Benedikt GOTTGESCHICKT
Mathieu GOTTGESCHENK
GOTT MIT UNS ?
www.chartaland.de

Tim,
Of course he's part of the modernist threat: he's German. Everyone knows that all German theologians and philosophers are bad. ;-)

"Vatican II was held to appease the threat fromn WITHIN the church"
Evidence, please.
"who ultimately took over the reigns to this day..."
That would depend on what you mean by "the reigns", but if you are suggesting that the modernists are actually in control of the Church, I think many of them would disagree, given their dismay and astonishment at the election of B16 (may he live forever).
If you are of the opinion that Pope Benedict XVI is also part of the modernist threat, then I would advise you to go easy on the Kool-Aid.

Correct, Kevin; there were more Arians after Nicaea, more Nestorians after Ephesus. It seems that a lot of people wanted the Church to conform to their way of thinking, rather than the reverse.

Division among councils of the early church-well would that quite possibly be expected? Florence? Is that not the council in which 3 "popes" all claimed the papacy
All other councils were held to clarify or offset a threat from OUTSIDE the churc, Vatican II was held to appease the threat fromn WITHIN the church who ultimately took over the reigns to this day and is selling their modern liberal interpretation of Catholicism which is veiled Protestanism

When a council as such has so much division
There was TREMENDOUS division in the aftermath of many of the early councils. Were Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, et al., failures?

Since I raised the question about Pastoral Constitution but no one is answering it, I will say this for the casual reader who might be scandalized or whatever.
My internet research suggested that a Pastoral Constitution is a type of Apostolic Constitution, and an Apostonic Constitution is the most formal document the Church produces. Also Gaudium et Spes has been extensively quoted by JPII in his encyclicals and in the Catechism, presumably making those portions of it Magisterial in any case. Therefore I would consider it Magisterial and demanding religious assent unless someone can find something that says it is not.
If anyone out there knows better please correct me.

Clarification: I do not mean to imply we can ignore current (and this would still be current I assume) pastoral instruction from the Church in any case.

Andrew S.,
I hope so too. Also I would add to the factors a dieing surrounding culture and inaccurate expections for the future generated largely by the media and irresponsible theologians which lead to dissent when the "reform was deferred" as they say.
I think the Church will have to put a century or two between itself and the Council before its fruits can accurately be evaluated.
Could the Pastoral Constitutions be abandoned though and be made as obsolete as the calls for crusades by previous councils? I think that mostly depends on whether the statements of the Pastoral Constitutions, (not dirrectives but statements of fact) are Magisterial or not. I don't think they are acts Extraordinary Magerium or infallable, but are they authoritative acts of the Ordinary Magisterium? I'll keep trying to find out but so far I can not find the answer.

Amen to that!

Have other Councils failed? I seem to recall the Council of Florence. So far it seems the Second Vatican Council is a failure because it was never implemented properly (and by that I mean the Mass). I pray that Benedict will do something soon. I hope he lives to a hundred!

When a council as such has so much division, as Vatican II has, and the object of any council is to clarify EXISTING church teaching and not reinvent as Vatican II did, one can only surmise it was a failed council that has done horrible damage to the faith and clergy alike that have come afterward and those that could have become as such, but because of the council and the Lavandar Mafia it produced, chose a different lifestyle
Lets pray for the Holy father that the gets up the guts to do away with this divisive council, who before this council one would never dream of describing those as "liberal" Catholics, "neo conservative" and "traditionals". We were just CATHOLIC united for better or worse in the church teachings unwavering and a Mass that inspired beauty and reverence instead of what we have today

By the way, perhaps the most common modern version of Pelagianism (or semi-Palagianism if you like) would be not the idea that we earn our way to heaven through penance, but that we build the kingdom of God here on earth through our wonderful human ingenuity or whatever. That we people or we Christians are just so great we will rebuild the world and bring peace and have great technological progress etc. etc. while losing track of the fact that it is all in the hands of God and anything we do is either worthless or the work of God, not us. I think this is what Ratzinger (I won't say Pope Benedict since he may not still think it) was getting at.

