Vatican II and its necessity...where do i belong?

[OurBeloved]

Than you for the clear and concise answer. I guess I’ll get a few books and study up on Vatican II. I ‘feel’ traditional, but don’t want to be ‘a misguided individual’ as you say.

That would be an excellent approach. Something that will also help is to read some of the older teaching of another council that is commonly accused of as being contradicted by Vatican II.

Then analyze what was taught in each of the councils on that issue and what was merely a disciplinary measure, and what were the prudential reasons for the disciplinary measure and what core idea of faith was protected by it. Discipline was put in place to protect a core idea of faith or a way of life that did protect a core requirement of faith. Always good to keep in mind is that disciplines were not just random pronouncements.

This will help get rid of 99% of the accusations which are based on Vatican II violating teaching when they were simply disciplinary measures. On the other hand, this will also help you understand why some of the ideas presented today by Bishops and Priests (as possible ways of implementing ideas of Vatican II) are indeed unwise since they take away the protection of a core idea of faith or way of life that promotes something essential to Faith. As I said before, always good to keep in mind is that even though disciplinary measures can be changed, the disciplines were in-place to safe-guard some core idea that was actually central to the faith. So unless a proposed new discipline still respects and protects that core idea of faith, it would in-fact be as bad as violating a church teaching it-self in its indirect effect.

Then there is also the other 1% which deal with teachings that were more well defined in Vatican II compared to other councils. Understanding the old and the new will help you better grasp the actual teaching it-self in a more deeper way and identify the core.

Overall, you will find that most of the non-traditional practices opposed by traditional fold today are things that reject (or will lead to the rejection of) the core ideas of faith that were protected by disciplines of the past. Then to the detriment of traditional folk, they sometimes needlessly reject certain elements which were changed, simply because it is different, but when the changes still do retain the core idea of faith that it enveloped. For their defense, it probably happens out of suspicion of anything new which has peaked due to how many actual violations that are committed and promoted by things which are new.

But in any-case, the only way to safely navigate through the minefield today is to study Vatican II and other councils before it. In the meantime, give full assent to the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI and do not abandon the older practices and disciplines that you have been taught or come to know unless you have good reason given to do so.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

I tell anybody who will listen that I think the safest, fullest, and most joyful path to heaven is in worshipping at the traditional Mass, learning from traditional catechisms, and holding the traditional Catholic worldview – but all that is available to every Catholic (well, it’s permitted at least). You don’t have to join a group or become a “trad” to live like Catholics always lived before. I sort of live like Vatican II never happened. Not out of disobedience to Holy Mother Church (God forbid) but incidentally, because the 16 constitutions of the council are less accessible and relevent to me than the Mass I attend or the Catholic culture I’m exposed to.

I think you’ve just touched on why I’m confused…Can we really live like it never happened? Isn’t that in itself being dis-obedient to some degree? Or…I guess I should ask: Do traditional catholics so want the previous ways to return that it is seen as a kind of ‘statement’?

It seems to me that in my lifetime (46 years) that the ‘holy’ aspect of being catholic (meaning set apart) has been eroded. It is beautiful, mysterious, elevated, and deep. Now its not so easy to pick up on those things and I’m confused.

 

[Cathryn]

The necessity of Vatican II was decided by the Church that Jesus Christ founded. That is good enough for me. Faithful Catholics need to accept all her decisions. To live our lives as though Vatican II never happened is very strange. Vatican II did happen and it was the work of the Holy Spirit. I love both forms of the Mass, and am blessed to be able to attend them both. I am beginning to appreciate the Novus Ordo much more since the new translation changes have taken place.

 

[floresco]

I think you’ve just touched on why I’m confused…Can we really live like it never happened? Isn’t that in itself being dis-obedient to some degree? Or…I guess I should ask: Do traditional catholics so want the previous ways to return that it is seen as a kind of ‘statement’?

Very little of what was decreed by the Council affects average Catholics in our everyday lives. Offhand, I cannot think of how anybody could disobey it.

The main thing perceived as a change introduced by the Council is the new Mass that followed it. But, as others have mentioned, the most noticeable changes to the Mass were not called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium. In some cases even, current practice contradicts the Council document.

