Why do some people reject Vatican II?

[Brendan_64]

“Why do some people reject Vatican II?”

Many reject what Vatican II is used to justify. The so-called ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ has so often been used to justify things that were never called for in Vatican II, and in fact has been used to justify things opposed to what has been stated in the documents of Vatican II. Vatican II did not call for a removal of Latin from the liturgy, a removal of Gregorian chant when Sacrosanctum Concilium said quite the reverse. Vatican II reaffirmed the position of traditional Catholic devotional practices, yet in the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ these practices are being discouraged in some places.

Vatican II was not the beginning of a new movement, it was not a new dawn, a ‘new springtime’, it was not a break with the past. It was a series of documents and if something is not specifically written in one of those documents, then it is not part of Vatican II. Yet that doesn’t stop some justifying things never stated in any documents from Vatican by citing Vatican II in a vague, non-specific manner. Or extolling the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ extol it as a new movement, a break with the past, the dawning of a new ‘modern’ Church. Vatican II was none of those things.

 

[commenter]

“Why do some people reject Vatican II?”

Many reject what Vatican II is used to justify. The so-called ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ has so often been used to justify things that were never called for in Vatican II, and in fact has been used to justify things opposed to what has been stated in the documents of Vatican II. Vatican II did not call for a removal of Latin from the liturgy, a removal of Gregorian chant when Sacrosanctum Concilium said quite the reverse. Vatican II reaffirmed the position of traditional Catholic devotional practices, yet in the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ these practices are being discouraged in some places.

Vatican II was not the beginning of a new movement, it was not a new dawn, a ‘new springtime’, it was not a break with the past. It was a series of documents and if something is not specifically written in one of those documents, then it is not part of Vatican II. Yet that doesn’t stop some justifying things never stated in any documents from Vatican by citing Vatican II in a vague, non-specific manner. Or extolling the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ extol it as a new movement, a break with the past, the dawning of a new ‘modern’ Church. Vatican II was none of those things.

True.
V2 not only gets blamed for bad things it did not initiate, it also gets too much credit sometimes. I have attended lectures or read articles that describe the role of the laity as passive prior to V2, and active now. In reality lay Catholics in the first half of the 20th century in the US, and probably other places, were quite active. A movie could not usually attack Christian values, because Catholics in Hollywood would object, Catholic laity who owned theaters would object, and laity would generally not attend these movies; sometimes they organized boycotts of all pictures shown at theaters that would show some bad movies.

The primary focus in lay activity before V2 was the family. Parents made this their first commitment, not money. Before that was the rule, now it is the exception.

In addition to laity influencing society through their family and workplace before V2, laity were active in the Legion of Decency, Holy Name, and many other movements. Even though V2 theoretically empowered laity, the actual result was less activity, more passivity, since the 1960s. I am not blaming V2 for this, just pointing out V2 gets credited, and blamed, for much that it should not be.

 

[Brendan_64]

When someone uses Vatican II to justify some change in practice, teaching, liturgical change etc, it is a good idea to ask them to cite which specific document from Vatican II supports that particular change.

 

[LongingSoul]

Those who do not reject the teaching Magisterium know the true problem lies with the “Spirit of Vatican II” which has done great harm to the Church since the council.

I have never understood why the spirit of VII is a pejorative. What do you believe it to be?

 

[Brendan_64]

I have never understood why the spirit of VII is a pejorative. What do you believe it to be?

Whatever it is, it has no basis in the teachings of our Church. Vatican II was an ecumenical council, like the 20 before it, Vatican II did not produce a ‘spirit’ any more than Vatican I, Trent, Lateran V… all the way back to Nicaea did.

The bishops met, discussed a range of issues, produced 16 documents and went home. There wasn’t a mysterious unwritten document called “Spirit of Vatican II” produced by the 2nd Vatican Council.

 

[7_Sorrows]

When someone uses Vatican II to justify some change in practice, teaching, liturgical change etc, it is a good idea to ask them to cite which specific document from Vatican II supports that particular change.

so Vatican II did not say to hold hands during the Our Father? Churches adopted that in the “spirit of Vatican II”? I am not trying to be cute, but as a recent convert I have wondered just what Vatican II did. I thought Vatican II changed the liturgy from Latin to the vernacular. Are you saying it didn’t?

 

[commenter]

I have never understood why the spirit of VII is a pejorative. What do you believe it to be?

Originally it was ok. Then people began wrapping their personal agenda up in it, as thus: We have to do this whatever action now in our parish, or diocese, as “in the Spirit of Vatican II.” If anyone disagreed with their personal agenda, the critics were attacked as opponents of V2.

The problem is that once you move away from the documents themselves, anyone can push anything - so John’s “spirit of V2” project maybe totally contradicted by Joe’s spirit of V2 project.

The bishops at V2 reaffirmed the foundation of Catholic dogma, and further developments were contingent on that foundation, and Magisterium. Later, some “spirit of V2 people” consciously, or unconsciously, omitted or ignored, or contradicted that foundation, and the Magisterium. So some projects in “Spirit of V2” turned out to be a solid expression of the gospel, others very opposed to the gospel, and some were kind of neutral, not really good or bad. For some, relying on the Spirit of V2 became a stepping stone for rejecting the Magisterium, and reliance of the secular media culture.

People seldom use that phrase now anyway. The dissenters now rely on the Spirit of Huffpost, or CNN, or CRUX, etc. Ironically, some conservatives are unconsciously influenced in a way by “the spirit of V2” and also reject the Magisterium.

 

[Brendan_64]

so Vatican II did not say to hold hands during the Our Father? Churches adopted that in the “spirit of Vatican II”? I am not trying to be cute, but as a recent convert I have wondered just what Vatican II did. I thought Vatican II changed the liturgy from Latin to the vernacular. Are you saying it didn’t?

Holding hands during the Our Father has nothing to do with Vatican II. This practice arose (or so I am told) as a result of charismatic worship (as did the practice of the laity holding their hands in the Orans position) and has been criticised by the Vatican. It represents (I believe) a misunderstanding of the nature and role of the Our Father in the Liturgy. However as the laity are not, strictly speaking, bound by the rubrics of the Mass, not a great deal can really be done to enforce this. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with Vatican II. A useful rule of thumb as to how the laity ought to behave in terms of posture is to observe the posture of the altar servers at various points.

As for the introduction of the vernacular, it is true that Vatican II did allow this to be introduced (especially for the readings and some prayers and chants) but Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II’s constitution on the sacred Liturgy) clearly states that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite” (SC 36). There was never meant to be a complete replacement of Latin with the vernacular, just the introduction of some elements of the vernacular into the Mass.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

All Catholics ought to read Sacrosanctum Concilium, because there has been a lot of misinformation spread about what Vatican II actually called for regarding the liturgy.

It sometimes seems that every modernist ‘innovation’ and omission seems to be justified at one point or another by the so called ‘spirit of Vatican II’ despite the fact that such changes were not actually specified in the actual documents of Vatican II, or even seem to directly contradict the actual wording of the documents of Vatican II (the complete removal of Latin and Gregorian chant from the liturgy being examples of this).

As a new convert Sacrosanctum Concilium would be worth reading. Also regarding the liturgy, but much later than Vatican II, John Paul II’s Redemptionis Sacramentum is worth reading.

 

[Thomas_White]

Can someone please explain? I know some info on the second Vatican council but people, especially traditionalists, talk about how much they despise Vatican II etc… Can someone explain?

I don’t believe there is one simple explanation but “despise” is probably to strong a word. Vatican II began its implementation only several years after I completed high school, and there was much uncertainty about exactly what was to change. This was unsettling for many Catholics, and I think at least some sought refuge in what they considered traditional Catholicism. At the core of this was the search for certainty as opposed to the conception of the Church as a process evolving in time and history. I do not believe the issue is yet settled.

 

[ProVobis]

but Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II’s constitution on the sacred Liturgy) clearly states that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite” (SC 36). There was never meant to be a complete replacement of Latin with the vernacular, just the introduction of some elements of the vernacular into the Mass.

Personally I think the ICEL is to be blamed for lobbying for the all-vernacular and the copyrights to some rather questionable translations, from which they reaped excessive royalties.

 

[edwest2]

Merry Christmas! My memories of pre VII masses is different from yours. I was 12 in 1965, and the 2 major changes that affected my friends and I were mass in the vernacular and not having to find something to pin on top of my thick hair! I do remember old woman praying The Rosary out loud during mass.

I remember a teen classmate asking if she could borrow my handkerchief to cover her head. Old women? No praying of the rosary during Mass. Only after and on other days, and the tone of voice was a whisper or nothing. Affects on my friends were irrelevant. We were in Catholic school and the nuns explained the change. Fidelity to what the Church wanted was the only thing that mattered.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

so Vatican II did not say to hold hands during the Our Father? Churches adopted that in the “spirit of Vatican II”? I am not trying to be cute, but as a recent convert I have wondered just what Vatican II did. I thought Vatican II changed the liturgy from Latin to the vernacular. Are you saying it didn’t?

Sacrosanctum Concilium, #36; December 4, 1963

“. . .the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”

Sacrosanctum Concilium, #116; December 4, 1963

“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

Pope Benedict:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

“arbitrary deformations”

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Originally it was ok. Then people began wrapping their personal agenda up in it, as thus: We have to do this whatever action now in our parish, or diocese, as “in the Spirit of Vatican II.” If anyone disagreed with their personal agenda, the critics were attacked as opponents of V2.

