Why do some people reject Vatican II?

[edwest2]

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

Well said, and I would like to highlight the “instinctively” part. I put my trust in the Church and get understanding also.

Ed

 

[Pulvis]

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

i have learned the hard way to leave these arguments to theologians. I will practice my Faith, avail myself of the Sacraments, and learn who was right in the next life. This temporary earthbound life is too short to spend it arguing over things we have no control over.

 

[Thomas_White]

Well said, and I would like to highlight the “instinctively” part. I put my trust in the Church and get understanding also.

Ed

Instinct has nothing whatever to do with the Church’s teaching on conscience. The OP asks the question of why do some people reject Vatican II. It is noted that there have been a number of comments concerning proper catechesis, and it appears there is a correlation between such comments and a lack of understanding of the teachings of Vatican II. It is an interesting phenomenon.

 

[otjm]

Instinct has nothing whatever to do with the Church’s teaching on conscience. The OP asks the question of why do some people reject Vatican II. It is noted that there have been a number of comments concerning proper catechesis, and it appears there is a correlation between such comments and a lack of understanding of the teachings of Vatican II. It is an interesting phenomenon.

That is mildly put.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

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

I don’t really understand what you mean by saying that ‘mass communication is a market product’. We have developed sophisticated technology to facilitate communications but some media of social communication has always existed in the world. The Renaissance and age of Enlightenment in the recent past, demonstrate that the veins of social communication are very real and fast flowing regardless of the type of media at work.

Vatican II was a different Council to previous councils in that it recognised that it couldn’t depend of the tribal dynamic to impart its authoritative teachings anymore. That is where she issued her decrees and the Catholic cultural ‘media’ were the Bishops who imparted that information to the the faithful. Sure we could hear opinions from outside but since they were the enemy eg Protestants were seen that way prior to VII… it was no threat to the authoritative teaching of the ‘tribal leader’.

The whole Church had been constructed within that tribal dynamic but the only tribal cultures that can survive today are those that take themselves away from the world and isolate themselves somehow… which goes against the whole principle the Catholic faith. That is to go out into the world. The world Mass itself comes from the Latin ‘dismissal’ to go out and teach.

Vatican II was absolutely vital for helping people get in touch with their Catholic identity while still living in the mainstream. Too many people had become religious automatons being Catholic out of tradition, rather than experiencing that identity. Hence when something like reliable contraception came on the market, their superficial identity just crumbled and there was no deeper instinct to reject the new exciting lifestyle.

I haven’t read what Pope Em. Benedict says about the medias role but perhaps he was just drawing our attention towards the place that needs to be addressed more thoroughly by the Catholic spirit ie. the veins of mass communication. I suspect that is what Pope Francis was doing by letting the media so close to this years synod. He was making sure there could be no Chinese whispers between the synod and the faithful. More than anything, the recent synod showed up the tricks and distortions of the media and commentators themselves, very clearly. I personally have a new cynicism for Catholic media that forces me to read the documents available for myself rather than trust anything in the media too much.

 

[Vaseljen]

I am Orthodox Christian, so not my business, but i must tell you, Vatican II is robber synod so hard. It destroys Roman Church.

First, i don’t even have to comment the mass, in 15th century, pope Pie something, said that the mass cannot be reformed. And Vatican II morbidly destroyed your mass.

Second, there is ONLY one Church, Vatican II teaches some hippy theory in which Roman-Catholic Church is somehow not the only one. I had more respect for Rome that viewed us Orthodox as invalid schismatics, than this liberal view which insults Christ’s promise about the SINGLE Church.

Third, it did not even deal with particular heresy, it actually created the heresy of ecumenism which denies Rome’s claim to be the only valid Church. Vatican II actually mocks both the Roman-Catholic and Orthodox Church.

Since Vatican II, Roman-Catholic Church went just downhill. And this pope Francis’s attempt with modesty show will not impress the faithful, it maybe only impresses outsiders who will never convert because he switched golden chair with the wooden one.