 

[Cristiano]

I think you’ve just touched on why I’m confused…Can we really live like it never happened? Isn’t that in itself being dis-obedient to some degree? Or…I guess I should ask: Do traditional catholics so want the previous ways to return that it is seen as a kind of ‘statement’?

It seems to me that in my lifetime (46 years) that the ‘holy’ aspect of being catholic (meaning set apart) has been eroded. It is beautiful, mysterious, elevated, and deep. Now its not so easy to pick up on those things and I’m confused.

No, a good Catholic cannot live like it never happened. A good Catholic is not required to know all of the documents of the Church but he is not allowed to pretend that they never existed, Catholics are expected to try to grow in faith and reason. Maybe instead of the us vs. them mentality that a lot of people have toward VII you could study what happened there as an aspect of the history of the Church without giving it more or less emphasis respect to the other councils.

I think that too many people here on CAF look at VII as a something in vacuum and they use it to promote or destroy an agenda. We are not to buy into those games, if we are confused we can simply say so and above all we should avoid using labels because they to do not remove our confusion but they only come between people.

 

[floresco]

No, a good Catholic cannot live like it never happened.

What do you think “living like Vatican II happened” looks like and how is it different from living “like it never happened”?

It’s not a trick question. I really don’t know what you mean by this.

 

[sw85]

Hello all-

I’ve been reading with great interest some of the posts here in the traditional forum, and am still trying to determine if I am one of ‘you’. So…2 multi part questions:

1. What drove the need for vatican II? was it a knee jerk reaction to the hippies or something? I was not around yet, so i have no frame of reference other than my dad complaining about it from time to time. If it was not ‘needed’ to address issues of doctrine or dogmatic principles, then why was it held? Is it possible that the Holy Spirit was guiding our beloved church down this road for a reason? Could it be that God knew that we should have the changes ushered in by vatican II because it would bring about a greater good and a stronger church? I know that currently that is not the case, but…
2. Yesterday at mass, we started by greeting each other warmly. Then we had a financial pitch after a short homily. Then we ‘affirmed’ and applauded all the birthdays. Then the same for all the anniversaries. etc, etc, etc… It is all too much!! Are there any reverent OF masses and parishes left? Not around here I think. I am more frequently annoyed at mass!! Horrible!! I have trouble reconciling this annoyance with the joy of the mass. I know this is a personal thing, and related to ‘feelings’, but do I just suck it up (acceptance) as a faithful catholic, or am I experiencing a ‘just’ annoyance? Is this a common experience with traditionalists, ultimately resolved by finding communities of like-minded catholics? I worry about all this being driven by pride.

Thanks for reading

(2) is a personal thing and not really something I can comment on, although I do share the sentiment. I find that the modern mass is far too irreverent and personal and lacks the transcendental flavor necessary to cultivate a healthy love of the sacred.

As for (1), I have heard different takes on it. My understanding is that Vatican II was intended to be much more limited in scope then it wound up being – basically to complete the work started by Vatican I. The council fathers supposedly called it because they wanted stricter adherence to the rules and disciplines of the Church and a new Marian dogma, but nearly all of the original council documents were thrown out with the disapproval of a majority of bishops. I have read that it was not until after the council started that there began to be a movement away from its original intent and purpose, and that John XXIII tried and failed to get the council under wraps and died before it finished. I have no idea how much of this is true.

What we see now is that the Church suffered massively in the postconciliar age. I think this suffering was probably inevitable, given that the world had already penetrated very deeply into the Church by the time V-II began (especially if the above reports are to be believed). One benefit of V-II, in that case, would be that it emboldened the renegades in the Church, compelling them to overplay their hand and exposing the rot at the Church’s heart for all the world to see. In this sense it was kind of like chemotherapy: poisonous, but also medicinal, and medicinal precisely because it was poisonous – bad for the body but worse for the cancer, after all. The worst thing the renegades did was stop pretending they weren’t renegades. I have read a number of stories of life in the immediate postconciliar era. Often these involve horror stories like fine, upstanding, orthodox young men being expelled from seminary for imaginary offenses like “excessive Marian devotion,” i.e., being seen praying the rosary. But many of them also include stories of liberal renegade priests abandoning their vocation to marry, usually to equally-liberal renegade nuns. We are only just now coming back to sanity in our seminaries precisely because the renegades have all either apostasized (in fact or function) or simply died, and because they were so successful at inculcating a love of the world in their own that they drove them away from the celibate priesthood entirely. They died and no one who shared their sentiments was willing to replace them. And so the seminary instructors are now increasingly orthodox and every new class of priests is even better than that which preceded it. And so the Church shrinks in numbers but grows in holiness.

