Posted on 07/07/2022 9:12:42 PM PDT by ebb tide
The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) was a unique ecumenical council. The previous twenty were assembled to address particular doctrinal or ecclesial crises, while John XXIII called Vatican II to layout a new pastoral program for engaging the modern world. It was not a particular crisis but a general one, focused on finding a new way of conveying the Christian life in the modern world.
In the aftermath of the Council, both progressive and traditional wings viewed it as revolutionary, a sharp break from the previous practice of the Church. It did not help that the 1960s were a period of great cultural turmoil, adding fuel to the fire of confusion and disaffiliation that occurred in the Church.
Pope Benedict XVI, who as a peritus or theological expert at the Council had helped draft some of the documents as part of the progressive party, looked back with concern and identified two major ways of interpreting the Council: a hermeneutic of “discontinuity and rupture” and one of “reform” in continuity with the tradition. The “Spirit of Vatican II” belonged to the former interpretation and came to stand for a whole new way of thinking, praying, teaching, and living as a Catholic in the modern world, marked by a much greater openness to the world and aversion to traditional Catholic practices.
It seemed that the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI were steering the Church toward continuity, although Pope Francis has led a reemergence of the progressive camp.
Francis has repeatedly called attention to what he views as a growing rejection of the Second Vatican Council. Speaking to editors of European Jesuit journals on May 19, he related this view: “It is very difficult to see spiritual renewal using old-fashioned criteria. We need to renew our way of seeing reality, of evaluating it. . . . Restorationism has come to gag the Council. The number of groups of ‘restorers’ – for example, in the United States there are many – is significant. . . .They had never accepted the Council.”
Commenting on these remarks, Ed Condon at The Pillar made an important clarification: “Vatican II is more of a feeling, or state of mind, than an historical event that produced tangible documents.” An outright rejection of the Council is rare, although many people have questioned the effectiveness of the pastoral and liturgical approach that sought to implement the Council’s vision.
The continued battle over Vatican II seems to be more about an idea of the Council and its implementation, rather than focusing on its actual legitimacy. Does Vatican II have to remain a “super Council” that guides all aspects of the Church’s life and approach? As a pastoral Council, has its approach failed and is it time to move on to the next phase of the Church’s life? Can we even have this debate or is it off limits according to some churchmen? If Vatican II a “feeling, or state of mind” then to what does it refer?
I think we can actually get clarity about this “idea.” Following the debates for years, I would identify three major areas: liturgy, conscience, and synodality as three particularly relevant points of disagreement over the legacy of Vatican II.
1) Liturgy
Pope Francis’s move to limit the traditional Latin Mass in his motu proprio Traditiones custodes focused largely on the legacy of Vatican II: “Art. 3. The bishop of the diocese in which until now there exist one or more groups that celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970: § 1. is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs.”
That Vatican II called for a liturgical reform is beyond dispute, as it laid out principles for renewal in its first document, Sacrosanctum Concilum. Having taught the documents of the Council many times, I can attest that an introductory reading of the document made it clear to my own students that the Mass of Paul VI is not an exact implementation of the Council’s wishes. Pointing this out does not reject the legitimacy of the new Mass, even if it sees it as a loose interpretation of the Council’s vision. In his book The Feast of Faith, Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, pointed out that “it is simply a fact that the Council was pushed aside” in liturgical reform (84).
Is it a rejection of the Council to point out this discrepancy?
2) Conscience
A Salesian missionary to Korea, who was a young priest during the Council, told me with all sincerity that the purpose of Vatican II was to allow people to decide for themselves what was right and wrong. Conscience became a predominant flash point immediately following the Council in the overwhelming dissent of clergy and laity against Paul VI’s encyclical on contraception, Humanae Vitae. John Paul II sought to steer the Church back to the objective reality of right and wrong in his own encyclical on moral theology, Veritatis Splendor.
It has been widely noted, however, that Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, contradicts Veritatis, including its teaching on the nature of conscience: “We also find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations, and are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations” (37). Francis wrote this in relation to difficulties in marriage and sexuality, although the Second Vatican Council clearly taught that in this sphere “spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel” (Gaudium et Spes, 50). Vatican II requires upholding the role of authority in guiding conscience.
3) Synodality
Vatican II is often seen as balancing the First Vatican Council’s teaching on papal infallibility by emphasizing the authority of the whole college of bishops: “Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together” (Lumen Gentium, 22).
In order to make this reality more prominent in the Church, the Council called for more frequent synods: “This sacred ecumenical synod earnestly desires that the venerable institution of synods and councils flourish with fresh vigor. In such a way faith will be deepened and discipline preserved more fittingly and efficaciously in the various churches, as the needs of the times require” (Christus Dominus, 36). This led to the establishment of regular synods in Rome and the encouragement of synods throughout the world.
