There are many people who say that the Church following the Second Vatican Council became very confusing to many people. We were all caught up in reforming the Mass, reforming the Vatican, reforming dioceses and reforming the priesthood, religious life and parish life.
The Council was about the baptized and their legitimate role in the Church to be a priestly people and so they needed to do all the churchy things that priests and religious did. There shouldn't be any distinctions between the laity, the religious or the priests. Clothing for priests and religious often reflected this new found focus.
I can't tell you how many times the term Vatican II was said during homilies all through most of the 1960's, '70's, '80's and '90's. I would suspect the term Vatican II was used more that Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the angels and saints!
It was as though Vatican II had become an "idol" which replaced Scripture and Tradition as the primary tools to teach us about the love of God, the salvation we have in Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ has entered a personal relationship with every baptized Christian He had chosen and anointed. It was as though we were now to be in a personal relationship with Vatican II!
As much as I like ecumenical councils, finance councils, pastoral councils and diocesan councils, these get on my nerves from time to time and I wish I didn't have to contend with them. But not so with Jesus Christ.
If only we had focused more on Jesus Christ for the last 45 years and less on Vatican II maybe we would be in a better place today. But of course I am not clairvoyant but maybe I am.
4 comments:
The first graphic puts me off only because it reminds me of the Power Point presentations that will haunt me for eternity. Once I am past that personal hurdle I can benefit from its message. Perhaps that is the story of Vatican II: tradition was dressed in a polyester vestment. Tacky, and misleading. When properly dressed out (here is that duck, again!) it is handsome, indeed.
rcg
...or if those years had been spent implementing what is in the documents, rather than what some folks thought should have been in the documents.
The NO, implemented in accord with Sacrosanctum concilium, and without the loopholes of paragraphs 37-40 of SC might actually be a rite of worship.
Bill Meyer is right on. Also, if "freedom of conscience" hadn't been twisted into more of a "license of conscience," (Humanae Vitae comes to mind), perhaps the Bishops/Priests would have done their duty with regard to artificial contraception and, consequently, with abortion. Sound catechetics, instead of I'm OK, You're OK pablum would have continued. There would better attendance at Mass and a deeper belief in the "Faith that comes to us from the Apostles."
Not to weaken my earlier comment, but it has always seemed clear to me that paragraphs 37-40 were intended for application to the Church in mission lands, and the United States ceased to be a mission land well over 100 years ago, if memory serves.
With that caveat, it should not be necessary for anyone to think I was belittling any part of SC.
Post a Comment