FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Vatican II in error
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
I think I have read some of your posts in other threads regarding issues with Vatican II, but I would love to discuss it here in one place. 

Do the trads here believe it is in error?  Or that they are merely misinterpreted?  If the former, how do you explain it? What exactly do you see as in error?

Originally I thought it was the latter (misinterpreted, unclear, ambiguous, etc) but with each passing day I am leaning towards the former.  It troubles me.  It certainly creates a conundrum.

And I just have to add that I LOVE that we can actually discuss this in this forum as opposed to other forums....

(08-05-2013, 06:11 PM)2Vermont Wrote: [ -> ]I think I have read some of your posts in other threads regarding issues with Vatican II, but I would love to discuss it here in one place. 

Do the trads here believe it is in error?  Or that they are merely misinterpreted?  If the former, how do you explain it? What exactly do you see as in error?

Originally I thought it was the latter (misinterpreted, unclear, ambiguous, etc) but with each passing day I am leaning towards the former.  It troubles me.  It certainly creates a conundrum.

And I just have to add that I LOVE that we can actually discuss this in this forum as opposed to other forums....

I think it is simply misinterpreted, and over-interpretedm by which I mean that Vatican II is not the only Church Council, yet it is constantly treated as such. I also think we need to be careful in determining what the "fruits of the Council" are, and judging the council by that. The council is only fifty years past. Half a century is, in Church History, a relatively small time, especially considering the relative size of the council--by far the largest collection of documents yet.
I think it is poorly conceived, poorly written, poorly misinterpreted, overrated (in a positive sense by some, in a negative sense by others, but still overrated in importance). But not in error. It would take a real genius just to figure out what, if anything, it asserts. Crappy and misinterpreted, but not in error. Sure to be relegated someday to a shelf in the Vatican that houses oddities  from the second half of the twentieth century. Probably next to a Beatles album.
I think many "sleepers" were ready to add wording which would after the council be used to ruin the Church. These were not he only "sleepers" back home in their dioceses were many many more. I believe Bella Dodd's testimony which said by 1950 she had placed over a thousand "sleepers" in the Seminaries starting in the 1930's. That would mean many Bishops and their advisors were commies and poised with the masons and modernists to accomplish Gramisci's plan to infiltrate the Church and change it to shell of it's former self.  These were the plotters and schemers, and the rest followed because it appeared to be the new direction and honestly it was new and cool. It is stupefying how a cadre of these similar schemers and malcontents did take control and lead so many by their nose.

There is a salient point contrary to trad belief. Had the Council stuck to the business it would have been successful, and it was well over due.Many a Bishop and priest and sisters needed to remove their size 13 ee from the necks of the pew sitters, but alas that wasn't what happened.

tim
in my opinion vatican ii is very controversial.
I think it was written in such a way that it left "loopholes" so to speak, for modernists to push forth their agendas, starting with the seminaries, which they basically controlled at the start of Vatican II, so when the council had ended, rather than let the seminarians read the documents themselves they were just told what was "allowed" and "changed", add to this the reformed liturgy of 1969, with it's lax rubrics and myriad of options this led to the collapse of Roman praxis in the Latin Church. With it came a weakened catechises among many laity and clergy(Not that the modernist culture wouldn't start chiping away at the faithful eventually, but the Council's aftermath certainly sped it up). Of course the modernist then try to spin this growing mess into the whole " New springtime of the Church" thing, which many people bought into.
By misinterpreted, can we substitute hijacked? Vatican ll was arguably without a sound motive.  Pope John defined the council as necessary for opening the church windows— redefining the church to meet the demands of the modern world, in its doctrinal and moral teaching.  How do you modernize truth? Whereas past popes condemned modernism in unequivocal terms, good Pope John propped the door open with Peter's chair.

The misguided modernist and communist influence (noted by Tim) had been laying the seeds for liturgical,  ecumenical, and lay movement reform in the church in the preceding couple of decades; that this conference was hijacked one would only need to give a sound and complete summary of the results of the pre council questionnaire given to every bishop!  I don't think that the bishops wanted a return to the pre Trent church, but how many bishops do you think expected the redefinition of the mass?
(08-05-2013, 07:56 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]There is a salient point contrary to trad belief. Had the Council stuck to the business it would have been successful, and it was well over due.Many a Bishop and priest and sisters needed to remove their size 13 ee from the necks of the pew sitters, but alas that wasn't what happened.

tim

I actually agree with that.  I happen to believe that discussing how to present the Faith in the modern world could have been handled at the level of a synod, and did not remotely require a council.  However, as you noted (accurately in my opinion), had they stuck to the preparatory documents which had been put together over the course of years, things might have turned out pretty well. 
The Second Vatican Council is a scapegoat.  Liberals use it to justify their erroneous acts and beliefs, while trads use it as the reason why there are problems in the Church and society.  The reality is that, as Benedict stated, there was the "council" created by the media - which liberals/modernists/whatever used to push their agenda.  The same "council of the media" is what trads grasp onto.

There's nothing wrong with Vatican II itself.  Several excellent documents are found.  Any perception that this ecumenical council contains error is within the perception of those looking form the outside.  Benedict, Francis and the CDF all state there is no error, which is good enough for me,and should be good enough for everyone.

I'm no theologian, but it has always, always, always felt a little off to me.
Yes, some things I do judge by how I feel about them, and this is one of those things.
Within the document itself, nothing seems to be in direct contrast to what preceded it. However, in the resulting practice, it leaves me with an empty spot. The spiritual equivalent of feeling that I've forgotten something, but can't remember what it is. 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6