Just my opinion.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t really understand what you mean by saying that ‘mass communication is a market product’. We have developed sophisticated technology to facilitate communications but some media of social communication has always existed in the world. The Renaissance and age of Enlightenment in the recent past, demonstrate that the veins of social communication are very real and fast flowing regardless of the type of media at work.

Vatican II was a different Council to previous councils in that it recognised that it couldn’t depend of the tribal dynamic to impart its authoritative teachings anymore. That is where she issued her decrees and the Catholic cultural ‘media’ were the Bishops who imparted that information to the the faithful. Sure we could hear opinions from outside but since they were the enemy eg Protestants were seen that way prior to VII… it was no threat to the authoritative teaching of the ‘tribal leader’.

The whole Church had been constructed within that tribal dynamic but the only tribal cultures that can survive today are those that take themselves away from the world and isolate themselves somehow… which goes against the whole principle the Catholic faith. That is to go out into the world. The world Mass itself comes from the Latin ‘dismissal’ to go out and teach.

Vatican II was absolutely vital for helping people get in touch with their Catholic identity while still living in the mainstream. Too many people had become religious automatons being Catholic out of tradition, rather than experiencing that identity. Hence when something like reliable contraception came on the market, their superficial identity just crumbled and there was no deeper instinct to reject the new exciting lifestyle.

I haven’t read what Pope Em. Benedict says about the medias role but perhaps he was just drawing our attention towards the place that needs to be addressed more thoroughly by the Catholic spirit ie. the veins of mass communication. I suspect that is what Pope Francis was doing by letting the media so close to this years synod. He was making sure there could be no Chinese whispers between the synod and the faithful. More than anything, the recent synod showed up the tricks and distortions of the media and commentators themselves, very clearly. I personally have a new cynicism for Catholic media that forces me to read the documents available for myself rather than trust anything in the media too much.

Having been there Pre- and Post-Council, we were not automatons. Far from it. I saw all kinds of Christians, not just Catholics, doing their best to live out what they had been taught in their everyday lives. No, it was not perfect but the facts are this: I lived in a major city, we did not lock our doors at night, neighbors were willing to help people. And we had parents that did their best to live out their faith. Until the late 1960s, the media was our friend. TV was “a welcome guest in our home.”

Right before stepping down as Pope, Pope Benedict said most people saw the “Council of the Media” (at the time, 1965) as opposed to the true Council, the “Council of the Fathers.” From an article published in 2013, " For a while, the Pope noted, the media’s virtual council was stronger than the real Council. But now, 50 years after the start of the Council, the real one is prevailing."

This, to me, is a clear example of a conflict that took all this time to resolve. I’ve tried to explain why in previous posts.

Ed

 

[otjm]

I am Orthodox Christian, so not my business, but i must tell you, Vatican II is robber synod so hard. It destroys Roman Church.

First, i don’t even have to comment the mass, in 15th century, pope Pie something, said that the mass cannot be reformed. And Vatican II morbidly destroyed your mass.

Second, there is ONLY one Church, Vatican II teaches some hippy theory in which Roman-Catholic Church is somehow not the only one. I had more respect for Rome that viewed us Orthodox as invalid schismatics, than this liberal view which insults Christ’s promise about the SINGLE Church.

Third, it did not even deal with particular heresy, it actually created the heresy of ecumenism which denies Rome’s claim to be the only valid Church. Vatican II actually mocks both the Roman-Catholic and Orthodox Church.

Since Vatican II, Roman-Catholic Church went just downhill. And this pope Francis’s attempt with modesty show will not impress the faithful, it maybe only impresses outsiders who will never convert because he switched golden chair with the wooden one.

Just my opinion.

You might find it helpful to read the documents themselves.

 

[Vaseljen]

You might find it helpful to read the documents themselves.

I saw their fruits.

 

[LongingSoul]

Having been there Pre- and Post-Council, we were not automatons. Far from it. I saw all kinds of Christians, not just Catholics, doing their best to live out what they had been taught in their everyday lives. No, it was not perfect but the facts are this: I lived in a major city, we did not lock our doors at night, neighbors were willing to help people. And we had parents that did their best to live out their faith. Until the late 1960s, the media was our friend. TV was “a welcome guest in our home.”

