Vatican II Was Just Pastoral - According To Popes

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Pope Benedict XVI (while Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) clearly stated the nature of the Second Vatican Council was pastoral, as the council defined no doctrine infallibly, and sought to maintain a lower profile than previous ecumenical councils....

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI

given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile

This echoes the words of Pope Paul VI, who concluded the Second Vatican Council, and also stated it was purely pastoral in nature, having not applied the "note of infallibility" to any particular document....

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.

Pope Paul VI

General Audience, 12 January 1966

So why is this important? Well, ever since the close of the council, and the institution of the new mass five years later, many Catholics have treated the Second Vatican Council as if it were the definitive explanation of Catholicism for our time. They treat it as if all the previous Church councils were rendered obsolete or somehow irrelevant. In fact, according to Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict XVI, the Second Vatican Council holds a lesser place in history than the First Vatican Council, or the Council of Trent, etc. Why? Because these councils clearly exercised the note of infallibility, defining doctrine in no uncertain terms. In effect, they were doctrinal councils, of the highest importance. While Vatican II was merely pastoral, outlining the desire for new methods and standards, but in no way defining new doctrine or exercising infallibility. Catholics need to understand this. THE CHURCH DID NOT CHANGE WITH VATICAN II. The Second Vatican Council MUST be interpreted in the greater context of the Church's previous two councils, which according to the popes, hold a higher place in history.

Pope Paul VI On Vatican II

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The pope who concluded the Second Vatican Council had the following to say about it. All Catholics should take note...

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document."

-- Pope Paul VI

General Audience, 12 January 1966

source in Italian only

What does this mean? It means that in spite of whatever you've heard, the Second Vatican Council may not be fully infallible -- not according to the pope, and not according to the bishops who participated. It was indeed an ecumenical council, and it was perfectly legitimate.  However, the council can choose when, and when not, to exercise the chrism of infallibility. It just so happened that the bishops of Vatican II chose not to exercise it at all, and this is confirmed in the statement made by Pope Paul VI recorded above. It means that while the documents produced by Vatican II may contain some infallible statements, especially related to matters already defined by previous councils, they do not enjoy the exact same indisputable status as the documents produced by Vatican I and the Council of Trent.

That being said, Vatican II should not be interpreted in a vacuum. Everything contained in the conciliar documents must be interpreted in the context of historic Church tradition, and with the understanding that they can in no way counter or reverse the fully infallible documents produced by Vatican I and the Council of Trent.  It also means the conciliar documents can be debated to a certain degree by the bishops who hold to different opinions of them.  Most importantly, it means they are subject to further definition and clarification by the Holy Father, who can most certainly make these judgements ex cathedra, and therefore infallibly.

So what does this mean for the average Catholic? It means the Church has not changed. Vatican II helped to clarify some pastoral issues that were already being debated in the Church, but it in no way changed the Church. The Catholic Church today is still under the exact same doctrines and teachings as it was before the Second Vatican Council. This is important, because many Catholic parishes today operate as if Vatican II changed everything, when in fact, it did not. If you want to know what the teachings of the Church are today, simply pull out a catechism from the 1950s, and there you will find all the teachings of the modern post-conciliar Church. It's the same today as it was yesterday. Sadly, that might be difficult to see with the quality of catechism publications provided in this post-conciliar world. That's why I keep a hardbound 1950's illustrated catechism in my home to teach my children. So to prevent confusion, it would be prudent for all Catholics to do likewise.  You can acquire one such catechism here, though I'm sure there are many on the market if you know where to look.

Catholic Liturgy - What We Lost, And Why We Need It Back

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The above videos are extreme examples of just how bad it can get. History will not write well of the Catholic Church during this era, and most of it will center around the Church's failure (in the western rite) to uphold the sacred liturgical traditions passed down through the centuries. In most places around the western world, especially in the English-speaking nations, the Roman liturgy has become nothing short of a free-for-all for any type of innovation and invention imaginable. However, these extreme cases do not happen all by themselves. They are the product of a cascade of events, spanning years of liturgical abuse, which usually starts out quite subtle.

