Vatican II

[philothea]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']This is an article from George Sim Johnson.  I find that this is a very important article as to understanding the necessity of Vatican Council II.
[/quote]
I really enjoyed reading these. Thanks so much for posting them. Now for some mostly flip and not very insightful comments. (Sorry.)

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']But Pope John always insisted that his call for a council was an inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He never gave lengthy explanations for his decision, but he said enough to make it clear that he thought the Church needed to examine herself, to find her footing in the modern world while re-maining faithful to her principles. There is a law of conversion in the life of the Church as well as in individual Christians: If you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. The Church in some respects had become rigid. There was a self-satisfied triumphalism that was the reverse of apostolic. Most Catholics did not understand that the Church is not just an institution but an evangelical movement. The world was slipping away from religious belief, and Catholics themselves needed a new conversion if they were to bring it back.
[/quote]
This is brilliant. I do find it amusing how the cardinals tried to play it safe and make the next pope behave the way they wanted. They should realize this never works.

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']Traditionalists who wish the council had never happened point out that the Catholic Church at mid-century was a great success story. But success, as Martin Buber reminds us, is not one of the names of God. And even then there were warning signs, especially in Europe, the cradle of Catholicism. Roncalli’s last diplomatic post had been in France after World War II, and he was aware of the alarming decline in church attendance and a nominal Catholicism that prompted two young priests in 1943 to publish a book asking if France had not become a mission territory.
[/quote]
Maybe it's just my perspective from Phatmass, but it seems that many who dislike Vatican II are very young, and have no real perspective on what the church was like before.

The world has changed very much in 50 years and I don't think it was all the fault of Vatican II.

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM'] Conservative members of the Curia, like Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, once they saw that they could not stop the council, apparently hoped that the bishops would meet with great pomp and splendor, rubber-stamp a few documents affirming Church dogma, and then go home, thus letting everything return to normal.
[/quote]
Tsk, tsk!

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']But this was not what Pope John intended. In his opening speech, he said that “the main point of this Council...will not be to discuss one or another article of basic Church doctrine that has repeatedly been taught.... A Council is not needed for this.” Rather, it was time for a new approach. Emphasizing that the Church should have an “ever greater fidelity to authentic doctrine,” the pope famously went on to say: “The substance of the ancient doctrine is one thing, and its formulation is another.” But he was not just looking for new formulas: He was calling the Church out of her Tridentine shell to an active engagement with the modern world. To do this effectively, the Church would have to imitate more closely her Master, drawing nearer to contemporary humanity rather than maintaining a harsh, critical distance.
[/quote]



I just realized what the schismatic Traditionalists remind me of: the historical preservation societies of New England. On one now-famous episode of [i]This Old House[/i] the homeowners went to the neighborhood association for permission to paint their house. Their house was white, and had always been white as long as anyone could remember. Everyone's house was white. Houses in that area in New England were, you know, white.

Except actual historical records showed that the house originally was kind of a bright ochre color. The homeowners wanted to restore that look.

Eventually they got approval, but most neighbors were upset because, as everyone knows, the correct color for a house in New England is white!

I don't know why [i]one particular historical period[/i] is the defining one for the Latin rite, when the liturgy has been changing gradually all along.

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']Then there was the modern intellectual onslaught against not only the Church, but Christianity itself. From Voltaire onward, the “best” public minds were generally hostile to the Faith, often basing their attacks on a superficial reading of the natural sciences. Their polemics were magnified by the emerging popular press, where anticlerical journalists asked how anyone in an age of steam engines and telegraphs could believe in God.
[/quote]
It's way, way cooler nowadays how the Church embraces science, and takes advantage of technology. Catholics rule the web. 10x more indexed web pages than the next closest denomination. (And Christianity has 100x more web presence than the next closest religion.)

If there had not been changed in this area, I think the Catholic Church would have seriously suffered. Which is, of course, why there was change...

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']So the council supplemented and balanced the one-sided ecclesiology of Vatican I. It revived the fraternal element in the hierarchy. It confirmed that, in union with the pope, the bishops have a collegial responsibility for the universal Church and not just the care of their own diocese. As for the pope, no writing in Church history has stronger language about papal authority than Lumen Gentium (n. 25), a document about which dissenters do not like to be reminded.
[/quote]


(To be continued in the next post, or I will exceed my allotment of "quote + /quote")

[philothea]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']A major problem of pre–Vatican II ecclesiology was its disregard of the laity. The laity was a misplaced object in the magnificent baroque edifice of the Counter-Reformation Church. They were defined negatively—“not the clergy”—and almost treated as passive bystanders. The message was: If you want to be holy, become a priest or nun; otherwise, take a seat in the bleachers, where you may watch the priests and nuns, who are the true athletes of holiness, and you shall be holy to the extent that you plug in, however distantly, to their holiness.
[/quote]


I guess I am fully used to Vatican II thinking. I cannot imagine this concept. How depressing.

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']Today, many Catholics (including some bishops) seem to think that Vatican II was about the role of the laity in the Church—eucharistic ministers, lectors, and so forth. But it was really about the role of the laity in the world. The true Catholic life is one of personal conversion and evangelization; it does not involve hanging around the sacristy.
[/quote]

I'd rather leave the sacristy to the professionals, thanks.

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']More importantly, there was little connection between theology and the devotional life, the latter of which was often dangerously routinized. And in some seminaries or religious houses, if you wanted to discover the Church Fathers or any Catholic thinking outside of a closed neo-scholastic system that gave only the illusion of completeness, you did so with a flashlight at night. Many good men left Catholic seminaries in the 1940s and 1950s be-cause they found the intellectual and emotional formation stultifying.
[/quote]
Wow! I had no idea.

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']Obviously, there were wonderful and holy priests in the old days. But the fact that the “eruption of mediocrity” in the Church (as von Hildebrand put it) after the council was mainly the work of clergy who had received their formation before the council is evidence enough that the council was right to want to update the human and spiritual formation in convents and seminaries.
[/quote]
I had noted this myself. The priests formed entirely after Vatican II was implemented seem to be a spiffy bunch. It's the (now) older ones who sometimes don't seem to have understood what the changes really meant.

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']Ask most American Catholics what Vatican II was about, and they would say that it changed the Mass from Latin to English. Actually, it is surprising how little the council said about the use of vernacular in the liturgy. It comes down to two sentences whose modest scope would surprise most Catholics: “The use of the Latin language...is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use of it may be made, especially in the readings, directives and in some prayers and chants.”
[/quote]
I'm pretty ambivalent on Latin vs. English... but I wish the English wasn't such a dreadful translation!

I am really looking forward to the new version. Very soon, I hope.

Actually, I kind of wish that the mass would get tweaked on occasion just so people don't just mindlessly go through it. They'd have to pay attention...

That's probably not an appropriate sentiment.

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']Latin remains the normative language of the Church, and there are at least two good reasons for this: It is the language of the most beautiful prayers and hymns ever written, from the Salve Regina to Adoro Te Devote. And it is a dead language; in other words, its meaning and nuances do not change over the centuries. This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church, originally written in French, was officially rendered into Latin. Catholics 500 years from now will know exactly what the Church was saying.
[/quote]
And, not to be forgotten, Latin is also cool.

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:14 PM']The council’s most important message was the “universal call to holiness.” If the Church is going to fulfill her evangelical mission, it will ultimately be the work of saints, lay and clerical. In some ways, the council was calling for a retrieval of the experience of the earliest Christians. The early Church was an enterprise of all the baptized who saw the Faith not as a checklist of obligations but an adventure in grace.
[right][snapback]712603[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote]After reading that second post of yours Cam42, I am certainly frustrated once again by the media...   
No surprises there. A secualr media form, taking advantage of a momentous event, to sell newspapers and air-time without realizing nor caring for the lies and damage they where spreading. It seems the spirit of greed was hard at work to destroy the council's conclusion long before the council was over.[/quote]

I am sure that Dr. Hitchcock would disagree with that senitment. He is hardly part of secular media....hmmmmm....

[Cam42]

[quote]I really enjoyed reading these. Thanks so much for posting them. Now for some mostly flip and not very insightful comments. (Sorry.)[/quote]

You're welcome.....it is important to hear the other side of the coin, as opposed to the "rad trad" dispersal of the truth.

[quote]I do find it amusing how the cardinals tried to play it safe and make the next pope behave the way they wanted.[/quote]

They were only doing what was in their nature to do.

[quote]Maybe it's just my perspective from Phatmass, but it seems that many who dislike Vatican II are very young, and have no real perspective on what the church was like before.[/quote]

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

[quote]The world has changed very much in 50 years and I don't think it was all the fault of Vatican II.[/quote]

I tend to blame the US "counter culture" of the time, which has become the main stream culture. Thanks Mr. Kennedy.

[quote] I don't know why one particular historical period is the defining one for the Latin rite, when the liturgy has been changing gradually all along.[/quote]

It is hard for the schizzy's to defend that isn't it? I have made that a focus of posts (thanks to these articles) for awhile now, and they don't seem to answer it. They don't put up much of a fight when I tote out Cum Sanctissimum and Si Quid Est.

[quote]It's way, way cooler nowadays how the Church embraces science, and takes advantage of technology. Catholics rule the web.[/quote]

Gaudium et Spes #4. That is all.

to be continued.....

[Cam42]

[quote]I'd rather leave the sacristy to the professionals, thanks.[/quote]

Yes, please.

[quote]Wow! I had no idea.[/quote]

That was one of the reasons for the calling of the council.....to be pastoral, but I think that you have gathered that.

[quote]I had noted this myself. The priests formed entirely after Vatican II was implemented seem to be a spiffy bunch. It's the (now) older ones who sometimes don't seem to have understood what the changes really meant.[/quote]

I have noticed.

[quote]I'm pretty ambivalent on Latin vs. English... but I wish the English wasn't such a dreadful translation!

I am really looking forward to the new version. Very soon, I hope.

Actually, I kind of wish that the mass would get tweaked on occasion just so people don't just mindlessly go through it. They'd have to pay attention...

That's probably not an appropriate sentiment. [/quote]

No, it is an appropriate statement.

[quote]And, not to be forgotten, Latin is also cool.[/quote]

recte iudicas!

Those are great thoughts philothea.

[Cam42]

[quote]The council made it clear that she no longer wanted a confessional state tied to a monarchy; it was high time to make peace with liberal democracy. Henceforth the Church does not impose but proposes the truth; she will not rely on the coercive machinery of the state.[/quote]

What is being said is that there should be a movement from the pope as monarch and absolute ruler, but rather the Magisterial teaching body (the pope) as servant of servants of God and (bishops) various shepherds.

It isn't so much that the pope can't, because he most certainly can dictate, but that should not be how he does this, he should present theology in a manner that teaches authentic growth through free will and free acceptance of the various dogma and doctrines.

What Pope Bl. John wanted to do was move away from the monarchal view of Pope Pius IX, but rather to a more open dialogue that included the modern world, without compromising the Church's Traditional teachings.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 8 2005, 07:51 PM']I am sure that Dr. Hitchcock would disagree with that senitment.  He is hardly part of secular media....hmmmmm....
[right][snapback]716340[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Maybe he would, but remember this was intended for the greedy portion of the media who pushed their own agenda with little more intent than to mare the church or make a quick buck. I'm not certain the Dr. Hitchcock falls into this category. Do yoiu think so?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Sep 9 2005, 12:12 PM']Maybe he would, but remember this was intended for the greedy portion of the media who pushed their own agenda with little more intent than to mare the church or make a quick buck.  I'm not certain the Dr. Hitchcock falls into this category.  Do yoiu think so?
[right][snapback]716908[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

huh?????? I am not sure what you are saying.....

[Didacus]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 9 2005, 11:16 AM']huh??????  I am not sure what you are saying.....
[right][snapback]716913[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Do you think that Dr.Hitchcock is one that tries to mare the church or make a quick buck from the events of Vatican II?

[Didacus]

After reading the third article, I must admit, I have a lot more reading to do than I thought. Seems the more I read, the more I [i]have[/i] to read.

I really loved the article though, anything that shows me further insight into JP the Great is a joy for me to read.


enough of that.........
_____________________________

Now, here are my views (thus far, since I am not done 'educating myself' on Vatican II. Tell me what you think Cam42, and please let me know if I should be corrected.


Vatican II was a necessary transition of the Church into modern times in a manner of speaking. Modern times offered men/women a new outlook on nature and reality as a whole, and developed a critical sense that could no longer be satisfied by the current Church practices. Although the Church's dogma and doctrine was properly left unchanged, Vatican II goal was to address the practices of the Church, or the presentation of the church's message in order to better address the newly made critical sense of thinking of church members.

This 'new critical thought' came to materialize along with the industrial revolution, and the root cause of which can be dated back several centuries thereof. the French revolution and the pitiful treatment of clergy, onto the sexual revolution, I remain convinced, are mere symptoms of a more inner bound 'illness' of the soul that has afflicted humanity (industrialised more than others) since then. In this spirit, Vatican II attempted to address not only the 'critical thinking' of church members, but also their perception of the Church, Her role in the world, the personal role of each individual within her (either laity or clergymen or sister or other) as well as each individual's role from within Her onto the rest of the world.

In short, Vatican II aimed at rejuvenating the Church's relationship with her members and the world.


The manner in which the council fathers aimed to achieved this goal is, amongst countless others;

1. To make the celebration of mass more accessible to church goers.

2. To make Church dogmas and doctrine better understood, and thus invited a sort of dialogue with her laity members. This was to address a 'critical mind' that could no longer be satisfied with simply 'being told what to do', but also needed to 'know why such things should be done'.

3. Of the main outlooks called to change within Vatican II, was the misguided perception of obtaining salvation through following a mere set of rules. In this sense, all members of the Church have been called to 'mature' in their faith. Not to simply follow blindly their faith, but to understand it, apply it within their every day lives and more so, to embrace their faith in its wholeness and not just simply a 'to do list' necessary to obtain salvation.

Vatican II [b]did not [/b]aim to:

1. Change church dogmas or doctrine nor teachings.

2. Seek to simply re-affirm dogmas and doctrines that had already been set, nor to re-affirm in a manner better understandable by modern generations.

3. Seek to abolish tradition, although tradition was somewhat 'loosened'.
[i](I am not too certain about that last one, a little help if you will?)[/i]



The 60s:

Vatican II did not cause a revolution; it was reacting to an impending revolution that had prepared itself (for the least), long before the sexual revolution. From 1965 to 2005, a biblical generation no less, it is my growing belief that we have witnessed as the people of God, the summit of the 'culture of death' or the 'theology of liberation'.

The generation coming, 2005-2045, will not have to 'experience' the question as their parents have, because they will have witnessed the effects and the failed attempts to 'freedom' of the generation prior. The signs of things to come grow ever more evident to those who dared seek and know the world around them:

1. Extremes that defy common sense are found everywhere and all around; dropping populations, the plague of abortion reaching unspeakable proportions, homosexuality being passed as a 'common sense' right, movements such as VHMent that push the idea that the only moral choice for humanity is 'voluntary extinction' and the list can go on and on and on...

2. Camps are growing further and further apart, and more so, 'purifying' themselves. Protestants become Catholics, Catholics become Protestants; each on the basis of beliefs and ideologies. Those who believe the teachings of the Church are anchoring themselves within it, those who do not, are leaving her bosom.

3. As it is the nature of the young to rebel, the Church does not seem to be the dominant authority anymore. Thus in order to rebel, the young must now rebel against the seemingly new dominant force in the world, 'the theology of liberism'. What better way to rebel against that than to actually listen and try to find truth in the church?!



My personal prediction is that 40 years from now:

Vatican II will be held as not only a success, but also a brilliant move (inspired by the Holy Spirit) by the then Sainted John XXIII. Furthermore the teachings of Vatican II will be well understood, and applied as per the council father's spirit. John XXIII will happily be having tea with John-Paul the Great in heaven, and they will toast to a job well done. (Paul VI and St.Peter will be with them of course).

The theology of death will have lost force, all of its momentum, and will be as they are destined, a dying bunch. An entire generation of killing their infants, refusing to have children, not being able to children (gay marriage), killing their ill, assisting themselves into suicide and all those 'beautiful' ideas, will have taken their toll and few will be left to raise whatever rainbow flag they had once made the century before. Most of them old, barren, will be scratching their heads and pondering where they had gone wrong in life.

The Catholic Church will be renewed, having as much an old and venerable image as a young and vibrant one. Having held to their beliefs, and faith in Christ, they will have prospered through this new generation, and enjoying life to its fullest. The Church is Holy, the Church is Infallible, and the Church is eternal. Of this, Catholics remind themselves gleefully on every April festival in which they have dedicated 'Benedict XVI day'. Our good (then former) papa will have his Cup at John XXIII's table, along with the scores of other good and faithful friends in Christ.




[b]Stand tall, be strong, be faithful.[/b]