Obedience to Vatican II

[elzoro]

What I Have Lost

Saturday, February 3, 2007
The Evil Traditionalist Blog

I’m already dissatisfied with the title of this post, because I don’t think that it will encapsulate what I want to express here.

I realized this morning when my wife was getting ready to make the longish trip into DC for First Saturday Mass that I was only considering going because I would feel guilty for not going. I had no desire whatsoever to make the trip just so I could fight with a squirming toddler for an hour during a poorly said indult Mass punctuated by a vapid homily.

I mentioned my mixed motivations to my wife, and she immediately told me, “Then don’t go. You should go because you love Him, not because you feel guilty for not going.”

I knew this immediately to be true. The guilt diminished only slightly, however. After all, Our Blessed Mother told us the inestimable value of First Saturday (none of which I could explain from memory) and etc., etc., so forth and so on.

But the truth is, I didn’t really care. I wanted to sit at home, eat a leisurely breakfast, do some reading, and enjoy my day off. And ultimately, that is the problem, I recognized, with my faith:

I no longer enjoy it.

I’m certain that many who will read this will find themselves seized with the irresistable impulse to inform me in no uncertain terms that it’s not about “enjoying it,” that I will only get out of it what I put in, that I need a stronger spiritual life, and any number of well-trod maxims of Catholic “wisdom.”

And the truth is, I know all of this, but it changes nothing. I have never been very successful at the deeper parts of the spiritual life, because I am cursed with finding them dry and uninviting. It has always been the intellectual side of the faith which has been so passionate for me, because it is so brilliantly engaging. There is no faith so well thought out and so rich in mental sustenance as is the Catholic faith. And it is for this reason above all others that I used to quite enjoy my faith - even through all of my other notable imperfections.

This is not to say that I have no deeper inclinations as well. Something I am becoming forced to accept about myself is that I am an intensely emotional man. I am often angry or sad; I am less often though still passionately happy or excited; but I am never any of these for very long, and one is usually either replaced by another or by nothing at all, rather a pervasive sense of apathy about everything.

Without bothering to psychoanalyze my unfortunate temperament and emotional immaturities, I will assert that they strongly shape the landscape of my daily experience. I am at times emotional about my faith and I am at times apathetic about it. These reasons contribute to the fact that my anchor is intellectual Catholicism - it remains constant.

But considering the crumbling framework of intellectual Catholicism, I’ve begun to lose my moorings. I have grown bone weary of the struggle for substance in the faith; for the bait and switch rumors of greater freedom for the True Mass; for the minimalist acceptance of the scraps of Catholicism accepted by the majority of my family and friends. The fact that I have had to pay to fly a priest across the country so my son can be baptized appropriately boggles my mind. Every day, the struggle to find the most basic expression of the Catholic faith that any saint in heaven would recogize has turned me cold.

Today, I finally began reading Martin Mosebach’s The Heresy of Formlessness, which my wife bought for me for Christmas. In the second chapter, Mosebach recounts the following story:

Quote:
…a group of women who were in the habit of praying together began looking after the altar linen. I would like to tell you about these women. One day they asked the person in charge of the chapel what happened to the used purificators, that is, the cloths the priest uses to wipe away the remains of the consecrated wine from the chalice. He told them that they were put in the washing machine along with the other things. At the next Mass the women brought a little bag they had made specially, and afterward they asked for the used purificator and put it in the bag. What did they want it for? “Don’t you see? It is impregnated with the Precious Blood: it isn’t right to pour it down the drain.” The women had no idea that in former times the Church did indeed require the priest himself to do the initial washing of the purificator and that afterward the wash water had to be poured into the sacrarium or into the earth; but they just could not allow this little cloth to be treated like ordinary laundry; instinctively they carried out the prescriptions of an ancient rule - albeit one that is no longer observed. One of these women said, “It’s like washing the Baby Jesus’ diapers.” I was a bit taken aback to hear this. I found this folk piety a little too concrete. I observed her washing the purificator at home after praying the Rosary. She carried the wash water into the front garden and poured it in a corner where particularly beautiful flowers grew…

universalindult.org

 

[bear06]

…but it appears that this very thing has happened. Souls were and are being led astray by following the “teaching authority”…then by Her own teaching…the Church tells us that these are false shepherds and must be rejected.

Well, you can now add the above quote to the one I already asked you about below.

except we can’t follow them because they are teaching error and approving false disciplines

Would you mind elaborating?

 

[elzoro]

One of the major differences between Conservatives and Traditionalists is that most Conservatives (I would love to take a poll of this) view Vatican II as an infallible council. This is incredibly significant, because it shapes the way that they communicate and interact with each other. For example, if a Traditionalist criticizes V2 in ANY way (not even saying it’s “wrong” here and there) the Conservative response would be that the Traditionalist is criticizing an infallible council, and that is contrary to the Catholic Faith. One might as well criticize Nicea or Vatican I,Catholics accept these infallible councils because that is part (foundational) to the Catholic faith. It is tantamount to heresy (if pertinacious and unrepentent). If I, as a Traditionalist say the “reform” of the traditional Sacraments was not prudent or just plain wrong, the Conservative response would be that I cannot hold that position. The “reform” was an infallible decison. The Holy Spirit guided the decision to “reform” the Sacraments in V2.
This sound familiar??

 

[RobedWithLight]

Patrick,

You have misunderstood my response. I was merely pointing out that we laymen do not follow ecumenical councils…we follow the teaching authority of the Church. Now, the Church teaches that She cannot lead souls astray…but it appears that this very thing has happened. Souls were and are being led astray by following the “teaching authority”…then by Her own teaching…the Church tells us that these are false shepherds and must be rejected.

Gorman

What “Church” specifically are you referring to which is “telling” us that the Pope and the Council are “false” shepherds? Would you care to specify? Do you speak for this “Church”?

 

[Jake_Connor]

For all those who say Vatican II is “ambiguous”, I hear this all the time yet I don’t hear even one example given from a V2 document. The reason of course is because there are no “ambiguous” statements that came from Vatican II, so people throw this false “ambiguous” phrase around and leave it at that, hoping that no one challenges them to it. Well guess what? I am throwing the gauntlet down and waiting for a challenger…

 

[arieh0310]

It seemed to have mainly dealt with the Knights Templars (back when they were good and merely condemned due to French politics) and some sort of stillborn crusade.

Not particularly dogmatic. Not particularly disciplinary. Not particularly unequivocal. Not particularly important. Yet, still Ecumenical. And yet, what do I today have to assent to from the council of Vienne? Not much.

Actually, the Council of Vienne did in fact define some things in a dogmatic nature that are very pertinent to us today, such as:

In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.

or:

All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith’. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children.

I think that the Thomistic view of human persons being a body/soul composite is pretty important, as is the regenerative nature of the baptism of infants.

I think the Council of Constance is vitally important because is settled who of three claimants to the See of Peter was in fact the pope.

Now, I am not saying that Vatican II is valueless, there are some passages that are wonderfully clear (like abortion is murder). I just find it odd why Vatican II called at all. What heresies that were ravaging the Church were condemned, what areas of theology that were confused or speculative were clarified? As I said before, it seems to have just been an essay contest.

 

[AlexV]

The issue with Vatican II is indeed ambiguity.

Consider the Constitution on the Liturgy. It says many nice things about the liturgy. It says a few specific things:

1. Prime is to be abolished. Apparently, “infallible” or not, this can be ignored in practice…even after the Council, some religious orders received permission to retain it. And, of course, the traditionalist orders retain it today.
2. Vespers on Sundays are to be celebrated publically. This isn’t even observed in the pope’s own church.

Consider Gaudium et Spes. That’s a marvel of nice sentiments and ambiguous, vague remarks on the state of man in the modern world. What does it actually SAY? Quite little. Go read it.

 

[arieh0310]

Also, as an aside, I find it interesting that the new traditionalist institute, The Institute of the Good Shepherd, has been given permission to criticize the teachings of Vatican II in a way that is serious and constructive and in accord with Pope Benedict XVI’s address of December 22, 2005 to the Roman Curia, while recognizing that it is for the Apostolic See to give the authentic interpretation.

 

[rr1213]

You Catholics tell us that we can’t read Scripture for ourselves, that we engage in private interpretations and make ourselves Popes. You say that our orders are invalid and our Eucharist a sham. You say that we are schismatics, heretics and most likely, if not certain, to perish. You say that the Church is infallable regarding faith and morals, that the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church, that the Magisterium is a living authority with the power to bind and lose and that for our own salvation we must submit to it. And then you can’t agree among yourselves whether Vatican II is a binding or not, taught heresy or not, was good for the Church or not. Who’s in charge here?

 

[Loy]

Who’s in charge here?

The pope. That’s why we don’t worry too much about the minor squabbles. The Holy Spirit eventually guides the Church to a definitive resolution of these conflicts. When the pope makes a formal declaration that the matter is settled, and the requirements of infallibility have been fulfilled, we know that the Holy Spirit has spoken through him.

 

[Genesis315]

We don’t just have to obey our lawful superiors in matters of dogma, but also in their pastoral directives–of which there are many issued by the Second Vatican Council. One should read the documents and put into action those that apply to your state in life.

As an aside, Lateran I is a good example of an ecumenical council without any dogmatic decrees.

Likewise, following the logic of the OP, that would mean that all the encyclicals by popes that were not definitve and solemn proclamations to be held by all the faithful, are therefore meaningless. And yet, I continue to see self-procliamed traditionalists cling to even the disciplinary decrees as if they were issued before the dawn of time by God-Almighty.

 

[maurin]

You Catholics tell us that we can’t read Scripture for ourselves, that we engage in private interpretations and make ourselves Popes. You say that our orders are invalid and our Eucharist a sham. You say that we are schismatics, heretics and most likely, if not certain, to perish. You say that the Church is infallable regarding faith and morals, that the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church, that the Magisterium is a living authority with the power to bind and lose and that for our own salvation we must submit to it. And then you can’t agree among yourselves whether Vatican II is a binding or not, taught heresy or not, was good for the Church or not. Who’s in charge here?

I am sure that you meant to say , “some Catholics say that [protestants] are schismatics, heretics and most likely, if not certain to perish.” It had to have been a slip of the keyboard, right? because THIS Catholic would never presume to judge his own fate, let alone yours.

I am also sure that you meant ot say, “then some can’t agree among yourselves whether VII is binding or not, taught heresy or not, was good for the Church or not.” Because, I am sure, you would never make a ridiculous and sweeping statemement for over a billion people, would you?, when all you have is a small cross-section of Catholics represented here.

When we resort to such generalizations, or when we assume, well, I’m sure anyone over 40 is familiar with Felix Unger’s teaching on when one assumes…

 

[Jake_Connor]

If Vatican II was either invalid, problematic or people found some fault in it then that makes ALL councils before it also on shaky foundations. I think for those who claim that it was “ambiguous” I believe what they really are thinking is quite the opposite… that the council clarified some things they would rather have ignored or not wanted to hear, which I’ll admit is a natural human inclination. Everyone at many times in their life will hear some news that they would rather not believe, and if in the end it turns out to be something they cannot ignore because it is true beyond a doubt then they should eventually confront it or they may choose to act like ostriches with their heads in the ground telling themselves “It’s not real, it’s not real…”

 

[Loy]

For all those who say Vatican II is “ambiguous”, I hear this all the time yet I don’t hear even one example given from a V2 document. The reason of course is because there are no “ambiguous” statements that came from Vatican II, so people throw this false “ambiguous” phrase around and leave it at that, hoping that no one challenges them to it. Well guess what? I am throwing the gauntlet down and waiting for a challenger…

Parts of Vatican II are certainly ambiguous. Let’s start with one of the most famous examples:From Lumen Gentium, ¶ 16
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.The plain langauage of that statement is susceptible to two interpretations: 1) That Moslems are saved by their Muslim faith, or 2) that some or all Moslems may be saved even though they do not possess the saving faith that is Christianity. The magisterium must explain which of those two interpretations is correct in order for the faithful to understand it properly.

It’s important to call a duck a duck, and several key statements from Vatican II are ambiguous or vague.

 

[Loy]

The issue with Vatican II is indeed ambiguity.

Consider the Constitution on the Liturgy. It says many nice things about the liturgy. It says a few specific things:

1. Prime is to be abolished. Apparently, “infallible” or not, this can be ignored in practice…even after the Council, some religious orders received permission to retain it. And, of course, the traditionalist orders retain it today.
2. Vespers on Sundays are to be celebrated publically. This isn’t even observed in the pope’s own church.

These aren’t good examples. Ambiguity means susceptible to two meanings. Vague means indefinite. The examples you gave seem to be clear expressions of Church discipline that were either neglected or specific permission was requested and received to vary from the ordinary rules. Church discipline is not infallible, and the Church has never claimed that it is.

 

[Loy]

If Vatican II was either invalid, problematic or people found some fault in it then that makes ALL councils before it also on shaky foundations.

That does not logically follow. Theoretically, if Vatican II were somehow invalid, how would that invalidate all other councils?

Vatican II is a valid council, but it is problematic. We have and will continue to have difficulty understanding many statements made by the council.

This is not the first time in the Church’s history that declarations by the Church required further explanation. That’s why God, in His infinite wisdom, bestowed the Church with apostolic succession. The Church has a living magisterium present in every generation to teach and explain the faith and resolve questions when they arise.

 

[rr1213]

This is not the first time in the Church’s history that declarations by the Church required further explanation. That’s why God, in His infinite wisdom, bestowed the Church with apostolic succession. The Church has a living magisterium present in every generation to teach and explain the faith and resolve questions when they arise.

So what has that living magisterium done lately to resolve the questions that arose from Vatican II that was, what, over 40 years ago? I’m serious here…I don’t know. Maybe the magisterium has done plenty of explaining and I am simply not aware of it (Protestant you know). What’s the scoop?

 

[cothrige]

If Vatican II was either invalid, problematic or people found some fault in it then that makes ALL councils before it also on shaky foundations. I think for those who claim that it was “ambiguous” I believe what they really are thinking is quite the opposite… that the council clarified some things they would rather have ignored or not wanted to hear, which I’ll admit is a natural human inclination. Everyone at many times in their life will hear some news that they would rather not believe, and if in the end it turns out to be something they cannot ignore because it is true beyond a doubt then they should eventually confront it or they may choose to act like ostriches with their heads in the ground telling themselves “It’s not real, it’s not real…”

I don’t think we have to go as far as you do in response to suggestions of invalidity. I personally do not doubt the validity of the Council, but really, why must that mean that its documents were not vague, ambiguous or just plain poorly worded? Just because a council is valid does not mean that it is particularly brilliant. The Catholic understandings of these things does not require that we believe this in our acceptance, but only that we submit to any directives which have been handed down.

I think history has shown that, all things considered, the wording of the Conciliar documents was less than optimal. To see this one need only look at all that the Popes have written since the Council attempting to clarify our understanding of it, or even correct it. I would also say that the so called “spirit of Vatican II” has shown how much the Council was able to be interpreted to fit an agenda, and I think that would have been avoidable with clear wording. But, again, that does not mean that the council is invalid, which of course it was.

Patrick

 

[cothrige]

You Catholics tell us that we can’t read Scripture for ourselves, that we engage in private interpretations and make ourselves Popes. You say that our orders are invalid and our Eucharist a sham. You say that we are schismatics, heretics and most likely, if not certain, to perish. You say that the Church is infallable regarding faith and morals, that the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church, that the Magisterium is a living authority with the power to bind and lose and that for our own salvation we must submit to it. And then you can’t agree among yourselves whether Vatican II is a binding or not, taught heresy or not, was good for the Church or not. Who’s in charge here?

I think you exaggerate a little here, don’t you? But, surely you would admit that the Church is infallible, though I suppose you would define Church differently than we do. For instance, don’t you think that the Bible is inerrant, and that the it contains the entire list of books to be accepted? Well, a look at history will show that the final acceptance of that list took a little while, and involved some honest debate. But, eventually, everybody was in agreement on the 27 that went in. So, the fact that the Church is infallible could likely be worded equally well by saying that the Church is eventually infallible. For a while at least there will likely be some argument and discussion, and really that is not a bad thing.

Also, I don’t really think we are arguing about the things you see. I would say that we Catholics are universally agreed that the Council was binding, but here on this forum we are discussing just what may be open to interpretation and what may not. We submit, but we might also wonder if things may one day change, or even how things should be applied now. That is not really the same as pondering who is in charge. That, I think, is not doubted.

Patrick

 

[cothrige]

So what has that living magisterium done lately to resolve the questions that arose from Vatican II that was, what, over 40 years ago? I’m serious here…I don’t know. Maybe the magisterium has done plenty of explaining and I am simply not aware of it (Protestant you know). What’s the scoop?

I would say that pretty much the entire time since the Council has ben nothing but that. Just about everything any Pope has written and any synod has agreed on was either a clarification or an application of the Conciliar teachings. Everything from Ut Unum Sint to Dominus Jesus were reflections of the Council and its fruit. And I think that is why we have gone from the overexuberant chaos of the sixties, when so many thought they knew what the Council really wanted us to think, to the relative calm of today, when all that constant reflection and clarification is beginning to show results. Remember, that in Church time forty or fifty years is the blink of an eye.

Patrick