A direct quote from a very insightful post of Fr. Allan McDonald of Southern Orders blog:
At another blog, a sociologist made the following observation:
"By and large Vatican II was successful. Both the Liturgy and the Bible have become more accessible to the laity. Ecumenically and interfaith wise, Catholics are understanding other groups and collaborating better with them. More Catholics experience their families, work and communities as places where they are called to holiness.
What has not worked well has been collegiality: collegiality among bishops with the pope, collegiality among priests with their bishop; collegiality among people with their pastor. In all cases persons in charge have tended to be dissatisfied with “democracy.” While having formal processes of “consultation,” these do not influence decision making..."
We can say that Vatican II was successful, but we cannot say that it is successful if we look at the attrition rate of Catholics practicing their faith since the Second Vatican Council as only 20% are attending the successful and accessible liturgy of the Church. And of those 20% there is not always agreement on what is successful and accessible, in fact there is downright division and each person thinks their opinion is valid and all opinions are valid even if the opinion is opposed to what the Church actually teaches about this, that or the other.
What has not worked well: "Collegiality" is probably true as so often collegiality proposes false expectations of a democratic dynamic not only in administration where it could work well and be valid, but in Church teaching where the "voice of the people" including the voices of the clergy can be downright wrong, heterodox or even heretical. Ultimately the pope, the bishop in his diocese or the pastor of the parish after consulting has the canonical right to make a decision and sometimes in the areas of faith and morals no real consultation is needed or required except for pastoral reasons and the input that helps highlight what needs to be done and more importantly explained.
But even if the observation that collegiality is a sore point with Catholics, just how many Catholics of the 20% that attend Mass? 1%? 2%, 10%???? And of the 80% who no longer attend Mass, just how important is collegiality amongst them 1%? 2% or 100%? That would be an interesting sociological survey. My personal feeling from merely anecdotal evidence is that the vast majority of Catholics, 99.9% of them, practicing or not, don't give a flip about institutional collegiality in the Church, only Catholics involved in decision making in the Church seem to obsess on this.
Vatican II is not God; Collegiality is not God; Ecclesiology is not God; Lay participation in the Mass is not God! God is God and if God is not believed as the Church teaches and celebrates His action within Salvation History from start to finish, then, Houston, WE HAVE A PROBLEM!
Your humble thoughts on this?
In what terms?
Let me drill on this one by one.
Vatican II was successful. Yeah....in that it was organized. Ha!
Vatican II emphasized the use of the vernacular in the Liturgy which to some extent really helped bring some positive change in the world. I have read in more than a couple of posts from more credible liturgists and theologians (Ha!) that what was expected was that the Mass would have more vernacular and less of the Latin, most especially vernacular in the readings and the Latin remains in the common parts of the Mass especially the prayers of the priest. What happened is an alleged Mass that looks the same (DAW!) from the ancient Mass (DAW!) that the early Christians in Rome practiced (DAW!).
Pius XII warned against antiquarianism and this is what San Beda and Malaybalay kept on insisting.
On the issue of collegiality, it will never work. Look at how happily disoriented the Anglican and Episcopalian communion are? Look at how the Islamic world is tearing each other apart. Everyone wants to be Pope! It will never work. Democracy will never work in the Church that was founded to have a supreme pastor and leader. Look at the Council of Jerusalem was conducted. When Peter spoke up, everybody shut up. Questions?
So for the aging hippie priests who still teach subjects in theology about collegiality, consultation, lay empowerment, women's involvement, inculturated and animated liturgy, dialogue with religion, preaching in the margins, BEING CHURCH...........
Tick tock tick tock tick tock....
There is a new breed of Catholics being born every second around the world.
And they do not think like you.
Because the modernist theology you teach does not encourage young men to become priests or brothers nor do they encourage women to become women who are submissive to authority and who would rather serve in silence. Modenist nuns love to hate men. Oftentimes, They crave positions of authority and they would grab at every opportunity to be the leader and make slaves out of men.
That is what Modernism is: STERILE and BARREN.
It does not reproduce. They agree to disagree and fight each other once their common enemy, anything of the Catholic past, is mentioned. They do not inspire for a higher good, something of the supernatural. They always crave for the here and know. Modernists will always tend to satisfy the senses, makes you feel good, but does not make you feel uncomfortable. That is why you will never hear them talk about the Four Last Things. Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell. They will always talk to you about blessings, happiness, miracles, but not about the things WE NEED to prepare once this EARTHLY LIFE is over.
So, for Vatican II? We need a clearer interpretation of what the Council Documents really meant. That is why I fully support the views of Bishop Athanasius Schneider in that the Holy Father issue a Syllabus of Errors in defining Vatican II, one of which is "this phenomenon can be seen in three liturgical practices that are fairly well known and widespread in almost all the parishes of the Catholic sphere: the almost complete disappearance of the use of the Latin language, the reception of the Eucharistic body of Christ directly in the hand while standing, and the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice in the modality of a closed circle in which priest and people are constantly looking at each other."
So, you ask now, why I call out erring priests and bishops in their liturgical practice?