Vatican II Ambiguities

[Elizabeth502]

Many of us noticed that SW85 is a brand new Catholic, just entering the Church a year ago. Doesn’t it seem strange for him to be assuming the role of Vatican II instructor?

The poster sw85 is one of the most intelligent, well-informed, and articulate posters on CAF – a fact observed by many. To suggest that he is somehow poorly educated or has no legitimacy to discuss V2 does not reflect a review of his posting history, and I will suggest is uncharitable as well. His understanding of the Church and her doctrines and her history towers above that of the typical modern Catholic, and is a product of his self-study of original documents and sources.

 

[Sirach2]

The poster sw85 is one of the most intelligent, well-informed, and articulate posters on CAF – a fact observed by many. To suggest that he is somehow poorly educated or has no legitimacy to discuss V2 does not reflect a review of his posting history, and I will suggest is uncharitable as well. His understanding of the Church and her doctrines and her history towers above that of the typical modern Catholic, and is a product of his self-study of original documents and sources.

Many people will post in this manner, “It is my understanding that…”

This person posts dogmatically, as though there is no other legitimate opinion but his.

I don’t intend to squabble. My reply stands.

 

[edwest2]

[continuing…]

"the Council is therefore binding for everyone

, but at different levels."

In his words that follow, he’s not necessary referring to this, but I am:
The formal and official direction of the Church is set by the hierarchy, not by the laity. Laity has an influence, as part of the People of God. But they are not the directors, not the editors of Magisterial teaching, not the discerners & authors of essential dogma, individually or collectively – not through the exercise of indiividual conscience, not through Parish Councils, not by committee, not because “The Holy Spirit tells me so.”. Many of us have witnessed, even if His Eminence does not (or does not mention it in this interview) that the laity, even some clergy (less so) no longer regard the Holy See as the prime authority in the Church.

This development – and it is a fact – has serious consequences for the unity of the Church, not to mention the clarity, both internally and to the world. Judging from internal and external surveys of Catholics, it is not possible that the majority of Catholics, who are opposing doctrine in their stated beliefs and individual lifestyles, are submitting to “doctrine which has not changed,” in some fundamental areas (not regarding custom or discipline). The spirit of autonomy remains the controlling dynamic among Catholic laity, post-V2. His Eminence can say all he wants (and he is correct), that the influence of secularism has affected the perceived integrity of the Church, but those effects do not disturb the majority of Catholics, even though its reality disturbs the work of the salvation of souls.

Therefore, ironically, it is not the (mainline, anyway) traditionalists who do not view the Council as binding: It is the majority of post-V2 Catholics who informally and by their behavior declare independence from “the doctrines which do not change.”

We can talk about this for a long time but Pope Benedict made it clear that the public, at large, retained a Council of the Media as opposed to understanding the Council of the fathers, and that only now is the Council of the fathers emerging from the fog.

There is no evidence of a perfect storm. However, the dissidents inside and outside the Church decided to latch on to the Media version of the Council and launch a massive assault not just against the Church but against the public at large in the late 1960s. I was there. We in the West were living through a time where we had communities and mostly good neighbors. Where the US government reflected and respected our Christian values and acknowledged our Judeo-Christian Heritage. Then the liars and deceivers showed up. Their goals then are the problems of today.

1. Sexual immorality of every description, including contraception and abortion. That’s problem number one.
2. The total distortion of dating and marriage, and the complementary nature of the sexes, including the concept of commitment. Plus easy divorce.
3. Smoke dope!

The end goal was to legalize all of the above and gradually wear down/desensitize the hearts and minds of any who opposed the plan – especially Christians. From then till now, it took all this time to set the ship of the Church aright and to undo the damage, as Pope Benedict recently stated that the true Council, the Council of the fathers, is coming to light.

For them, Indifference, another problem Pope Benedict mentioned, was another goal. “Hey. What’s the big deal?” This indifferent attitude was just another way of saying “We want our ‘alternative lifestyles’ so shut up already!” That back in the late 60s and after. That’s been repackaged as diversity today. But it’s not enough that they want to do what they want. They are going to force their alternative lifestyles on the rest of us starting at 5 years old on up. That’s been relabeled inclusiveness. And we’re supposed to like it, which has been relabeled tolerance.

That’s the formula folks. Ignore it, legalize it, and even if you don’t accept it, you will tolerate it, by law if necessary.

