In 1988, addressing the Chilean bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed, "The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of 'superdogma' which takes away the importance of all the rest."
While affirming his remaining attachment to Vatican II, Benedict XVI, on this September 14, 2011, brought down the taboo of the Council. For while no Pope could free a Catholic from the decisions of dogmatic Councils, the Pope, by way of the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, liberates the souls from those of a pastoral Council. From now on, one may be of the Church without holding on to the controversial points of Vatican II. In 2007, the helmsman of the Church had already undermined the monopoly held by the Novus Ordo. Four years later, he removes from the Conciliar doctrine its non-negotiable character and its exclusivity. It is not any longer the alpha and the omega of the life of the Church; that life is now once again refocused on its object: Faith.
My comments: Vatican II only changed the way the Church engaged other Christians, other religions and the world at large. It changed the discipline of the sacraments but not their meaning. It encouraged the laity to be more engaged with the institutional Church through a recovered sense of Baptismal charisms. But no doctrines or dogmas were changed and none new were defined or redefined!
Vatican II should help us grow closer to our orthodox faith, not aloof of it. It is the "spirit" of Vatican II that became dogmatic--a spirit that had no authority whatsover on Catholics.
20 comments:
Father:
Have you been reading Keyser Soze's blog? He seems to reach a conclusion very similar to yours.
http://exposeapostasy.blogspot.com/2011/09/have-we-gone-too-far.html
"Four years later, he removes from the Conciliar doctrine its non-negotiable character and its exclusivity. It is not any longer the alpha and the omega of the life of the Church; that life is now once again refocused on its object: Faith." Excellent, but who said this? Was it your new bishop?
The second part in italics is an editorial comment to the first part by the blog Rorate Caeli, not my new bishop.frajm
And because of the date (9/14) one can only assume this refers to the 2 page document Cardinal Levada handed to Bishop Fellay that same day. Finally after 20+ years the truth is revealed. Not only was the Mass of Pius V never abrogated, we now learn that the SSPX is not now and never was in schism. They, and indeed all Catholics who reject parts of V2 were right all along. Let the howling and wailing and gnashing of teeth by the liberal pseudo Catholics begin. efers to the 2 page document Cardinal Levada handed to Bishop Fellay that same day. Finally after 20+ years the truth is revealed. Not only was the Mass of Pius V never abrogated, we now learn that the SSPX is not now and never was in schism. They, and indeed all Catholics who reject parts of V2 were right all along. Let the howling and wailing and gnashing of teeth by the liberal pseudo Catholics begin.
Ok, so what do the pictures have to do with the text?
;-) That dessert looks diet-defying.
All questions of the "Spirit of Vatican II" aside, it would be a very good development if the CCC and similar documents (such as the USCCB Adult Catechism) were revised to include more references in their notes to some of the pre-Vatican II Councils. This really shouldn't be difficult to do since practically the only things the CCC cites are Vatican II and the Bible. Same goes for the Adult Catechism. Even accepting Fr. McD's argument that it's the "spirit of Vatican II" that's screwed up and not the council itself, this is a very biased and unhealthy reliance on one council out of nearly two dozen. I'd be saying the same thing if the CCC cited nothing but Trent, or Nicea, or any other single council.
What do the pics have to do with the text:1. The hotel is where the lib Catholic women are undoubtedly engaged in unspeakable acts, 2. The shot of the air is what is in their heads, 3. the dessert is what the lib Catholics eat five minutes before receiving. Now, see, wasn't that easy...
"Even accepting Fr. McD's argument that it's the "spirit of Vatican II" that's screwed up and not the council itself, this is a very biased and unhealthy reliance on one council out of nearly two dozen."
Isn't it precisely because VCII is in continuity with, and not a revolution against, the other councils that to refer to it is to refer also to the others?
Father Shelton:
The problem is that nearly everyone who refers to Vatican II treats it as an exclusive event that transformed the Catholic church into something very different than what it was before. If any of us quoted from the Council of Trent or even Vatican I to our parish priests, in most cases, they would dismiss anything we offered as "preconciliar", then promptly file us in their minds as fringe Catholics to beware of.
I hope the day soon comes when "preconciliar" is no longer an insult, but merely a reference to the rich heritage of our Church.
Father Shelton, I agree with your proposition; however, as a lawyer (which I think Anonymous might be as well), it would make more sense to cite the VII document and indicate that the VII document itself is also citing an older document. In the law and in our Church, the fact that something is older matters quite a bit. In the Church, as you know, the fact that people have believed something since time immemorial is evidence of its truth and worthiness of belief.
