Lifesite news has an article on Vatican II;
They are being silly and, yes, schismatic in suggesting this.
They are being absurd. However, they do quote a
theologian worth reading, Fr. ThomasG. Weinady OFM:
Joining the discussion (on Vatican II) most recently is Fr. Thomas G.
Weinandy, OFM, Capuchin, with an essay titled “Vatican II and the Work of the
Spirit,” bearing the subtitle: “His has been a severe-grace, but also a
beneficent-grace.” For Weinandy — whose principled stance against the deviations
of Pope Francis earned him both the enmity of officialdom and great respect from
Catholics concerned with the current crisis — Vatican II looks as though it
precipitated a crisis because it exposed long-simmering and hidden evils, which
was a necessary evil, like lacerating a boil or cauterizing a wound. For
example, he writes: “It is naïve to think that so many priests, prior to the
Council, were men of deep faith, and then, overnight, after the Council, were
corrupted by the Council or the spirit of the Council, and so jettisoned their
faith and left the priesthood.” Fr. Weinandy also claims that Vatican II set
into motion many good processes and initiatives that are bearing fruit today.
My comments:
I agree that for many Catholics prior to Vatican II, the faith was superficial, magical and authoritarian. There wasn't much "internalization" of the faith by priests, religious and laity. This explains how Vatican II's "spirit" so easily hijacked what Vatican II actually taught. Its spirit was taught in an authoritarian way by bishops, priests and religious who bought into the "spirit" of the Council and then in the most authoritarian pre-Vatican II way possible shoved it down the throats of rank and file laity, many of whom were please to accept what was being taught simply because a bishop, priest or religious said so--superficiality and unquestioning obedience.
Keep in mind too, that these rebellious bishops, priests and clergy and the laity they seduced were are formed in a superficial way prior to Vatican II. They were pre-Vatican II Catholics. Keep in mind too, that the majority of priest sex offenders were trained prior to Vatican II in an authority structure that could keep them under wraps.
Prior to Vatican II, Catholics were "mothered or fathered" by the institutional Church and childlike in the negative sense. So, too, many clergy and religious. Vatican II's spirit as taught by rebellious clergy and religious did not help childlike laity to become adults, but rather to become adolescents. Thus we still are reaping the fruit of this debacle.
Vatican II wanted the laity to internalize the truths of the faith, to be active in participating in the various liturgies of the Church and in their parish life. But often this pitted the laity against the clergy in the minds of rebellious clergy and religious and laity brought into that rebellion.
Thus, my reading of Vatican II is what I believe Vatican II actually desired for the Western Church:
1. Sacraments, including the Mass, where the laity participated in an actual way engaged with the rites of what is celebrated. The vernacular was meant to assist this. Vatican II did not call for a "re imagining of the Liturgies of the Church." It call for some vernacular, noble simplicity and actual participation of the laity which is both internal and external.
2. Ecumenism is a no-brainer. We need to get along with other Christians separated from the true Church, some less so others more so. We need to work together where we can, not in churchy things, but social justice, assisting the poor and advocating for the marginalized. The same goes for non Christian religions and non believers.
3. We, as the true Church, cannot shove our Church or her faith down the throats of those who do not wish to be Catholic. Respect for those who choose to cut themselves off from the true Church must reign and seen as a part of God's design of freedom of the will with the concomitant consequences of those decision for good, bad or indifferent.
4. Vatican II wanted clarity in teaching and desired adult clergy and laity to internalize the truths of the Church, not refashion these or reject some and retain others as though in a cafeteria. Cafeteria Catholicism exists in an abundance among those who use political categories to describe one's relationship with Divine Truth, liberal/conservative.
5. The laity sharing in the decision making processes of parishes and dioceses is to be lauded when done so from a solid Catholic foundation and a mature application of one's internalized faith to the needs of the Church. One example of this is the Virtus programs that require the laity to be a part of the protection of young people and those who are vulnerable. I think part of the problem with the SSPX in this regard is that there is no real enabling of the laity to assist the clergy of this organization in decision making processses and the protection of minors and vulnerable, but like it was prior to Vatican II.
Thus I wholeheartedly endorse Pope Benedict's call for Vatican II to be understood as renewal in continuity. I supported Pope Benedict's efforts at restoration of liturgical beauty and pre-Vatican II customs to include some papal customs.
Catholics must come to respect once again the culture of the Church which had been handed down for centuries even if these are of the "Roman Cultural" experience as we are members of the Roman Rite or the Latin Rite.
9 comments:
If Vatican II wanted the Faithful to internalize the truths of the Faith, why did the Church stop teaching them shortly after the Council?
That's the premise of my post--the Council was hijacked and the spirit of Vatican II was taught. An example of this is the National Catholic/Chismatic Reporter. In the late 60s and well into the late 80's it was the go-to newspaper for priests and religious. This paper then and now does not want a Catholic Church, it wants something else, something post-Catholic. The inordinate influence it had on gen rations of priests and religious cannot be underestimated and can be seen as one of the biggest threats to the Second Vatican Council's proper interpretation.