Then the finger pointing starts, since adding confusion always helps. “It was Vatican II ! The spirit of… or the misreading of… or the…” Give. Me. A. Break. No more Vatican II as the scapegoat.

And if anyone thinks action is required now - like what?

Ed

 

[Elizabeth502]

Many people will post in this manner, “It is my understanding that…”

This person posts dogmatically, as though there is no other legitimate opinion but his.

I don’t intend to squabble. My reply stands.

Well apparently you do intend to squabble, or you wouldn’t be squabbling with me.

I believe he’s not the one being “dogmatic” here. However, he most definitely quotes dogma, something quite unpopular and “heterodox” since V2.

IOW, sw85 actually does his homework on the refinements of Church teaching, which is rare both for the young and even often for the much older. He is a gem both among converts and cradle Catholics. God Bless him for his discernment process and his entrance into the Church. We are supposed to rejoice for all genuine newcomers, genuinely and humbly learning from Holy Mother Church, as opposed to “learning” from those members of the laity who were clearly poorly taught and/or reject dogma.

 

[Elizabeth502]

We can talk about this for a long time but Pope Benedict made it clear that the public, at large, retained a Council of the Media as opposed to understanding the Council of the fathers, and that only now is the Council of the fathers emerging from the fog…There is no evidence of a perfect storm.

The quoted Cardinal seems to imply as much, just as others have as well (in and out of hte Church). I don’t understand, Ed, why you think both are not possible and in fact logical and likely: internal dissidence plus external dissidence (secular media, such as quoted by BXVI, such as quoted by Pope Francis, etc.) One feeds the other. How is this not apparent to you? The Church is not a giant global monastery. Even in previous centuries it intersected with the world. That is the Perfect Storm, combined with cultural disintegration to which:

you refer
I refer (and have often)
members of the hierarchy have referred (and often)
sometimes even the secular media have referred

Personally, I believe that the defining “event” of the Council was the convenience of the cultural disintegration in the world at large, but particularly the West. Whether it was that disintegration, or the cusp of it, which influenced internal dissidence iin the Church (in your opinion, at high levels), or whether the internal dissidence had an independent life of its own and would have proceeded without external permission, I don’t think you or I is prophetic enough to determine.

Ultimately, I argue, it doesn’t matter, because the effects were enormous and are still huge.

]
From then till now, it took all this time to set the ship of the Church aright and to undo the damage, …

It is your opinion that the damage has been repaired. Not my opinion, and not the opinion of many higher than lowly me in the Church. In fact you even contradict yourself:

Then the liars and deceivers showed up. Their goals then are the problems of today.

And I will remind you that you yourself have talked about ambiguous language in documents, and the opportunity which that provided.

The Church has become more dissident, not less so, and more divided, not more unified. Such divisions reflect a deep disturbance and a perception that the hierarchy is unconcerned about those divisions, at least to a level in which there is a willingness to examine the causes and dynamics, and to address those concerns publicly. Merely making statements now and then about the SSPX, or the Council of the Media, is telling the faithful what those of us watching already know.

 

[sw85]

Many people will post in this manner, “It is my understanding that…”

This person posts dogmatically, as though there is no other legitimate opinion but his.

I don’t intend to squabble. My reply stands.

I’ve been out of college for three years and my writing style hasn’t changed much since then. A good college professor will ding you for jamming needless qualifiers like “I think,” “I feel,” “I believe,” “In my opinion,” etc., into a paper, and not just because this is usually done to pad out page lengths or word counts. It’s because it’s redundant. Either your position is defensible or it isn’t. If it’s defensible then you should defend it as the truth you believe it to be. If it’s not defensible, you shouldn’t articulate it. Either way, there’s no reason to equivocate by insisting that what is your obviously your opinion is just your opinion.

 

[Sirach2]

I’ve been out of college for three years and my writing style hasn’t changed much since then. A good college professor will ding you for jamming needless qualifiers like “I think,” “I feel,” “I believe,” “In my opinion,” etc., into a paper, and not just because this is usually done to pad out page lengths or word counts. It’s because it’s redundant. Either your position is defensible or it isn’t. If it’s defensible then you should defend it as the truth you believe it to be. If it’s not defensible, you shouldn’t articulate it. Either way, there’s no reason to equivocate by insisting that what is your obviously your opinion is just your opinion.

