Questioning Vatican II grounds for condemnation?

[DesertBrother]

Hi,

In many of the threads I read in these forums, many who have questioned even small portions of things stated by Vatican II receive emotional responses and are often labeled by others as being schismatic or heretic. The more I researched, I discovered this is actually quite wrong.

One is not unfaithful to the official teaching of the Church to question any part of Vatican II or how the Church has changed since. One may not exactly be embraced by the majority, but they are no less Catholic than the most avid supporters of VII.

Here is an excellent article that clarifies this with plenty of sources and statements from Church leadership:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm

BTW, I’m not saying I’m against VII, only that it wouldn’t be a sin to disagree with portions of it. I just think this needs to be properly understood in order to allow more open minded dialogue.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, there is questioning and questioning.

Some of the questioning over what Vatican II actually DID say was good. A lot of people thought Vatican II called for Mass totally in the vernacular (it didn’t), jettisoning of Gregorian chant (it didn’t), and a host of other practices and “spirit of Vatican II ism” that were never, ever dreamt of. So questioning was good.

OTOH, to question whether Vatican II itself was actually “okay”, or “wrong”–that’s another story. The council and its teachings (and yes, I’ve read the documents) say absolutely nothing that contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church since apostolic times. So to question whether the council “should have occurred” is moot–it did occur, it was valid, for example. To question the minds and motives of those who are perceived of using “Vatican II” as a takeoff to questionable if not invalid things as though it was “vatican II” responsible for those questionable things is likewise attempting to put the cart before the horse. It wasn’t the council that did the questionable things. And as we all know, even the most perfect actions or people can’t stop others from doing wrong. Jesus taught all the apostles–including Judas. Judas made his decision to go against Jesus even so.

And of course, questioning doesn’t equal doubting or condeming. Questioning is how we learn. Doubt and condemnation isn’t. But you are right, we shouldn’t leap to conclusions that people are condemning or doubting when they may be only questioning in order to learn.

 

[DesertBrother]

Well, there is questioning and questioning.

Some of the questioning over what Vatican II actually DID say was good. A lot of people thought Vatican II called for Mass totally in the vernacular (it didn’t), jettisoning of Gregorian chant (it didn’t), and a host of other practices and “spirit of Vatican II ism” that were never, ever dreamt of. So questioning was good.

OTOH, to question whether Vatican II itself was actually “okay”, or “wrong”–that’s another story. The council and its teachings (and yes, I’ve read the documents) say absolutely nothing that contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church since apostolic times. So to question whether the council “should have occurred” is moot–it did occur, it was valid, for example. To question the minds and motives of those who are perceived of using “Vatican II” as a takeoff to questionable if not invalid things as though it was “vatican II” responsible for those questionable things is likewise attempting to put the cart before the horse. It wasn’t the council that did the questionable things. And as we all know, even the most perfect actions or people can’t stop others from doing wrong. Jesus taught all the apostles–including Judas. Judas made his decision to go against Jesus even so.

And of course, questioning doesn’t equal doubting or condeming. Questioning is how we learn. Doubt and condemnation isn’t. But you are right, we shouldn’t leap to conclusions that people are condemning or doubting when they may be only questioning in order to learn.

Hi,
I agree with you. We shouldn’t question the intentions, but only potential mistakes.

Did you read the article? I’d be very interested in your commentary. Thanks for your response.

 

[DesertBrother]

So to question whether the council “should have occurred” is moot–it did occur, it was valid, for example. .

Actually, I’m not sure about that after reading this article. Although it will be up to the future Church to decide it’s validity, not ours. Here’s an excerpt:

It is canonically possible for a future pope to annul the outcome of the council, as it was merely a pastoral council. Cardinal Ratzinger affirms the same saying that " Not all valid councils, after being tested by the facts of history, have shown themselves to be useful councils; in the final analysis, all that was left of some was a great nothing." [12]

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From the Vatican web site I’ve brought you a link to John Paul’s Fidei Depositum where he has some words to say about the Council.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html

So one of the fruits of the council is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Which I actually found somewhat surprising. This article is already over 10 years old.

I’m not so sure about the whole “pastoral” thing making it likely for the council to be, as it were, ‘annuled.’ Again, I think that any errors that have come about have not come because of the council but more ‘in spite of’.

As I said, even the greatest of people or actions can be misinterpreted and misunderstood. Quite possibly there was at least one person involved somewhere who was “an enemy of the faith”–there always is a Judas somewhere in the flock and quite often they’re thinking they’re really Peter or Paul if not Christ himself.

But we know that “the gates of hell will not prevail”. Compare this, for example, to the time of the great Arian heresy when nearly every prelate had become a heretic and it looked as if Arianism would triumph.

Pffffttttt. . .and Arianism, like all the other heresies, scandals, schisms, protests, treachery, war, etc. that have come up in the last 2000 years against the Church passed away, and will all pass away.

If we ‘perserve to the end, we shall be saved.’

 

[DesertBrother]

From the Vatican web site I’ve brought you a link to John Paul’s Fidei Depositum where he has some words to say about the Council.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html

So one of the fruits of the council is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Which I actually found somewhat surprising. This article is already over 10 years old.

I’m not so sure about the whole “pastoral” thing making it likely for the council to be, as it were, ‘annuled.’ Again, I think that any errors that have come about have not come because of the council but more ‘in spite of’.

As I said, even the greatest of people or actions can be misinterpreted and misunderstood. Quite possibly there was at least one person involved somewhere who was “an enemy of the faith”–there always is a Judas somewhere in the flock and quite often they’re thinking they’re really Peter or Paul if not Christ himself.

But we know that “the gates of hell will not prevail”. Compare this, for example, to the time of the great Arian heresy when nearly every prelate had become a heretic and it looked as if Arianism would triumph.

Pffffttttt. . .and Arianism, like all the other heresies, scandals, schisms, protests, treachery, war, etc. that have come up in the last 2000 years against the Church passed away, and will all pass away.

If we ‘perserve to the end, we shall be saved.’

Like Our Lady said, to avoid deception and delusion, pray the Rosary daily.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I’m not so sure about the whole “pastoral” thing making it likely for the council to be, as it were, ‘annuled.’ Again, I think that any errors that have come about have not come because of the council but more ‘in spite of’.

Vatican II didn’t promulgate any dogmas, and, unusually, didn’t decalre any positions to be heretical. So there was nothing there that binds a future Pope.

Pastoral decisons are directed to the current situation, which changes. Let’s say that the Eurpean Union declared Latin to be its offical language. Let’s also assume that language-based political disputes become a lot more common and more serious than they are now. In these circumstances, most of the reasons for having mass in the vernacular would disappear, and policy would have to change.

However that is not to say that pastoral decisons cannot be important, and binding. Or that the principles by which they are made are not of enduring worth. However, by their nature, they are not for all peoples and for all time.