Specific Objections to Vatican II Documents

[consumedconvert]

I’m going through the sixteen Vatican II documents for the first time, and I really would like to know, what specifically do traditionalists or traditional Catholics who object to VII object to? I mean not only which documents, but which paragraphs or points, and on what grounds? I hear a lot of hubbub, but a lot of it is very vague. It would help clarify the conflict in my mind if I could get some real specifics here.

 

[palmas85]

I’m going through the sixteen Vatican II documents for the first time, and I really would like to know, what specifically do traditionalists or traditional Catholics who object to VII object to? I mean not only which documents, but which paragraphs or points, and on what grounds? I hear a lot of hubbub, but a lot of it is very vague. It would help clarify the conflict in my mind if I could get some real specifics here.

Most of the people I know do not object to the documents but rather the way they were interpreted. which is the same objection raised by the Holy Father…

 

[NeedImprovement]

I’m in total agreement with the above. I think part of the reason for the confusion is that people don’t take the time (as you are doing consumedconvert) to read the documents. It was actually the many negative comments that I’d heard about Vatican II which motivated me to read the documents in the first place.

One of the claims was that “they” were trying to relegate our Blessed Mother to the background without any specific role in the economy of salvation. Anyone who reads chapter VIII of LUMEN GENTIUM can see that the documents state exactly the opposite.

That is not to say that certain groups or individuals may not have tried to manipulate the documents to fit their own agenda. But the documents of Vatican II themselves are (in my own limited opinion) just fine.

As palmas85 pointed out: It’s in the interpretation or misinterpretation : If the documents are taken straight up the middle, they are fine ; if one tries to bend them too much to the left or too much to the right , then the truth becomes compromised.

 

[consumedconvert]

Most of the people I know do not object to the documents but rather the way they were interpreted. which is the same objection raised by the Holy Father…

I agree, although some go a huge step further and say the documents themselves were faulty. I’d like to know what specifically they find objectionable.

God bless.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Consumedconvert, you are asking a good question, but you might find a better answer from SSPX, or if you dare, SSPV.

Ask THEM their specific objections.

 

[totus_tuus2009]

What we all need to realize is that no new dogmatic declaration was made at Vatican II. Everything that is binding at Vatican II are the statements that give past defined doctrines. Everything else requires assent (respect as a statement of a valid ecumenical council) however a Catholic is not obliged to believe it. So there are some contradictions to past statements of the Church, but were are not obliged to believe them. Vatican II was pastoral, not dogmatic, in nature. With that being said, we must all respect Vatican II statements as being from an ecumenical council of the Church and we ALL must believe Vatican II to be VALID Council.

 

[stmaria]

The SSPX have not united with Church because of what they see as a break from Traditional teaching at Vatican II. Go here for an overview of their stance.
sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm

The biggest problem I have with the Vatican II writings is what I perceive as religious indifferentism. I understand the need for dialogue between all of the religions but to praise false religions, in my opinion, goes too far.

Nostrae Aetate
“Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a **flight to God **with love and trust.”

Hinduism is a pantheistic (the world is god) as well as a polytheistic (many gods) religion. The world and everything in it, including man, is god. There are many Hindu divinities, Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer. Hindus worship many animals as gods. Cows are the most sacred, but they also worship monkeys, snakes and other animals. How can Hindus make a loving, trusting flight to God when they worship false gods?

Nostra Aetate
“Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination”

Buddhism teaches nothing about God; all beings are equal. They beleive that man is subjected to the rebirth of the soul at death into the body of either a human or an animal form —** reincarnation** until he acquires perfection in nirvana.

How can Vatican II speak of “supreme illumination ” in Buddhism? How can there be any enlightenment without knowledge of the true God and with the** false belief of reincarnation?**

Again, from Nostra Aetate:
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions”
What is ‘holy’ in a false religion? Holiness comes only from God

First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the** antichrist**”

Also from Nostra Aetate:“Upon the Muslims, too, the church looks with esteem. They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth and Speaker to men… Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”
This is another contradictory position of the Council. It praises the Muslims because “they revere Him (Jesus) as a prophet;” yet, they deny His divinity. Why praise false religions?

Here is something else that doesn’t make sense to me from
“Dei Verbum” 22.0 on translating the Bible.
And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these** translations **are produced in cooperation with the **separated brethren **as well, all Christians will be able to use them”

Why translate the Bible with Protestants? Here is just one example. By allowing the Bible to be translated with Protestants the Church has allowed ‘Hail, full of grace’ to be removed from the Bible and replaced with the King James translation of " Rejoice, most highly favored daughter" Luke 1" 28
“Hail, full of grace” was used as biblical evidence that by the Pope to declare the Infallible Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

*Lumen Gentium *16.0 “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator. First among whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day”
This is an ambiguous statement. What is the ‘plan of salvation” that the Moslems are a part off? There is only one plan, that all convert to the One True Religion. The Moslems I am sure interprete this differently.
Moslems deny the Trinity. **Mankind’s judge on the last day **will be Jesus Christ. Moslems deny this.

 

[totus_tuus2009]

The problem is greater than the “Spirit of Vatican II”, the problem lies in the texts of the Council iteslf. There is not heresy in Vatican II as the Holy Ghost protects all Councils of the Church from heresy. However, the documents are extremely ambiguous and they easily lead faithful Catholics to unorthodox teachings. If one were to read the documents of Vatican II without any knowledge of pre-Conciliar statements, it is likely that they will believe error and even Heresy. The documents must be looked at with Tradition and realization that the choice of words and the phrasing of sentences within the documents are misleading.

 

[ProVobis]

Consumedconvert, you are asking a good question, but you might find a better answer from SSPX, or if you dare, SSPV.

Ask THEM their specific objections.

No need to do that when we can ask those that frequent the Novus Ordo Masses, and there are so many more of them. Ask them what they have against having Latin retained in the Mass, Gregorian chant, and organ music, for starters.

 

[scylla]

Reading the documents of Vatican II is specifically what has really firmed my foundation as a traditionalist. I found what so many “traditionalists” want to uphold is firmly in the documents of Vatican II. I find most of the crazy stuff we see is no where to be found in the documents of Vatican II.

Vatican II called for maintaining Latin in the Mass, with the allowance for vernacular in the readings and homily… Hmm, sounds pretty traditional.

Gregorian chant is upheld as ideal in the documents of Vatican II, sounds pretty traditional.

Catholic art is upheld and even encouraged in Vatican II documents, traditionalists want this too.

So as the last poster was bringing up, maybe you should ask those who don’t like more traditional leanings why they object to the documents of Vatican II. Tradition was not thrown out with Vatican II and the documents never say anything of the sort, yet they certainly cite older Church references such as Trent.

Most Traditionalists are fully in line with Vatican II and defend it, they just defend it in line with the rest of the Church from 2000 years ago, not just from the latest cultural styles or fashions.

There is a huge difference between defending the Church for 2000 years and taking personal style or preference over tradition.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[lucybeebee]

I’ve read (I think it was in an article in This Rock Magazine, but I don’t recall which one) that some Council Fathers went to the Vatican II sessions quite traditional, but left radical. Why did the Council have a radicalizing effect on so many members of the hierarchy?

 

[brotherhrolf]

No need to do that when we can ask those that frequent the Novus Ordo Masses, and there are so many more of them. Ask them what they have against having Latin retained in the Mass, Gregorian chant, and organ music, for starters.

Now there’s an interesting suggestion.

 

[HelenRose]

No need to do that when we can ask those that frequent the Novus Ordo Masses, and there are so many more of them. Ask them what they have against having Latin retained in the Mass, Gregorian chant, and organ music, for starters.

My experience has shown that what people have against Latin, Gregorian chant and organ music is the self righteous attitude of many of those who wish to force it on others.

I am a person who favors the Novus Ordo Masses but still loves the Traditional Latin Mass. It has become a mission for my husband and I to teach our little Mission Church the Latin Service for the Mass.

We do this with great love for our friends who don’t quite agree with our position and with great love for Latin itself.

We have only one Mass on Sunday. There are three small choirs who take turns planning the music. My husband and I have charge of the fourth Sunday. We sing and participate with each of the other choirs, following their way of doing things.

On “our” Sunday we do the “Latin Mass”. Our congregation is responding well and is, to their delight and our surprise, re-learning the beauty of Latin. They are in fact looking toward this “Latin Mass” as the important Mass of the month.

There is absolutely no division within our musicians nor with the congregation on this. We are supporting each other in our goal of serving our church. None of the choirs push the envelope in any direction. I am proud that we have been able to do this without the discord that is found when people try to force their concept of God’s will on others.

There can negativity on both sides of the question. Neither side has a monopoly on misbehavior. I also see much love and learning with in both groups. I believe that making the TL Mass more readily available will elevate the music and actions of the NO Mass.

Beauty does not have to be forced upon people. If presented with love and kindness, beauty speaks for itself.

 

[consumedconvert]

The SSPX have not united with Church because of what they see as a break from Traditional teaching at Vatican II. Go here for an overview of their stance.
sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm
Here is something else that doesn’t make sense to me from
“Dei Verbum” 22.0 on translating the Bible.
And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these** translations **are produced in cooperation with the **separated brethren **as well, all Christians will be able to use them”

Why translate the Bible with Protestants? Here is just one example. By allowing the Bible to be translated with Protestants the Church has allowed ‘Hail, full of grace’ to be removed from the Bible and replaced with the King James translation of " Rejoice, most highly favored daughter" Luke 1" 28
“Hail, full of grace” was used as biblical evidence that by the Pope to declare the Infallible Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

I’m still in the process of reading the documents, so I won’t respond to anything else yet. But I would just like to point out that the reason Catholics should work with Protestants in translations is that they have a rich tradition of biblical scholarship, and indeed, many superior scholars. Witness the NAB, and compare that to the NRSV CAtholic Ed. THe NAB was (If I recall correctly) translated primarily, if not solely, by Catholics. THe NRSV was, of course, translated by Catholics and Protestants. I contend that the NRSV is by far the superior translation, if for no other reason than its renderings are very superbly done. In some places it seems the NAB people had something of a “tin ear”. In anycase, as long as a scholar is interested in accuracy in his translation, and if his theory of translation is not too liberal (see the New Living Translation’s dramatic dynamic equivalency) or too jarringly and confusingly transliterary (see KJV 21 Cent. Vers.), I fail to see the problem.

I would suppose if one abhors a “Protestant” co-translation like NRSV, he would also abhor the beautiful songs that have come out of the Protestant tradition.

I, for one, will still be reading from the NRSV CE and singing Amazing Grace.

 

[cam100]

Why translate the Bible with Protestants?

I’m still in the process of reading the documents, so I won’t respond to anything else yet. But I would just like to point out that the reason Catholics should work with Protestants in translations is that they have a rich tradition of biblical scholarship, and indeed, many superior scholars. Witness the NAB, and compare that to the NRSV CAtholic Ed. THe NAB was (If I recall correctly) translated primarily, if not solely, by Catholics. THe NRSV was, of course, translated by Catholics and Protestants.

Don’t forget that the Challoner edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is what 99.9% of the Douay-Rheims copies today are, was produced with the assistance of the King James Version. This is another example where Biblical (name removed by moderator)ut from Protestants is not always a bad thing. It just needs to be done under the eye of the Catholic Church.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I have pointed out on several different threads that I have been blessed to speak to several council fathers. (the bishops who were in Rome for Vatican II) To a person they have all stated that what was going on in the “spirit of Vatican II” was not in the spirit, nor what they had come out as the documents. They have all stated that “If only they would read the documents, instead of thinking they can do just whatever they want to. its so wrong” The quote may not be exact, but accurately reflects the sentiments and feelings of those I have been blessed to talk to.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[stmaria]

Don’t forget that the Challoner edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is what 99.9% of the Douay-Rheims copies today are, was produced with the assistance of the King James Version. This is another example where Biblical (name removed by moderator)ut from Protestants is not always a bad thing. It just needs to be done under the eye of the Catholic Church.

There is no justification for changing Luke 1:28
The Latin Vulgate has “Hail, full of grace” the new Catholic bibles translated with the cooperation of protestants has"Rejoice, O highly favored daughter" which is the same as the King James.
Protestants do not believe in the Immaculate Conception. How convenient to have this phrase, used by the Pope as evidence in his dogmatic decree on the Immaculate Conception, removed.

Thank God Protestants were not allowed to translate the Rosary or we would pray, “Hail Mary, O highly favored daughter, the lord is with thee…”

And isn’t it interesting that on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception the readings in the Liturgy still use the Latin Vulgate translation, “Hail, Full of Grace”. If the new Bible translation is valid why not use it in the Liturgy?

 

[NeedImprovement]

There is no justification for changing Luke 1:28
The Latin Vulgate has “Hail, full of grace” the new Catholic bibles translated with the cooperation of protestants has"Rejoice, O highly favored daughter" which is the same as the King James.
Protestants do not believe in the Immaculate Conception. How convenient to have this phrase, used by the Pope as evidence in his dogmatic decree on the Immaculate Conception, removed.

Thank God Protestants were not allowed to translate the Rosary or we would pray, “Hail Mary, O highly favored daughter, the lord is with thee…”

And isn’t it interesting that on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception the readings in the Liturgy still use the Latin Vulgate translation, “Hail, Full of Grace”. If the new Bible translation is valid why not use it in the Liturgy?

Up here where I live , I’m quite sure the Lectionary now being used in the Liturgy of the Word hasn’t even been approved by Rome.

It’s a blessed thing to be vigilant regarding some modern day translations of our so called “Catholic” bibles ! One of mine (published in 1970) also reduced “full of grace” to “highly favored daughter”. These changes trickle down into the missalettes too, leaving a large part of the faithful aloof to the gradual erosion of certain key terms and phrases.

Some texts have taken the liberty to render Isaiah 7:14 to the “young woman” shall be with child, instead of the “virgin” shall be with child…so where’s the miracle…? When I inquired about this particular change in the passage which appeared in the missalette, I was informed by a minister ordained to preach God’s word that, “The prevalent thought is that this passage did not apply to the Blessed Virgin Mary”, [even though the Gospel of Matthew 1:22-23, consecrates these very words to the Incarnation: **"All this happened to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son, and they shall call him Emmanuel, a name which means God is with us.’ "].

It would appear that somehow during the rendering process of certain of these particular “translations”,sometimes even the Holy Spirit is asked to take a back seat.

 

[DustinsDad]

This might be pertinant to the discussion:Two Levels of Ambiguity - Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico
(Book-review on In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, published in The Wanderer, April 23, 1998)

It has become a commonplace of official episcopal and Vatican responses over the last thirty years that the widespread abandonment of the Catholic Church’s sound traditions, the sorry scenario of doctrinal dissent, disciplinary disorder, clerical defections and other scandals - has been in no way due to Vatican Council II itself, but only to abusive and selective readings and applications of the Council documents.
But this only raises the further question: Why has it been so easy for these abusive and selective interpretations of the Council to flourish and to diffuse and even impose themselves, so widely?
After all, this phenomenon has been practically unique in the history of ecumenical councils. While many of them were also followed by periods of great division and tension those conflicts were markedly different in their sociological contours, from that which has riven Catholicism asunder since Vatican II. In the past, conciliar teachings were frequently ‘signs of contradiction,’ being subsequently rejected with vehemence by certain groups claiming to be Christian and Catholic. But in each of these controversies, both sides to the dispute were at least in agreement as to whose side the Council was on, so that the dissident party had no alternative other than to reject openly the conciliar teaching in question. The fourth and fifth-century Arians could make no attempt to claim that Nicea and Constantinople were really ‘opening new doors’ to their own anti-trinitarian heresy; the Greek Orthodox after Florence could not maintain that that Council was really ‘moving in their direction’ as regards the Petrine primacy; and the sixteenth-century Protestants protested just as vehemently and openly against Trent as did Döllinger and his faction against Vatican I. After Vatican II, in contrast, practically every heterodox notion that has sullied the Church’s countenance or infected her immune system has brazenly presented itself as being the ‘real’ teaching, or at least the real implication, of the Council itself.

Contemplating this continuing plight of Holy Mother Church, the Brazilian author of this book - which is the first (and first translated) of an eleven-volume series on the post-conciliar Church already published in Portuguese - has no hesitation in grasping the nettle. While avoiding the extreme position of those Lefebvrists and Sedevacantists who assert that Vatican II was heretical, Guimarães bluntly answers the question I have formulated above: Why has it been easy for liberal dissidents to claim the support of the Council for their views? Simply because the conciliar documents themselves are frequently ambiguous. The buck, Guimarães asserts, stops there.
It would be easy (and much more in accord with prevailing canons of ecclesio-political correctness) to disparage this finger-pointing at the Council itself as basically a “traditionalist” or “integrist” position; but as the author points out, plenty of middle-of-the-road and liberal churchmen have admitted the same thing. Indeed, the title of this book - as the author is at pains to point out - is taken from the words of no less a pillar of the post-conciliar establishment than Msgr. Philippe Delhaye, secretary general of the International Theological Commission from 1973 till 1988, quoted in no less a publication than L’Osservatore Romano, January 5, 1984. (Delhaye affirmed that Vatican II was an “apex” from which “will continue to flow torrents of living water;” but he added immediately, “At the moment these waters are at times murky.”)
One could add that even the Church’s leading pastors have at times implicitly admitted this murkiness. In the face of post-Vatican-II polarizations and divisions, the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, as well as Pope John Paul II’s 1988 Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, exhorted the Church’s scholars to give deeper study to the Council documents, so as to understand them better and show more clearly their harmony with Tradition. But why should the documents even require this “deeper study” for that kind of purpose, unless their conformity with Tradition - that is, their orthodoxy - did not always emerge with great clarity from the texts. Such tacit admissions of conciliar obscurity or opacity seem especially ironical in view of the avowedly “pastoral” aims of Vatican II, whose principal raison d’etre, according to Pope John, was to present the traditional and unchanging Catholic doctrine (not some “new” doctrine) in a way that ordinary men and women of our time would find more readily comprehensible and persuasive.
(complete review)

Harrison used to write for This Rock a few years ago by the way.(see here)

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[consumedconvert]

I think we cannot overlook the fact that just about everything seems ambiguous in a partisan media age. For instance, when Paul VI clarified the Church’s teaching on birth control, everyone had an opinion before they even read the document. As a former protestant, I’d have to say that the idea of extolling or condemning Vatican II, claiming it or disclaiming it, without actually reading the documents (as so many who have opinions one way or the other fail to do) is a very protestant way of doing things. Don’t read the Bible, listen to the pastor take one verse and use it out of context. Don’t read the highly controversial Church Council, listen to experts on the Council. See what I mean?

THat’s why I’m reading it.