The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionWhen Vatican II came to the Bronx
To this day, I'm no good at math. I blame Vatican II.
Jun. 19, 2009
Part One of Two parts
To this day, I'm no good at math. I blame Vatican II.
In the spring of 1968, I was in fifth grade at Immaculate Conception Grammar School on Gun Hill Road in The Bronx. I was struggling with long division, as taught by the "New Math" imposed back then on all junior high school students. With "New Math," it was not good enough to get the answer right -- you also had to utterly understand the theory behind the answer. In fact, it was better to get the theory right and the actual answer wrong.
That was, by happenstance, also a very Roman-Catholic-church-way-of-thinking about nearly everything. It was an outlook that served the church well for hundreds of years -- until suddenly, with Vatican II, it did not. And in 1968, in the spring, Vatican II came to my working-class neighborhood in The Bronx. It would change my church and it would change me. Ultimately, it would keep us together.
When the bell rang for math on this particular morning, the classroom door swung open and all of us pulled up short at the entryway. The huge blackboard -- usually covered with numbers, lines and symbols meant to make me cry -- was instead filled with lyrics. They began:
I've come to talk to you again …
I looked past the blackboard and saw my math teacher, Sr. Richard, leaning against the edge of her blocky metal desk, worn guitar laid across her lap, a woven strap of rainbow colors sitting around her neck against her black nun's habit. She was tall, lanky, and only ten years older than we were. Sister smiled and said: "I thought we'd try something different today."
I raced for my desk and eagerly did not pull my math book out. For several lessons after that, the book stayed away as we learned songs by Simon & Garfunkel, Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell. It was the first time in my life someone had waved off the rules and said: forget all that, this is what really matters. And person who said that was a nun.
***
Sr. Richard's guitar, those songs -- all my memories, really, of coming of age at my parish in an Italian blue-collar neighborhood during the 60s -- seem to be at the real heart of discussions within the church about what Vatican II was all about. Much of the debate now circling Vatican II comes from people who have backgrounds like mine -- or claim sympathies with people who have backgrounds like mine. They are traditionalists who say Vatican II confused the average working-class-person-in-the-pew, and drove us away with too many changes, too fast.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
But that's not what happened to me in the Bronx.
By complete chance, I spent my boyhood and adolescence at an absolutely average church and school that somehow got caught up in the changes inspired by the Second Vatican Council. My mother still calls them "those crazy years when you were kids" -- but thanks to those years, I remain a Catholic. In the decades since, I have never met a lapsed Catholic my age who left the church because she had to hear the Mass in English, or because some guitar-playing nun force-fed him folk songs. Instead, their childhoods were usually filled with bitter memories of a much more medieval and unresponsive church -- mother superiors who smacked them, cruel priests who looked down upon them, and a church that often seemed plainly indifferent to their existence. (And as many victims will tell you, sexual abuse by priests did not suddenly begin when bishops booked their Council flights to Rome in 1962.)
I judge that era and its legacy by what it was like in the years right before and after the Council at my parish, a very blue-collar place. Theologians, liturgical scholars and students of Aramaic were nowhere to be found at Immaculate Conception. My Dad was a baker; my best friend's father managed an equipment shop for bowlers. Dreaming of being a policeman was aiming high, because it was a steady job with good benefits and an early retirement. These were the people supposedly frightened by a church in transition.
***
Immaculate Conception parish was established in 1903 by Italian immigrants settling in The Bronx. Its huge Romanesque-style church, completed in 1925, soared high enough to fit two balconies, wide enough for two side chapels, and was lit in daytime only by streaks of sunlight struggling to break through tall stained glass windows featuring faces of the saints. In its dome far overhead was a painted vision of Mary, surrounded by angels, the Holy Spirit above her, heroes from the Old and New Testaments just below.
I was in third grade when I started as an altar boy. (This would have been 1964-65, just before the work of the Second Vatican Council started to find its way into ordinary churches.) When I first stepped out onto the altar at age eight to practice my role in the Mass, I stared at up Mary-in-the-Dome, down the endless rows of empty mud-brown wooden pews -- and cracked my small knuckles nervously. The view felt like God: distant, wide, cold, and blue.
That distance from God was reinforced at the baroque altar: the priest faced away from the congregation, of course, and muttered Mass to himself. I recited prayers and responses from a laminated card printed in Latin. My favorite altar boy contribution was ringing a small sets of bells, as the priest held up the body and blood of Christ -- it was one of the few times I understood what was going on.
No one else seemed to pay full attention, anyway. My mother would rush me to church before school began, so I could serve at the eight o'clock daily Mass. In the pews were about fifty old ladies in long black peasant dresses and black veils, each with a dark rosary in her hands, shiny from years of rubbing, counting and recitation. They never stopped their own prayers during Mass -- the priest and altar boys were just a backdrop to their individual devotions. The "active congregation" that evangelicals and many other Protestants took as a given was rarely present.
My mother often sat among the ladies in black to watch me serve, standing out from the pack in her pastel colors. She stayed to pray, I always thought, for my older brother Albert, who was brain-injured during a very difficult birth and suffers from mental retardation and cerebral palsy. Despite her pastels, my mother seemed as caught up in her own cares as the others.
On Sunday, it was pretty much the same thing, albeit in front of a much larger crowd with a better demographic. But no one objected -- it only took about 45 minutes, and then we could run to the pastry shop on White Plains Road to buy a box of crumb buns for breakfast. (We'd be starving right after Mass -- you had to fast all morning beforehand, or you couldn't take communion. As Sr. Claire put it to me in second grade: Jesus doesn't want to float around inside you next to crumb buns.)
School had the same atmosphere. We were taught by the Pallotine nuns, who made up about eighty percent of the faculty. They wore severe habits that brushed the floor at the bottom, and covered everything on top except a small oval for chins, eyes, nose and just a fraction of forehead. Quiet listening was encouraged. Questions were not.
Then, somewhere inside the academic year of 1965-66, change began.
***
The decisions made in Rome finally began to reach The Bronx: Latin was out in church; English or Italian was in. Soon enough, the altar got turned around to face the pews, and a bit later we stopped kneeling at the long, marble communion railing to receive the Eucharist by mouth.
Forty years later, much of this still annoys the Catholic traditionalist wing, but none of this was shocking to me at the time. I did not feel suddenly let loose in a world where change left me dazed and depressed. For me, at age nine, church now seemed much less mysterious. I could finally understand what the Mass was about, and hearing priests speak English made them seem more like other adults I encountered, those who didn't go about their work in ancient tongues.
