A Whiny Teen and Vatican Council II

In a continuing conversation, the following was said:

Parents know all to well when their children try to talk them to death in order to get what they want. The children will keep the dialogue and conversation going until the parent is worn down and finally gives in. That might mean that a teenage girl will start dating boys at the age of 14 rather than the age of 21 the parents desire or a 6th grader will get not only an iPad but an iPhone and internet connections and you know the rest![...]On the left it is all about continuing the dialogue about who can minister, opening the ordained life to females and making the divine institution of the hierarchical Church into the marshmallow of democratized principles that puts every single teaching of the Church to a vote and the so called "sense of the faithful" meaning not fidelity to the Church but what they happen to believe at any given point in time. [...]But how about the ultra-conservatives like the SSPX'ers? They do the same and are quite dogmatic about their positions and that their way is the only way; they are the ones who are faithful and Vatican II corrupted the faith, even a literalist approach to Vatican II.
What they despise the most about Vatican II apart from the liturgical changes is "ecumenism" and more charitable approach to the Jews and other religions and even to non believers all of which Vatican II suggested, not in a dogmatic way but in a pastoral way.

Wow!!!  This is an interesting point of view.  I think that parts of it are right and I am confused by another part.

First, the part which I am confused about.  How can one see the SSPX as being a whiny teenager trying to get what they want?  What EXACTLY, has the SSPX taught which is inconsistent with the tradition of the Church?  How is asking (albeit repeatedly) that the Church clarify changes to doctrine and dogma satisfactorily, whining?  If the Church is infallible, then the truth cannot change and being a champion for that truth does not equate to being a whiny teen.

BTW, they have never, ever, ever claimed that they were the only purveyors of truth.  Not once.  That was done for them by the liberals.

That is the first part.

The second...it is said, "What they despise the most about Vatican II apart from the liturgical changes is "ecumenism" and more charitable approach to the Jews and other religions and even to non believers all of which Vatican II suggested, not in a dogmatic way but in a pastoral way."

I think that I have to take issue with that.  I think that "ecumenism" was re-defined and done so incorrectly during Vatican Council II.  I have spoken about this before, so I won't go into it here, but suffice to say, I will ask the following question;  Is it charitable or pastoral to misapply ecumenism to those which it doesn't apply?  The Jews are not a Church, so there is no way to be ecumenical with them.  We must evangelize them to convert to the only means of salvation, which is inside the Church.  So my question, asked another way is, How does one act in an ecumenical way with a non-Christian group who has no real exposure to Christ?

The issue with the SSPX is not only a pastoral one, I believe that they are being pastoral and compassionate and charitable, by continuing to promote the Catholic faith as defined through the ages.  Bishop Fellay has over and over and over again said that the issues with Vatican Council II are doctrinal insofar as they misapply the consistent tradition of the Church.  This is a pastoral issue.  The dogma and doctrine haven't changed, but the application has.  Interestingly enough, the Holy Father is now saying the same thing.  Hermeneutic of rupture.

So, it isn't like being a whiny teen trying to get his way with regard to the SSPX, but rather it is an elder child trying to impart the knowledge and truth which had always been taught and now has changed, to a greater or lesser degree.

I agree that Vatican Council II must be accepted, but it must be accepted for what it is, not what it isn't; or more precisely, what the liberals want it to be...a defining body of "superdogma."  Vatican Council II was a pastoral Council which was put forth to do two things, bring about changes to the liturgy and promote aggiornamento.  When we recognize that, then we can start talking about Vatican Council II in a very honest and open way.