jump to navigation

A little more data about how the revolution in the Church came to pass September 3, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Liturgy, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return.
trackback

As I have written many times before, the revolution which seemingly burst on the Church in the mid-20th century had been a long time in the making.  Put differently, Vatican II, and especially the radical departures from traditional piety that started at and increased exponentially after the Council, did not just happen.  A huge groundwork had been laid, going back decades, to provide the seed bed for many, if not virtually all, the changes that exploded on the Church in the late 60s and early 70s.  For instance, I have written about how the liturgical movement , begun with good intentions in the early 20th century, had, by the 1950s, become a vehicle for radicals of all kinds, who sought to re-invent the timeless Liturgy in order to advance their particular pet projects, be it ecumenism, modernist, or what have you. Even in 1943, almost 20 years before Vatican II began, some laity had had more than enough with all the liturgical experimentation and snide, derogatory comments about the Mass they loved.

Of course, the entire modernist movement, with its elevation of the theory of evolution over Christ and His Revelation, had been around since the late 1800s.  It was quite widespread when Pope St. Pius X attempted to crush it in 1907, but it just went underground, to re-emerge, in academia, liturgical elitists, and, especially, religious orders, in the 20s and 30s. By the time he was finally getting in serious trouble with the Vatican, that great god-father of Vatican II, Teilhard de Chardin, could confidently state that what happened to him didn’t matter, he had so many disciples in places of high influence, his errors could not be extirpated from the Church.  He was quite right.

Supertradmum has given us, via her blog, another few bits of data to demonstrate how Vatican II was not some sudden explosion of neo-modernism on the Church, as if a bolt from the blue, but was simply the result of patient effort and the steady growth of influence of many highly placed individuals with ideas of radically re-shaping the Faith (I add emphasis and comments):

I have spoken with several priests, now in their very old age, who said that they entered the seminaries in the 1950s, well before Vatican II, in order to make the Church more Protestant. Vatican II is a result of earlier changes in thinking, not the start of liturgical changes, and one only has to look at the type of theology taught even between the wars for clarity. Theology was geared already in the 1950s towards ecumenism, the only ideal which many priests and bishops thought would keep Christianity safe from communism and socialism. [I would add that ecumenism fits very well with the indifferentism which was identified by Pope Leo XIII as being a foundational aspect of the heresy of Americanism.  And the American hierarchy probably never exercised wider influence over the worldwide Church than in the two decades following WWII.]

I have often told the history of the twelve experimental dioceses in America on liturgical reform, as I grew up in one. I have only met two priests in my life willing to discuss this real concerted effort to change the Vatican’s ideas on liturgy by manipulating successful scenarios with course and incremental changes.

My parents, starting before, I repeat, before, and during Vatican II, were part of a diocesan training for the laity. Lay people were divided up into home courses on the history of the liturgy, with built in explanations which would explain changes. Now, I was too young, but babysat my brothers while my parents were part of  these classes in peoples ‘homes. The parish priest would go to these meetings. Then, the liturgy was changed in light of this build up and feedback was gathered from the laity. All of it would have been positive, as the people were primed for the changes, which were introduced incrementally.

The results of these twelve dioceses were sent back to Rome, which then promulgated the changes. [I think some of these experiments played a role in the changes made to the liturgy in the 1950s, when the liturgical movement began to score its first successes.]  I did not realize until fourteen years later, when I moved to Minneapolis as a young adult, and talked to people there, how unusual my parent’s and their fellow diocesan adults’ experience were. I began to piece together this occurrence, but it was not until, forty or so years later, I kid you not, that two priests from widely separated dioceses, were willing to spill the beans on this event-the experimental, incremental changes in the liturgy coupled with courses, which created highly successful feedback for Rome. [This is true, I have read in studies of the history of the liturgy that the experiments were gamed to only report what those who sought radical changes in the Liturgy wanted reported back to Rome. Dom Alcuin Reid refers to this, at least obliquely.  As I noted in the post above, this began in Europe even well before WWII, where some pushback was evident by the early 40s.  There were some full-on protestant hootenanies in place in some of the wilder liturgical environs in Germany in the 1920s. The German bishops had been warned of the creeping indifferentism and abuses, and especially the stripping of the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass.  This was all of a piece….to please disaffected protestants and attempt to arrive at a one world great big ecumenical liturgy.]

So, the breakdown of hierarchy started in seminary training before Vatican II and the liturgical changes were likewise planned. Vatican II is a result, not the beginning of the undermining of both hierarchy and liturgy. [No, it was its culmination.  So far. But let there be a Vatican III, and you’ll really see some undermining!]

———————-End Quote————-

Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, perhaps the greatest American theologian ever, and fully orthodox, among others, felt a great foreboding prior to the convening of Vatican II.  Even as a peritus at the Council, he could see the constant belief of the Church being slowly unwound. He felt this foreboding, because he had been fighting a heroic rearguard action against certain elements in the American Church dramatically in favor of ecumenism (tending towards indifferentism), enlightenment concepts of “liberty” and “rights” (which emerged in Dignitatis Humanae), and all the other aspects of Americanism. But understanding the movements in the Church, Fr. Fenton feared the dangerous, possibly erroneous propositions of his prime theological opponent, Fr. John Courtney Murray, SJ, would be in some way embraced by the forthcoming Council. That, according to the histories, is what indeed occurred. Fr. Murray’s propositions are considered by most to form the basis for that most controversial portion of Dignitatis Humanae, regarding religious liberty.

Which is just one more small data point that Vatican II did not occur in a vacuum, but like all revolutionary movements, the dramatic event was planned and executed long in advance.

Comments

1. RC - September 3, 2013

Hey tantam, I was wondering if you would be able to do a blog post about collegiality and about the history of it, is it new to the Church or has it been around. I was reading another blog and they were talking about the new secretary of state at the Vatican, and how he is connected with this, and how Pope Francis is wanting to give more power to the bishops’ conferences..which in my opnion will be a huge disaster. But could you explain it a little better for those of us who don’t really understand it?

tantamergo - September 3, 2013

That would be a good post. I’ll try to do so. Maybe this week. Let me think about it.

In short, collegiality has some history in the Church, but for many good reasons, the papacy asserted more and more total control and the voice of bishops in governing the universal Church gradually waned in modern times. In terms of the modern Church, “collegiality” is a vehicle by which modernists hope to advance their agenda through national episcopal conferences, which they more or less totally control, as against the papacy, which they do not, yet, control. It’s just a means to advance their agenda. But I can try to write more on it.

RC - September 3, 2013

Awesome, thanks.

I don’t know if you’ve already seen today’s vortex by Michael Voris. But on the live Mike’d up on Wednesday, Michael is apparently outing all that they have kept quiet about over the last couple of years. Should be pretty interesting.

2. The review of Roberto de Mattei’s The Second Vatican Council I should have written! | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics - September 4, 2013

[…] that the problems did not come until implementation; the problems were present at the outset. [And, as I wrote yesterday, these "problems" didn't just magically appear at Vatican II, they were the result of years of […]

3. Catholic4Life - September 5, 2013

Reblogged this on Catholic4Life.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: