Did anything need to change/yet another spirit of Vatican II thread
#1
As I understand from reading here, VII was supposed to make some changes; get the laity involved, address situations where there's a lack of priests, etc. Yet it was supposed to continue the use of Latin, among other things. If I'm understanding it right, then obviously things didn't go as planned. At some point everything got uber-liberalized. I guess my question is did anything have to be changed?
Reply
#2
I have heard it explained that there was concern about the decline in the church especially in Europe. So the idea was to make the church less "vertical" in nature, and get the "horizontal" church, meaning the laity more energized in their faith.  I don't think we should second guess what many view as the "workings of the Holy Spirit" in the life of the church inasmuch as there has been some change in making the faith more relevant in the laity. This can be recognized in the "springtime of evangelization" that we now see. However, when the whole movement is examined, I also think we must be cognizant that "pitchfork" is doing everything possible to destroy every good that may come out of this.

I am personally pleased to see a growing desire in the laity to return to reverence and tradition.  I think the best way to encapsulate what needs to happen is found in John 3: 23-24 “The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

When one focuses on just one of the 2 values, your faith life is simply out of balance. You can't worship in just "spirit" nor can you do so in just "truth".  So I view the issue at hand in light of a perspective that one could liken to a pendulum of faith. IF you are progressing toward a deeper discovery of your faith through discovery of "truths" pitchfork, seeing your trajectory, and knowing he (it) can't stop your direction, will get behind you and try to push you out the other "side". (the pendulum of your faith does not rest at center but goes too far into intellectualism.) This often leads to vices like pride, judgementalism, scrupulosity, etc.

Likewise, focusing too much on living your faith through just the "spirit" often leads to silliness, sloth, ......and if you think about it. many of the vices associated with the other error.  Many are constantly chasing after signs and wonders. Faith is lived out as experiential , more than internal. Suffering is seen as nothing more than punishment, or a lack of faith. God is viewed as a personal "sugar daddy".

So as to your question. Yes I believe things needed to change. I just don't like the wreckage caused by the abuses of Vatican 2. But hey, we're in a fight for souls so what would you expect. 
Reply
#3
(05-15-2017, 04:16 PM)Jeeter Wrote: As I understand from reading here, VII was supposed to make some changes; get the laity involved, address situations where there's a lack of priests, etc. Yet it was supposed to continue the use of Latin, among other things. If I'm understanding it right, then obviously things didn't go as planned. At some point everything got uber-liberalized. I guess my question is did anything have to be changed?

I would argue that it was successful beyond even expectation for the Masonic prelates who were responsible for orchestrating the Council and went very well according to plan.

The well meaning,but naive bishops who walked in not knowing what was actually happening and came back trying to implement it, found it not turning out as they thought it might.
Reply
#4
(05-15-2017, 04:16 PM)Jeeter Wrote: As I understand from reading here, VII was supposed to make some changes; get the laity involved, address situations where there's a lack of priests, etc. Yet it was supposed to continue the use of Latin, among other things. If I'm understanding it right, then obviously things didn't go as planned. At some point everything got uber-liberalized. I guess my question is did anything have to be changed?

No. 

C.
Reply
#5
Hindsight is of course 20/20.  I've tried to do as much reading as I can on what people were thinking before the Council--obviously there were a lot of different agendas present there.  First, with regard to the liturgy, there was pretty much universally a belief among bishops that something needed to be done.  Even Archbishop Lefebvre, the founder of the SSPX, recalled thinking this way:

Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Chapter 14 Wrote:To begin with, I can say that in 1962 I was not opposed to the holding of a General Council. On the contrary, I welcomed it with great hopes. As present proof here is a letter I sent out in 1963 to the Holy Ghost Fathers and which has been published in one of my previous books.I wrote:“We  may say without hesitation, that certain liturgical reforms have been needed, and it is to be hoped that the Council will continue in this direction.” I recognized that a renewal was indispensable to bring an end to a certain sclerosis due to a gap which had developed between prayer, confined to places of worship, and the world of action-schools, the professions and public life.

From my understanding, just before Vatican II, the Church was not doing well in Europe, but in America was pretty strong in comparison.  For example, here are some Mass attendance numbers from France:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/10...hurch.html

(notice, they were bad in 1961 just before Vatican II, but terrible now)

There's a reason why the places where the Church was doing the worst (like France and Germany) were the ones pushing for the most radical reforms. What they were doing prior just didn't seem to be working.

Many people even before Vatican II did see these numbers as foreboding and foresee the coming changes in society as causing severe challenges for the Church and tried to come up with ideas to meet these challenges.  There's a good survey of these ideas published in 1965 called "Change and the Catholic Church" by (later Bishop) Jeremiah Newman that summarizes a lot of the written works addressing these issues from the time period immediately before the Council. Suburbanization and professionalization were being predicted to greatly breakdown parish life and unity and certain forms of feminism and intellectualism were seen as threats to religious and family life.  There was a wide range of solutions proposed--some beyond the pale of orthodoxy and others just seem strange now (like parishes organized not based on territory, but on profession, for example), but it at least seemed apparent to many that something needed to be done.

The Church in America on the other hand was thriving in a pluralist, secular society and was becoming pretty influential without the privileges the Church had elsewhere, but often with more freedom.  Some of the pastoral approaches proposed at and adopted by the Council were clearly based on trying to emulate the American model of engaging such a society successfully, a society the new post-WWII order was predicted to resemble in Europe and elsewhere. 

As a sidenote, a review of that book in a theological journal of the time criticized the author for treating change too much according to the spirit of  Pius XII' Humani Generis and treating Vatican II as the culmination of "aggiornamento" rather than a starting point for "aggiornamento." It was the latter view which led to the most far reaching and problematic changes put into place after the Council.

Anyway, we can see now what ended up happening was the Church got pulled  along with the disorienting times of the 60s and 70s. The decline accelerated instead of getting better.
Reply
#6
(05-15-2017, 07:32 PM)BC Wrote: I would argue that it was successful beyond even expectation for the Masonic prelates who were responsible for orchestrating the Council and went very well according to plan.

The well meaning,but naive bishops who walked in not knowing what was actually happening and came back trying to implement it, found it not turning out as they thought it might.


That seems to flow with the quote SaintSebastian posted above:

Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Chapter 14 Wrote:To begin with, I can say that in 1962 I was not opposed to the holding of a General Council. On the contrary, I welcomed it with great hopes. As present proof here is a letter I sent out in 1963 to the Holy Ghost Fathers and which has been published in one of my previous books.I wrote:“We  may say without hesitation, that certain liturgical reforms have been needed, and it is to be hoped that the Council will continue in this direction.” I recognized that a renewal was indispensable to bring an end to a certain sclerosis due to a gap which had developed between prayer, confined to places of worship, and the world of action-schools, the professions and public life.


Quote:The Church in America on the other hand was thriving in a pluralist, secular society and was becoming pretty influential without the privileges the Church had elsewhere, but often with more freedom.  Some of the pastoral approaches proposed at and adopted by the Council were clearly based on trying to emulate the American model of engaging such a society successfully, a society the new post-WWII order was predicted to resemble in Europe and elsewhere. 

Now that's an interesting perspective I'd never considered; the fact the Church was thriving here, yet faced competition, for lack of a better term, from various protestant denominations. 

On a kinda related note, I read recently that Catholicism was the official religion of Italy until the 80's, and that they still have laws on the books requiring a crucifix to be displayed in hospitals and classes.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)