Vatican II Ambiguities

[Lucky7]

I think this section of Cardinal Kasper’s comments are the most telling. Not only is he clear in his comments that the documents were intentionally unclear to allow for both the majority and minority views, he seems to be pitting the majority against the minority (if I’m understanding this correctly). It appears the minority had very strong feelings against some of what the majority was putting forth for this to happen this way. I have to wonder whether it would have been a better idea to work through that first rather than putting forth documents that essentially was a compromise of sorts. I have more to say about this but I do not have the time now.

*For those who know the history of the twenty councils recognized as ecumenical, this will not be a surprise. The post-conciliar times were almost always turbulent. The Vatican II, however, is a special case. Unlike previous councils, was not called to oust heretical doctrines or dial a schism; did not proclaim any dogma formal and non-formal disciplinary proceedings taken even. John XXIII had a broader perspective. He saw a new era looming, he went to meet with optimism, trust in God unwavering He spoke of a pastoral goal of the council, meaning an upgrade, a “now become” the Church. Was intended not a trivial adaptation to the spirit of the times, but the appeal to be talked about the faith handed in today.

The vast majority of the Council Fathers seized upon the idea. He wanted to grasp the demands of renewal movements biblical, liturgical, patristic, pastoral and ecumenical arose between the two world wars, start a new page of history with Judaism, full of liens and enter into dialogue with modern culture. It was the project of modernization that did not and could not even be modernism.

An influential minority opposed stubborn resistance to this attempt of the majority. The successor of John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, was basically on the side of the majority, but he tried to involve the minority and, in line with the ancient tradition reconcile, to achieve approval, as far as possible by consensus, the Council documents , which in total were sixteen. He succeeded, but he paid a price. In many places, they had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them.

Thus, the conciliar texts they hold enormous potential for conflict; open the door to a selective reception in either direction. Which indicates the compass direction of the council and where it leads the way the Catholic Church, the still young twenty-first century? Stay in believing trust of John XXIII or does the path back toward sterile defensiveness? *

 

[jerome_ky]

To the OP:

A priest who is very conservative (but accepts Vatican II unequivocally) told me that the documents of the Second Vatican Council are more narrative than dogma. There is a certain prose to it, he said, rather than strict poetry. The rhythm of “anathema” upon “anathema” in the older Councils was poetic and strict. The freedom of the narrative style of Vatican II is very prosaic - in every sense of that word - …often with an unintended meretricious effect.

This is where I was leading- that one can be very conservative and still accept Vatican II unequivocally.

We are supposed to accept V2 as Magisterial. The websites I see discussing “ambiguities” are either very traditional and decry them, or are “progressive” and say we should embrace them. What I haven’t seen is a good example from either side of an ambiguity that is not easily cleared up by reading in context, or easily disputed by the clear sense of the text.

I think what the Holy Spirit was motivating the Church to do in V2 was to say, in effect, (and forgive me for presuming to speak for God, I am only giving my observation) “My Church needs to be mature and handle nuanced, intelligent discussion, not just a litany of ‘anathemas.’” What happened, as we know, was that a “give them an inch” mentality took over and abuses crept in. I think this is where the traditionals tend to “blame” V2 for giving that inch. But it isn’t the fault of the Council that abuses creep in. I think it is wrong to blame those abuses on “ambiguities.”

Last point- we need to define ambiguity. I guess I’m reading that people feel there are moral ambiguities, which is impossible in a Magisterial document. I also don’t really see ambiguity of definition. That’s why I asked on here- someone give an example of these ambiguities.

 

[pnewton]

How many Catholics who you interact with in face to face settings would you guess have read them? Based upon my interactions with fellow parishioners and other Catholics in RCIA, Bible study, etc. I would guess it to be very low, probably less than 10%. That’s a total ballpark number, I freely admit it, but I would be pretty surprised if it was too much higher than that. Based on my interactions with those who identify as Catholic but are not practicing, I would guess the number at much lower, around 1%. Again, total ballpark number there.

Your thoughts?

Probably about 10% of the Catholics I know have read some or all of the documents. I do not know a lot of non-practicing Catholics. I would think that this still would no be a problem becaust someone who has not read the documents could not very well be confused by what they did not read.

 

[pnewton]

*He succeeded, but he paid a price. In many places, they had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. *

*Thus, the conciliar texts they hold enormous potential for conflict; open the door to a selective reception in either direction. *

What Cardinal Kasper does not say is that they are ambiguous, though this does clarify why some may see it so. I see this description of what most of us go through informally while teaching little ones. Take the following conversation.

Child: What color is the sky?
Father: Blue.

Child: Even at night?
Father: Okay, the sky is blue in the day and black at night.

