Why do some people reject Vatican II?

[Thomas_White]

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?

Benedict XVI explained that 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.

I don’t think the spirit of an ecumenical council can be understood by analysis. Here is what Pope Benedict has actually said:

"In the 1985 book The Ratzinger Report, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger distinguishes the true spirit of the council from false interpretations, blaming the disappointed hopes for renewal on “those who have gone far beyond both the letter and the spirit of Vatican II…”

What Pope Benedict XVI is saying is that the true spirit of the council is found not solely in “the progressive thrust” of the documents but also in the traditional elements they also express. He certainly does not reject “the spirit of the council”, and what Pope Benedict does not say is that “the spirit of Vatican II must only be found in the letter of the documents”. He recognizes that an interpretation of the progressive thrust of the documents is necessary.

 

[edwest2]

For traditionalist Catholics, the Church has changed. We can debate the causes, the time frames, and the definition of “dramatic”, but the Church was never the same after Vatican II.

One could debate whether Vatican II was the cause of these changes, or if these were secular societal changes that transpired as a result of a decay in society in general. That’s not the point.

As I noted, traditionalists cite multiple changes to which they disagree: liturgical “abuse”, objections to “guitar Masses” and “teen Masses”, removal of Gregorian Chant, communion in the hand versus kneeling at the altar, changes in church architecture, etc. Traditionalists often cite multiple changes to which they object.

Traditionalists also will argue that had the Mass stayed the same, it might have served as a bulwark to repel the deterioration of secular society in the West.

Please note - I am not disagreeing with you. I am simply stating that traditionalist Catholics are quite vocal about the changes that have taken place since the Vatican II time frame. They view these changes as problematic.

The point is: none of the changes, except for the Mass in the vernacular, were even suggested by Vatican II. All the other abuses occurred due the organized activities of dissidents. I know what it is to be Traditional, and I will continue to point out speculation which ignores this fact. Anyone who saw statues removed, altar rails removed, the profane use of certain musical instruments and so on, knows exactly what I’m talking about.

I attended Mass in Polish. And also in the vernacular.

Only Western society was the victim of a massive sex-driven, immoral social engineering project, later supported and modeled by the media. The Church was always - always - teaching the same things. When I saw the Hippies and anarchists appear in our neighborhoods to personally preach their immoral gospel and be very bad examples for others, I gradually realized what they were doing. That - nothing the Church did - is still ongoing today.

There’s nothing vague about any of that.

Ed

 

[Brendan_64]

The point is: none of the changes, except for the Mass in the vernacular, were even suggested by Vatican II.

And that was meant to be an introduction of certain elements (reading of the scripture and some prayers) in the vernacular, certainly not a complete replacement of Latin with the vernacular.

 

[edwest2]

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.

What? They could not talk to a priest or nun? Or their parish priest? This doesn’t hold any water. If I need help, I go to where I can get it.

traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/01/26/before-and-after-vatican-ii-statistics-do-not-lie/

Ed

 

[LongingSoul]

Longing Soul,

I believe you are trying, but there are several logical problems with your arguments.

1. Equivocations. The first problem that I see is that you don’t define your terms well, and some concepts are all mixed up. In your post 70, for example, you write ‘‘no particular type of Remembrance [is] infallible’’. The trouble here is in the words "type of Remembrance’’ and ‘‘infallible.’’ Infallibility, as a concept, never properly speaking applies to an action. An action is moral, immoral, licit, prudent, etc. but only categorical statements can be fallible or infallible. That being the case, it is of course true that a Mass (Sacrificial Remembrance) is not ‘‘infallible,’’ any more than my giving a poor man alms is ‘‘infallible.’’ ‘‘Type of remembrance’’ is problematic because of a little monastic concept ‘‘Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.’’

‘‘The Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief.’’ The fundamental theologian and Vatican II architect Yves Congar pointed out that many, many faithful Catholics would give heretical statement after heretical statement if asked to describe Christ’s Hypostatic Union. Are they, therefore, heretics? Congar persuasively replied that no, they are not heretics because they pray in such a way that presupposes orthodox belief - whatever their difficulties in discursively explaining their beliefs. ‘‘An arian could never pray as a Catholic does’’ Congar wrote.

That concept applies to the Mass as well: in your post 66, you significantly call the Mass a "Sacrificial Remembrance.’’ That word ‘‘sacrificial’’ is necessary. If it is not there, then it is not what Christ intends. That is why John the Evangelist depicts Christ crucified on the Day of Preparation - the day on which the lambs were sacrificed for the Passover - but omits the synoptic Gospels’ inclusion of the Last Supper. The Sacrifice is the Last Supper. John’s sacrificial imagery goes so far as to quote prophecy drawn from the Jewish sacrificial litury : ‘‘Not a bone of Him shall be broken’’ (19:36).

