A Halloween Special: The Spirit of Vatican II Doesn't Have to Be Scary

"Is the liturgy being lived as the 'origin and summit' of ecclesial life, in accordance with the teaching of Sacrosanctum Concilium? In the universal Church and in the particular Churches, is the ecclesiology of communion described in Lumen Gentium being strengthened? Does it leave room for charisms, ministries, and different forms of participation by the People of God, without adopting notions borrowed from democracy and sociology which do not reflect the Catholic vision of the Church and the authentic spirit of Vatican II? - Pope John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente 36

Every quotation of the Roman Missal here is from the Third Edition translated in English.

The phrase “Spirit of Vatican II” is perhaps one of the loosest phrases thrown around among Catholic circles. While no unified consensus of what it means is absent, we can be assured that the Church suffered a massive fallout after the Second Vatican Council.

The notion of Spirit of Vatican II is somewhat scary. Progressives often abuse the wordings of council documents, at times to a point of gross liturgical abuse. In reaction, radical traditionalists like SSPX refuse to accept the Second Vatican Council as legitimate. Those in the middle like myself are afraid that a schism might happen as progressives create further reactions from the right. Here, I point out that the Spirit of Vatican II doesn't have to be scary.   

The Catholic Church is growing at a rapid rate. The Church in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, South Korea, and even China are experiencing expansion. Despite the growth in the East, the Catholic Church in the West is categorically failing. It is not the case that modernity and religious life is incompatible. Highly developed countries like Poland still maintain strong Catholic identity and adherence to Catholic teachings. In fact, Poland’s adherence to Catholicism increased over the years.

One societal factor in the West - the Sexual Revolution - contributed to the decline of Western religiosity, to be sure. But it is apparent that there has been misconstrual of the “Spirit of Vatican II” in the West. In order to promote inclusivity, many sacrificed teaching the hard truths. That approach began in the late 60’s. Nowadays, outright heresy is celebrated and encouraged in many parishes. Because of the failures of the mistakes of previous generation, millennial cradle Catholics are, for the most part, incapable of engaging the complex theology of the Church intellectually and have no interest in doing so. What little knowledge of the Faith they have are derived from shallow readings of the scripture, and, further, many itch to weave secular political issues into every word of the gospel during bible studies instead of moral virtues that should be derived from the readings.

The stark difference in the way Catholicism is approached in the West and the East & Africa is ever more visible when we look to the theological and liturgical splits. The proposals of supposed doctrinal developments are always generated by cardinals and bishops from the West. In particular, cardinals and bishops from the United States and Germany (and places like Argentina where Germanic influences run strong). If we look to those who most strongly propose liturgical orthodoxy are not from the West. Cardinal Sarah is one of the Dubia cardinals, and Bishop Schneider of Kazakhstan implores communicants to not touch the Host. Ironically, the supposed strides toward inclusivity by Progressive Westerners are in fact making an elitist Euro-centric Vatican politics. 

Here, though I cannot hope to provide a definite answer to what “Spirit of Vatican II” should be, I can say with certainty that how the adherence to what the Council Fathers intended liturgically and communally is central to fixing the problems. The purpose of the liturgy is to draw the people toward the Eucharist and unity among the peoples. It is entirely reasonable to think, then, that the design of the Council Fathers, supposing that the Second Vatican Council was inspired by the Spirit, should be adhered to. I lay down my opinion what the authentic spirit of Vatican II is through Late Pope St. John Paul II's quote above.

Is the liturgy being lived as the "origin and summit" of ecclesial life?

Many questions can be asked as a sub-heading to this grand question. One question that is absolutely indicative of ecclesial life is: Is the Eucharist at the center of the liturgy in the current form as it is being celebrated? To rephrase the question: If an atheist who knows nothing about Catholicism were to walk into a Catholic church and passively observe the liturgy, what would one think is the center of the liturgy? 

Usage of Latin

"The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other kinds of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful."

"Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is desirable that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer, according to the simpler settings." §41

Latin is the universal language of the Church. The intent of the Fathers was to maintain a copious usage of Latin all the while reforming the liturgical language to fit the communal need of specific diocese. The reason, as stated above, is to have foreign laity be able to participate in the liturgy. A Korean not fluent in English cannot participate in an all-English liturgy, but he can do so in a liturgy that incorporated Latin. Pope Francis has decentralized translations through his Motu Propio recently, a move envisioned by Council Fathers, but has failed to advocate for a wider usage of Latin, one which Council Fathers also intended. If Latin is used during consecration and the immediate stages of the liturgy surrounding the consecration, the foreign laity gets to participate in the apex of the mass. I have been a foreigner in Catholic masses, and I found it regrettable that I could only passively observe.

