The mutability of Vatican II

[Christus Imperat]

I have recently been working through the documents of Vatican II, and one of the conclusions that I have drawn is that, in terms of the Church's legislation, many of the problems of the Council can very easily be fixed.  Vatican II is full of very vague admonitions and suggestions, as well as legislation which can be amended by the Supreme Pontiff at will.

The examples are myriad, but let's look at Perfectae Caritatis, the decree on adaptation of the religious life.  This document is filled with exhortations to "remain faithful to the sources of religious life" or adhere to the spirit of the founders of orders, while on the other hand continuously calling for changes which conform to the spirit or conditions of the times.

Let's examine the paragraph on the religious habit:

17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed.

What this means in practice is hard to tell.  There is no clearly defined legislation here, only the admonition that if a particular habit does not conform to a set of ill-defined norms, then in some manner it is to be changed.

My point is that the Supreme Pontiff could promulgate a motu proprio tomorrow with new legislation on the religious habit, and PC 17 is immediately consigned to irrelevance, if indeed it has any relevance now.

The doctrinal issues in a document like Dignitatis Humanae are much more difficult and complicated,  but I think that the lion's share of declarations from the Second Vatican Council fall into the category detailed above.

[newyorkcatholic]

I have recently been working through the documents of Vatican II, and one of the conclusions that I have drawn is that, in terms of the Church's legislation, many of the problems of the Council can very easily be fixed.  Vatican II is full of very vague admonitions and suggestions, as well as legislation which can be amended by the Supreme Pontiff at will.

The examples are myriad, but let's look at Perfectae Caritatis, the decree on adaptation of the religious life.  This document is filled with exhortations to "remain faithful to the sources of religious life" or adhere to the spirit of the founders of orders, while on the other hand continuously calling for changes which conform to the spirit or conditions of the times.

Let's examine the paragraph on the religious habit:

17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed.

What this means in practice is hard to tell.  There is no clearly defined legislation here, only the admonition that if a particular habit does not conform to a set of ill-defined norms, then in some manner it is to be changed.

My point is that the Supreme Pontiff could promulgate a motu proprio tomorrow with new legislation on the religious habit, and PC 17 is immediately consigned to irrelevance, if indeed it has any relevance now.

The doctrinal issues in a document like Dignitatis Humanae are much more difficult and complicated,  but I think that the lion's share of declarations from the Second Vatican Council fall into the category detailed above.

Agree.  I think discussions of the validity of Vatican II are largely irrelevant (or only relevant for understanding our recent history).  From the point of view of how, today, we should behave liturgically, how we should develop catechisms, how we should do everything, we should just say, "Oh Vatican II, that thing from the 60s?  Well a lot of time has passed now, let's look at documents that are either more enduring and clear (e.g. Trent) or documents written more specifically for our time when that's what we need (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Dominus Iesus, Redemptionis Sacramentum, Summorum Pontificum, etc)."

[Walty]

I have recently been working through the documents of Vatican II, and one of the conclusions that I have drawn is that, in terms of the Church's legislation, many of the problems of the Council can very easily be fixed.  Vatican II is full of very vague admonitions and suggestions, as well as legislation which can be amended by the Supreme Pontiff at will.

The examples are myriad, but let's look at Perfectae Caritatis, the decree on adaptation of the religious life.  This document is filled with exhortations to "remain faithful to the sources of religious life" or adhere to the spirit of the founders of orders, while on the other hand continuously calling for changes which conform to the spirit or conditions of the times.

Let's examine the paragraph on the religious habit:

17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed.

What this means in practice is hard to tell.  There is no clearly defined legislation here, only the admonition that if a particular habit does not conform to a set of ill-defined norms, then in some manner it is to be changed.

My point is that the Supreme Pontiff could promulgate a motu proprio tomorrow with new legislation on the religious habit, and PC 17 is immediately consigned to irrelevance, if indeed it has any relevance now.