Child: But can’t it be orange?
Father: Yes, it can be orange, red, or yellow when the sun is coming up and going down, but blue in the day and black at night.

Child: But if a storm is in the day doesn’t it get dark?
Father: The sky can be orange, red, or yellow when the sun is coming up and going down, black and night and blue in the day, unless it is cloudy or stormy. Oh, and if there is hail in the clouds it can even be green.

Child: What if there is a rainbow?
Father: Go ask your mother.

Yet in all of this, we take as a truism that the sky is blue and the grass is green. Now let us reboot this conversation with a new question, say, who can be saved? Obviously such a formulation is much more than a line. Yes, we can boil it down to a line like the Bible does, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,” but then, we have to start with a lot of other questions and the next thing we know we might even have someone focusing on some minor deviation as a general rule. One thing I like about Thomas Aquinas is how he goes into enormously long dialogues to try and close most of the gaps. Reading him is very helpful for theology. More helpful for me is raising kids.

 

[pnewton]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Begs the question of whether a tree fell and whether it really matters.

 

[Cojuanco]

This makes no sense to me. Many of our priests and bishops do not speak with a united voice. Which one should I listen to?

Yours, so long as he’s not advocating something sinful.

 

[sw85]

What I haven’t seen is a good example from either side of an ambiguity that is not easily cleared up by reading in context, or easily disputed by the clear sense of the text.

Again, though, the problem is that “reading in context” is very difficult for the average person, being ill-formed in theology, to do.

My favorite go-to example is Dignitatis Humanae because it confuses so many people. Much of what Dignitatis Humanae said was, simply, that a policy of religious toleration was a proper prudential response to the (suboptimal) circumstances of the present age, i.e., because the common good demands a different response now than was objectively appropriate in, say, the mid-16th century. But most people read “right to religious liberty” as, well, an endorsement of indifferentism, disestablishment, etc., because that’s how the term has historically been used by liberals, progressives, constitutionalists, etc. Much of the confusion here could’ve been cleared up if Dignitatis Humanae had simply endorsed “religious toleration” rather than a “right to religious liberty,” and framed it in the terms I put above. It declined to do this, I think, because in its zeal to speak to modern man, it co-opted modern man’s language, which is liberalism. Unfortunately, liberalism, being incompatible with Catholicism, produced the resulting confusion, as is to be expected when you attempt to express a philosophy in the language of a different, incompatible philosophy.

I agree in principle that, very carefully read, there is nothing wrong with the way Dignitatis Humanae describes the “right to religious liberty.” I’m actually writing a long essay on this very topic for publication somewhere. To understand it properly though, you have to understand that the Church uses “right” in a different way than liberalism does. For the Church, duties are ethically prior to rights, so to say that Protestants have a right to religious liberty is simply to say that Catholics must not coerce them unduly (“unduly” being both relevant and a much stricter criterion than most progressives would be happy with – for instance, a proper reading of Dignitatis Humanae would forbid a hypothetical King SW85 from throwing Lutherans in jail merely for being Lutherans, but he would be perfectly within his rights to throw them in jail for agitating for divorce). In other words, it’s not a right on their part as much as it is a duty on ours. Liberalism treats rights as ethically prior and duties simply as obligations to respect rights, so the “right to religious freedom” becomes a moral imperative on the part of all individual persons.

The problem, again, is that most people are incapable of very carefully reading theological documents because they do not have much theological formation and have nowhere to get it from reliably (this problem was worse in the 60s when even many clergymen were complicit in the active misrepresentation of Vatican II’s teachings). The problem is phrasing, always phrasing.

So we have a strange situation in that things like Dignitatis Humanae read one way to their intended audience (the theologically literate) and another way to their unintended audience. Was this done on purpose? If so, it would seem to be an example of a Straussian text. (Leo) Strauss argued that such texts are written because the writers typically have a gun to their head.

I think what the Holy Spirit was motivating the Church to do in V2 was to say, in effect, (and forgive me for presuming to speak for God, I am only giving my observation) “My Church needs to be mature and handle nuanced, intelligent discussion, not just a litany of ‘anathemas.’”

This statement evidences one of the more disconcerting tendencies endemic to the modern age, that views the Holy Spirit according to some kind of Calvinistic fideism that utterly absorbs and annihilates the free will of men regardless of their internal disposition. I don’t see much to support this view and it seems largely alien to the Church’s historical understanding of itself and its relation to the Holy Spirit, according to which the latter acted mainly in a prophylactic way, shielding the Church from outright catastrophe and error and otherwise only assisting it with grace when it genuinely and earnestly requested it. This view manifests most readily in the claim that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope (!!!), which I hear all the time. Maybe I’m missing something, though.