The problem with that illogic is that YOU are not the author of the V-II documents and have no authority to tell others how to interpret them as you have done here. Humility would strive to understand the intent of the Council Fathers, rather than impose one’s “alternate” armchair theology upon the readers in this forum.
Thomas Casey:

There will be no other position

offered here as an alternative for Catholics other than that which was offered by the Holy See.

 

[Ghislieri]

This person posts dogmatically, as though there is no other legitimate opinion but his.

Before joining, I’ve observed this forum for a while. While I do not intend to be contentous, Sirach, I’ve observed this same behavior from you. In fact, it seems there is a pattern, from what I can tell, that it isn’t too long after you join a thread that it gets shut down when you don’t agree with something. (Reporting to the moderators perhaps because you don’t like the way it’s going?).

Just my opinion and I mean no disrespect, but I think you may be spending a little too much time trying to police everyone on the “trad” forum.

 

[Sirach2]

Before joining, I’ve observed this forum for a while. While I do not intend to be contentous, Sirach, I’ve observed this same behavior from you. In fact, it seems there is a pattern, from what I can tell, that it isn’t too long after you join a thread that it gets shut down when you don’t agree with something. (Reporting to the moderators perhaps because you don’t like the way it’s going?).

Just my opinion and I mean no disrespect, but I think you may be spending a little too much time trying to police everyone on the “trad” forum.

Indeed, my friend. This has been hashed indiscriminately at Fisheaters. I’ve seen the attacks, hi-5’s, displays of anger over thread closings, and much more that I must leave unsaid, in the spirit of charity.

 

[edwest2]

The quoted Cardinal seems to imply as much, just as others have as well (in and out of hte Church). I don’t understand, Ed, why you think both are not possible and in fact logical and likely: internal dissidence plus external dissidence (secular media, such as quoted by BXVI, such as quoted by Pope Francis, etc.) One feeds the other. How is this not apparent to you? The Church is not a giant global monastery. Even in previous centuries it intersected with the world. That is the Perfect Storm, combined with cultural disintegration to which:

you refer
I refer (and have often)
members of the hierarchy have referred (and often)
sometimes even the secular media have referred

Personally, I believe that the defining “event” of the Council was the convenience of the cultural disintegration in the world at large, but particularly the West. Whether it was that disintegration, or the cusp of it, which influenced internal dissidence iin the Church (in your opinion, at high levels), or whether the internal dissidence had an independent life of its own and would have proceeded without external permission, I don’t think you or I is prophetic enough to determine.

Ultimately, I argue, it doesn’t matter, because the effects were enormous and are still huge.

It is your opinion that the damage has been repaired. Not my opinion, and not the opinion of many higher than lowly me in the Church. In fact you even contradict yourself:

And I will remind you that you yourself have talked about ambiguous language in documents, and the opportunity which that provided.

The Church has become more dissident, not less so, and more divided, not more unified. Such divisions reflect a deep disturbance and a perception that the hierarchy is unconcerned about those divisions, at least to a level in which there is a willingness to examine the causes and dynamics, and to address those concerns publicly. Merely making statements now and then about the SSPX, or the Council of the Media, is telling the faithful what those of us watching already know.

Since we know and since you say the Church has become more dissident, what do you propose by way of action? I work in the media and fully understand how public perception works. The Church hierarchy is not closed to us. We can literally contact anyone in the Church to address/answer your comment of their appearing unconcerned and ask what they are doing or plan to do to address those concerns publicly.

Ed

 

[CrossofChrist]

Something several of us here on CAF have also been aware of for quite some time, have posted about, have offered links to articles, etc. (Not new to us, anyway. )
In fact, these words of his:
“The waves of secularism began to undermine the Church long before the Council, but they accumulated into a tsunami at the same time as the great event of the Council”

were virtually identical to some of what we have said, without being aware of this interview. Some of us called it A Perfect Storm (I know I did); once one of us may have even used the same term, “tsunami.”

Just trying to add to the discussion. So I guess that worked even if (as it seems to me) that means trying to show why I shouldn’t have made my post.

“But the role of the Church is not only to help in the social field; its secondary mission is to help the bonum commune [the common good], but the first reason for its existence is to preach the Gospel and thus give hope to the world. Therefore, we have an interlinking between the event of the Council and assault of secularism. … …We must look to our own resources – the Scriptures, the Fathers, the dogmatic teachings of the Church - and, like a good captain, steer the way ahead.”

