Vatican II : Pope Paul VI's vision VS Pope Benedict XVI's

[RUINATION_IPA]

Is Pope Benedict XVI wrong to suggest that the Second Vatican Council was wrongly interpreted and that we should strive to seek out the true meaning and intent of the council fathers?

Pope Paul VI is the Pope who inherited the Council, upon the death of Pope John XXIII, and saw it through until it’s conclusion in 1965. The implication of finding the ‘true meaning’ of Vatican II is that Pope Paul VI really didn’t understand the intent of the Council he presided over nor of the documents which he promulgated nor the intentions of the Council fathers themselves. We would like to think that the documents were intended to be interpreted in the best (read conservative) possible light but what if that were never the intention? It’s been said that the Council had been hijacked by progressivists but in truth could it be that the conservatives are the ones attempting to misinterpret the council documents? This seems to be the implication in the final few paragraphs of “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II” (Tan Books) by Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen SVD – International Publicity Director in Rome during Vatican II.

*On January 3, 1966, Pope Paul by an Apostolic Letter created five Post-Conciliar commissions. Such commissions had originally been suggested to him by the European and world alliances, because they feared that progressive measures adopted by the Council might be blocked by conservative forces near the Pope once the Council Fathers had all returned home.
*

Here you had the European and world alliances (the progressivists) who held a majority in most of the Council’s committees unashamedly worried that conservatives would be the ones doing the misinterpreting after the Council and you have Pope Paul VI mostly backing their progressive ideas during the Council with the exception of a few notable instances such as his insistence on Mary being called ‘Mother of the Church.’

As most of you know the concept of the “reform of the reform” came from former Cardinal Ratzinger and seeks to implement the ‘true’ intent of the Council. However, again, does this not fly in the face of Pope Paul VI’s implementation of the 2nd Vatican Council; the very Council who’s documents he himself had promulgated and implemented including the Novus Ordo Missae?

 

[diggerdomer]

Is Pope Benedict XVI wrong to suggest that the Second Vatican Council was wrongly interpreted and that we should strive to seek out the true meaning and intent of the council fathers?

No, the Pope was not wrong.

Pope Paul VI is the Pope who inherited the Council, upon the death of Pope John XXIII, and saw it through until it’s conclusion in 1965. The implication of finding the ‘true meaning’ of Vatican II is that Pope Paul VI really didn’t understand the intent of the Council he presided over nor of the documents which he promulgated nor the intentions of the Council fathers themselves.

This is your opinion. If you have any objective references to support your inference that Pope Paul VI was in error, please share.

We would like to think that the documents were intended to be interpreted in the best (read conservative) possible light but what if that were never the intention? It’s been said that the Council had been hijacked by progressivists but in truth could it be that the conservatives are the ones attempting to misinterpret the council documents?

Ummm…again…who do you mean by “We”? What do you mean by the clear implication that “best” = “conservative”? What exactly and precisely do you mean by “best” and “conservative” or are you just throwing those pedestrian labels around without thinking? Similarly, can you clarify more what you mean by “progressivists?” Are you talking about specific individuals, or specific views?

This seems to be the implication in the final few paragraphs of “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II” (Tan Books) by Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen SVD – International Publicity Director in Rome during Vatican II.

Oh, a new reference. Well, if you really want people to respond based on the substance of this reference, you will of course have to give those of us interested some time given that you’ve just now made us aware of it (wherever you got a hold of it). Most of us, I assume, are responding on what we know of from authoritative Church teaching, worship, practice, etc., so I hope and trust you’ll give those of us interested some time to research and read this lesser source you’ve referred to, if, again, you don’t have any more universal and authoritative sources to cite.

As most of you know the concept of the “reform of the reform” came from former Cardinal Ratzinger and seeks to implement the ‘true’ intent of the Council. However, again, does this not fly in the face of Pope Paul VI’s implementation of the 2nd Vatican Council; the very Council who’s documents he himself had promulgated and implemented including the Novus Ordo Missae?

