Why do some people reject Vatican II?

[ProVobis]

The common denominator between the Church and a Protestant there was identified significantly by convert John Henry Newman when he called our conscience the ‘aboriginal vicar of Christ’. Submission to the Church should have the same character as submission to ones own conscience. A Catholic should recognise that relationship between conscience and Church. A Protestant doesn’t recognise that relationship but can still identify the same Voice which speaks through the Church… speaking through his conscience.

Okay but doesn’t this penalize the Catholic who is required to believe in the Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Sunday obligations, etc?

 

[LongingSoul]

Okay but doesn’t this penalize the Catholic who is required to believe in the Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Sunday obligations, etc?

That’s a funny way of looking at it. Could it reflect some of the resentment of the elder brother?

 

[ProVobis]

That’s a funny way of looking at it. Could it reflect some of the resentment of the elder brother?

I’ll take that as a “yes”?

 

[ProVobis]

That’s a funny way of looking at it. Could it reflect some of the resentment of the elder brother?

I’ll take that as a “yes”?

What I disagree with you on is your premise. Not that it’s wrong necessarily.

If there’s anything I learned from BrJR is that one isn’t responsible for the acts or thoughts of his parents and heresy does not make one a heretic. While Luther, Cranmer, et al can be shown as heretics, their descendants aren’t necessarily to blame or can automatically be claimed as heretics. This is my interpretation of the Vatican II documents.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’ll take that as a “yes”?

No because any ‘penalty’ would only be a perceived penalty. Not a true penalty. Imagine that the person or people that you love most were not Catholic. Isn’t it a good thought that they would have the capacity to know the good which is God and follow that to heaven too? We obey Church teaching because that disposes us to the good which needs to be followed not because we’re unfairly burdened by rules.

 

[LongingSoul]

This reply is rather disappointing, particularly since you’ve said nothing new. You still have to explain the curiosity that the Council Fathers, on returning to their dioceses and monasteries, implemented the documents of Vatican II in a way contrary to the documents themselves. Your particular media conspiracy is simply too complicated: to be true, the Council Fathers must really have been opposed to these dissidents’ hijacking of their ideas but, in practically every place in the world, found opposition so formidable that they locked themselves in towers and refused even to raise their voices against it - and when one did, he was ostracized from the French hierarchy.

Your conspiracy also lacks an analysis of that new ecclesiological institution: the bishops’ conference. From conference halls’ bishops could now introduce measures (theoretically non-binding) to facilitate Church life and the implementation of Vatican II. You already cited the seminaries in the seventies, and I think it was you who brought up the dissent of Charles Curran and company from Humanae Vitae, not three years after the close of the Council. The bishop’s conference then released a document ‘‘clarifying’’ Humanae Vitae which effectively reduced the encyclical to an advisory role. You have to explain how it is that the bishops turn out to be the unfortunate, silent, comfortable victims when they had so many means at their disposal to oppose the measures.

I would be happy to review those audiences; of course, Pope Benedict was also a theorist of the absolute continuity of pre and post Vatican II teaching, which I hold in some doubt. It is still good to get it from him.

I’m not disagreeing with the idea of media-influence - in fact I agree with you that the media made the Council in the popular mind into something it wasn’t. Where we diverge is in thinking the bishops innocent. If the bishops had returned without intending to annilate the Mass of the Council of Trent, and replace it with the current Ordinary Form, then we could expect to see a regular Quisling Beast throughout the world: some holding on to the Latin here - some in its entirety, others in part - some virtually eliminating it there; the same goes for theology. The current diversity in the Church today comes from significant cultural differences, not from orthodoxy or heterodoxy. That there is a remarkable uniformity throughout the Church regarding liturgical abuses speaks of a center of unity that actively planned it.

To summerize, the reason I believe you are wrong is that your conspiracy assumes that the Council Fathers, having returned to their dioceses, were prisoners who had no means at their disposal to counter the dissidents. Then, your idea requires that they believed that voicing opposition would be damaging or at least futile. My analysis, on the other hand, avoids the incorrect assumption, explains the present and past situation, and avoids the ‘‘lord locked in the tower’’ entirely. If you wish to blame the media, then you’ll have to break your silence on those bishops: Why did they, in virtually every place, not use the means at their disposal to implement Vatican II according to their own intentions?

A person like Pope Benedict would no doubt understand media to be more than the words of a commercial commentator on radio or tv but as that space where beliefs and ideas are communicated from one to the other. Richard Dawkins acknowledges the power of that space also in his concept of memetics.

