Well, I've returned from my 2 week vacation, and I've missed a lot of news to blog about, such as Dr. Rowan Williams's ludicrous comments. I hope to get to those, but it'll have to wait until after this little series.
Anyway, on to the bad of Vatican II...
The problems of Vatican II have been in the foreground recently, as shown from the publication of Bishop Nickless's pastoral letter in 2009. Very rarely is the good of Vatican II discussed, which made the first post easier. However, this post has proven to be more difficult simply because of the many different problems that have arisen. This doesn't mean that simply because the number of problems outweighs the good that Vatican II was a bad thing. What I believe it does show is how hard the Devil is at work to undermine the Catholic Church. Even when something positive comes out, like I believe Vatican II was, Satan still tries to turn it to evil. I'm going to follow the same format that I did with the first post of this series, following the 4 main changes that occurred.
1. The Mass has taken several hits. For many people, the Mass has become a performance, like a lot of worship services have. The idea has become that if the people aren't entertained then they will leave. Worship is not dependant upon how we feel, but rather what it is that is being done. Part of that whole performance aspect has resulted in liturgical dances. I've seen some of these, and I will be the first to admit that most are beautiful and deeply theological... but by no means worshipful. Certainly for those that are just watching there is no worship benefit.
Another negative that has resulted has been worshipping facing the people exclusively. I emphasis exclusively because I think that the priest facing the people is a good thing. It allows for the people to get closer to the sacrifice, to see the sacrifice. However, during the consecration itself, as has been done since the first Old Testament sacrifices to the Mass pre-Vatican II, I think the priest should face east (if this means that the priest would face the people during the consecration, that's fine). One can actually trace where versus popularum (facing the people. I hope I spelled it correctly) comes from. In one of the first widely televised Masses, shortly after Vatican II, the Pope was seen celebrating in St. Peter's Basilica facing the people. Before you jump to any conclusions, however, the reason the Pope was celebrating this way was because that is how anyone would celebrate Mass at the main altar in St. Peter's if they were ad orientum (facing east). East is the liturgical idea of resurrection, and is association with Christ. The Pope wasn't celebrating v.p., but was celebrating ad orientum, which happened to also be v.p.
Another bad issue is the ordinary use or extraordinary ministers. In an attempt at including as many of the laity as possible, extraordinary Eucharistic ministers have become prolific. There are many uses for these ministers, such as a lot of communicants, or simply for ease (such as if there are transepts or other impediments, like architectural, for distributing communion just by priests, deacons, and acolytes). The Vatican has continuously spoken out about the importance of using extraordinary Eucharistic ministers in extraordinary cases.
There are many other problems that resulted, some of them major (women celebrating Mass, widespread use of communion services, the laity being asked to help "consecrate" the hosts, etc.) and some of them minor (holding hands during the Our Father, etc.). I can't discuss all of them, mainly because there are just too many.
2. Many people took ecumenism to an unhealthy degree.The best document that addresses and tries to correct the misunderstandings is Dominus Iesus. There are many, post-Vatican II, that tried their hardest to be very politically correct. I'm all for political correctness... as long as it doesn't interfere with the Truth. In many cases, people would deny or downplay some Catholic doctrines in order to appeal to other religious beliefs. Again, read the document that I hyperlinked. It's a great document and, when read in light of Lumen Gentium (linked in my last post), the Church's proper position on ecumenism is understood much better.One example of problems that I've seen happened while going through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA), which is a teaching program that all non-baptized adults are required to complete in order to join the Catholic Church. One late night, I and three or four of the RCIA leaders discussed in great detail about the salvation of non-Christians. As a Protestant, it was ingrained in me that anyone that was not a Christian was going to Hell, no questions asked. The RCIA teachers, at least how I was understanding them (which later turned out to be false. It was just a misunderstanding), were purporting that everyone was going to Heaven that lived a good life. Though it was all a result of a misunderstanding, I have heard of people that had similar problems and similar beliefs. Some parishes have also been in trouble for giving Communion to non-Catholics, all in an attempt to be 'ecumenical'. This is just bull, and a totally negative result of Vatican II. Or, should I say, the 'Spirit of Vatican-II'.
3. Scripture has seemed to overcome Tradition. The irony of all of this is that Scripture came from Tradition. Both are supposed to be the Catholic sources of Truth, at the same time and together. Proof of this new outlook on Scripture can be seen in some new Catholic architecture, where the ambo is more beautiful and/or given more prominence than the altar. One reason for this, that I can think of, relates again to ecumenism. Because Scripture is the sole rule of faith for Protestants (sola scriptura), Catholics should have an emphasis on Scripture in order to better communicate with our brothers and sisters in Christ. This logic is faulty, however, because it asks us to betray what we are as Catholics, that is a people of Scripture AND Tradition.
4. Collegiality has become the code word for decentralization. While the prominence given to bishops has been a good thing, as in all things, people want to take it too far. What taking this prominence of the bishops too far would entail is adopting a system similar to the Orthodox Church. In Western society, with relativism and secularism on the rise, a Bishop of Rome that is only and simply that would greatly destabilize the Catholic Church. Furthermore there are many things that the Vatican should have oversight of. The prominence of the bishops is good, but it shouldn't be taken to too much of an extreme. Furthermore, there are some people within the Church, mainly on the left, that want to return to the practice of electing bishops. There are so many historical and practical problems with this idea that it makes me embarrassed to even know someone who supports this. Historically, not everyone could vote, and when voting did take place there was so much corruption that it is impossible to see that not happening again. Furthermore, the Vatican is also better disposed to make an unbiased opinion, as it is out of the emotional situation of the diocese. There are some compromises, however, that I would be okay with. Maybe the Vatican chooses two or three choices, and the people can decided from those. Either way, liberals need to think before they speak.
Where I think a lot of this stuff about voting for bishops and the decentralization of Rome comes from is the democracy that we mostly enjoy in the West. In fact, it seems that a lot of people think that Christianity should be more democratic, and to function like one. This is stupid. G-d does not ask humanity "Hey, let's take a vote on the Truth!" I think that this is one of the problems with modern Christianity, in fact. It's the idea that the people should have a say in Truth, or that the laity should rule. The Church, my friends, should reflect the Divine and the Higher. I like having a centralized Papacy and having a Church with a hierarchy. There are times when being more decentralized is a good thing, for example I think that it would be a good idea to put some laity on the Congregation for the Laity and on the Congregation for Evangelization. It just makes sense because these people would know best. While this does decentralize the Vatican, I think that it doesn't take away from the hierarchy aspect of Catholicism and, if it does, does so for very excellent reasons.
Now, to clarify, I am not saying that I don't like a democracy. I think that it is the best political system out there in practice and one of the best in theory. However, I think that the Catholicism in particular, and Christianity in general, works best when, like the Kingdom of God, works more like a hierarchy (with some good exceptions, one of which I have already noted).
So, here are the questions:
1. What else do you think was bad that came out of Vatican-II?
2. Do you disagree with any of the negatives that I listed?
No comments:
Post a Comment