Finished and Unfinished Business

by Jeffrey Miller December 11, 2005

written by Jeffrey Miller December 11, 2005

I recently finished reading an article by Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio in this month’s This Rock magazine which I found to be excellent. The article "Unfinished Business of Vatican II" can now also be found on his site. After an overview he starts out by pointing out what was actually implemented as a result of the actual teachings of the council before getting in to the subject of what still needs to be done.

Jeffrey Miller

No-fault marriage and annulments

20 comments

A Seminarian December 31, 1969 - 7:00 pm

Luckily Yves Congar has not replaced the teachings of Saint Thomas in the Seminary. (At least in my own, that odd time is/has end(ing)) The idea of pushing Thomas away is coming to a stern end and so is the Theology of the flower children.

Just because people are more educated and more technology is available is not an excuse to say that Vatican II was a failure. Human nature, like was stated, is such a large part of the problems that have stemmed in the last 40 years. From my own observations Vatican II is begining to be truly implemented, (sadly 40 years after the fact) and it is apparent in oh so many facets of Church life. (Not apparent in a few also)

I do strongly agree, a reform of the reform is needed, and I truly believe that the spirit is moving us in this direction. (Just look who became Pope!)

Dominic December 31, 1969 - 7:00 pm

I love this site so so so much 🙂 Cool site!!

John December 11, 2005 - 7:30 pm

Mr D’Ambosio, a solid thinker, comparison of Trent, where everything is written in a clear and concise manner (let him be anethema!), making a statement that it took 150 years for Trent to be implemented can only make one laugh that a so called intelligent “periti” at the council would make such a statement. Maybe he should look back at the year that Trent was held (1540’s)and that it took months for news to travel from one city to the next, the printing press to my knowledge was in its infancy if even invented at all yet, not to mention that most people at that time could not even read! Of course it took 150 years to implement, and let us not forget that this council was held to counter the reformation and to solidify the Catholic world or what was left of it. Vatican II was held to modernize and part with tradition and the past, no matter what spin is placed on it.

The church has had over 40 years to implement Vatican II in the way that is was “supposed to” , but has failed miserably. When one allows “periti” and theologians who were on the watch list as adversaries of the church by the pre councilar popes such as Yves Congar, whose writings have actually replaced the great St Thomas in the seminaries (and one wonders why their is a crisis in the priesthood) as well as Rahner, and even our Holy father, who was placed on the same list by Pope Pius XII. So one has to question why was the thinking of these men deemed not acceptable before the council but mainstream and acceptable afterwards? Was the church wrong for 1962 years?

This line of being implemented wrong, and have patience, etc is not acceptable to those that are seeing the church decay, and are not going to stand by idly. More and more catholics are taking up books and reading on what happened, and outside my church many leave handouts about the council, and to form groups and petitions for a Traditional Mass.

We want our children to have what we were denied growing up, a solid catechism, teachings, and morals. But with what I see in the parishes we attend, it is actually getting worse with more liberalism in the sermons and chatter among the laity.

The only thing that may take 150 years is for the church to actually come to the realization that a “reform of the reform” as Our Holy Father put it, is needed

John December 12, 2005 - 7:27 am

Well I can tell you for one what was being taught at Immaculate seminary in the 70’s in Huntington, but would rather not get into old history and pain. The previously forbiddent works of Congar and such were now made available and were more discussed than that of St Thomas. The questioning of the male priesthood and transubstantiation were the biggest topics with many being left with much doubt as to its validity. What is wrong with formation factories? Does the Army allow free thinking or just to learn the truth as past down from past generals as gospel?

The following was on Amy Welborne’s blog, a much commented about blog, and I for one after reading feel that if indeed the writings of Yves Congar are permitted into the seminaries, and they are indeed, and it makes our young men question their purpose and God as this young man did, then Congar belongs in Hell, though I am not the judge. The following is from the blog with the link. http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/11/vows.html

Vows: The Story of a Priest, a Nun and Their Son by Peter Manseau (linked on the right sidebar) is a fascinating book on a lot of levels, is evocative and thought-provoking. Short synopsis: Manseau’s father was ordained a priest for the Archdiocese of Boston in 1961. His mother took vows, as Sister Thomas Patrick of the Sisters of St. Joseph, in 1958. The met working among the poor in Roxbury, and ended up marrying in 1969.

Here is what I liked about this book: it is, in essence, about what motivates our decisions and our life choices. That’s the bigger tale here. Why did Bill Manseau want to be a priest? What external factors moved him in that direction? And Mary? Why did she become a religious sister? And Peter? What in the world led him to the point where he is at St. Joseph’s Abbey in Spencer, Massachusetts, contemplating embracing a life of celibacy decades after his own father had left it?

But back to the book – Bill Manseau was a part of a community of, for lack of a better term, ex-priests (one I am loathe to use because, you know, tu es sacredos in aeternam) in Boston in the 70’s and beyond, and Peter is sharp in his narrative of the gatherings at the home in which one of them would say Mass, what that was like for the children, and so on. What is amusing in the book is that Mary Manseau put up with her husband’s activism, but was not, to say the least, enthusiastic about it. There were even times when she would pack up the children after one of the ex-priests’ gatherings, and take them to the parish down the street for Mass.

Into all of this, three children are born, and Peter picks up the thread of his own relationship to the Church – initially enthusiastic and devout, then rebellious and finally, via Buddhism, once again open – open to the point that he seriously considered religious life. The trajectory is fascinating – the parents, “liberal Catholics,” had communicated their faith the best they could, and eventually, the son puts the pieces back together for himself.

One final point – in a way, this book began the process of clearing up a little mystery for me. Long time readers know that one of the great mysteries for me, intellectually, is how things, to put it bluntly, went to hell so fast for the American Catholic Church. Really, from 1965-1968 was the sea change. I have never understood this – how people who were trained in the pre-Vatican II Church, renowned for strictness and obedience, could, in a matter of three years, be presiding at Clown Masses, to use the overused metaphor.

Reading the accounts of the formation that both the Manseaus received…I began to get it. What they experienced was, in essence, vocation factories. Hundreds of years of seminary and religious life formation and training distilled into manuals and schedules. Bill Manseau started to think a little differently about things when, working in the seminary library, he began to read theological journals, works which seminarians were at the very least, not encouraged to read, if not outright forbidden. Congar, von Balthasar, etc…It makes sense to me now that when you combine a rapidly changing culture that emphasized freedom, a Church tentatively opening itself to that, and then a batch of religious who had been discouraged from thinking for themselves and who had lived under obedience in decidedly unhealthy ways – read the note Bill Manseau preserved, from a fellow seminarian, explaining why he could not accept Bill’s invitation to walk with him on the weekly walk for which they could choose one friend (never the same friend, of course) – it reads as if my 14 year old daughter had written it, albeit in more elevated language.

Some of us yearn for the good old days, and see them come back to life in some more “orthodox” seminaries. I think that it’s safe to say that much of the life and topics of study and reading in today’s orthodox seminaries would been forbidden and off limits in most of your regular diocesan seminaries in the good old days.