Vatican’s Come-Hither to Anglicans: A Theological Scandal

[Secundulus]

mmmmm. It seems the Catholic Liberals are none too happy.

Vatican’s Come-Hither to Anglicans: A Theological Scandal
By Mary E. Hunt
October 22, 2009

Let history record this theological scandal for what it is. Touted by Rome as a step forward in ecumenical relations with a cousin communion, it is in fact the joining of two camps united in their rejection of women and queer people as unworthy of religious leadership. . . .

This is the best line in the whole article. LOL

Conjure the sight of high mass with a raft of altar servers and incense so abundant it makes parishioners forget there ever was a Vatican II.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Lol. She sounds very irritated.

 

[Krentis]

Conjure the sight of high mass with a raft of altar servers and incense so abundant it makes parishioners forget there ever was a Vatican II.

Why would you want parishoners to forget Vatican Council?

 

[Avatar]

First I giggled. Then I snorted.

 

[Fantine]

I can't help but think that a simple swap might be in the cards.

Since the impression has been created, rightly or wrongly, that Anglicanism is theologically equivalent to Catholicism, maybe all the Catholics who believe in the ordination of women, married priests, acceptance of homosexuality, etc. will join the Anglican communion where they can experience Catholicism without baggage.

An interesting article.

 

[Secundulus]

Why would you want parishoners to forget Vatican Council?

I wouldn't. But the author seems to think that a respectful mass in the tradition of the ancient Church is contrary to Vatican II.

I think that Pope Benedict would disagree.

 

[Krentis]

I wouldn't.

Whew.

 

[Gwendolyn]

It is very clear in Sacrosactum Concilium (constitution on the sacred liturgy) that the Mass we have now, with all its abuses, is not what the Council Fathers had ancitipated or intended. Yes, the document is vague, but somehow I just can't understand how we got from point A to point B as far as the liturgy is concerned. What we have now is very bare-bones. Yes, all of the important components are there... but we operate on the minimum we need to get by. Stripped of many beautiful prayers, and for what reason?

I do like the atmosphere of the Tridentine Mass, but I do not like the Mass itself for this reason - the faithful do not actively participate. The Mass is pretty much solely the priest and the acolytes, with the faithful saying "et cum spiritu tuo" and maybe being allowed to sing a few hymns. Eventually, there developed the theology of "silent participation" because the Church realised that the faithful weren't doing much of anything during the liturgy at all. And reading the early Church Fathers and the writings of early Saints, they definitely supported the active participation of the faithful - not a silent observence.

So, Vatican II wanted to restore the "full, active participation" - but somehow, we lost many other things as well that shouldn't have been lost or set aside.

 

[2Cosmic2Charlie]

Hey, guess what ?

I'm as liberal as worn tied rod end (ok, its an obscure simile) and I couldn't care less if about the Anglicans.

Go

Stay

Whatever

 

[kiwimac]

My point exactly. If the Anglicans involved wish to forget why their forebears separated from Catholicism then let them do what they like. They shouldn't let the door hit 'em on the bum on the way out.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Let the Anglicans and All Protestants who've seperated themselves from the Holy Catholic Church, return unto unity of Christ's Holy Catholic Church whence they cleaved themselves from.

 

[lionroar0]

mmmmm. It seems the Catholic Liberals are none too happy.

Vatican’s Come-Hither to Anglicans: A Theological Scandal
By Mary E. Hunt
October 22, 2009

Let history record this theological scandal for what it is. Touted by Rome as a step forward in ecumenical relations with a cousin communion, it is in fact the joining of two camps united in their rejection of women and queer people as unworthy of religious leadership. . . .

This is the best line in the whole article. LOL

Conjure the sight of high mass with a raft of altar servers and incense so abundant it makes parishioners forget there ever was a Vatican II.

Reminds me of the old cliche. "Can't make everyone happy."

 

[SemperFidelis]

It is very clear in Sacrosactum Concilium (constitution on the sacred liturgy) that the Mass we have now, with all its abuses, is not what the Council Fathers had ancitipated or intended.

Actually, the Novus Ordo mass wasn't promulgated until 1969, after Vatican 2. I lot of people try and invoke that mysterious "Spirit of V2" in defence of the abuses we see today, but as you have correctly pointed out, the Council Fathers in no way invisioned the abuses we have today (or even the NO mass, if you want to use SC as a guide).

Yes, the document is vague, but somehow I just can't understand how we got from point A to point B as far as the liturgy is concerned. What we have now is very bare-bones. Yes, all of the important components are there... but we operate on the minimum we need to get by. Stripped of many beautiful prayers, and for what reason?

Protestanisation of the Mass. No good reasons.

I do like the atmosphere of the Tridentine Mass, but I do not like the Mass itself for this reason - the faithful do not actively participate. The Mass is pretty much solely the priest and the acolytes, with the faithful saying "et cum spiritu tuo" and maybe being allowed to sing a few hymns. Eventually, there developed the theology of "silent participation" because the Church realised that the faithful weren't doing much of anything during the liturgy at all. And reading the early Church Fathers and the writings of early Saints, they definitely supported the active participation of the faithful - not a silent observence.