I agree 100% that the Holy Spirit protected the Church from theological (dogmatic or doctrinal) error. That’s a dogma of the faith. But the ideas you express are not the same thing as how you express your ideas. Ideas are dogmas or doctrines, but the expressions given to ideas are not: they are prudential matters, which is why the Church was free to change them (the expressions of the ideas, not the ideas themselves) in Vatican II in the first place. If the main purpose of Vatican II was, as some have argued, to re-express old ideas in new ways and not to promulgate new doctrines or dogmas, then there is no protection the Holy Spirit can give. Hence a Catholic can say, in good faith, that maybe this way of talking about the faith is not very fruitful and that we should abandon it.

I don’t get the objection to litanies of anathemas. Knowing what you’re expected to believe is a matter of salvation, which is why the Church’s Magisterium is protected from error under the right circumstances. Therefore it is very, very, very good for people to know exactly what they must believe and, correspondingly, what they absolutely are not permitted to believe. Thus, anathemas are a very, very, very good thing, which is maybe why the faith was thriving when they were in greater use.

 

[pnewton]

Thus, anathemas are a very, very, very good thing, which is maybe why the faith was thriving when they were in greater use.

The two greatest split in the history of the Church occurred when they were in use. The greatest growth in the history of the Church occurred *before *they came into use. I do not think history is supports their use either way.

 

[Tigg]

Yours, so long as he’s not advocating something sinful.

Which does nothing to answer the real question as far as the universal teaching authority of the Church is concerned. There can be no individual opinions.

 

[jwinch2]

Probably about 10% of the Catholics I know have read some or all of the documents. I do not know a lot of non-practicing Catholics. I would think that this still would no be a problem becaust someone who has not read the documents could not very well be confused by what they did not read.

My point is that it is hard to claim that people do not find the documents confusing except for the ones on here, when most have not read them. In addition, I would be shocked if that 10 were not confused at some level, or even if they did not think they were, if you were to ask them questions about what Vatican II taught would answer incorrectly.

For example, we recently tried to make some changes in our liturgy (adding back in the propers, responses in Latin, etc.) and met heavy resistance from people who claimed that Vatican II had done away with all that. Some of them are people who have definitely read the documents, while some of them were not. Note the number threads on here recently comparing the teaching of No Salvation Outside the Church pre and post Vatican II. Now, I do not wish to reopen that discussion, but would note that obviously, people find it confusing or the question would not be brought up so many times.

 

[clem456]

Which does nothing to answer the real question as far as the universal teaching authority of the Church is concerned. There can be no individual opinions.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm
I bolded some meaningful passages

874 Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:

In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. The holders of office, who are invested with a sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren, so that all who belong to the People of God . . . may attain to salvation.389
…
The episcopal college and its head, the Pope

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399
…
895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised **in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope. **

Lots of very good stuff in this first section of the catechism.

 

[Greg_N]

I [obviously] don’t speak with any authority on these issues, but some excerpts from the document ‘Gaudium et Spes’ (I find) are a little disconcerting, specifically the following [bold added]:

For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbor: “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself… Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law” (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. 1 John 4:20). To men growing daily more dependent on one another, and to a world becoming more unified every day, this truth proves to be of paramount importance.

Comparing this with scripture the inconsistency appears quite clear [emphasis added]:

Matthew 22:35-39
35 And one of them, a doctor of the law, asking him, tempting him: Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

I find this comparison most upsetting because (while it is blatantly obvious that our Lord has split these into two distinct commandments [with emphasis given to the former]) I believe it is exactly this which we now find lacking in the Church; this unapologetic reverence and zeal for God made possible through a “love of the Lord thy God” which Christ Himself directed, “with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind”.

I do not aim to undermine V2, this is merely my own perspective of what I believe to be a slight inconsistency/ambiguity within the specified document.

 

[pnewton]

My point is that it is hard to claim that people do not find the documents confusing except for the ones on here, when most have not read them.

I only spoke from my own experience. I did that only as secondary to the what the Church has done. Now if I could see where the Holy Father has presented Vatican II ambiguities as a serious problem, then that would be different. My own bishop has never said anything about this issue. My own priest has not. Even if one looks at what Cardianl Kaspar said and doesn’t go further, he only explains why the formulas are the way they and, as I covered in my strange dialogue above, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[pnewton]

I find this comparison most upsetting because (while it is blatantly obvious that our Lord has split these into two distinct commandments [with emphasis given to the former]) I believe it is exactly this which we now find lacking in the Church; this unapologetic reverence and zeal for God made possible through a “love of the Lord thy God” which Christ Himself directed, “with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind”.

