Why do some people reject Vatican II?

[Jon_Mallory]

Excuse me…let’ s not make things complicated…these links were Church documents.
We can read and learn.

We are a pilgrim Church.

Here is Pope Francis.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/the-church-isnt-static-shes-a-pilgrim-on-a-journey-pope-says-86122/

Hello Graciew! I haven’t read the documents you posted yet but I intend to when I have the time. I am wondering if we are not all on violent agreement here. Is the Church a pilgrim Church? Of course because the Church is the Church Militant and is moving toward being the Church Triumphant. We have not reached the final stage of history so by necessity, the Church is the pilgrim Church. But Brendan and the others object to using this fact to justify dispensing with doctrines and moral teachings that are not popular to today’s world. Certainly, doctrine develops as Cardinal Newman taught but they never change in essence. Otherwise it would be a corruption. Do you agree with this? The Church should not throw out her magisterial teaching? The Church should change with the times but only in a way that makes it more able to communicate the gospel which does not include changing the essence of its teachings.

 

[Brendan_64]

Have you read Ratzinger 's ?

It is a bit more.difficult …

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECCV2.HTM

I fail to see what the great cardinal and theologian has written that supports the concept of ‘pilgrim Church’ as understood by those who seek to view this as being the Church changing as a result of influences from the prevailing culture. Yes the Church is the Body of Christ, yes the Church is the People of God, there is no issue there. The Church is not, however, whatever we want it to be, the Church is not created in the image of man according to prevailing cultural norms.

 

[ProVobis]

It is not so simple. The 1962 missal is really and truly different, theologically, then the current liturgical books. This is no cause for alarm, because theology is not doctrine - even though most people confuse the two. Unfortunately, most priests today would not pray the 1962 missal; the monastic proverb is Led Orandi, Led Credendi (the Law of prayer is the Law of belief), and many priests no longer believe in the theological cradle that the 1962 missal is nestled in.

Basically, if most priests do not use the 1962 missal, it is not for cosmetic reasons such as the fact it is in Latin, but because of theological reasons such as that they no longer primarily think of the Mass as sacrifice.

Interesting perspective.

One could also claim that St. John Paul II required it to be said in Latin to preserve the precision of this theology. Precision may or may not have been the same reason why Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and others wrote their most important works in Latin but one shouldn’t overlook the fact (or theory, if you wish) that Latin also has a serious and/or immortal side to it, having been in the scholastic realm for the better part of 2500 years.

 

[Kevin12]

Because it introduced the Mass in vernacular; and as a result, in some cases, shock and horror, the occasional word isn’t said perfectly according to the rubrics. That’s 90% of it. For most traditionalists, the abuse scandal apparently wasn’t as big a deal as the non use of Latin and the a mis-conjugated adverb. It’s almost strange to see them complain about so-called “clown masses” when their minds, pretty much every NO mass is a"clown mass".

This is because many traditionalists view the Mass and the other sacraments as a kind of magical spell that that has to be said perfectly or it won’t have the proper effect. Just look at they way many traditionalists view effectiveness of absolution. I’m pretty sure that from their perspective, if you unknowingly received an invalid absolution, or received it from someone who wasn’t really a priest, and then died on the way home in a car accident, you’d go to Hell. I mean, everyone deserves to go to Hell already, so if you just happened to not really get absolved of a mortal sin even if you thought you did, you can’t really complain can you? So of course they consider what they call liturgical abuses the highest offense against God—really, to them, Jesus should have said, It were better a millstone were put on your neck and your dropped into the sea then have people standing around the alter during the consecration.

Oh, and the fact that the Church no longer turns over non-Catholics to secular authorities and then expelled, tortured or executed for heresy. I see trads on this very board make excuses for the SSPX all the time—but I wonder if they all realize the very heart of the SSPX’s disagreement with VII is this very issue. I wonder if any of them have any Protestant or non Catholic coworkers whom they tell “Hey Joe, if it were up to me, you’d be forced to convert to Catholicism or expelled from the country—and actually, under certain conditions, I think you should actually be killed for not being a Catholic”.

