Phillip Blosser got permission to post an article from the 2004 issue of the New Oxford Review titled "Why the Second Vatican Council Was a Good Thing & Is More Important Than Ever" by John Lamont. I found it very interesting and in fact read it twice (something I almost never do).
One example paragraph says:
The very evidence for this conclusion raises doubts. The Second Vatican Council was a valid ecumenical council, which makes it impossible that its teachings could have really given a justification for the extreme abuses that followed it. Attempts by so-called Traditionalists to demonstrate that the Council was not valid, or that its teachings should be rejected as contradicting other authoritative pronouncements of the Church, are all contrived; they involve insisting that texts which can be understood in perfectly orthodox senses must be read as making heterodox claims. They also ignore a central feature of the Council’s history, described in Fr. Ralph Wiltgen’s The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber. Several hundred of the Council Fathers became alarmed about possible heterodox tendencies in the conciliar texts. These Fathers were able to insist that the texts be framed in ways that harmonized with Catholic tradition, and that the texts explicitly state that they are meant to be interpreted in line with that tradition. This is not to say that the texts are not in some places vague, ambiguous, or simply banal; but this is not the same as heterodoxy.
This is something that I have noticed also on the part of some radical traditionalists that only a heterodox reading of phrases in documents such as Dignitatis Humanae are correct.
He also makes the argument that The liturgical movement that produced Sancrosanctum Concilium was a valuable attempt to restore Catholic tradition and that the Mass of Paul VI was a departure from the wishes of the council as espoused by its documents. Not being an expert on this subject I don’t know how valid his claims are other than to note that it is obvious that much occurred that was not in conformance to the council’s wishes as regards liturgy. This is of course not to say that the Mass was illicit or invalid in any way only that some of the changes made were not prudent.
27 comments
One problem with the (Rad)Trads’ reading of documents like DH is indeed that they take those texts to mean things that they don’t in fact mean (based on a fair reading).
Another, though, is that they claim that certain teachings would be heterodox, when in fact they would not be heterodox.
Can anyone deny that the current crisis in the Faith came about as a direct result of Vatican II’s upheaval? Why did people think we needed Vatican II? Whatever happened to “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?”
I am 50. And just so you young whippersnappers don’t think I am one of those infamous “Boomer” heretics — I am obedient to the Magisterium, quite old-fashioned in my liturgical tastes, and delighted that young Catholics are returning to the “older ways.”
BUT . . . I am old enough to remember a little bit of pre-VII Catholic life. I think the article made some very valid points about the over-emphasis on rote obedience. Obedience is a good thing, but it should be freely and lovingly given.
My perception as a child and pre-teen (correct or not) was that the Church was quite repressive. I remember a lot of “Don’t’s” and very few, if any, “Do’s.”
Just as an example, how nice it would have been to have known that Confession gives you the graces to sin less and to love God more, instead of just “What would happen if you were run over by a car while you had a mortal sin on your soul?” Young people can’t even imagine this because their catechesis [sic] was so far to the other extreme, but this kind of thing really was said in the old days.
We’ve swung too far the other way nowadays, and people don’t even believe in Hell, which is a tragedy, but the scare tactics used in the early 1960’s were also not a good idea. It’s the kind of thing that makes you abandon your faith as soon as you deem yourself “mature.” And it wasn’t just us . . . check out the retirees at most parishes. The Greatest Generation ditched the “real” Church right along with us Boomers. (You should have heard my 73-year-old mother when I told my teenage son to refrain from eating within the hour before Communion!)
And certainly to the extent that Catholic teaching was anti-Jewish, that needed to be corrected. Anthony, surely you agree with THAT change, don’t you?
Whether VII was needed, and whether there are abuses have resulted from VII, are two separate issues, IMO. I hope and pray that we are on the road to correcting the abuses, and I am greatly encouraged by the fact that Pope Benedict was one of the brains behind Vatican II but is grieved by the abuse. But I don’t think returning to what someone has called the “mummified” pre-VII Church is the answer.
PS – I am not necessarily endorsing the idea in the article that Pope Paul VI and/or Cardinal Bugnini committed a wrong when they promulgated the NO. I don’t know enough to have an opinion on that.
Anthony,
The article addresses why Vatican II was needed and what problems needed to be addressed. These were real problems that needed to be settled and in fact still need to be taught and followed.
Where does “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” come from? The Catechism of the Council of Trent? The Summa?
I ask because it seems just plain silly to set up a trite saying from secular pop-wisdom against a Council of the Church.
P.S. Great post, Robin!
I’m taking an Eccesiology class with Dr. Regis Martin at Franciscan University and he talks about VII as the only council called to reflect on what it means to “be Church”, what the church IS. A little self-study. He also talks about reading all of the documents asscociated with the Council TOGETHER, imagine that, so as to get the correct interpretation of them.