Shibboleth,
Luther was the farthest thing from what one could consider a Pelagian
In the sense of do we earn our salvation or is it a free gift of God, you are right. My comment that he was a little bit Pelagian refered to the fact that he seems to have assumed good works were somehow derived from our own effort or strength, rather than God's grace.
By the way, I have heared that the "pile of dung covered with snow" statement is apocriphal, as was his "hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders" statement. I wouldn't have a problem if both statements were authentically from Luther of course and the former seems a decent characterization of his position.
I don't know how you think my understanding of Augustine or Pelagius is wrong. I would say that there are some in the Catholic Church and I suspect the Orthodox Church who out of ignorence are a bit (or more than a bit) Pelagian, and this seems to have been very common in the time of Luther, and this false idea that we earn our salvation with penance is part of what caused his misguided revolt, in which he went too far due to his own somewhat Pelagian presuppositions about works being done by our own strength. Many Protestants have inherited that presupposition. I know I did when I was a Protestant.
I do like your math example though.
Separately, I would like it if someone answered my question about whether a Pastoral Constitution is Magisterial teaching or not.

Certainly, it speaks volumes that in 1960 and before, when the faithful were not responding properly, they were doing so BECAUSE THEY WERE PRAYING. Compare that to today, whereby, when the faithful are not responding, God alone knows what they are doing, but they sure aren't praying
Considering how easily I am distracted during mass whenI know a response is expected from me I can only imagine what I would be like if no response were expected;

[i]Many of the faithful said their rosaries during Mass and paid no attention to the responses. [/i]
You make a good point, but it seems that if you are going to go wrong in Mass and neglect responses, meditating upon the life of Christ via the Rosary really isn't such a "bad" way to do it.
Certainly, it speaks volumes that in 1960 and before, when the faithful were not responding properly, they were doing so BECAUSE THEY WERE PRAYING. Compare that to today, whereby, when the faithful are not responding, God alone knows what they are doing, but they sure aren't praying.
I seem to recall that, at one point, there was some sort of curtain on many altars that hid the priest from view. The faithful would only know where the Mass was when he appeared for Holy Communion. Clearly, some changes are positive (i.e., being able to see the priest). But others are not.

Ok some misunderstandings here about Pelagianism, Lutheranism, and Augustine. Luther was the farthest thing from what one could consider a Pelagian. He takes it to the point that he even condemned the concept of Infused Grace (the idea that Grace is effective and cleansing on the very being of a person therefore the person is righteous within himself… this is not exactly what Catholic’s believe of course but it is how Lutherans see this Catholic Doctrine.
Luther said that we were snow covered piles of dung, that nothing of our actual being ever changes but Christ’s blood covers us like white snow covers a pile of dung. God sees the snow and not the dung and by that way we are found righteous.
With Luther he spoke of Bound Will.
I, being Orthodox, of course have terrible difficulty with Augustine. He needed to study his Greek. Ancestral Sin and Original Sin aside I cannot think of one Christian Body that is truly Pelagian.
Lutherans and the like tend to throw out the word, “Semi-Pelagian” a lot because they have a problem with Cooperation in Grace. From the Lutheran point of view the Orthodox are semi-Pelagian.
This is how I always try to explain it….
Our response to God’s Grace is not like 1,000,000,000,000 God and 1 us adding to 1,000,000,000,001. It is like multiplication.
1,000,000,000,000 “God” * 1 “our response” = 1,000,000,000,000 (If we are saved all Glory to God)
Or
1,000,000,000,000 “God * 0 “no response” = 0 (If we are damned its our own damn fault.)
Nothing a person does can earn their salvation. Now try to figure out Elijah.