When it boils down to it, if you don’t have sacrifice, you don’t have Christ’s intention, no matter what other way you have chosen to remember Him. And so we can conclude that, yes, there is a ‘‘type of remembrance’’ which is prescribed for the Church: that type is sacrifice - and in particular, Eucharistic Sacrifice.

When I used the word “Remembrance” I used the capital to signify Jesus gospel meaning.

1 Cor 11 - 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Your error was to take away my capital R in quoting me so that you could make some case against my argument that is unrelated to it.

 

[LongingSoul]

(2) Red Herring. Another problem I find is in your post 66, regarding Latin. You correctly observe that Latin was not the original language of the liturgy. But that is utterly irrelevant.

The fundamental theologians from Van Balthazar to Ratzinger to Pie Noit have cautioned against ‘‘archeologism.’’ This is declaring a golden age, and trying to fit the Church’s structures into that age - even when that golden age is the Apostolic Era. Latin ought to be retained in the Liturgy, not because it was the original, but because it has, over the course of centuries, become a Sacred Language. The concept is theologically the same as Sacred Space (the justification for the efficacy of pilgrimages) and Sacred Time (which explains the spirituality and doctrine regarding the Liturgical Year); simply put, Latin gained over time a particular element which is spiritually valuable - and it is because of that particular element that it ought to be persevered. I believe, then that you get it backwards when you write that Latin is treated as grounded in the ‘‘origin… of Catholicism when recall that doesn’t reflect its origin.’’ It is Latin’s contact with Catholicism that has made Latin important, not Catholicism’s contact with Latin that has made Catholicism important.

Latin’s contact with Catholicism didn’t transform it into a *divine *language though. It served a purpose in that for a time it reflected a universality suited to the universality of Christ. That was before the spread of the English language. English has diverse origins and the Anglo Saxons were by nature a very progressive culture. That’s probably why Henry the 8th found it so easy to break away from the Pope. There were already theological differences arising. English has served the Church so well in the inevitably changing world since.

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
We are a pilgrim Church on earth and pilgrims while travelling and living together are the antithesis of a settled once and for all culture.

1. Begging the Question. Finally, I believe that, in this statement, you are assuming the very point you are attempting prove (i.e. that the Church ought to adapt to the culture).

Beneath its open surface, it is a surprisingly rigid statement. It is a hallmark of our current dominant philosophy to think change is a virtue - and that its progress is inevitable. The title of the Emperor in the West was Conservator Mundi; if the Empire is the world’s paradise, then the main job of the Emperor must be to conserve it as it is. The medievals thought similarly, but felt the fall of the empire so keenly that they spent 1000 years trying (successfully) to preserve greco-roman culture; the reason we possess pre-renaissance western literature at all is because of the Europeans’ decided beliefs in a non-progressive teleology. It is only in the past four-hundred years that people have begun to think of cultural-change as something good or inevitable.

To say, then, that the Church as ‘‘pilgrim’’ means that the Church ought to change with the culture is a statement that would have no precedent in pre-modern ages. Under what authority except current popularity would you claim that your fluid notion of culture is self-evident, and the non-progressive notion of cultural-preservation of the romans and medievals obsolete? ‘‘Reactionary’’ is a relatively recent word for a relatively recent concept, but its nativity marks a new rigidity: all ideas that are not in motion are in se repulsive. I do deny that belief, and since the only justification for it at the moment is the assumption that that belief is true, I find that, as it stands, you are assuming what you are trying to prove.

I don’t know. To me it’s not that complicated. ‘Culture’ isn’t something that grows out of the ground. It’s something that grows out of the relationships of people one to the other in community. In a world where travel and communication are global realities, cultures that turn themselves into cults to preserve their traditional isolation, end up being necessarily prejudice and at war with the outside world. We aren’t meant to resist relationship to be pure. That doesn’t seem at all godly.

True pilgrims have a sense of their own transitory nature/mortality, and realise the pointlessness of being too attached to static structures that can easily be destroyed by inevitable advancement. Tradition to a pilgrim is carried in the heart and transmitted to their children as something that can be lived and shared anywhere. Especially where there is equality and liberty, it’s natural that traditions influence the culture around it and can also benefit from other perspectives. What’s the point of being a pilgrim if the goal is to avoid and reject other cultures. God meant us to be like pilgrims going out to the world for a reason.

 

[ProVobis]

And that was meant to be an introduction of certain elements (reading of the scripture and some prayers) in the vernacular, certainly not a complete replacement of Latin with the vernacular.