But here's the really odd thing: most parents (not all, to be sure, but most) liked this, too. Because most parents in my neighborhood were going through changes of their own.
During the 1960s at Immaculate Conception, a particular group of adults stepped to the forefront: second-generation Italian-Americans, eager now to stress the "American" side of the hyphen and make their own mark in the mainstream.
For my grandparents, coming to the U.S. was a traumatic event, forced on them by the rural poverty of Southern Italy. To cope, they moved into a Bronx neighborhood populated by families from their old hometown; everyone spoke the same dialect and carried with them shared connections that went back generations. The Italian-style church down the street was one more way to retreat into the familiar.
1967 Chrysler Town & Country station wagonBut my parent's generation was anxious to join the American majority: they dropped their accents, gave their children English versions of Italian names (Joseph, not Giuseppe), and focused on obtaining outward symbols of American acceptance. When my father bought a forest-green 1967 Chrysler Town & Country station wagon, it was an event on my street. Neighbors tossed pennies on to the plush carpeting for good luck.
The Roman Catholic church, it seemed, was in that Chrysler with us. One of the central principles of the Second Vatican Council was an elevation of the laity -- Vatican II sought to place rank-and-file members of the church on the same plane as priests and nuns. For Protestants, this was nothing new: Martin Luther had written of the "priesthood of all believers" 450 years earlier. But for Roman Catholics, it marked the creation of spiritual democracy, where each member of the church body was as important as the next. It made church feel, somehow, more American.
*****
That democracy, that de-mystification, traditionalists now argue, took away a lot of what was special about being a priest or a nun -- made it less attractive as a life choice for the sons and daughters of poor or blue collar families. Partly as a result, they assert, we have the current vocational crisis.
And yet -- my parish in the 1960s actually experienced a strong influx of young priests and nuns. While others of their generation were joining the Peace Corps or becoming Vista volunteers for the inner city, these religious brought the same energy and spirit to a parish where many struggled. (When school tuition in 1967 was raised from six dollars a month to ten, many parents worried they couldn't handle it.) The new clergy were eager to make the church and school more accessible, to make themselves more accessible. It wasn't a negative, not to the people in my parish. (As you'll see later, in fact, it wasn't enough.)
[Editor's Note: Read Part Two of this essay.]
Joe Ferullo lives in Los Angeles and works in the television industry. He blogs for NCR at NCR Today.
THANX for the memory jog.
THANX for the memory jog. Here's to Tom Lehrer:
Hooray for new math,
New-hoo-hoo-math,
It won't do you a bit of good to review math.
It's so simple,
So very simple,
That only a child can do it!
I am also reminded of a song
I am also reminded of a song by Tom Lehrer post Vatican II called, The Vatican Rag. I think even today the traditionalists would find it somewhat offensive, but back then my parents thought it was hilarious. It's worth downloading from the internet.
"hey are traditionalists who
"hey are traditionalists who say Vatican II confused the average working-class-person-in-the-pew, and drove us away with too many changes, too fast. But that's not what happened to me in the Bronx."
Well, yeah, but you don't know math. That's why traditionalists don't like all this 'spirit of Vatican II' talk. Instead of education (math as well as religious), Catholics are getting Simon and Garfunkel. The Church did fine for 1930 years teaching people the faith and math. I don't see why switching to Simon and Garfunkel is good.
Also, is being a mainstream American better than being Italian Catholic? I mean, mainstream Americans support (or only recently supported) abortion rights, the death penalty, keeping minimum wage too low, and invading random countries in the near east. Catholics shouldn't be in favor of any of those things. Who would rather be American than Catholic?
To say "The Church did fine
To say "The Church did fine for 1930 years..." ignores a lot about church history.
And to say it's done better
And to say it's done better for the last forty would be equally misguided. Of course the Church has had her failures and mistakes; but my point, that the Church has been very good at catechesis for most of her history, and, at least in America, less good in her more recent history doesn't ignore a lot about Church history.
To be able to judge
To be able to judge catechesis world wide before and after Vatican II would require, in my opinion, a fairly sophisticated catechesis, presumably accomplished within the last 40 years.
But then again, it is always someone else who unformed, uneducated and uncatechised.
He is referring to the
He is referring to the Liturgy.
This article brought back
This article brought back memories for me both of the post-Vatican 11 time in Scotland and of the summer I spent in the Parish of St Francis Xavier in the Bronx, working as a chaplin in Jacobi Hospital. That is one of THE formative experiences of my ministry.
New Math?!! You should have
New Math?!! You should have been paying attention to Tom Lehrer! You could have caught Vatican II via "The Vatican Rag", as well. :-)
I really don't think that
I really don't think that Vatican II was like abandoning the discipline of math for Simon & Garfunkle, Peter Paul and Mary and Joan Baez, nor was the pre-Council Church about understanding the theory/theology but rather the rote parroting and acceptance. But maybe the Bronx was that different from the rest of the universe. Otherwise the article is interesting,perceptive.
The author notes that the "de-mystification" took away a lot that was special about being a priest or nun making it less attractive for sons and daughters.... Quite likely. But "what it took away" really wasn't their's to start with. It had been taken from us and "afixed to" the clerical caste; used to further shroud the external "mystery" with the the "awe" we should have experienced for the Creator within us and "ramped" up by the Christ in us and in whom we have our healing. Rather that being a development of our capacity for encounter it had been wrenched from us like the "daemon" of Pullman. This was not "de-mystification" it was freeing mystery of veils it didn't need but which we had been blessed with by the creator, the better to know, love and serve.... Unfortunately, we have been still doing new math with an old math mind and now we are being dragged back to the old math.
Thank you!!! I was there
Thank you!!! I was there too... and those years are why I'm still here!
Today, the parish of
Today, the parish of Immaculate Conception in the Bronx is extremely multi-cultural, very vibrant, with parishioners from many, many countries. The children of the Grade School reflect the diversity of the parish. The congregation is alive.
from the Bronx
I appreciate Joe’s comparison
I appreciate Joe’s comparison of Vatican II to the New Math, “waving off the old rules.” In the Spring of 1968, I was a tad older than Joe’s Sr. Virginia, and my blackboard was covered with a comparison list of “the seven modern deadly sins according to James Bond creator, Ian Fleming.” “Apathy.” “Conscience vs. law.” What could be more important than my junior high kids “getting” the primacy of conscience so that they could see, e.g., forced Friday abstinence, in the perspective of a covenant Encounter and Relationship with their God inclusive of their brothers and sisters in Jesus. Oh yeah, like New Math theory, New Religion was not easy to catch on to nor to get across. Folk songs and Ian Fleming. Utterly know the theory: “It was better to get the theory right and the actual answer wrong.” I don’t know if Joe intended that comparison leap from New Math theory to Vatican II theology. Arguably, tho, debating the makeup of honest conscience seemed the best antidote for those inner city kids to peer pressure, drugs, radical freedoms of the 1960’s pop culture. Math was still math, morals were still morals. And relational was not the same as relative morality ever. “Hello darkness my old friend.” We tried.