This is of course not to say that the Mass was illicit or invalid in any way only that some of the changes made were not prudent.
And this is why the Holy Father has talked (perhaps before his election) about a reform of the reform.
The horse is out of the barn. We can talk all we want about how badly folks were catcheized and how the Church is in crisis. Talking about the crisis will not solve the crisis. Solid teaching will. And all of us, as salt and light, need to proclaim it to one another, just as we are charged to do in Lumen Gentium.
Vatican II was a disaster but not for the reasons that many people think. Most lay people probably never read the Vatican II documents for themselves. They obediently listened to the nuts who told them that Vatican II said such and such….
The really weird stuff like the clown masses, the rock masses and the dancing girls has nothing to do with the what the Council said.
Eric G. illustrates my point in my earlier comment.
Eric G. makes me ashamed to be Catholic – or he would, if it were not for the shining counterexamples of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, both of whom got a good look close up of what anti-Semitism ultimately leads to.
It’s a wonder to me how some Catholics can stand to worship a Jewish Messiah and honor His Jewish mother.
I am 20 years old and I am glad to be living an era where VII has taken place despite all the chaos that implementing the council has brought (I am currently forced to attend mass at a parish where liturgical silliness abounds).
VII has an optimisim that didn’t sugarcoat the problems per say but emphasized the splendor of truth of the Catholic faith. It sought to overcome false steorotypes and actively evangelize the world. The enemies of the Church always uses great eras of change to attack the Bride, and a postconcillar period is no different. Yet the Spirit will always prevail.
Liturgy that is comprehensible to the people (whether in latin or the vernacular) and a universal call to holiness that was always there hiding under the post reformation church has now bloomed. People like Fr. Richard O’Brien despite the ruckus they cause with their well intentioned but erronous ways will be forgotten in the past. Good men like John XXII, Paul VI, the Great John Paul and now Benedict XVI are the true legacy of the council and so are the numerous lay members who fight for truth both known and unknown. Despite my relatively young age, I will probably be in my grave for a long time before the confusion is over, but through the grace of God, we will work with Spirit so that future generations will have the same deposit of faith handed down to us from the apostles only phrased in an optimistic manner in modern language yet harkens back to the evangelization of early AD’s.
I’m a thirty-something who grew up after the Council. Catechesis for our generation was truly ABYSMAL and liturgies frequently offered silly fluff instead of piety and beauty. That being said, however, there were also some flaws in people’s formation prior to the Council.
The whole notion of the “universal call to holiness,” at the very heart of the teachings of the Council, was and IS a foreign notion to many Catholics. Catholics of my parents’ generation (as Lamont noted) viewed the pursuit of sanctity, living the virtues to a heroic degree (rather than merely avoiding mortal sin) to be a purely optional add-on to the Christian life. Anybody who was really serious about a deep sacramental and prayer life was presumed to have a religious vocation, and contrariwise, “life in the world” was largely seen as incompatible with such pursuits.
That, in and of itself, was enough to warrant the Council. Unfortunately, this message of the universal call to holiness has since been distorted into “everybody needs to be a minister,” which is really just another forms of the attitude I cited above. So I’d say we still have a lot to do to truly implement the teachings of the Council.
/soapbox off/
Someone once said to me (or I read), “The first thirty or so years after after a council are always the most difficult!”
And, (not trying to be clever) it was God’s will that “allowed” the council and He will use whatever eventuates and bring something ultimately better from it. How? I don’t know. I also have a hard-time “accepting” abortion and that our Father in Heaven will bring something truly wonderful from this terrible evil. But He will.
In a 1990/6 issue of the German edition of Communio, there was an article of Peter Henrici, nephew of H U von Balthasar, on the origins of VII (Das Heranreifen des Konzils: Erlebte Vorkonzilstheologie; republished in the American edition as: The Council’s Development to Maturity.” 17, no. 4 (1990): 504-22), and he mentions that there have been thoughts of another council already at Pius’ XII time. Whether John XXIII was inspired to call it or not: there were historical roots for his call and gratia obviously presupponit natura in this case as well. I don’t have the article before as I write, but some of you might want to look it up.
Is being anti-Judaism different from being anti-Protestantism or anti-Islam or anti-heresy, and is is the same as anti-semitism, or being anti-Jew/prod/mussulman/papist?
John Lamont and I ate a number of college lunches together in Oxford. Good lad.
I’ve had this argument with others, ranging from the uninformed to the very informed… My understandings are thus:
Ecumenical Councils, of which the Church has had many, may make decisions and Decrees which are only binding on Catholics if they are approved by the Pope and not contrary to Sacred Scripture. There have been many Councils whose Decrees, in whole or in part, have NOT been approved by the Holy See, and no Catholic is required to obey them accordingly.