So, Vatican II wanted to restore the "full, active participation" - but somehow, we lost many other things as well that shouldn't have been lost or set aside.

Please don't take this personaly, but the Mass isn't supposed to be about us participating. The Mass if, first and foremost, a sacrifice offered by the priest to God. We assist with our assent, our presence and our prayers. Beofre V2, the idea of laity being actively involved (as the term is understood now, anyway) was basically unheard of.

 

[winsome]

mmmmm. It seems the Catholic Liberals are none too happy.

Vatican’s Come-Hither to Anglicans: A Theological Scandal
By Mary E. Hunt
October 22, 2009

Let history record this theological scandal for what it is. Touted by Rome as a step forward in ecumenical relations with a cousin communion, it is in fact the joining of two camps united in their rejection of women and queer people as unworthy of religious leadership. . . .

This is the best line in the whole article. LOL

Conjure the sight of high mass with a raft of altar servers and incense so abundant it makes parishioners forget there ever was a Vatican II.

We have alter servers and incense at our normal Sunday Mass. I don't remember Vatican II banning either of them.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Please don't take this personaly, but the Mass isn't supposed to be about us participating. The Mass if, first and foremost, a sacrifice offered by the priest to God. We assist with our assent, our presence and our prayers. Beofre V2, the idea of laity being actively involved (as the term is understood now, anyway) was basically unheard of.

The Vatican II documents are very clear on the fact that the faithful ought to have "full" and "active" participation. No, Mass is in NO WAY about us - it is about Christ - but liturgy is the collective prayer of the Church, which does necessitate our involvement. "Silent participation", while it makes sense, was theology in retrospect. Active participation was unheard of in the middle ages, but before that time, the faithful were very involved in the liturgy, chanting with antiphons and such. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a prime example, as is the liturgy of St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus), which is very similar to the Tridentine Mass, but the congregation is actively involved. (St. Gregory's liturgy is truly beautiful - I have not been to one, but I know the text well.)

When I speak of "active participation" I am definitely not trying to say that Mass needs to be about us and to meet our needs. Theologically, liturgy is the work of the people... so that is where I am coming from.

 

[Davidnic]

I lot of people try and invoke that mysterious "Spirit of V2" in defence of the abuses we see today, but as you have correctly pointed out, the Council Fathers in no way invisioned the abuses we have today

"If you ever meet the spirit of Vatican II, drive a wooden stake through its heart."

Fr. Benedict Groeschel

The true spirit of Vatican II was as Pope John XXIII knew; that any renewal of the Church needed to be done by a reconnection with the Tradition and the Magisterium. He based the council on two things...Aggiornamento and Resourcement. Or, translated: Bringing to date and a return to original sources. That the Church could not bow to modernism but She could represent the eternal truths to the modern world by remaining faithful to Her essence. He knew that Aggiornomento (Bringing up to date) without Resourcement (returning to original sources) would be modernism, already declared wrong, and a rudderless ship. Only to being faithful to Herself could the Church find the modern presentation of the Truth. Not to please the world, but to carry out Her role in Salvation.

The "spirit of vatican II" praised by modernists is a modernist wish list of endeavors to make the Church one among many with an identical and acceptable to everyone "show faith" that offends no one but gives one the "comfort" of religion without the necessity of the difficulties of the Truth.

A religion that is a magic 8 ball that tells you that everything you want to do is ok as long as society accepts it and you don't bring up the inconvenience of the Cross.

 

[ContraMundum]

My point exactly. If the Anglicans involved wish to forget why their forebears separated from Catholicism then let them do what they like. They shouldn't let the door hit 'em on the bum on the way out.

Don't let the door hit us as we leave? We're more concerned about not getting wet as we leave- as a better analogy of the current state of the Anglican communion is a sinking ship rather than a room with a door, at least in some parts.

Anyway- you're not really the one to be talking: YOU left the Anglican communion a couple of years ago- no? Obviously, you saw some problems as well!

 

[Mary's Bhoy]

The Vatican II documents are very clear on the fact that the faithful ought to have "full" and "active" participation.

It was my understanding that the Vatican II documents called for an actual participation from the laity, not an active participation. This is an important distinction.

Regards,
Jon Paul.

 

[Rhamiel]

why is this such a fuss?
i mean baptists have website after website trying to get Catholics to leave the Church, evangelicals have books about the "truth about the Roman Catholic Church" all we do is let aglicans keep their traditions if they convert and we are treated like sneaky sheep stealers (say that ten times fast lol) this whole thing came when the TAC asked to be in communion with Rome

 

[WarriorAngel]

The road to Heaven is narrow and hard.
And of course alot of naysayers will be jeering.

Home to Rome is never easy.

And I welcome our brethren.
I am so happy to be able to Commune with you.