Joe, I am so with you. I was
Joe, I am so with you. I was a student at the Catholic University of American during the last days of Vatican II. I remember vividly the first day the altar was turned and the Mass was in English. It was like a dark curtain had been lifted, the clouds dispersed. It was the most wonderful day of my life, I compare it to the birth of my children. A new day, a new birth! We can never go back.
The altar was not turned
The altar was not turned arround right after the Vatican Council . It was not turned arround until 1969 that is four years after the council . Did the council bring a new theology . No it did not it claryfied a great deal of stuff that wasn't understood . Look through the Document and how many references there to the Early Church Fathers . Ecumenism was a point that had to brought to the attention of the world churches . And it is every Christian its duty to work on this . And give wittness to the world how important the word of God is in the church , but also in our approach toward other religions . We are members of the Body of Christ , in baptism we have been called to do the works of Jesus . Under the guidance of the church its teaching . The Eucharist in all of this should be the very center of our lives . It in the time spend with the Lord that we receive special graces to minister to others ( Non Believers)Including our own Catholic brothers and Sisters . Don't think that the Christian live is easy ? Greetings John Flipsen Dcn
I can't wait to read next
I can't wait to read next week's remembrance! I am one of the few "old-timers" in the church who welcomed Vatican ll changes and am sorry for those of my generation who still "don't get it!" My husband became a Permanent Deacon, a convert from Missouri-Synod Lutheran, and he was so happy when he was finally able to drink the precious blood, which came about with the changes. He is no longer on this earth, but I know he's enjoying these remembrances as much as I. Thanks for making my day!
Thanks for the memories, Joe.
Thanks for the memories, Joe. Like you, I welcomed the changes from the Council in the sixties and cherish them today. As one who completed college before mid-decade from a well-known Catholic university, I sometimes missed the works of faith in Latin; but not many I know nor knew at the time could read those words and make sense of them. Far fewer now can. Sometimes the forced enthusiastic changes we saw then seemed a bit out of place, but our faithful now seem far more understanding of their faith than so many from those long past 20th Century decades. Let's hope that we all can come together and see that our common humanity as children of God rather than our very insignificant differences. Please keep up the good work.
"Let's hope that we can come
"Let's hope that we can come together and see our common humanity as children of God rather than our very insignificant differences." That thought alone is worth more than most articles or arguments. For me it is a sentence that is full of the spirit of Vatican 11 and holds the trandsendent beauty of the Holy Spirit.
I had the same experience of
I had the same experience of Church as the author did, only my chuch was on Long Island, my parish was St. Ignatius Martyr in Long Beach and the Sisters were the Amityville Dominicans, and the neighborhood was Italian, Irish and Jewish.
Thank you, Joe! My
Thank you, Joe! My experiences echo your sentiments. I, too, have one foot in pre-Vatican II, lived through the changes, and have one foot firmly in post-Vatican II. What happened to my Portuguese working and middle class neighborhood, to my elementary school, to the nuns who taught me with a sense of clarity and liberation as well as a liberal dose of shining Catholic Christianity, still keeps me Catholic these many years later. It is the catholic of "Catholic" that I value, the fact that we do, in the words of Sr. Thea, have plenty good room, that we live a faith informed by reason, a faith that does not divorce itself from humanity and its brokenness but believes in the transformative power of Christ to embrace it in His wholeness. If I did not have that sense of acceptance of broken, how could my faith have survived the institutional history that is not at all times stellar? If my third grade religion teacher (a St. Joseph of Orange nun) had not made certain to tell us, very carefully, that there was the law of God and the law of man, and that we should never let what humans do get in the way of the relationship between us and God, my faith would have been severely wounded by much of what has happened in Church, and by political hurts that happened to me personally as someone who has worked for Church for the last 17 years and seen the underbelly. It was the spirit of Vatican II, how it engaged and enlivened our very existence as Church, that kept and continues to keep me Catholic. What I learned in the fibre of my being, imprinted and indelible, was the faith of the Spirit of Christ breathing through the planet. If Church can continue to survive and grow through more than 2000 years in which there have been more than a few occasions in which it has institutionally done everything that would otherwise destroy a movement or empire, then it is proof that the Spirit indeed guides this fragile conglomeration that is Catholicism. Vatican II confusion indeed--NOT!
One trad commenter laments:
One trad commenter laments: "The Church did fine for 1930 years teaching people the faith and math" (in the traditional way). Dead wrong. Vatican II mass is much closer to the older Pope Gregory the Great mass of 590 A.D. than the "newer" Tridentine mass cobbled together in 1590 A.D.(1000 yrs later). Trads need to take their own advice and get catechised. I too will never forget when Vatican II was fully implemented. I was an altar boy and had to learn the Tridentine way of serving, then learned the "hybrid" mass then finally Pope Paul's mass in 1970. It felt great worshiping Christ instead of worshiping rubrics. Somehow mass also now belonged to us instead exclusively to the clergy. LONG LIVE THE SPIRIT OF VATICAN II!
Thank you, Joe for sharing
Thank you, Joe for sharing this. I, too remember the changes, and I also found them to be refreshing and wonderful They opened up the church and made Mass so much more accessible. To this day, I can't understand why anyone would prefer the Latin-language Mass that the priest mumbles to himself at the altar, while everyone prays in isolation. I remkember the changes at the Newman Center in college. Suddenly, we were all part of the celebration. It was and continues to be an incredibly wonderful experience!
This is a very interesting
This is a very interesting article, but I think also very limited. I agree that very few people were negatively affected by the loss of Latin as the language of the liturgy, but if you expand to other changes that were happening you would find more and more people being profoundly hurt. What about a woman who's grandfather carved the church's commmunion rail which was now tossed into the garbage? What about a shrine to a saint, where people have prayed devoutly being dismantled? What about the tabernacle, once held to be the holy of holies, now discarded into some inconspicuous closet. The loss of Corpus Christi processions. I could go on and on. The point is that the there was a significant amount of people who were hurt not because the Mass was now in English, but because the pious practices that had given them so much sustenance and nourishment were thrown away.
