Vatican II: What were the intellectual origins?

[PA650]

I am not trying to nit pick. There is a difference, however, in what the Magisterium of the Church intended to do at Vatican 2 and the history behind that, and a discussion of what the non-Magisterial members of the Church did in ignoring the documents, misreading the documents, and simply going off in their own directions.

Part of the issue, as fara s I am concerned goes back to a very basic premise, and that is that the Holy SPirit guides the Church (the Magisterium). Some of the discussions (not this one) attack Vatican 2 and most of what they perceive as being caused by Vatican 2 as if the magisterial decision to have Vatican 2, and the Council itself wre guided by someone or something other than the Holy Spirit. Further, they flat out ignore any and all statements by John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 concerning the work of the Council, the need to continue working to implement the documents, and the need to interpret the work of the Council in light of the previous 1900+ years of history of the Church.

The fact that there have been innumerable twits who have decided to “interpret” the Vatican 2 documents (often simply by ignoring them) in a manner that suggests a reinvention of the Church is not evidence that the Council was not the work of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. Many, though, take it to be.

The question the OP posed is a very valid question and deserves answers, although that really amounts to a a semester or two of college level theological history, depending on how deep one really wants to go. Too often we have the rose colored glasses on, presuming that the Church was doing just fine, say, up to the start of the Council. There were problems then, although much if not most of the laity was fairly oblivious to it.

An example: how long was the oath against Modernism in place and how many took that oath? And how many who took that oath then went on to become professors in seminaries, teaching seminarians directly contrary - or indirectly - contrary to the oath? I have to laugh when someone comes along and says it needs to be put into place again - like it did any good the first time.

And the other side of the coin: how many legitimate theologians, true to the Magisterium, were censored on the last 100 years, only later to be vindicated? When Benedict 16 took over the dicastery as Cardinal, it was not for no reason that he made changes; he was there prior to being made Cardinal when reputations were being destroyed.

I appreciate you were trying to be helpful, but it is a digression; I think it would be more helpful to stay on the OP’s question; there are plenty of other threads dealing with post-Vatican 2 issues.

Certainly true. Perhaps the OP would be interested in reading the opening speech of the Second Vatican Council delivered by Pope John XXIII:
ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Certainly true. Perhaps the OP would be interested in reading the opening speech of the Second Vatican Council delivered by Pope John XXIII:
ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

Maybe it’s just me but I had a hard time gleaning anything substantive from that.

 

[edwest2]

Get a copy of the 96 page pamphlet: The 2nd Vatican Council by The America Press, published in 1962 (originally 50 cents).

The articles within:

How to Understand the Council
Perspectives for the Council
The Liturgy and the Council
The Laity and the Council
Problems of the Modern Church
The Council and Church Unity
Inner Life and the Council

Remember, ICBMs were now a reality. The Cuban Missile Crisis would occur in October. I was there for that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

None of the changes associated with Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Peace,
Ed

 

[SouthpawLink]

Thanks, this was very helpful and thanks, particularly, for saving me from reading a book dense with flowery euphemism.

Would it be unfair to characterize Vatican II as the clergy granting itself license to reopen revelation? Or is that too simplistic and harsh? Is the spirit of Vatican II this idea of an open and continual reinterpretation of Scripture and Tradition? This does seem to fit with Warrenton’s idea of Vatican II as an existentialist exercise.

Is it safe to describe Catholic traditionalists as not simply those who pine for the Latin mass but, more generally, for the closure of theology? Is this a debate about closure of revelation or about the method by which revelation is investigated and understood?

Also, I’m still unclear on what is the Nouvelle Théologie criticism of scholasticism. However, this does help to explain why post-Vatican II education denigrated scholasticism. The usual complaint is that the scholastics were arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Is this simply relativism vs. immutability?

You mentioned Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and I have run into this before. Although I very much hope that non-Catholics are not condemned to hell it does seem to me that the “reinterpretation” of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is problematic, to say the least. And this is, of course, a much bigger issue than latin vs. vernacular mass.

This seemed to me to be a particuarly interesting paragraph:

I can’t get into it too much without necessarily incurring an infraction; criticism of Vatican II is not allowed here.

For some good articles about Neo-Modernism:

iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html
iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/quaeritur-what-are-techniques-of-neo.html

For an excellent and exhaustive history of Neo-Modernism, including the identity of its adherents, see: sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_August/They_Think_Theyve_Won.htm

The Neo-Modernists believed that philosophy must be “living” in order for it to remain relevant. They believed that as life changes, so then does truth. Authentic philosophy, however, recognizes that truth is objective and thus immutable. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange explains it better than I ever could.

In my understanding, traditional Catholics accept Church doctrine as it’s always been expressed (often with the use of very specific terms) and with the same meaning it’s always had (e.g., children’s Limbo isn’t written off as a thing of the past).

Scholasticism was criticized because it was clearly-stated and logical. It’s hard to propose heresy when a man’s limited to expressing doctrine with certain and well-understood terminology.“Flowery” language allows a cleric to sound orthodox while actually promoting heresy. You can’t pin him down as easily.

I’ll have to discuss revelation in another post; coincidentally, the original Vatican II schema on the “Sources of Revelation” was thrown out because it repeated the papal-approved dogmatic theology manuals of the era (written by extremely orthodox theologians), which were used to teach seminarians studying for the priesthood. So, that tells you a little bit about what was going on at the Council…

 

[otjm]

I can’t get into it too much without necessarily incurring an infraction; criticism of Vatican II is not allowed here.

For some good articles about Neo-Modernism:

iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html
iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/quaeritur-what-are-techniques-of-neo.html

For an excellent and exhaustive history of Neo-Modernism, including the identity of its adherents, see: sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_August/They_Think_Theyve_Won.htm

The Neo-Modernists believed that philosophy must be “living” in order for it to remain relevant. They believed that as life changes, so then does truth. Authentic philosophy, however, recognizes that truth is objective and thus immutable. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange explains it better than I ever could.

If this is meant to say that the only theological/philosophical method that could be used would be Thomism or neo scholasticism, then it would be wrong if for no other reason that it denies the history of the Church - and specifically that of Augustine to mention only one example. And as a matter of fact, our current Pope is steeped in an Augustinian approach.

In my understanding, traditional Catholics accept Church doctrine as it’s always been expressed (often with the use of very specific terms) and with the same meaning it’s always had (e.g., children’s Limbo isn’t written off as a thing of the past).

Interesting comment, particularly as the Church has never defined Limbo; it was a theological construct, allowed by the Church but not defined by the Church, so that issue is not dogmatic or doctrinal. Which is not to say that it is not true; but one cannot say that it is true in the sense of defined faith.

Further, any review of doctrinal history would show that doctrine develops. It does not change, but the understanding of it and the explanation of it is not static; it develops over time. Part of the problem with some people who style themselves as traditional is that they have a very limited understanding of the history of the Church, particularly in this area; and they presume that what they were taught in the 1950’s was and is the only possible explanation of a doctrinal issue. In short, they presume that a Thomistic or neoscholastic explanation of a doctrinal issue is the only valid way it can be spoken of, discussed, or taught. The Church does not hold that at all, but it is presumed to be de fide.

Scholasticism was criticized because it was clearly-stated and logical. It’s hard to propose heresy when a man’s limited to expressing doctrine with certain and well-understood terminology.“Flowery” language allows a cleric to sound orthodox while actually promoting heresy. You can’t pin him down as easily.

It is no secret that some neoscholastics had a very hard time with John Paul 2, and specifically with his Theology of the Body. That is not because he spoke error; it is because they could only understand information when presented in one specific format. Nowhere does the Magisterium teach or hold that a scholastic or neoscholastic approach to issues is the only way that truth can be taught. Actually, scholasticism was not criticized because it was clearly stated and logical. On the contrary, it was criticized because it was presumed by some to be the only way doctrinal and dogmatic subjects could be discussed. It still has its purposes; but the presumption that it fits all purposes is flat out false.

I’ll have to discuss revelation in another post; coincidentally, the original Vatican II schema on the “Sources of Revelation” was thrown out because it repeated the papal-approved dogmatic theology manuals of the era (written by extremely orthodox theologians), which were used to teach seminarians studying for the priesthood. So, that tells you a little bit about what was going on at the Council…

Yous seem to be making the presumption, again, that the only method through which one could discuss Revelation is a scholastic or neoscholastic approach. Any number of individuals hold that, but the Church does not hold that.

 

[dmorgan]

2nd Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy: Chapter 2

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they grow much towards ungodliness. [17] And their speech spreadeth like a canker: of whom are Hymeneus and Philetus: [18] Who have erred from the truth, saying, that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some. [19] But the sure foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: the Lord knoweth who are his; and let every one depart from iniquity who nameth the name of the Lord. [20] But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth: and some indeed unto honour, but some unto dishonour.