Mark, I recomend you look up St. Augustine of Hippo and Pelagius in a Catholic sourse. You will see that St. Augustine is THE great Father of the Western Church. He did not deny free will but realized that we can not do anything good without God's grace. Salvation can not come from our own strength, our own initiative, our own will, it is entirely a free, unearned gift of God. He argued against the arch-heretic Pelagius, who thought God would not make demands of us that we could not keep by our own strength so we did not need his grace to live in an upright way and gain salvation.
Luther misinterpreted Augustine and Paul to mean good works are of no avail in salvation. In fact I would call Luther a little bit of a Pelagian, in the sense that he seemed to think we could do anything good except by the grace, the free gift, of God.
Protestants to this day tend to like Augustine, though they reject his teachings on things like Papal primacy, Mary, Purgatory, praying to Saints, etc. Do not reject possibly the greatest mind in Catholic history (Thomists would want to give Aquinas that title) just because other Christian groups have found inspiration in his writings.
"Augustinian" Catholics tend to focus more on the will than the intellect, more on spirituality than worldly ambitions, more on human sin than human greatness. This is a very legitimate Catholic spirituality and intelectual school, which encompasses others like Benedictine and Franciscan. It can lead more easily in this age to liberal heresies, but Thomism can lead to legalism and/or semi-Pelagianism, so you can't judge it on what errors those who are attracted to it are more prone to fall into.

During the pre-Vatican II days, Gregorian chant did not have "pride of place" either. There were plenty of sappy, saccharine hymns then, too. Many of the faithful said their rosaries during Mass and paid no attention to the responses. What Cardinal Ratzinger, and others, wanted to go back to was a patristic view of the Mass, along with a re-appreciation of the musical and artistic heritage of the Catholic Church. By the way, if you read the documents of Vatican II, especially Dei Verbum, Sancrosanctum Concilum, and Dei Verbum, note how "conservative" they actually sound, in comparison with what the "spirit of Vatican II" types tell you they "said."

I must agree with those who point out that there are many other factors other than Vatican II that contribute to the problem. We must admit, though, that this "the spirit of Vatican II" phrase has been used as a license for Hans Kung and all dissidents of his ilk to attempt to radically Protestantize the Holy Catholic Church.
To someone who mentioned abuses in the old rite: fair enough. But I refer you to the link I posted before. Do you know of any Tridentine Masses where the priest elevated Dorito chips or gingerbread men for the consecration? How about Mountain Dew in place of wine?
Pre-1962, would Catholic cardinals allow scantily clad women on the altar to dance and perform in the midst of the Mass? Would women, quite apart from merely covering heads, show up at Mass with bared midriffs, uncovered shoulders, and generally appearing as though they had just returned from a day at the beach when the thought struck them that they might stop by for Mass?
Pre-Vatican II, do you recall many instances of people loudly chatting away, or partaking in whatever communicatory means were the equivalent at the time of today's cell phones? (radios, perhaps?)
You see my point, I hope. There are certain troubles that were UNDENIABLY allowed entrance specifically because of the very air that pervaded Vatican II.
Calling an ecumenical council is a very serious thing to do, and it should be of note that the DYING WORDS of Blessed Pope John XXIII, spoken as he succumbed to stomach cancer, were "Stop the Council! Stop the Council!"
And yet, Pope Paul VI took it up again, ignoring his predecessor's warning. Blessed John XXIII saw how the modernists and the liberals had been allowed to take advantage of him. Now, today, there are people such as Horvat and others who will advance notions that Blessed John was a Communist/Free Mason in cahoots with [insert name of Church enemy of choice] out to destroy the Church.
Well, in short, no, he wasn't.
There have been prophecies about this stuff for eons. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Salette, dozens upon dozens of saints...so many have told how the Church would face horrible, horrible evil, and if the gross disrespect so often paid to the Blessed Sacrament is not evil (for instance, the Body of Christ found trampled in the muddy fields following outdoor Mass at WYD in Cologne last summer), nothing is evil.
Another note: Actually, the Mass of the 40's and 50's is BETTER BECAUSE the laity were not participating so much.
Now we have women giving homilies, altar girls, lay people crowding the altar and STANDING during consecration, reception of the Blessed Sacrament in the hand (a practice of which Pope John Paul II STRONGLY disapproved), people talking during Mass, and generally not appropriating due worship and reverence to the Mass.
The idea that the laity must play some crucial and central role in the Mass is a PROTESTANT notion. The Mass is about Christ's sacrifice, and the way by which the Tridentine Mass saw the priest leading the congregation (hence, facing in the same direction, as opposed to now, where he stands with his back to the tabernacle) emphasized this very well. Now, people need to be "involved" and have thrilling emotional experiences as though the Holy Sacrifice were some sort of rock concert. Hence, we see LifeTeen Masses, bongo drums, guitars, rock concerts a la the Masses they prepared for Pope John Paul II when he would make pilgrimmages, dancing, and various other elements that say, in every way, that the Mass must be about ME and not about Christ.
It's wrong, it's evil, and it is UNQUESTIONABLY attributable, if not directly to the teachings of Vatican II, then to the grimy modernist elements that seeped into the Church as a result of the "spirit" of that council. People who read this blog surely love their faith, and surely cannot be appreciative of the trampled Body of Christ lying in a field at World Youth Day, dancing girls on Mass altars, wicker baskets and lemonade pitchers being used as "patens" and "chalices," and diet sodas and corn chips being used as matter for consecration.
Now, whatever ANYONE might say about abuses pre-Vatican II, the above simply WOULD NOT have happened using the Tridentine rite.