An even greater number were hurt when they didn't know what the church taught anymore, prayer for the dead, prayer to the blessed sacrament, even priests teaching that Jesus' tomb was never found empty. This had an even greater impact for many other people, not to mention to great pain suffered from the denigration of Marian devotion.
I think that many people were profoundly wounded by these things.
Furthermore, I think that much of the language about the liturgy found in these posts hurts many Eastern Catholics, especially the denigration of priests facing in the same direction as the people, which was practice, that in, for example, the Byzantine rite was never abandoned.
If the new Liturgy is not
If the new Liturgy is not messed up by those priest, Nun, and laypersons, it is still holy.
The Vatican II open for laypeople to work on spreading the Good news to people around; but I don't see it. I see the lay people mess around the altar. No more Holy of holy. The church become a loud noise or a meeting room instead of the house of pray. I see the people import the Evangelical guestures into the pew. I hear the Eucharist is not respect any longer. I encounter the Catechism was not taught any more but socialism in US in 70 decades. My Nices and Newphews learned catechism from a lady who stead that the soldiers killed the enemies from batle field commited the grave sins; but the women can have permission to have a abortion...
My sister gave birth to a nice in a Navy hospital, and the Chaplain came and ask her to have contraceptive.
I don't blame the Vatican II, I blaim the reformers.
You have certainly focused
You have certainly focused upon the source of the problem, albeit unintentionally! It was the resistence of the clerical structure and an already entrenched curia that did little to bring the People of God along with the changes. Most of the clergy and, I would wager, ALL of the members of the curia tried to resist to the bitter end anything that spoke of aggiornamento.
So, let's take the beautiful communion rail: a pastor deeply entrenched in traditionalism would probably have said, as you suggest, "We now have to throw this on the garbage heap!" And he would have had the sympathy of many who knew the man who carved it.
But what would have happened if the pastor had said, "The reason we are moving the communion rail is to show that we all, as the People of God, deserve access to the Table of the Lord without being even symbolically restrained by a railing." What would have happened if that pastor then said, "This railing, however, is such a lovely work of art and so meaningful to our parish, let's together find a special place for it, move it, and put it to good use either to designate where the choir gathers or to set off an area in the vestibule. Let's see how many good ideas we can come up with together."
If the pastor would have been like the latter, wouldn't it have made a huge difference in the way the parish perceived the coming changes? Wouldn't it have shown that all in the parish had a role and a voice?
Then, what would have happened if the pastor explained that devotion to special saints and even to the mother of Christ can be comforting, but that when we gather to celebrate the Lord's supper, we should devote all our attention to Christ and to worship. What if that pastor said that here in this church, our main focus is to go, as children of God, to the Father through Christ. And while devotions give comfort, we should try to do what Christ asked us and be unafraid to pray through him, and with him, and in him. During the Liturgy, we will be talking with each other in our own language -- some parts are mine, some are yours. In order to enter into the conversation, we need to devote all our attention to that worship.
If the pastor had taken time to explain the reasoning behind dispensing with sentimental devotionalism in favor of liturgical substance, wouldn't that have made a difference?
And the tabernacle: Just as we do not leave physical food on the table from day to day, we do not leave the real presence of Christ on the Banquet Table where we celebrate his supper. Instead, we reverently place our spiritual nourishment in a place where we might still acknowledge the presence of Christ.
Theology, too, was developing (and still is), but, again, some pastors and members of the clergy chose simply to scorn "new ways" and not trouble themsleves to learn the reasoning behind changing prayers or changing concepts, including discussing the mysteries of our faith. If they resisted learning both how and why changes were needed, how could they ever convey the beauty, exhileration, and wonder that come from expanding one's mind and heart?
The real difference in any of these situations would have been in the pastor's commitment to the directive of Good Pope John XXIII for the aggiornamento of the entire church. It is amazing that so many clerics and members of the curia decided that they would not change their "old ways" -- comfort, it seems, was preferable to expending the energy to learn and teach in new ways.
Those of us fortunate enough to have been associated with Jesuit institutions and to have been living among the clergy committed to aggiornamento have a totally different perspective on the changes in the Church. And because of the initial positive experiences, we are still committed to the great sensible faith that has continued to enrich our lives.
Christa, Your response seems
Christa,
Your response seems to establish a false categorization between the enghlitened pastoral Jesuit-types, whose crystal clear logic and iron reasoning could only be challenged and rejected by people who were either too lazy or too stupid to understand them. The reality is very different.
The pastor who eliminates the altar rail, the statues and tabernacle can be just as reactionary and entrenched, as the priest who refuses to allow girls serve at the altar.
What would have happened if the people disagreed with your hypothetical pastor's softer, gentler reasoning? He is also being hierarchical. After all they could have appealed to any number of things, such as there being no church law requiring the removal of the altar rail, the tabernacle, and the statues. After all, for example, Byzantine-rite Churches were not required to eliminate the iconostasis, nor the particular theology behind it. They could have appealed to instructions from the Popes, from different theologians, appealed to the example of the eastern churches where such a minimalistic theology of iconography would never have been accepted.
Of course there where clergy who would not trouble themselves to learn the new ways, but there were also those who knew very well about the new ways and articulated reasoned arguments against changing to those particular ways, or articulated arguments for introducing different changes. You have the 'ressourcement' camp who took a very different interpretation of the council than the 'aggiornamento' camp. There were those who did not want any change, there were those that wanted less change, and there were those that wanted different changes than the ones that came about. The council was a very diverse, complex event, it's not possible to split it simplistically between progressives and reactionaries, still less between the enlightened and refined, and the stupid and lazy.
In some parishes the people had a more progressive theology shoved down their throats against their will, and in other parishes the people had a more conservative theology shoved down their throats against their will. And in those parishes some liked what they were being served and some didn't, some shrugged their shoulders, and kept doing what they had always been doing.
