Are the documents of Vatican II the only untouchable Teachings?

[Genesis315]

To be fair, Cardinal Ratzinger complained about the same thing as the OP:

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of “super-dogma” which takes away the importance of all the rest.

This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy—the form in which the liturgy was handed down—suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the Faith—for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc.—nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I myself, when I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the Council, had fired a teacher who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of speech, was not prepared, after the Council, to dismiss a professor who openly denied certain fundamental truths of the Faith.

Whole address linked below:

Library : Cardinal Ratzinger's Remarks Regarding the Lefebvre Schism | Catholic Culture

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I am constantly meeting people who think like those he is describing. The overwhelming majority of Catholics of my acquaintance are regular attendees of the Ordinary Form.

How does attending the OF mean you think and act like the Archbishop has stated?

 

[commenter]

We have read endless addresses in which the defenders of the Council have written off the Canons of Trent , the Syllabus of Error s of Blessed Pius IX, the encyclical Pascendi of St. Pius X, and Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Paul VI as “outdated.””

I agree that Pascendi was important and still relevant. But Pascendi, among other things, opposed any supposed Catholic media ministries that are not in union with their ordinary.

Is 1p5, where this appeared, still not in union with the Church? What about Pascendi?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Today archbishop Viganò has written:

“Vatican II is regarded as untouchable, but this does not apply – according to its supporters – to any other magisterial document or to Sacred Scripture. We have read endless addresses in which the defenders of the Council have written off the Canons of Trent , the Syllabus of Error s of Blessed Pius IX, the encyclical Pascendi of St. Pius X, and Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Paul VI as “outdated.””

Does anyone agree with him, that this is a widespread view among today’s Catholics?

I don’t know how “widespread” it is, but I definitely agree.

I’ve discussed this on CAF before, but I see a tendency among many towards what I call “recentism” — “put everything behind you that is not the current usage of the Church, don’t read old catechisms, just stick with the present Catechism, stick to modern translations of the Bible, stick to the Ordinary Form, focus on where we are now as the Church, and leave the past where it belongs — the Holy Spirit has brought the Church to where it is, in the here and now, for a good reason, and that’s where our minds and hearts need to be as well”.

Here are the hot topics often disputed:

Capital Punishment
Ordaining Women
LGBT Beliefs
Pachamama
Infant Baptism
ExtraEcclesiam Nulla Salus
Condemnation of Sin/ evil
Socialism/communism

Amongst many more…

Don’t forget contraception — though it’s really not “disputed”, 92 percent of American Catholics have just dismissed it out of hand.

Ordinary Catholics don’t sit around reading old Catholic documents, unless they are converts who were on some kind of truth-seeking mission before they joined the Church. Such documents are only known by scholars, traditionalists, and the handful of Catholics who get really into reading and learning about the faith.

People are mostly just aware of things that happen in their own lifetime and maybe in their parents’ lifetime.

See my comments above.

I read that old stuff constantly.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You are not the norm. The fact that you are a “homeschool dad” and post here regularly are two things that make you very different from the average guy I meet at Sunday Mass.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I’m not even sure “recentism” to the extent that it exists is a huge problem. If we can agree that doctrinal principles are eternal, then what’s the harm in defaulting to the more recent document? It’s going to be much more accessible and familiar to the average person.

I’m not saying older documents should be discarded, but the fact is that I’m not living in 12th century Italy. I’m probably going to relate much better to the document written more recently. Also, if you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church, then it’s not crazy to think that the more recent document, while not “better” than the older, is more suited to the moment the Church finds itself.

There’s a reason it’s much easier for me to read, say, Chesterton than Origen. I’m an educated person who reads dense texts for a living, but the cultural framework I grew up in is just way closer to the formers.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I’d also note that if recentism is a danger, so is antiquarianism, where something is assumed to be better just by virtue of being older.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

You are not the norm. The fact that you are a “homeschool dad” and post here regularly are two things that make you very different from the average guy I meet at Sunday Mass.

I’ve kind of figured that out by now

Yes, precisely. That’s part of the problem of “recentism”.

I’m not even sure “recentism” to the extent that it exists is a huge problem. If we can agree that doctrinal principles are eternal, then what’s the harm in defaulting to the more recent document? It’s going to be much more accessible and familiar to the average person.

I’m not saying older documents should be discarded, but the fact is that I’m not living in 12th century Italy. I’m probably going to relate much better to the document written more recently. Also, if you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church, then it’s not crazy to think that the more recent document, while not “better” than the older, is more suited to the moment the Church finds itself.

There’s a reason it’s much easier for me to read, say, Chesterton than Origen. I’m an educated person who reads dense texts for a living, but the cultural framework I grew up in is just way closer to the formers.

I wholeheartedly agree, that recent texts, written to appeal to the intellect and attention span of modern man, are generally easier to read than older texts. I have tried to read passages from, for instance, Billy Budd and Silas Marner, and I’m sorry, it’s just too dense, the sentences are more like modern paragraphs would be. Ayn Rand is bad enough, again, I’m sorry, but trying to read Atlas Shrugged, I finally had to say “this woman had some sort of problem”. Modern people deeply dislike being pushed to read a narrative that makes huge demands on their attention span, and I would be as guilty of this as anyone, probably more so.