Btw, Popes John Paul II and Benedict tried valiantly to restore the great discipline of the Church. Unfortunately under Pope Francis, the old canards of the spirit of Vatican II have been resurrected by bishops, priests and religious of Pope Francis' age. They do not see the caricature they have become in terms of the 70's mentality.
Father McDonald,
When Cardinal George was in charge in Chicago he forbad parishes from subscribing to the NCR. I am no longer there so I do not know if Cardinal Cupich has kept that ban in effect. It is a pernicious publication
Vatican II will never be implemented properly.
So can we in good conscience just ignore Vatican II & move on. Neither condemning it or praising it?
I hear a comment emerging among Traditionalists that does like this:
"Communism has never been implemented correctly, so this time it will work; Vatican II has never been implemented before, so keep trying".
Father Vatican II was hijacked from day one. Every schema was thrown out and the Masons and their minions got to work. By the way I gave up on the Novus Ordo mass when I learned that the second Eucharistic prayer was written on the back of a napkin in a trattoria.
God bless our young priests such as Father Patrick May and Father John Paul. They are our hope for the future as we will all be celebrating our masses in the catacombs in the next few years.
The NO will just fold into the other Godless Protestant services such as the Universalist and their clown shows.
On Sunday I experienced the 'quiet reverence' of the EF Low Mass. Except that it wasn't particularly quiet, or particularly reverent. Due to 'social distancing' I was positioned right at the back of the church. Immediately in front was a large family, and the children were noisy and distracting (what is it about modern parents, that they can't get their offspring to sit still?)
The priest (FSSP) spoke too rapidly. It is quite possible to read the Latin briskly without eliding syllables and gabbling. It was particularly noticeable during the Epistle and Gospel, where I found it difficult to keep up, and I was eye-reading the text.
There was a short homily but owing to the poor acoustic, exacerbated by the PA system, little of it was intelligible from where I was sitting.
My experience of the Low Mass pre-1964 was conditioned by the fact that I was usually serving it. When I attend the EF nowadays I am usually singing for it. Although I much prefer the classic Roman Rite to the Novus Ordo, when faced with the choice between a Low EF and a sung Latin OF, I would plump for the latter.
John, I celebrate a weekly (Tuesday at 6 PM) EF Low Mass in my parish. Last week we had more than 30 people there. I do encourage the laity to take the parts along with the Server. Very few if any do. I am not sure what kind of participation people are experiencing at this Mass. For most, I think it is like adoration with some zoning out. There is reverence and respect though. I do provide a translation of the propers and I do reading the Epistle and Gospel in English as is permitted in the Low Mass.
Illicitly, I used the Ordinariate’s Divine Worship Missal a couple of months ago. I used, illicitly again, the English translation of the PATFOTA from the little red booklet for the EF Mass. Apart from that I used the “high” English translation in this Missal for everything else, except I used the EF’s altar cards In Latin for the infusing of water into the wine and the lavabo. We said the Kyrie in Greek, Gloria, Sanctus and Pater Noster in Latin as well as the Agnus Dei. There was the threefold “Lord I am not worthy” in English with our current translation.
The Mass was entirely ad orientem, except for the Liturgy of the Word from the Ambo. Everything else at the altar.
There was much engagement both internally/externally of the laity in this Mass, more so than with my Tuesday EF low Mass. I think that is what Vatican II’s document on the liturgy desired.
Fr Allan
It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that the faithful had access to hand missals with a literal translation of the Latin of the Mass Ordinary which enabled those without Latin to 'follow' the Mass. Over the next fifty years or so the extent to which the people could externally participate in a Low Mass was extended (with the permission of the local ordinary) to include the following:
1. Recitation, with the server, of his responses (missa dialogata).
2. Recitation, along with the priest, of the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus and Agnus Dei (missa recitata).
3. Recitation, along with the priest, of the Pater Noster.
4. Recitation, along with the priest, of the Propers which in a sung Mass would be sung by the schola (Introit, Gradual, Alleluia/Tract, Sequence, Offertory, Communion).
I imagine that in a fairly intimate setting, with a small congregation conversant with Latin, this could work well. But even step 1 (approved for Belgium in 1922) proved somewhat impractical in a large church with a large Sunday congregation. So in order to get the congregation involved, many parishes adopted the expedient (permitted by Pius XII) of singing up to four vernacular hymns at different parts of the Mass, a deplorable and lazy habit that has carried on into the Novus Ordo, where it is made worse by the fact that the distinction between Low and Sung Mass has all but disappeared in most places.
A few years ago I attended the Sunday Low EF Mass at the London Oratory (a very large church). The congregation was mute. The priest's parts were picked up by the microphones (which are discreetly placed) and were clearly audible at the back of the church. The server was inaudible. It made for a strangely lop-sided experience.
Post a Comment