An example of how Church teaching is affected in that space would be that relationship between Catholics and large families. The Church has always valued the large Catholic family and its contribution to the faith, but it was never a Catholic obligation to have a large family. That decision of a couple has always been protected as thing that should exist without coercion or obligation of any sort and completely motivated by their discernment. The myth that arose that it was a Catholic obligation was totally due to ‘media’ where such a notion served comedy and ridicule.

So when Pope Francis (clumsily) corrected that notion recently, it became evident that lots of Catholics especially new converts, had thought he was going against Church teaching.

It’s not unusual then that one of the 16 Vatican documents addressed media… DECREE ON THE MEDIA OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS - INTER MIRIFICA

 

[ProVobis]

No because any ‘penalty’ would only be a perceived penalty. Not a true penalty. Imagine that the person or people that you love most were not Catholic. Isn’t it a good thought that they would have the capacity to know the good which is God and follow that to heaven too? We obey Church teaching because that disposes us to the good which needs to be followed not because we’re unfairly burdened by rules.

And how does this disprove the “ignorance is bliss” theory?

If there is any resentment, which you might have suggested, it is not aimed at Protestants.

 

[LongingSoul]

And how does this disprove the “ignorance is bliss” theory?

If there is any resentment, which you might have suggested, it is not aimed at Protestants.

Ignorance might be seen as bliss but faith can be bliss also. And ignorance doesn’t mean no accountability. Each person has a conscience which nudges them towards the good and warns them against the bad. Everyone is accountable to that in some way. Even people who don’t know about God, know about love and charity. That is a very universal point of reference and common language.

As for how this will pan out in the court of heaven… the Little Flower relates her mothers explanation…

You knew all my intimate thoughts and cleared up all my doubts. I once told you how astonished I was that God does not give equal glory in heaven to all His chosen. I was afraid they were not at all equally happy. You made me bring Daddy’s tumbler and put it by the side of my thimble. You filled them both with water and asked me which was fuller. I told you they were both full to the brim and that it was impossible to put more water in them than they could hold. And so, Mother darling, you made me understand that in heaven God will give His chosen their fitting glory and that the last will have no reason to envy the first. By such means, you made me understand the most sublime mysteries and gave my soul its essential food. —St. Thérèse of Lisieux, The Story of a Soul. (New York: Double Day, 2001) 20.

 

[edwest2]

A person like Pope Benedict would no doubt understand media to be more than the words of a commercial commentator on radio or tv but as that space where beliefs and ideas are communicated from one to the other. Richard Dawkins acknowledges the power of that space also in his concept of memetics.

An example of how Church teaching is affected in that space would be that relationship between Catholics and large families. The Church has always valued the large Catholic family and its contribution to the faith, but it was never a Catholic obligation to have a large family. That decision of a couple has always been protected as thing that should exist without coercion or obligation of any sort and completely motivated by their discernment. The myth that arose that it was a Catholic obligation was totally due to ‘media’ where such a notion served comedy and ridicule.

So when Pope Francis (clumsily) corrected that notion recently, it became evident that lots of Catholics especially new converts, had thought he was going against Church teaching.

It’s not unusual then that one of the 16 Vatican documents addressed media… DECREE ON THE MEDIA OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS - INTER MIRIFICA

That’s true. Catholics are supposed to have large families did serve comedy and ridicule, even Catholic school uniforms.

Ed

 

[Nightwolf]

A person like Pope Benedict would no doubt understand media to be more than the words of a commercial commentator on radio or tv but as that space where beliefs and ideas are communicated from one to the other…

It’s not unusual then that one of the 16 Vatican documents addressed media… DECREE ON THE MEDIA OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS - INTER MIRIFICA

Unfortunately, the Decree on Social Communications falls into the same problem I identify in post 150, against your claims regarding cultural adaptation: that ‘‘social space’’ is treated as a blank slate; an ethically neutral space which one may use for good or I’ll and which has no biases of its own. Unfortunately, that notion ignores something painfully obvious about mass communication: 'tis a market-product, and no market-product is neutral.

Each object used in mass communication has been formed in the present culture, and each wants to be used in a way which the culture wants. People like to yammer on about the effective use of, say, Facebook to spread the Gospel - apparently without realizing that, when a person can determine which communications he sees, Christianity becomes just another interest, and one which he does not share. You can try to tweet something religious, but will be forced to flatten it - to take away the transcendence - precisely because transcendence cannot be communicated in a sound-byte. I am so pessimistic about even what I am doing right now on this goofy forum that the only reason I do it at all is that I find I have a little extra time on my hands right now as I recover from an illness and I’m tired of reading Sartre and Mauriac. Evangelization is done in the field, not online; hence I focus on the field. Of course, now that I’ve said that, some tiresome individual will have to tell me about his or her or his or her friend/family member/co-worker’s ‘‘miraculous’’ internet conversion - but those people, like as not, were already the kinds of people who would have converted one way or another eventually. My existentialism is coming out again…

All that having been said, attempts to think of the media’s influence sovereign are ill-advised; they allow people to contruct non seguiturs such as saying that there is no connection between the writers and implementers of a particular set of rules, even though in this situation both writer and implementer are united in the same people. That would be ridiculous if framed that way, so a fudge-factor has to introduced in order to drive an artificial chasm between the bishop-writers and the bishop-implementers; that fudge-factor is posited to be the media. Yet, the media is a cultured force, but it is not omnipotent; it did not cause the dioceses of the world to adopt the current Ordinary Form, nor did it cause the seminaries to go nuts in the 70s.

As I said, I would certainly be interested in the Pope’s audiences on the subject.

I especially liked the penalty of boiling dissenters to death in oil like Pomponio Algerio during the period of that Council. He lived for 15 minutes and then learned his lesson in the afterlife presumably.

Perhaps they only needed to learn from the peoples who were progressive ‘‘by nature.’’

 

[tweedlealice]

And how does this disprove the “ignorance is bliss” theory?

If there is any resentment, which you might have suggested, it is not aimed at Protestants.

Salutations
Protestants who live Christ as we are supposed to strive for, go to heaven. God knows their hearts as He knows ours. A religion is not a secure ticket to heaven. There are Protestants that have been martyred. We are allowed to worship in their church as when a relative dies. We cannot take communion, as they all do not believe in the real presence. The Lutheran and Orthodox do believe. The Lutherans. call it consubstantiation. We call it transubstantiation. I don’t really think that con=with and Trans =across makes a whole lot of difference to the Holy Spirit when the words of Jesus are spoken across the elements. I asked my priest and he would give communion to an Orthodox. but, Even though, the Pope and the Patriarch have agreed, the individual parishes are not following his directive. I couldn’t receive in Orthodoxy. We massacred them in 500 AD by command of the Pope for heresies. He sent the Templer knights. Some wounds stay deep, I guess.
We are still having meetings to come together in unity. There was a directive 5 years ago, I think, where the Pope acknowledge that Martin Luther was correct in some of his complaints. I recall the announcement at church. We are not teaching that only Catholics go to heaven anymore.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
I am grateful for purgatory though. There is a sinner in all of us, who is saved by grace. But when that sinner is out, there is no room for Jesus (unless He’s holding on to my little toe )
Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place my trust in thee.

 

[Brendan_64]

Each person has a conscience which nudges them towards the good and warns them against the bad.

Assuming that a person’s conscience will naturally lead them towards good is a dangerous assumption. Women have abortions and feel this is justified by their conscience. People kill others through euthanasia and feel that they are doing what their conscience dictates.

The following of one’s conscience on it’s own will not necessarily lead incline the person towards good.

 

[Brendan_64]

We are allowed to worship in their church as when a relative dies. We cannot take communion, as they all do not believe in the real presence. The Lutheran and Orthodox do believe.

We cannot take Communion in a Protestant church, not because they all do not believe, but because that do not have a valid Eucharist (due to having an invalid priesthood). The validity of the Eucharist does not depend on whether the people or clergy believe it to be so (or not). The nature of the Eucharist does not depend on our belief, but you would be proclaiming that a invalid Eucharist is valid by receiving it.

We are permitted to receive under certain conditions in the Orthodox Church because they do have a valid priesthood and therefore have a valid Eucharist. Clearly though the ball is in their court as to whether they agree to allow us to, it is their Church and governed by their rules.

 

[ProVobis]

Ignorance might be seen as bliss but faith can be bliss also.

Hmmm. I suppose one can look at a rupture of continuity as bliss as well. But is everyone expected to enjoy losing his identity in order to achieve it? In outward appearance is there a difference between a Lutheran service and a Catholic Mass, for example? Maybe bliss is more an area of psychology rather than religion.

 

[commenter]

Assuming that a person’s conscience will naturally lead them towards good is a dangerous assumption. Women have abortions and feel this is justified by their conscience. People kill others through euthanasia and feel that they are doing what their conscience dictates.

The following of one’s conscience on it’s own will not necessarily lead incline the person towards good.

True. In the long run a person’s conscience might eventually lead them to the good. For instance, a woman at age 30 might see that abortion is murder. But if she is pregnant at age 20 she might not yet see it, especially if pressured by a boyfriend, and by the Media which misleads consciences. Her delayed conscience insight at age 30 won’t protect the child who was in her womb at age 20.

We live at a time when the Media temporarily distorts consciences on a massive scale. That doesn’t mean Christians who follow Christ’s teaching should ignore them. There is a difference between a woman who at 30 regrets the abortion she had a decade earlier, and the woman who has that 10 year old child with her, and is grateful for the picketers she saw in front of the clinic a decade ago.

I can’t judge that woman. But I can judge myself to be wrong if I fail to follow my own conscience and try to make abortion illegal, and picket the clinic.

 

[Brendan_64]

We live at a time when the Media temporarily distorts consciences on a massive scale. That doesn’t mean Christians who follow Christ’s teaching should ignore them.

We should certainly not ignore our consciences, but consciences should be used to determine whether or not our actions align with Church teachings, not as an alternate form of moral authority.

 

[ProVobis]

Each person has a conscience which nudges them towards the good and warns them against the bad.

Yes, but let’s not confuse intuitiveness with conscience. A conscience has to be formed properly (missing Mass = grave matter, for example) in order for your statement to work. IOW, a person can’t rely on his own senses to know the differences between right and wrong in conjunction with the Church’s teachings. He’s got to be motivated enough to learn and study them. How often is this done today?

 

[Thomas_White]

We should certainly not ignore our consciences, but consciences should be used to determine whether or not our actions align with Church teachings, not as an alternate form of moral authority.

CCC 1800 states the following: “A human being must always follow the certain judgment of his conscience”.

It is a common error to interpret this clear and plain language to mean that a “certain judgment of conscience” must align with Church teaching.

 

[Brendan_64]

CCC 1800 states the following: “A human being must always follow the certain judgment of his conscience”.

It is a common error to interpret this clear and plain language to mean that a “certain judgment of conscience” must align with Church teaching.

CCC 1783 states the following “Conscience must be informed and moral judgement enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgement and to reject authoritative teachings.”

To choose one’s own judgement rejecting the teachings of the Church is to sin. Education of conscience is necessary to form conscience according to authoritative teachings.

CCC 1786 states “**Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make **either a right judgement in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, **an erroneous judgement **that departs from them.” and CCC 1801 “Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgements. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.”

Conscience must be informed and must not reject authoritative Church teaching, to do so would mean that (despite what a person may think their conscience is telling them) would result in an erroneous judgement which is not necessarily guilt free.

Conscience is not a ‘get out of jail card’ when faced with a Church teaching to which that person may instinctively disagree with.

Following one’s conscience can cause one to make an erroneous judgement

 

[Thomas_White]

CCC 1783 states the following “Conscience must be informed and moral judgement enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgement and to reject authoritative teachings.”

To choose one’s own judgement rejecting the teachings of the Church is to sin. Education of conscience is necessary to form conscience according to authoritative teachings.

CCC 1786 states “**Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make **either a right judgement in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, **an erroneous judgement **that departs from them.” and CCC 1801 “Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgements. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.”

Conscience must be informed and must not reject authoritative Church teaching, to do so would mean that (despite what a person may think their conscience is telling them) would result in an erroneous judgement which is not necessarily guilt free.

Conscience is not a ‘get out of jail card’ when faced with a Church teaching to which that person may instinctively disagree with.

Following one’s conscience can cause one to make an erroneous judgement

“Over the pope as binding expression of ecessiastical authority, there stand one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme authority, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism” --Joseph Ratzinger (in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II).

The comment I made in #212 concerning CCC 1800 was with respect to the question of the OP: “Why do some people reject Vatican II?”

Simply stated, CCC 1800 is plain and clear: “A human being must always follow the certain judgment of his conscience.” This is the teaching of the Church, and to reject it (often employing either circular logic or that resembling a pretzel) by arguing that the certain judgment of conscience must conform to Church teaching is to reject an important teaching of Vatican II.

It also negates the certain judgment of conscience. However, this line of thought, which ultimately rejects the possibility of an interior truth, was not predominant in the pre-Vatican II era. It seems to me that it is rather a phenomenon that arose in reaction to the teachings of Vatican II.