I was born just before VII began and grew up in and around the Church probably more closely than a lot since my family had lots of religious in the midst.

When I say automaton, I refer to that type of faith that stands up fine within the Catholic environment, but doesn’t hold up in the mainstream. In the late 60’s and 70’s when the world was changing really fast, a lot of my friends and peers were very enthusiastic about the new sexual freedoms and attitudes and easily slipped into that life. What I noticed more significantly though, was how ill equipped and impotent many parents of my generation were to provide good Catholic guidance to us. My parents were very thorough in teaching us right from wrong as were many other parents of that generation… but there was a very clear divide between those with this strong faith and those who had been faithful followers in a culture that were all faithful followers… but couldn’t find that same faith outside of that closed culture.

I know that was similar to the experience in my husbands family who were Italian immigrants.

 

[otjm]

I saw their fruits.

I would disagree. In the US, we had a series of problems that were not sourced by the documents, but by a number of other issues.

However, the documents were implemented in Poland, for example, and they had none of the problems there which we have had here in the US.

If the documents themselves were so wrong, then there is no way to explain how Poland could implement them without the chaos we experienced here.

 

[Brendan_64]

When I say automaton, I refer to that type of faith that stands up fine within the Catholic environment, but doesn’t hold up in the mainstream. In the late 60’s and 70’s when the world was changing really fast, a lot of my friends and peers were very enthusiastic about the new sexual freedoms and attitudes and easily slipped into that life. What I noticed more significantly though, was how ill equipped and impotent many parents of my generation were to provide good Catholic guidance to us. My parents were very thorough in teaching us right from wrong as were many other parents of that generation… but there was a very clear divide between those with this strong faith and those who had been faithful followers in a culture that were all faithful followers… but couldn’t find that same faith outside of that closed culture.

And how has Vatican II equipped parents to better catechise their children to cope with the ‘sexual revolution’ and give better guidance? Are parents today better equipped to give good Catholic guidance to their children that your parents were? Are young Catholics more or less sexually active outside marriage today than when you were growing up?

There has been a complete crisis in catechesis since the Second Vatican Council. To the point now where a great many Catholic parents seem not to even know their own faith let alone be able to pass it on to their children. And running alongside this crisis in catechesis has been an incremental increase in sexual activity amongst children and young people, it is worse now than it has ever been and increasing rapidly. How has Vatican II helped in this regard?

 

[edwest2]

I was born just before VII began and grew up in and around the Church probably more closely than a lot since my family had lots of religious in the midst.

When I say automaton, I refer to that type of faith that stands up fine within the Catholic environment, but doesn’t hold up in the mainstream. In the late 60’s and 70’s when the world was changing really fast, a lot of my friends and peers were very enthusiastic about the new sexual freedoms and attitudes and easily slipped into that life. What I noticed more significantly though, was how ill equipped and impotent many parents of my generation were to provide good Catholic guidance to us. My parents were very thorough in teaching us right from wrong as were many other parents of that generation… but there was a very clear divide between those with this strong faith and those who had been faithful followers in a culture that were all faithful followers… but couldn’t find that same faith outside of that closed culture.

I know that was similar to the experience in my husbands family who were Italian immigrants.

In my neighborhood, around 1970 when turning the world upside down was going full force, I met a lady while selling newspaper subscriptions. She asked if I could speak to her and invited me into her home. I gladly obliged because social normalcy was still dominant. She said the following, more or less: “What is going on with you young people? (I was in my teens.) You look to be about my son’s age. But he’s hanging out with the wrong crowd, he won’t listen to me anymore and I know he’s using illegal drugs. I don’t know what to do.”

Clearly, she wanted some insight from me but I was unaware of what the wolves were doing. Saying Peace and Love and wearing their Peace symbols. I really thought this ridiculous rebellion against what they called “conformist society, squares and uptight people” was a flash in the pan. That drugged out kids (teens) would end up back home with mom and dad after they got their fill. The same with young ladies who thought Free Love meant love when it was just sex. But I was too young and not fully aware enough to give a good answer. All I could do was wish her well and perhaps I said something else to give her some hope.

