In the Boston area there is much controversy about closing of churches and Bernard Law's lack of accounting for his passivity while horrible acts were being perpetrated by priests. In my view--not shared by my friend--this is a lot more emotional and political than it is about the nature of the church. I mean, these reasons for wanting to leave are not new, shocking developments. They seem to have emerged when one's church building was put on the auction block.
I have the ability to stand back from that. While I believe Law should have been prosecuted, he wasn't. But I'm not looking for revenge.
My mom is strongly behind the last pope and was hoping for Ratzinger; my friend's mom, just as old as mine, shares her views.
I am left thinking that in the contemporary church we have people who approve of Vatican II's outreach to other churches in terms of civility, but don't want the CORE of the church touched. Which of course makes me wonder, if V2 was wrong, how did it get past the infallible pope?
And on the other side, there are people who abide by the church as long as it is tailored to their already-existing beliefs. Which seems weird to me. The "new churches" popping up all over the US--yuppies in their drive-through services, not actually drive-through but "softer", let's put it that way--remind me of the liberal streak in Catholicism that supports communism. Nice to see that Ratzinger doesn't seem to care for that wing.
It just seems to me that some people don't quite get the church they're a part of, and would be happier in a more liberal church.
There is nothing wrong with the Second Vatican Council (though I would argue that it actually did not introduce any new doctrine, thus the mantle of infallibility is irrelevant.) There was much wrong with the alleged "Spirit of Vatican II," which has no basis in its documents.
For instance, VII's Constitution on Sacred Liturgy states that Latin should be retained for the ordinary parts of the Mass, so that Catholics everywhere can share in this universal practice. (For instance, when the world gathers for a Papal Funeral, we could all sing the parts of the Mass together, regardless of where we come from.)
The Church is just now regaining the true meaning of the Council.
SD
Dear Darkwolf,
Don't take my generalizations too strictly. There are plenty of devout older Catholics who are quite "conservative" (how I hate that term applied to the Church). There are plenty of heterodox, but devout younger Catholics.
But nonetheless, I think it applies as a generalization.
I don't see the principle outcome of the Second Vatican Council as outreach to other religions. Rather, I view the true mission of the late Council to have been to balance the order of things in the Church, vis a vis the papacy, the episcopacy, and the laity.
But it will be another 20 - 60 years before the full (positive) effects of the Council will play out.
I remember reading once about a 17th Century Bishop in the Netherlands whose mission it was to finally implement the effects of the Council of Trent in his new See. This was some 60 years after the close of the Council.
Thus, I don't view the Second Vatican Council as being "wrong" at all. I DO believe that the misinterpretations of the Council made by the "progressives" are wrong. And delusional.
However, the young priests I know, who are good, decent, orthodox, and have the potential for real holiness, all adhere to the Second Vatican Council, all have imbibed of the theology of John Paul the Great, and likely all will love our new beloved Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.
sitetest