The United States is particularly prone to liturgical abuse. Why? It began in the most subtle way with our particular English translation of the Novus Ordo missal. Ours is probably one of the worst English translations in the world. The text of the liturgy is so paraphrased in the American English version, that it's virtually a commentary on the mass, rather then the mass itself. So poor is the American English translation, that the Vatican was prompted to call it "defective" and revoke permission for the American bishops to continue using it. So the American English translation of the mass is set to expire some time in 2010, soon to be replaced by a more accurate rendering of the original Novus Ordo liturgy.

The defunct American English translation in many ways emulates the Episcopalian liturgy of the Episcopal Church USA. Yes, that's right. When you see an Episcopalian liturgy, and compare it to the current American English translation of the Novus Ordo, the resemblances are striking. When the American bishops decided to go this way, they may have unwittingly sent a signal to the laity that we should imitate the Protestants in even our most sacred celebrations. So when the Protestants went "hippy" in their own services, many U.S. Catholics quickly followed suit. It wasn't long before all sorts of hippy, New Age and folk practices ended up a part of so many Catholic masses around the nation. While most parishes are not so extreme, a good number of them still engage in innovation and liturgical abuse, even if it's subtle. Sometimes it might be as simple as the priest adding words to the liturgy ad lib. His intentions may be sincere, but his actions are still inappropriate. Sometimes it amounts to nothing more than a simple abandonment of traditional Catholic customs. Maybe in your parish the tabernacle is off to the side, or maybe there are no alter rails for kneeling. Maybe in your parish, the priest never uses incense, or maybe the alter servers never use bells. Maybe your parish prefers contemporary pop music to traditional sacred chant. These subtle changes are exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) warned us about in the videos above. Liturgical innovation and abuse can start very small, in a seemingly harmless way, but it has a way of "one thing leading to another."

We Catholics must be diligent to rediscover and zealously protect our Catholic liturgical heritage. We must be charitable toward those who oppose us, but at the same time we must also be stubborn. It is not hard to request that some traditional practices be brought back into our sacred liturgy, and when appropriate, we should seek to help make that a reality in whatever way possible. Can you sing? Offer to start a Gregorian chant choir in your parish. Don't know how to chant? There are plenty of resources available to learn on the Internet. Do you think we should bring the bells back into the liturgy, and use more incense? Volunteer to become an alter server and make your desires known. Do you think the tabernacle should be at the front and center of the chapel? Get on the parish council and start lobbying for it. Don't like some of the things going on in the mass? Respectfully and charitably explain your concerns to the priest - on a regular basis if necessary.  

Let's face it, the innovators and modernists have gone to a lot of trouble to bring about the liturgical abuse now common in English-speaking Catholic parishes. They spent the greater part of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, getting on our parish council boards, becoming "liturgical coordinators," and taking over the choirs. There aren't going to be any positive changes back toward historic tradition, if tradition-minded Catholics don't do anything about it. It's time we start taking our parishes back; one-by-one.

LIFETEEN Founder Excommunicated

Teenagers Gather Around the Alter During the Consecration

As Was A Common Practice In LIFETEEN Masses Some Time Ago
Only A Few LIFETEEN Parishes Still Continue This Practice

(AP) - Phoenix's Catholic bishop has excommunicated a priest who started a nondenominational ministry after the priest was charged with misdemeanor sexual misconduct.

The action announced Monday against Monsignor Dale Fushek, once the diocese's second highest-ranking administrator, was a response to his creation of the Praise and Worship Center in Chandler....

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It's time for Catholic parishes around the nation to rethink what they're doing. Yes, as Catholics we MUST reach out to the youth in our own congregations, but we need to reconsider how we're doing it.

For starters let's look at the English version of the mass itself. We're currently using a translation of the liturgy that the Vatican has labeled "defective" (read more here), and has revoked our permission to keep using it. That's why a new English translation has been approved by the Vatican and the USCCB, which will be put into use sometime in 2010.