I believe that all the Popes are coherent with one another and supportive of one another. If you think Benedict XVI contradicts Paul VI you are welcome to do so. I would tend to think that such a position would put an individual in a problematic relationship, to say the least, with the Catholic Church, but you are free and welcome to disagree with Paul VI or any Pope of your choosing.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The Holy Spirit guides the Church and protects her from teaching false or incorrect doctrine. Pope Benedict XVI is influenced by the Holy Spirit, just as Pope Paul VI was during his pontificate. I believe that the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to the Church, and he will do the same regarding Vatican II. The Holy Spirit only has one interpretation of Vatican II and he reveals this to all Popes. We must not concern ourselves with the personal interpretation of any Pope. What really matters is the teaching of the Holy Spirit, which is revealed to the Church through the Pope and the Bishops united with him. At this point in time, the Church has not offered an authoritative and complete interpretation of Vatican II. This will happen when the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, deems it necessary.

None of the Popes contradict each other when teaching on faith and morals, but they may express different opinions on private issues. Popes are permitted to disagree regarding the best way to interpret Vatican II. However, if Pope Benedict formally proclaims a certain interpretation to be correct and true, all subsequent Popes will not contradict his teaching; although they may refine or add to his teachings as the Church grows in understanding throughout time.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Is Pope Benedict XVI wrong to suggest that the Second Vatican Council was wrongly interpreted and that we should strive to seek out the true meaning and intent of the council fathers?

Pope Paul VI is the Pope who inherited the Council, upon the death of Pope John XXIII, and saw it through until it’s conclusion in 1965. The implication of finding the ‘true meaning’ of Vatican II is that Pope Paul VI really didn’t understand the intent of the Council he presided over nor of the documents which he promulgated nor the intentions of the Council fathers themselves. We would like to think that the documents were intended to be interpreted in the best (read conservative) possible light but what if that were never the intention? It’s been said that the Council had been hijacked by progressivists but in truth could it be that the conservatives are the ones attempting to misinterpret the council documents? This seems to be the implication in the final few paragraphs of “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II” (Tan Books) by Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen SVD – International Publicity Director in Rome during Vatican II.

*On January 3, 1966, Pope Paul by an Apostolic Letter created five Post-Conciliar commissions. Such commissions had originally been suggested to him by the European and world alliances, because they feared that progressive measures adopted by the Council might be blocked by conservative forces near the Pope once the Council Fathers had all returned home.
*

Here you had the European and world alliances (the progressivists) who held a majority in most of the Council’s committees unashamedly worried that conservatives would be the ones doing the misinterpreting after the Council and you have Pope Paul VI mostly backing their progressive ideas during the Council with the exception of a few notable instances such as his insistence on Mary being called ‘Mother of the Church.’

As most of you know the concept of the “reform of the reform” came from former Cardinal Ratzinger and seeks to implement the ‘true’ intent of the Council. However, again, does this not fly in the face of Pope Paul VI’s implementation of the 2nd Vatican Council; the very Council who’s documents he himself had promulgated and implemented including the Novus Ordo Missae?

as far as i know. pope Paul VI said once “the smoke of satan has entered the Church.” this was said after VII. he must have seen something wrong with VII. dont you think?

just look around, you will see that once the CC had the same Liturgy all around the world, today you go to any CC and you will see some deviation of some kind. is almost if each one ditates it is own Liturgy and act any way they want as if they are independent churches. i pray that BXVI have the courage to bring the CC back as One as once we were.

 

[CWBetts]

as far as i know. pope Paul VI said once “the smoke of satan has entered the Church.” this was said after VII. he must have seen something wrong with VII. dont you think?

just look around, you will see that once the CC had the same Liturgy all around the world, today you go to any CC and you will see some deviation of some kind. is almost if each one ditates it is own Liturgy and act any way they want as if they are independent churches. i pray that BXVI have the courage to bring the CC back as One as once we were.