Jesus split these two commandments in that one particular answer to an educated theologian who asked for one specific law. Even in that case, Jesus thought the two were so related that he had add a second law as integral to his answer. Note that Jesus did not split these two laws and make this distinction when he was teaching on salvation. He said how we treat others is *exactly *how we treat him, when we feed, clother or visit them. Gaudium et Spes is dead on in this. In any case, it sure isn’t ambiguous.

 

[Greg_N]

Jesus split these two commandments in that one particular answer to an educated theologian who asked for one specific law. Even in that case, Jesus thought the two were so related that he had add a second law as integral to his answer.

Simply not a sufficient answer, appreciate the attempt though.

 

[Sirach2]

jwinch2:

The full text has been linked before on CAF via a google translation from the Italian. If you do a quick search for it, you should find it no problem.

Indeed, it is simply a computer generated translation, and does not depict the true thought of His Eminence. It is rather, a technically generated similitude of the Italian language. If this was such an important issue, and if the Cardinal was saying verbatim everything that the rad-websites conjectured, wouldn’t we expect to find it in English … anywhere … somewhere? This is the narrow translation that has been linked to google.

In many places, they had to find compromise formulas, in Which, Often, the positions of the Majority are located immediately next to Those of the minority, designed to delimit them. In many places, they had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them.

Thus, the conciliar texts they hold enormous potential for conflict; open the door to a selective reception in either direction. Which Indicates the compass direction of the council and where it leads the way the Catholic Church, the still young twenty-first century?

As has been pointed out previously, there is no such wording, even in this questionable translation, that the Council Fathers intentionally and deliberately skewed the documents to provide ambiguity. The media reporters were not present to understand the Cardinal’s intended meaning as to lawful reasons why there may have been some compromised wording. Very probably, if this was done, it would be to avoid a rigid stand often found in previous council documents that contained multiple anathemas. It is utterly unconscionable to promote this highly questionable translation. I seriously doubt the Cardinal used the wording “compass direction”, shedding further doubt that his other words are actual representations…

It is equivalent to the poor translation of Jesus’ words, “Unless you ‘hate’ your mother, father, brothers, sisters …” There was no viable word found in Greek to correspond correctly in biblical translation of the Hebrew. Similary, the oft-challenged statement about Jesus having ‘brothers’ due to having no adequate word to translate ‘cousin’. This is also the root of protestant quibbling about Peter being the rock, due to the narrow Greek translation, petra. The Hebrew word “mercy” is rich beyond its bare meaning in English, and every Jew understood what “hesed” really meant. We do not have such broadness in understanding these translations.

The Church, in her appointed authority, is the only one who can interpret infallibly the underlying meaning in any document or scripture passage. I ask, therefore, who has the authority in our pews to say what the Council Fathers intended in drafting these documents, based on a totally nebulous report of one Cardinal … even if it did happen to be true? This thread is spurious in the least, creating doubt in the minds of loyal Catholics, rather than align oneself as a faithful son or daughter of the Church, who loves the Bride of Christ, and would not want to besmirch Her in any way.

 

[pnewton]

Simply not a sufficient answer, appreciate the attempt though.

I do not tend to go into too much defense of Catholic teaching here. That is best left to the apologetics forum. In this case, there is also a Social Justice forum in which such questions can be addressed.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think this section of Cardinal Kasper’s comments are the most telling. Not only is he clear in his comments that the documents were intentionally unclear to allow for both the majority and minority views, he seems to be pitting the majority against the minority (if I’m understanding this correctly). It appears the minority had very strong feelings against some of what the majority was putting forth for this to happen this way. I have to wonder whether it would have been a better idea to work through that first rather than putting forth documents that essentially was a compromise of sorts. I have more to say about this but I do not have the time now.

I don’t know about that, but what could have happened is for the generalities to be explained in specifics. Again, and as several of us said earlier, in truth much of the documents were theories and approaches, with ramifications that first of all were to reflect a style of the Church (including the hiearchy but certainly extending to every parish priest).

I don’t know that any of us have any way to verify Cardinal Kasper’s comments, as brief as they were provided to us, as to the motive of the side-by-side format. Perhaps he does know, perhaps he has more evidence than that. But I guess my question is, why should we care about motives? It may be very important historically, to a student of history or ecclesiology, but as the faithful we should care about what was and was not decreed by the Coucil, as it all affects our personal faith lives and parish lives. No questions will be asked at our Particular Judgments about whether we have unconvered any machinations at work in V2. All objective History Class quizzes and exams will be over with by that time, and we will left to explain our subjective histories only. (Not, “Elizabeth, why did the Vatican 2 Council Fathers write…” in 1960-whatever, but “Why did you do this, when I commanded you to do that?”

