FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
The Second Vatican Council - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Sacred Scripture & Church Documents (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: The Second Vatican Council (/showthread.php?tid=84904)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Ginnyfree2 - 07-18-2019

(07-16-2019, 11:48 AM)Zedta Wrote: As one of the few hereabouts, that actually lived through the change and was in a Catholic High School when the changes went into effect (moving the Altar around, changing the liturgy, Nuns out of Habit, etc.), I find myself a staunchly anti-Vatican II, Roman Catholc. Some may call me a "sedevacantist", but I am not on board completely with the papal seat being vacant since Pius XII, although I can certainly see these folk's point.

If labels must be used and that seems rather common around here with a number of members, then I suppose the label of "Traditionalist" may be best suited to me.

This may become a very interesting thread!!

Bravo!!

Thank you for joining in early Zedta.  Your input will be greatly appreciated.  In my book, a Rad Trad generally doesn't believe that God hears prayers in the vernacular in a liturgical setting.  They also have a hard time excepting the validity of the Sacraments administered in the new rites.  So, that enough of defining stuff for now.  I'm very glad your here.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Ginnyfree2 - 07-18-2019

(07-16-2019, 06:34 PM)MaryTN Wrote: They downgraded St. Patricks Day.  It used to be a nice, fun, but Holy Day.  Now it is nothing more than a beer drinking contest.

Mary, I don't want this thread to be about specific complaints.  I want your issues with the documents of V2 to be brought here.  If you haven't got any and you accept them, that's fine too.  Let me know either way, yea or nay but please let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Ginnyfree2 - 07-18-2019

(07-16-2019, 08:13 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote:
Quote:Your post is a little flat.  First, there is no patron saint for diplomats though few come close, peacemakers, foreign missions, etc. 


In some sectors, the above is known as a joke. 

Quote:Secondly, the Pope is judged by no one but God, so perhaps you shouldn't.  Prudence.  It doesn't help except to make it harder for you to find some sort of reconciliation with your issues.  

I have no hard feelings against the pope. I never knew the man, and never knew his Pontificate. I converted under Pope Francis. This is pretty much all I have known. 

The Pope is genuinely the least of my worries. 


Quote:Pick your most difficult passage from any of the Documents of V2, and tell me why it is not okay.  Then we can talk.  


I will read the documents of Vatican II just as soon as I finish reading the 20 prior Councils. Don't hold your breath.

Alphonse, sorry I didn't get your joke quick enough.  I'll laugh tomorrow, I promise.  I was received into the Church under St. John Paul II.  I loved him bunches.  I got the Grand Slam at the Easter Vigil, that is Baptised, Confirmed and First Holy Communion in one night.  Made my first Confession 2 weeks later.  I was walking on air for weeks, even though my entire life flew to pieces.  The Scripture found in Matthew 10:35 pretty much sums it up.  Took my mom tens years to talk to me.  Rightie-O.  
Sad that you've declined becoming familiar with the latest Council of the Church.  You should try reading them and work your way backward.  There is controversy about which was first, Jerusalem, recorded in the Scriptures or the one at Nicaea.  Here's a nice link you may enjoy.  It's short and sweet: http://www.vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/en/san_paolo/concilio.htm
God bless.  Ginnyfree.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Ginnyfree2 - 07-18-2019

(07-16-2019, 10:01 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(07-16-2019, 11:37 AM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: I would love to have a nice peaceful dialog with you guys n gals regarding where you feel the Second Vatican Council has been wrong. 

Truly, it is not a topic of "feeling.".....There are many many more.  The document on religious freedom is almost an every-other-sentence insanity situation.

Alrightie then!  Some meat and potatoes with baloney on the side.  

You are very correct in mentioning feelings as they aren't facts, but it is a way to describe a reaction in the negative to something one misses the meaning of.  I'll point you to both documents and if you read the paragraphs regarding infallibility, you'll find that charism doesn't belong rightfully to the laity, though we can be very right about much and some are.  What you feel about something isn't a fact.  In that regard, you are demanding that your interpretation be accepted as a fact.

First issue:  The "falsity" of the first paragraph you posted from LG is in itself, false.  Perhaps you can underline the portion you have a difficulty with.  Then I may see what you mean.  Both paragraphs are fully true.  I think where your difficulty may lay in the development of doctrines as the years go by.  Although the Root remains Christ, the flowering of Vine in its branches appears at various times and in various ways.  As you've been told by another here, the Revaltion of Jesus Christ to His Church has been completed and all are limited to it.  Any who try to add or subtract from it are frauds.  Also misinterpreting it is another category of failure.  If done with intent, another Martin Luther is born.  