Hopefully this looking to our own resources will be done soon? Steering the way ahead instead of not realizing that we are being steered?

Isn’t that what we’re starting to see now?

Pope Paul VI and Bl. JPII did a great job with the aggiornamento aspect of the Council, but now with Benedict and Francis I think we are seeing more the the ressourcement side being put into practice. Not that the former two weren’t advocating ressourcement or the latter not advocating aggiornamento, but, at least to me, it appears that the way they interacted with the world was influenced more one way or the other.

You know, I just worded that so poorly I should probably delete it. Oh well.

 

[CrossofChrist]

[continuing…]

"the Council is therefore binding for everyone

, but at different levels."

Therefore, ironically, it is not the (mainline, anyway) traditionalists who do not view the Council as binding: It is the majority of post-V2 Catholics who informally and by their behavior declare independence from “the doctrines which do not change.”

I would agree with this since most Catholics are fallen away and hence most likely modernist.

But I have seen Catholics on these forums seemingly wish that Vatican II never happened. And that is something I truly can’t stand. Fortunately, those people are a very small minority.

Just a general thought to anyone who might come across this: To really understand what went on at the Second Vatican Council and the strains of thought that influenced the aftermath, Ratzinger’s Theological Highlights of Vatican II and his essay Ten Years after the Beginning of the Council-Where Do We Stand? are very valuable resources. There is so much more stuff out there as well, but those are good starting points.

 

[CrossofChrist]

It’s always refreshing to read when a Prefect of the CDF weighs in on a subject. All the supposed ambiguities disappear. As Prefect, then-Cardinal Ratzinger made similar statements to the above when asked about the Council. I don’t think a thorough and faithful reading of the documents will reveal any ambiguities. A subject may be more emphasized in one place than it is in another, but just because something isn’t hammered home in every sentence doesn’t mean it stops being true. For example, The first documents state that being in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, and that doesn’t get abrogated because, in a later document, dialogue with other faiths is encouraged. My 2 cents.

Good insight.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Again, whether or not there were ambiguities within the documents, they were interpreted ambiguously (accidentally or deliberately, or both), and those ambiguous interpretations have altered the direction, and I will argue, the stature of the Church, for two full generations.

Ambiguous interpretation (at best) of what the Church believes has always led to problems. Look at the Reformation and interpretation of Scripture.

These are just my thoughts, but Vatican II seems like the Trent against modernism. But instead of handling the problem after it exploded, Vatican II ended up trying to handle it right before the bubble burst in 68. By then it was too late to stop the outpouring of modernism (imagine if Lateran V had tried confronting the Protestant heresy and reform of the Church–by the time reforms could have been implemented, it would’ve been too late regardless).

 

[sw85]

The problem with that illogic is that YOU are not the author of the V-II documents and have no authority to tell others how to interpret them as you have done here. Humility would strive to understand the intent of the Council Fathers, rather than impose one’s “alternate” armchair theology upon the readers in this forum.

I don’t even know what you’re talking about here.

(1) I am outlining one way of understanding, e.g., Dignitatis Humanae that is consonant with tradition, exactly as Pope Benedict said we must understand it and the rest of Vatican II.

(2) This way of understanding it has the benefit of also explaining the “ambiguities” that have vexed so many on these forums which is relevant because it’s, errr, the topic of this thread.

(3) You may or may not like my way of understanding it but its rightness or wrongness has nothing to do with “authority.”

(4) Trying to understand the intent of the Council fathers, which was simply to express the Catholic faith in terms understandable to modern (liberal) man [they told us as much!], is exactly what post #77 was all about.

(5) What “alternate” “armchair” theology? Most of my contribution here has not concerned theology at all but has instead focused on the prudential question of whether or not certain forms of language are adequate for expressing Catholic truth. Being a prudential question, it’s something reasonable people can disagree about. You may or may not like my take on it but, again, it has nothing to do with authority, humility, the Magisterium of the Church, etc. What little has touched on theology has been to advance one possible interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae which, as the Holy See has ordered, accords with Tradition.

(6) Participating freely in an open discussion on a public forum is hardly “imposing” anything on anyone.

