Article on Vatican II, Pastoral Council

[Ockham]

It’s simple, Ockham — stay on topic.

What I “think” about what traditionalists believe, is not the topic, and you keep trying to extort something to pin on me. Read my last post - I have no opinion!

Asking someone what they think isn’t off topic. You are dodging the topic by avoiding the questions people are asking you.

The Pope who concluded Vatican II and our current pontiff have stated that it was a Pastoral Council. “Extreme Traditionalists” seem to follow papal teaching in matters of discipline more as they only receive Holy Communion as Pope Paul VI asked, retained Latin in the liturgy and place the pipe organ in high regard. Using your premise, the ‘spirit of V2’ changes violated the Vatican I directive on papal authority. Would you agree?

 

[Sirach2]

My opening of this thread was only for FYI purposes so that others could reflect upon the content and save it, if they wished, I never anticipated much discussion.

Since charity has taken wing, I am going to leave and I ask the moderator to consider closing it. If you folks want to quibble among yourselves, kindly open another thread.

 

[mick321]

My opening of this thread was only for FYI purposes so that others could reflect upon the content and save it, if they wished, I never anticipated much discussion.

Since charity has taken wing, I am going to leave and I ask the moderator to consider closing it. If you folks want to quibble among yourselves, kindly open another thread.

Long overdue but better late than never.

Aloha.

 

[DavidPalm]

My opening of this thread was only for FYI purposes so that others could reflect upon the content and save it, if they wished, I never anticipated much discussion.

Since charity has taken wing, I am going to leave and I ask the moderator to consider closing it. If you folks want to quibble among yourselves, kindly open another thread.

Hmmmm. S2, you claim that your initial posting was only FYI and you didn’t anticipate much discussion. But further on in the thread you stated that,

What prompted me to post this link was the truth that many people promote the idea of “pastoral Council” to oppose authentic documents without any qualms of conscience, in their belief that these need not be given religious assent. Worse yet, these statements may occasion other readers of these posts to believe the error. . . .
What is very puzzling to me is why does this only occur with traditionalists? What is the mental block that prevented them from rejoicing in the spiritual guidance of the Lord from the hundreds of bishops/Cardinals who voted for and promulgated the V-II documents?

This would seem to indicate a broader motive than simply an FYI. And it seems to reflect a sort of broadbrush approach to traditionalists which, while too common, is not just or accurate. It is not simply a “mental block” that causes some individuals to have reservations about certain passages in the Second Vatican Council. It is a genuine concern for how they are to be harmonized with prior Church teaching.

In my opinion, a certain underlying animus to traditionalists does seem to be evident in your posting here. For example, a poster wrote, “However, when the popular (Unsanctioned) interpretation of a council document conflicts with what Popes and Councils previously taught, then we must object, discuss, and expect clarification.” He spoke of “popular” and “Unsanctioned” interpretations, which would ordinarily be taken to indicate unofficial, non-magisterial positions. And yet you responded with this: “Do you propose we act as Luther did with a formal protest or rebellion?”

You are the best judge of your own motives. But the evidence at least suggests that there is a bit more behind the initial posting than a simple FYI.

I think this thread can be fruitful, but it would be helpful if you would be a bit more specific about exactly what you’re addressing and then interacting meaningfully with the material that’s presented in response. I guess I would ask whether you’re actually interested in answers to the questions you posed above, interested in learning why traditionalists hold the positions they do? Or just interested in setting 'em straight?

 

[Sirach2]

David Palm:

---

Sirach2:

What prompted me to post this link was the truth that many people

******** promote the idea of “pastoral Council” to oppose authentic documents without any qualms of conscience, in their belief that these need not be given religious assent. Worse yet, these statements may occasion other readers of these posts to believe the error. . . .
You are the best judge of your own motives. But the evidence at least suggests that there is a bit more behind the initial posting than a simple FYI.
I think this thread can be fruitful, but it would be helpful if you would be a bit more specific about exactly what you’re addressing.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. I can understand your logic in viewing my posts as you did. But look closely at my wording “many people.” As I said in a recent post…
"The only purpose in beginning the thread is stated in my OP. It merely refers to “some.” That could mean either traditionalists or non-traditionalists.
David Palm:

What is very puzzling to me is why does this only occur with traditionalists?

What is the mental block that prevented them from rejoicing in the spiritual guidance of the Lord from the hundreds of bishops/Cardinals who voted for and promulgated the V-II documents? *
Now go back and read my previous post, “The article – not me – did point, however to “extreme” traditionalism.” The article’s characterization prompted me to ask “why does this only occur with traditionalists?”