Your next issue is a non-issue.  There is no falsity in either paragraph.  One is brief, the other longer.  That's about it.  Perhaps you can point out what you see is false in the first quote you posted.  The lack of in depth instruction in the first quote may be what you consider a problem.  I'm not sure.  Let me know.

Your statements regarding Trent dealing with the specifics of Confession was done for a reason that Trent being successful at resolving the issues of that day are part of the history of the Church.  V2 addressed different issues.  Is that too simple for you?  

That's it for you for now.  I apologize for taking longer than you expected.  Time is short for me.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-18-2019

Quote:
(07-17-2019, 04:21 PM)Augustinian Wrote: You're not wrong in the sense that we cannot force people to accept Catholicism. But to not make even the effort to actively evangelize anymore goes right against Our Lord's command: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (MT 28:19)

Yes, but DH does not say we shouldn't evangelize, actually the contrary. It merely says people can't (and shouldn't) be compelled by the state to be Catholic. Which is precisely St. Augustine's argument in the work mentioned above.


I don't want this point to get lost.

It's important that DH does not say we should not evangelize. It says we should.

Quote:The SSPX say it better than I can, and Dignitatus Humanae is the leading obstacle of their acceptance of Vatican II:

"Even interpreted strictly, this limitation of religious liberty to the “objective moral order” is inadequate because restricted to the natural order of things, thereby omitting consideration of the supernatural order. Such a conception of religious liberty fails to recognize the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, the supernatural rights of His Church, and the supernatural end of man in the common good of the political order. It fails to consider that the false religions, by the mere fact that they keep souls from the Catholic Church, lead souls to hell. In a word, it is naturalism...

The saints have never hesitated to break idols, destroy their temples, or legislate against pagan or heretical practices. The Church—without ever forcing anyone to believe or be baptized—has always recognized its right and duty to protect the faith of her children and to impede, whenever possible, the public exercise and propagation of false cults. To accept the teaching of Vatican II is to grant that, for two millennia, the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings have constantly violated the natural rights of men without anyone in the Church noticing. Such a thesis is as absurd as it is impious."

https://sspx.org/en/religious-liberty-contradicts-tradition

With all due respect, the SSPX's position does not make necessary distinctions in approaching this question. For example, it says that the end of government is the same as that of the Church; but this is not exactly true, nor is it the position of St. Augustine. St. Augustine is very clear that the government's role is purely natural.

For St. Thomas the ends of Church and government can be said to be the same in a way, but not absolutely. For although man's end is to get to heaven, this is not the proximate end of government. Influenced by St. Augustine, St. Thomas says that the proximate end of government is to promote natural happiness, whereas the proximate end of the Church is to promote supernatural happiness. As regards the government, eternal beatitude is a remote end, not a proximate one.

St. Thomas, along with St. Augustine, claims that the government should not repress vice if that repression leads the people to greater evils.

Now in a Christian society such as that the West had for centuries, the repression of non-Christian cults would not lead to greater evils. In St. Augustine's and in our own society, though, it seems that it would. Can you imagine any Western European nation, for example, attempting to outlaw Judaism or trying to mandate Mass attendance? There would be civil war.

I need to repeat that the reasoning in DH does not seem to be in line with the tradition, and I have no problem questioning the argument based on human rights. The SSPX's criticism on that point seems merited, though not to the point of disobedience. However, the conclusions reached in DH are entirely feasible given a Thomistic or Augustinian philosophy, and any argument here must needs be one of prudence and not one of doctrine.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Ginnyfree2 - 07-18-2019

(07-16-2019, 11:07 PM)Filiolus Wrote: yablabo,

At first when I saw someone had actually engaged Ginny I just rolled my eyes and was half-tempted to post a "Don't feed the [fill-in-the-blank]" meme. But you gave us such a bad-faith reading of Lumen Gentium that I find it necessary to correct your analysis - Latin and all.....But prudence means where the wording can be read in an orthodox way, it is only a matter of charity and piety to do so. Don't insert heresy where there is none. And the cases you gave us, particularly the second, can clearly be read in light of the tradition.....The First Vatican Council never limited the infallible charism of the Roman Pontiff solely to the body of the divine revelation sealed at the death of the Apostle St. John.  However, the Second Vatican Council explicitly limits the solemn judgments thus.....Now the selected passage may raise questions, but, ironically, not the one you did. A further limitation, even if you read it as such, is not the same thing as a contradiction. Therefore even if you think LG limited the popes infallibility to declarations regarding the deposit of revelation and that VI did not, this does not present problems.....However, I think VI can be understood to mean exactly what LG says in this regard. There is no new revelation; the whole of the Christian mystery was revealed in apostolic times. The pope can declare no new necessary truths that were not in some way revealed then. This is not controversial.