Of all the comments on the
Of all the comments on the article I have read, I think Christa's makes the most sense and is most accurately responsive to the article. The real point isn't whether new math (or old math, for that matter) was tossed aside for Simon & Garfunkel. Surely the readers can discern that is metaphor. A church that had become so entrenched in an ecclesiology which isolated the clergy and elevated it to an idolatrous position it should never have held was becoming increasingly irrelevant and incapable of communicating the gospel of Jesus Christ, whether in Latin or pig latin. The wisdom of Vatican II was to challenge, even if carefully, the presumption that any monolithic, bureaucratic, man-dominated, visible, institutional structure could ever claim authentically to be the sole manifestation of the invisible, eternal, incorruptible, collective identity of all believers without reference to time or space that we know as the Body of Christ. It was that arrogance, of which the divisive altar rail, a priest with his back to the parish and an ancient language were merely symptons, which had to be debunked. It is never the obligation of the Church of Jesus Christ to make itself palatable and comfortable, but it is the very essence of Christianity for the Church to communicate that it is inclusive of its weakest, most humble members, as well as those in robes, funny looking hats with incensors.
Hello, I did not think that
Hello, I did not think that the article was limited, but rather a response and a reaction to those who blame many of the woes of the Church on Vatican II reforms. As an earlier writer pointed out, Vatican II placed many church practices, including Mass, back to the spirit of the Church Christ founded, rather than the heavily clerical Church existing after the historical power building of the Middle Ages. My 84-year old mother loved the changes, and she is a very traditional, very Portuguese Catholic. Our devotional practices at our parish, and at all other parishes in which I have participated in southern California since Vatican II, did not disappear. They continued but were put into context relative to Eucharist and the sacramental life of the Church, as well as relative to our living the life of discipleship. I know that some of what yo refer to did happen, particularly the insensitivity to older Catholics and their sensibilities, but it was just as much a reaction to the strictures of the past as anything else, and there were many places where the changes were managed with respect and joy, not just with a discard mentality. It is time to keep moving forward, to work the vineyard in trying to build the Body of Christ, the Church that envisions the world as a place blessed by grace in which we can all come to the table of the Lord, not as a forum of brokered power and control. Vatican II knew this--we might have humanly stumbled in implementation, but that is no reason to move backwards, rather a reason to pray, to come together, to learn from reflection, and to keep on becoming Church.
I also had the same
I also had the same experience in a tiny little town in Australia. How exciting that time was for all of us and how much more we have come to appreciate our faith since those days. Lumen Gentium "The Church in the Modern World" is still speaking to us loud and clear.
As a young Catholic, thank
As a young Catholic, thank you for preserving the changes. Help us resist the traditionalists trying to undo the council!
I was a post Vatican II baby.
I was a post Vatican II baby. I knew very little about my religion. I hardly ever saw a sister, and if I did, she was usually wearing polyester with beeds around her neck. We would have clowns and puppets in our Sunday masses. There wasn't any Tradition; the pastors refused to wear their vestments and usually some sister was doing most of the preaching. They removed our statues. They told us not to pray the rosary. They took away our beleifs in the saints. They told us to stop "worshipping Mary." We were called "traditionalists" or Pre-Vatican II Catholic because we disagreed.
I even remember one sister telling our confirmation class to follow our conscience, especially with the issue of abortion. She told us that it was God's will that women have the right to choose, and if she chooses to terminate her pregnancy, then we should honor and respect her choice since "it was a holy choice." I recall one friend who had an abortion because of that talk;she lives with that pain everyday of her life.
I grew up in parishes where there weren't any boundaries between sisters and preists and between priests and laity. Today, we call that the sex abuse scandal. I recall parish weekend retreats where drinking and swearing and gambling, even smoking pot, were common experiences.
We were told that since God was neither male or female, we should reject the patriarchial streotypes of the Trinity and called God instead "Creator, Redemmer and Sanctifier." We were told that Jesus did not know that He was God; it was a beleif that was created by his followers. We were told that Mary probably married but the church preferred to emphasize Mary's holiness and had a problem with people having sex. We were taught that the Pope was an ancient symbol of the past and that his authority and the way he exercised it needed to be done away with. We leanred from the 1970's on that it was us, the laity, against they, the Pope and the Vatican.
We were told that the Eucharist was a mere symbol, and as a result using only unleaven bread wasn't important. Pastoral Minsitries Teams were created to annoint the sick.
We were told that the entire preisthood needed to change and that we were the ones to change it. Sisters redefined poverty and obedience and some even redefined their understanding of chastity.
There is an entire lsot generation of the church because of the abuses of SVC which no one here on NCR wants to accept their part.
But thanks to Pope John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict, we are rediscovering our Catholic faith, we are reading the documents ourselves and are making different conclusions; we are taking personal ownership of what we believe and no longer will we "pray, pay and obey" especially the nuns and the priests who tried to lead us astray.
We are angry too.
"We were told that Mary
"We were told that Mary probably married but the church preferred to emphasize Mary's holiness and had a problem with people having sex."
Correction: We were told that Mary probably had sex but the church preferred to emphasize Mary's holiness and had a problem with people having sex.
I am sorry that you had such
I am sorry that you had such bad catechesis and formation--that was certainly not the intent of Vatican II, nor was it in any of the documents. As a former DRE and Youth Minister, I met many post Vatican II adults, many of whom were uncatechized in their faith, but usually because their parents had been angry at the Church and not practiced Catholicism in any meaningful way. I have also met many angry young adults in their 20s and 30s who feel that they have been "cheated" of their Catholic birthright because they don't have the direct catechesis, devotionals, etc. Why is there an assumption that knowing and having memorized articles of doctrine, engaging in private prayer such as the Rosary during the Eucharistic celebration, and the like is a mark of a more formed, more catechized Catholic. I think Christ would be offended if he found us praying privately or reading a book, ignoring his presence among the Eucharistic assembly with our private devotions, would he not? Otherwise, why would he have chosen a corporate action, such as the Passover celebration, to ask his followers to do this always in remembrance of him? Christ chose a corporate action because he realized that being Body of Christ is more important than rote memorization and recital, that we must own the theology within our souls and hearts, as much as in our minds, if we hope to be the transformative power of the Gospel in the world. So, although I understand your anger, please understand that the Church of post Middle Ages/post Enlightenment and pre-Vatican II was not the utopia that many post-Vatican II Catholics idealize it to be. The issues are with us, the living Church, to be Christ in the world for one another and for ourselves.
(NY STATE) ABUSE VICTIMS
(NY STATE) ABUSE VICTIMS DESERVE JUSTICE
First published in print: Sunday, June 21, 2009
Albany Times Union
The state Assembly should give serious consideration to the Markey/Duane Child Victims Act now before it.
All victims of childhood sexual abuse deserve access to civil court since access to the criminal justice system has been denied them forever by statutes of limitation.
It is unconscionable that the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church in New York has seen fit to oppose legislation that would hold sexual predators, no matter their religious affiliation, accountable for their crimes.