This is one traditionalist interpretation I’ve heard, anyway. It seems to make sense to me.

 

[Cristiano]

What do you think “living like Vatican II happened” looks like and how is it different from living “like it never happened”?

It’s not a trick question. I really don’t know what you mean by this.

The statement “living like it never happened” implies a conscious choice to ignore that it happened independently from the fact that it might have or not have any impact on our individual lives at this moment. From a more philosophical aspect it implies a denial of the truth and thus it is not appropriate. It would be like me saying that I live like the holocaust during WWII never happened, it is the denial of a truth thus it is inappropriate. I do not know what the expression “living like Vatican II happened” would mean because in general that kind of statement seem to refer to something imaginary that it is not historically true or that hasn’t happened yet.

 

[Big_Feet]

I have no idea how much of this is true.

If you do not know, why throw out rumor and innuendo to possibly corrupt thought and ideas? If you want to comment in a way like you did, you should have some sources as to backup your statements. Your comment only puts a potentially personal “made up” conspiracy theory in front of us. This does no good when trying to discuss what REALLY happened!

 

[Rich_C]

I think you’ve just touched on why I’m confused…Can we really live like it never happened? Isn’t that in itself being dis-obedient to some degree? Or…I guess I should ask: Do traditional catholics so want the previous ways to return that it is seen as a kind of ‘statement’?

It seems to me that in my lifetime (46 years) that the ‘holy’ aspect of being catholic (meaning set apart) has been eroded. It is beautiful, mysterious, elevated, and deep. Now its not so easy to pick up on those things and I’m confused.

I said I live like it never happened, not that I dissent, ignore it or pretend it didn’t happen.

Now that the holy father has ruled that the 1962 missal was never abrogated, we can see that in practical terms, assent to the teachings of Vatican II does not demand that a Catholic live any different today than they did in 1950 when the Dogma of the Assuption was proclaimed.

Would you disagree with that?

If not, why shouldn’t the Joe-Catholics in the pew like me be able to live within the traditional framework where our faith is protected from modernism and where so much of the old piety, beauty, and clear expressions of doctrine are found?

 

[sw85]

If you do not know, why throw out rumor and innuendo to possibly corrupt thought and ideas? If you want to comment in a way like you did, you should have some sources as to backup your statements. Your comment only puts a potentially personal “made up” conspiracy theory in front of us. This does no good when trying to discuss what REALLY happened!

If you want to get rigorous about it, maybe no one here should comment except those present at Vatican II themselves.

But nonetheless here are some relevant links:

First, Fr. Bede Rowan on the original intentions of Vatican II: frbederowe.blogspot.com/2012/04/vatican-ii-what-was-wanted.html.

His claim that the council fathers “wanted a tighter adherence to the rules and discipline of the Church and a new Marian Dogma” is echoed by Archbishop Lefebvre in his Open Letter to Concerned Catholics: “I still possess the seventy-two preparatory schemas; in them the Church’s doctrine is absolutely orthodox. They were adapted in a certain manner to our times, but with great moderation and discretion. . . . [F]ifteen days after the opening session not one of the seventy-two schemas remained. All had been sent back, rejected, thrown into the waste-paper basket.” sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-14.htm

Fr. Z. likewise advanced the claim that John XXIII knew something was going wrong in the Council but was unable to put a stop to it: wdtprs.com/blog/2012/04/was-a-council-necessary-explain-in-200-words-or-less/. It is also from him that I first heard of students being expelled from seminaries for praying the rosary: wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/quaeritur-seminary-monitors-seminarians-email-surfing-wherein-fr-z-administers-tough-love/. It is also on his blog that I recently read of a priest in his seminary running off with a nun (not long after delivering a scandalous reading and interpretation of Song of Songs), although I cannot now find the link.

As for the “Vatican II as medicinal” theory, this is derived loosely from Malachi Martin’s novel Vatican, which advanced a similar idea, as well as some conversations with older and more knowledgeable friends who grow up in the post V-II silly season from which I was thankfully spared.

