|
THE CHANGES FOLLOWING VATICAN II What has changed and what is new?
The changes and novelties that have emerged within the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) are far too numerous to list in full at a small web site like this. What follows is a small list of some of the more significant changes and novel practices, especially those commonly singled out by traditionalists for particular criticism. Readers seeking a more exhaustive examination should pick up Romano Amerio's important work, Iota Unum.
Ecumenism
Ecumenism is a modern word that comes from the Greek for "inhabited world." It is defined as: "A worldwide movement between Christians who accept Jesus as Lord and saviour and, inspired by the Holy Spirit, seek through prayer, dialogue and other initiatives to eliminate barriers and move towards the unity Christ willed for his church" [1].
From its very beginnings right through until Vatican II, the policy of the Catholic Church had always been to avoid mingling of any sort with heretics or schismatics [2]. The Catholic Church was the one true Church of Christ and its role was very clear. As the mouthpiece of God the Church expounded truth and condemned error straightforwardly for anyone who wished to listen, and, as the one ark of salvation the Church sought conversions. Mingling of any sort was rejected because it muddled these two ends. However, at Vatican II dialoguing with non-Catholics was encouraged, and indeed a new theological distinction was made between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. The document Lumen Gentium states that the Church of Christ "subsists in" but is not simply identified with the Catholic Church, which implies that it is also in some way 'united' to if not 'made up' of other Christian churches. As a result, most Catholics today no longer believe teaching truth and winning converts is paramount, instead the unification of all Christians by eliminating barriers, emphasising similarities, praying together and dialoguing, is considered more important.
Most traditionalists take issue with these ideas; just like nearly all Catholics prior to Vatican II, they believe ecumenism jeapardises the Church's whole divinely appointed purpose and poses a serious danger to the Faith. They believe that emphasising similarities, dialoguing, and praying with non-Catholics can only lead to indifferentism, syncretism, subjectivism, and confusion of doctrine. And with regard to Lumen Gentium 8, hard-line traditionalists simply deny that Vatican II was a valid council at all and they therefore reject Lumen Gentium along with the rest of it, others reject certain teachings of Vatican II and they include Lumen Gentium 8 among them, while more moderate traditionalists believe Lumen Gentium must be interpreted conservatively and in the light of Tradition.
Interreligious Dialogue Interreligious or interfaith dialogue is a novel post-Vatican II practice that is very similar to ecumenism. It has as its focus unity, but in this case unity not with heretics and schismatics but with non-Christian religions. In the same manner as ecumenism, it involves the elimination of barriers, courteous discussion, common prayer, and other suchlike initiatives for the purpose of reaching a consensus or drawing Catholicism and other religions closer together.
Just like ecumenism, interreligious dialogue has its practical origins in Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, and most traditionalists reject it for the same reasons they reject ecumenism. The job of the Church has not changed, argue traditionalists. The Church exists to teach truth and win converts, and not to make hollow gestures directed towards pagans in the hope that some kind of tenuous unification devoid of Christ might be effected.
John Paul II himself has made many interreligious gestures and initiated numerous multi-faith gatherings over the past 25 years, many of which have been vociferously opposed by traditionalists and spurred many to adopt the position the he cannot possibly be a true pope. Prior to Vatican II it was utterly unheard of for a pope to take part in such activities. Popes for the most part never left Rome, their job was straightforward: as guardians of the Faith they issued directives, provided clarifications on certain doctrinal issues, and oversaw the general administration of the Church. But John Paul II has spent the majority of his pontificate travelling the globe like a political figure making interreligious gestures and promoting secular world peace. Perhaps the most famous examples of these activities have been his Assisi prayer gatherings of 1986 and 2002, and in 1999 an incident in which he kissed the Moslem Koran. Many traditionalists consider these activities even more deplorable than ecumenism, for not only is Truth and the nature of the Church here minimised, but the first commandment is violated and Christ is denied.
Liturgy is the official worship of the Church; the word comes from the Greek leitourgi, which means the public service of God. The Church's predominant liturgy, the Roman Rite, underwent a dramatic reform following Vatican II. Paul VI commissioned a committee to simplify and update it and to bring it in line with a number of decrees issued at Vatican II. The result was a transformation, and one which traditionalists ignore or reject.
