Why do some people reject Vatican II?

[Nightwolf]

One of the issues, which is rarely, if ever, brought up, is that most people are not trained in critical thinking…

What you say is very true, and is the main reason that I advocate logic and philosophy courses in high schools.

for those who have read them, many are not trained sufficiently in the varying areas of theology… they also lack seriously in historical perspective, including what was actually going on in that area prior to the convening of the Council.

What you say is generally true, and responds to the OP well; it is also my main complaint against people who are non-theologians thinking that their opinion is equal to, say, their bishop or pastor on some article of the faith. Theology and philosophy are academic disciplines, not hobbies, and if a person goes to an architect of they want a house built without feeling like that fact makes them unintelligent, then what justification do they have in their minds for thinking they can just pick up a sacred text and know all about it, without having worked at improving their understanding of it from someone who has studied it? I wouldn’t want my house built by a self-trained architect; I would want one well-certified (as would my insurance company).

Of course, 'tis double-sided. If most traditionalists are, on theological and historistical issues, uneducated, it is only because they are part of the general population: most people in general, whether traditional, modernist, or indifferent, are uneducated on these things. Consequently, in their zeal to defend the Church, I often see people falling into all kinds of pseudo-scholarship - but, being modernist, they get a pass from the same people who complain that most traditionalists do not have theology degrees.

Additionally, many, if not most of the complainers play an ad hoc, ergo propter hoc game with causation, choosing to blame Vatican 2 for changes that had nothing whatsoever to do with the documents themselves.

There is one particular advantage that I see in the traditionalist model regarding Vatican II that successfully avoids your charge of the fallacy post hoc. The traditionalist model does not disassociate the words of the documents from their implementors’ actions. This is relevant because the ones who wrote the documents (or that their advisors wrote in their name) are the same as the ones implementing those documents. Had the bishops of the world gathered, crossed themselves, half-heartedly approved the documents that the Holy Office had put together, and gone to have coffee in Trastevere before heading home, then yes, we could talk about the words of the documents as something sovereign from their implementation. But it was those bishops who wrote the documents who then implemented them - they interpret their own words (rather Rousseau-ian, isn’t it?).

Consequently, you’re right: the changes had nothing to do with the documents. But that is a red herring, because the changes came from the ones who wrote the documents, not the documents themselves, and so can be reasonably expected to correspond to their intentions. Unfortunately, that means that the bishops currently ruling are continuations of those who caused these changes, which many non-traditionalists will even call problematic: that is causation, not post hoc ergo propter hoc (unless you’re Hume and think all causation post hoc).

And many of the people who complain, or dissent, are doing the exact same thing they are blaming the people on the other end of the spectrum of doing - picking and choosing what they want the Church to be, rather than following what the Church is and does.

Probably true, but I am an existentialist. If a person senses in his existent that the Church ought to be one way, he unfortunately has no way of verifying whether that sense is from God, the devil, undigested meat, low pressure, etc. In everyday things, we find ourselves alienated. And in a world where the documents of Vatican II cannot be treated as if they were inspired (that is that, while they have human authors, God Himself is their author), the alienation spills into all aspects of church life. Is the traditionalist following the dictates of the Holy Spirit, or is the modernist (or is neither)? Impossible to tell, and so my only prayer can be ‘‘Thy Will be done’’ - accepting that I can never know if I am actually following that Will.

 

[edwest2]

Why was the Second Vatican Council called? Pope John XXIII:

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

The changes that were created, not mandated, were gradually addressed.

Ed

 

[Thomas_White]

What you say is very true, and is the main reason that I advocate logic and philosophy courses in high schools.

What you say is generally true, and responds to the OP well; it is also my main complaint against people who are non-theologians thinking that their opinion is equal to, say, their bishop or pastor on some article of the faith. Theology and philosophy are academic disciplines, not hobbies, and if a person goes to an architect of they want a house built without feeling like that fact makes them unintelligent, then what justification do they have in their minds for thinking they can just pick up a sacred text and know all about it, without having worked at improving their understanding of it from someone who has studied it? I wouldn’t want my house built by a self-trained architect; I would want one well-certified (as would my insurance company).

Of course, 'tis double-sided. If most traditionalists are, on theological and historistical issues, uneducated, it is only because they are part of the general population: most people in general, whether traditional, modernist, or indifferent, are uneducated on these things. Consequently, in their zeal to defend the Church, I often see people falling into all kinds of pseudo-scholarship - but, being modernist, they get a pass from the same people who complain that most traditionalists do not have theology degrees.