There was nothing wrong with Vatican II in and of itself. We must remeber that there is a period of adjustnebt after every Ecumenical Council in order to adjust. In the modern world of instant gratification we don’t want that. Just be patient, and the Church will sort everything out. The “Smoke of Satan” quote does not mean there was something amiss with the coucil, but that some people were misapplying the documants that came out of the council. To say that the problem was with the council is to say that there is a problem with the Church. Not so. The problem is with the people who make up the Church. The Chuerch is infallible. Sadly, people are not.

 

[ncjohn]

No, the Pope isn’t wrong, nor does it imply that Paul VI was “wrong” in some way since the implementation was only beginning in his time.

John Paul II continually emphasized that the council needed to be properly implemented and the entire Synod in 1985 was about that topic.

Quite frankly the “spirit of Vatican II” problems cut both ways. There are those who have tried on the “progressive” side to take things beyond the actual intentions. But there have been just as many on the “conservative” side who have found a “spirit” of contradiction, which the Popes have said is not there, which they then act on in ways that imply that a Church council, guided by the Holy Spirit just as every other ecumenical council was, actually teaches heresy.

I believe that the Popes, who are the final arbiters and authority in interpretation and implementation, are entirely correct. As noted, it always takes time for the dust to settle after a council. It surely did after both Trent and Vatican I so why would we expect less after Vatican II?

Peace,

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

No, the Pope was not wrong.

This is your opinion. If you have any objective references to support your inference that Pope Paul VI was in error, please share.

Ummm…again…who do you mean by “We”? What do you mean by the clear implication that “best” = “conservative”? What exactly and precisely do you mean by “best” and “conservative” or are you just throwing those pedestrian labels around without thinking? Similarly, can you clarify more what you mean by “progressivists?” Are you talking about specific individuals, or specific views?

Oh, a new reference. Well, if you really want people to respond based on the substance of this reference, you will of course have to give those of us interested some time given that you’ve just now made us aware of it (wherever you got a hold of it). Most of us, I assume, are responding on what we know of from authoritative Church teaching, worship, practice, etc., so I hope and trust you’ll give those of us interested some time to research and read this lesser source you’ve referred to, if, again, you don’t have any more universal and authoritative sources to cite.

I believe that all the Popes are coherent with one another and supportive of one another. If you think Benedict XVI contradicts Paul VI you are welcome to do so. I would tend to think that such a position would put an individual in a problematic relationship, to say the least, with the Catholic Church, but you are free and welcome to disagree with Paul VI or any Pope of your choosing.

Digger,

If you are unaware of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the stark contrast of the liturgy as called for by the council as opposed to what Paul VI implemented then I think you have quite a bit of research ahead of you to be able to contribute something useful to this thread.

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

The Holy Spirit only has one interpretation of Vatican II and he reveals this to all Popes.

I agreed with everything until this point where you steer off into contradiction. Pope Paul VI saw it as perfectly acceptable to promulgate a liturgy that clearly is at odds with what the council fathers intended. Pope Benedict XVI (even as a Cardinal) saw this contrast from the beginning and has taken steps to correct it and bring it up to par with what V2 actually stated. There are obviously two different interpretations of *Sacrosanctum Concilium * at work here.

We must not concern ourselves with the personal interpretation of any Pope. What really matters is the teaching of the Holy Spirit, which is revealed to the Church through the Pope and the Bishops united with him. At this point in time, the Church has not offered an authoritative and complete interpretation of Vatican II. This will happen when the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, deems it necessary.

None of the Popes contradict each other when teaching on faith and morals, but they may express different opinions on private issues. Popes are permitted to disagree regarding the best way to interpret Vatican II. However, if Pope Benedict formally proclaims a certain interpretation to be correct and true, all subsequent Popes will not contradict his teaching; although they may refine or add to his teachings as the Church grows in understanding throughout time.

