Theology of the Council
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 857
    I have found myself frustrated a little because discussions of the "effects of Vatican II" from a Traditionalist perspective are in fact all about Pope St. Paul VI and his reforms, not the Council.

    Does anyone know a good critique of the Council, its documents and debates? I am not interested in criticisms of the Mass of Paul VI because that is really not from the Council.

    Many thanks.

    Kenneth
    Thanked by 4ServiamScores CHGiffen M. Jackson Osborn Skladach
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    The standard, contemporary, account is Fr. Ralph Wiltgren's The Rhine Flows into the Tiber
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn amindthatsuits Skladach
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 857
    Thanks, and I shall probably look at it, but that is a history of how the documents came about.

    What I am looking for is a critique from a Traditionalist perspective of the actual documents. Say, why Sacrosanctum Concilium or Lumen Gentium is wrong or novel. The reason for this is that I hear a lot of complaints about Vatican II, but then what the person is talking about is Pope St. Paul VI and his reforms. Perhaps there is a (very un-Italian) reticence to place the onus on the person of the Pope, but nearly everything I see criticized are actually his reforms. I just saw that there was an exchange of letters between Ottaviani and Lefebvre that will have some of what I am looking for.

    Kenneth
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Kenneth,

    Fr. Wiltgren is many things, but "traditionist" isn't usually applied to him. If he finds problems in the method, it's because they're unavoidably obvious.
    Thanked by 1amindthatsuits
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    I haven't read Iota Unum (excerpts here) yet; does it contain the sort of critique Kenneth is looking for?
    Thanked by 2tomjaw amindthatsuits
  • Felicia
    Posts: 111
    Kenneth,

    Here are a few books that might help. The last one by Schreck is not so "traditionalist"; I think it tried to look at both sides (it's been a long time since I've read it.)

    Hildebrand, Dietrich von. Trojan horse in the City of God. Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 1993.

    McInerny, Ralph. What went wrong with Vatican II : the Catholic crisis explained. Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 1998.

    Kelly, George A. The battle for the American church revisited. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995.

    Hitchcock, James. The recovery of the sacred. San Francisco,: Ignatius Press, 1995. (e-book edition, 2014)

    Schreck, Alan. Vatican II: the crisis and the promise. Cincinnati: Servant Books, 2005.

    Thanked by 5CHGiffen tomjaw Andrew_Malton francis amindthatsuits
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    I read Iota Unum when it was first published, an excellent source.

    At the moment reading The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber. Very enlightening.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw amindthatsuits
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Von Hildebrand's book I had forgotten, but you're absolutely right that it's an important source of analysis.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw francis amindthatsuits
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,048
    Christopher Ferrara did a lawyerly fisking of Sacrosanctum Concilium, showing the loopholes and ambiguities contained therein.
    Thanked by 5tomjaw francis sdtalley3 Chris Garton-Zavesky amindthatsuits
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    Christopher Ferrara's piece is a fine example of how to repel me from reading it. I gave up after the first three paragraphs of empty vituperation.
    Thanked by 1amindthatsuits
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,945
    Mr Ferrara's piece is, in effect, only a problem for traditionalists asserting the reform of the Missal and other ritual and prayer books exceeded the Council.
    Thanked by 1amindthatsuits
  • Skladach
    Posts: 19
    Fr. Wiltgen's book is a classic eyewitness report, but it is incomplete and dated. Historian Roberto de Mattei offers a balanced perspective on the Council and its documents in: *The Second Vatican Council: an unwritten story" (Loreto Publications, 2012). For theological critiques of the conciliar documents, the SSPX has the oldest and the best-honed arguments, though you have to make allowances for some exaggerated rhetoric and animus. Angelus Press publishes "Religious Liberty Questioned" and "Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council". https://angeluspress.org/collections/catholic-tradition/SSPX-Modern-Crisis

    Thanked by 2amindthatsuits MarkB
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    What do you mean by "dated", in this regard?
    Thanked by 1amindthatsuits
  • Skladach
    Posts: 19
    Fr. Wiltgen's account is dated because it was heavily dependent on news releases from the Council but, if memory serves me, had no access to the successive drafts of the conciliar documents. Nor could it draw on the many memoirs about the Council that have been published since, mainly by influential periti.
    Thanked by 2Paul F. Ford amindthatsuits
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 857
    Thanks to one and all. I was both on vacation and preparing for the school year. The works that are strictly theological are the ones that I am looking for. "Lumen Gentium says this, and here are the theological problems with that." I enjoy historical works, who wrote what and who they were. But the teaching authority belongs to the words themselves, and how Popes and bishops have interpreted them, so that is what I am interested in. And in particular, only the Council documents. I will look at all these suggestions.

    Many thanks to everyone.

    Kenneth
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 857
    Because I was checking some news that I couldn't find anywhere, I looked at Rorate Caeli, which i normally avoid because I get tired of making "allowances for some exaggerated rhetoric and animus". However, I do like the more strictly theological stuff they publish, and, lo and behold, they are serializing a work exactly along the lines I was looking for. It will not be the only one but it appears quite thorough, from the author's perspective.

    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/02/don-pietro-leone-council-and-eclipse-of.html
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 857
    a_f_hawkins, I have to say I agree with you, AND it right off the bat makes a common assertion that I find very trying, that the Church has never had it so rough. (The Great Schism? the Borgia Pope? John XII?) But to assert that Vatican II makes "the Arian heresy look like a Catholic revival by comparison" is some special breed of presentism. People should read the opening of Piers Plowman to understand what daily interactions with the Church were actually like, and I have yet to see any argument that Vatian II actually tried to alter teaching about the very nature of God Himself.

    So, yes, that article puts me off right away.

    Kenneth
Add a Comment