What if the Second Vatican Council was held 10 years earlier?
#1
Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I once was speaking with a Friar at my school and the topic of Vat II came up. He brought up an interesting what if; "the question we should ask is what would have been the implications of the council if it had been held 10 years earlier in the 50's." The two decades, for all intensive purposes were so different from one another, especially here in the United States and through out the "west". Please give me your thoughts and keep the comments intelligent and charitable so that we may have a fruitful discussion. I think we forget that with notable exception, we are all on the same "team" here.

Pax,
  Hammer
Reply
#2
It's an interesting thought and of course it's hard to say as it's a "what if" question. I'm not sure Pius XII would have had the steam for such an undertaking as his health was sinking by 1953. Taking on a council might well have killed him sooner. That aside, the "liturgical movement" was already pretty strong by the fifties, so it would have been a question of trying to rein that in and the results might not have been any different.
Plus, I think Germans like Cardinal Frings were already set to push for some liberalizations in the fifties.

C.
Reply
#3
One of the things that was pretty clear about Pius XII is that he was trying to avoid a council at all cost because I think he in some ways knew what was coming. However having said that I think that only Paul VI an no other would have been foolish enough to give so much power to Bugnini.
Reply
#4
It wasn't needed at all!!!!!!!!
Reply
#5
(12-05-2010, 09:25 PM)salus Wrote: It wasn't needed at all!!!!!!!!

Regardless because it happened. lol I want your opinion on what you think would have been its outcome had it been called in the 50's. Good points Cetil and Unum Sint.
Reply
#6
Ironically enough, it was Pius XII who was promoting Bugnini in the fifties, and John XXIII who went along with or perhaps wholeheartedly approved of his removal from the Liturgical Preparatory Commission.


http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1989/j...7_640.html

C.
Reply
#7
(12-05-2010, 10:18 PM)Cetil Wrote: Ironically enough, it was Pius XII who was promoting Bugnini in the fifties, and John XXIII who went along with or perhaps wholeheartedly approved of his removal from the Liturgical Preparatory Commission.

As tragic a fact it is for many, it was Pope Pius XII who appointed Bugnini Secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform in 1948. He didn't rest on his laurels for long, developing a new rite of Holy Saturday in 1951 and an entirely new Holy Week in 1955. In addition, it was under this very commission that we were given the current "traditional" Roman Breviary and the 1962 Missae.

The Holy Week revisions are particularly painful. Read NLM's excellent synopsis of this unnecessary "reform" that is never given the press and discussion from traditionalists it merits.
Reply
#8
Thanks Joshua, I had not seen that before.
You know, one question I have is just what was on the unfinished agenda of Vatican I? Had it not been interrupted by the Franco-Prussian war perhaps those in the Vatican would not have considered another council later on?

C.
Reply
#9
I actually remember reading somewhere that some of the cardinals had suggested a council in the 50's, but Pope Pius XII told them that it was a bad idea because the Modernists had taken over the Church, and he couldn't risk them taking control. 
Reply
#10
(12-05-2010, 11:14 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: I actually remember reading somewhere that some of the cardinals had suggested a council in the 50's, but Pope Pius XII told them that it was a bad idea because the Modernists had taken over the Church, and he couldn't risk them taking control. 

That needs to be sourced if in fact it happened.

C.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)