 

[Kevin12]

Interesting perspective.

One could also claim that St. John Paul II required it to be said in Latin to preserve the precision of this theology. Precision may or may not have been the same reason why Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and others wrote their most important works in Latin but one shouldn’t overlook the fact (or theory, if you wish) that Latin also has a serious and/or immortal side to it, having been in the scholastic realm for the better part of 2500 years.

Here’s another great one: Latin is necessary and the NO unacceptable because it is more “precise” than English or any other vernacular language, which is something no one who ever studied classical or medieval Latin would ever say. Really, it’s just shocking, I have no idea where it came from. Look at the shades of meaning for multus, and those are just the classical uses. If you added on the medieval uses, it would only get more ridiculously complex. But apparently, nope, Latin is perfectly precise, the meaning of every word in the Mass plain as as day.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

Good brother Kevin, I have attempted to respond to some of your statements below in red

Because it introduced the Mass in vernacular; and as a result, in some cases, shock and horror, the occasional word isn’t said perfectly according to the rubrics. **The council actually did not introduce Mass in the vernacular, Mass in the vernacular has happened in some contexts throughout the entire history of the Church and the council never ordered that Mass be said in the vernacular, this came from the subsequent liturgical reform. ** That’s 90% of it. **Do you perhaps have a basis for saying that this is 90% **For most traditionalists, the abuse scandal apparently wasn’t as big a deal as the non use of Latin and the a mis-conjugated adverb. Would you please provide examples of traditionalists dismissing the horrific abuse of children and teens as a smaller deal than the use of the vernacular? I attend both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Form, and I have only heard the child abuse scandal condemned from the pulpit at an EF mass, so my lived experience is that ‘traditionalists’ do take the systematic abuse of children and teens quite seriously. It’s almost strange to see them complain about so-called “clown masses” when their minds, pretty much every NO mass is a"clown mass". **Do you have some basis for knowing what is going on in these peoples minds?
**

This is because many traditionalists view the Mass and the other sacraments as a kind of magical spell that that has to be said perfectly or it won’t have the proper effect. Just look at they way many traditionalists view effectiveness of absolution. I’m pretty sure that from their perspective, if you unknowingly received an invalid absolution, or received it from someone who wasn’t really a priest, and then died on the way home in a car accident, you’d go to Hell. If a sacrament is invalid, or if someone who is not a priest simulates giving you the sacrament, then it would be presumption to assume that you would earn the same graces and still be granted heaven in the example you mentioned. To say otherwise is to proclaim the sacraments useless. However, you could also not say that you would definitely go to hell. These matters are for God to decide. I mean, everyone deserves to go to Hell already, Yes, otherwise why would the Eternal Word have come as our savior, if we already deserved heaven? so if you just happened to not really get absolved of a mortal sin even if you thought you did, you can’t really complain can you? I would say you cannot complain, as the grace God gives us is something we have not earned, but again, the person in your example would have their salvation determined entirely by our most merciful and just God, who will make a perfect decision. So of course they consider what they call liturgical abuses the highest offense against God— **I would like to respond more fully to this, but can you provide examples of trads calling liturgical abuse the highest offense against God so I can correctly understand the point you are making? Ultimately, the liturgy exists to orient us towards God, so any intentional abuse in the liturgy is a grave offense, I’m not sure how to say otherwise. **really, to them, Jesus should have said, It were better a millstone were put on your neck and your dropped into the sea then have people standing around the alter during the consecration.

