Sep 14 2009
Should We Scrap the Second Vatican Council
Yes and No.
I am no theologian or canon lawyer, but common sense says that something needs to be done. There is too much divisiveness today and that cannot be allowed to continue. I am also one of those who believe that change must come from within the Church and not from pressure from outside groups.
What the Holy See needs to do is to look at the documents of the Second Vatican Council and everything that has happened since the council. This needs to be done in a number of steps:
First, they need to look very carefully at the documents (both the conciliar and post conciliar documents) and, if necessary:
- Rewrite portions (maybe even whole documents) to eliminate any ambiguities. This is especially true of the post conciliar documents.
- Scrap any sections and/or whole documents that went beyond the original intent of the council.
The second, and probably more important is to look at all the events since the council and reverse many of the trends that were instituted in the “spirit of Vatican II”. The “spirit of Vatican II” is probably the most destructive thing to come after the council since it has only served to divide the Church into factions that threaten the foundations of the Church. Some of the things to look at:
- The Ordinary Form of the Mass and either scrap it completely or modify it to bring it more in line with Extra-Ordinary Form of the Mass. This essentially eliminates the need for the terms Ordinary and Extra-Ordinary.
- Eliminating many of the indults like communion in the hand.
- Many of the liturgical and lay movements to see if they are compatible with the true teachings of the Church. In my opinion, many of them will fall short.
- The Reinstitution of many of the disciplines on clergy, religions, and laity that were in place before the council.
Finally, and this will probably take a council to accomplish (and please do not let it be called the Third Vatican Council), look at everything from the Council of Trent and on and create a common set of documents to direct the Church in the third millennium. Too much has happened since the council and much needs to be reviewed. These documents should include codification of dogmas, doctrine, disciples, and catechism that would not only include the rich history of the Church, but also eliminate any ambiguity that has arisen due to the Relativistic and Secular society that has come to be dominant since the Protestant Revolt. Only by setting everything in stone can dissent be combated.
In conclusion, we do not have to scrap the Second Vatican Council; we need to scrap the ambiguities and the “spirit” that came from it.
There are some beautiful things that the Second Vatican Council teaches us, but these things have been twisted into modernist agendas. Liberal (unorthodox) Catholics have taken parts of the council out of context, they have misunderstood parts of the council, and they have also fed lies to future liberals (unorthodox, modernistic Catholics), telling them all about this “spirit of Vatican II”. There may have been a spirit of Vatican II, but it sure wasn’t the spirit those modernists had in mind.
What needs to be done is that we need to specify the truths of Vatican II (we have to expose the Turth and remove the vagueness that causes such confusion and division). The Novus Ordo of the Mass needs to indeed either be pitched or “fixed”. But, I think we must educate the laity in an orthodox way as to why the lies they are fed are lies and why we need to make the changes that need to be made. The EF should be explained to them (with the Latin, gestures, songs, etc. all explained). And, more documents need to be put out on how to correctly interrpret the Council’s documents…… the documents need to be put into layman’s terms and they need to be writen in a way that the message is very clear (and this should be done by someone who knows the Truth–a good orthodox CATHOLIC–like the Pope himself, eh? lol)…
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI!
That will not satisfy either side. The “Spirit of Vatican II” side will say that they need not follow the new “guidelines” and the other side (which I am gravitating towards more and more) will say that the commentary is not enough. Besides, they have tried it a number of times with the post-conciliar documents and even documents afterward.
Either rewrite or scrap. That is the only way to get rid of any ambiguity.
What we need to reject is how it has been misused.
You cite the liturgy, however in reading Sacrosanctum Concilium, one cannot find anything that matches the Ordinary Form of the Mass today.
In fact. Pope Benedict XVI has addressed this problem in Spirit of the Liturgy and in Feast of Faith. Very very clearly. Why do you think he issued the Motu Proprio?
Things are going to be corrected, but it’s going to take time, and it SHOULD take time. The Liturgy is supposed to have been an organic growth, and it WAS until it was hijacked. Yet we can’t outright deny it for then we face other theological issues. (if you have not, I encourage you to read “Feast of Faith” for I haven’t the time to make a dissertation on this. Nor would I be as clear as our dear dear Papa.)
The Church is a Divine Institution which unfortunately suffers from the people within her. But the Holy Spirit has made promises that won’t be recanted.
Our job, as the faithful, is to understand when God has spoken through the Magisterium, be obedient to that voice (which in this case is V2) and both KNOW what the documents say and help them be upheld as they were intended; with the hermeneutic of continuity which goes ALL THE WAY BACK.
Had things gone as they were intended, we wouldn’t see the disruption (discontinuity) we suffer today.
Dang sinners….
I agree completely. It is not up to us to reject anything. What I am calling for is a review my the Magisterium amend where needed. Nothing more and nothing less.