The Church does not sit down and do a line item list of what is the authoritative interpretation of a council. This is done through the pronouncements of the Pope as time goes by and it appears that there are two different visions at least concerning liturgy. I would think that Pope Paul VI’s liturgy as he promulgated it should be more in line with V2 since he was the Pope who promulgated it, and the council documents, so I find it rather interesting that our current Holy Father wants to undo a lot of the changes that were enacted by his predecessor.

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

No, the Pope isn’t wrong, nor does it imply that Paul VI was “wrong” in some way since the implementation was only beginning in his time.

John Paul II continually emphasized that the council needed to be properly implemented and the entire Synod in 1985 was about that topic.

This is exactly what I’m talking about - so the implication is that Pope Paul VI did not properly implement it yet he was the one who promulgated them. What gives?

Quite frankly the “spirit of Vatican II” problems cut both ways. There are those who have tried on the “progressive” side to take things beyond the actual intentions. But there have been just as many on the “conservative” side who have found a “spirit” of contradiction, which the Popes have said is not there, which they then act on in ways that imply that a Church council, guided by the Holy Spirit just as every other ecumenical council was, actually teaches heresy.

I disagree with you here - the only ones that come to mind who say that the council taught heresy are sedevacantists. For the most part the SSPX and even the FSSP, Institute of the Good Shepard etc. realize and make the case that there are obvious ambiguities that need to be addressed in the council’s documents: Intentional ambiguities that were planned to be interpreted ‘progressively’ after the council which at one point made Pope Paul VI weep when one such instance was shown to him.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Pope Paul VI said once “the smoke of satan has entered the Church.” this was said after VII. he must have seen something wrong with VII. dont you think?

Not wrong with the council, but perhaps wrong with what people were doing with its implementation. Many abuses were introduced in the name of Vatican II that were very different from what Church documents required. Before becoming Pope, Benedict XVI said that no one knew if Vatican II worked or not because it had never been tried. Instead, even before the Council documents were published clergy came racing home from the Council and started implementing all kinds of strange things. That may well be the smoke that Paul VI was referring to.

 

[Ockham]

The Council documents are stained with ambiguity and as such vulnerable to ulterior motives. The traditionalists wouldn’t have read anything into the documents and remained in the status quo. The modernist must have saw the documents as an opportunity to implement their hidden agenda.

What Pope Paul VI’s vision was we don’t know. Perhaps he was the driving force behind the sudden and unprovoked modernizations or perhaps he was not strong enough to stop them. Once the genie left the bottle, a stern hand may have broken it to pieces. I don’t believe he was the change-agent many make him out to be as proven by his oppostion to Holy Communion-in-hand.

Some suggest Pope John Paul II mission was to hold the ship together. Enter Pope Benedict XVI who is obviously trying to bring us back to pre-Vatican II days. Whether we return all the way home will be for future generations to determine. The modernists won’t give up their victories easily and possibly willing to break away in order to keep them.

 

[ncjohn]

This is exactly what I’m talking about - so the implication is that Pope Paul VI did not properly implement it yet he was the one who promulgated them. What gives?

No such implication from me. I certainly have no thoughts that he suppported an improper implementation though he may not have reacted strongly enough or quickly enough to some of the things that might have been stopped early.

To me the biggest problem was that there was not enough advance catechesis about what was to happen, either with the clergy or the laity. And during the transition to largely lay catechists there was not enough effort put into making sure that those taking on that job were properly catechized themselves.

I disagree with you here - the only ones that come to mind who say that the council taught heresy are sedevacantists. For the most part the SSPX and even the FSSP, Institute of the Good Shepard etc. realize and make the case that there are obvious ambiguities that need to be addressed in the council’s documents: Intentional ambiguities that were planned to be interpreted ‘progressively’ after the council which at one point made Pope Paul VI weep when one such instance was shown to him.

I wish it were only sedevacantists. From my fairly long tenure here I would say this site is rife with those from SSPX and other leanings that are supposedly “in communion” with the Church who increasingly claim, or at least strongly imply, that there is heresy being promoted by the Church. They may not outright call the Popes heretics–though I have seen that too–but at the very least there are strong implications that the Popes themselves are in on the “modernist conspiracy”. Certainly not all connected with these groups by any stretch of the imagination, but more than I would expect given the “official” positions of their groups.