Oh, and the fact that the Church no longer turns over non-Catholics to secular authorities and then expelled, tortured or executed for heresy. I see trads on this very board make excuses for the SSPX all the time—but I wonder if they all realize the very heart of the SSPX’s disagreement with VII is this very issue. Is that true? Are you able to read these people’s hearts? I wonder if any of them have any Protestant or non Catholic coworkers whom they tell “Hey Joe, if it were up to me, you’d be forced to convert to Catholicism or expelled from the country—and actually, under certain conditions, I think you should actually be killed for not being a Catholic”. **Above you say that 90% of the issue is the use of the vernacular in Mass, but now it’s that the Church does not have heretics punished under the law? Again, I would happily respond more fully to this if you post your examples of this behavior by trads. **

I hope these answers are helpful, please pray for me at Mass today, I’ll do the same for you!

 

[ProVobis]

Here’s another great one: Latin is necessary and the NO unacceptable because it is more “precise” than English or any other vernacular language, which is something no one who ever studied classical or medieval Latin would ever say.

This sarcastic argument makes all languages appear equivalent and one, especially one who has worked in almost a dozen computer languages, knows not to be true. Certain languages allow for more and different functionality than others. It’s amazing to me that many CEO’s of companies do not know this, until migrations to new systems make it quite clear it is not so easy to just translate one to another. It brings on an entirely new philosophical state, if not a new product entirely.

Look at the shades of meaning for multus, and those are just the classical uses.

So you’re assuming a scientific application with the word? Maybe Christ intentionally made it vague, I don’t know. Many have made similar arguments with the Greek. One should point out that there is a more comparative word in Latin (from which the phrase* e pluribus unum* comes) that also translates to “many.” Again you have to look at the language in the language itself. Once you translate to the English, you apply a different standard.

Take another word, “servant,” for example. One could just use servus in the Canon. But the authors chose famulus, which is more meaningful expression, especially when connected with the Deity.

And don’t get me started on the subjunctive, which has almost become extinct in the English, yet so important in the prayers.

Another thing, do you really think the English can capture the intensity of the IPSUM in the closing lines of the Eucharistic Prayer? “Through Him, with Him…” just doesn’t do the Mass justice IMO.

It’s all plain and simple, and as Bill Murray said it best, the Latin Mass just has a “different vibration” than the English and other vernaculars. Leave English to the contemporary business and social community. It’s much better served there IMO.

 

[Thomas_White]

Because it introduced the Mass in vernacular; and as a result, in some cases, shock and horror, the occasional word isn’t said perfectly according to the rubrics. That’s 90% of it. For most traditionalists, the abuse scandal apparently wasn’t as big a deal as the non use of Latin and the a mis-conjugated adverb. It’s almost strange to see them complain about so-called “clown masses” when their minds, pretty much every NO mass is a"clown mass".

This is because many traditionalists view the Mass and the other sacraments as a kind of magical spell that that has to be said perfectly or it won’t have the proper effect.

I attended hundreds of Tridentine Masses during the pre-Vatican II era, and I never once heard that said. It was the Liturgical Movement that began in the 19th Century that led to many of the changes in the OF Mass, and a primary component of this was the attempt to engage the laity in the service. The ambiance of the Mass changed, and for many ‘traditionalists’, this was perceived as less sacred. At times, it could seem more like a social gathering than a spiritual experience.

 

[graciew]

Hello Graciew! I haven’t read the documents you posted yet but I intend to when I have the time. I am wondering if we are not all on violent agreement here. Is the Church a pilgrim Church? .

Hi Jon! I do not know…
So I started by two steps:

1. Checking that in fact in Church documents we are a Pilgrim Church as opposed to we are not.
   We may then say " Yes,we are a pilgrim Church but we do not know or agree as to what it means exactly."
2. If we cannot agree as to what it means,we may agree on the use of objective data,such as Church documents, to try in good faith to approach it as best as we can.

Or just drop it,as Brendan suggested,and continue with our everyday lives,why not?

So,my dear one,the way I learnt it may or may not be it. I would rather start from sort of scratch with you all through the CCC and several Popes.
That is all. I also have to keep reading the documents!
Bless you!