Did not the bishops promise accountability and transparency in Dallas in 2002?
Somewhat disingenuous for an early signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
I think that this a great
I think that this a great comparison: Vatican II and New Math. Just as New Math led to much confusion about mathematics, and, as a result, a lack of understanding and education in mathematics (based on decades worth of test scores in elementary and secondary schools), so too Vatican II led to an increase in unformed, uneducated Catholics who do not understand their Faith (just look at the majority of writers at NCR!).
Certainly, there are always exceptions to every rule and, as an educator, I appreciate the idea of varying instructional techniques to meet the needs of my students. I think that Blessed John XXIII got that right -- the Church needed to expand and adapt its teaching techniques to reach more people. But, the result of his good idea was that so many in the Church were left believing that it was the teachings themselves, and not the techniques, that were changed. This misunderstanding, along with changes in the practice and style of liturgical worship, led people to believe that core doctrine could be changed and with priests so busy "conforming to the Spirit of Vatican II" (whatever that means) and sisters abandoning their schools for offices and massage therapy parlors, and untrained and unformed laity taking their place (truly a case of the blind leading the blind) there was no one left to teach a genuine and authentic understanding of the Council.
This should come as no surprise to anyone who understands history. It took nearly 100 years for all the teachings and principles of the Council of Trent to be fully understood and authentically put into place; and the Council of Trent left a teaching document, a catechism, behind as a guide to its implementation and its meaning. Vatican II left no such guide until John Paul the Great issued the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1994. That, coupled with papal pronouncements over the last decades, have given us a guide to the proper and authentic interpretation of the Second Council of the Vatican.
After 40 years, the Church is finally making headway in authentically interpreting and implementing the reforms of the Council. The Church is dismissing as meaningless the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" and is relying on the actual documents and teachings of the Council as the basis for this interpretation. The generation of liberal prelates and theologians who attempted to hijack the Council is finally fading into dim memory, and the prelates and theologians who took their place are faithful to the Church and faithful to the authentic teachings of the Council. Interpreted correctly and faithfully, Vatican II will, I believe, revitalize the Church.
It should also come as no
It should also come as no surprise to those who truly understand history that the means and technology of mass communication had changed quite a bit from Trent to Vatican II.
"Vatican II left no such guide until John Paul the Great issued the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1994."
"The Church is dismissing as meaningless the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" and is relying on the actual documents and teachings of the Council as the basis for this interpretation."
I guess I am one of those confused Catholics. Either Vatican II left no guide for its implementation, or it left behind a set of documents that only the neo-gnostics can interpret "authentically." Is that what you are saying?
In 1968 I was already in
In 1968 I was already in college, but Joe's remembrance of the coming of Vatican II to the Bronx rings so true. I remember Sr. Thomas Eileen, (the Sister of Charity who taught me English and Religion in 1965 at St. Cecilia H.S. in Englewood, NJ) teaching us about the Genesis story and how it was not a literal description of the Creation. We also read the Canterbury Tales and Salinger's Catcher in the Rye (on many banned books list in those days) and the world did not end! But change came very slowly. In college I had to have special permission to borrow a book by Sigmund Freud from the library (it had been on the Index of Forbidden Books). Had I not been nurtured in those years by the voices of Vatican II, I too would no longer be a practicing Catholic. I look forward to Joe's second installment.
I too experienced the
I too experienced the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church and have many fond memories of that period of my life. I have been a less than enthusiastic about the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church.
My impression is that Vatican II was to open the avenues of participation by the laity in the management of the affairs of the church. My observation (based on my personal experience) is that this has not occurred because of conflict between the ordained clergy and the laity over governance issues.
A fundamental principle embedded in the Declaration of Independence is "...consent of the governed." In a nutshell, if one does not consent to a Governor and his/her authority, there is no governance. I think this has happened with respect to the relationship between the laity and the ordained clergy.
We see instances of this in various accounts of opposing statements within the church.
Overall, I am close to concluding that "...the horse is out of the barn and it is not going to return."
The period before Vatican II
The period before Vatican II was not some golden age when people knew the Catholic faith far better than they do today. That said, your typical American Pre-VII Catholic could spout more answers due to the rote nature of the "education" Catholics received(including in seminaries.)
There was not nearly the level of understanding of "why" the Church teaches what it does; just an ability to recite rote answers to stock questions.
The Mass is far more immersive than it was then, too. As the author remembers, there was a sense in the pews that Father "did Mass for us" way up at the front, and no sense that the people in the pews had any real role in the proceedings other than showing up (mostly because not showing up was a mortal sin.)
The culture of the Church in America was rote, authoritarian and could approach Jansenism in its approach to moral theology:
"Father, I swallowed some toothpaste this morning when I was brushing my teeth. May I still receive communion?"
"Yes, child, but be more careful next time."
What kind of image of Who God Is was being communicated there?
Mara and Clint: You need to
Mara and Clint:
You need to leave your circle of traditionalists and come talk to the average Catholic youth.
We are liberal.
We are strong.
We are active.
We are growing.
We are Vatican II.
We are Catholic.
As for the original Vatican II generation, we need your help!
I think that order which you
I think that order which you listed your stengths says much about where you come from. Liberal first and Catholic last. I come from the backround where my priorities would exactly reversed, except of course, I am not liberal but traditionalist. May you continue to grow in the grace of God's love and slowly turn upside down you view of your world. God has a way of doing that. I know from personal experience (revelation).
The John Paul II generation
The John Paul II generation Catholic is totally committed to the church's teaching on abortion, marriage and the priesthood regardless if they are liberal or conservative.
Now, if you want the help of the original Vatican II generation, you will find them in the nursing homes or on some sabbatical in Europe enjoying their women priests conferences or Wicca celebrations. You know, the Mother Earth or the Our Mother is god type poeple.
Go to Catholics for a Free Choice or even the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, there you will find the Vatican II Catholic with their labyrniths, with leaders of the Democratic Abortion Party, or with focus groups who are more interested in saving plastic bottles than evangelizing, and their women led communion services that resembles a scene from Seseme Street. Now, if you are one of those odd younger generation types that likes puppets in the liturgy, or watching an 80 year sister dancing in the aisles like she is doing a scene out of Gospell, then you ought to join one of these progressive women religious communities. By the way, these sisters have a lot of money, so who knows, maybe you might be able to inherit all of their wealth if you join and live high on the donations of others as they have for the past 40 years! You will be able to create your own rules and ignore all the men in thei hierarchy. Sounds like a nice life - a life without any rules or commitments to the teachings of the church.