The pope has also made it clear that we should expect more changes to the Ordinary Form of the mass, that will reintroduce traditions long since forgotten by most Catholics. For example, we can expect to see the use of high alter candle configurations, wherein the priest always faces a crucifix, and sometimes (when appropriate) the use of the ad orientem posture, where the priest faces east. We can expect to see the reintroduction of bells at the consecration, along with the use of more incense. The pope has also suggested the use of Latin at the consecration itself in all masses, no matter what language it's celebrated in. He is also planning on moving the "sign of peace" closer to the creed so as to create a greater atmosphere of solemnity during the eucharistic prayers. He has already indicated he would like to see greater use of traditional sacred music (such as Gregorian chant) during mass. The list goes on and on.

What's the message being sent here? It should be obvious. The Catholic Church needs to start being "Catholic" again, embracing our historical traditions, and giving them new life in the modern world. The changes coming out of the Vatican should serve as a guide for the average parish liturgist and choirmaster. We're heading toward a period of greater solemnity, greater reverence, and more tradition. Parishes that resist this change will only get left behind and ultimately hurt themselves.

But what about the youth? How will they be able to relate? Those who seriously ask such questions are operating on a template that is about 30 years old. The pop culture folk masses (which are epitomized by LIFETEEN) are an antiquated relic of the last generation. Youth may still be seeking out loud contemporary music, but mass is not where they really want to find it. Contemporary Christian music is a huge industry now. There are radio stations around the nation 100% dedicated to playing these songs around the clock. Youth can listen to these songs on their car radios, iPods and MP3 players. In fact, they often do. Over the last 30 years a new phenomenon has developed called the "Christian rock concert," wherein Christian youth can scream, dance, wave their hands in the air, etc. This didn't exist in the 1970s and 80s, but it does now, and it's bigger than ever. The youth hear this music all the time, outside of mass, and in fact, it's usually a lot better than anything the local parish choir can produce. Yes there is an outlet for Catholic youth in contemporary music, and Catholic parishes SHOULD be promoting it, but not at mass!

The point is the youth of today can get their pop culture music, in Christian variety form, anywhere they want. There is even a "Catholic flavor" of Christian pop music -- believe it or not. What, you've never heard? Ask any Catholic teenager. Many surveys are now perplexing Church leadership with results finding that the majority of practicing Catholic youths are more "pre-Vatican II" in their mentality. How could that be? and why? For starters, Vatican II has nothing to do with it. What it really has to do with is the sense of solemnity. When Catholic youth visit mass, they're not looking to hear the same thing they can get on their iPods and MP3 players. They're looking for something completely different. They're looking for a sense of the sacred. They want mystery. They want other-worldly. They want to escape the trappings of this earth to meet the Lord in sublime reverence and awe. That's why so many of them are flocking to the Extraordinary Form of the mass. It has nothing to do with Latin. It has nothing to do with the 1962 Missal. It's about solemnity, mystery, reverence and transcending everyday reality. That's something they can't get on their iPods and MP3 players. That's something they don't hear on the car radio, and it's something they will never experience at a Christian rock concert. It's something that only the Catholic Church can give them, that is, IF their local parish is willing.

The excommunication of LIFETEEN founder Dale Fushek should be an eye opening watershed to most LIFETEEN parishes, and contemporary Catholic parishes in general. Fushek's excommunication had nothing to do with LIFETEEN, directly, but it did have a lot to do with the attitude and mindset of the man who created LIFETEEN. It was an attitude and a mindset that got him into trouble with the law, and ultimately led him to create a "nondenominational worship center" outside of the Catholic Church -- effectively a schismatic act. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying LIFETEEN is schismatic, but I am saying that it was produced by a schismatic mind, and that in itself should be cause for alarm. When you compound this with the obvious problems associated with the current English mass translation (soon to be retired), and a general loss of historic Catholic traditions, you can begin to see the possible dangers. The tragic and saddening event of Dale Fushek's excommunication should be a wake-up call to Catholic parishes all around the nation. Perhaps it's time to look to the pope for new guidance and reconsider the direction of the American Church.