The problem is that once you move away from the documents themselves, anyone can push anything - so John’s “spirit of V2” project maybe totally contradicted by Joe’s spirit of V2 project.

The bishops at V2 reaffirmed the foundation of Catholic dogma, and further developments were contingent on that foundation, and Magisterium. Later, some “spirit of V2 people” consciously, or unconsciously, omitted or ignored, or contradicted that foundation, and the Magisterium. So some projects in “Spirit of V2” turned out to be a solid expression of the gospel, others very opposed to the gospel, and some were kind of neutral, not really good or bad. For some, relying on the Spirit of V2 became a stepping stone for rejecting the Magisterium, and reliance of the secular media culture.

People seldom use that phrase now anyway. The dissenters now rely on the Spirit of Huffpost, or CNN, or CRUX, etc. Ironically, some conservatives are unconsciously influenced in a way by “the spirit of V2” and also reject the Magisterium.

It’s still used and yes, the media gets a part of the blame.

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii/

ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I don’t believe there is one simple explanation but “despise” is probably to strong a word. Vatican II began its implementation only several years after I completed high school, and there was much uncertainty about exactly what was to change. This was unsettling for many Catholics, and I think at least some sought refuge in what they considered traditional Catholicism. At the core of this was the search for certainty as opposed to the conception of the Church as a process evolving in time and history. I do not believe the issue is yet settled.

The issue is settled except in the minds of those who continue to misrepresent their damaging attacks against the Church as being somehow connected to Vatican II. There is zero connection. But as time passes, Vatican II will continue to be used as the source, the scapegoat for any perceived problems caused in the Church by radicals and dissidents in the time period shortly after.

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764

I was in Catholic school. It was perfectly OK to ask for any explanation from any priest or nun.

Ed

 

[ProVobis]

…

… This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church."

This, coming from the Pope himself, alone speaks volumes, and if anything, vindicates those who criticized the new Missal, which allowed these “deformities.”

 

[LongingSoul]

Whatever it is, it has no basis in the teachings of our Church. Vatican II was an ecumenical council, like the 20 before it, Vatican II did not produce a ‘spirit’ any more than Vatican I, Trent, Lateran V… all the way back to Nicaea did.

The bishops met, discussed a range of issues, produced 16 documents and went home. There wasn’t a mysterious unwritten document called “Spirit of Vatican II” produced by the 2nd Vatican Council.

To be fair, the spirit of a thing can’t be quantified by a document. That would effectively make all Jesus teaching about the ‘spirit of the law’ meaningless.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

To be fair, the spirit of a thing can’t be quantified by a document. That would effectively make all Jesus teaching about the ‘spirit of the law’ meaningless.

Indeed but what kind of spirit is it?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Holding hands during the Our Father has nothing to do with Vatican II. This practice arose (or so I am told) as a result of charismatic worship (as did the practice of the laity holding their hands in the Orans position) and has been criticised by the Vatican. It represents (I believe) a misunderstanding of the nature and role of the Our Father in the Liturgy. However as the laity are not, strictly speaking, bound by the rubrics of the Mass, not a great deal can really be done to enforce this. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with Vatican II. A useful rule of thumb as to how the laity ought to behave in terms of posture is to observe the posture of the altar servers at various points.

As for the introduction of the vernacular, it is true that Vatican II did allow this to be introduced (especially for the readings and some prayers and chants) but Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II’s constitution on the sacred Liturgy) clearly states that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite” (SC 36). There was never meant to be a complete replacement of Latin with the vernacular, just the introduction of some elements of the vernacular into the Mass.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

All Catholics ought to read Sacrosanctum Concilium, because there has been a lot of misinformation spread about what Vatican II actually called for regarding the liturgy.

It sometimes seems that every modernist ‘innovation’ and omission seems to be justified at one point or another by the so called ‘spirit of Vatican II’ despite the fact that such changes were not actually specified in the actual documents of Vatican II, or even seem to directly contradict the actual wording of the documents of Vatican II (the complete removal of Latin and Gregorian chant from the liturgy being examples of this).

As a new convert Sacrosanctum Concilium would be worth reading. Also regarding the liturgy, but much later than Vatican II, John Paul II’s Redemptionis Sacramentum is worth reading.

it would not bother me if they left more of the Mass in Latin.
When I converted I belonged to a church that said the “Holy, Holy, Holy” and “Lamb of God” in Latin. I loved it.

 

[Brendan_64]

Indeed but what kind of spirit is it?

Indeed.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Indeed.

?