In the end though, the Popes are the ones designated with the authority to interpret the documents if there is considered to be ambiguity. Yet far too many of the “traditionalists” here seem to disagree with the official interpretations of those Popes regarding the topics they continue to harp on.

I agreed with everything until this point where you steer off into contradiction. Pope Paul VI saw it as perfectly acceptable to promulgate a liturgy that clearly is at odds with what the council fathers intended.

I’ve seen this statement made so many times that it seems to take on a “truth” of its own just by virtue of being stated often enough, especially the line that states: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” as well as a similar one about Gregorian Chant. What is ignored though is the following two paragraphs that make it clear that individual episcopal conferences will be responsible for determining the actual needs of their constituencies, especially regarding the use of the vernacular:
SC 36.2 and 36.3:

But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply **in the first place **to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

1. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

And of course paragraph 23 recognized that other developments might occur and provided for that: “23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised.” Now some may argue that there wasn’t enough “careful investigation”, but one cannot honestly make the statement that SC was prescriptive as to an exact form and that there was not an expectation that other things might be found desirable. Did they go too far? I guess we can all have our subjective opinions about that but ultimately, again, the Pope gets to make those decisions as a matter of discipline.

Ockham:

Enter Pope Benedict XVI who is obviously trying to bring us back to pre-Vatican II days.

If you really believe that I think you’re badly misreading him. Benedict, both before and since his election, has consistently stated that the documents need to be properly understood and that the council needs to be properly implemented. If you’ve seen statements that he wants to go back pre-V2 I’d love to see them.

Peace,

 

[wisdomseeker]

Not wrong with the council, but perhaps wrong with what people were doing with its implementation. Many abuses were introduced in the name of Vatican II that were very different from what Church documents required. Before becoming Pope, Benedict XVI said that no one knew if Vatican II worked or not because it had never been tried. Instead, even before the Council documents were published clergy came racing home from the Council and started implementing all kinds of strange things. That may well be the smoke that Paul VI was referring to.

that is exactly what i am talking about. something went wrong wether the enterpretation or some other documents took the place of the real VII documents. we know today what is happening within the Church. the other i was talking to the priest about the protestants music being played during Mass and answered "but VII…
so basically he is saying that VII told us to substitute the hymns of the Church for protestant songs. it made no sense to me. why would VII tells us to become protestant like instead of trying to bring protestants believers into the CC.

at least in my Parish all songs played are protestants songs and cant begin to tell you the confusion between those songs and the Mass. it just does not go together.

protestants dont have the Mass, they do not understand the Mass. their songs is designed for the kind of service they have. why any CC would try to combine these songss with the Mass, i have no idea. but it doesnt sound good at all.

so, basically i think that many enterpreted VII as adopting protestant ways. that is why we see that many went that way.

 

[wisdomseeker]

There was nothing wrong with Vatican II in and of itself. We must remeber that there is a period of adjustnebt after every Ecumenical Council in order to adjust. In the modern world of instant gratification we don’t want that. Just be patient, and the Church will sort everything out. The “Smoke of Satan” quote does not mean there was something amiss with the coucil, but that some people were misapplying the documants that came out of the council. To say that the problem was with the council is to say that there is a problem with the Church. Not so. The problem is with the people who make up the Church. The Chuerch is infallible. Sadly, people are not.

what adjustment? adjust to what? to the way we are right now?

i see that many parishes look like and act like they are independent churches. everybody is doing their own thing. i see churches with no kneelers, i see priests behind the altar holding hands with a bunch of lay people badly dressed during Our Father prayer. i see priest sitting right behind the altar with one altar boy and one altar girl sitting right beside him. i see total lack of reverence in the Sanctuary by some. either way there is no longer consistencey. some churches have the altar in the middle of the Church.
if you dont to that parish, the priest doesnt have to talk to you. he will tell to go to your parish. this to me is contrary to the CC being One Church. i am used to the CC where you could go to any CC and it would be like being in the same Church. there was no difference. we did the same thing. the signs, the hymns, the prayers, the symbols. that is what i am talking about.

