Thursday, September 25, 2014

Has Anything Happened SINCE Vatican II?

As discussed ad nauseam, the problem has not been The Second Vatican Council, but rather the way things that were never taught at the Council have been implemented by some priests and bishops.

So it is my belief that if we simply began to be faithful to the actual documents of the Council, a lot of our issues in the Church today would begin to evaporate.

That being said, it is also pertinent to ask a question: "has anything happened SINCE Vatican II?"

If the claim of "progressives" is that "Vatican II was an attempt to modernize things" then even by their own statement it would seem that the Church would need to KEEP MODERNIZING today.

An example of what I mean by this would be the homily.

Vatican II noted that the homily should, all things being equal, more often be a reflection on the Scriptures, as opposed to a "sermon" where a priest would focus more on doctrine.  Common in the Church throughout most of the Church's history have been the "preaching manuals" that would even have sermons that a priest could simply read from.

Of course the "sermon" frightens progressive Catholics because it is seen as "stifling the Spirit" - a progressive Catholic might ask how the Spirit could possibly flow through the reading of a sermon.

Here I must note that I've heard a lot of "homilies" where it would have been INFINITELY better had the priest read a sermon from some great saint like St. John Crysostom as opposed to the "flowing of the Spirit" that was dumped on the assembly.

However, I fully respect the 2nd Vatican Council's call for more homilies.

That being said, since it has now been fifty years, is it possible that things have happened SINCE Vatican II that would require an "updating" of the getting with the times?

It seems odd to request that the Church "get with the times" by going back to 1965.

And so, back to the homily...Pope Benedict remarked on several occasions that a "sermon" or a catechetical teaching during the homily time is, at times, most appropriate and most needed.  This was, of course, met with howls and shrieks by some progressive Catholics.

But Pope Benedict is simply trying to "get with the times"... he recognized the utter wasteland that is the knowledge of the Faith possessed by the average Catholic today, and he was saying we have to "get with the times" and respond to what is going on today by making sure to mix in sermons on Church doctrine.

The same could be asked about the placement of the tabernacle.  Vatican II called for it to be placed, ideally, in a side chapel.  Can we now recognize the disaster that this has caused and thus "get with the times" and say "okay, responding to data and lived experience SINCE 1965, we are going to move back toward placing the tabernacle in the center of Church."

I just find it odd that progressive Catholics don't ever want to talk as if anything has happened since 1965 that would warrant a reevaluation of anything, unless, of course, we're talking about a loosening of any and all Church teachings that restrict complete and free sexual self-expression.

1 comment:

  1. I've long said that the most radical progressive becomes a conservative committed to the status quo the day the revolution achieves its goal.