Well, I'm relieved that Clint
Well, I'm relieved that Clint Green has judged us, presented us with his "revisionist history" and now thinks he knows more than the "majority of writers at NCR", He also lists (WOW!):
"unformed and uneducated Catholics"
"sisters abandoning their schools for offices and massage therapy parlors",
"untrained and unformed laity taking their place",
"truly a case of the blind leading the blind",
"the Church is dismissing as meaningless the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II",
"The generation of liberal prelates and theologians who attempted to hijack the Council" (Oh, those bad liberals!).
Well, I guess we know what Clint thinks of us now! Give us names Clint, give us the names of those sisters in massage parlors, names of uninformed catholics, names of those untrained and unformed laity, give us their names so they can defend themselves against your charges and attempts to smear their reputations.
Like many trads in the pharisee branch of the Church, because of all that false piety and mea culpas, he has all this unresolved anger built up and needs to take it out on others who don't agree with him (especially the good sisters at the massage parlors!). Better he takes it out on the writers at NCR than kicking the dog, but I wouldn't put that past him either. With his everyone is wrong and I know better than everyone else attitude he shuts down all discussion, nobody takes a narcissist seriously.
Don't like NCR? then go elsewhere, plenty of those old, faithful to Vatican I, self flagellating trad sites out there and hey, now you have the Extraordinary form of the mass, misery loves company.
Sisters running off to join massage parlors, ridiculous.
I went to Rome on a
I went to Rome on a pilgrimage in 1986. A priest who described himself as a liberal. Wished to ask me, a traditionlist, what my views were. He really wanted to understand what we trads were all about. After many good questions,
and the answers I gave. He said to me at the end of our pilgrimage, "My intentions were to understand what the traditionalists were all about. I wish to apoligize to you and all Traditionalists, I did'nt know that we liberals had caused you so much pain. Now I see that your intentions was love for Christ and his Church." And because many people from the silly season of the church always made us look like idiots. Many Trads have gone to other extremes. After V2, it was all about Compassion, Understanding, Diologue, Love
and all the other silliness. We were alienated from the church, we Trads had only condemnation. So many Trads went to faroff extremes. They now blame V2 for all the stupidness in the post vatican 2 church. Thanks to all of the Spirit of Vatican 2 Catholics, for messing up the unity of the Church.
In the Hearts of Jesu and Mary,
Angelo
I'd say that the kind of
I'd say that the kind of dialogue you just described has and is occurring more frequently than we imagine.
I am also inclined to think, based on my experience, that people don't fall neatly into "trad" and "liberal" camps. They are wonderful mixes of both.
But sadly, there are those who wish to identify solely with one camp or another for reasons known only to them, and become utterly dismissive of those who don't view the church exactly as they do.
Boy, you certainly crammed
Boy, you certainly crammed all the buzzwords into one post, Clint. "Authentically interpreting" "liberal prelates and theologians" "authentic teaching"
And one of my personal favorites: "unformed, uneducated Catholics." I keep hearing, even from some bishops, about all these dumb Catholics out there, but I never seem to run into any.
Sorry Clint, but this generation of Catholics has never been better formed, and certainly never been better educated. Those of us educated by the nuns in the Catholic school system, whether before, during or after Vatican II, owe them a debt of gratitude. They did a wonderful job in teaching us not only how to learn, but how to think.
Thank you very much for an
Thank you very much for an excellent synopSis of my formative years - both in culture and church. I too am a second generation Italian and from the Bronx. I also am from Gunhill Road, only went to school and church at St. Ann's (closer to Jerome Avenue) and was taught by the Dominican Sisters of Sparkhill. You named everything exactly like I remember it - a new spirit about everything. As someone in Provincial Community Leadership for my religious order, you articulate for me what I try to communicate to many of our brothers and priests about understanding this Vatican II generation of adults.
As I look back at the church and the numereous amount of sisters, brothers and priests that became active in the civil rights movement, the opposition to the Vietnam conflict and their love for John XXIII and Paul VI, they never lost sight of their mission and the gospel message. For many of them, the rules didn't make them Catholic; it was the message of Jesus Christ and that is what allowed them to attract others. As long as religious life and the church continue to idolize power and institutions, we will continue to lose people to churches that are welcoming and willing to take risks, just like the many people who evangelized the US, the Bronx and Gunhill Road. Let's stop polarizing our faith, accept diversity and pluralism and speak joyfully to continue the mission of Jesus.
Bro. Jack
The Marianists
St. Louis, MO
P.S. JOE, YOU FORGOT TO MENTION THE RED RIBBION WITH ST. CHRISTOPHER IN THOSE NEW CARS!
Thank you very much for
Thank you very much for provoking my memory of growing UP Catholic and in the Bronx. I too am a 2nd generation Italian - born and raised on Gunhill Road. I attended St. Ann's (Bainbridge & Gunhill) and was taught by the Dominincan Sisters of Sparkhill - and, might I add, I had a wonderful education.
Presently, I am in Provincial Community Leadership and your article is, for me, what I try to communicate to my brothers about who I am and what my experience of Church was in the 60s & 70s. What attracted me to even entertain the option of religious life was the fact that change and social concerns were the fabric that made us Catholic. One thing that you failed to mention that I remember is the numerous number of sisters, brothers and priests that were so visible during the civil rights and peace movements. They all had a teriffic understanding of the mission and message of Jesus Christ. It was exciting, life-giving and mission driven. As soon the church stops idolizing institutions and protecting its power base and accepts our diversity and pluralism, taking risks in mission, will the pews be filled again, especially with young people.
Bro. Jack Ventura, S.M.
The Marianists
St. Louis, MO
P.S. YOU FORGOT TO MENTION THE ST. CHRISTOPHER MEDAL TIED WITH A RED RIBBON IN THE NEW CAR!
I remember the day when
I remember the day when Father said we now had a choice to receive Communion on the tongue or by hand. It was the early 70's. I was probably about 13. I did not want to change. Unlike the writer of the article, I liked all the "mystery" of the Mass. I knew there was mystery, there, before anybody even told me. I enjoyed the new 1970 contemporary hymns, but, they did not raise my mind to God, it was purely an experience of the community. I receive and live in community experiences every hour of the day. When I go to Mass I want a release from worldly community and only have community with God, so I love that my parish has Gregorian chant, although, the Mass is in the venacular. Because of the changes, I believe, is why many Catholics have left the Church for protestantism. They don't see any difference because the reverance for and in the Liturgy is not known in many parishes.