Since I'm not a cradle Catholic, I can't tell of what the Church was truly like in the pre-VII era.
All I can say is to relate it too the issue of things that I know and like most of the people on the list we've all gone to chain restaurants either that are franchised or owned by a someone (either a person or corporation). We all know the bad chains. The bad chains are those usually have different menus, where the food tastes different in every restaurant (and often poor), where service is slow and little imagination has gone into the decor.
How chain restaurants solve these problems is through quality control inspections, toll-free phone numbers to report problems, secret customers and various means to make sure the restaurants are doing what they are supposed to do. The fact is that the Vatican does little quality control over its parishes.
Also I think that the Vatican has not adjusted to the vernacular culture it created in the post VII era. Translation of Church documents, liturgies into local languages should be handled by the Vatican rather than local bishop conferences. Sure it was OK to have this occur when this was a minor function since the language of the Church was Latin and this was only needed for those who couldn't speak the language of the Church. But now that these are almost entirely in local languages the Vatican should be deciding what is in the Mass by language rather than deciding it on a country by country basis.
And in fact I see little reason why the Vatican shouldn't be pretty much dictating what the Mass should be, including a standard homily (that a priest could add to), what (if any) hymns should be sung and where. If you find that something has been skipped you should be able to go call a toll-free number say that Fr. X didn't say anything from the standard homily, allowed the choir to change the psalm reading and that the choir is badly out of tune when they sing. Complaints would go to both the Vatican and the local bishop.
Seminary and school education should also be pretty standardized, too with some variations allowed.
I would also love the idea of "secret students" who would go to local seminaries, schools and universities and report of incorrect teaching and bad discipline.
The real problem is that we have parishes, schools, seminaries and colleges that claim to be Catholic but have little in common with each other.

+J.M.J+
>>>dozens upon dozens of abuses that simply WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSSIBLE to committ using the old rite
Did you know that the first "folk Masses" took place in the mid 60's, while the old rite was still in use?
Liturgical abuses were certainly possible with the old rite, they just a) weren't done very much prior to the swinging 60's (when Western culture in general became enamoured of experimentalism) and b) if a priest changed the words of the Latin a bit before the Council, the people were largely unaware of it. Only the altar boys would have known (Fr. Peter Stravinskas was an altar boy back then and he remembers liturgical abuse in his day - but the people in the pews didn't know that the priest was changing stuff.)
In Jesu et Maria,

Tim J: Okay, I overstated my point by saying that VII wouldn't have been "a factor" in Protestant churches, but it's certainly far from the only factor, or even the decisive factor.
The reason that there were not as many responses, nor as much participation, in the Mass before VatII, is that it was the altar boys responsibility to give most of the responses.

But is that really the ideal? Is the character of the liturgy better expressed by the faithful watching a dialogue between the priest and the altar boy, or by the active involvement of all the faithful?