Personally, I believe it could apply equally as well to non-traditionalists, as I stated, and either of them, IMO, would have a mental block that I do still find puzzling as to why this occurs, especially if it would be traditionalists. I have been taught from the cradle, as a traditionalist, to obey the Magisterium, and I have no difficulty with obedience. As one of my posts in this thread explained, not a single saint whose life I studied, has ever promoted disobedience, not even the example of the Lord Himself directing St. Teresa of Avila to obey her superior.

Is it not permitted to ask whether one who cannot obey would explore a solution similar to Luther’s? I assumed the poster would see the illogic in this. Irony does not call for a response, for people usually recognize it as such.

Now, I ask to be excused and leave in peace.

 

[Ockham]

It was an interesting thread. What I learned was two popes described Vatican II as pastoral and that traditional Catholics follow the directive from Vatican I very closely.

In short, Catholic Tradition maintains we must submit to the Roman Pontiff in matters of discipline and governance, which encompass the pastoral application of doctrine, and not merely in faith and morals. As Catholics, we cannot become like Martin Luther, who, at the Diet of Worms, allegedly stated, “I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other.”

There would have been far less liturgical chaos following V2 had everyone followed papal authority.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

It was not overlooked, but yes, ignored. When a poster makes accusations that I am a “proven true dissenter,” without a shred of evidence, and without investigating with a question of what I believe or disbelieve, then I do not dignify the statement with a reply.

For the record, I did not claim that “Vatican II exercised an extraordinary magisterium.” I made no claim whatsoever other than to present the article. Apparently, I hit a raw nerve with some traditionalists who would like to keep their comfort zone in tact.

Upon rereading things, I must offer an apology. I was working under the assumption that you were claiming it was impossible to dissent from the teachings of the council. Apparently, since you claim no extraordinary magisterium for the council, you agree that its documents may contain error and that someone honestly convinced of that error after exercising due diligence in research could thus privately dissent from its teaching. It just seemed odd that you would post an article in defense of - and vociferously engage others on behalf of - this limited authority of the council which all but the sedevacantist must logically accord it.

 

[Adeodatus]

I’m reading an interesting book on this right now: Days of Storm and Ruin. It’s currently only available on Lulu:

lulu.com/product/paperback/days-of-storm-and-ruin/12575506?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1

One of its theses (the author Juris Doctor but not a Canonist) is that Lumen Gentium contains a legal defect: it claims to speak for a Church that “subsists in” the Roman Catholic Church. This is a technical abdication of Apostolic authority and therefore does not bear the guarantee of Indefectability. By its own admission, contends the author, the 2nd Vatican Council is on the authoritative level of a mere synod and its documents are not binding on all Catholics.

The book is about more than this, but I thought that was an interesting point given the discussion.

 

[MarkThompson]

I’m reading an interesting book on this right now: Days of Storm and Ruin. It’s currently only available on Lulu:

lulu.com/product/paperback/days-of-storm-and-ruin/12575506?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1

One of its theses (the author Juris Doctor but not a Canonist) is that Lumen Gentium contains a legal defect: it claims to speak for a Church that “subsists in” the Roman Catholic Church. This is a technical abdication of Apostolic authority and therefore does not bear the guarantee of Indefectability. By its own admission, contends the author, the 2nd Vatican Council is on the authoritative level of a mere synod and its documents are not binding on all Catholics.

The book is about more than this, but I thought that was an interesting point given the discussion.

Interesting.

There’s a Vincent LaVigna in Texas with a JD from an undisclosed school who does not practice and advertises as a “Catholic psychotherapist” (“I’m an action oriented therapist. I provide a safe place where you can explore your life’s problems.”), and a Vince LaVigna who is the business manager of a Catholic parish in Orlando, but does not appear to have a law degree. Any idea which one this is?

 

[Adeodatus]

Interesting.

There’s a Vincent LaVigna in Texas with a JD from an undisclosed school who does not practice and advertises as a “Catholic psychotherapist” (“I’m an action oriented therapist. I provide a safe place where you can explore your life’s problems.”), and a Vince LaVigna who is the business manager of a Catholic parish in Orlando, but does not appear to have a law degree. Any idea which one this is?

Yes, actually. He’s the one in Texas. He goes to my church. According to the back cover blurb, his JD is from Whittier Law School. He also has a BA in Philosophy and a MA in “Counseling Psychology”. I think in the parish bulletin he advertises himself as a “Life Coach”, but I’ve never retained his services in that or any matter. It’s more of a coffee and bundt cake kind of thing. Nice fellow, and very smart.

 

[DavidPalm]

Personally, I believe it could apply equally as well to non-traditionalists, as I stated, and either of them, IMO, would have a mental block that I do still find puzzling as to why this occurs, especially if it would be traditionalists. I have been taught from the cradle, as a traditionalist, to obey the Magisterium, and I have no difficulty with obedience. As one of my posts in this thread explained, not a single saint whose life I studied, has ever promoted disobedience, not even the example of the Lord Himself directing St. Teresa of Avila to obey her superior.

