Implementation Of Tridentine Ruling Frustrates Some

[mortify]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1661681' date='Sep 23 2008, 01:22 AM']Is it really all that hard to understand?[/quote]

Yes.

[quote]One of my former profs (a true Catholic priest) gave one of the best summaries of Vatican 2 I've heard. He said Vatican II was not really written for the church but for the world, and the documents are far more evangelistic in tone than previous councils. There have been 21 councils, and 20 of them sound something like Trent. They are called when there is a challenge to the gospel, some point of truth that needs to be discerned. So the language used is the same as St. Paul's -- that those who preach another gospel other than what the church teaches should be accursed, or "anathema." It is the Church looking back to the way the apostles handled the gospel.[/quote]

Did the Church substantially depart from Apostolic teaching? This seems to be the impression I get when I speak to liberal Catholics who say Vat II did away with "aberrations." Personally I feel the way the Church developed since the Apostolic age has been the Holy Spirit's doing.

My difficulty, and I honestly can't put this on the Council itself since I can't claim to have read every document it has produced, is that the post Vat II Church seems to have detached herself from the traditional faith. Again, this is how it appears to a lay Catholic as myself, I may be mistaken but apparently you confirm it:

[quote]However, Vatican II is not like this. [b]Those who wrote those documents very carefully broke with tradition[/b], with the goal of writing a very different kind of document. This was not a council called to deal with false teaching or to [i]protect[/i] the gospel but to [i]promulgate[/i] the gospel.[/quote]

It's interesting that you admit they broke with tradition.

[quote]The point of the council was the new evangelization – to help the world to accept Christ. It was designed to be accessible to the modern mind and the modern ear. Trent was not superseded (this is perhaps the most common misunderstanding -- Trent and Vatican I are the most recent dogmatic councils, as, I'm sure you know). Rather, Vatican II was (and is) to be understood in continuity with previous councils.[/quote]

My understanding is that the point was to "update" the Church, I forget the exact Italian expression used. Again, I have to admit my ignorance as a lay Catholic and I can therefore only offer what my sense and knowledge of faith reveal to me, but I feel it is more important for the world to conform, than to have the Church conform to the world. St James said quite explicitly, the friends of the world are the enemies of God.

[quote]I personally think the intent behind the council was good. The Church absolutely must continue to communicate the gospel effectively, and part of that means figuring out how to communicate it in such a way that it addresses the challenges of modern day secular society. After Trent, the Church withdrew quite a bit, and spent a lot of time bickering internally and failing to address new thoughts and ideas being promulgated in the larger culture. While I don't advocate having a "seeker sensitive" church (as so many Protestant mush-makers do), I do think the church needs to be sensitive to ways in which the gospel can respond to the larger cultural challenges to faith. Kant needed to be answered. We've done that. Other secular thinkers need to be answered, and by being more flexible in our evangelization we are better situated to do that.[/quote]

I'm still lost as to why a departure from tradition and huge alterations to the Liturgy were necessary. It seems all of the above could have been accomplished while preserving what our pious ancestors passed on to us.

[quote]The thing we need to remember is that all this must always be done in continuity with the past. I think people got the wrong idea, and tried to lump Vatican II in with other cultural changes. Everything was changing in the 60s ... why not Church doctrine?[/quote]

You yourself admitted the authors of the documents wanted to break with tradition.


Anyway, thank you for your input, you made some interesting points I hadn't considered.

God bless

Edited September 24, 2008 by mortify

[CatherineM]

I talked to a priest who showed up at my signing in Calgary about the appearance of dragging of feet on the Latin. He was 60+, so had originally done mass in Latin, but had no desired to return to it, and I asked him why. He said he lived through the change to the vernacular, and we just did survive the upheaval. He's afraid that bringing that up again will really split the church this time. He said it is like having a family reunion, and bringing up a painful topic that everyone thought had been dealt with 40 years ago. All it does it bring up all the old hurts.

[Barbarus]

[quote name='mortify' post='1662495' date='Sep 24 2008, 01:11 AM']Yes.



Did the Church substantially depart from Apostolic teaching? This seems to be the impression I get when I speak to liberal Catholics who say Vat II did away with "aberrations." Personally I feel the way the Church developed since the Apostolic age has been the Holy Spirit's doing.

My difficulty, and I honestly can't put this on the Council itself since I can't claim to have read every document it has produced, is that the post Vat II Church seems to have detached herself from the traditional faith. Again, this is how it appears to a lay Catholic as myself, I may be mistaken but apparently you confirm it:



It's interesting that you admit they broke with tradition.



My understanding is that the point was to "update" the Church, I forget the exact Italian expression used. Again, I have to admit my ignorance as a lay Catholic and I can therefore only offer what my sense and knowledge of faith reveal to me, but I feel it is more important for the world to conform, than to have the Church conform to the world. St James said quite explicitly, the friends of the world are the enemies of God.



I'm still lost as to why a departure from tradition and huge alterations to the Liturgy were necessary. It seems all of the above could have been accomplished while preserving what our pious ancestors passed on to us.



You yourself admitted the authors of the documents wanted to break with tradition.


Anyway, thank you for your input, you made some interesting points I hadn't considered.

God bless[/quote]
I believe I may have been unclear in explaining a few points.

The authors of V2 conciliar documents were crafting a different sort of [i]council[/i], not a different sort of [i]church[/i]. That was why I made the point about 20 of the 21 councils being like Trent. V2 was different not only because of the "feel" of the council but because it was not called as a dogmatic council. It was the first council called to address [i]how[/i] the Church teaches rather than the [i]substance [/i]of what it teaches. Like I said, the writers did not go into it thinking they were re-working dogma at all, so in that sense they were not breaking with tradition. They were breaking with the traditional kind of council, however, and this break was intentional.

The challenge of the Church is always to preach the gospel in a way hearers can understand it, without altering the substance of the truth. This is what this council was attempting to do. In the centuries since Trent the world has changed. While the Church should not change to mirror the world, we can say that in that time the Church grew and matured in her understanding of the faith and of truth. Sometimes, this growth has come as a result of secular challenges to the faith. Just as my faith is strengthened when I meet challenges to it, so is the Church's faith overall. Meeting secular challenges does not mean (and should not mean) that the church conforms the truth to soothe the hearer, but that it finds innovative ways of communicating truth to meet challenges.

It should be noted that there have been liturgical changes promulgated at various points in history, so a change in the liturgy was not out of line. In fact, Trent itself introduced liturgical reforms which were later implemented in the life of the church. Things stayed the same for some time, but taking a holistic view of the history of the Church there are many points at which liturgical reforms were implemented.

As I said in my earlier post, this was a council for the world rather than for the Church. It was meant to encourage evangelization and to provide the foundation to meet growing challenges to Christianity and to faith in the secular culture. There is even apostolic precedent for finding ways to speak the truth of the gospel to various cultures as a form of evangelization, rather than forcing cultures to conform to the language of the Church. Think back to Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit enabled the apostles to share the gospel in the tongue of listeners from many different countries. While Vatican 2 was a different kind of council in many ways, I think you could say that the writers were actually looking back to this event, when the Holy Spirit enabled the Church to proclaim the gospel in a way fitting to many different nations.

Although there have been a lot of departures from this original intent, I don't know that these departures and the abuses that have followed can be laid at the feet of Vatican 2 or its writers. People took what they wanted out of the council and did not take it in context, as it was intended to be taken. It was never intended to be a departure from the historic teaching of the Church, but rather re-thinking the relationship of the Church to the world.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Barbarus

[mortify]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1662625' date='Sep 24 2008, 10:21 AM']It should be noted that there have been liturgical changes promulgated at various points in history, so a change in the liturgy was not out of line. In fact, Trent itself introduced liturgical reforms which were later implemented in the life of the church. Things stayed the same for some time, but taking a holistic view of the history of the Church there are many points at which liturgical reforms were implemented.[/quote]

There is no historical comparison to the liturgical changes that occurred during Vatican II. Nor has the Church ever had so many liturgical problems as she does today.

[quote]As I said in my earlier post, this was a council for the world rather than for the Church. It was meant to encourage evangelization and to provide the foundation to meet growing challenges to Christianity and to faith in the secular culture. There is even apostolic precedent for finding ways to speak the truth of the gospel to various cultures as a form of evangelization, rather than forcing cultures to conform to the language of the Church. Think back to Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit enabled the apostles to share the gospel in the tongue of listeners from many different countries. While Vatican 2 was a different kind of council in many ways, I think you could say that the writers were actually looking back to this event, when the Holy Spirit enabled the Church to proclaim the gospel in a way fitting to many different nations.[/quote]

See, I get the impression one has to either say the Church was wrong before Vat II or after. I don't think the Church was wrong for promulgating her sacred language and Liturgy.
[quote]Although there have been a lot of departures from this original intent, I don't know that these departures and the abuses that have followed can be laid at the feet of Vatican 2 or its writers. People took what they wanted out of the council and did not take it in context, as it was intended to be taken. It was never intended to be a departure from the historic teaching of the Church, but rather re-thinking the relationship of the Church to the world.[/quote]

Well, you have written well but looking at the state of the Church today I can't say I share your optimistic views.