Yes, it's very important to differentiate between the church council called Vatican II, and all the stuff that used Vatican II as an excuse. Very little the twain shall meet.
Gregorian chant having "pride of place", anyone?
Even while the Council was still meeting and hadn't decided on anything, there were all sorts of people who started doing all sorts of weird crup in the name of Vatican II. Apparently the then-Father Ratzinger went home to visit Germany during the Council and found all kinds of stuff happening that was just pulled out of certain priests' imagination. When he told them that what they were doing had absolutely nothing to do with Vatican II (and was theological and liturgical crup also), they simply refused to listen. After all, what did he know? He was only there listening every day!
Thus the difference between the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" and the actual council. One casts a long and stupid shadow of selfishness over the Church, breaking hearts and twisting words wherever it goes. The other one is all boring stuff like papers and bishops and the actual Holy Spirit, and people ignore it as much as possible.

The reason that there were not as many responses, nor as much participation, in the Mass before VatII, is that it was the altar boys responsibility to give most of the responses. Altar boys back then had a lot more to do than altar servers today.

Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI has called for us "to interpret Vatican II in strictest continuity with previous councils such as Trent and Vatican I, since all three councils are upheld by the same authority: that of the pope and the college of bishops in communion with him."
And for"fidelity to the actual teaching of the council without reservations that would truncate its teaching or elaborations that would deform it.
That is the way to read the documents of Vatican II. If we ignore the so-called "spirit" of Vatican II we will avoid all the problems that came about after the council.

SDG-
I agree with everything you said, except that VII wasn't a factor in non-Catholic churches. As the Flagship of the Armada (so to speak) I think what we do has a great effect on other Christian communions, if in a subtle way.
They watch and listen.
In all your other comments, I think you are right on. VII was, in a sense, more a symptom than a cause of the disorder. The mid-twentieth century saw Western culture go off the rails, and this affected the church. In the end, I think we may all be a little amazed at how comparatively well and whole the Church came through it.
VII is authoritative, and is therfore to be accepted and obeyed. But was it well advised? Well executed, presented and explained?
I can't imagine that such wrenching, confusing and sweeping changes to the liturgy would be tolerated all at once nowadays. I am sympathetic with those who found it all just about too much to take. We make changes to the liturgy now very slowly. A tweak here and there, which is how it should be.
All the same, I am not the Pope, and I am called to obey those whom God has placed in authority over me.

MJ,
Very briefly, it seems to me that [a] this description of the pre-VII world may be a bit on the rosy side, and [b] the factors leading to the problems of the current church are much more complicated and far from all stemming from Vatican II.
Let's not forget that in the 1960s, when VII occurred, there were a few other things going on in American and Western culture that have had far-reaching effects, and not just in the Catholic Church. Many of the woes you list have corresponding phenomena in non-Catholic churches as well, where VII was not a factor.
And really the causes go back further than that. The 1960s were a direct result of the failures of the 1950s. It is the great American paradox of the 20th century that the Woodstock Generation was raised by the Greatest Generation, that the generation that survived the Depression and saved the world from the Nazis and the Fascists was unable to pass on those values to the children they raised.
And the pre-VII church was far from perfect. Mass attendance was much higher, yes, but mass participation was much lower. Very commonly people went to mass and stood there silently the whole time. We don't want a return to the church of the 1940s, much less the 1640s. We need a church for 2040, in continuity with the past 2000 years.