 

[commenter]

‘‘Fate’’ may be used in English to signify a metaphysical force predetermining personal events, or it may be used simply to describe some kind of a terminal end (e.g. ''it was for him an unhappy fate"). You, Commenter, and the Vatican documents may all use the words ‘‘pilgrim church’’ - but may not be talking about the same thing.

The Catechism’s 815th paragraph, for example, lists some elements of manifest unity in the Church. This indicates that the essence of the Church is not infinitely plastic. A person may, for example, use the term ‘‘pilgrim church’’ to mean that the Church ought to read the signs of the times and therefore adapt to changes in public opinion regarding morality - but that would be an incorrect use of the term.

I doubt that Commenter would ban use of the words; it’s the way they are used that bites.

Exactly. Ok, the Catholic Church** is** a Pilgrim Church. I was responding to the abuse of that term. I meant to communicate that the Church does constantly need to adapt changing cultures; in my frustration I fell into criticizing the phrase that has been used by the bad guys, who want the church to imitate the media.

What we want is not a church that changes with the times, but a church that changes the times. (G. K. Chesterton).

Hopefully my slip up in wording won’t deter you from other ideas in that earlier post.

 

[Kevin12]

Good brother Kevin, I have attempted to respond to some of your statements below in red

I hope these answers are helpful, please pray for me at Mass today, I’ll do the same for you!

I have drawn every single observation on traditionalists from this very forum, from observing the things traditionalists complain about, what most offends them. Indeed Oh, and other traditionalists forums and comment boxes, like Fish Eaters, Rorate Caeli, The Remnant. I have read here of a fellow on this forum who has for years been wallowing in Manicheanism because of physical infirmity and family tragedy, hating the physical world and calling it inherently evil, saying that Adam and Eve were made of pure spirit, stating that Christ as a person (hypostasis) was not united to the flesh, and yet he is regularly encouraged in his heresy with quotes from the saints taken out of context by traditionalists on this forum. If there is such a thing as a moderate traditionalist, I have not seen it. As for as I know, the only reason there isn’t constant open season on the NO here is because of a ban on it.

As for religious liberty, I was not making an exception there—I think in the hearts of most trads, the fact that the pagentry and supposedly elevated language of the EF isn’t the only option is what makes them hate VII. But the fact is that the SSPX claims religious liberty is their main sticking point. I was point pointing out that all SSPX sympathizers who just want to get rid of the NO are attaching themselves to an organization whose real beef is that the Church no longer indirectly sentences non-Catholics to death.

About the damnation of the individual who had received an invalid absolution, thank you for confirming my point by not even suggesting that even if technically that person might be justly damned that it is almost unthinkable God would in fact do so because the person would be invincibly ignorant of their not receiving absolution. I suppose another thing some people dislike about VII is the reduced emphasis on damnation, the fewness of the saved, etc.

 

[Kevin12]

This sarcastic argument makes all languages appear equivalent and one, especially one who has worked in almost a dozen computer languages, knows not to be true. Certain languages allow for more and different functionality than others. It’s amazing to me that many CEO’s of companies do not know this, until migrations to new systems make it quite clear it is not so easy to just translate one to another. It brings on an entirely new philosophical state, if not a new product entirely.

Your inferences from computer science have nothing whatsoever to do with linguistics. In Latin, in order to determine the meaning of a word, you have to look at the ways the word was used in different texts, preferably those around the same time. If anything, Latin writers were much more willing to invent new uses for words, and Latin is already more ambiguous than most contemporary non-inflected languages because pronouns are optional. You will not find a single serious linguist who agree with your interpretation that Latin is somehow more exact that English or any other language, and if you can, they would be extremely outside of the mainstream.

 

[Thomas_White]

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

I don’t understand how it could be said traditional Catholics are presenting “damaging arguments against the Church” let alone using Vatican II to somehow “misrepresent” those “perceived” damaging attacks by dissidents. There either are or are not those who consider themselves “traditional Catholics”, and by and large this reality primarily concerns the TLM.