Francis’s current push for synodality must be seen as a key element of his own vision of implementing the Council. His seemingly contradictory centralizing moves (whether related to the liturgy or the approval of new religious communities) appear ordered toward controlling the narrative on Vatican II, ensuring that bishops are not allowing reactionary groups to form and flourish throughout the world. Although Francis speaks of the rejection of the Council by reactionary groups, synodality has been used by others, especially in Germany, as a pretext for rejecting the very faith upheld by Vatican II and all previous councils.
Syndolity, however, cannot trump the Church’s magisterial teaching, but should rather finds way of communicating it more effectively in the modern world, which was the stated goal of the Second Vatican Council.
Conclusion: What Do We Need for the Next Sixty Years?
Although much more could be said about the fight over the legacy of Vatican II, these three issues appear as major flashpoints. In the end, the Church will have to discern whether or not the vision of Vatican II is adequate for leading the Church to the renewal in mission so desperately needed as she continues to decline throughout most of the world. Beyond rejecting the legitimacy of Vatican II and its teaching, it is different matter to question the effectiveness of its pastoral strategy and its continued relevance for pointing the Church toward the future.
Stephen Bullivant, in his book Mass Exodus: Catholic Disaffiliation in Britain and American since Vatican II (Oxford, 2019), related the following conclusion to his own sociological study:
It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the Council’s reforms are not causally related to the very significant decline in Mass-going among British and American Catholics—and ultimately, to the high and growing levels of Catholic disaffiliation. The beginning of this decline coincided, more-or-less exactly, with the beginning of a sustained period of far-reaching changes, first to the Mass, and then to many other aspects of Catholic life. This inconvenient fact is most easily explained by the hypothesis that the reforms, as actually enacted and experienced, did not achieve what the Council evidently hoped that they would. (256).
We need an honest assessment of the last sixty years, including what has worked and what has not. It should not surprise us if the next sixty years requires a pivot in pastoral approach. In this ongoing discernment, we cannot allow rhetoric to inflame division within the Church by insisting upon only one interpretation of the Council. It is absurd to claim that thinking in light of the Church’s entire tradition within a hermeneutic of continuity constitutes a rejection of the Council.
It will be more helpful to shift the conversation away from debating the last sixty years to what is now needed for the changing landscape of the Church and world. No solution is worthy of consideration unless it puts God in the center, unlike much recent ecclesial reflection, and enables the Church to fulfill the true goal of Vatican II: the more effective transmission of the Gospel to the world.
As I’ve said for years,
If you accept Vatican 2,
you think your church is alive.
If you reject Vatican 2,
you admit your church is dead.
And you can keep on saying it until the cows come home.
Doesn’t mean it’s true, however.
It is all very simple. The Pope is a socialist Marxist. I often wonder if he is a believer.
What about the other big issues raised by Vatican II: the changing definition of religious freedom and the changing definition of ecumenism?
Meaning lists as here: https://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/cg/latin_mass_and_catholic_tradition/summary_of_changes_since_vatican_ii.htm?
Meanwhile,
" The number of groups of ‘restorers’ – for example, in the United States there are many – is significant. . . .They had never accepted the Council.”"
I have often used your summation as expressing this: another
I doubt that anything much will come of the latest efforts to confront the Pope because so-called traditional Catholics have split themselves into almost as many sects as Protestants have. There are:
1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner(NOTE: Church Militant may have changed its position recently to be more directly in opposition to the Pope but I haven't kept track.)
And as another one poster wryly stated of V2,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)
A web site popular among “RadTrad” RCs who reject Vatican Two is https://novusordowatch.org with some detail, while we have a more charitable description by a novus ordo priest:
It is certainly possible to discern three tribes within American Catholicism. However, using the Jewish terminology is confusing. “Orthodox,” “Conservative,” and “Reform” do not translate well into American Catholicism. Clearer titles for the three tribes might be “Traditionalist” which correlates with the Jewish “Orthodox.” “Magisterial” because “conservative” Catholics adhere to papal teachings and the magisterium, while “Progressive” reflects the “Reformed” group in Judaism....
Broadly speaking, “Traditionalists” adhere to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Baltimore Catechism, and Church teachings from before the Second Vatican Council...
“Magisterial” Catholics put loyalty to the authority of the pope and magisterial teaching first and foremost. They are happy with the principles of the Second Vatican Council, but want to “Reform the Reform.” They want to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass with solemnity, reverence, and fine music. ..They uphold traditional Catholic teaching in faith and morals, but wish to communicate and live these truths in an up-to-date and relevant way...
The “Progressives” are vitally interested in peace and justice issues. They’re enthusiastic about serving the marginalized and working for institutional change. They are likely to embrace freer forms of worship, dabble in alternative spiritualities, and be eager to make the Catholic faith relevant and practical. Progressives believe the Church should adapt to the modern age... Maguire sums up their attitude pretty well: Progressives “don’t need the Vatican. Their conscience is their Vatican.” - Is Catholicism about to break into three? Crux Catholic Media Inc. ^ | Oct 6, 2015 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3778496/posts
And thus you have FR articles as,
Is Catholicism about to break into three?
Archbishop Viganò: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’
The SSPX's Relationship with Francis: Is it Traditional? post #6
Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?