The bottom line: We, as Catholics, could not see what the next part of the plan the wolves had in store for us was. It was a surprise attack.

One more real-life example: I had a friend around that time of normalcy who was around my age. I walked into his house one day and I found him upstairs. He was sitting on his bed with his older brother who was in college. His older brother was showing him some seeds that he claimed had hallucinogenic properties. I was shocked that his brother was showing him these seeds and encouraging him to use them. I ran out and did not associate with him again.

There was very, very little “mainstream” dysfunctional culture back then (1968-1973). It was conformist and mostly consistent, and good. The inside of my house looked like the insides of my friends’s houses. My mom was a lot like the other moms and us young people were mostly all raised the same way. When we met a girl, both of us knew the rules regarding relationships.

I can still remember the first time I read it: “We’ll burn this country down if we have to!” I never thought - in that time period - that they had a chance. But they had powerful, influential groups behind them and starting in the late 1960s for movies and the 1970s for TV, the media began to poison everyone. I saw it. I realized it, and I asked myself: Who’s behind this? Now, I know.

Ed

 

[clem456]

Pride

 

[edwest2]

I would disagree. In the US, we had a series of problems that were not sourced by the documents, but by a number of other issues.

However, the documents were implemented in Poland, for example, and they had none of the problems there which we have had here in the US.

If the documents themselves were so wrong, then there is no way to explain how Poland could implement them without the chaos we experienced here.

Correct. Since I had family in Poland during the time.

Ed

 

[LongingSoul]

Second, there is ONLY one Church, Vatican II teaches some hippy theory in which Roman-Catholic Church is somehow not the only one. I had more respect for Rome that viewed us Orthodox as invalid schismatics, than this liberal view which insults Christ’s promise about the SINGLE Church.

This seems to me an extremist view not in keeping with true Orthodox feeling towards Vatican II. Pope StJPII made mention of the topic in one of his Sunday sermons…

Another conciliar Decree, , dedicated to the Eastern-rite Churches in full communion with the Apostolic See, is not in opposition to this spirit but, on the contrary, strengthens it. With this Decree, the Council wanted to honour ‘the Eastern Churches’ institutions… liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and ordering of Christian life’ (, n. 1), declaring that they, like the Churches of the West, ‘have the right and duty to govern themselves according to their own special disciplines’ (, n. 5). Their ancient tradition is a real treasure for the whole Church, as was apparent at the same Council in the significant contribution made precisely by Eastern Catholics. How can we forget the deep impression made by Maximos IV, Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, when he passionately invited the Council Fathers to 'keep a place for the Absent, that is, our Orthodox brethren, while waiting for full communion? With it was made clear that the longed-for goal of full unity must not lead to a dull uniformity, but rather to the integration of all legitimate diversity in an organic communion, of which the Successor of Peter is called to be the servant and guarantor.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP960121.HTM

 

[LongingSoul]

And how has Vatican II equipped parents to better catechise their children to cope with the ‘sexual revolution’ and give better guidance? Are parents today better equipped to give good Catholic guidance to their children that your parents were? Are young Catholics more or less sexually active outside marriage today than when you were growing up?

There has been a complete crisis in catechesis since the Second Vatican Council. To the point now where a great many Catholic parents seem not to even know their own faith let alone be able to pass it on to their children. And running alongside this crisis in catechesis has been an incremental increase in sexual activity amongst children and young people, it is worse now than it has ever been and increasing rapidly. How has Vatican II helped in this regard?

See I’m not of the opinion that catechesis has completely failed since VII. The social justice work of the Church has really taken off and flourished since that time as we’ve dropped some of the prejudices that divided us. Lots of young Catholics can identify with that aspect of Jesus ministry more strongly than the sexual morality, because the New Testament gospels are so heavily focused on social justice issues. When people campaign for and support the dignified treatment of refugees, that’s very much an expression of Christianity too. Welfare and health safety nets that mean no one has any reason to starve of die on the streets… those are very Christian principles.