There is one particular advantage that I see in the traditionalist model regarding Vatican II that successfully avoids your charge of the fallacy post hoc. The traditionalist model does not disassociate the words of the documents from their implementors’ actions. This is relevant because the ones who wrote the documents (or that their advisors wrote in their name) are the same as the ones implementing those documents. Had the bishops of the world gathered, crossed themselves, half-heartedly approved the documents that the Holy Office had put together, and gone to have coffee in Trastevere before heading home, then yes, we could talk about the words of the documents as something sovereign from their implementation. But it was those bishops who wrote the documents who then implemented them - they interpret their own words (rather Rousseau-ian, isn’t it?).

Consequently, you’re right: the changes had nothing to do with the documents. But that is a red herring, because the changes came from the ones who wrote the documents, not the documents themselves, and so can be reasonably expected to correspond to their intentions. Unfortunately, that means that the bishops currently ruling are continuations of those who caused these changes, which many non-traditionalists will even call problematic: that is causation, not post hoc ergo propter hoc (unless you’re Hume and think all causation post hoc).

Probably true, but I am an existentialist. If a person senses in his existent that the Church ought to be one way, he unfortunately has no way of verifying whether that sense is from God, the devil, undigested meat, low pressure, etc. In everyday things, we find ourselves alienated. And in a world where the documents of Vatican II cannot be treated as if they were inspired (that is that, while they have human authors, God Himself is their author), the alienation spills into all aspects of church life. Is the traditionalist following the dictates of the Holy Spirit, or is the modernist (or is neither)? Impossible to tell, and so my only prayer can be ‘‘Thy Will be done’’ - accepting that I can never know if I am actually following that Will.

Very well said.

 

[R_H_Benson]

There is one particular advantage that I see in the traditionalist model regarding Vatican II that successfully avoids your charge of the fallacy post hoc. The traditionalist model does not disassociate the words of the documents from their implementors’ actions. This is relevant because the ones who wrote the documents (or that their advisors wrote in their name) are the same as the ones implementing those documents. Had the bishops of the world gathered, crossed themselves, half-heartedly approved the documents that the Holy Office had put together, and gone to have coffee in Trastevere before heading home, then yes, we could talk about the words of the documents as something sovereign from their implementation. But it was those bishops who wrote the documents who then implemented them - they interpret their own words (rather Rousseau-ian, isn’t it?).

You’ve hit the nail on the head.

The strategically placed ambiguities of the conciliar documents were exploited by the committees appointed to interpret and implement the reforms. This phenomenon is most clearly at play in the workings of the Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

 

[edwest2]

What you say is very true, and is the main reason that I advocate logic and philosophy courses in high schools.

What you say is generally true, and responds to the OP well; it is also my main complaint against people who are non-theologians thinking that their opinion is equal to, say, their bishop or pastor on some article of the faith. Theology and philosophy are academic disciplines, not hobbies, and if a person goes to an architect of they want a house built without feeling like that fact makes them unintelligent, then what justification do they have in their minds for thinking they can just pick up a sacred text and know all about it, without having worked at improving their understanding of it from someone who has studied it? I wouldn’t want my house built by a self-trained architect; I would want one well-certified (as would my insurance company).

Of course, 'tis double-sided. If most traditionalists are, on theological and historistical issues, uneducated, it is only because they are part of the general population: most people in general, whether traditional, modernist, or indifferent, are uneducated on these things. Consequently, in their zeal to defend the Church, I often see people falling into all kinds of pseudo-scholarship - but, being modernist, they get a pass from the same people who complain that most traditionalists do not have theology degrees.

There is one particular advantage that I see in the traditionalist model regarding Vatican II that successfully avoids your charge of the fallacy post hoc. The traditionalist model does not disassociate the words of the documents from their implementors’ actions. This is relevant because the ones who wrote the documents (or that their advisors wrote in their name) are the same as the ones implementing those documents. Had the bishops of the world gathered, crossed themselves, half-heartedly approved the documents that the Holy Office had put together, and gone to have coffee in Trastevere before heading home, then yes, we could talk about the words of the documents as something sovereign from their implementation. But it was those bishops who wrote the documents who then implemented them - they interpret their own words (rather Rousseau-ian, isn’t it?).

Consequently, you’re right: the changes had nothing to do with the documents. But that is a red herring, because the changes came from the ones who wrote the documents, not the documents themselves, and so can be reasonably expected to correspond to their intentions. Unfortunately, that means that the bishops currently ruling are continuations of those who caused these changes, which many non-traditionalists will even call problematic: that is causation, not post hoc ergo propter hoc (unless you’re Hume and think all causation post hoc).

Probably true, but I am an existentialist. If a person senses in his existent that the Church ought to be one way, he unfortunately has no way of verifying whether that sense is from God, the devil, undigested meat, low pressure, etc. In everyday things, we find ourselves alienated. And in a world where the documents of Vatican II cannot be treated as if they were inspired (that is that, while they have human authors, God Himself is their author), the alienation spills into all aspects of church life. Is the traditionalist following the dictates of the Holy Spirit, or is the modernist (or is neither)? Impossible to tell, and so my only prayer can be ‘‘Thy Will be done’’ - accepting that I can never know if I am actually following that Will.