 

[sw85]

I said I live like it never happened, not that I dissent, ignore it or pretend it didn’t happen.

Now that the holy father has ruled that the 1962 missal was never abrogated, we can see that in practical terms, assent to the teachings of Vatican II does not demand that a Catholic live any different today than they did in 1950 when the Dogma of the Assuption was proclaimed.

Would you disagree with that?

If not, why shouldn’t the Joe-Catholics in the pew like me be able to live within the traditional framework where our faith is protected from modernism and where so much of the old piety, beauty, and clear expressions of doctrine are found?

Indeed. People forget V-II was a pastoral council, not an ecumenical one. It did not to my knowledge define any new doctrines or dogmas. It changed the liturgy and it introduced a new (and, I would argue, ugly, confusing, and deficient) way of relaying traditional Church teachings, one that vaguely reflects the radical doubt of the modern age. That’s it.

Well, we no longer have to consent to go to OF liturgies anymore, and since V-II introduced nothing new, there’s no reason we can’t understand doctrines and dogmas using the traditional language, e.g., the Roman Catechism. It is not only very, very easy for a Catholic to act as if Vatican II never happened, it is probably for the best that he do so.

I say “we” figuratively; I don’t really consider myself a traditionalist, at least not a liturgical one.

 

[Big_Feet]

Indeed. People forget V-II was a pastoral council, not an ecumenical one.

Actually, it is considered BOTH (it is the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church)

Well, we no longer have to consent to go to OF liturgies anymore

If you are unable to find a EF of the mass, you are required to go to a celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy each Sunday, and if that requres that you attend an OF mass, then you are obliged to go.

 

[M-Dent]

I’d highly recommend reading **Life in the Church and Living Theology—Fundamentals of Ecclesiology with Reference to Lumen Gentium by Fr. Maximilian Heinrich Heim **. It can help in understanding the Council.

 

[Rich_C]

If you are unable to find a EF of the mass, you are required to go to a celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy each Sunday, and if that requres that you attend an OF mass, then you are obliged to go.

Can’t argue with that, BF.

 

[rben20]

A priest told me Vatican II was an “opening of the windows” as the church then was seen as stuffy. I was offended a bit as I don’t see Latin tradition as stuffy but that is what he chose to explain it as. Unfortunately, with the windows opening, fresh air swept the church but so did dirt and leafs to keep up with the analogy.

IMO the council has become a super council, with it’s “spirit” damaging much of the church. Some groups have benefited greatly such as Eastern Catholics and Religious but as far as the majority, the Roman Catholics have suffered. There is a current push towards recapturing that tradition that is Roman but it is slow and will take time.

By the way, I too find it weird we celebrate people’s birthdays, anniversaries, and visitors from out of town at my parish. I also cringe when Father thanks us for coming to Mass. I personally am drawn to the EF but have no chance of attending regularly until I move or commit to driving 5 hours round trip for Mass

 

[TimothyH]

Christ speaks through his church.

***Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. *(Luke 10:16)

To live like Vatican II never happened is to ignore the voice of Christ.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

Christ speaks through his church.

***Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. ***(Luke 10:16)

To live like Vatican II never happened is to ignore the voice of Christ.

-Tim-

Same can be said of the Council of Trent, no? Which at least one of the Vatican II documents referenced, by the way.

 

[Rich_C]

Christ speaks through his church.

***Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. ***(Luke 10:16)

To live like Vatican II never happened is to ignore the voice of Christ.

-Tim-

I don’t don’t get how Vatican II was supposed to change the way we practice our faith. I see that life did change for everyone, but now very learned Catholic leaders tell us most of the changes were not what the council intended.

How do you think Christ wanted to change our lives with Vatican II?

Please tell me what I’m doing wrong.

 

[Big_Feet]

Same can be said of the Council of Trent, no? Which at least one of the Vatican II documents referenced, by the way.

I don’t think that any Catholic living in 2012 can or should live and be Catholic without living as if all 21 ecumenical councils happened. They are a fact, and they have not been contradicted in their infallible teachings.

As one should listen to and live by the exhortations of the current Pope in his time, so we should respect and live what is reasoned by the Church through her councils. It is a matter of obedience, and as Catholic Christians, we should all be observant of this.