Vatican II was a good thing

[Warrenton]

Of course, Church history is always developing, and I expect that it will continue until Christ’s coming. That’s beyond dispute. What I find reprehensible is that when impetus for “reform” originates from dissent on the part of laity or clergy who believe their way is the only correct one. Lone Rangers do a lot of harm to the Church when they attempt to stir the faithful to embrace their theological views, which are frequently one-sided preferences apart from the real teaching of the Church.

We are in substantial agreement, although I probably tolerate a higher level of dissent than you might.

It is worthwhile to note that throughout history, developments have come both from below and from the hierarchy. The entire notion of the Church being composed of all its members traces to Jan Huss, who was a priest but not a bishop, and his lay followers. Huss was burned as a heretic (illegally, one might add). Huss also advocated communion under both kinds, which was actually permitted for a generation or two in Bohemia in the later 1400s and early 1500s.

Huss’s positions are now enshrined in contemporary Catholic vocabulary and practice.

Wycliffe and Huss, together with the popular clamor for reform they aroused, were instrumental in forcing the resolution of the Western Schism. Good or bad?

The medieval period shows how pluralism can exist in a monarchical Church.

 

[Sirach2]

Pre-Reformation movements such as Huss’s are a lame pretense for anyone who uses that philosophy to embrace interior dissent and promote change today. I hope you have studied Chapter III in Lumen Gentium that teaches about Hierarchical Structure in the Church. You could say this was “development” that we had discussed, but actually it goes back a good way further, to the very essence of the Church: cum Petro and sub Petro.

 

[Dirt]

Sirach2, for you it seems to be disent. For me it is re-awakening of modern Catholics to what was wrongfully stolen from us on the part of some using Vatican Council 2 as a smokescreen. Bishop Schnieder, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Cardinal Cañizares Llovera have all spoken on this and other issues. You seem to have a clear, concise knowledge of exactly what was called for in the manner of reforms by the Council. Unfortunately, many others did not. And the Traditions that have been left behind has weekened Catholics for decades.
May God greatly Bless His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and his “Reform of the Reform”.

H.H. Pope Benedict XVI, given in an interview in 2010
“I am not opposed in principle to Communion in the hand; I have both administered and received Communion in this way myself.”
“The idea behind my current practice of having people kneel to receive Communion on the tongue was to send a signal and to underscore the Real Presence with an exclamation point. One important reason is that there is a great danger of superficiality precisely in the kinds of Mass events we hold at Saint Peter’s, both in the Basilica and in the Square. I have heard of people who, after receiving Communion, stick the Host in their wallet to take home as a kind of souvenir."
“In this context, where people think that everyone is just automatically supposed to receive Communion — everyone else is going up, so I will, too—I wanted to send a clear signal. I wanted it to be clear: Something quite special is going on here! He is here, the One before whom we fall on our knees! Pay attention!"
“This is not just some social ritual in which we can take part if we want to.”

 

[Sirach2]

Hi Dirt,
First, may I commend you on your posts, which are not “in your face” style, but you recognize others’ points and share your own. I appreciate that.

You seem to have a clear, concise knowledge of exactly what was called for in the manner of reforms by the Council. Unfortunately, many others did not.

Actually, if I as a simple layperson have the ability to study the Church’s teachings, how much more should we expect greater ability from our clergy, who have seminary training and constant recourse to their Bishop for matters that seem obscure? Even though I have studied, I still rely on the Church for the final interpretation.

Threads upon threads have lamented the problems in the Church, but after reading hundreds of them, the rubrics are not so difficult to sort out. It seems to be submitting in obedience to them that is at the heart of it. I see some posts in L&S that decry every little deviation in the same mode as “gravissima delicta.” This is NOT the failure of the clergy, in many cases, but a huge distrust of the laity toward their priests.

Maybe that’s why I try my darndest to keep all of us united in true teachings rather than splinter the Body of Christ with preferences that border on pharisaism toward brothers or sisters who follow a lawful discipline that differs from theirs. Isn’t that the standard Christ called for? “Ut unum sint!”

Just a side comment on Pope B’s practice. I agree with His pastoral sensitivity in the face of Rome’s very public arena where many not of our faith are apt to partake unlawfully. But that is not the case in our parish churches, so I don’t believe the same pastoral decision applies. You may disagree, of course.

God bless you!

 

[Dirt]

this is what i was trying to emphasize:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/968/lost_generations.aspx

Bishop Sample’s concerns are what need to be adressed. And I believe H.H. Pope Benedict is setting this into motion with the New Evangilization.

 

[Sirach2]

Very nice article, Dirt. Thank you.