The wording on the documents was that the vernacular could be applied wherever it would be of advantage to do so. It seems the intent was to evangelize in those areas of the world which had not been exposed to Christianity, such as Africa and Asia. Latin was to remain the default language of the Mass. I fail to see where it would have been an advantage in those parishes which serve to more than one vernacular (Spanish, Polish, and English, for example). And English, by the way, is not a true vernacular as there are different meanings and dialects among various English-speaking countries. Having lived in both the U.K. and U.S. I know this for a fact.

It is interesting though that they use Gregorian chant in Africa, and were quite prominent in using it when Pope Benedict said Mass there.

English has served the Church so well in the inevitably changing world since.

My Polish-speaking parents didn’t very much care for the English in the Mass. It is not as beloved as you may think. BTW, is there today an English-speaking country which can be considered Catholic today, outside of maybe the Philippines?

 

[Brendan_64]

True pilgrims have a sense of their own transitory nature/mortality, and realise the pointlessness of being too attached to static structures that can easily be destroyed by inevitable advancement.

Inevitable advancement? Do not be attached to current structures because they will be replaced by improved versions as time progresses? The inevitable march of progress and improvement? The view that as time progresses things inevitably positively advance, seems quite Hegelian in outlook.

God meant us to be like pilgrims going out to the world for a reason.

Yes, to make disciples of all nations, baptise them as Christians and teach them to obey all God’s commandments.There is nothing there about assimilating values from various cultures into the Church. In fact St Paul warns us clearly not to conform ourselves to this world. Let us not forget who is referred to as prince of this world.

 

[edwest2]

Inevitable advancement? Do not be attached to current structures because they will be replaced by improved versions as time progresses? The inevitable march of progress and improvement? The view that as time progresses things inevitably positively advance, seems quite Hegelian in outlook.

Yes, to make disciples of all nations, baptise them as Christians and teach them to obey all God’s commandments.There is nothing there about assimilating values from various cultures into the Church. In fact St Paul warns us clearly not to conform ourselves to this world. Let us not forget who is referred to as prince of this world.

The god Change is not the Church. The Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, constantly discerns the spirit of the times and has been in constant conflict with enemies of the truth. God is unchanging.

Matthew 24:35

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” NIV

Ed

 

[edwest2]

The wording on the documents was that the vernacular could be applied wherever it would be of advantage to do so. It seems the intent was to evangelize in those areas of the world which had not been exposed to Christianity, such as Africa and Asia. Latin was to remain the default language of the Mass. I fail to see where it would have been an advantage in those parishes which serve to more than one vernacular (Spanish, Polish, and English, for example). And English, by the way, is not a true vernacular as there are different meanings and dialects among various English-speaking countries. Having lived in both the U.K. and U.S. I know this for a fact.

It is interesting though that they use Gregorian chant in Africa, and were quite prominent in using it when Pope Benedict said Mass there.

My Polish-speaking parents didn’t very much care for the English in the Mass. It is not as beloved as you may think. BTW, is there today an English-speaking country which can be considered Catholic today, outside of maybe the Philippines?

My Polish parents went to the Polish Mass and the English Mass. And they were directly from Poland.

Ed

 

[ProVobis]

My Polish parents went to the Polish Mass and the English Mass. And they were directly from Poland.

The whole issue of Polish not allowed in the schools is what (more than anything else) reportedly caused the schism of the Polish National Catholic Church. I was also reading that some 70% of Poles returned to their home country rather than have to deal with the English back then. So language (or rather the removal of it) is important to many; I don’t think anyone can deny that.

 

[edwest2]

The whole issue of Polish not allowed in the schools is what (more than anything else) reportedly caused the schism of the Polish National Catholic Church. I was also reading that some 70% of Poles returned to their home country rather than have to deal with the English back then. So language (or rather the removal of it) is important to many; I don’t think anyone can deny that.

We had neighbors that went to the Polish National Catholic Church about 5 blocks from my home. That has nothing to do with Vatican II. The Catholic school I went to - Roman Catholic, had a Polish class and a Latin class. I took Spanish in high school.

Ed

 

[Thomas_White]

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?

Benedict XVI explained that 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.

I don’t think the spirit of an ecumenical council (or of anything else) can be understood by analysis.

Here is what Pope Benedict has actually said:

"In the 1985 book The Ratzinger Report, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger distinguishes the true spirit of the council from false interpretations, blaming the disappointed hopes for renewal on “those who have gone far beyond both the letter and the spirit of Vatican II…”

What then Cardinal Ratzinger is saying is that the true spirit of the council is found not solely in “the progressive thrust” of the documents but also in the traditional elements they also express. He certainly does not reject “the spirit of the council”, and what Pope Benedict does not say is that “the spirit of Vatican II must be found only in the letter of the documents”. He recognizes that an interpretation of the “progressive thrust” of the documents is necessary.