So much for increasing the participation of the laity.

Usage of Latin and Gregorian chants can further answer the question posed. If a different language - a very ancient language at that - is used during consecration, it should immediately draw attention to the atheist in the hypothetical that there is something going on that's distinguishable from the other parts of the liturgy. Something special.

Even a charismatic church is able to incorporate Latin. I have seen charismatic masses that have reverently incorporated Latin, through a mode of music that is a type of spin-off of polyphony, to signify that consecration is about to happen. The chorus of the song of their choice was sung in Latin and in return drew attention to the consecration.

Ad Orientem

Another crucial element of the Roman Missal that is of note is that it does not order priests to carry out a mass versus populum. In fact, the language of the Missal is abundantly clear that ad orientem is still presupposed. 

The Missal deliberately orders priests to be "facing the people" on specific instances. §124, 138, 146 154, 157, 165. It furthermore likewise orders priests to be "facing the altar" on specific instances. §158. Note that "facing the altar" comes right after "facing the people" on §157, as if the people and the altar are not toward the same direction.

Consider how mass is celebrated nowadays. The priest is behind the altar and faces versus populum. Clearly, this was never intended by the Council Fathers. Like every form of mass before them, they thought that the masses will be celebrated ad orientem. Novus Ordo was originally intended to be celebrated ad orientem. But, without warning, 99.9% of masses nowadays are being celebrated versus populum. This is most likely due to a misinterpretation of a sentential structure that occurred in §299 in English. The translation of §299 in English can be wholly misleading when having in mind how the rest of the liturgical manual is written (e.g. §§157-158). But, as Brits and Americans started to do it, the rest of the world followed.

Note §299: "(1) The altar should be built separate from the wall, (2) in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, (3) which is desirable whenever possible." An instinctive thought would be that (3) modifies (2). That thought, however, does not make sense as to why §157 orders priests to turn toward the people while having them turn to the altar in §158. (Numbers inserted).

Note the following Latin version of §299 also: "Altare exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit." 

If we look to numerous sentential structures in Church Latin (and at times in Greek) that reflects a similar structure, it is much more likely than not that a dependent clause that comes between  an independent clause and another dependent clause serves as a clarifying clause that is dependent upon the first independent clause, and the third clause being the modifier of the first.

Simply open up a random page of the Summa and you will see what I am talking about.

Look too the three different clauses inserted. (1) is the only independent clause of the sentence. (2) and (3) are dependent clauses. It appears that many are interpreting the quote so as to have (2) modify (1) and (3) modify (2). This interpretation, as noted above, does not make sense in light of §§157-158. However, if we posit that both (2) and (3) modify the subject that is (1), §§157-158 make sense. The sentence makes sense if we take out (2): The altar should be built separate from the wall, which is desirable whenever possible. If we consider further that some churches are built in such a way that an erection of extra altar is impossible, this interpretation is seen to be correct. Further, (1) standing alone can imply (2). If the altar is built separate from the wall, it is commonsensical to think that something can pass between it and the original altar, namely, a person. 

The correct way to read the quote would be like thus: The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, [the architectural advantage] is desirable whenever possible.

The perceived inconsistency between §§157-158 and §299 makes sense, it appears to me, only when we presuppose that §299 merely leaves open the possibility of versus populum service as opposed to mandating the priests to celebrate mass versus populum wherever possible. 

There is wisdom in leaving the possibility for versus populum. In cases of large number of co-celebrants there is practicality in having priests surround the altar. In cases of a church lacking a large, noticeable crucifix, the seventh candle ought to be visible to the people, in which case versus populum would result in a more fruitful reverence toward Christ. Further, a separated altar gives the faithful the option to go behind it and adore the blessed sacrament within the tabernacle in close proximity. 

It is commonsensical to think that everyone should be facing the altar in a uniform direction for the focus should be Christ on the crucifix before consecration and the Eucharist during and after the consecration. But when the priest is facing the people always, the attention is drawn to whatever the priest is doing. Ironically, the the focus on the priest increased as a result of mistaken implementation of Vatican II when the intent was to draw the focus away from the clergy and onto the laity.  

Of course, there are always architectural difficulties of administering the mass ad oritentem always and everywhere. But, in my opinion, mass should be celebrated ad oritentem whenever possible. 

It is further of note that the notion of sacred architecture is all but gone. A multi-million dollar postmodern projects that look more like prisons are being erected while a simplistic church with traditional architecture of the same size can be built with half as much. It is of course impractical to erect a traditional church large enough to contain up to 3,000 people to meet the needs of increasing immigrant Catholics. It is a matter of practicality to build fan-shaped circular mega churches to have more parishioners seated. But these mega churches likewise spend more on a fancy fountain system whereas elegant altarpieces can be installed with the same price. Resources are being spent toward novelties as opposed to making architectural decisions that draw the attention to the tabernacle. A tragedy.

It should be noted here that, numerically, parishes that worship the liturgy ad orientem and with copious usage of Latin have better retention rates especially among the youth and much higher frequency of vocations. As a person who have observed multiple parishes this has been my experience. 

In the universal Church and in the particular Churches, is the ecclesiology of communion...being strengthened?

This question is perhaps more of a question for the Pope himself. In recent years, through the advice of German cardinals who have been flirting with Hegelian heresy, who consequently have better cultural ties with Lutheranism, the Pope has carried out multiple large-scale publicity stunts to connect with Lutherans. However, none of their sacraments are valid.

It will better serve the world at large for the Pope to strengthen connections with the Orthodox Church and SSPX. Considering the geopolitical tension between Russia and the West, a fraternal dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church can have a crucial effect toward world stability.

Despite the order made in Fatima to consecrate Russia, no pope has carried out this task.

Does it leave room for charisms, ministries, and different forms of participation by the People of God, without adopting notions borrowed from democracy and sociology which do not reflect the Catholic vision of the Church?

This particular question should be asked toward everyone. For the laity, are you asking the Church to implement things that are of secular, and possibly heretical, origin which you have grown fond of? For the priests, are you giving the laity what they want instead of administering tried and true methods toward holier community? In other words, the question is: is there a democratic and secular element that is influencing the liturgical and theological stance of a parish (or a diocese)?

One of the aims of Vatican II was renewal of consecrated life. This has not happened. In fact, the number of brothers, nun, priests, consecrated virgins, widows/widowers, etc. have all declined sharply after Vatican II. It becomes apparent why. All the things that are conducive to such vocational life - contemplation, cultivation of virtue or apotheosis, rigorous intellectual approach to theological understanding - are not being promoted by many parishes. There is a large gap to be filled by Catholic intellectual laity to teach the community on the theological matters. There is a pressing duty for Catholics to seek out theological authorities to be learned in the faith. The works of great Doctors of the Church are available free online; it is only up to the faithful to take advantage. 

Despite the great wealth of knowledge made available by, there is little initiative by the laity to learn of them. It is the job of the lay ministers and other participants to plant a spark of intellectual curiosity among the other laity. This kind of initiative is rare. It is a nigh miracle to hear the word "virtue" among the laity who are not learned theologically. 

Conclusion

I do not promote so-called traditionalism here. If favoring correct implementation of things Second Vatican Council intended is traditional, then so be it. But we must recognize that Western brand of Catholicism is categorically failing and has categorically failed. Mass retention rates are at an all-time low. There are increasing Catholics in the U.S, but they are mostly immigrants from Mexico and South America. German Catholicism is close to being exterminated, despite the monstrous wealth and influence over Vatican politics they possess. The number of priestly ordinations is on the rise despite the pitfall of 70s-90s (they are mostly the so-called traditionalists) but the rate is not high enough. It is abundantly clear: the Church in the West has failed whereas the Church in the East (including Eastern Europe) and Africa has successfully grown the Church, despite the temptations of modernity. Perhaps it's time to listen to what our non-Western friends are saying.

If any change is to be made, the focus needs to be turned back toward the Eucharist. Some are able to orient themselves without the help of the sort of liturgy I described. But they are in the extreme minority. Simply count the number of people lined up at confession and compare the numbers to those lined up for communion. Factor in the likelihood of a person not mortally sinning within a couple months, especially the teens.