(7) You really need to calm down. You are inordinately and disproportionately angry relative to what has so far been a very dry and academic discussion, simply because you don’t like my dry and academic tone.

I don’t know why you keep quoting Mr. Casey at me, either. I have offered exactly one interpretation of exactly one document of Vatican II, which is perfectly in accord with the principles outlined by the Holy See, namely, that we must understand Vatican II in light of Tradition and not at odds with it.

You seem to be using me as a proxy for the Masses of schismatics you’ve had bad experiences with in the past, and I have no idea why.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Since we know and since you say the Church has become more dissident, what do you propose by way of action? I work in the media and fully understand how public perception works. The Church hierarchy is not closed to us. We can literally contact anyone in the Church to address/answer your comment of their appearing unconcerned and ask what they are doing or plan to do to address those concerns publicly.

Ed

I’ll reply to you later, Ed. Need to take care of my earthly responsibilities for the rest of the day.

God bless.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That would indeed be an error if that were what I had said, but it wasn’t, so it isn’t. Go back and read what I said. What I said was simply that Dignitatis Humanae affected liberal language in order to express a theologically correct principle to liberal (i.e., “modern”) man.

This is hilarious to me. I agree with you. But it forces me to ask myself, “Good grief, if it was written with the expectation that ‘modern man’ understand it, then why can’t I understand it without having threads like these?”

It means I’m stupid, I’m not a liberal, “modern man” doesn’t actually exist–one of my contentions–or that these things can’t in fact be expressed any more clearly in liberal language than the sort of language the Church used in the past.

 

[edwest2]

Oh fer cryin’ out loud. I saw no one freaking out after Vatican II, but radicals/anarchists/Marxists built a structure that saw the division of families, which was followed by the radical feminists which saw the creation of a division and distrust between men and women with their angry, “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” Those chains would be men. Shortly followed by No-Fault Divorce. I watched as a few at a time, my Catholic neighbors tried it “their way,” and that is why the Church is inviting them back. Knowing, I believe, that after a number of divorces, abortions and shacking ups have left Catholics feeling like, “What a mess! I listened to the wrong people! The serpent beguiled me!”

Come home. Be healed.

catholicscomehome.org/

 

[YoungTradCath]

The problem with that illogic is that YOU are not the author of the V-II documents and have no authority to tell others how to interpret them as you have done here. Humility would strive to understand the intent of the Council Fathers, rather than impose one’s “alternate” armchair theology upon the readers in this forum.

I don’t see how sw85’s posts are at odds with the authentic norms of interpretation elucidated by the Church, including the Popes. On the contrary, and if I must use the term, the spirit of sw85’s posts, and the posts of most others in this thread, are fully in line with the spirit of Pope Benedict’s Address to the priests of Rome about the Council of the Fathers versus the council of the media.

 

[Greg_N]

Elizabeth502;10851194:

Again, whether or not there were ambiguities within the documents, they were interpreted ambiguously (accidentally or deliberately, or both), and those ambiguous interpretations have altered the direction, and I will argue, the stature of the Church, for two full generations.

And, worse still, have gone largely unchallenged.

This is exactly right. The attitudes of many of the influential theologians during the events prior and during V2 were that of a fundamental reform of how the Catholic Church was approaching theology; the objective by its very nature was to challenge; yet we shan’t dare contend the “ambiguity” of V2.

I’ve been Spotlighting the V2 Document ‘Gaudium et Spes’ (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World).

There is something undeniably peculiar about this document. Drawing my attention was the fact that the theologian Marie-Dominique Chenu played a pivotal role in the authoring of the document… now this is someone who I’ve just learnt was a founder of the notoriously progressive theological journal ‘Concilium’ (along side the likes of Hans Küng who’s just had his authority to teach Catholic theology rescinded by the Vatican).

What I find even more worrisome is that Chenu’s book “Le Saulchoir: Une école de la théologie” (which was published in 1937) was put on the Index librorum prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) in 1942 by Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office for being heretical.

He was heavily associated with the “left wing” of the reformist movement Nouvelle Théologie, and the plot thickened after I read the Exposé of the “Nouvelle Théologie” by Chenu’s former instructor and teacher Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (an outspoken traditionalist and Thomist) which was published in the journal ‘Angelicum’ in 1946.

The fact that this man(Chenu) was an advisor and author of one of the Four Constitutions of the Second Vatican Council is quite literally an outrage.