I don’t agree with everything in this Crisis commentary, press title:
OK, Boomer: It’s time to move on from Vatican II
Why does it matter whether Vatican II succeeded or failed or hasn't been implemented yet? All of the ink spilt over the Council only proves that Catholics are prisoners of Vatican II.
Ambiguous statements in some of the documents which are more editorial opinions needs to be ignored too. Sacrosanctum Concilium’s use of the words “useless repetition and noble simplicity” are statements of opinion and taste. The same can be said of “inculturation” and dialogue with the “devil, the flesh and the world” like Cardinal McElroy is doing. These are debatable and no one can exactly say what these mean in the document.
But the worst post-Vatican II document (apart from some of the things Pope Francis has written as well as Cardinal McElroy) is Consilium’s manufacturing of a new Mass.
The 1965 Roman Missal fulfilled what Vatican II requested. We did not need a brand new 1970 Missal.
We did not need to renovate sanctuaries by destroying what was there. We did not need Mass facing the people, although if it faced the people it should have looked like the Masses at the Major Basilicas and the altar arrangements there at the time of the Council. St. Peter’s is an example.
We did not need and encouragement that priest use the words in the Missal or something similar.
We did not need a too wordy Liturgy of the Word with one too many readings. We needed two more cycle of yearly readings built upon the Tridentine Lectionary to include reading not previously used. And yes we needed the new daily lectionary with two cycles.
We did not need untrained and not properly screened lay lectors. We needed a way to train and license lay lectors and a liturgical garb that is appropriate for them given to them in a liturgical blessing leading to their license.
We did not need Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. It is good, though, that deacons are Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
We did not need to abandon kneeling for Holy Communion.
We did not need to enable receiving Holy Communion in the hand.
If the Chalice is offered, it should have been through intinction only and only for Solemnities or small groups of communicants.
Altar Servers and lay lectors, male or female, is a reasonable development. But not LGBTQ+++ Ideologies about gender fluidity and amorality when it comes to gender and sex.
We needed Vatican II except for its editorials. We do not need the Spirit of Vatican II of 1968 which has destroyed the Church and caused the disaster and catastrophe that Cardinal Pell rightly names under the pseudonym of Demos.
15 comments:
Male and female altar servers is NOT a reasonable development.
I am a part of the Boomer generation. Most of my fellow Catholic boomers no longer attend Mass and never mention Vatican II. The aging clerical class’s fixation on a failed Council would make a great psychological study. I recall being out for pizza with my wife in the 1970s with a close friend of mine who was in a doctoral program in theology. He obtained his doctorate, taught theology for almost 40 years at an allegedly Catholic college but is no longer a practicing Catholic. While we were eating he was going on and on about the need for women priests and that “everyone” was talking about it. I said to my wife and his date if they were talking about women priests. Both replied no, they had no interest in the subject. He shut up. I posit this is what is going on with the Synod on Synods. Only its participants, a tiny number of Catholics involved in them, give a damn about them or Vatican II.
"...editorial opinions needs to be ignored too..."
Such as:
"We did not need to renovate sanctuaries..."
"... too wordy Liturgy of the Word with one too many readings.."
"... lay lectors and a liturgical garb that is appropriate for them given..."
Among others.
FRMJK, thank for emphasizing my point. An ecumenical council filled with opinions and points of taste can be and should be as any little opinion of mine, no matter how much more superior my opinion is.
Priests who vote for the Party of Moloch definitely need to be ignored
Father McDonald said..."But the worst post-Vatican II document (apart from some of the things Pope Francis has written as well as Cardinal McElroy) is Consilium’s manufacturing of a new Mass."
The Consilium was at the service of Pope Saint Paul VI. He was in charge of the liturgical reform. During his reign, he had the final say in regard to the liturgical reform/Roman Liturgy. That awesome authority applied as well to his successors.
Popes Saint Paul VI, Blessed John Paul I, Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, had/have validated the approved work of the Consilium.
Father McDonald, I am aware of your attitude in regard to Pope Francis. Therefore, I will leave him out of the following. Instead, I will turn to Pope Benedict XVI.
Pope Benedict XVI declared that the liturgical reform, approved by Pope Saint Paul VI, which, of course, featured the considerable work of the Consilium, is in continuity with Holy Tradition.
Pope Benedict XVI insisted that the supposed manufactured new Mass "reappears in new splendor in its dignity and harmony."
Pope Benedict XVI:
"In more recent times, the Second Vatican Council expressed the desire that the respect and reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time.
"In response to this desire, our predecessor Pope Paul VI in 1970 approved for the Latin Church revised and in part renewed liturgical books; translated into various languages throughout the world, these were willingly received by the bishops as well as by priests and the lay faithful.
"Pope John Paul II approved the third typical edition of the Roman Missal.
"In this way the Popes sought to ensure that “this liturgical edifice, so to speak ... reappears in new splendor in its dignity and harmony."
Our holy Popes, from Saint Paul VI to date, have validated the Consilium's tremendous contribution to the liturgical reform — a reform deemed successful by our Vatican II Era Popes.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Pope Saint John Paul II praised the Consilium.
"With a view to the practical implementation of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Liturgy, Pope Paul VI instituted a Consilium, later the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, and they carried out the task entrusted to them with generosity, competence and promptness."
In addition, Pope Saint John Paul II declared that the liturgical reform is in total accord with Holy Tradition.
Pope Saint John Paul II:
"The reform of the rites and the liturgical books was undertaken immediately after the promulgation of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and was brought to an effective conclusion in a few years thanks to the considerable and selfless work of a large number of experts and bishops from all parts of the world.
"This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development; and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with 'the ancient usage of the holy Fathers.'"
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
LOL - sure. You’ve persuaded no one but yourself
From the Crisis article:
"Ross Douthat recently wrote a series of opinion pieces called “How Catholics became prisoners of Vatican II” and “How Vatican II Failed Catholics.” "
I am thankful that I am the Council's "prisoner." The reason is that a "prisoner" of Vatican II is, in turn, the Holy Ghost's "prisoner."
As Pope Benedict XVI declared:
The "Council Fathers under the leadership of the Successor of the Apostle Peter — which set herself to learn at the school of the Holy Spirit, the true driving force of the Council."
Pope Benedict XVI assured us that the Council has blessed the Church.
In addition, he insisted that blessings will flow in even greater abundance as the true Council, dislodges, more and more, the destructive fake Council (the Council of the "media," as he had labeled the fake Council).
"But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church.
"It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force.
"And it is our task...to work so that the true Council, with its power of the Holy Spirit, be accomplished and the Church be truly renewed."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
FrMJK, the application of opinion in the case of Fr AM is different in that it is not interpretive nor directive. So his method expression is consistent with his point. In fact, the most damnable reflection on Vatican II comes from people attributing specific directives that are not clearly there, that is applying opinion in the way FrAM criticized.
rcg - Ignorable opinions are ignorable opinions.
He thinks there are too many readings? That's his opinion.
He thinks lectors should have liturgical garb? That's his opinion.
Why should his opinions be given any thought at all?
Because these are BRILLIANT!
Fr K a prime example of clericalism on steroids who thinks he can re-translate the orations at Mass (with no understanding of the underlying Latin texts) all in Violation of Vatican II!
Setting aside the personal stuff that keeps appearing in these posts, I had another thought: Right now, it's rather trendy for some to say, "Those Traditionalists brought all of Pope Francis' ire upon themselves with their negativity and constant criticism and their refusals to accept the New Mass."
Aside from the fact that such murmurings are pure bullsh_t, I think perhaps we should explore this possibility:
"Those liberal priests and bishops brought all of this decline upon themselves. After forcing the New Mass upon us along with its horrid music and the endless liturgical abuses which followed, their obsession with one single Council of the Church, their inability to see the totality of the Church's history by focusing on the present and their shameful intolerance of Tradition and those attached to it has caused the decline of belief in the Real Presence, the continued drop in Mass attendance, the closing of parishes and the lack of credibility the Catholic Church now has as a voice in the world. They made it even worse by deliberately excluding pious candidates from the priesthood and cultivating homosexuals, resulting in a sex abuse crisis that is still not over and has cast suspicion over every man, good or bad, who dons the Roman collar."
As many have noted here, this too is merely my opinion. But I believe in what I posit here and I am willing to defend it.
Jerome Merwick,
Spot on but the hallmark of a “liberal” is to never accept responsibility for their failed policies but to double down on them.
Post a Comment