So we should care, yes, about how we are being directed, through the Church, to carry out those commands, and how the form of worship does or does not support that, and all that is valid. (Thus, since we know that V2 did not reverse Catholic moral doctrine, and did not make the Magisterium irrelevant in our lives, how could either falsehood actually be discussed openly or implied in parishes, on the part of anyone of any position or lack of position?) That’s the key element. It’s of intellectual interest that there might have been something deliberately ambiguous going on in the 1960’s in the Vatican, but it is not of current spiritual consequence to us.

What is of current spiritual consequence is whether any Catholic believes that the Council inaugurated a new morality (No), declared that private conscience was the first go-to location for Church doctrine (No), declared that the Eucharistic celebration was merely a party with symbols and banners (No), declared that all religions are equal (No), declared that the vernacular should be the default language of the Mass in First World countires (No), declared the heresy of Americanism (No), declared that “we don’t need to confess our sins any more because The Spirit of V2 says that Love is more important” (No), declared that devotions were passe (No) -------> because all of those affect spirituality and conformity to God’s Law through the Church.

Again, this is not to impugn or criticize any poster or any Catholic who is interested in Church history and is troubled by some explicit or implicit contradictions in the reporting of this history. All I am doing here is supporting the lay concern, the valid concern, about errors still being taught and/or practiced. The question is, how does the Church correct those errors on the local level, whatever the hierarchy does or doesn’t do on the institutiona level?

Back to your question, Lucky, yours implies an actual impasse within the Council, such that my suggestion (within the document) might have not been possible. If they were not in agreement among themselves, then specifics to the generalities could not have been constructed, and particularly not side-by-side. Many of us do know what the Council did and did not proclaim. Many of those are on this thread. We probably do not represent the typical Catholic in the pew. Maybe we represent as much as 40% of those Catholics (I’m being generous), but for half of Catholics not to know what are and are not the core teachings of the Church, including but not limited to Vatican 2, remains a crisis. Bad learners become bad teachers.

And I do maintain – this is the one area of agreement I have with sirach2’s recent post-- that in order for the laity to listen, the authentic interpretation of the Council has to come from recognized authority figures. As good a catechist as I might be, and as some of you undoubtedly would be, if we’re “organizing adult catechesis” as a responseo to a vacuum in our parishes (see ed’s earlier challenge to me on this thread), it will not be received and respected if that corrective teaching appears to contradict their poor unerstanding of Vatican 2. That is why I continue to maintain that this is still primarily in the Holy See’s lap.

 

[Sirach2]

jerome_ky:

There’s a story out now about Cardinal Walter Kasper being quoted as saying that there were deliberate ambiguities inserted into the documents of Vatican II. I have been searching online about this and I see a lot of people agreeing and saying, We knew this all along, but every example of “ambiguity” someone gives seems very non-ambiguous.

One example doesn’t make an argument, of course. But with all the affirmations of ambiguities in the documents, someone here should be able to give a clear example of at least one obvious one. That is to say, an example from the documents themselves, NOT an example of someone else SAYING there is ambiguity, even if it’s one of the authors of the conciliar document.

Jerome, it seems like your thread responders are all over the map in saying that there was ambiguity, but nobody has come forth with the concrete examples you asked for. Yeah, lots of allegations of ambiguity, but that’s all they are so far, right? No examples.

BTW, the same Cardinal Kasper who supposedly made a comment about ambiguity, is the very same Cardinal who made a strong statement about these three documents … only three months earlier. Surely he did not suddenly have a change of heart and decide to ‘fess up?’

On the Catholic side, Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relations of the Church to Non-Christian Religions was the decisive turning-point," he continued. “It was irrevocable, as Benedict XVI also reaffirmed clearly during his visit to the Synagogue of Rome on 17 January 2010. It was irreversible for the simple reason that the main theological arguments of Nostra Aetate were firmly established in two of the Council’s most important Constitutions: the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (nn. 6, 9 and 16) and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (nn. 3, 14).”

 

[Elizabeth502]

Jerome, it seems like your thread responders are all over the map in saying that there was ambiguity, but nobody has come forth with the concrete examples you asked for. Yeah, lots of allegations of ambiguity, but that’s all they are so far, right?

Wrong.

The tip of the iceberg of those specific ambiguities are enumerated in my post 98. There are legions more. I don’t know what parish you belong to, or how wide your experience is, but it couldn’t correlate with what those of us on this thread (minimum) have observed within many parishes over the last 20 years, and what many other CAF’ers have also encountered.