Posted on 01/15/2014 7:26:37 AM PST by BlatherNaut
"...My theory is that it is precisely those who have abused Vatican II by continually ignoring or even counterfeiting its teaching who have produced a situation in which the same Council is becoming increasingly distant, wearisome, vexed, and irrelevant. For example, had there been a clear and humble acceptance of the teaching of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and, therefore, had the Church been free from widespread liturgical abuses and the hermeneutic of rupture that is still the modus operandi of most parish communities, there can be no question that the traditionalist movement would have spent far less of its time critiquing Vatican II as such. Put simply: it was not inherently necessary that the Council become a lightning-rod of discontent. It was made to be that by the purveyors of its "spirit."...
(Excerpt) Read more at newliturgicalmovement.org ...
Vatican II was the instrument of destruction of the Catholic Church in the US. Well meaning folks, with small brains and a disregard of unintended consequences always screw stuff up.
PFL
Gotcha. You didn’t even post the first paragraph of the article, but picked and chose what to post. That’s what many non-Catholics do here on FR? Why are you following in their footsteps?
Over the past 20 years, I have often encountered or noticed a curious phenomenon. One might refer to it as “Vatican II weariness.” Briefly described, it is the attitude of being tired out by the very topic of the Council; not really caring to discuss it because the Vatican II just seems so incredibly long-winded in its documents, so controversial, so trapped in its time period—and, well, can’t we just get on with life and stop worrying so much about it?
We had a Year of Faith that was supposed to be dedicated, at least in large part, to a rediscovery and re-reading of the documents of the last Council. Granted, Benedict XVI dropped a bombshell during this Year and pretty much tore everyone’s minds off of his original intention. Still, even if he had never abdicated the chair of Peter, wouldn’t many people be dragging their feet when it comes to re-reading those sixteen documents? Wasn’t the great upheaval of the election of Pope Francis and his megaton interviews a worthy excuse for quietly filing away Benedict’s original script for this special Year? At least many people acted that way. A period of time in which we are ticking off many half-century conciliar milestones appears to be unfolding in an atmosphere of surprising indifference.
I have often wondered what is the root cause of this Vatican II malaise. Some traditionalists would say the cause is the very muddledness and problematic pastorality of the Council itself; but that, of course, is a begging of the question, since people would have to read and study the Council first in order to reach a fair judgment that it’s muddled and problematic—and that’s what we don’t see happening on a large scale. Your typical liberal might just as well appeal or not appeal to Vatican II, whether he has read a single sentence of it or not.
My theory is that it is precisely those who have abused Vatican II by continually ignoring or even counterfeiting its teaching who have produced a situation in which the same Council is becoming increasingly distant, wearisome, vexed, and irrelevant. For example, had there been a clear and humble acceptance of the teaching of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and, therefore, had the Church been free from widespread liturgical abuses and the hermeneutic of rupture that is still the modus operandi of most parish communities, there can be no question that the traditionalist movement would have spent far less of its time critiquing Vatican II as such. Put simply: it was not inherently necessary that the Council become a lightning-rod of discontent. It was made to be that by the purveyors of its “spirit.”
If Vatican II dies the death of an irrecoverable failure, it will be solely the fault of the progressives who thought they could ride the horse of Vatican II all the way home to a “new Church,” and who met with considerable success in persuading the world to believe the same lie. As there is one Body of Christ planned from all eternity, sojourning on earth in the unity of faith and charity, and destined to live forever, there cannot ever be a “new Church.” Those who were content to remain in the one and only Church there is can hardly be blamed for turning a deaf ear to so much tiresome twaddle about the Council. Over time, the historical Council insensibly merged with the virtual or media Council, and as a result, the real teaching, the authentic documents, have become marginalized.
Imagine with me a counterfactual situation in which, because the Council had been judiciously received and faithfully implemented, traditionalists of 2014 would be shoring up their spiritual counsels and pastoral plans with frequent citations of the Council, even if they might be uncomfortable with some of the ambiguous language or the novel directions taken in certain documents. But we are now radically polarized, and Vatican II has become a source of dismay because of the liberals and the modernists who insisted on selfishly abusing it for their own agendas back in the 60s and 70s and up to the present. It will be their ignominy in the annals of the Church to be the ones who defeated the hopes of John XXIII by dropping the atomic bomb on the new springtime and leading us into a nuclear winter.
It is no wonder that Pope Francis spoke so highly of Archbishop Marchetto and his correct hermeneutic of the Council. If there is ever to be a future fruitful reception and application of the Second Vatican Council, it will be purchased by that hermeneutic and by no other.
I got the same phrase.