Put simply, citing from the 1960's isn't that impressive, citing from the 1960's something that cites from the 1600's or earlier is much more impressive.
Yes, Marc, I am a lawyer (and one who plagiarizes ideas from other lawyers, as you can see, hehe).
Fr. Shelton, while I do technically agree with you, I think there is a danger in just citing VII. If people aren't aware of your point, viz., that VII citations are inplicitly pre VII citations, then they may take the habit of citing VII alone to indicate the contrary--that only VII matters. And there are dissenters who may actively disagree with your conclusion, seeing VII as a break with the pre-conciliar church (although in my experience, most of these don't bother citing authority at all).
In my own field, the Fourtenth Amendment cannot be properly understood without an appreciation for the history of federalism and the Bill of Rights which preceded it. Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment "incorprates" most of the Bill of Rights within itself, much as VII incorporates or is consistent with pre VII sources. Yet no lawyer or historian would simply ignore the text of the Bill of Rights simply because we have a newer amendment (i.e. the 14th). In fact it's just the opposite. Indeed, if you don't understand what came before, you can't comprehend the true meaning of the 14th.
We must remember that the Church has the duty to teach the faith. _Explicitly_ citing pre-VII counclis and documents, or mentioning them in homilies (hint hint, hehe) to people who don't really reflect much on history--or the faith--in their day-to-day lives would help facilitate an appreciation with the continuity you emphasize.
Over the last fifteen or more years, it has been my casual observation that we lawyers seem to gravitate toward the Extraordinary Form in a higher percentage than the rest of the population. On this blog alone, we have comments by Marc, myself, Jody Peterman, and one "anonymous" (assuming the anonymous lawyer is not one of the aforenamed. . ). Further, the current (or recent former)head of Una Voce of Georgia (which promotes the EF) is also a lawyer.
What about it, Father? Do you have any theories or explanations for this (perceived) lawyer/EF phenomena?
To add to my lawyer/EF theory, our Diocesan Chancellor (a canon lawyer rather than a civil lawyer) regularly celebrates the EF. If my theory has any credibility then maybe "Red Masses" (for the legal profession and judiciary) should, arguably, be celebrated more often in the Extraordinary Form.
You like the EF because ya'll get to charge us more when you use Latin. LOL!
Lawyers probably like to gravitate towards the EF in numbers out of proportion becasue it is structured, and definitive, like the Law. As oppossed to the OF which is so loosely structured you can drive trucks through the rubrics. Only criminal defense lawyers like loopholes :)
Sorry, Templar, but I'm a criminal defense lawyer (that's all I do, actually)! But, I only like loopholes in the law, not in the rubrics!
There is no connection between lawyers and Catholicism in general. I think Templar has hit on one of the reasons for that and that is the definitive structure.
I think Fr. Z posted something recently that included a study that found that those with advanced degrees tended to prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Now, my thought is not that it is something for the educated, but that it is something for the informed. Those of us who prefer the EF have almost certainly come to that conclusion after undertaking a study of the Mass, its history and rubrics, etc. That is something that many Catholics simply do not do, but we do that because we are hyper-interested (read: appropriately engaged) in our religion.
The same goes for priests, now that I think about it. Many priests just do not bother to look into the history of the Mass or the reasons why the Mass was changed or the impact those changes had on the belief of the people. Of course, just like the laity, they are busy with other things and may not be able to undertake the additional study needed to reach those conclusions.
Just my thoughts, anyway.
Marc, I think that is a pretty good analysis.
Instead of this: "There is no connection between lawyers and Catholicism in general."
I meant this: "There is a connection between lawyers and Catholicism in general."
Duh!
Hey what do you have if you have 12 defense lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!! LOL Marc couldn't resist.
On a more serious note, I like your assertation that it is the informed that are drawn to the EF. I lack the higher education of most of us who blog here, but I consider myself quite well informed on a whole range of subjects, Liturgy and Canon Law but two.
Two men are blown off course in a hot air balloon. They releaase enough air to float low over a town, and call to a passing citizen, "Can you tell us where we are?" The citizen replies, "Yes, you are in a balloon." The man in the balloon looks at his friend and says, "That man down there is a lawyer." The friend says, "How can you tell?" The man replies, "Because he just gave us perfectly accurate information that is completely useless."
Post a Comment