Is it not permitted to ask whether one who cannot obey would explore a solution similar to Luther’s? I assumed the poster would see the illogic in this. Irony does not call for a response, for people usually recognize it as such.

Okay S2, well I did want to comment on some things you said, but of course it’s entirely up to you whether you choose to reply or not.

What threw me is that although you state again that, "“The only purpose in beginning the thread is stated in my OP. It merely refers to ‘some.’ That could mean either traditionalists or non-traditionalists”, you also said,

What is very puzzling to me is why does this only occur with traditionalists? What is the mental block that prevented them from rejoicing in the spiritual guidance of the Lord from the hundreds of bishops/Cardinals who voted for and promulgated the V-II documents?

It’s that emphasis (your emphasis, BTW) on “only…traditionalists” that continues to confuse me.

Permit me to present two examples of instances in which non-traditionalist but orthodox Catholics basically reject the teaching of the Catholic Church on the basis of what they perceive to be changed teachings at Vatican II. The first is the separation of Church and State. As I believe was demonstrated in an article in the New Oxford Review, the solemn teaching of the Church, reiterated repeatedly by the Popes, is that it is “the State’s obligation to ‘favor [the Catholic] religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws’” (citing Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 6).

But strangely, lots of ostensibly orthodox Catholics reject this teaching of the Catholic Church and frequently draw upon Dignitatis Humanae from Vatican II, even though this document explicitly stated that it “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ” (Dignitatis Humanae 1). You can see an example of this dissent in this thread, but it happens all the time in this forum.

A second example is on biblical inerrancy. The Popes repeatedly and solemnly taught that, “we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture. . . . Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and thus no error can occur in the inspired text” (Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus 20-21; my emphasis) and, in the summation of Pope Pius XII:

Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,’ since divine inspiration ‘not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.’ This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously (Divino Afflante Spiritu 3-4; my emphasis).

What part of “never”, “any”, “every”, “without the slightest exception”, “no error”, and “absolutely wrong and forbidden” do Catholics not understand? But you will commonly see ostensibly orthodox Catholics, even of the stature of Fr. Joseph Fessio and Cardinal Pell, stating that Dei Verbum 11 of Vatican II changes this teaching such that inerrancy only applies to those things which God put in Scripture for the sake of our salvation and that, therefore, there can be actual errors in the rest. That is not the only way Dei Verbum 11 can be read and the footnotes refer back to Leo XIII’s solemn teaching indicating strongly that the Fessio/Pell/et al. interpretation is wrong.

So why don’t these ostensibly orthodox Catholics simply rejoice in the spiritual guidance of the Lord, given through the repeated solemn teachings of the Popes, and prefer instead to see that teaching overthrown at a council which explicitly disavowed changing any Church teaching and did not issue any extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements?

I don’t know. But I do know that this “spirit of Vatican II” business is not simply the domain of open dissenters and modernists, those bad guys and gals “out there”, but very much infects even those who strive to be faithful to the Church. And so I say that traditionalists are very much right to be cautious when we are asked to affirm our belief in Vatican II. For my part, I want to be very clear on just what interpretation of Vatican II I’m being asked to believe, because it is by no means guaranteed that it will be in harmony with the teaching of the Church. It is why we so badly need official, solemnly promulgated explanations of how certain passages of Vatican II are to be harmonized with the teaching of the Church.

 

[StTommyMore]

It was an interesting thread. What I learned was two popes described Vatican II as pastoral and that traditional Catholics follow the directive from Vatican I very closely.

In short, Catholic Tradition maintains we must submit to the Roman Pontiff in matters of discipline and governance, which encompass the pastoral application of doctrine, and not merely in faith and morals. As Catholics, we cannot become like Martin Luther, who, at the Diet of Worms, allegedly stated, “I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other.”

There would have been far less liturgical chaos following V2 had everyone followed papal authority.

'Pastoral" does not mean “non-dogmatic.” Yes there were no clearly presented dogmas in the form. “If any says X, let him be anathema,” but at the same time there were very strong statements made reiterating the historic teaching of that Church, and as such are dogmatic, infallible statements.

 

[Ockham]

Such as?

 

[StTommyMore]

Such as?

“To these problems there are those who presume to offer dishonorable solutions indeed; they do not recoil even from the taking of life. But the Church issues the reminder that a true contradiction cannot exist between divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to authentic conjugal love.” (GS 51)

This is a clear condemnation of abortion and artificial birth control.

In GS 20-21, there is a firm condemnation of lassiaz-faire capitalism and Marxism.

Also, in GS 27:

“Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of theor like ar infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.”

Maybe it is just me, but these are strong statements free of ambiguity, and are just as much condemnations as the condemnations from previous councils.