**My theory is that it is precisely those who have abused Vatican II by continually ignoring or even counterfeiting its teaching who have produced a situation in which the same Council is becoming increasingly distant, wearisome, vexed, and irrelevant. For example, had there been a clear and humble acceptance of the teaching of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and, therefore, had the Church been free from widespread liturgical abuses and the hermeneutic of rupture that is still the modus operandi of most parish communities, there can be no question that the traditionalist movement would have spent far less of its time critiquing Vatican II as such.**
In my opinion it was the American Bishops who progressively interpreted Vatican II that has led us down the paths of -——it’s OK to eat meat on Friday, just do something else, you can receive Holy Communion in your hand rather than on your tongue. You don’t have to kneel down so often, instead you can now stand before Communion, etc. etc.
You can pick up your award on the way out.
Also the moving of days such as the Epiphany, Ascension and others to the nearest Sunday. This drives me nuts. And I want some of the old holy days back.
Why didn’t the Vatican II Council just say, universally, these will be the holy days?
"Picked and chose" implies that various bits have been strung together. The OP merely posted the paragraph that encompasses the crux of the article. Why pick a bone with that, and furthermore try to label it an un-Catholic thing to do? Rather than sounding like an honest critique, you just sound slightly overwrought.
Just as in scripture it is important not to focus on a SINGLE verse, I think it is important to get the entire picture. So I posted the entire article.
I seen nothing wrong with that at all. And I think I was correct in my analysis.
Because Catholics who are old enough to remember the pre-Vatican II Church with the Latin Mass, and who actually understand Latin, like to strut around like they are the cool kids with the secret decoder ring and lord it over the rest of us IMHO.
Nice to be one of the cool clique, but our young people just don’t get this. They are flocking to Evangelical churches. Or into cults. Or becoming agnostic. Eventually the cool kids will become the big fish in an incredibly small pond. (see: Harmony Society)
Ouch!
Excuse me? I honestly don't understand your comment. I posted the link to the full article, along with the portion I thought best encapsulated the author's main point, as I frequently do. What does that have to do with "what many non-Catholics do here on FR"? Why not stick to discussing the merits of the article rather than falsely imputing a devious purpose where there is none?
Sincere question: could you explain why the folks who were systematically deprived of their sacred cultural patrimony, disrespected by those in authority, and practically immured in silence for the past 50 years, can be described as “lording it over the rest of us”?
In our Byzantine Eastern Catholic church we were given an 8 page form where every congregant could address any issue in the Catholic church and these would be brought up at the 2014 Synod meeting called by the Pope.
Vatican II was a much discussed issue.Both in our spiritual and temporal lives it behooves us all to remember:-
EC 1:10 Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.
Because so many MISUSED IT as an excuse to make changes THEY wanted.
Then they lied to their congregations regarding the “authority”.
Au contraire.
"Looking at these particular images it is not difficult to understand just why the Pope and his right-hand cardinal have invested so much hope in these communities. Whether it is Solemn Vespers in a great baroque abbey, or low Mass celebrated on a rock in a clearing for scouts, the liturgical celebrations depicted in this book are all beautiful and dignified. The average age of the monks, nuns, friars and priests and seminarians is also remarkably young. According to Cardinal Castrillon, this should not surprise us. The message that these communities pursue is the message of Jesus Christ. This message is eternal, and therefore forever young."
http://romancatholicvocations.blogspot.com/2007/11/more-on-traditional-vocations.html
There is a flaw in your theory. If you attend a Latin mass, you will see more big families, kids, and young men than you will see in ANY other parish, bar none. The only under-represented group in a Latin mass is unattached young women. I don't know if women are less likely than men to go to mass alone, are less comfortable with the whole experience or simply that women are more liberal and hence fewer of them are interested in turning up at a Tridentine mass.
And its true to a degree, that Latin mass attendees sometimes act like they have a secret decoder ring. But I think it has less to do with Latin and more to do with the fact that that is the type of mind that ends up at the Latin mass. Unlike the average Catholic who warms a pew Saturday evening, suffers through the mass without understanding why, and then goes and votes for Obama on Tuesday and pops a BC pill the morning after, people at the Latin mass have generally felt there is something more. Due to the rarity of Latin masses and the frequent suppression of such communities in many dioceses, most LM attendees have really thought, researched, searched, discussed and prayed their way to the LM. Such a journey gives some people (certainly not all or even most) a swelled head.
....than suffering through the mass without understanding why, voting for Obama on Tuesday, and popping a BC pill the morning after.
Vatican II is the greatest accomplishment of Satan in the entire history of mankind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.