In response to this post over at the Deacon's Bench celebrating the 50th anniversary of Vatican II, I note a few things that have gone out of vogue and a few that have come in...
1. Out: Thérèse of Lisieux In: Joan Chittister
2. Out: Palestrina In: Mass for guitar and bongo drums in G minor
3. Out: Gothic Architecture In: Early Greyhound Architecture
4. Out: Latin In: Rap
5. Out: High Mass In: Clown Mass
6. Out: Baroque vestments In: Tye-dye vestments
7. Out: Prayers at the foot of the altar In: Liturgical dance
8: Out: Priests In: Parish Presidents
9. Out: Confession In: Affirming and Accepting
10. Out: Fasting & Abstinence In: Millennium Development Goals
It's been a long time since I have fired even an admittedly tongue in cheek shot across Rome's bow. But really, for Catholics to celebrate Vatican II is like France celebrating the French Revolution. On which note when the British used to raise their glasses and toast "confusion to the French!" it must have really taken hold.
The Baptismal Theme of the Bridegroom Services
4 hours ago
6 comments:
Strangely enough, yesterday's Office of Readings featured a lovely reading by St. Thérèse of Lisieux for her day. No sign yet of Sr. Chittister in the Liturgia Horarum.
I think, to guage the significance of Vatican II, one must make reference to what the Council actually taught, as opposed to attributing every change, misstep, and upheaval in Church over the last fifty years to the Council. Some have opposed it claiming to advocate it,and some have denounced it, apparently with no clue as to its actual teaching.
My hope is that this anniversary may cause a few to actually read what the council fathers declared.
For me, Vatican II and its effects (which I don't think can be separated, as much as Roman loyalists argue otherwise) are the biggest stumbling block in favorably evaluating Roman Catholicism as the Church of Christ.
If one takes as a presumption that the Church is to continue the Apostolic teaching and practices unbroken, then V2 leaves Rome in a perilous position. I take, for example, my mother growing up in a Catholic family and then living as a young woman in the 1950s. Anybody of that age ended up experiencing, by middle age, a completely different Catholic life over the course of maybe 15 years, 20 at most, than that in which they grew up. And that formative experience, as we know, was very distinctive and very strong. Today: not so much.
Few holy days of obligation, no fasting, watered-down services, simplistic music which could plausibly be understood to be teaching Gnosticism, mass as a "conversation" between the priest and the "audience" - there's a very good argument that's a radical, even discontinuous change. And that type of change is inconsistent with an Apostolic Church.
Any church goes through tough times, and we're only talking about 50 years or so of this out of 2,000. But I think Rome needs to understand how bad this has really been, instead of blithely talking about how the "biological solution" is going to sort it all out. In my opinion, the laxity caused by Vatican II has become cultural. In some dioceses, probably, and in many parishes, certainly, changing this culture would verge on impossible and would cause a collapse in attendance were it tried.
changing this culture would verge on impossible and would cause a collapse in attendance were it tried.
I think Benedict knows this, but believes it's necessary. He has said that they may have to get by with a smaller, but more orthodox church.
Such an idiotic post!
It would be interesting to know what type of church the RC would have been without Vatican II. Fortunately, we do have an example, Quebec.
Before the "Quiet Revolution" of the early 60's, Quebec was the most Catholic region in the Americas and perhaps the West. The Church dominated all activities, from birth to death, from education to health to economics, politics and culture. It was, I suppose, a theocratic province., at the very least for Francophones since Anglophones were mainly Protestant.
The Quiet Revolution began a mass exodus away from the Church which lost nearly all of its influence. Today, while most Quebecers identify themselves as Catholic, few attend Mass and most ignore the Church seeing it as an interesting curiosity.
This was the reality that Pope John XXIII saw as being inevitable throughout the world as long as the Church continued in its authoritarian attitude.
I'm always intrigued by people who espouse authoritarian religion while, at the same time, in the same breath, denouncing any governmental or other organization's intrusion into economic activity.
But it should not surprise me. Most people who view themselves as religious are so because they need an external authority to keep them in line. They have not internalized any morality or ethics, remaining adult children rather than mature adults.
As someone who was born and raised in Quebec (though not Catholic) I am rather intrigued and confused by the anonymous post above. Does the anonymous poster think that Quebec was somehow exempt from Vatican 2? While he/she is certainly correct in his observation on the collapse of catholic practice there, what allows him/her to say that Quebec is an example of what the RC church would be like without Vatican 2? The reforms were implemented there like anywhere.
It would be much more plausible to argue that Quebec is a perfect example of the consequences of Vatican 2. I would like to hear the anonymous poster respond and justify what he/she says -- assuming of course this wasn't just a drive-by comment...
Yes, the Vatican 2 reforms were implemented in Quebec but the Quiet Revolution began ,(1960), before the Council was even started and events proceeded far faster than the implementation of Vatican 2 which did not really take effect until the mid 60's.
To put it simply...it was too late.
The revolution truly took place when the role of the Church directing public education was eliminated. After that, the Church became more and more marginalized from the culture even as many of its clergy supported the revolution.
Vatican 2 was not responsible for the loss of the Church's influence in Quebec. The Church, in creating what basically was a theocracy, supported a corrupt political system. It was this corruption, along with massive economic inequalities, low educational levels, and oppressive social atmosphere, that brought about the loss of influence.
Had Vatican 2 occurred earlier, the Church might have very well been able to maintain influence and Quebec might still be a Catholic island in a Protestant North America.
Post a Comment