I came across this post purely by accident. I started to hit the "next blog" link at the top of the page a couple of weeks back and this post caught my eye.
The Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church has got to be far and away the most misrepresented decision-making body that has ever existed. I have seen all manner of bizarre accounts of religious and secular meetings of the minds from all sorts of historical eras, but none have been twisted as to their founder's intention's, nor had their very purposes for being convened purposely misrepresented more than that which has been done to Vatican II.
The Left does of course have a relatively secure foothold in the US Catholic Church and most of the Mainline Protestant denominations, especially in the Episcopal Church. They have, however never accepted that they have yet been unable to cause these bodies to drop the Christian concepts of sin, redemption. justification, and salvation and thus turn them into kumbaya communities that do nothing but petition for more "social justice".
The Second Vatican Council was and still has been assailed from all sides, most of whom strategically retain the label of Catholic in order to maintain the illusion of actually being Catholics. This is somehow supposed to lend weight to their protests that the Council went too far or did not go far enough. The following is a very brief listing of the general categories involved:
- Radical traditionalists, who claim that the Church should never have allowed anything other than Latin to be used in Masses or that the Laity were now allowed too great a part in the Mass.
- Radical lay persons, who just generally dislike anyone having any authority to tell them what is right and what is wrong but can't bring themselves to abandon the idea of maintaining the image of attending Church. These people hold that the laity were allowed too little a part in the Mass.
- Feminists who claim that the Church failed in her fictional purpose to bring on women priestesses or dismantle all traces of male leadership. (A possible return of the female Diaconate similar to that of the early Church? Absolutely not, we want the whole thing.)
- Leftists and others, who resent that the Church maintained their positions of morality, marriage, and the rest of the concepts embodied in the Ten Commandments, such as property.
I will not treat all of these categories as doing so would take me off the subject. Safe to say that the radical traditionalists thankfully have very few followers.
The main problem for the Church has been the bold-faced lies that have been heaped upon her for supposed failures to implement changes that were falsely attributed to the "Spirit of Vatican II" or other vague references to intentions of the Council founders or attendees that never existed.
Again. this council has been the subject of more outright lies than any governing body/convention/committee in the history of the world.
In today's society, where honesty means little, one can pretend to be of the opinion that a Council decided on positions and practices that were completely contrary to what the actual signatories wrote and signed to document as their decisions. If that course is not chosen, then one can just pretend that the council did in fact decide or desire whatever one in his delusional mind would have wanted and hope that no one checks by reading what the council wrote.
The event that spurred this post was this exact thing, but this time it came from an Episcopalian Priest. One's first question would naturally be why an Episcopalian got himself involved with the chorus of lies about Vatican II in the first place. His post gives that answer. Here is a portion:
The Houston-based diocese, called the "Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter," will allow a special Anglican celebration of the Mass that can include selections from the Book of Common Prayer. So, if you love Anglican liturgy (but dislike contemporary Roman Catholic practice), but dislike the stance the Episcopal Church has taken on female clergy (or the role of women in society in general) or homosexual clergy (or the role of homosexual persons in society in general) or any other of a host of possibilities (e.g., contraception, abortion), then you can now "have your cake and eat it to." No longer do you have to choose between bad music or bad theology. Now, you can have both liturgy and doctrine that is to your liking."
I am sad because my pews are filled with former faithful Roman Catholics, who have found that for those who believed in Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church can be an inhospitable place. It saddens me, because it didn't have to be that way. But since Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church has chosen to retreat from Vatican II, rather than advance into Vatican II."
From where I sit, it looks like the best place for Vatican II Catholics is, sadly, the Episcopal Church. Our liturgy can be a little stuffy for your liking, but we are now the closest thing to an emobodiment [sic]of Vatican II in America. For those who take birth control, or believe women can be priests, or that married persons can be priests, or are divorced and do not believe it would be wrong to remarry, and so on and so forth, perhaps your ordinary (i.e. bishop) really is already the local Episcopal bishop."
Just to provide Reverend Hawkins with a heads-up, those who felt that Vatican II went too far or not far enough either Left the Church or constantly agitate from within while remaining Catholics only in name. The Vatican II Catholics are right here, Reverend. I and many others who happily follow the changes or practice and attitudes brought about by the Council are the ones who refuse to either shun the Church for being too liberal or too rigid. We are the Vatican II Catholics, not those who fill your pews to the point of bursting at the seams.
Personally, I cannot drive by a good old Episcopal Church on the East Coast with feeling some sense of envy. They are built to be and look like timeless, rock-solid houses of faith, while Catholic Churches have gone in the opposite direction. Modern Catholic Church buildings are absolute disasters. The difference is that I don't blame the problems in my Church on other Church bodies.
Tell you what, Reverend, why don't you guys start a Roman or other Latin-rite Episcopalian liturgy for Catholics who come your way? I promise not to complain.
Below is just a tiny piece of a good summary on Vatican II:
"In his opening speech to the Ecumenical Council of Vatican II, Pope John said that the first need in calling the council was "to assert once again the Magisterium, which is unfailing and perdures until the end of time." The "magisterium" means the teaching authority of the Church. How unfortunate that, after this council, the magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, was so often ignored even by some who said they spoke "in the spirit of Vatican II" or the "spirit of Pope John."
In calling the council, Pope John noted that he looked to the past, to listen to its voice. He declared that it was the principal duty of the council to defend and to advance the truth. The council was to be loyal to the sacred patrimony of truth, as received from the fathers, but to see ever new avenues by which to take the same, true faith of Christ to the world. He insisted that the Catholic Church would continue to oppose errors, but that its opposition must be treated with the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. He sought ever greater unity in sanctity, and great joy in the eventual union of all the Christian churches of the world.
Thus the reform and change that Pope John sought in calling the council was in no way to change the faith and morals of the Catholic Church. His idea was to develop no new doctrine but a new way to make the constant unchangeable faith in Christ — as given the apostles in the sacred deposit of faith — ever more effective in the lives of people and for the evangelization of the entire world."