The Mass [3] is the heart of Catholic worship. From the sixth century until the sixteenth the Roman Rite of Mass underwent a very slow organic development as various popes added prayers and rubrics. By the sixteenth century Pope St. Pius V codified these developments into a new missal [4], and from the sixteenth century right through until Vatican II the Mass remained almost completely unchanged. Paul VI's reform committee, or consilium, was made up of modern revisionist liturgists and Protestant collaberators. The consilium desired to bring the liturgy out of the sixteenth century and make it more relevant to modern man, but above all they sought to purge it of all those elements which non-Catholic Christians might find objectionable for the purpose of ecumenism [5]. The Mass was essentially rewritten. Many important prayers and rubrics remained, but many that had been passed down through the centuries, especially those that were expressly Catholic, were deleted or replaced with new formulations composed at the whim of the committee. All traditionalists have a preference for the old liturgy over the new, but their reasons why differ. Indult supporters generally prefer it on merely aesthetic grounds some find it more God-focused, while others simply find it more conducive to prayer. Many in the independent and sedevacantist factions and some of the more critical within the indult faction, however, go much further. These individuals believe the new Mass must be completely rejected, and their grounds for doing so are generally based on one or more of the following points:
Other arguments commonly surround the bull Quo Primum which Pope St. Pius V issued at the time of the codification of the Roman Missal in 1570. Quo Primum stated that any priest had the right to use the Roman Missal, "without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure." Many traditionalists interpret this as a dogmatic document that made it impossible for any subsequent pope to substantially change the Mass or forbid it. Others hold that Quo Primum is merely legal and non-dogmatic, but they nevertheless hold that Paul VI nor any pope since has formally revoked it.
Collegiality The principle of collegiality originates from the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium 22-23. It is the notion that the authority and jurisdiction over the universal Church is shared by the "college of bishops" throughout the Church, and not just by the pope himself.
Prior to Vatican II the phrase "college of bishops" did not exist. The pope alone had universal authority and jurisdiction and it was his job to oversee the ordering of the entire Church. Bishops were subordinate to the pope, their job was to oversee individual provinces within the pope's jurisdiction. Since the pope could not be everywhere at once throughout the world, he delegated individual bishops to oversee certain areas (e.g., dioceses), and the bishops themselves delegated priests to oversee smaller areas within their own jurisdiction (parishes). Bishops answered to the pope alone one-on-one, and they had little contact with their fellow bishops, other than in those rare instances when a council was called. But following Vatican II "bishops' conferences" emerged. Where once queries would be presented to the pope who would settle matters or who would at least be involved to some degree in settling matters outside of Rome, the post-Vatican II bishops' conferences enjoy independence from Rome, in fact they even have the freedom to make their own laws. Many traditionalists reject collegiality on various grounds. Some claim that it was condemned by the Church at the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) as the heresy of Gallicanism, while others claim it must be rejected because it is contrary to the will of God and has led to paralysis within the structure of the Church. On this latter point, many traditionalists point out that collegiality has led not only to a democratisation within the Church at the level of bishops and the pope, but more power has also been distributed to laymen and priests whose own opinions are also esteemed. Questions that would at one time have been submitted to Rome and settled quickly are continually passed on, perhaps first to episcopal conferences, to numerous theological commissions, priests' councils, pastoral councils, Roman commissions, national commissions, lay councils etc. etc., and solid answers are never met because of divisions of opinion. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of St. Pius X, remarked on the subject: "Our Lord instructed individuals, not a collectivity, to tend His sheep. The Apostles obeyed Our Lord's orders, and until the twentieth century it was thus. These days we hear of the Church being in a state of permanent council, continual collegiality. The results have become apparent. Everything is upside down, the faithful no longer know which way to turn." [6]
Religious Liberty
Religious liberty is the idea that every person has the freedom and right to practice inwardly and outwardly the religion of their choice. This teaching was adopted at the Second Vatican Council [7], but the position of the Church prior to the council had always been that man has the right to practice only the one true religion, i.e., Catholicism [8]. Many traditionalists reject the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty for the same reasons the pre-conciliar Church rejected it. Prior to the Second Vatican Council the Church's position had always been just as straightforward on this issue as it was on so many others. Just as the Church could not condone abortion, euthanasia, and divorce since these things are manifestly contrary to the will of God so too the Church could not condone the idea that men are free to practice false religions, since this too is manifestly contrary to the will of God. But the Second Vatican Council taught that the human person has a right to religious freedom on the basis of the "dignity of the human person." In other words human nature has an innate dignity that demands this right, and the state must recognise it and in no way impose any one religion upon its subjects.
Others Issues
Other important issues worth noting surround priestly seminary training, catechesis, modern theology, and toleration of errors and abuse within the Church. Many traditionalists argue that priests are no longer properly trained. They argue that seminaries are very secularised, priests receive no discipline, and many are not taught the Faith correctly but receive a watered-down, liberal and Modernistic interpretation of it, which includes the points noted above along with many other errors. They argue that the same has happened to catechesis and religious training in schools. Children and converts are no longer instructed in the basics of the Faith, they receive relativistic instruction wherein Catholicism is presented not as Truth, but as one of many valid religions one is free to accept or reject.
Modern theological ideas are also given freedom to absurd extents, argue some traditionalists. For instance, Catholic intellectuals and universities teach ideas that are completely at odds with defined dogmas, and they present a version of Catholicism so gutted of substance and qualified out of existence that one is led to conclude they may believe or behave anything they like. Moreover, all these problems and many more saturate today's Church, yet they are tolerated with virtually no forces at work within the Church to resist them.
|