Incidentally, I spent many wonderful moments in upper Michigan - had my honeymoon on Mackinac Island, in fact. Lovely area!

 

[Warrenton]

Pre-Reformation movements such as Huss’s are a lame pretense for anyone who uses that philosophy to embrace interior dissent and promote change today. I hope you have studied Chapter III in Lumen Gentium that teaches about Hierarchical Structure in the Church. You could say this was “development” that we had discussed, but actually it goes back a good way further, to the very essence of the Church: cum Petro and sub Petro.

Why lame? The events happened, whether or not one likes the reaction of the Church.

No one is arguing that the Church is not a hierarchy. Lumen Gentium describes what the episcopate does and why it exists. It does not explain what happens when it fails. Moreover, confusing definitional “constitutions” with process rules leads to mischief: when anyone fails to fulfill the definitional requirements, they cease to fulfill the defined category. For instance, if we tried to use LG as a hybrid constitution and procedural set of laws, one could argue that by grossly failing in their mission, most of the Irish Church ceased to be Catholic.

Of course they remain Catholic, just mistaken in certain respects.

Clearly, people have different views on how best to live the Christian life, and how best to worship. LG implies as much in Chapter 4. In the past, the Church acknowledged legitimate disgreement of its members and provided toleration for their dissent and the means to resolve it. If we seek a recent example of dissenting praxis, it would be altar girls. It began as a rebellion, was deemed not heretical, and was eventually permitted by Rome.

 

[Dirt]

Why lame? The events happened, whether or not one likes the reaction of the Church.

No one is arguing that the Church is not a hierarchy. Lumen Gentium describes what the episcopate does and why it exists. It does not explain what happens when it fails. Moreover, confusing definitional “constitutions” with process rules leads to mischief: when anyone fails to fulfill the definitional requirements, they cease to fulfill the defined category. For instance, if we tried to use LG as a hybrid constitution and procedural set of laws, one could argue that by grossly failing in their mission, most of the Irish Church ceased to be Catholic.

Of course they remain Catholic, just mistaken in certain respects.

Clearly, people have different views on how best to live the Christian life, and how best to worship. LG implies as much in Chapter 4. In the past, the Church acknowledged legitimate disgreement of its members and provided toleration for their dissent and the means to resolve it. If we seek a recent example of dissenting praxis, it would be altar girls. It began as a rebellion, was deemed not heretical, and was eventually permitted by Rome.

I read the entire article on L’Osservatore Romano that Sirach2 pointed to. The anonymous article laid out very clearly how Catholics should give assent to the documents from Vatican Council 2. It also clearly stated that " In any case, there remains legitimate room for theological freedom and for further opportune in-depth study." That is where i believe we are now. The lack of catechesis of Catholics extends also to the documents. Now that we have at our disposal the entirety of Catholic history, to include most of the Magesterial documents from antiquity to modern times, we find ourselves overwhelmed with information and sometimes confuse or mis-interpret documents. 50 years ago very few Catholics even knew of Sacrosanctum Continuum, now you can read it in english any time you want. We have information, we just may not have the wisdom to piece it all together. Thankfully that is not our job. I do trust the Holy Father and the Hierarchy of the Church to do this. I just have to remind myself that the workings of Holy Mother Church do not run on my time table.
The article in question may be read here: news.va/en/news/on-adhesion-to-the-second-vatican-council .

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

1. How many Catholics know what those documents contain?

1a. If most don’t know, you can tell them anything is alllowed by them and they’ll believe you.

1. The documents are loosely worded. Thus, they are poor legal documents. They need to be clarified.

2a. The council documents are not an extra book of the Bible but they have become an idol.

1. There are two strands of thought: that the changes subsequent to the council were not what the coucil intended or, in only one article I read online, that they were what the council wanted, as many Bishops were progressive.

3a. Either way, the subsequent changes have not brought forth the fruit promised. The opposite has happened. Time to try something else.

3c. Or, you can keep arguing about them for another 40 years.

 

[Boulder257]

1. How many Catholics know what those documents contain?

1a. If most don’t know, you can tell them anything is alllowed by them and they’ll believe you.

1. The documents are loosely worded. Thus, they are poor legal documents. They need to be clarified.

2a. The council documents are not an extra book of the Bible but they have become an idol.

1. There are two strands of thought: that the changes subsequent to the council were not what the coucil intended or, in only one article I read online, that they were what the council wanted, as many Bishops were progressive.

3a. Either way, the subsequent changes have not brought forth the fruit promised. The opposite has happened. Time to try something else.

3c. Or, you can keep arguing about them for another 40 years.

