Vatican II: The Vision Lives On

[JimR-OCDS]

In my participation in this forum, it has become apparent that many younger Catholics in this forum, those born post Vatican II,
have a negative attitude toward Vatican II, and that some how, Vatican II is responsible for the Collapse in the Liturgy, as one thread titled it.

I happen to come across this article, which gives a good insight on Vatican II, and why Pope John XXIII called for it.

I myself, never knew that the Vatican II Council, had a theme, until I read it in this article.

The theme of the Council was aggiornamento, which literally means "getting up to today." The Church was being urged to "update" itself.

The entire text can be read here;

http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../CU/ac0393.asp

God Bless

Jim

[benedictgal]

I would submit to you that your observation may not be entirely the case at all I was born the year that Musicam Sacram was promulgated.

The sense that I have gotten is that we aren't complaining about the Second Vatican Council. We respect and accept the documents and the legimate authoritative intepretation of same by the Holy See. However, what is the glarind red flag is something called the Spirit of Vatican II, which is the polar opposite of what the Council did and said.

It's not the Second Vatican Council that is at fault; rather, the blame lies on the shoulders of those who went along with the alleged spirit and failed to read what the documents actually said.

Pope Benedict made that clear in his autobiography. As late as 1997, he was calling for an authentic interpretation of the Council. Now, as Pope, he's having to do just that.

[Dauphin]

I thought the theme was:

"Let's capitulate to the spirit of the world, muddy Catholic teaching in ambiguous terms, praise false religions, and just wait for the new springtime to begin!"

Bringing the Church "up-to-date" is a destructive idea which eliminates the continuity of tradition. Our role is to simply pass on what we have received, not tinker with it to appease modern sensibilities.

[Brendan]

I love the documents produced by Vatican II. In fact, I love them so much, I can't wait to see them actually implemented.

[VociMike]

Originally Posted by benedictgal

I would submit to you that your observation may not be entirely the case at all I was born the year that Musicam Sacram was promulgated.

The sense that I have gotten is that we aren't complaining about the Second Vatican Council. We respect and accept the documents and the legimate authoritative intepretation of same by the Holy See. However, what is the glarind red flag is something called the Spirit of Vatican II, which is the polar opposite of what the Council did and said.

It's not the Second Vatican Council that is at fault; rather, the blame lies on the shoulders of those who went along with the alleged spirit and failed to read what the documents actually said.

Pope Benedict made that clear in his autobiography. As late as 1997, he was calling for an authentic interpretation of the Council. Now, as Pope, he's having to do just that.

What's ironic is that so many of these people who are said to be finding fault with Vatican II, actually cite the documents of Vatican II in their arguments for an authentic carrying-out of Vatican II. How can this be?

[benedictgal]

Originally Posted by VociMike

What's ironic is that so many of these people who are said to be finding fault with Vatican II, actually cite the documents of Vatican II in their arguments. How can this be?

What I find fault with is the Spirit of Vatican II, not with what the Counil actually said.

The big bone of contention is how these documents have been interpreted. For example, someone will claim that Vatican II said that the priest should celebrate the entire Mass facing the people. That is not the case at all. The Holy Father makes a point of that in his book and in the foreword that he wrote to Fr. Lang's book, "Turning Towards the Lord."

The Holy Father experienced the msinterpretation first-hand when he returned to Tubingen. It wa very disconcerting to him. He details it in his book, "Milestones." Interestingly enough, Fr. Ratzinger was identified with the progressives; however, having experienced the gross misrepresentations of the Counci, something changed. He was a strong supporter of the liturgical movement that Msgr. Guardini Romano and others had begun. However, when the movement shifted gears and turned into something that wasn't supposed to be, the young Fr. Ratzinger saw that things were moving in the wrong direction, contrary to what the Council had done. He lived through the Council. He knew what was said and written.

That is why I trust Pope Benedict's intepretation of the documents and his critical commentary on the "spirit" of Vatican II. We have to draw the line between the spirit and what the documents actually said.

[japhy]

Originally Posted by VociMike

What's ironic is that so many of these people who are said to be finding fault with Vatican II, actually cite the documents of Vatican II in their arguments for an authentic carrying-out of Vatican II.

I'm pretty sure you get a demerit for the proper use of irony. But yes, I agree, if I was opposed to Vatican II (or its documents) on principle, I wouldn't quote them so much when talking about their authentic implementation!

[VociMike]

Originally Posted by japhy

I'm pretty sure you get a demerit for the proper use of irony. But yes, I agree, if I was opposed to Vatican II (or its documents) on principle, I wouldn't quote them so much when talking about their authentic implementation!

Oh no, a demerit on my permanent record!

[JimR-OCDS]

It appears those of you who have attacked my post, didn't bother to read the article I linked.

Oh well!

Jim

[japhy]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

It appears those of you who have attacked my post, didn't bother to read the article I linked.

I read it; I commented on part of it. Would you like me to discuss the article some more?

[Indyann]

Thanks Jim,

"The light of Christ on the face of the Church."

If we all could just remember to apply this!

[japhy]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

In my participation in this forum, it has become apparent that many younger Catholics in this forum, those born post Vatican II, have a negative attitude toward Vatican II, and that some how, Vatican II is responsible for the Collapse in the Liturgy, as one thread titled it.

That thread is not about how "Vatican II is responsible for the Collapse in the Liturgy". The latest posts in that thread make that point clear.

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

I happen to come across this article, which gives a good insight on Vatican II, and why Pope John XXIII called for it.

I like this speech of Pope John XXIII from October 11, 1962, opening the Council. Here are some choice excerpts:

Illuminated by the light of this Council, the Church -- we confidently trust -- will become greater in spiritual riches and gaining the strength of new energies therefrom, she will look to the future without fear. In fact, by bringing herself up to date where required, and by the wise organization of mutual co-operation, the Church will make men, families, and peoples really turn their minds to heavenly things.

and

The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. That doctrine embraces the whole of man, composed as he is of body and soul. ... The salient point of this Council is not ... a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.

As for the article you posted, I'm curious about this part, under the heading "What did the Council achieve?"

Lay ministry. Since the Council, the expanding roles of laymen and laywomen are evident in the explosion of lay ministries—whether we are speaking in terms of eucharistic ministers or of laypersons working as administrators in diocesan offices. These ministries, by and large, have become an accepted part of Catholic life today.

The Council said very little about expanding liturgical ministries to the laity. In the documents I've read, I think the only concrete mention of the matter was in Apostolicam Actuositatem n. 24: "Finally, the hierarchy entrusts to the laity certain functions which are more closely connected with pastoral duties, such as the teaching of Christian doctrine, certain liturgical actions, and the care of souls." These liturgical actions were not, as far as I can see, explicitly defined by the Council.

I hope extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion aren't becoming "an accepted part of Catholic life". They have a very specific ministry to fulfill, and once we have more faithful men responding to God's call to priesthood, we will no longer need this "common emergency" ministry.

[I_Believe]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

In my participation in this forum, it has become apparent that many younger Catholics in this forum, those born post Vatican II,
have a negative attitude toward Vatican II, and that some how, Vatican II is responsible for the Collapse in the Liturgy, as one thread titled it.

I happen to come across this article, which gives a good insight on Vatican II, and why Pope John XXIII called for it.

I myself, never knew that the Vatican II Council, had a theme, until I read it in this article.




The entire text can be read here;

http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../CU/ac0393.asp

God Bless

Jim

While it's inspiring at times to embrace the words of a member of the clergy, it should be noted that the site you've linked to is not a member of our recent and infamous "Hook Line and Sinker Club".

Here is a review of that site and it's "tendencies".
http://www.catholicculture.org/revie...cfm?recnum=163

I like John XXIII. But the author of this article, IMHO, is pretty liberal in his assumptions of the good Pope's intentions.

Feel free to disagree.

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by I_Believe

While it's inspiring at times to embrace the words of a member of the clergy, it should be noted that the site you've linked to is not a member of our recent and infamous "Hook Line and Sinker Club".

Here is a review of that site and it's "tendencies".
http://www.catholicculture.org/revie...cfm?recnum=163

I like John XXIII. But the author of this article, IMHO, is pretty liberal in his assumptions of the good Pope's intentions.

Feel free to disagree.

Please, lets not make this a debate about who's website is more credible.

If you have a problem with the some specific statement in the article, then feel free to show the error.

Otherwise, don't trash the thread.


Jim

[I_Believe]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

Please, lets not make this a debate about who's website is more credible.

If you have a problem with the some specific statement in the article, then feel free to show the error.

Otherwise, don't trash the thread.


Jim

Not trashing the thread or you. Just a heads up.

I've posted links to sites with content that flirts with heresy in the past. It's been pointed out to me, and I don't do it anymore. I'm glad it was pointed out.