Stop Blaming Vatican II

[NSmith]

The issue is not primarily with Vatican II’s written documents and official teaching, although I think that the originally orthodox propositions that were put forward for discussion were watered down and reduced to mostly meaningless ambiguity throughout the debates. The issue is that the authority of the church has not been straightforward with heresies and errors following the council, which were taught in the name of the council.
For fear of creating a schism, the pontificates post V2 have been long-suffering, quietly resisting the hermeneutic of rupture without naming names and without utilizing censures. There has been orthodox rebuttal to the heresiarchs of the modern day, but it has not come in a bold form, and it has permitted the wicked clerics to continue leading others astray. This was done charitably, with the intent of correcting the errant brother without humiliating him.
But, as a result, many of the Catholic faithful have been swept up in these novel movements and erroneous innovations. The average Catholic does not carefully and meticulously search out orthodox teaching, but they accept what is taught by their priests and bishops. Because of the silence of Rome, whose duty it is to encourage and confirm his brother bishops, the faithful has been largely confused.
By fostering continued synodality, Rome seems to be encouraging de facto schism in order to avoid schism de jure. Far from being united with a single liturgy, a single faith, and a single authority, the Roman Rite now has inculturated liturgy, inculturated doctrines, inculturated synods. So the faithful in various countries no longer speak with one accord, nor do they share the same Mass. And everywhere there are whispers of schismatic groups and accusations of disloyalty.
These things are not the result of Vatican II, but they are the result of passivity on the part of our shepherds. It is far past time that Rome anathematized the common errors of our time, such as universal salvation, the non-existence of Hell, the basic errors of Liberation Theology, accompanied with excommunication of the prelates leading the charge on these issues. If, after correction and determined rebellion, Rome openly and clearly named each group of heretics and each schismatic sect, then there would be no more whispers.
Furthermore, the stance of the leadership needs to change regarding sin. For too long has the same long-suffering policy of Rome resulted in continual scandals among the clergy and abuses of the faithful. Transparency and swift discipline are needed, but it should also be noted that prelates have a right to due process just like everyone else, and the removal of priests from the exercise of their office due to mere accusations is unjust.
Continued…

 

[NSmith]

Furthermore, the Church has spoken out of both sides of her mouth on sex. On the one hand, there is clear orthodox teaching on the subject available to anyone that searches for it, such as the Theology of the Body by JPII. On the other hand, you have “activists” like Fr. James Martin who are free to travel and speak openly without censure from his superiors, even admitted to private meetings with Pope Francis, who afterward says nothing about remonstrating the wayward Jesuit. And in Amoris Laetitia, you have divorce and remarriage clearly stated to be a sin, but then those who are living in the state of constant adultery are admitted to communion. So there are further acts of passivity, where those clearly in contradiction to the orthodox teaching of the Church are allowed to continue without firm rebuke. And it has led people astray.
It is far past time that the abuses of the Pauline liturgy are corrected, and a unified expression of the mass should be adopted. I don’t think that this necessarily means eliminating the use of vernacular, but I think that if vernacular languages are used in the liturgy they should always be permitted at the same place and they should be provided official translations. The liturgy as it stands is far too various and in some places strange, because the Pauline mass does not strictly follow a procedural form like the Tridentine mass, but has many optional segments and the portions can be moved at the leisure of the prelate.
However, Pope Francis’ history and his recent statements have revealed him to be a man more comfortable with silence about these matters. He prefers to let God sort it out, I suppose, and given the way that his opponents twist his words I don’t necessarily blame him for being careful with his speech. But I don’t hold out hope that he will be the one to take a stand on these matters. He doesn’t strike me as a bold person, but is more humble and passive-aggressive.

 

[Maximian]

He does mention that one problem isn’t the documents themselves, but how some of the clergy interpreted said documents.

But isn’t the fact that said documents are capable of more than one interpretation the main problem with V2? However orthodox it may look, it gives comfort to the unorthodox

 

[MtnDwellar]

If documents are open to “problematic interpretation” then there is something wrong with the documents.

 

[commenter]

Unfortunately his view is prevalent among many Catholics. It’s the same “correlation & causation” argument that is always given in response to any criticism aimed at VII.

You can refute that argument by citing specific wording in the documents themselves…show how the document itself created a problem that wasn’t there before.

 

[ioannes_pius]

He makes a good point about “post hoc ergo propter hoc” but that still doesn’t mean Vatican 2 was flawless.

After V2, for all intents and purposes fasting doesn’t exist anymore in Catholicism. (I don’t want to hear about “meatless Lent Friday” - the single, pitiful vestige of the Four Holy Fasts.) It’s puzzling that one can now eat a T-bone steak and ice cream for 6 out of 7 days in Lent and still be considered “fasting” by Catholic standards. At that point, honestly I’m not sure I should bother

Is it just me, or are you engaging in post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking here as well?

 

[ReaderT]

Is it just me, or are you engaging in post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking here as well?

You’re right; I realized that V2 didn’t specifically change the fasting rules (which I didn’t know before this thread - thanks @commenter)

 

[commenter]

If documents are open to “problematic interpretation” then there is something wrong with the documents.

There’s a small industry of writers, websites, conference speakers, etc working full-time to “prove” the documents are (intentionally?) open to misinterpretation/exploitation/whatever, by secret powerful interests, who planted those time bombs in the first place.

Trust me, if that crew wanted to, they could analyze the corpus of Betty Crocker Cookbooks and discern:

*Loopholes big enough to drive a truck through, leading to Modernism;

• Anti Family agendas disguised in the Dessert selections;
• Code words embedded in Meatloaf preparation, ambiguity that resulted in passivity by Laity in response to secularism.

How likely is it that 1p5 will announce “V2 has been adequately clarified, no reason to subscribe to us anymore”?

 

[MarkRome]

But isn’t the fact that said documents are capable of more than one interpretation the main problem with V2? However orthodox it may look, it gives comfort to the unorthodox

Can’t the same be said for the Bible? Do we dismiss St Paul’s letters because “…his letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”? (2 Pet 3:16)

 

[Jbrady]

There’s a small industry of writers, websites, conference speakers,

The funny thing is that they all claim to long for a time when the laity weren’t allowed to question or second-guess even the lowliest parish priest. Or to think that their opinion on Church matters mattered at all, unless it was exactly the same as their pastor or bishop.

 

[MtnDwellar]

I am not familiar with 1p5. I infer from your comment that there’s a sinister cabal with an interest in promulgating that V2 was influenced by a sinister cabal.

As far as I know, other councils have not experienced nearly the degree of controversy as V2. I know writing can be clear and concise which reduces ambiguity. I have always admired the writing skills of Catholic prelates.

Not having previously put much thought into the subject, I have to think either the council documents were deliberately vague and open to interpretation, or those who came after have deliberately ascribed that which was not intended by the council.

 

[commenter]

As far as I know, other councils have not experienced nearly the degree of controversy as V2.

We live in a controversy-finding, controversy-making era.

Anything written since 1960 will be declared ambiguous/subject to loopholes/dangerously uncertain, etc.

Fortunately I seldom see people now pushing a personal agenda based on the “spirit of V2”. They seldom built their agenda around the documents themselves.

No amount of clarification will satisfy the Traditionalists. I wish the massive amount of money and time spent questioning V2 could be spent on Evangelism and prolife.

 

[NSmith]

There is a clear distinction between Mystici Corporis, which says,

If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Christ” - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers."

and Lumen Gentium, which communicates the same doctrine as

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

It is not incorrect to say that Vatican II lacked clarity. Mystici Corporis teaches that the Church is the Catholic Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, these are one and the same thing. Lumen Gentium permits the error that the Church exists elsewhere, by using the oft-debated phrase subsistit in.
After the council much talk about the poor separated brethren from other “churches” and anonymous Christians was permitted, based on the error deriving from Lumen Gentium’s ambiguity. There are no other true Churches but the Catholic Church. There are no other bodies of Christ but the Catholic Church.
The correct interpretation of Lumen Gentium, in agreement with tradition, is that false churches and those who are drawn to God without knowledge of the one, true, Apostolic, Catholic Church, may share in fractions of truth, but without extraordinary grace are incompetent to achieve its fullness.

 

[commenter]

You’re right; I realized that V2 didn’t specifically change the fasting rules (which I didn’t know before this thread - thanks

To be fair, there was an air of ambiguity, of relativism in the air. Sermons asked “what’s more important, love or fasting”? Articles made it appear that fasting, etc was a regression to the dark ages. This relativism was across the board, not just in the Catholic Church.

Seminars implied that the Spirit of V2 moves us beyond conversion and dogma, to Renewal, to being open to sharing life with others, peace and justice.

But that’s not what the actual documents said.

 

[MNathaniel]

Sermons asked “what’s more important, love or fasting”?

That kind of rhetoric seems to be a favourite technique of some people.

As if we have to pick one or the other.

Always seems to be used by people who want you to throw away something that tradition, in her wisdom, produced and preserved for you.

Such a false choice.

As if to love your children properly you should kill all the plants in your garden, or else it isn’t clear that you understand that your children are of more value than plants. Maybe, no, actually, I love my children enough to surround them with living, blossoming plants.

People who rank goods and then try to destroy everything else but the top-ranked good, have fallen into a weird trap.

 

[commenter]

It is not incorrect to say that Vatican II lacked clarity. Mystici Corporis teaches that the Church is the Catholic Church, which is the mystical body of Christ, these are one and the same thing. Lumen Gentium permits the error…

Some would see “error” in the way V2 developed this, others would not. I’m no theologian, so I can’t adequately evaluate the theology.

1. You may disagree with what the bishops said, but I suspect they intended for the outcome (ecumenism). I haven’t read about many of those bishops saying in later years “I wish we hadn’t left that loophole open. If only we had been clearer.”
2. Even granting some abuses that did occurr afterwards, especially 1965 to 1980, what should be done in 2020? Is Lumen Gentium misused in your diocese now to promote something different from Pope Francis’ teaching?
3. Yes, there still are dissenters around. If the pope issued a “clarification” of Lumen Gentium, do you think they would change their dissent one inch? I suspect they couldn’t care less about the original anyway. They dissent from V2, not by means of V2.
4. For purposes of 2020, it’s better to focus on Evangelism and prolife than the exact prose of the 1960s documents.

 

[Aulef]

I pray for Fr. Casey.

Unfortunately, he is not in sync with Catholic teaching and tradition.

 

[I-47]

“But that doesn’t mean that re-instituting the 1962 Latin Missal en masse or undoing Vatican II and going back to the 1955 Church is going to magically fix the Church. The reality… is that the world has drastically changed since 1955, probably more than in any time in human history, and all this would do is create a small, exclusive Church of intense believers, much like Latin Mass communities today.”

Can’t tell you the exact words only by feeling, but this thread might seems fulfilling his words there, though maybe not the OP’s intention here.

 

[commenter]

Some people say the docs of V2 are unclear, when they really mean they disagree with them. It’s more diplomatic to avoid accusing bishops of false teaching, and instead imply that the good bishops and pope meant well, but other people exploited loopholes and ambiguities in the documents to do bad things that the pope and bishops never intended.

By focusing on ambiguities, writers, websites, or irregular status religious orders can last as long as they want. Who’s to say when things are “clarified” enough? It’s not measurable.

In 2020 dissenters aren’t often quoting Vatican 2, they’re quoting CNN, The NY Times, etc.

 

[NSmith]

I agree that a spirit of rebellion seems to pervade those that promote various and sundry interpretations of the documents, particularly in opposition to the recent pontificates. It is very necessary to be careful there as sons and daughters of the Church. The role of the magisterium is to provide us the boundary lines, so to speak, and to say, “This or that interpretation is incorrect.” The magisterium does not do your thinking for you, however. They don’t meticulously interpret every word of every document so that the laity don’t have to.
Sufficiently clear teaching is that which reasonably communicates the intended doctrine without providing an easy path to error. If a heresy or error does result from some definition, it should be swiftly corrected. That’s the reason why the authority of the Church exists.
If the Magisterium won’t speak up, then who is to say that the critics are wrong to interpret the documents as they do? If it was important to the Church that only one interpretation of V2 should exist, they should get to the task of condemning the interpretations that are wrong. And they have done this on some points, like Feeneyism, and also through talks with the SSPX, but there still exists some open questions.
As far as I can tell, the Church is permitting discussion. They are engaging in dialogue with the SSPX leadership on doctrinal matters. Theologians such as Balthasar, Ratzinger, Rahner, and others disagree about various and sundry matters deriving from the Council. This indicates to me that the “development” of V2 has not been decided quite yet. It will take time for the Church to incorporate what is edifying and to further clarify what is not.
The form of the liturgy, as well, has undergone a constant reform since V2, and even within the last decade there have been adjustments made to the translations and guidelines.