The doctrinal issues in a document like Dignitatis Humanae are much more difficult and complicated,  but I think that the lion's share of declarations from the Second Vatican Council fall into the category detailed above.

Agree.  I think discussions of the validity of Vatican II are largely irrelevant (or only relevant for understanding our recent history).  From the point of view of how, today, we should behave liturgically, how we should develop catechisms, how we should do everything, we should just say, "Oh Vatican II, that thing from the 60s?  Well a lot of time has passed now, let's look at documents that are either more enduring and clear (e.g. Trent) or documents written more specifically for our time when that's what we need (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Dominus Iesus, Redemptionis Sacramentum, Summorum Pontificum, etc)."

Precisely.  The thing about VII is that, even by its own admission, it is aimed at the presentation of dogma more than dogma itself, at least in word alone.  We all know that the documents were written in such a way that heresy would be read into them, and that their ambiguity would allow for heresy to proliferate, however, there isn't some huge crisis as far as what to do with the Council if a traditionalist pope were to reign.  He'd simply need to abbrogate it, perhaps naming it among the "robber synods", or to release a motu proprio calling the Church to neglect novelty and to entrench itself in tradition, Trent, and Aquinas.  VII could be ignored and stripped of its practical authority even without making any moves to formally condemn it.

[Christus Imperat]

I have recently been working through the documents of Vatican II, and one of the conclusions that I have drawn is that, in terms of the Church's legislation, many of the problems of the Council can very easily be fixed.  Vatican II is full of very vague admonitions and suggestions, as well as legislation which can be amended by the Supreme Pontiff at will.

The examples are myriad, but let's look at Perfectae Caritatis, the decree on adaptation of the religious life.  This document is filled with exhortations to "remain faithful to the sources of religious life" or adhere to the spirit of the founders of orders, while on the other hand continuously calling for changes which conform to the spirit or conditions of the times.

Let's examine the paragraph on the religious habit:

17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed.

What this means in practice is hard to tell.  There is no clearly defined legislation here, only the admonition that if a particular habit does not conform to a set of ill-defined norms, then in some manner it is to be changed.

My point is that the Supreme Pontiff could promulgate a motu proprio tomorrow with new legislation on the religious habit, and PC 17 is immediately consigned to irrelevance, if indeed it has any relevance now.

The doctrinal issues in a document like Dignitatis Humanae are much more difficult and complicated,  but I think that the lion's share of declarations from the Second Vatican Council fall into the category detailed above.

Agree.  I think discussions of the validity of Vatican II are largely irrelevant (or only relevant for understanding our recent history).  From the point of view of how, today, we should behave liturgically, how we should develop catechisms, how we should do everything, we should just say, "Oh Vatican II, that thing from the 60s?  Well a lot of time has passed now, let's look at documents that are either more enduring and clear (e.g. Trent) or documents written more specifically for our time when that's what we need (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Dominus Iesus, Redemptionis Sacramentum, Summorum Pontificum, etc)."

Precisely.  The thing about VII is that, even by its own admission, it is aimed at the presentation of dogma more than dogma itself, at least in word alone.  We all know that the documents were written in such a way that heresy would be read into them, and that their ambiguity would allow for heresy to proliferate, however, there isn't some huge crisis as far as what to do with the Council if a traditionalist pope were to reign.  He'd simply need to abbrogate it, perhaps naming it among the "robber synods", or to release a motu proprio calling the Church to neglect novelty and to entrench itself in tradition, Trent, and Aquinas.  VII could be ignored and stripped of its practical authority even without making any moves to formally condemn it.

This is where the Spirit of Vatican II comes in.  Perfectae Caritatis, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Christus Dominus, etc. are brimming with vague exhortations which can be read in any way.  They do give carte blanche to the revolutionaries.  Thus you had general chapters where liberals in each order could and did say, "PC called for us to adapt everything to the needs of the times, so this is what we must do..."

