, 08:55 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Was something needed?  Yes.  What what came out of the Vatican II Council the thing that was needed?  No.

Briefly, the people that were causing the trouble in the 30s, 40s, and 50s went into the council, changed the agenda, and used it to get all kinds of ambiguous nonsense ratified to enable the junk we see now.

The problem was not a lack of involvement by the laity because the laity rarely got involved any more in 1650 than in 1950.  We have seen extreme involvement by the laity post-V2, and, it obviously turned out not-so-hot.

I have to agree with you there, Quis.
Reply
#25
Most of the people who were alive prior to the Council want nothing to do with the traditional Mass or anything else from that time.  I say most.  Just because they memorized the Baltimore Catechism doesn't mean they knew anything more about the Faith than the average NO pew potato nowadays. Maybe they could repeat it by rote, but had they internalized it?  Evidence says no, they hadn't. 

So, yes, a Council was needed.  What was needed even more, however, was a strong pope to preside over it.  Instead, we got a naive optimist followed by an ineffectual hand wringer.  They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. 
Reply
#26
(07-23-2009, 08:43 PM)ResiduumRevertetur Wrote: 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.

+ RR. ! Your viewpoint is interesting. The "spirit" of revolution was a sleeping giant in the 50s (and before) who woke up in the 60s..

I also agree about bad timing. But I’m not sure there was ever good timing for a pastoral Council since the age of  Enlightenment. I believe (and mind you, there’s no way I can prove this) that a crisis would have happened with or without Vatican II. That’s the direction the whole world was headed and the Church was not immune. Someone said (I think it was Miles) that the Church was crawling with Modernists since the 19th century. I don’t want to keep repeating myself, but when I say “Church” I guess I mean the Vatican, but again, it wasn't just the Vatican.

I have more I want to say.. but I need to get something to eat.

- Lisa
Reply
#27
(07-23-2009, 08:42 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(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

Haha! Ok, Lisa. Either I'm on a completely different page or I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you speaking about personal sins? I thought this was about the execution of the Church's teaching authority, whether binding or non-binding, by the Church's hierarchy. Whether or not the council was binding (mandatory) on the faithful, the Church has nevertheless established the [de]formation (I'm not trying to be funny here, I just don't think it was a reformation because nothing needed to be reformed - see my answer to your question below) of the liturgy and ambiguous dogmatic proclamations as a means by which souls may be saved. This was more than just "personal sins" of men abusing their authority; this is about the sins of men abusing the Magisterium and destroying the first mark of the Church by which it may be known: Unity (of worship, of belief, of prayer, of teaching, and of Faith.).  

But to answer your second question in your OP:

If the "faithful" (in quotes because they really wouldn't be faithful) are discontented with the liturgy, then the solution is to change the "faithful" not the face of Christ's Spouse. As you said in a recent post on this thread, a restoration could be in order, but it would have to restore, not invent.
Reply
#28
(07-23-2009, 08:55 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Was something needed?  Yes.  What what came out of the Vatican II Council the thing that was needed?  No.

Briefly, the people that were causing the trouble in the 30s, 40s, and 50s went into the council, changed the agenda, and used it to get all kinds of ambiguous nonsense ratified to enable the junk we see now.

The problem was not a lack of involvement by the laity because the laity rarely got involved any more in 1650 than in 1950.  We have seen extreme involvement by the laity post-V2, and, it obviously turned out not-so-hot.

Now see, I think there was a severe lack of involvement of the laity, but not in the fact that they played no noteworthy roll at Mass.

I am speaking mainly about the fact that parents were at least somewhat negligent in promulgating the faith to their own children. Preferring un-involvement and leaving their primary duty of the eduction of their children to others.

Don't get me wrong, I could be off base, but my thinking here is because of how I was raised. Namely, the faith I have was handed down to me through my parents, as was handed down to them through their parents and so on. When they saw their children being taught and / or exposed to things harmful to the faith they were taught, my folks did whatever they had to do to maintain our education against the overwhelming influences that were everywhere, even in their own church.

Any way, sorry for the rant, but if the laity remained more involved in the faith, they would have stood fast and never changed.


Reply
#29
Oh, and if you think my family is saintly, you'd be very wrong.

But I can guarantee that before God, my folks tried to make us saints.
Reply
#30
(07-23-2009, 09:27 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-23-2009, 08:55 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Was something needed?  Yes.  What what came out of the Vatican II Council the thing that was needed?  No.

Briefly, the people that were causing the trouble in the 30s, 40s, and 50s went into the council, changed the agenda, and used it to get all kinds of ambiguous nonsense ratified to enable the junk we see now.

The problem was not a lack of involvement by the laity because the laity rarely got involved any more in 1650 than in 1950.  We have seen extreme involvement by the laity post-V2, and, it obviously turned out not-so-hot.

Now see, I think there was a severe lack of involvement of the laity, but not in the fact that they played no noteworthy roll at Mass.

I am speaking mainly about the fact that parents were at least somewhat negligent in promulgating the faith to their own children. Preferring un-involvement and leaving their primary duty of the eduction of their children to others.

Don't get me wrong, I could be off base, but my thinking here is because of how I was raised. Namely, the faith I have was handed down to me through my parents, as was handed down to them through their parents and so on. When they saw their children being taught and / or exposed to things harmful to the faith they were taught, my folks did whatever they had to do to maintain our education against the overwhelming influences that were everywhere, even in their own church.

Any way, sorry for the rant, but if the laity remained more involved in the faith, they would have stood fast and never changed.

No, you have a good point there, and I've heard it made before.  People sent their kids to Catholic school thinking it would make them Catholic and not doing anything at home (or checking on what they were teaching at the schools).  Even by the time I was in grade school in the 70's, there were few orthodox nuns left and I remember learning a bunch of iffy things.  My parents assumed I was being taught to be a good Catholics along with the 3 Rs.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)