It is well and good that those then in Catholic school could ask for “any explanation from any priest or nun”, but the great majority of Catholics were not then in school.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yet, according to the book written by Msgr. Gamber, the word Sacrifice didn’t make it into the definition given in the first edition of the 1970 Mass, signed by the Pope. That was only corrected later but without any changes to the text. It’s no wonder many of today’s Catholics simply think of the Mass as a meal only and everyone must receive regardless of his disposition.

I don’t know who Msgr. Gamber is when he’s at home but what is his purpose in pointing out a subsequently corrected error if there was one? How much time lapsed between the first edition and the corrected one that it destroyed the faith of today’s Catholics?

In the process of Vatican II reforms there was that unfortunate thing that in Australia we call “white anting”. Some people didn’t like the goal or spirit of the new Council from the get go. And just reading Pope StJXXIII’s opening speech you can easily detect the goal and who isn’t going to like it.

Instead of the whole Church embracing the reforms and giving them the richness of tradition and progression, a lot of people simply took up an offensive against the whole thing. It’s created what’s really an internal schism with one party adopting hyper criticalism of everything new, but refusing to contribute in the spirit of unity and humility to the reforms. The goal is to prove that all the ills of the Church are the result of the Vatican II Council.

Why should we have to waste energy trying to defend the Council. No subsequent Pope has said it was a mistake? The Pope who convened it is now a Saint!

 

[Brendan_64]

Why should we have to waste energy trying to defend the Council. No subsequent Pope has said it was a mistake? The Pope who convened it is now a Saint!

It is not the documents of the 2nd Vatican Council that are the issue, it is the elusive ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ that is the issue. The ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ is not Church teaching and seems to be used to justify whatever any ‘progressive’ wants to justify. Just say that what you’re doing is following the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ and nobody can even hold you accountable as the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ isn’t written down anywhere. It is even used to justify and claim things that are contrary to the documents of Vatican II.

So defend what is written in the documents produced at the 2nd Vatican Council by all means (just as we should defend what has been written at previous ecumenical councils) but that is what the Council was/is, 16 written documents.

The problem is that when those of us who do not buy into the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ ideology criticise it we are then accused of criticising the 2nd Vatican Council. The two are not synonymous.

I seem to recall that Pope Benedict XVI stated that the true spirit of the 2nd Vatican Council is the actual wording of the documents produced at the 2nd Vatican Council.

It was an ecumenical council that produced a range of documents (as did previous ecumenical councils), it was not a new movement, or a a new dawn, or a the start of a new Church.

 

[Thomas_White]

It is not the documents of the 2nd Vatican Council that are the issue, it is the elusive ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ that is the issue. The ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ is not Church teaching and seems to be used to justify whatever any ‘progressive’ wants to justify. Just say that what you’re doing is following the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ and nobody can even hold you accountable as the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ isn’t written down anywhere. It is even used to justify and claim things that are contrary to the documents of Vatican II.

So defend what is written in the documents produced at the 2nd Vatican Council by all means (just as we should defend what has been written at previous ecumenical councils) but that is what the Council was/is, 16 written documents.

Not everyone would agree:

“Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth” --(2 Corinthians, 3.6).

 

[Brendan_64]

Not everyone would agree:

“Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth” --(2 Corinthians, 3.6).

So how is the spirit of an ecumenical council defined? Does every ecumenical council have a ‘spirit’? How does one determine what is part of the spirit of an ecumenical council and what is not? And surely the spirit cannot contradict the letter?

The true spirit of Vatican II must only be found in the letter of the documents. If it is viewed otherwise then the spirit of Vatican II could be anything any individual wanted it to be as there is no authoritative interpretation of it. Each individual effectively becomes his own magisterium applying his own interpretation according to how he feels about it.

 

[ProVobis]

And just reading Pope StJXXIII’s opening speech you can easily detect the goal and who isn’t going to like it.
…
Why should we have to waste energy trying to defend the Council. No subsequent Pope has said it was a mistake? The Pope who convened it is now a Saint!