1. Just because someone has not read a document does not mean they are not versed in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Your argument means that those who have not read every document pertaining to the Church cannot honestly know the faith. Certainly that is not true. If, as some have claimed, the council did not offer new doctrine, than those who “knew” the faith before the council “know” it now.
2. The documents may be loosely worded, but this really doesn’t matter in that people are going to disagree with this point and it’s purely a matter of opinion. No matter how much you “clarify” a position someone is always going to find fault if they want. Someone will always interpret it their own way if they try hard enough. If this wasn’t the case we would not have millions of attorneys, judges, an entire legal system, and countless others who aid in determining the “intent” of a specific legal document.

2a. Explain how these documents have become an idol. I have never heard this argument but am extremely curious about it’s foundation.

3a-c(I think you meant (b) since there was no argument (b). I think you are correct. Some of the changes may have been exactly what was wanted while some were not. It takes time to work these things out. That is what we are doing right now. Did all of the other councils experience absolute and complete adherence immediately after they were closed? Absolutely not! It takes time. This is what happened after every other council, especially those that defined dogma. This council is no more or less controversial than any other and the fruits are still forthcoming. Certainly we cannot judge the council by it’s fruits even 50 years afterwards. And, if you suggest we can than you are ignoring both history and positive fruit that has come from the council.

 

[YoungTradCath]

2a. Explain how these documents have become an idol. I have never heard this argument but am extremely curious about it’s foundation.

It is true that the documents of Vatican II have become idols. Actually, more truthfully, Vatican II itself, the idea of it, has become an idol. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard in my less than a year of being Catholic that, “We do this because Vatican II says so.” It happens ALL THE TIME, and 99% of the time, the person is wrong, and 99% of the time, the person is in their mid-fifties, at least. It seems that people worship the idea of what they think the Council is rather than applying what it really is to what already has been. It’s almost rage-inducing, how perpetually, totally ignorant people of a certain generation are about what Vatican II really says even when you try to teach them. But I can’t blame them, no matter how truly, truly annoyed I get. This attitude is fading quickly, I think. Most devout young people don’t flail around in a seizure of ecstasy when they hear “Vatican II” like their parents and grandparents do. I think this is because the people born around the early Seventies and earlier were force-fed all these untrue things that were attributed to “Vatican II,” and many of them truly believe that nothing before that Council matters anymore or even exists as far as they’re concerned. The Catholic youth have, I think, the technological resourcefulness to actually go research the documents of the Council when something pertinent piques their interest, a technological resourcefulness that their parents generally do not have. I also think the Catholic youth have a certain level of healthy skepticism towards things, which their parents also seem to lack.

I truly believe that our current situation will be rectified. I know that it sounds morbid to say, but I think the elderly generation’s attitudes in this matter are, quite literally, dying off.

It’s interesting how you can make quite true generalizations on a person’s attitude towards Vatican II and their actual knowledge of its teachings based on the age of the person. I also think it’s equally interesting how you can make the same generalizations based on if the person is a cradle Catholic or a convert.

 

[Boulder257]

It is true that the documents of Vatican II have become idols. Actually, more truthfully, Vatican II itself, the idea of it, has become an idol. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard in my less than a year of being Catholic that, “We do this because Vatican II says so.” It happens ALL THE TIME, and 99% of the time, the person is wrong, and 99% of the time, the person is in their mid-fifties, at least. It seems that people worship the idea of what they think the Council is rather than applying what it really is to what already has been. It’s almost rage-inducing, how perpetually, totally ignorant people of a certain generation are about what Vatican II really says even when you try to teach them. But I can’t blame them, no matter how truly, truly annoyed I get. This attitude is fading quickly, I think. Most devout young people don’t flail around in a seizure of ecstasy when they hear “Vatican II” like their parents and grandparents do. I think this is because the people born around the early Seventies and earlier were force-fed all these untrue things that were attributed to “Vatican II,” and many of them truly believe that nothing before that Council matters anymore or even exists as far as they’re concerned. The Catholic youth have, I think, the technological resourcefulness to actually go research the documents of the Council when something pertinent piques their interest, a technological resourcefulness that their parents generally do not have. I also think the Catholic youth have a certain level of healthy skepticism towards things, which their parents also seem to lack.

I truly believe that our current situation will be rectified. I know that it sounds morbid to say, but I think the elderly generation’s attitudes in this matter are, quite literally, dying off.

It’s interesting how you can make quite true generalizations on a person’s attitude towards Vatican II and their actual knowledge of its teachings based on the age of the person. I also think it’s equally interesting how you can make the same generalizations based on if the person is a cradle Catholic or a convert.

Interesting. I have never heard the argument that because people supported it, or what they thought it represented, that they were idolizing it. Personally, I think information is just more widely available nowadays and that is what is helping to correct the abuses brought about in the name of the council. The world is a much smaller place than it was, even 50 years ago.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Interesting. I have never heard the argument that because people supported it, or what they thought it represented, that they were idolizing it. Personally, I think information is just more widely available nowadays and that is what is helping to correct the abuses brought about in the name of the council. The world is a much smaller place than it was, even 50 years ago.

But what these people say is not really supporting Vatican II so much as it is a making full debasement of what Vatican II really is, because what they say has no factual basis in the documents of Vatican II. I’ve seen people get giddy and put a smile on their faces when they say something like, “Vatican II forbade Latin, we’ll never use that again!” They idolize–perhaps we can say it’s not even their fault–what they think and were told Vatican II is by attributing all these false ideas and practices to it. So basically, we agree.

 

[Sirach2]

NVM

 

[Boulder257]

But what these people say is not really supporting Vatican II so much as it is a making full debasement of what Vatican II really is, because what they say has no factual basis in the documents of Vatican II. I’ve seen people get giddy and put a smile on their faces when they say something like, “Vatican II forbade Latin, we’ll never use that again!” They idolize–perhaps we can say it’s not even their fault–what they think and were told Vatican II is by attributing all these false ideas and practices to it. **So basically, we agree./**QUOTE]

 

[Boulder257]

Youngtrad,

Your comments disrespecting anyone older than your wise eighteen years are sadly typical of teens who believe their parents and elders are ignorant. How truly sad. When you grow up, you may realize they DID know immensely more than you thought.

Tell me, please, what qualifies you to have learned so much more than they in your short lifetime?

If we start down this path it will get uncharitable very quick. Let’s not start making personal attacks. If you want to argue a specific point about what he said, than do that, but no need to make it a personal attack on his age. Let’s just keep the argument to specific points of discussion.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Youngtrad,

Your comments disrespecting anyone older than your wise eighteen years are sadly typical of teens who believe their parents and elders are ignorant. How truly sad. When you grow up, you may realize they DID know immensely more than you thought at your young age.

Tell me, please, what qualifies you to have learned so much more than they in your short lifetime?

I’m not disrespecting anyone. In fact, I sympathize with them. I feel that in many cases they were fed things that were untrue, and while I am truly annoyed by this, I do not allow myself to blame them. I don’t really carry this attitude over to other aspects of life. This is not about wisdom or life experience, it is about a very confined aspect of objective truth, that the people who have overzealous attitudes towards what they think Vatican II is rather than what it really is have almost all been in their fifties or over, in my experience. Many of these people who I have encountered with the attitudes I illustrated above have been very educated people, who otherwise I find quite agreeable.

Again, this isn’t about wisdom or life experience. I concede that probably all of the older people that I have heard attribute things falsely to Vatican II can teach me a thing or two about wisdom or life experience. But that’s not what this is about.

 

[Boulder257]

But what these people say is not really supporting Vatican II so much as it is a making full debasement of what Vatican II really is, because what they say has no factual basis in the documents of Vatican II. I’ve seen people get giddy and put a smile on their faces when they say something like, “Vatican II forbade Latin, we’ll never use that again!” They idolize–perhaps we can say it’s not even their fault–what they think and were told Vatican II is by attributing all these false ideas and practices to it. So basically, we agree.

Yes, I would say we agree in principal. I am not sure I would use the world idolize, but that’s just a difference in word choice and definition. I can certainly see how by some definitions it would be considered idolization. Nonetheless, we definitely agree on this point in principal.

I should also say that I think your point that some folks were taught these things should be emphasized. They may be doing what they think is the right thing because this is what they were taught by their clergy. We can’t really be angry at them for that for “they know not what they do.” Instead, let’s just pray for them that they can experience the council as it was intended.

 

[Boulder257]

I’m not disrespecting anyone. In fact, I sympathize with them. I feel that in many cases they were fed things that were untrue, and while I am truly annoyed by this, I do not allow myself to blame them. I don’t really carry this attitude over to other aspects of life. This is not about wisdom or life experience, it is about a very confined aspect of objective truth, that the people who have overzealous attitudes towards what they think Vatican II is rather than what it really is have almost all been in their fifties or over, in my experience. Many of these people who I have encountered with the attitudes I illustrated above have been very educated people, who otherwise I find quite agreeable.

Again, this isn’t about wisdom or life experience. I concede that probably all of the older people that I have heard attribute things falsely to Vatican II can teach me a thing or two about wisdom or life experience. But that’s not what this is about.

Good response and very charitable way to respond. Well said.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

If V-II was such a good thing why is it we expend so much energy analyzing, rationalizing and justifying it?