There are real doctrinal issues which will eventually have to be ironed out, but looking at it this way, the problems are not so insuperable.

[Walty]

I have recently been working through the documents of Vatican II, and one of the conclusions that I have drawn is that, in terms of the Church's legislation, many of the problems of the Council can very easily be fixed.  Vatican II is full of very vague admonitions and suggestions, as well as legislation which can be amended by the Supreme Pontiff at will.

The examples are myriad, but let's look at Perfectae Caritatis, the decree on adaptation of the religious life.  This document is filled with exhortations to "remain faithful to the sources of religious life" or adhere to the spirit of the founders of orders, while on the other hand continuously calling for changes which conform to the spirit or conditions of the times.

Let's examine the paragraph on the religious habit:

17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed.

What this means in practice is hard to tell.  There is no clearly defined legislation here, only the admonition that if a particular habit does not conform to a set of ill-defined norms, then in some manner it is to be changed.

My point is that the Supreme Pontiff could promulgate a motu proprio tomorrow with new legislation on the religious habit, and PC 17 is immediately consigned to irrelevance, if indeed it has any relevance now.

The doctrinal issues in a document like Dignitatis Humanae are much more difficult and complicated,  but I think that the lion's share of declarations from the Second Vatican Council fall into the category detailed above.

Agree.  I think discussions of the validity of Vatican II are largely irrelevant (or only relevant for understanding our recent history).  From the point of view of how, today, we should behave liturgically, how we should develop catechisms, how we should do everything, we should just say, "Oh Vatican II, that thing from the 60s?  Well a lot of time has passed now, let's look at documents that are either more enduring and clear (e.g. Trent) or documents written more specifically for our time when that's what we need (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Dominus Iesus, Redemptionis Sacramentum, Summorum Pontificum, etc)."

Precisely.  The thing about VII is that, even by its own admission, it is aimed at the presentation of dogma more than dogma itself, at least in word alone.  We all know that the documents were written in such a way that heresy would be read into them, and that their ambiguity would allow for heresy to proliferate, however, there isn't some huge crisis as far as what to do with the Council if a traditionalist pope were to reign.  He'd simply need to abbrogate it, perhaps naming it among the "robber synods", or to release a motu proprio calling the Church to neglect novelty and to entrench itself in tradition, Trent, and Aquinas.  VII could be ignored and stripped of its practical authority even without making any moves to formally condemn it.

This is where the Spirit of Vatican II comes in.  Perfectae Caritatis, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Christus Dominus, etc. are brimming with vague exhortations which can be read in any way.  They do give carte blanche to the revolutionaries.  Thus you had general chapters where liberals in each order could and did say, "PC called for us to adapt everything to the needs of the times, so this is what we must do..."

There are real doctrinal issues which will eventually have to be ironed out, but looking at it this way, the problems are not so insuperable.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is not the Council itself but the infiltration of the Church with the thought and men which all of the pre-Conciliar popes warned of.  The Council documents, whether outright heretical or just ambiguous to intentionally allow for heresy, are a symptom of this problem, not the cause.  So what the pope does with them doesn't matter so much as it matters that he neuters their ability to be used by the Modernists and the administers of novelty to justify themselves.  Practically speaking, when the Church returns to tradition, it doesn't matter if it is done by abrogation/condemnation of the Council, or by simply ignoring it.  Either action will make the Council irrelevant.

[wulfrano]

I have recently been working through the documents of Vatican II, and one of the conclusions that I have drawn is that, in terms of the Church's legislation, many of the problems of the Council can very easily be fixed.  Vatican II is full of very vague admonitions and suggestions, as well as legislation which can be amended by the Supreme Pontiff at will.

The examples are myriad, but let's look at Perfectae Caritatis, the decree on adaptation of the religious life.  This document is filled with exhortations to "remain faithful to the sources of religious life" or adhere to the spirit of the founders of orders, while on the other hand continuously calling for changes which conform to the spirit or conditions of the times.

