Darwin said: It's hard to imagine what the Catholic world would be like today had Vatican II not been called. I don't think it would be the rosy view that some, perhaps, imagine.
Darwin's suppositions seem to presuppose that if there had been no Second Vatican Council, that there would have been no effective response at all to the changes of that period. I think that's a pretty big assumption, and one not supported by the facts.
As to your twinkies analogy (doing food a lot this week, are we?), I think it would have more force if no real damage had been done by the last 40 years of frivolousness. But no one's really claiming that here, are they?
Finally, to try to analyze, as Darwin did, the fruits of VII, is a perfectly valid effort, but not strictly relevant to the post by the Caveman he used as a jumping-off point. We can cuss and discuss about the consequences of VII all day. What Cavey was asking, in his inimitable way, was not what has been the result, but rather, what was the initial plan? He's not asking what did VII achieve, but rather what was it intended to achieve?
The point I was trying to make is that sometimes what we are trying to achieve is irrelevant. It's what God is trying to achieve. As a Catholic, I believe that the second Vatican Council and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo were exactly what we needed then, to bring us where God wants us to be now.
Were it not for the devolution of the church from spain and the separation of church and state advocated in VII along with some of the other advances in catholic thought I would most assuredly have never swum the Tiber. I think that VII did answer some of Martin Luther's protests that were valid, not that many of them weren't already answered. I think you know this history and the council better than I, but would you not agree that VII served an important role in closing the counter reformation?
I hear you with regard to B16's call to orthodoxy. What is the difference between a tiny, forgotten sect of ultra-orthodox jews and the catholic church if it stagnates?
To me, and it just my opinion, the church has to BOTH continuously evolve with the revealed spirit and maintain orthodoxy. Sure this can get out of hand. But the unfolding revelation is not just restrictive, as in a council that confirms a restrictive stance, sometimes it is embracing of a wider view.
This is why we are not fundamentalists locked in time with the canon as it crystalized. The scripture, in Matthew says that we cannot call priests 'father'. Paul says we can't wear long hair. The scripture says we cannot use repetitive prayer like the rosary. But the unfolding revelation of Tradition has placed such teachings in context and we do indeed do all of those things. Proper application of orthodoxy is therefore not always restrictive and can sometimes be permissive. This includes recognizing that there are some very holy buddhists out there, even if our path is the best one. This includes that the temptations to temporal power the church endured in the past (Holy Roman Empire, the Inquisition, et cetera) were in fact mistaken, and JPII apologized for some of those.
So yeah, I'm with you on some of the wishy washy community-ist stuff that happened as a result of the Spirit of VII. And I think some of that happened, arguably, because of a clericalist culture where a liberal priest called all the shots.
But a couple more thoughts.
Butts in pews are important. I am in an RCC megaparish full of grey heads. You might think it is enough to raise catholic children. It's not. Most of my friends who were raised orthodox catholic lapsed. My point?
*If the catholic message does not have the evangelical appeal to convert an adult, then it will not have the appeal to retain our children or their spouses.
Does that mean I think that we should water anything down for massive appeal? No. But I do believe that the gospel has its own appeal, and that we have to stay in touch with the Sense Fidelis. If the Holy Spirit is revealing a different message to the wider body of the faithful than what we are teaching than we have to LISTEN and be open to pondering what others experience as the revealed word of god.
And sometimes those answers might not be ultraorthodox. We might not need to refrain from pork, demand circumcision, or various other judaical demands any longer. (I'm not going to argue any liberal message regarding Christianity in this thread).
This seems to me to mean that you like a church where you're comfortable with the doctrine rather than knowing, as I do that the Catholic church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Christ on the rock of St. Peter.
No, I believe it was a "if we can't beat them, join them" attempt. The way to attract Protestants is not to become more Protestant. I believe they thought that, and I believe they are wrong.
The Church has always evolved, but has evolved organically. There have never been the crazy self-directed leaps and bounds that we've seen since Vatican II. The Holy Father is not "rolling back" Vatican II, he is defining it. He is in a unique position to do that since he was involved in writing it.
This is why we are not fundamentalists locked in time with the canon as it crystalized. The scripture, in Matthew says that we cannot call priests 'father'. Paul says we can't wear long hair. The scripture says we cannot use repetitive prayer like the rosary. But the unfolding revelation of Tradition has placed such teachings in context and we do indeed do all of those things. Proper application of orthodoxy is therefore not always restrictive and can sometimes be permissive. This includes recognizing that there are some very holy buddhists out there, even if our path is the best one. This includes that the temptations to temporal power the church endured in the past (Holy Roman Empire, the Inquisition, et cetera) were in fact mistaken, and JPII apologized for some of those.
The Holy Father says "We are right. Some are mostly right. Some are partially right. Others are dead wrong". But being mostly right means you are partially wrong, and you need to change to become right.
Didn't Vatican II get rid of clericalism?
No we don't. If you believe in Sensum Fidelis, you ought to be a member of the Orthodox Church. They change even slower than we do.
What we have is the Pope and Magesterium. They have the teaching authority, we don't. That's why we're Catholic and not Protestant.
There is no such thing as "ultra-orthodox". You are either orthodox, or you aren't. It doesn't have shades of gray.
I like your thought about B16 perfecting and refining VII as one of the authors. I also am not a fan of space capsule churches and campy masses with tamborines and many other things that I am sure we'd agree on.
But I am not sure I agree that VII was an 'if we can't beat 'em join 'em' appeasement to protestants. The temporal expression of the church in the inquisition and the Holy Roman Empire and as expressed in the papal states and so forth was just plain wrong. The secularists were right to advocate a separation of church and state. A separation of the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of earth - and B16 rightly emphasizes this as the conservative side of the temptation of Christ to turn stones into bread in his new book. The leftists side of that temptation being of course communism. And in embracing these things the church is indeed stronger, because in rejecting temporal power more fully, for example, the church was in a very strong position to combat communism and injustice, because the pope can no longer be accused of being a prince.
I think all of this is well reflected in B16's new book Jesus of Nazareth.
Vatican II was a binding church council. It may have been misunderstood and liberties might have been taken in its 'spirit'. And as you say, Benedict is in the perfect position to straighten some of it out in its implementation.
Anyone who does not understand how VII made the church stronger ought to pick up the new book about Reagan's diaries and read all the entries in the index for 'John Paul II' - may he rest in peace, and the unprecedented role that Pope played in bringing down communism. Would that have happened if the Pope had been struggling to retain temporal power or if he had been viewed as a prince from the machiavellian perspective?
Does the church not have the high moral ground now with regard to institutions like the church of England where the King of England is the head of the church?
Maybe renewal was required, maybe the methods of renewal taken were not correct. Maybe we have to take a couple of steps back to hit the proper fork in the road and go the correct way.
Absolutely! I don't subscribe, as Kevin does, that the council was not binding on the faithful. That is as bad as the liberals such as Joe Cecil, applying a strict ex-cathedra formula to those things he doesn't assent to.
The Pope and the Magesterium have teaching authority with regard to faith and morals. Even those things that have not been solemnly proclaimed are worthy of consideration.
Probably not. JP II was the perfect Pope for his time. B XVI is the perfect Pope for now. ;)
Well, some might not think so. You know, after Cdl Mahony's $600M donation to victims of abuse.
Good points. And I think we agree. I see four categories:
1-There are those who 'confess dissent'
2-There are those who profess assent
3-And there are those who profess assent but deign to command the magisterium and point out its errors
4-There are those who profess dissent but say that they are right and the magisterium is wrong
I see 3 and 4 as basically indistinguishable. i see (2) as being the enviable position, (1) as being morally superior to 3 & 4. I am a 1 (confessed dissenter), and I tend to get along fine with 2's. I seem to clash pretty drammatically with 3's. 4's like my just fine, but lose interest in my ideas when I fail to condemn the hierarchy for disagreeing with my dissent.
Overall I really doubt that anyone is in a perfect state of asseent. But there are a lot of people a lot closer than I am. It is also arguable that any dissenter is capable of full humility-in-dissent. It is difficult for me to understand why, as stated elsewhere, the church does not grant Haiti a dispensation for the use of condoms and vasectomies/ligations to nullify the evils of strife, starvation, and civil war.
But it seems far more ludicrous to me to claim that you are an orthodox 'traditionalist' but that a full Vatican council demands no assent or obedience. Such a stance is very, very far from humble dissent, and attempts to command the magisterium.
I think it's simply that we are injecting our human opinions in place of God's divine plan. We are placing our temporary discomfort here on earth against eternity.
The pain and suffering in Haiti and elsewhere can be avoided if the people stop having sex.
"I also am not a fan of space capsule churches and campy masses with tamborines and many other things that I am sure we'd agree on."
All I can say about tamborines is that it's nearly impossible to get any more "traditional" (regular quotes, not sneer quotes, I never use sneer quotes) then tamborines (and lyres) in terms of public worship. Psalms in the temple complex were using them a thousand B.C. But, of course, you don't have to like them.
Reply
Back to top
Quote
