The Other Side Of Traditionalism

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=307"]http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/...cles.cfm?id=307[/url]

[goldenchild17]

Edited March 9, 2009 by goldenchild17

[LouisvilleFan]

Sounds like a lot of stuff that I've said in several threads from a much more educated perspective, specifically about why the Church seemed to implode from the inside immediately following Vatican II. I guess some people disagree with her thoughts, and I can only figure they insist on blaming an objective cause (Vatican II) that coincided with these changes (mostly due to its convenient timing) rather than the gradual influence of modernism and post-modernism on numerous Catholics.

[CatherineM]

It is hard to know when a whole bunch of things happen at the same time which had the greatest influence.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1802235' date='Mar 10 2009, 12:42 AM']It is hard to know when a whole bunch of things happen at the same time which had the greatest influence.[/quote]

When a lot of things happen at the same time, that means past events and movements were the greatest influence. Did the Great Schism occur out of the thin, blue air? Part of the reason Rome fell was due to cultural differences and between East and West. Big shocker that those same differences split Christianity six centuries later. Both of these events resulted from immediately precipitating events, but the fact is they were going to happen sooner or later. If it wasn't Vatican II that opened the door to the vocalization of heresy within the Church, it would've been something else.

Edited March 10, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[Aloysius]

In my opinion, the ambiguity of the documents can be partially blamed. there is often a lot of room for leeway, and various things in the documents can easily be taken in a bad way. Cardinal Ratzinger said of Gaudieum et Spes that sometimes it fell into "downright pelagian terminology" because it was so man-centered rather than God-centered. I don't think it impossible to blame the ambiguities of the documents for how easily the Church was able to implode... obviously the factors had been festering for a long time, but ambiguous documents of a Church Council gave them an easy thing to latch onto and spread to people who might otherwise have been resistant to their message... who might've sympathized with liberalness in the Church but not been emboldened to do anything about it because the Church structure was so harsh against such thought... they now could easily jump aboard the bandwagon and claim it was a Council of the Church, the highest authority possible in the Church, which had given them their impetus. the documents of the Second Vatican Council are very susceptible to that type of interpretation; at the time of Vatican I there were dissenters and modernists and because of the solid and unquestionable message of the documents that could not be easily distorted at all, they had to schism into the Old Catholic Church to get their ideas across. Had Vatican I said the same stuff in more ambiguous terms, it is quite likely that the modernists already present in the Church at that time could've steered the Church off the deepend towards the way the Old Catholic Church is now. same with Trent, it could not be exploited the way Vatican II was.

and +Lefebvre claims, though I never saw these documents, that he retained the original schemata that were written for the Council to debate upon but which were, even contrary to the rules laid out (because there was not enough of a vote to throw them out) but by a unilateral move of the Pope after being requested to do so, thrown out very early on. It was a liberal hijack, and the only thing that saved the documents from going off the deep-end of heresy that some of the council fathers were pushing for, was that they had to be worded in such a way that it appeased BOTH the liberal factions at the council and the traditional factions at the council (which is why +Lefebvre signed the documents that he would later rebel against)... the reason they can be ambiguously interpreted one way or another is that they were drafted so that both sides thought they were going their way... and after the council one side had more grassroots support because the Church had already been flooded with people who supported the change, so with grassroots support and a message that feasibly sounded as if it was mandated by the Council, they imploded the Church from within as it was being torn apart from without.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1802287' date='Mar 10 2009, 01:33 AM']When a lot of things happen at the same time, that means past events and movements were the greatest influence. Did the Great Schism occur out of the thin, blue air? Part of the reason Rome fell was due to cultural differences and between East and West. Big shocker that those same differences split Christianity six centuries later. Both of these events resulted from immediately precipitating events, but the fact is they were going to happen sooner or later. If it wasn't Vatican II that opened the door to the vocalization of heresy within the Church, it would've been something else.[/quote]
except there were festering problems before Vatican I too, and the way Vatican I handled them, instead of allowing the problems to run about the Church in the name of the council, forced the destructive elements out of the Church.

were Vatican II handled the way Vatican I was, we'd have a smaller Church and there would likely exist a "Modern Liberal Catholic Church" which would initially have drained alot of numbers but likely would've shrunk into obscurity over the years as the Roman Church survived... the image of someone emerging from an explosion with huge wounds, scrapes, and tattered clothes comes to mind.

the way it was handled, the Church experienced a type of inflation; a whole bunch of people who were (and still are) in spirit in schism from the Church but who hold positions within it and for all outward appearances are representative of it fill the Church as it seems our numbers are greater than ever. But what did Our Lord say? By their fruits you shall know them. the image of a well-nutritioned person with leprosy comes to mind... living, sure, and still of good stature and everything, but rotting away. luckily, this is a type of leprosy that has a cure, and it's currently being cured by Pope Benedict XVI, but it's the difference between rotting away with a disease and just barely emerging from an explosion that comes to my mind in the way all this was handled.

btw, none of this is to say that the documents of Vatican II are wrong; they were good enough for the traditional bishops at Vatican II to sign off on, so they're good enough for me. yes, I know I could say they were good enough for the Holy Ghost so they're good enough for me, and I do say that, but in my opinion it was the traditional bishops at the council through whom the Holy Ghost was working to preserve the documents from doctrinal heresies.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1802297' date='Mar 10 2009, 01:45 AM']In my opinion, the ambiguity of the documents can be partially blamed.[/quote]

Blame as the precipitating cause, yes, but as you went on to explain, it was the liberal bishops supported by liberal Catholics working under them in dioceses, seminaries, and universities that enabled them to push for that ambiguity in the documents.

A good analogy from history is blaming the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand for causing World War I. While that event did push Europe over the edge, but it was the alliances built over preceding decades that steadily caused the tension to build to create a scenario in which an otherwise inconsequential event exploded into a global war. The election of Abraham Lincoln by itself did not cause the Civil War, nor did any one event bring about the Civil Rights movement. All these things are the sum of previous generations' experiences and societal trends that pushed us to a point where something finally had to break.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1802298' date='Mar 10 2009, 01:51 AM']except there were festering problems before Vatican I too, and the way Vatican I handled them, instead of allowing the problems to run about the Church in the name of the council, forced the destructive elements out of the Church.[/quote]

It's easy to say that looking back Remember that Vatican I happened in a very different time from Vatican II. Around the time of Vatican I, the U.S. was recovering from the Civil War; during Vatican II, we were fighting for blacks' civil rights. Women's rights were just coming into the public debate during Vatican I, and by Vatican II look at all that had changed for better and worse. The modernist movement had not even caught steam until well after Vatican I, and by the time Vatican II came around it had run its full course and faded into post-modernism. Look at how global communications and travel changed the way we relate with the world. That 2,000 bishops were physically capable of meeting in Rome was an unprecedented accomplishment brought about by airline travel. You get the idea... these two councils occured in entirely different worlds, which makes it impossible for anyone to know how things could have turned out differently if documents were worded more definitively, enforced more authoritatively, or whatever.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter because we believe the Holy Spirit brings good out of everything sooner or later. No matter what crisis we endure, good fruit will come from it, and maybe all this liberalism we're dealing with inside the Church is exactly what we need to eventually develop an orthodox theology that relates to the world outside the Church. Or maybe we are on the verge of a global depression that will bring people back to orthodoxy regardless. Who knows... that's the thrill of watching it all unfold during these short lives God gives us to fight the battle.

[Aloysius]

the modernist movement had plenty of steam before Vatican I. I speak of those who would be considered modernists under the Syllabus of Errors. those false ideas were very widespread and something similar to what happened after Vatican II very well could have happened after Vatican I, all the factors were prepared there but they were frustrated by the words of that Council and only found refuge in schisming as the Old Catholic Church.

[Socrates]

Good article.

The truth is most of the promoters of the "Spirit of VII" never read the documents, or at least never cite them, so I doubt the words really have much to do with anything.
You hear all sorts of ignorant garbage like "Vatican II made the Church a Democracy," "Vatican II banned Latin in the mass," blah, blah, blah.

It's all an excuse. And people have twisted the words of Sacred Scripture itself to justify every sort of malicious nonsense.
It had more to do with the profound cultural changes of the 60s (both in and outside the Church) than with the words of a document.

[Aloysius]

however, as much as the documents can be read in favor of tradition, they can as easily often be read in exactly the opposite way (and NOT because anyone can twist even scripture itself, the documents were designed fthat way: that was the only way the documents could pass the council, they had to appease both sides of a fight between the liberals and traditionals that occurred at the council)

the Council itself, applied as a 'superdogma', is damaging to the Church because the documents can go both ways and deal with subjects in a wishy-washy way. the Council marginalized as a small piece of the vast sum of Catholic doctrine throughout history, however, is ok and can be helpful.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1802921' date='Mar 10 2009, 06:49 PM']the modernist movement had plenty of steam before Vatican I. I speak of those who would be considered modernists under the Syllabus of Errors. those false ideas were very widespread and something similar to what happened after Vatican II very well could have happened after Vatican I, all the factors were prepared there but they were frustrated by the words of that Council and only found refuge in schisming as the Old Catholic Church.[/quote]

I'm not too educated on these movements myself, so I've been looking it up... I find [url="http://www.enotes.com/topics/modernism"]this reference[/url] saying 1900-1940 for Modernism, though the wikipedia article explains that the events leading up to Modernism started around the middle of the 19th century.

Regardless, my point stands that it's impossible to know how the stronger words of Vatican I would have worked with Vatican II. Western society during and following Vatican II was a complete about-face of the society surrounding Vatican I. The Gospel writers didn't use the same techniques and stories for their different audiences, so why should one council necessarily use the same techniques to enforce its teachings as another council? Different audiences require different approaches, even though Truth remains unchanged. Jesus himself used a soft approach with some and strong words with others. I don't see any problem with believing the Holy Spirit guides the Church even in those things that frustrate many orthodox Catholics. Why are we, as sinners, so surprised that God might not be totally on our wavelength?

Edited March 11, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1803154' date='Mar 10 2009, 11:05 PM']The truth is most of the promoters of the "Spirit of VII" never read the documents, or at least never cite them, so I doubt the words really have much to do with anything.[/quote]

Is that the truth? How do you know?

I see documents from Vatican II and since quoted all the time to justify this and that cause. It's almost hilarious sometimes... when I hear a papal quote, I usually become suspicious because orthodox Catholics rarely feel the need to justify their position with some soundbite.

[Aloysius]

I'm saying that Vatican II should had used the same techniques as the other 20. Don't be exactly the same, but don't come in making a Council unlike all the others (as was said about it in its convocation) in a time of immense change in society. don't be ambiguous, 'pastoral' and not 'dogmatic'... but what's done is done, but the documents remain easily exploitable mainly for the reason that two conflicting groups at the council were being appeased, both made to think that the documents were in their sides favor.

that doesn't mean the documents are wrong or not at all useful, but they must be used as a marginal portion weighed down by the vast amount of Catholic Teaching of the past, interpretted with a huge degree of caution; not as a landmark superdogma that in and of itself has the power to be an authority in the faith without heavy referencing to other sources to explain what it is supposed to mean.