Interesting post (and
Interesting post (and responses). I confess I'm pleasantly surprised that such a loaded topic is being addressed. Kudos.
Nice article, thanks. This
Nice article, thanks. This all tells me the church has a dual task: keeping what's important in the realms of faith and morals and worship, and yet adapting to changing times and being relevant to the world and the faithful in the pews. Finding that balance is difficult, and a lot of people would rather lament the changes and live in the past, or worse, leave the church. I never experienced the pre-Vatican church, thankfully.
Submitted by Stanislaus: "The
Submitted by Stanislaus:
"The point is that the there was a significant amount of people who were hurt not because the Mass was now in English, but because the pious practices that had given them so much sustenance and nourishment were thrown away."
Stanislaus- I think the pious practices which gave people sustenance and nourishment pre Vatican II did so because they didn't understand the Latin Mass to begin with. Vatican II taught us that the Eucharist liturgy is the source and summit of our communal prayer life. The pious devotions are fine (I guess) for individual prayer life, but it is the community which comes together to hear the Word and break bread which is first and foremost. That is where we should be finding our sustenance and nourishment.
I do not think the priest is
I do not think the priest is muttering Mass to himself. He is offering it to God. And Vatican II did not replace Latin with English, Italian or anything else. It allowed for a wider use of the vernacular while keeping the primary place of Latin. The so-called "spirit of Vaitcan II" (which seems to be code for not reading the documents but implying consent to change anything at will) replaced Latin but this "spirit" is not in the approved texts.
I am a bit younger than the writer and remember the confusion in 1970s and 1980s Ireland as beautiful church interiors were replaced with uninspired banal ones, alter rails removed etc. I was taught when preparing for my first Holy Communion that if the Host stuck to the roof of my mouth, I should let It dissolve but not use my finger to dislodger It. Then, suddenly, disrespect not only for those who kneel to receive It but to receive It as Catholics had for over a millenium. Is it any wonder people thought there were no constants left in a field of relativism. Thank God for BXVI.
I should say that
I should say that ncronline.org has lots of interesting information. Looks like the author did a good job. I will be coming back to ncronline.org for new information. Thank you.
Wow, just read these 2
Wow, just read these 2 articles! Just wanted to chime in as someone else who was in 5th grade in 1968, but at St. Barnabas School in Bellmore on Long Island. My "singing nun" was Sister Mildred Thomas (Sister of Charity of Halifax), who also introduced us to the "new" theology (4th grade style), taught us the multiplication tables by drawing a football field on the board, and was extradordinarily kind, gentle and fun human being.
I love Joe's comment that he never met any Catholic our age who "lapsed" because of singing nuns. Out of my group of friends - who joined the parish "folk group" with Sister Mildred Thomas, Father Peter, and other singing nuns and priests - we ended up with 3 priests, a score of teachers, and a few, including myself, who have followed vocations as lay ecclesial ministers in the church, as well as a whole bunch of people who have brought the experiences and values of those years into their roles in business, law enforcement etc.
Joe, I read your comments on
Joe,
I read your comments on Vatican II in the Bronx and the response of your mother to Humanae Vitae. My book, The Catholic Church on Marital Intercourse: from St. Paul to Pope John Paul II (Lexington Books, 2009) tells the story about why and how the Catholic Church developed that perspective.
If you would like more information, let me know and I'll provide.
Sincerely,
Robert Obach, Ph.D.
waiting for replies
waiting for replies
Dear Mara - What a strange
Dear Mara - What a strange view you have of women in religious life. With family members who are nuns, I don't recognize anything that you describe. Perhaps it exists in very isolated corners. We would do well to leave that in God's hands and avoid unjustly tarring the vast majority of sisters.
I was an altar boy when
I was an altar boy when Vatican II changed the soul of Catholicism. Slowly I saw the Mass change from a revernt 'facing East' mystical celebration to a guitar fest with burlap banners and zero mysticism. Incredible old Catholic hymns and chants were replaced by banal Baptist-style hymns. Everything was being dumbed down at a rapid rate. As a boy, I was worried. I saw the Church I loved self-destructing. Some in the parish, also concerned (and sick of the guitars) became Eastern Orthodox. The Orthodox do not play fashion games with their liturgy. They stick to tradition. Perhaps that's why there are many people converting to Eastern Orthodoxy today, especially from Protestant evangelical religions. Let's please ditch the guitars at Mass. We have had enough!
The changes that followed
The changes that followed Vatican II have had a detrimental effect on ordinary Catholics because they have obscured the essence of Catholic teaching that the Mass is a sacrifice and the priest offers the sacrifice. The majority of the 65 million Catholics in America are ignorant of their faith or why they are even Catholic.
Catholics no longer know their faith or that the Mass is not the same as a Protestant service. American Catholics had such a feeling of inferiority vis-a-vis their Protestant neighbors in the post-Vatican II era that they chose to set aside their Catholic identity and embrace Protestant trendiness.
I became a Catholic because of the Mass, and I find it appalling that cradle Catholics are so ignorant of their own faith.
The Byzantine Catholics following Vatican II, like their fellow Roman Catholics, began using the vernacular and encouraged popular participation rather than just having the choir do the responses the way the Orthodox do. But in essence the ancient liturgy remained substantially the same as it was before the council. The priest still faced in the same direction as the people toward God instead of emulating the Protestants who rejected that posture in a conscious effort to reject Catholic teaching on the Mass.
The words of the traditional rite of Mass convey far deeper spiritual meanings than the revised version of Paul VI, and it should have simply been allowed in the vernacular with those in the pews performing the parts that had previously been reserved for the altar boys.
The Orthodox allow the pre-Vatican II Mass in the vernacular with popular participation, which shows that the traditional rite of Mass 1)doesn't necessarily need to be mumbled through 2) it can be done in the vernacular with the people doing the responses.
The changes also have created an ecumenical dilemma with the Eastern Orthodox who looked at the pre-Vatican liturgy and saw a continuity in the Roman Catholic Church that predated the 1054 schism between East and West. Pope Benedict's effort to reform the reform are aimed at appeasing the Orthodox as much as the Lefebvrists. This is exemplified by the words of the late Patriarch of Moscow, Alexei II, following the publication of Summorum Pontificum, which praised the restoration of the ancient Roman rite.
So-called "Progressive Catholicism" will have to be purged from the Catholic Church for the cause of ecumenism with the Orthodox. Trendiness must make way for Tradition. "Progressive Catholicism" = Protestantism.
Post new comment