[21] If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and profitable to the Lord, prepared unto every good work. [22] But flee thou youthful desires, and pursue justice, faith, charity, and peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. [23] And avoid foolish and unlearned questions, knowing that they beget strifes. [24] But the servant of the Lord must not wrangle: but be mild towards all men, apt to teach, patient, [25] With modesty admonishing them that resist the truth: if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, [26] And they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.

2nd Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy: Chapter 3

[1] Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. [2] Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, [3] Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, [4] Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: [5] Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.
[6] For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: [7] Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. [8] Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. [9] But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. [10] But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, patience,
[8] “Jannes and Mambres”… The magicians of king Pharao. [11] Persecutions, afflictions: such as came upon me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra: what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord delivered me. [12] And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution. [13] But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. [14] But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; [15] And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Scripture from drbo.org/index.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM

 

[Bigcat71]

Hogwash. What was loose in the world - secularism - would not have been slowed down one iota no matter what guidelines were used. It is a fools errand to presume that the people in the Church are not impacted by what is going on in society; any reading of Church history will show that whatever is going on in society in general will be reflected by those within the confines of the Church.

The Council in no way “rebelled against tradition”. It decided that a minority of bishops and Cardinals were not going to determine the scope and direction of the Council.

Unless you want to call the current Pope and the last one fools and “rebelling against tradition”, you might actually want to read what they have both said about the Council and how they have both thoroughly and emphatically supported the Council, and have intended to carry on the work of fully implementing the Council’s documents.

You can say hogwash all you want. The plain truth is that when the Council started it had a definite direction and agenda in which it was intended to go. Those plans were voted down and new and improved ones, apparently, put into place. I never called any one a fool so I don’t know where you got that from. Since both of the Popes you are speaking of were at Vatican II I somehow doubt they would speak ill of it.

And as far as it goes, I don’t think that the Council itself was the problem. The problem lies in the general nebulosity of the documents and the fact that in implementing the changes that were proposed, certain special interest groups and individuals decided to take the bull by the horns and ram their own agenda through.

Oh just for info, I have read what the Popes have said. I have also seen how hard they both have had to fight to get the Bishops worldwide to steer the right course.

 

[otjm]

You can say hogwash all you want. The plain truth is that when the Council started it had a definite direction and agenda in which it was intended to go. Those plans were voted down and new and improved ones, apparently, put into place. I never called any one a fool so I don’t know where you got that from. Since both of the Popes you are speaking of were at Vatican II I somehow doubt they would speak ill of it.

And as far as it goes, I don’t think that the Council itself was the problem. The problem lies in the general nebulosity of the documents and the fact that in implementing the changes that were proposed, certain special interest groups and individuals decided to take the bull by the horns and ram their own agenda through.

Oh just for info, I have read what the Popes have said. I have also seen how hard they both have had to fight to get the Bishops worldwide to steer the right course.

It is hardly any secret that a very conservative element did all they could to prevent the council, and when it occurred, did what they could to steer it. The fact that the steering was taken away from them is seen in some quarters as evidence that the council went in the wrong direction, one that is at times alluded to not so indirectly as having other than holy origins. Those facts should speak for themselves; sadly, some people presume tht if you are not an arch conservative, then you are a liberal; but that is only possible if the arch conservative position is considered as the norm. Since the Church doesn’t so consider it, I am willing to accept the Church’s judgement on the matter.

Whether or not the two Popes had problems with bishops does not answer the OP - what were the intellectual origins of the Council. Furthermore, there were few Popes in the history of the Church who did not have problems with bishops. It took approximately 100 years for all the changes suggested or required by Trent to be fully in place; why people think that this Council should be fully implemented by now is never really explained.

And just for your info, I have tread what they have said too.

 

[Crumpy]

I don’t know what’s in the links in the preceding posts, but Vat II was a follow-up to Vat I which never had a solid conclusion. Last I heard it was broken up by illness or something, which prevented it from finishing.

Vat I was involved in underscoring papal infallibility, but it didn’t address the role of bishops, which was an urgent matter in Vat II. It’s oversimplifying to just say that the council took up a “few other topics” but it did that in the general tone of being a pastoral council.

www.vaticancatholic.com has the extreme viewpoint of Vat II not being a valid council, etc.
or such.

Being the first council covered by modern media like radio and television, the coverage dealt with the conflicts that they could find among the bishops.

I was expecting “more” at the end of the council. Our bishop came back to the diocese and I didn’t see a roll out of the documents of the council. I mean, it was as if nothing had happened.