Vatican II meets the requirements for a validly-held Council. As far as I am aware, all of its Decrees were promulgated by Pope Paul VI, rendering them valid. It is unfortunate, however, that he then did not enforce what was actually decided but rather enforced what he (perhaps influenced by others) was most keen on; a change in the Roman Rite to make the Church more attractive to Protestants. Sadly, not only was this most imprudent, it was also a failure in that few if any Protestants joined up as a result of the changes, and (worse) many Catholics left because of them (there were lots of other reasons too, but these will suffice for what is currently in discussion). Whether the Council should have been called in the first place is known only to God.
The Pauline Rites, when said according to the rubrics set down for it by a validly ordained Celebrant who intends to do what the Church understands here, meet all the criteria for validity. It is a valid Rite in itself. It is, however – in style, intention, composition and instructions – vastly INFERIOR to any other Rite approved by the Church, and lends itself to compromises and actions that can render it all too easily invalid.
It is my hope that Pope Benedict will at the very least, make the Traditional Rite equally and indisputably valid (as it has always been)and universally available (as far as possible); by appropriate legislation, by (his) word, and by publicly offering it himself…
Robin,
I’m 42, I don’t remember the days before VII, but I lived through the after math. I willing enjoyed and sung the folk mass and it was nice to hear the mass in English. Mass was still available with all the trimmings (except latin of course) if you wanted them. The first 10-15 years weren’t bad, moderate reasoned change with renewed energy.
The last 15 years have been insane. Multiple changes of liturgy, “inclusive” language. Nuns running around wanting to be priests, being more feminists than clergy. The trashing of anything old to include interiors of grand churches, sacred music to the order and style of the mass. Treating the eucharist in a sacred manner has almost gone out of “style.” Crucifixes removed and replaced with risen Christ statues (Since when do we worship an idol?) Tabernacles removed from the center of the altar to the side or even out of the church completely. Music keyed too high for the congregation to sing…well, at least anyone who was an alto or lower. Sermons that are more often than not fluff with out any real moral teaching content. Or better yet, just another vehicle for leftist politics. Since, after all, we seem to be all called to be socilists, not christians.
The “circus” needs to be reined in. The council could not have intended this chaos and preoccupation with how we have to fit in to the times. This makes the church less than the shining light to guide mankind out of the darkness of sin. VII was a good idea…it has for the most part been badly executed. Pope Benedict is right…it is time to reform the reform.
Maybe I’m misinformed, but there was a reason why it was called Vatican II (instead of Council of Such-and-Such). I had read that it was a continuation of Vatican I which got interrupted by the Franco-Prussian War, then followed by two world wars. Why I mention this is because, for me, understanding that it was more of a continuation of a council begun in the 1800’s helped to slough off this notion that it was simply a council to bring the Church up to speed with societal trends developing in the mid 1900’s. This was the predominent belief in which I was raised, which in turn left me with the vague uneasy feeling of a Church trying to be more trendy than truthful. Going back and reading Vatican II documents and precursers, I can see this continuum much more clearly than what was taught in the 70’s.
Frankly, I thought the most interesting section of the article cited (not excerpted in this thread-head) had to do with Nominalism–a pernicious and significant error which remains in place to this very day.
See my blogsite: http://dad29.blogspot.com/2005/09/nominalism-vs-catholicism.html for further.
I met a woman who worked at Vatican II. Interesting woman. She said what she felt Vatican II was doing was putting love first in the Catholic Church. That God was Love and we were all hung up on way too much with in the Church, and that if we all just loved we wouldn’t need anything else. (Ooooookeeee) Vatican II was about teaching love in the world, and the removal of things that didn’t promote love within the Church.
I think that says it all right there. She wanted to see doors opened up and old one’s closed. This new path should bring us up to the speed with the world.~ What it did was open up everything to interpitation of everything said at Vatican II. Dissident Theologians had a field day with this, and still do. Yes there were good things from V-II but there was far more damage done by those who took some of the new verbage and ran with it.
I grew up in a traditional environment, attending the traditional Mass and even attending a parochial, traditional boys’ school. I never once felt repressed by the Church. Occasionally, I felt repressed by the teachers, but that’s not the same thing. 🙂 I grew up with a love and appreciation for the Faith, which blossomed when I was old enough to start seeing the problems with the modern world.
Once, when I was about 8, I stepped into the street in front of a car. My dad reached out and pulled my, roughly and painfully, from the road just in time to avoid being hit. That’s what the Church does. Sometimes it hurts, but it’s good for you! The Church tells you to do or not do things out of concern for your soul, not out of mean pedantics. I always felt this, and never resented it. Maybe it is just because my parents gave me a proper understanding of it.
And I was always taught that confession helped you get closer to got and receive the graces needed to help you sin less.
As for being anti-Jewish, there is a difference between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. Anti-semetism means you hate the race. Anti-Judaism means you think the religion is wrong. I think that only the Catholic Church is the True Faith. I don’t hate Jews, and never have. I think that element of the old Church has been hugely exaggerated.
By the way, I used the “If it ain’t broke…” line because it is a familiar line that can get my point across. The Church did not need the violent changes of Vatican II. Attacking my argument for for using a “trite” line is the fallacious.
In my very humble opinion, Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church so it was HE who called for Vatican II. A test for obedience? If disobedience lost the keys to heaven, then it is obedience that regains the lost keys. First with Jesus Christ’s obedience to His Father to die for our sins, then it would follow that each member of the Church is to be obedient. So to the Traditionalists who disobey the Church with their blind clinging to the Pre-Vatican II “Church” down to the disobedient clergy and laity who promote their own interpretation of Vatican II which has led to so many liturgical abuses, improperly formed seminarians, etc – you can trace all our problems to disobedience to the WILL OF GOD as given to us through the Magisterium of the Church.
Comment deleted.
John:
You might check out Jesus’ warning about blasphemy against the Spirit. (Hint: It hurts the blasphemer, not the Spirit.)
Eric:
Even if someone doesn’t produce such quotes – so what? That doesn’t mean that what VatII teaches is unorthodox or otherwise untrue.
Comment deleted.
“Can anyone deny that the current crisis in the Faith came about as a direct result of Vatican II’s upheaval?”
Yes. Over here.
“Why did people think we needed Vatican II?”
Because Catholicism was in serious trouble, and had been for decades.
“Whatever happened to ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?'”
See above. It was nearly broke.
Funny thing, though in regard to the universal call to holiness thing…
in my Baltimore Catechism (the “gray ” one from CBP) the section on the corporal and spiritual works of mercy actually came BEFORE the section on the 10 commandments and it did clearly state that all of us are to practice them as part of our Christian life… plus there were writings of saints such as St Francis de Sales that were addressed to laymen. Seems to me to be a problem of emphasis more than anything…
I’m 20, too. (I don’t suppose that has much relevance, but it’s cool seeing that someone here is my age.) And I’m also glad VII happened. I’m not stuck in a horrid parish, thank goodness — though we aren’t liturgically correct, the purpose of our Lit. team is to try to find out what we’re supposed to be doing and see if we can implement it. Another thing, I’m in Quebec, and I’m mentioning it because that does happen to be significant.
I’d think that saying that the trad movement is or isn’t this and that doesn’t necessarily mean anything in reference to the pre-VII time. From what I�ve heard and read, the pre-VII, post reformation Church was more focussed on defining itself in contrast with the errors of Protestantism, to something of an exaggerated extent. It�s kind of like the criticisms of Canada, that it can only define itself in relationship to the U.S., as NOT being the U.S. It seems that to some extent the Church wasn�t defining itself in terms of herself and her mission, and her Lord, but in terms of NOT being the errors of Protestantism. And since the errors of Protestantism is the negation of Catholic truths, that seems a pretty poor way for the Church to have defined herself.
I�ve also read it described as a husk, with all the show and appearance of being fine, but no life underneath. And, of course, a common theme is that it was not �run� by love of God and the call to holiness, but fear of hell � one must obey one�s priest in everything, etc, etc, or else one would go to hell. At any rate, this seems to have been true in Quebec and Ireland. I�m finding that there seems to be quite a number of similarities in the pre-VII church in those 2 places.
To go back to something I already mentioned, I don�t think the trad movement now is an accurate reflection of the pre-VII church, because, for one thing, the members of the movement embrace it � those who become trads today are likely to have a faith that�s more than just the actions, and a faith that is informed and that choses that movement as a way to live their faith more deeply, etc. � and, for another, having the traditions in no way (necessarily) brings about the same� culture� that existed in at least some places before VII, where holiness and in some sense the Church was divorced from the laity. It seems to me that there wasn�t a very clear idea of the vocation, the mission of the laity. So, in a sense, when they heard they had a mission, I don�t suppose it�s surprising that they tried to act as priests.
Oh, and another thing I wanted to say: I don’t feel that this culture it seems to me was there pre-VII existed because of a doctrinal lack in whatever areas. A lot of the pre-VII religious text books are very good (I assume there are some that weren’t, but it happens that they haven’t come down to me). But somehow that didn’t change it very much, it was still… a thou shalt not culture. From what I’ve read, heard, etc.
Ok, now before you judge my orthodoxy or whatnot, ask me about whatever aspects you�re worried about, please.
Comments are closed.