 

[CWBetts]

what adjustment? adjust to what? to the way we are right now?

i see that many parishes look like and act like they are independent churches. everybody is doing their own thing. i see churches with no kneelers, i see priests behind the altar holding hands with a bunch of lay people badly dressed during Our Father prayer. i see priest sitting right behind the altar with one altar boy and one altar girl sitting right beside him. i see total lack of reverence in the Sanctuary by some. either way there is no longer consistencey. some churches have the altar in the middle of the Church.
if you dont to that parish, the priest doesnt have to talk to you. he will tell to go to your parish. this to me is contrary to the CC being One Church. i am used to the CC where you could go to any CC and it would be like being in the same Church. there was no difference. we did the same thing. the signs, the hymns, the prayers, the symbols. that is what i am talking about.

You are joing about the adjustment, right? The reason we had a Council was to show that the Church is still relevant in a modern world. Changes to practice were made. An openness to other religion and the recognition of religious liberty was made. After the COuncil of Trent, som time was needed to fully understand the implications of the new Dogmas. Changes aren’t fully understood immediately.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

You are joing about the adjustment, right? The reason we had a Council was to show that the Church is still relevant in a modern world. Changes to practice were made. An openness to other religion and the recognition of religious liberty was made. After the COuncil of Trent, som time was needed to fully understand the implications of the new Dogmas. Changes aren’t fully understood immediately.

The Church is always relevant to the world.

Sometimes, though, the world might not be relevant to the Church.

In addition, there was/is nothing wrong with the Church that would need to be “updated” or any such foolish business like that.

The Church, by her divine nature, is always relevant to mankind. Man needs Her.

 

[CWBetts]

The Church is always relevant to the world.

Sometimes, though, the world might not be relevant to the Church.

In addition, there was/is nothing wrong with the Church that would need to be “updated” or any such foolish business like that.

The Church, by her divine nature, is always relevant to mankind. Man needs Her.

Vatican II was an infallible council, called by Pope John XXIII. He felt the council was needed. Are you going to now say you know more than one of our Holy Fathers?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Vatican II was an infallible council, called by Pope John XXIII. He felt the council was needed. Are you going to now say you know more than one of our Holy Fathers?

please no fight. let s argue with holiness. he is not saying that at all. we are discussing the enterpretation of the Council by many. even BXVI has been critical of what is going with the Church. i think most agree with that. even you. we can see the fruits of the Council. it minght have not been what it intended to be but that is what we got. the inconsistency is too great to be ignored. once our priest said that we must look to the altar and not the Tabernacle for adoration and i heard others say to look to the Tabernacle for adoration. which is it? this is all confusing to Catholics.

 

[CWBetts]

please no fight. let s argue with holiness. he is not saying that at all. we are discussing the enterpretation of the Council by many. even BXVI has been critical of what is going with the Church. i think most agree with that. even you. we can see the fruits of the Council. it minght have not been what it intended to be but that is what we got. the inconsistency is too great to be ignored. once our priest said that we must look to the altar and not the Tabernacle for adoration and i heard others say to look to the Tabernacle for adoration. which is it? this is all confusing to Catholics.

Look to where the Blessed Sacrament is for Adoration. After all it is Him who we are adoring, not a structure of stone.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Vatican II was an infallible council, called by Pope John XXIII. He felt the council was needed. Are you going to now say you know more than one of our Holy Fathers?

Vatican II was not an infallible council. It was a pastoral not a dogmatic council. No doctrines were issued at Vatican II. The directives that were issued being pastoral could be modified or even reversed, without doing damage to the Doctrine of Infallibility.

Now by saying that I am not disputing any of the pastoral directives that resulted from the counsel. I am merely saying that we need to be correct in the language we use about the Council.