However, the question of the OP is why do some people reject Vatican II? From all I know and have read, no pontiff has rejected Vatican II.

The question then concerns “those people” who, “especially traditionalists, talk about how much they despise Vatican II, etc.” I do not think there is a single answer but believe that at that time the fate of the TLM was a significant part of it. There was then clearly a reaction to what was perceived as an out of control implementation of Vatican II. That both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI shared this concern only illustrates that there was concern and confusion.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think the spirit of an ecumenical council (or of anything else) can be understood by analysis.

Here is what Pope Benedict has actually said:

"In the 1985 book The Ratzinger Report, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger distinguishes the true spirit of the council from false interpretations, blaming the disappointed hopes for renewal on “those who have gone far beyond both the letter and the spirit of Vatican II…”

What then Cardinal Ratzinger is saying is that the true spirit of the council is found not solely in “the progressive thrust” of the documents but also in the traditional elements they also express. He certainly does not reject “the spirit of the council”, and what Pope Benedict does not say is that “the spirit of Vatican II must be found only in the letter of the documents”. He recognizes that an interpretation of the “progressive thrust” of the documents is necessary.

However, the question of the OP is why do some people reject Vatican II? From all I know and have read, no pontiff has rejected Vatican II.

The question then concerns “those people” who, “especially traditionalists, talk about how much they despise Vatican II, etc.” I do not think there is a single answer but believe that at that time the fate of the TLM was a significant part of it. There was then clearly a reaction to what was perceived as an out of control implementation of Vatican II. That both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI shared this concern only illustrates that there was concern and confusion.

Here’s why the people in the pews got confusion:

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

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

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/02/15/the-media-distorted-vatican-2-says-pope-benedict/

There was zero out of control implementation of Vatican II. What was out of control was someone decided the statues should go, the communion rails should go (or remain but not be used anymore), and those Churches that had an existing high altar were told not to install a small altar, but someone did it anyway. Vatican II in no way even suggested the changes attributed to it.

Pope Benedict, in a Letter to the Bishops makes this very clear:

“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.”

Source: LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA”
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970

Who decided “creativity” was required? Who decided “arbitrary deformations” were OK? The Pope?

Get it right my brothers and sisters. A group of someones took the ball and ran with it in the wrong direction. The only conclusion that matters is they knew what they were doing.
They were out to create their own version of the Mass, not what was right and proper. Whoever they were, they abused the faithful and hurt them.

Ed

 

[utah_rose]

Whoa, there whippersnapper, I am 60, “around during Vatican 2” and maybe have another good 20 to 30 years left. Most who resist V2 do so because of the changes in Mass more than anything else.

I’m 72 next there’s plenty of us around who remember the changes.

 

[otjm]

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

You need to re-read what you quoted; Benedict did not say what you propose. It was the failure to stay within the GIRM and rubrics which caused the deformation. The OF did not allow deformities; it was the individual priests who strayed from the OF who created any deformities.

 

[utah_rose]

For the record in 1984 Pope John Paul II restored the 1962 Missal with the stipulation that it be said in Latin. Pope Benedict made the TLM more widely available for priests.

Previously I think you needed to get the bishops permission and many wouldn’t give it. Pope Benedict was able to give the priests that option without necessarily doing that. It made a huge difference because some bishops like one we had didn’t approve of it.

 

[graciew]

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.

I would say Ratzinger would not write exaggerations…nor " think whatever you like".
Anyway ,
I rescued several points to begin with:

The context and the idea that what had been maturing in knowledge through faith throughout 40 years was made part of patrimony of the whole Church.

This awakening and the idea that we ourselves were the Church.

That we must look back to that period and its currents and tendencies to understand it.

“Today, it is difficult to communicate the enthusiasm and joy this realization generated at the time” he said.

I was impressed: there was enthusiasm and joy !

It has turned out to be a very interesting link , and it is Ratzinger explaining it.

 

[Brendan_64]

The OF did not allow deformities; it was the individual priests who strayed from the OF who created any deformities.

But sadly it seems that this is not a minority. Ranging from relatively minor deviations to some quite dreadful deviations, it does seem that more often than not the rubrics are not strictly adhered to in OF Masses. You more or less have to just accept it these day. Why is that? Is there something inherent in the form of the OF Mass that encourages this?

 

[LongingSoul]

Is there something inherent in the form of the OF Mass that encourages this?

In saying that, it really sounds like you think that there’s something ‘magic’ about Mass like the Protestants think it is.