Oh please. The changes occurred at the local level. And as I have posted twice, Pope Benedict, shortly before stepping down as Pope, addressed the Vatican II abuses and put the blame on the media. The public did not hear about the “Council of the Fathers” but were given “The Council of the Media.” And their were wolves among us who dressed well, spoke well, and deceived well.

That’s the gist. As one religious said on Catholic radio: “Things went nuts in seminaries in the 1970s.” And a priest posted here that he was pressured to sign a letter against good Church teaching at a meeting of priests but refused. He said the most vocal member of the group used “rather salty language” but that didn’t work either. The enemy who was at the gates changed clothes and while saying, Peace, Love, they preached their own gospel of immorality and distrust of all but them. My Hippie friend who was raised like I did, came away as if from Hippie Boot Camp one day. He had the regulation length hair, the regulation clothes and spoke Hippie-speak. The Church didn’t matter. He told me fornication was “two people performing natural acts,” and he smoked marijuana regularly.

Once the enemy got the Vatican II signal, the attack was on, on many fronts.

Ed

 

[LongingSoul]

Why was the Second Vatican Council called? Pope John XXIII:

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

The changes that were created, not mandated, were gradually addressed.

Ed

That needed posting, Ed. It’s a must read for anyone weighing in on Vatican II because it gives great insight into Pope StJXXIIIs perspective and the times the Church was living in. It’s a very spirit filled document to set the tone for a spirit filled Council.

 

[LongingSoul]

Then why have you raised this on a thread that is specifically about Vatican II?

Because it was one of the aspects among a lot of aspects that was calling for attention at the time in a changing environment.

The issue of priest’s workload has nothing to do with Vatican II.

I didn’t specifically say workload. I said burdens and that was largely concerning the Priests relationship with the parishioners and community he existed in as he was coping with ministering to a changing world.

It is a bit of a stretch to take that statement which does express care for priests, and extrapolate it to support a position that Vatican II was called (at least in part) from a concern about priest workload in modern parishes.

Your words were and you said this in the context of a discussion of Vatican II (and the introduction of the new Mass). The implication is that Vatican II was called (at least in part) as a result of desires of some of the laity to become more involved in the liturgy and a need to alleviate the workload experienced by priests in modern parishes.

You keep saying workload when I said burdens and I intended that word to cover the difficulties that parish Priests were faced with in the modern world. Things actually began to change after WWII and people had different expectations of their parish Priests in different ways. Priests were already being forced to be creative in their pastoral duties because of how quickly the world and its problems were changing. Some priests dealt with those changes by becoming more rigid and condemnatory in that approach. Others were leaning more to false compassion to deal with it. There was an obvious need for something more relevant from the Vatican to be able to have confidence to deal with parish life as it was.

 

[edwest2]

That needed posting, Ed. It’s a must read for anyone weighing in on Vatican II because it gives great insight into Pope StJXXIIIs perspective and the times the Church was living in. It’s a very spirit filled document to set the tone for a spirit filled Council.

The US and USSR simultaneously deployed ICBMs in 1959. The Beatniks were creating a counterculture and “The End Is Near” was a poster that regularly appeared in cartoons of the period. The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in October 1962. I watched it unfold. Yet, through it all, God and religion were very much a part of our daily lives. I remember the calendars from the late 1950s my mother saved for their beautiful religious artwork. We were told to build bomb shelters but none of us did.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Because it was one of the aspects among a lot of aspects that was calling for attention at the time in a changing environment.

I didn’t specifically say workload. I said burdens and that was largely concerning the Priests relationship with the parishioners and community he existed in as he was coping with ministering to a changing world.

You keep saying workload when I said burdens and I intended that word to cover the difficulties that parish Priests were faced with in the modern world. Things actually began to change after WWII and people had different expectations of their parish Priests in different ways. Priests were already being forced to be creative in their pastoral duties because of how quickly the world and its problems were changing. Some priests dealt with those changes by becoming more rigid and condemnatory in that approach. Others were leaning more to false compassion to deal with it. There was an obvious need for something more relevant from the Vatican to be able to have confidence to deal with parish life as it was.

My parents came to the US after World War II. There were no new expectations but a growth of religious intolerance that was quite mild in the late 1940s and 1950s. Priests had access to other priests, their local Bishop and the Pope. There were strictly religious publications. We received one monthly in our native language. Bishop Fulton Sheen was on one of the three (or four, depending on where you lived) TV channels from 1952 to 1957.

Parish life during the period was not some machine. There were enough priests and even volunteers. Seminaries taught priests what to do and how to serve their parishioners. Get a copy of Catholic Digest from the late 1950s. I have one from October 1958. On the inside front cover is an article by Father Bussard talking about a Communist publication. Knowing the time period and the mostly wonderful treatment and respect most people gave each other, and how that was exploited after Vatican II needs to be known. The wolves in sheeps’ clothing comes to mind. Knowing how it was done and who is responsible is the key to understanding the people who were agitating for changes they wanted. The “world” did not change by something vague but through very specific actions by very specific people.

Ed

 

[Thomas_White]

The OP is “Why do some people reject Vatican II?”

 

[edwest2]

The OP is “Why do some people reject Vatican II?”

I fully believe Pope Benedict that the people were taught to see the Council as a “Council of the Media” as opposed to the “Council of the Fathers.” Abuses occurred that have zero connection to Vatican II. A lot of us did not know what was going on behind the scenes, namely wrecking the Church and the surprise of the Liturgy being distorted to varying degrees at various places.

Some of the older Traditionalists took the “Blame it on Vatican II” lie to heart. They were from the generation that was and is too trusting of others. I know that generation. They could not believe dissidents inside the Church were doing what they were doing. I found it hard to believe at first. Pope Benedict referred to the arbitrary deformations of the liturgy and how he lived through the time period. The common social message changed from “God is in our lives” to God is optional, or needless. There was a lot more false information burying everything the Church taught. It’s gone on for decades. So, of course, Churches that followed what the Church told them to do remained, but the deformities hurt and confused people elsewhere.

A priest on Catholic radio said guitar Masses were on their way out. That greater reverence was required.

Ed

 

[LongingSoul]

My parents came to the US after World War II. There were no new expectations but a growth of religious intolerance that was quite mild in the late 1940s and 1950s. Priests had access to other priests, their local Bishop and the Pope. There were strictly religious publications. We received one monthly in our native language. Bishop Fulton Sheen was on one of the three (or four, depending on where you lived) TV channels from 1952 to 1957.

Parish life during the period was not some machine. There were enough priests and even volunteers. Seminaries taught priests what to do and how to serve their parishioners. Get a copy of Catholic Digest from the late 1950s. I have one from October 1958. On the inside front cover is an article by Father Bussard talking about a Communist publication. Knowing the time period and the mostly wonderful treatment and respect most people gave each other, and how that was exploited after Vatican II needs to be known. The wolves in sheeps’ clothing comes to mind. Knowing how it was done and who is responsible is the key to understanding the people who were agitating for changes they wanted. The “world” did not change by something vague but through very specific actions by very specific people.

Ed

Here is an explanatory document from the Curia with regards to VII addressing the contemporary understanding of a Priest and his role. It was for the Priests themselves.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_23111998_pvatican_en.html

 

[ProVobis]

A priest on Catholic radio said guitar Masses were on their way out. That greater reverence was required.

Ed, but take away the guitars and pianos, even do ad orientem, and you still don’t have what the council prescribed.

 

[edwest2]

Here is an explanatory document from the Curia with regards to VII addressing the contemporary understanding of a Priest and his role. It was for the Priests themselves.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_23111998_pvatican_en.html

Thank you,

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Ed, but take away the guitars and pianos, even do ad orientem, and you still don’t have what the council prescribed.

Can you expand on that, please?

Ed

 

[LongingSoul]

Ed, but take away the guitars and pianos, even do ad orientem, and you still don’t have what the council prescribed.

Do you mean that the new Roman Missal is an aberration itself or that there are Priests ad libing outside that Missal that account for the problem?

 

[ProVobis]

Do you mean that the new Roman Missal is an aberration itself or that there are Priests ad libing outside that Missal that account for the problem?

I’m saying you just don’t make cosmetic changes and pretend like you fixed the problem.

I think it’s only fair that if one says he accepts the OF, he also accepts everything that is allowed with it, don’t you?

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m saying you just don’t make cosmetic changes and pretend like you fixed the problem.

I think it’s only fair that if one says he accepts the OF, he also accepts everything that is allowed with it, don’t you?

But that doesn’t answer the question. Is the problem in the Missal or to do with the Priests performance of the it or interpretation of it?

 

[ProVobis]

But that doesn’t answer the question. Is the problem in the Missal or to do with the Priests performance of the it or interpretation of it?

The Missal is what it is, and the priest will be who he is. I don’t know how to answer that question, which seems to be quite loaded btw.

For the record, I’ve never walked out of a guitar Mass. LIturgical dancing never bothered me either. I just figured it’s all part of the design for certain cultures, am I wrong?

 

[edwest2]

Liturgical abuses:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw_liturgical_abuses.htm

The following link contains valuable information but I do not agree with other aspects of the source.

churchmilitant.com/news/article/the-sin-of-liturgical-abuse

Ed