Let's examine the paragraph on the religious habit:

17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed.

What this means in practice is hard to tell.  There is no clearly defined legislation here, only the admonition that if a particular habit does not conform to a set of ill-defined norms, then in some manner it is to be changed.

My point is that the Supreme Pontiff could promulgate a motu proprio tomorrow with new legislation on the religious habit, and PC 17 is immediately consigned to irrelevance, if indeed it has any relevance now.

The doctrinal issues in a document like Dignitatis Humanae are much more difficult and complicated,  but I think that the lion's share of declarations from the Second Vatican Council fall into the category detailed above.

Agree.  I think discussions of the validity of Vatican II are largely irrelevant (or only relevant for understanding our recent history).  From the point of view of how, today, we should behave liturgically, how we should develop catechisms, how we should do everything, we should just say, "Oh Vatican II, that thing from the 60s?  Well a lot of time has passed now, let's look at documents that are either more enduring and clear (e.g. Trent) or documents written more specifically for our time when that's what we need (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Dominus Iesus, Redemptionis Sacramentum, Summorum Pontificum, etc)."

Precisely.  The thing about VII is that, even by its own admission, it is aimed at the presentation of dogma more than dogma itself, at least in word alone.  We all know that the documents were written in such a way that heresy would be read into them, and that their ambiguity would allow for heresy to proliferate, however, there isn't some huge crisis as far as what to do with the Council if a traditionalist pope were to reign.  He'd simply need to abbrogate it, perhaps naming it among the "robber synods", or to release a motu proprio calling the Church to neglect novelty and to entrench itself in tradition, Trent, and Aquinas.  VII could be ignored and stripped of its practical authority even without making any moves to formally condemn it.

This is where the Spirit of Vatican II comes in.  Perfectae Caritatis, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Christus Dominus, etc. are brimming with vague exhortations which can be read in any way.  They do give carte blanche to the revolutionaries.  Thus you had general chapters where liberals in each order could and did say, "PC called for us to adapt everything to the needs of the times, so this is what we must do..."

There are real doctrinal issues which will eventually have to be ironed out, but looking at it this way, the problems are not so insuperable.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is not the Council itself but the infiltration of the Church with the thought and men which all of the pre-Conciliar popes warned of.  The Council documents, whether outright heretical or just ambiguous to intentionally allow for heresy, are a symptom of this problem, not the cause.  So what the pope does with them doesn't matter so much as it matters that he neuters their ability to be used by the Modernists and the administers of novelty to justify themselves.  Practically speaking, when the Church returns to tradition, it doesn't matter if it is done by abrogation/condemnation of the Council, or by simply ignoring it.  Either action will make the Council irrelevant.

Let's convene Vatican Council III and therein call for the abrogation and annullment of Vatican Council II.  And start all over again, this time in a truly catholic way.

[Christus Imperat]

I think the problem with the Vatican III idea is that it entails bringing all of the world's bishops together.  The results of such a convocation are not likely to be better (if not worse) than the results of Vatican II. 

A safer and more sure path for the future seems to present itself in the form of the Pope taking action on his own initiative.  Much of what needs to be done can be done by the Pope alone.

Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae are part of this process.  Of course, we do need the Bishops.  However, when the Pope leads, I believe most Bishops (especially in the third world) will begin to follow.

[wulfrano]

I think the problem with the Vatican III idea is that it entails bringing all of the world's bishops together.  The results of such a convocation are not likely to be better (if not worse) than the results of Vatican II. 

A safer and more sure path for the future seems to present itself in the form of the Pope taking action on his own initiative.  Much of what needs to be done can be done by the Pope alone.

Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae are part of this process.  Of course, we do need the Bishops.  However, when the Pope leads, I believe most Bishops (especially in the third world) will begin to follow.

What you suggest is sowing endless patches on a torn fabric.  What a catholic Pope has to do is motu propio declare Vatican II null and void and go back to the parameters in place in the month of September 1958.