[I]In this respect he differs from Pope John Paul, who consistently praised the council and never (to my knowledge) criticized it.[/i]
With all due respect, and having only the greatest respect and appreciation of Pope John Paul II, who I pray is now numbered among God's elect, I find the above a bit hard to believe.
Pre-Vatican II we have largely reverent Tridentine Masses, far more frequent partaking of devotions like Eucharistic Adoration, the Rosary, novenas, the Miraculous Medal, etc., far, far less of these nonsense abuses that occur at the Novus Ordo, far, far better catechesis of young people, far, far higher Mass attendance on all Sundays...the list goes on.
Post-Vatican II we have about 30% Mass attendance (down from 70%), an ever declining belief in the Real Presence, 80% of Catholics either sinning mortally by disobeying Humanae Vitae or, if they don't know of the teaching, ignorantly committing grave evils, heinous catechesis that allows some of that 80% to not know of such a basic Catholic teaching, Catholics aborting their children at nearly the same rate as non-Catholics, Catholics having a similar divorce rate, Catholics taking cell phone calls and chatting loudly before, during, and after Mass in God's holy sanctuary...we would be here all day if this list needed to be completed.
The Novus Ordo/liberalized Vatican II modus operandi has also seen abuses such as the use of coffee and DORITO CHIPS as matter for consecration (if you think I am making this up, check HERE: http://www.traditio.com/nos.htm [NOTE: I do not endorse the views presented on this rather radical site, but the photographic evidence of grave abuse is undeniable) for a list of dozens upon dozens of abuses that simply WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSSIBLE to committ using the old rite
I recall reading that "By your fruits you shall know them."
With all due respect to Pope John Paul II, and a tremendous deal of respect is due to him, I must say that if he found nothing at all to criticize--and criticize STRONGLY--about the reforms of V-II, he must not have been looking very hard.
I am not a radical traditionalist, by the way (a radical traditionalist being the sort who would rail against every post-Pope Pius XII pope having a shady or non-existence claim to the Chair of Peter), but please: the writing is on the wall and anyone who thinks the post-Vatican II Church is the same or "just as good" with regard to faith is just not seeing the reality of the matter. Archbishop Sheen had a TV show on NATIONAL TELEVISION early in the 20th century--on CBS!!
Nowadays, can you imagine anything about Catholicism on CBS for an hour other than a scathing 1 hour special on the "evils" the Church has committed 530 years ago in the Inquisition, or the "merits" of the da Vinci Code [re: Hoax], or how "backwards" the Church is for teaching the truth about contraception?
There is a big problem here, and I hope Dulles' caveat about he not having heard anything "to his knowledge" means that he missed hearing some rightful criticism of Pope John Paul II. Remember, as "archconservative" as the mainstream media likes to paint Pope Benedict and as they liked to do the same for Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict was, surprisingly, suspected of heresy under Pope Pius XII, and Pope John Paul II verged into certain ecumenical territory that would seem to come perilously close to tampering with a few of Blessed Pope Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors."
With that said, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict are fantastic blessings of God for His Church. But, with all hope, the latter will roll back some of these abuses.

Anti Pelagian? An interesting comment. In the internet chats I am in invoved in ,it appears Augustine is embraced by Reformed theology (election and pre destination and no free will) and Pelagian Theology is called anti biblical. Would The Holy Father side with the Reformation and say man has no free will? I am not real familiar with either. Exactly what is Augustinian Thought and spirituality?

The last sentence or two makes paragraph 17 anti-Pelagian:
"Since man's freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God's grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower."
The Pelagian view asserts that man is in no need of aid in his pursuit of God - that sin is simply bad habit and not the result of an ontological defect in nature (i.e. Original Sin and its concupiscence). Perhaps it is not as enumerated as an Augustinian argument about the effect of Original Sin and the absolute need for grace (besides which, I don't think this is the only section of the Vatican 2 documents that deals with freedom of will), but, all the same, I think one would be hard pressed to label that paragraph Pelagian view with that sentence in the mix.

If I understand the Pelagian view correctly, it holds that the first steps are originated by the human will, rather than by the Holy Spirit. Reading paragraph 17, might indicate that the oppposite was not emphasized sufficiently, but since I haven't read the entire document in many years, I should go back and reread it.

Oh how I love most anything I hear about Pope Benedict. I especially like:
As a personalist in philosophy and as a theologian in the Augustinian tradition, he expects the Church to maintain a posture of prayer and worship. He is suspicious of technology, of social activism, and of human claims to be building the Kingdom of God.
This basically describes me too, except I couldn't call myself a theologian. I am especially glad that at least one infulential person in the Church (now Pope!) has not bought into the whole progress myth.
However, I wonder how he can call part of Gaudium et Spes actually Pelagian. Can anyone help me understand whether he is actually calling it heretical or just saying it reflects a Pelagian attitude? Also is a Pastoral Constitution of Vatican II considered Ordinary Magisterial teaching or something else?