The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope...If Francis is a true Pope …
Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that Proves Francis Is Pope; https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/
Thus besides the unscriptural teachings of Catholicism, what God-fearing evangelical should want to leave his or her conservative fellowship, which liberals disdain, and join Rome which they call their church home and she is loath to deal with them? And actions speak louder then words. Teddy K even got a nice letter from your pope (in response to one delivered by Obama), thanking him for his prayers but we hear of not a word of rebuke. To join Rome would mean becoming part of one of her sects claiming to be the faithful RCs, while each of which believes the unscriptural teachings of Catholicism.
Most typically damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If I were a devout RC I would likely be a TradCath, however, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)
Meanwhile, a basic RC premise that it is the "living magisterium" which provides the correct interpretation of historical teaching via their "clarifications" of it, versus laity standing in judgment of the magisterium, while what Vatican 2 and Bergoglio the Heretic rejection means is that besides appealing to a type of mystical church to which all TradCaths belong (when not attacking each other), then rather than practicing the broad assent that so much papal teaching requires*, the TradCath makes the veracity of modern RC teaching (which purports to understand and clarify the past) subject to his personal judgment of conformity with past church teaching as they understand it, contrary to how modern Rome does in cases wherein they find conflict. The difference here btwn the TradCath and a SS evangelicals is that for the latter Scripture is the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed.
*Such as, 'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
They cannot even interpret their OWN words in one consistent manner yet want to force upon the world their interpretation of Scripture!
Quite a list of wandering sheep there!
One would think a worldwide re-teaching of the catechism would be in order.
Rather, as "living magisterium" interprets/clarifies past RC teaching in contradicting it, to which faithful RCs are to submit. For the Catholic basis for assurance of doctrine is not to be the degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power as it was for the NT church (which thus began in selective dissent from the historical magisterium), but it is to rest upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity.
Thus Scripture, Tradition and History only means what Rome says they do. Which was the recourse of no less a prelate than Cardinal Manning:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
There is a lot of flow and communication between the different traditional groups. What one reads on the internet does not reflect the reality on the ground. For example, while the official stance of the SSPX is to reject sedevacatism, they take care of many families who are sedevacantists. Same with the FSSP. Many families go back and forth depending on where they live.
You’re funny: an ex-Catholic telling Catholics what they must submit to.
It appears that the Devil is working his evil magic within the Catholic Church, but he also appears to have been working over time ever since Luther posted his theses; dividing the Protestants into ever smaller and more distant sects.
I've known Protestants who were quite smug and certain about their particular interpretation of Scripture, even going so far as to claim their interpretation as a straight forward direct reading. After all they belonged to a small congregation where everyone was in complete agreement. Nevermind the Evangelical congregation just down the street that was in complete agreement on a similar yet distinct interpretation of Scripture. Their congregation was made up of members who gave heartier handshakes, belted out hymns a bit louder, had more members who could ape that glazed over look that cries out "filled with the Holy Spirit", and whose pastor hasn't yet been caught embezzling church funds or straying from his wife.
And what about those particularly "discerning" Protestants whose personal relationships with Jesus has convinced them of a particular cafeteria style collection of beliefs that they have "discerned" from various sources? They are certain if and when the Rapture will occur, whether saying "I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior" is necessary for salvation or an act that goes against the teaching of sola fidei, whether infant baptism is sufficient or not, whether the Earth is merely thousands or billions of years old, etc.
Unlike those poor fools who have formed an attachment with a particular group of believers/sinners and have to suffer the calumny that comes their way when one of theirs falls off the straight and narrow path, these "brave" souls can shake the dirt from their feet and move on to the next congregation that happens to align with their particular set of beliefs and continue in their smugness until that holy Christ-filled preacher who swept them off their feet is caught en flagrante with a rather too young member of the choir.
Unlike your reply, that is entirely appropriate in exposing an organization as unworthy of cultic trust and consequences of it, whether it be the Watchtower org. or the Roman org.
You’re still funny; and oh so wrong.
However, none defend or point to their church as uniquely being the on true one, while at the core there is overall basic unity on the means of salvation, while the unity among TradCaths is one in error on that. Both traditional Evangelicals and traditional Catholics have debates and with different camps, it is just a matter of degrees. But if a RC is in schism - as rejectors of Bergoglio are according to at least one canon lawyer - then they have no one true church with a visible reigning (versus resigning) pope.
"And what about those particularly "discerning" Protestants whose personal relationships with Jesus has convinced them of a particular cafeteria style collection of beliefs that they have "discerned" from various sources?,"
Let alone predestination. Let me know when the contention of the efficacy of divine grace with human freedom finally is resolved, other than a truce.
....after twenty years of public and private discussion, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope's decree communicated on 5 September 1607 to both Dominicans and Jesuits allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See. That decision, however, was not reached, and both orders, consequently, could maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis)
Because they (protestant heretical sects) can't, and never will be able to make such a claim.
I have no way of knowing.
Sounds kinda double-minded to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.