Locally, the two nearest parishes to me act like they don’t even know who the pope is, what’s happening in Rome, etc. Nada.

 

[otjm]

I don’t know what’s in the links in the preceding posts, but Vat II was a follow-up to Vat I which never had a solid conclusion. Last I heard it was broken up by illness or something, which prevented it from finishing.

Vat I was involved in underscoring papal infallibility, but it didn’t address the role of bishops, which was an urgent matter in Vat II. It’s oversimplifying to just say that the council took up a “few other topics” but it did that in the general tone of being a pastoral council.

www.vaticancatholic.com has the extreme viewpoint of Vat II not being a valid council, etc.
or such.

Being the first council covered by modern media like radio and television, the coverage dealt with the conflicts that they could find among the bishops.

I was expecting “more” at the end of the council. Our bishop came back to the diocese and I didn’t see a roll out of the documents of the council. I mean, it was as if nothing had happened.

Locally, the two nearest parishes to me act like they don’t even know who the pope is, what’s happening in Rome, etc. Nada.

Interestingly, one of the countries in which the documents were widely studied and in which there was solid movement to implement them was Poland.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Neo-Modernists believed that philosophy must be “living” in order for it to remain relevant. They believed that as life changes, so then does truth. Authentic philosophy, however, recognizes that truth is objective and thus immutable. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange explains it better than I ever could.

In my understanding, traditional Catholics accept Church doctrine as it’s always been expressed (often with the use of very specific terms) and with the same meaning it’s always had (e.g., children’s Limbo isn’t written off as a thing of the past).

Scholasticism was criticized because it was clearly-stated and logical. It’s hard to propose heresy when a man’s limited to expressing doctrine with certain and well-understood terminology.“Flowery” language allows a cleric to sound orthodox while actually promoting heresy. You can’t pin him down as easily.

I’m hopelessly unclear what a “living” philosophy is. I can understand that some truths are eternal (e.g. 1+1=2) while others are dependent on the situation (it is 12:00 noon). So is this a debate about which teachings should be reevaluated or continuously reevaluated?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Further, any review of doctrinal history would show that doctrine develops. It does not change, but the understanding of it and the explanation of it is not static; it develops over time.

This seems almost as bad. Why is plain speaking so difficult on this topic? What is the difference between changing and developing, between static and unchanging?

 

[MarkThompson]

This seems almost as bad. Why is plain speaking so difficult on this topic? What is the difference between changing and developing, between static and unchanging?

“Development” and “change” are not the same thing. Thomas Aquinas did not offer any moral theology on the topics of assisted reproduction and stem-cell research. Our theology today does deal with them. That’s development.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

“Development” and “change” are not the same thing. Thomas Aquinas did not offer any moral theology on the topics of assisted reproduction and stem-cell research. Our theology today does deal with them. That’s development.

So development of theology means adding new assertions to the old without modifying the old in order to deal with new situations. Is that a fair summary?

Can Vatican II be construed as an effort to deal with such issues?

 

[otjm]

This seems almost as bad. Why is plain speaking so difficult on this topic? What is the difference between changing and developing, between static and unchanging?

Static and unchanging would mean that we have not learned anything in the last (put your number here) centuries. Theology was not full blown the day after Pentacost. The Church took centuries, and still is taking time, to reflect on the Gospels and Tradition. that is why we have theologians; because they continue to explore the Truth.

Changing: doctrine doesn’t change - well, at least in the Catholic Church. The Protestant churches, since they do not understand or accept Tradition, rely on Scripture, and without Tradition to guide them and a magisterial body to do that guidance, they wander; just look at how many variations there are to what the Lord’s Supper means. Some come close to Catholic understanding of the the Eucharist; and from there it wanders all over the map.

A very minor example; in the fairly early Church, the Church held that you could only go to confession - have your sins absolved - once in a life time. When they were holding that, the result was that many refused to be baptized until near death (obvioulsy knowing their own prediliction to sin). The Irish monks had a hand in the change there, as the understanding of the theology of the sacrament grew. In the very early Church, there wasn’t even a clear view that there were seven sacraments. Again, theology grew, knowledge and understanding expanded.

 

[otjm]

So development of theology means adding new assertions to the old without modifying the old in order to deal with new situations. Is that a fair summary?

Can Vatican II be construed as an effort to deal with such issues?

One of the issues that Vatican 2 dealt with was the follow up to Vatican 1, and that was, what really are bishops? Are they mid-level managers, something more, something different? That issue came out of the issue of papal infallibility; but Vatican 1 was interrupted before the issue could be dealt with.