Some of the classical works get “Englished” very nicely. TAN’s edition of the Catechism of the Council of Trent reads like a thoroughly modern text, i.e., adapted for the 20th century.

I’d also note that if recentism is a danger, so is antiquarianism, where something is assumed to be better just by virtue of being older.

Quite right. The balance lies in the middle.

 

[commenter]

People are leaving out the Living Magisterium. There is a difference between Catholicism and EO.

There’s a new kind of Cafeteria Catholicism around. Everyone picks and chooses which dead pope and dead bishop Ordinary they will obey, it’s so much easier than obeying living ones.

This is a kind of “solo Traditio” which leads to the same contradictory madness as sola scriptura. In the history of the Church, Vatican 1 is “recent” so you gonna disregard that, like to be Old Catholics?

Even Trent is “recent” so disregard that because you rely on the First Seven Councils?

The living magisterium not only interprets scripture but tradition. Vigano seems to allow no role for it.

 

[commenter]

I’d also note that if recentism is a danger, so is antiquarianism, where something is assumed to be better just by virtue of being older.

Quite right. The balance lies in the middle.
[/quote]
How do you know, sometimes the middle sometimes somewhere else. Depends.

Who, exactly, decides where the balance should lie on a given topic? The individual or the living Magisterium?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

There’s a new kind of Cafeteria Catholicism around. Everyone picks and chooses which dead pope and dead bishop Ordinary they will obey, it’s so much easier than obeying living ones.

You know, I will actually concede that this could be a problem.

The answer is to look to the entire history of the Church.

Who, exactly, decides where the balance should lie on a given topic? The individual or the living Magisterium?

The living magisterium, but we are entirely within our rights, as Catholic faithful, to ask how more recent teachings are to be interpreted in light of previous ones.

 

[otjm]

“Vatican II is regarded as untouchable,

This is the first time I have ever heard that comment. And I was in college during the Council.

but this does not apply – according to its supporters – to any other magisterial document or to Sacred Scripture.

It is always wonderful to see a comment such as this, with absolutely no facts backing it up. A) I have no clue as to what he means by "any other document (being untouchable). What does “Touchable” mean to him?

We have read endless addresses in which the defenders of the Council have written off the Canons of Trent , the Syllabus of Error s of Blessed Pius IX, the encyclical Pascendi of St. Pius X, and Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Paul VI as “outdated.””

He must be running around with a different crowd than I have. I have known probably close to 100, if not more priests; 7 archbishops and 3 auxiliary bishops and not a single one of them has ever made any such statement or made any such address. Nor have they made any that even hinted at such.

Does anyone agree with him, that this is a widespread view among today’s Catholics?

I have never heard any Catholic make any such statements, nor even imply them.

The Archbishop has made some strange comments in the recent past, and there have been implications he may have slipped a cog or two in his recent years. The more he comes out with such statements, the more it seems… odd.

 

[umamibella]

I am typing up some of the transcript of Bishop Barrons podcast on attacks on Vatican II in his talk " Pope Francis and Vatican II"

1. There is no higher authority in the Church then an Ecumenical Council, summoned by and presided over by the successor of Peter. Therefore To say then that the documents of Vatican II are fatally flawed, heretical, the product of nefarious infiltration of enemies of the Church, even susceptable to cherry picking on the part of critical commentators , to say any of that is simply inimical to the integrity of the church Catholic.
2. Some say Vatican II is simply a pastoral council, not a doctrinal council, nonsense! Doctrinal issues, think of the nature of the church, the human person, the moral life, sacraments, nature of the priesthood and episcopacy, meaning of the liturgy, the social doctrine of the church… all of that is doctrinal matter and it runs right through the documents of Vatican II.
3. Even if we admit the overall purpose of Vatican II was pastoral, that says nothing against its authority, against the integrity and authority of its documents.
4. ( I love this bit) Oh you know what some people say … “I like 85% of the council, its just that pesky 15 % i dont like” So I ask, " how much of the Nicene creed do you like, how much of Vatican 1 do you like, what % of Trent do you accept? 70%" ? There is a name for this process , at the risk of sounding unecumenical, that name is protestantism.
   If you allot to yourself how much of an ecumencial council you are going to accept well thats just private judgement and it leads to division of the church.

 

[umamibella]

He goes on to talk about back in the 70s the communio group of theologians (Ratzinger , etc) broke with the concillium theologians. they gave 3 reasons for the break, 1 of these Bishop Barron thinks applies today also. They worried the concillium theologians wanted to perpetuate the spirit of the vatican council. They said you dont want to perpetuate a council. 20 times in 2000 years, the church has paused and determined some great question. Then it turns away from the council and gets back to its basic work. A perpetual council is a church constantly debating. They did not want that. They said they settled something at Vatican II and now time to get back to the work of the church in the world.

In the 70s reference, Bishop Barron took this to mean as against the left but today it is against the extreme right. Especially in social media. The extreme right want to reopen the questions of Vatican II.

The council is settled teaching according to the ecclesiology of the church.
The job now is to get on with the great work of Vatican II.

He goes on to share what he thinks is the main work of this council.
Vatican II was primarily a missionary council as stated by his mentor Cardinal George.

For the rest of this excellent talk google Bishop Barron “Pope Francis and Vatican II”

 

[Genesis315]

even susceptable to cherry picking on the part of critical commentators , to say any of that is simply inimical to the integrity of the church Catholic.

I agreed with a lot of what he says, but I don’t think this one makes sense. Even the divinely inspired Scriptures are susceptible to this. The Church even immediately acknowledged the Council of Trent was susceptible to this. Pope Pius IV issued the bull Benedictus Deus, which imposed a latae sententiae excommunication on anyone who, without the approval of the Holy See, presumed “to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.” The reason the Bull gave was to avoid the “perversion and confusion” arising from private interpretations of the Council’s decrees. Unfortunately, immediately after Vatican II “perversion and confusion” from various interpretations was allowed to (and sometimes encouraged) to run wild.

“I like 85% of the council, its just that pesky 15 % i dont like”

I think it depends on the contents of each percentage, the intent of those percentages, and an evaluation of the circumstances. Clearly those decisions resting on human wisdom intended for a particular time can be criticized. As an extreme example, there are aspects to ecumenical Councils of the past that would horrify Catholics today and be condemned in the severest terms, like the execution of heretics or requiring Jews to wear special identifying clothing, etc. Bishop Barron mentions the Council of Trent, but even it contains worthy practical directives which were later criticized and changed. So does Nicea (ever notice that we kneel on Sunday when Nicea says don’t?). Just as we cannot deny the permanent doctrine espoused by the Councils, so must we treat them equally when it comes to their practical directives.

As Vatican II says of itself, “Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one” and that, with regard to the latter, one must keep in mind “the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves.” St. John XXIII’s opening speech provides the intended context for the Council’s pastoral approach and choices. Cannot a Christian conscience, as a practical dictate, object to the expediency of such transitory elements in view of their fruits as circumstances change (which they did almost immediately after the Council)? Is not a refusal to do so the very rigidity condemned by Pope Francis? Surely such change, as well as new or tried-and-true approaches can be advocated with due respect for those with the authority to make those changes. If not, those needed changes may never be made known or made.

 

[Crusader13]

Yes, absolutely agree. There are quite a few posts that are popping up on this forum in reference to Vatican II.

The common theme seems to be, as someone described it, the Church has always thought A & B. Vatican II came along and said that in addition to A & B, the church now recognizes C.

The only problem is that C seems to contradict A& B. Yet the fault is not with C, it’s with those who are having trouble accepting C. Therefore everyone who disagrees with C is divisive and too traditionalist minded and not obedient to the magisterium.

So when it comes time to get clarification on what C means, we get several different interpretations. Lol

 

[umamibella]

I agreed with a lot of what he says, but I don’t think this one makes sense. Even the divinely inspired Scriptures are susceptible to this. The Church even immediately acknowledged the Council of Trent was susceptible to this. Pope Pius IV issued the bull Benedictus Deus, which imposed a latae sententiae excommunication on anyone who, without the approval of the Holy See, presumed “to publish in any form any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia on, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of this council.” The reason the Bull gave was to avoid the “perversion and confusion” arising from private interpretations of the Council’s decrees. Unfortunately, immediately after Vatican II “perversion and confusion” from various interpretations was allowed to (and sometimes encouraged) to run wild.

Inimical meaning tending to obstruct or harm.

The fruits if this council are still silently growing. The dust is still settling on what he says is a very interesting way it was implemented and interpreted back in the day.
We have to turn from it and get back to the work of the church, and to the crucial, main work of this council.

He also thinks if Meyer (hope I spelt that right) had not died 6 months after he came back to USA, Chicago, after his major participation in the council, It would have been much better understood. We went through the stupid era, that time is done. We got to move on from those days.

He says the real mission of Vatican II is to christify the world, not to modernize the church.

The church does not have a mission, the church is a mission.

How are you bringing the lumen to the gentas.

Pope Francis is all about mission and going out to the world.

 

[commenter]

++ <Vigano refers to Vatican Council supporters as if that were an odd subgroup within the Church, like Medugorge supporters or Speaking in Tongues supporters.

Them. Those people.

There is a term for those who support all the Church’s ecumenical councils and the Living Magisterium: Practicing Catholics.

There is also a term for those who insist on the individual’s right to pick and choose which aspects of revelation, which church documents, appeal to Me personally, the informed consumer. The royal Me.

That term is Protestant.

 

[umamibella]

Watch this.

 

[Maximian]

Just recently a lady who is a very regular Mass goer told me that “the Mass isnt a Sacrifice any more, it’s a celebration of love”