So while one aspect of Catholic tradition is wanting these days, another aspect of Catholic teaching is flourishing in the mainstream.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

This seems to me an extremist view not in keeping with true Orthodox feeling towards Vatican II. Pope StJPII made mention of the topic in one of his Sunday sermons…

Another conciliar Decree, , dedicated to the Eastern-rite Churches in full communion with the Apostolic See, is not in opposition to this spirit but, on the contrary, strengthens it. With this Decree, the Council wanted to honour ‘the Eastern Churches’ institutions… liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and ordering of Christian life’ (, n. 1), declaring that they, like the Churches of the West, ‘have the right and duty to govern themselves according to their own special disciplines’ (, n. 5). Their ancient tradition is a real treasure for the whole Church, as was apparent at the same Council in the significant contribution made precisely by Eastern Catholics. How can we forget the deep impression made by Maximos IV, Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, when he passionately invited the Council Fathers to 'keep a place for the Absent, that is, our Orthodox brethren, while waiting for full communion? With it was made clear that the longed-for goal of full unity must not lead to a dull uniformity, but rather to the integration of all legitimate diversity in an organic communion, of which the Successor of Peter is called to be the servant and guarantor.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP960121.HTM

He references Byzantine Catholic feelings toward Vatican II, not Orthodox feelings. All the Orthodox reactions I’ve noticed to vatican II are not positive. After reading the documents themselves, I don’t see how anyone can say it advocates a hippie theology that gives up Rome’s unique identity as the Church in whom the fullness of faith resides. It’s just a classic knee-jerk reaction.

 

[otjm]

And how has Vatican II equipped parents to better catechise their children to cope with the ‘sexual revolution’ and give better guidance? Are parents today better equipped to give good Catholic guidance to their children that your parents were? Are young Catholics more or less sexually active outside marriage today than when you were growing up?

There has been a complete crisis in catechesis since the Second Vatican Council. To the point now where a great many Catholic parents seem not to even know their own faith let alone be able to pass it on to their children. And running alongside this crisis in catechesis has been an incremental increase in sexual activity amongst children and young people, it is worse now than it has ever been and increasing rapidly. How has Vatican II helped in this regard?

That question is about the equivalent of asking how the Council of Trent encouraged and brought about reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches.

You are correct about the increase in sexual activity among children and young people, but the sexual revolution did not start with the hippies in the Haight Ashbury area of San Francisco. The Pill started in the 1940’s; but what was more an element of the elite (sexual activity outside of marriage) started to break open with the 1930 Lambeth Conference.

And the introduction of the Pill, which was in circulation well before V2 was finished, ignited the fuse on what had been simmering, and the social revolution which started about the same time as V2 was the explosion.

But you ask about catechesis; that went into La La Land after V 2 was completed and the twits on the Left to Far Left took over the reins, and that didn’t really start on a roll until into the 70’s.

What you miss is that the problem was wide-spread among the young people who had been catechized by the Baltimore Catechism before and during the time of V2; what you might want to ask is: “Why did all the people who were well catechized buy into the sexual revolution?”

 

[edwest2]

See I’m not of the opinion that catechesis has completely failed since VII. The social justice work of the Church has really taken off and flourished since that time as we’ve dropped some of the prejudices that divided us. Lots of young Catholics can identify with that aspect of Jesus ministry more strongly than the sexual morality, because the New Testament gospels are so heavily focused on social justice issues. When people campaign for and support the dignified treatment of refugees, that’s very much an expression of Christianity too. Welfare and health safety nets that mean no one has any reason to starve of die on the streets… those are very Christian principles.

So while one aspect of Catholic tradition is wanting these days, another aspect of Catholic teaching is flourishing in the mainstream.

Well, as on religious put it, “Too many Catholics are living like pagans.” And the damage to sexual morality is our biggest problem. There has always been poverty and other social needs and in the 1960s, we were given containers to put money in for the poor. No, Vatican II was just the scapegoat.

The “mainstream.” I distance myself from it as much as possible and observe from a distance. I know it but I’m certainly not a member of it. But a faithful remnant remains.

Ed