Other issues that Vatican 2 was dealing with was trying to define how the Church interacted with the world. It was not that long before that significant changes had occured in the world. The Vatican States were no longer. The Vatican was at the back side of the curve in dealing with governments that were not primarily religiously based, or had a strong religious cast to them. It was not that long before that the US had come upon the scene with a new form of government, one that caused a good deal of grief through out the 1800’s and into the early 1900’s. Rome had tried to influence things through monarchs; and monarchs no longer had the power they once had. Communications was changing rapidly. Much of the Church had been caught up in a time warp, the rest of the world was moving on, but the Church in many ways had not caught on and caught up. The Protestant revolution was 500 years old, and the Church was still fighting an old battle, when pretty much everyone else had moved on. Rome was seeing the glass half empty; what they needed to see was the glass was half full; and the level was still the same, but the mindset was radically different between those two ways of seeing the same set of facts.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

One of the issues that Vatican 2 dealt with was the follow up to Vatican 1, and that was, what really are bishops? Are they mid-level managers, something more, something different? That issue came out of the issue of papal infallibility; but Vatican 1 was interrupted before the issue could be dealt with.

Other issues that Vatican 2 was dealing with was trying to define how the Church interacted with the world. It was not that long before that significant changes had occured in the world. The Vatican States were no longer. The Vatican was at the back side of the curve in dealing with governments that were not primarily religiously based, or had a strong religious cast to them. It was not that long before that the US had come upon the scene with a new form of government, one that caused a good deal of grief through out the 1800’s and into the early 1900’s. Rome had tried to influence things through monarchs; and monarchs no longer had the power they once had. Communications was changing rapidly. Much of the Church had been caught up in a time warp, the rest of the world was moving on, but the Church in many ways had not caught on and caught up. The Protestant revolution was 500 years old, and the Church was still fighting an old battle, when pretty much everyone else had moved on. Rome was seeing the glass half empty; what they needed to see was the glass was half full; and the level was still the same, but the mindset was radically different between those two ways of seeing the same set of facts.

This was actually very helpful and answered several questions including some that I had not introduced in this thread. I had read (as mentioned earlier) that Vatican II was a modernization effort but that seemed like a vague description. The arguments about philosophy (Thomas vs. modernism) are interesting and relevant but this is seems more to the point.

It is very curious, indeed, that you mention these two, the question about bishops and the church-world relations. I’m sure it must be overstating matters to say that the Church was accustomed to interacting with the world through the monarchs. After all, it does have a hierarchy that goes from pope to bishops to priests to laity. Monarchs should be jealous of that. But particularly in a democratic world that’s a organization with tremendous influential potential.

 

[vardaquinn]

I think the primary motivation of Bl. John XXIII for calling the council was his desire for a “new Pentecost”, expressed in the prayer he promulgated and had said prior to the council. The Council needed to update its method, focus, and approach. It was in need of “renewal”. It went back to the roots of the Church, refocusing on the Church Fathers. Re-emphasizing the essential importance of the Scriptures. It was there to affirm the universal call to holiness (all are called to be saints, and all are called to evangelize). It emphasized the role of the laity, the duties of priests (first and foremost to preach), how the Church is supposed to act in the world, affirmed the dignity of the human person (especially in Gaudiem et Spes), highlighted how the Church is supposed to really function, and its evangelical goals, rediscovered (as John Paul II said) the charismatic dimension of the church, the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, and also to speak the truth in the language of the times, and to promote full active and conscious participation on the part of everyone in the liturgy, and in living out the mission of the Church. There were a lot of precedents, liturgical movements, scriptural movements, and people like St. Josemaria Escriva.

 

[PoliSciProf]

One figure not mentioned in this post was John Courtney Murray, S.J. Murray was a theologian who worked on Catholicism and religious pluralism in the modern liberal state. He was silenced for a while because of his argument that new moral (natural) law could be developed outside of the Church. Nonetheless, he was a peritus at Vatican II and very influential re Vatican II’s document on religious freedom, Dignitate Humanae Personae. For some context, I remember being told in my Catholic high school ('62-'66), that we should support Spain’s dictator Francisco Franco because he was good for the Church and supported Catholicism (among his titles was Caudillo de España, por la gracia de Dios). His brutal suppresion of all dissent should apparently be discounted(!). Below are three useful articles about Father Murray and his work. I especially recommend the piece by Father Francis Canavan (ewtn)

johncourtneymurray.blogspot.com/

ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/FR87203.TXT

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Courtney_Murray