I've always been under the impression that Vatican II has been misinterpreted by some, and used as an excuse to do some wacky things. I can't say this myself, since I haven't read the document. Some people are really excited about Ratzinger because they think he is going to reform things, particularly the liturgy. I am excited about Ratzinger; I think he will be an excellent Pope. Just now, though, I read on MSBNC that he plans to continue with the reforms of Vatican II. What does this mean? I also read something where he talked about a "re-reading" of Vatican II. Do you think this ties in with what I mentioned at the beginning of my post? I am not going to be upset either way. I'm just a Catholic along for the ride. *g*
Hi,I think it does tie in. In his homily at the Mass today, the pope mentioned that this year is the 40th anniversary of the end of Vatican II. In a book he wrote in 1987, he said, "The real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it." So I would think this means he wants to fully implement what Vatican II actually said.
A re-reading of VII might be a good way to get rid of the wiggle room that the dissenters use. Everyone with their own agenda seems to use that whole "spirit of Vatican II" argument. We are in a unique position now, the documents of the council are available to all via the internet. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htmMaybe we should all buckle down and study them?
What argument do you give to someone who says Vatican II is not valid, or it was written in such a way so it can be easily misinterpreted?
Those who say that Vatican II is not valid are probably traditionalists. Because on principle they reject the authority of the Council, it's difficult to dialogue with them on the basis of the Council. St. Thomas said that in talking to people we have to use what they accept. For example, in talking to a non-Christian we can't appeal to the Gospels. For traditionalists, perhaps you could start with some principles they do accept, like the authority of the Pope in general.In some ways the documents are easily misinterpreted, but we also have a lot of documents the Church issued after the Council to clarify and apply it.
Sister,Aside from EWTN, I think that Fox News has had the best coverage. They had orthodox Catholics on, one after another, and showed great respect for our Faith! I mistakenly looked at network news one night during the Interrgnum and found all three talking about how they wondered if the new pope would allow for gay marriage and women priests and (oh, isn't it so sensible to use it) artificial contraception. And, they were all ready with Catholics who think all of the above would be just fine and dandy. Meanwhile, if Fox had anyone like that on, they were sure to have on someone who is devout and orthodox to make it more balanced. I wrote to Fox to be sure they knew how much I appreciated that the covered this whole "event" with such respect. They didn't feel some need to tear down the Church while they talked about what was going on. God bless!
I haven't watched ANY network coverage other then EWTN. Call me blind, but I've heard network news on the radio, and seen bits of articles on the 'net, all using the terms "hardliner" "Conservative" and what have you.EWTN has done yeoman work these last two weeks, and they stream their broadcasts all day, so there's no need to be up at 3:00 am to catch a Mass or whatever.Fox would be my only choice if EWTN were not available.I'm mistaken. I caught two minutes of CNN last week. Jeff Greenfield said "the millions in Rome, not withstanding, they simply do not represent the many millions more who disagreed with John Paul II." That told me all I needed to know. So despite the largest funeral ever, at least for a Pope, if not for anyone, that's not enough for the secular media.I have some passing knowledge of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. And while I'm definitely a child of the Roman Rite of 1970, I use a small amount of Latin and Chant in the liturgies I prepare, I still don't feel right about a total turn backwards toward Tridentine. And at the same time, I DO feel that the reformers went way overboard in 1970 and what happened, especially in American Churches.I do try to balance styles of music, etc. This is my perspective as a musician who tries to care for the liturgy and those who are active and praying it.
MSNBC also had George Weigel on, and he was great.
Post a Comment