For the record, though, the Council was terminated before one document was signed by the same Pope who convened it. And the reasons why Pope Paul reconvened it (he wasn’t required to) might have been different from the ones outlined in Pope John XXIII’s opening speech. Not trying to make a case that it was improper but just sayin…

,

 

[LordHaveMercy]

I have drawn every single observation on traditionalists from this very forum, from observing the things traditionalists complain about, what most offends them. Indeed Oh, and other traditionalists forums and comment boxes, like Fish Eaters, Rorate Caeli, The Remnant. I have read here of a fellow on this forum who has for years been wallowing in Manicheanism because of physical infirmity and family tragedy, hating the physical world and calling it inherently evil, saying that Adam and Eve were made of pure spirit, stating that Christ as a person (hypostasis) was not united to the flesh, and yet he is regularly encouraged in his heresy with quotes from the saints taken out of context by traditionalists on this forum. If there is such a thing as a moderate traditionalist, I have not seen it. As for as I know, the only reason there isn’t constant open season on the NO here is because of a ban on it.

As for religious liberty, I was not making an exception there—I think in the hearts of most trads, the fact that the pagentry and supposedly elevated language of the EF isn’t the only option is what makes them hate VII. But the fact is that the SSPX claims religious liberty is their main sticking point. I was point pointing out that all SSPX sympathizers who just want to get rid of the NO are attaching themselves to an organization whose real beef is that the Church no longer indirectly sentences non-Catholics to death.

About the damnation of the individual who had received an invalid absolution, thank you for confirming my point by not even suggesting that even if technically that person might be justly damned that it is almost unthinkable God would in fact do so because the person would be invincibly ignorant of their not receiving absolution. I suppose another thing some people dislike about VII is the reduced emphasis on damnation, the fewness of the saved, etc.

I’m very sorry that a heretic on this board has scandalized you, and that others have participated in that scandal. I am not particularly active on these forums, as my posting history indicates. I would highly recommend meeting a trad in person, or sitting down with a good traditional priest, from the FSSP started by St. John Paul II or the Institute of Christ the King.

As for religion liberty, surely you see that there is space between affirming “religious liberty” and calling for the killing of all non-Catholics. It’s not such a simple “this or that” situation. Religious liberty is often means indifference, where we treat all of the many false religions the same as we treat the one true religion, which is to say that good and evil are equal and deserve the same treatment under the law. Non-Catholics have always been present in Catholic states and they were not killed simply for being non-Catholic.

With the individual who received an invalid absolution, the facts you gave in your original post did not say he had invincible ignorance, any number of factors could have made his ignorance vincible. Also, and I am not meaning this to be sarcastic or rhetorical, but does invincible ignorance make an invalid sacrament valid? I honestly don’t know the answer to that question. I simply cannot say with any certainty what God would or wouldn’t do in that scenario, which is why I said in my earlier post that I trust God would make a perfect decision regarding the salvation of this imaginary person you mentioned.

I will concede that many trads are troubled by the almost absence of discussion about damnation, but you should ask yourself why this may be. You and I know that the entrance requirements to heaven do not change and did not change at V2, but perhaps failing to remind people of the possibility of their damnation causes people to gradually believe that everybody goes to heaven, or that every Christian, or every Catholic, or every “good person” goes to Heaven and that nothing they do or do not do could cause them to not go to heaven. Also the idea spreads that we are entitled to Heaven, and that God has to let us into Heaven or he is lacking in mercy, etc. Surely you have met people who think this way, perhaps the trads who wish that damnation was at least acknowledged are sad that many do nothing to avoid damnation because they are convinced that it is simply impossible. Why else would someone want to talk about something as unfortunate as damnation?

I hope this is helpful. I am sorry that some people you have encountered online have embraced heresies and also been in favor of the traditional mass and/or opposed to the new mass.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic please