John Nolan has an interesting comment that I make into a post like Vatican II magic:
In 1973 the English Catholic writer John Eppstein wondered how a 2000 year old supernaturally-orientated institution that was 'the most solid and venerable pillar of civilization' was transformed, almost overnight, into an organization where every form of disorder and disorientation 'in the fields of morals, faith, authority and worship' was not only tolerated, but encouraged.
At about the same time, Malcolm Muggeridge (not then a Catholic) wondered why the Catholic Church was embarking on a reformation of its own just when Luther's 16th century reformation was 'running into the sand'.
In 1971 a number of British academics and literary figures, many of them non-Catholic, signed an open letter to Paul VI voicing their concern that the cultural patrimony of the Roman Rite appeared to have been abandoned. The result was the so-called 'Agatha Christie indult' allowing the celebration of the old Mass in certain circumstances. The same pontiff, in an extraordinary address on Advent Sunday 1969 had lamented the loss of much of the Church's liturgical heritage, including Gregorian Chant, but maintained it was a price worth paying to achieve the 'renewal' demanded by the Council.
Every innovator, every 'creative' liturgist (and there were plenty around at that time) justified his actions by referring back to Vatican II. Of course the currents which surfaced in the years 1962 to 1965 had been around for some time. Pius XII was aware of them, and even endorsed some of them. But he believed that the wilder excesses could be checked by the exercise of his own authority. There have been numerous books written about the Council, and no-one seriously argues that it wasn't at the very least a catalyst for far-reaching change.
Anonymous [commenter on this blog] reminds me of Mikhail Gorbachev. He could see that the Soviet Union was failing both economically and politically. But he could not bring himself to accept that the ideological concept of Marxism-Leninism was the root cause of this failure. A/K is similarly blinkered. There's no point in telling him that historical cause and effect can't be proved in the same way as can a scientific theory, since he won't listen, and doesn't want to listen.
14 comments:
Brilliantly stated.
John Nolan 1 Anonymous Kavanaugh 0
At the end of the day, clerics like K/0 do not give a tinkers damn about the people, just whatever is convenient and comfortable for them, reality be damned.
Vatican Two was a blank check for protestants, humanists, secularists, and innovators of every kind. The Church has never recovered and I don't really expect her to. I have been attending the Methodist church because the Mass here is so bland, obligatory, and empty. The homilies have no punch, only feel-good stories and tired old standard, off-the-shelf sermons. The traditional Latin Mass had built-in protections against this sort of thing because of its mystery, structure, and ritual. These things address the human need for transcendence, sovereignty, awe, and humility. I have not ever been awed by an OF Catholic Mass. Plus, very few Catholic Priests can preach worth a damn. The "homilies" are almost an afterthought.
PS...Also, remember that, for most protestants, the preaching of the Word is the primary Sacrament...de facto, anyway. This is one reason that so much emphasis is placed upon homiletics. This is based upon a Pauline understanding of preaching...Paul actually played down Baptism and Communion...not that they were not important, but the preaching of the Gospel (especially in Paul's day) was the main thing. There is also an urgency in some of Augustine's later sermons for, when Augustine died, the Vandals were beating on the gates.
I did not mean to post as Billy the Kid. I gotta' change that thing.
"There's no point in telling him that historical cause and effect can't be proved in the same way as can a scientific theory, since he won't listen, and doesn't want to listen."
I think the assertion that a connection between Vatican Two and today's concerns/problems cannot be "proved" or "shown" is simply wrong. We can show connections between many historical events or systems and circumstances today.
When someone wants to offer their thoughts, I'll be more than happy to listen.
Gene,
Well we do have a "priest" posting here who can write: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
That should count for something, no?
John Nolan,
Let’s pretend for a moment that following the liturgical reforms more Catholics started attending Sunday Mass, collections were up, and new churches had to be built to handle the overflow. With those facts what do you believe Anonymous Kavanaugh’s answer would be? Would he demanding studies, evidence, proof that V II was responsible???
Counterfactual history is in interesting exercise. Had Pius XII not denied Montini the red hat and shunted him off to Milan, Paul VI's pontificate would have begun in 1958 and there would have been no Vatican II. The Council was always more important for what it symbolized - a defining watershed, the end of the Tridentine Church and the beginning of a 'new Church' adapted to the 20th century and the supposed needs of 'modern man' - than for what it actually said. What would the Church have looked like by 1978?
Paul VI was a liberal reformer. He confessed to being bemused by the prevailing myth that Roncalli was more liberal than himself, saying that the opposite was the case. Many of Paul's reforms were made on his own initiative. So we would still have seen the stripping down of the elaborate (and anachronistic) ceremonial of the papal court and the Curia would still have been reformed and internationalized. Speculative theology would have been tolerated more than it had been under Pius XII.
Liturgical reform would have been continued, but under the aegis of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. There would have been permission to use a lot more vernacular in the Low Mass, but the sung/Solemn Mass would probably have been left more or less intact. It is unlikely that we would have seen an entirely new Ordo cobbled together with what appears in retrospect to be indecent haste.
The Church would still have been faced with the challenges of the 1960s, and the row over birth control would not have been averted. I don't think we would have seen the complete collapse of the traditional religious orders, or such a dramatic exodus from the priesthood. But the Church could not have remained immune from societal change.
The ecumenical trend would have continued apace, which might well have led to friction with more conservative elements. However, twenty years of gradual and measured reform would surely have resulted in a less polarized Church, and the labels 'post-Conciliar' and 'pre-Conciliar' would of course not exist.
John Nolan,
I think all of your points ring true, but what about the Kavanaugh question? If the liturgical reforms had promoted higher Mass attendance? I think he would be crowing that it all was due to Vatican II
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings and could fly?
Discuss...
What if Anonymous were to disappear up his own arse?
John Nolan,
Touche!!!!
"vulgarity is no substitute for wit."
Anonymous
You've obviously never read Swift. Or Pope. Or Chaucer. Or much of Shakespeare, for that matter. There is a rich vein of earthiness running through English literature which no doubt a Victorian dowager would have regarded as 'vulgar'.
Not to mention classical literature. Try Juvenal, Catullus or Martial. Keep the smelling salts handy, though.
Post a Comment