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='philothea' post='1661482' date='Sep 22 2008, 10:40 PM']As far as I understand, before V2, the church appeared very segregated, in that the laypeople were completely unimportant and uninvolved. Entirely second-class citizens. Only the clergy appeared to matter, and often even they hadn't been educated very well, and didn't know what they were saying.[/quote]


Well, I don't know about perceptions but pre Vatican II it was common for priets and brothers to have to be separated in seating arrangements. Priests were always seated first and given preferential treatment and then brothers were then seated. Sometimes they were even set to eat separately.

They were second class citizens for sure. I know many brothers and priests who were glad this practice ended.

[Barbarus]

[quote name='mortify' post='1663082' date='Sep 24 2008, 07:55 PM']There is no historical comparison to the liturgical changes that occurred during Vatican II. Nor has the Church ever had so many liturgical problems as she does today.[/quote]
Both those statements are debatable. If you'd like to debate them I'm more than happy to do so, but I think there is ample historical evidence to support the liturgical changes implemented today.

And, the church has always had "liturgical problems." The church has always had problems. There is no "golden age" we can look back to when the church did things perfectly, and trying to re-create some such mythical age really gets us nowhere because such perfection never existed. Are there problems now? Yes. Can they be addressed? Yes they can, and they are being addressed. Are we going to address it perfectly? Nope, because we are still fallible human beings ourselves.

[quote name='mortify' post='1663082' date='Sep 24 2008, 07:55 PM']See, I get the impression one has to either say the Church was wrong before Vat II or after. I don't think the Church was wrong for promulgating her sacred language and Liturgy.[/quote]
From whence do you get such an impression? I feel no such pressure to say the Church was wrong either before or after. The dogmatic councils of Trent and Vatican I were essential to the ongoing life and health of the church, and the evangelistic council Vatican II was an important step in the Church's fulfillment of the Great Commission.

It's comparing apples to oranges. In one we discern truth, and in the other we discern how to share it. Both having truth and bringing it to the nations are important. If we have truth but do not share it, we are monsters. If we share what we have but do not have truth we are negligent in fulfilling our calling.

[quote name='mortify' post='1663082' date='Sep 24 2008, 07:55 PM']Well, you have written well but looking at the state of the Church today I can't say I share your optimistic views.[/quote]
Well, that's too bad. I think optimism should be the hallmark of any Christian, particularly a Catholic. One thing I find encouraging about reading Church history is seeing how the Church constantly comes back from the brink of disaster. Some writer (I think Chesterton, but can't be sure) talks about this phenomenon, how the Church consistently almost crashes, then recovers. Over and over again, God has proven that his grace is sufficient to sustain the health of the Church. I don't know how you can be a student of history, particularly Church history, and not come away with a sense of awe at God's providence and of hope for the future. We've made it through some pretty bad things in the past -- corruption at the highest levels, widespread priestly unfaithfulness, major doctrinal challenges. The Holy Spirit brought us through all that. I'm certain he can do it again.

[Walking to Emmaus]

For the person who couldn't remember the Italian term for updating. It is "aggiornamento." This was definitely the main theme of Vatican II.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Walking to Emmaus' post='1663517' date='Sep 25 2008, 03:10 PM']For the person who couldn't remember the Italian term for updating. It is "aggiornamento." This was definitely the main theme of Vatican II.[/quote]

Aggiornamento was most definitely not the main theme of Vatican II, though progressive extremists would like us to think it is so, as it would make it much easier to destroy the Church. The overarching theme to the Second Vatican Council, if there is one, is a universal call to holiness. While this does include change (as Sacrosanctum Concilium states - there are things that not only can be, but ought to change), the point of the council is not change for the sake of change, and certainly not change to accommodate a particular ideology, though the council was influenced by Protestant/Lutheran thinking bishops from the Rhine. Many of our parishes now resemble Protestant Churches instead of Catholic ones. The changes that were to be made after the council were only to be made to foster this call to holiness. Like every other council serious problems arose and we still strongly feel the effects of those problems. As a DRE I do more than most.

While I believe that the new missal will remain firmly in place, I also see what our Holy Father is doing. The Novus Ordo that is celebrated in 90% of parishes today is going to come to a quick death (quick in terms of how fast the church works) and we will see a strong return to using Latin and Chant in the New Mass, a change in the environment, a return of the communion rails, and an end to so many of the abuses. Our worship reflects our faith in God and our doctrinal beliefs. The Mass that has been celebrated in the last 40 years in most parishes reflects an extremely weak Christology, an almost destroyed sense of the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and a strong show for modernism and relativism.

[quote]I think optimism should be the hallmark of any Christian, particularly a Catholic.[/quote]

At the same time it is easy to sympathize with the pain faithful Catholics feel. At least in America many bishops are not welcoming to those with allegiances to orthodoxy and to the pope. Those who want to experience orthodoxy and solid Masses are cheated by leaders in the Church and many bishops every day. We can be optimistic and we can pray for our Church, and we should, but we can understand the pain experienced by our laity as well.

[Barbarus]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1663525' date='Sep 25 2008, 01:26 PM']At the same time it is easy to sympathize with the pain faithful Catholics feel. At least in America many bishops are not welcoming to those with allegiances to orthodoxy and to the pope. Those who want to experience orthodoxy and solid Masses are cheated by leaders in the Church and many bishops every day. We can be optimistic and we can pray for our Church, and we should, but we can understand the pain experienced by our laity as well.[/quote]
That's a pretty harsh condemnation of many American bishops, and one I am not ready to make.

I think American Catholics have greater choice and voice with their bishops than has historically been the case, and the current Pope has demonstrated his love and support for orthodox, traditional Catholic worship. If a bishop is mishandling his post, there are ways to address it. American Catholics have access to resources greater than that enjoyed by millions of our brothers and sisters in other countries, and this access is unprecedented in history. Everyone on this site, for example, has access to some level of technology and decent enough education level to know how to communicate and how to communicate through the available technology.

No one is condemned to living a life of pained resignation at the state of the Church; in fact, we are called to always work, with optimism, for the betterment of the entire body of believers and for the salvation of the world. Forgetting this call, and focusing on the pain we feel, cheats all of us.

[mortify]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1663502' date='Sep 25 2008, 12:33 PM']Both those statements are debatable. If you'd like to debate them I'm more than happy to do so, but I think there is ample historical evidence to support the liturgical changes implemented today.[/quote]

Can you point me to a time in history where the Church made huge alterations to her liturgical practice?

[quote]From whence do you get such an impression? I feel no such pressure to say the Church was wrong either before or after.[/quote]

Let's start with the fact that great changes have taken place. Why make such radical changes to the Church's form of worship if what our fathers passed on to us was good? The Church matured from Apostolic times to a more serious and elaborate form of worship, why isn't this nearly 2,000 year movement of maturation seen as the work of the Holy Ghost? Why the sudden desire to return to what is *thought* to be Apostolic worship? To me it says we went wrong somewhere.

[quote]Well, that's too bad. I think optimism should be the hallmark of any Christian, particularly a Catholic. One thing I find encouraging about reading Church history is seeing how the Church constantly comes back from the brink of disaster. Some writer (I think Chesterton, but can't be sure) talks about this phenomenon, how the Church consistently almost crashes, then recovers. Over and over again, God has proven that his grace is sufficient to sustain the health of the Church. I don't know how you can be a student of history, particularly Church history, and not come away with a sense of awe at God's providence and of hope for the future. We've made it through some pretty bad things in the past -- corruption at the highest levels, widespread priestly unfaithfulness, major doctrinal challenges. The Holy Spirit brought us through all that. I'm certain he can do it again.[/quote]

I was referring to your views of the Council. The Church will survive the current crisis.

[KnightofChrist]

Something I have never understood why make so many changes to everything so quickly and still doing it? I just really do not understand...

[mortify]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1663525' date='Sep 25 2008, 01:26 PM']Aggiornamento was most definitely not the main theme of Vatican II, though progressive extremists would like us to think it is so, as it would make it much easier to destroy the Church.[/quote]

Brother, it's hard for me to agree when the Church has clearly gone through an "updating" process.
[quote]At the same time it is easy to sympathize with the pain faithful Catholics feel. At least in America many bishops are not welcoming to those with allegiances to orthodoxy and to the pope. Those who want to experience orthodoxy and solid Masses are cheated by leaders in the Church and many bishops every day. We can be optimistic and we can pray for our Church, and we should, but we can understand the pain experienced by our laity as well.[/quote]

Yes.

Edited September 26, 2008 by mortify

[cmotherofpirl]

If you look at history, the Church in the years after Trent were no picnic either.

[MissyP89]

Not to interrupt the current discussion, but something Barbarus said struck me.

[quote name='Barbarus']While I don't advocate having a "seeker sensitive" church (as so many Protestant mush-makers do). . .[/quote]

Why shouldn't the Church be sensitive to seekers? Isn't that our goal, to nurture the faithful while reaching the lost?

[dominicansoul]

I too, am not understanding why the animosity with the Latin Mass? The Latin Mass is hated by certain individuals, and I have no idea why??? And why try and suppress it? The Pope himself has addressed that it should be available. There is something to this, my brothers and sisters, that we are not seeing...some [b]thing[/b] doesn't want it to return to it's former glory...because it is good and solid and fruitful and pleasing to God. It has met with tests and trials...but hopefully, we will see in the decades to come (if we have that time,) the return of the beloved Latin Mass, in a prominent role in the lives of Catholics...


[center][img]http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh165/hamburgerpatty_2008/Mass.jpg[/img][/center]