Now, this is the part of your post that really made me wince. For the peanut gallery, here's the Latin:

[quote]Qui vero ad sacramentum poenitentiae accedunt, veniam offensionis Deo illatae ab Eius misericordia obtinent et simul reconciliantur eum Ecclesia, quam peccando vulneraverunt, et quae eorum conversioni caritate, exemplo, precibus adlaborat.

The translation for which is completely accurate above.

The literal sense of the words is indeed "whoever approaches the sacrament of penance". Nota bene, the confessional itself is not mentioned in the Latin or in the English translation. LG is not saying nor could it be understood to say that a person is forgiven automatically just for approaching the confessional. The confessional is literally not mentioned once; not in the English, not in the Latin.

To take the LG sentence to mean that absolution is unnecessary is unbelievably nasty.

First of all, it does not take into account the... er, um... poetic tone that many VII documents have. The word "approach" is clearly not meant to mean "walks up to"; it means one who confesses his sins and receives absolution. One cannot in good conscience read that sentence to mean that one who literally walks up to the sacrament (btw, how would one do that?) automatically has his sins forgiven. To read it in such a way is just bad-faith reading.

Second, the sacramentum is explicitly mentioned. Now, let me ask you a question - if a priest denies absolution to a penitent, does the penitent receive a sacrament? The answer is no. If there was no sacrament, neither did they approach it; they couldn't have, because there wasn't one. Therefore LG's words cannot be understood to mean that that person too is forgiven of his sins. This is a horribly semantic argument, but unfortunately it seems necessary.

Now the reading you provided is horribly misguided. The Latin did not mean what you claimed it did and rather than reading the documents in the light of tradition (not difficult to do with your particular objections), you chose overstate your case; your reading basically makes LG an overtly Protestant document [insert joke here]. This is uncharitable and impious. And if you honestly believed the document said what it did, please understand that you are misleading people with such interpretations. This is dangerous for people's souls, and that is no joke." Filiolus



Ginnyfree2 - Bravo!  Very well said.  So, what do you have an issue with?  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
PS I forgot to ask, how do you fill in that blank regarding me? I'm not easily hurt so go for it. I'm used to eating lots of baloney, so perhaps that's what you meant?


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-18-2019

Quote:Bravo!  Very well said.  So, what do you have an issue with?  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

PS I forgot to ask, how do you fill in that blank regarding me?  I'm not easily hurt so go for it.  I'm used to eating lots of baloney, so perhaps that's what you meant?

I will not be arguing against the VII documents here. I think it's essential to obedience, piety, and charity that one interpret them in as orthodox a manner as possible. When ambiguity of language allows for multiple interpretations, it is only a matter of charity to interpret the words well.

I meant "troll". I was thinking of your harsh words for Fr. Treco from the other thread. However, I don't believe you are really a troll; you're not here just to make people mad. So I was being very uncharitable, and I'm sorry. Please forgive me.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Alphonse il Segundo - 07-18-2019

(07-18-2019, 09:52 AM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: Thank you for joining in early Zedta.  Your input will be greatly appreciated.  In my book, a Rad Trad generally doesn't believe that God hears prayers in the vernacular in a liturgical setting.  They also have a hard time excepting the validity of the Sacraments administered in the new rites.  So, that enough of defining stuff for now.  I'm very glad your here.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

I would disagree with this definition of a "rad trad". I would agree that there are people out there who would grant these two positions, but the majority of Catholics wouldn't, including the traditional orders of the Catholic Church.

In regards to language used during the liturgy, most if not all Eastern Churches use the vernacular language. English is not uncommon, nor is Arabic, Polish, Russian, Greek, etc. Usually the language chosen is the language of the majority ethnic group, though occasionally this mixes. I've attended a few Divine Liturgies and they've always been conducted in English with commonly recurring parts, like Lord, have mercy, being in the "ancestral" language. If there were a "rad trad" who thought that the Liturgy was inaudible to God's ear simply because it is in the vernacular, well then he is just wrong.

As an aside, I found it surprising that Archbishop Lefebvre actually thought it would be a good idea to introduce the Epistle and Gospel readings in the vernacular. I could understand this point, since the readings are done for the benefit of the people hearing the mass.

And I accept the validity of the New Rites, and I think most on this forum and most traditional Catholics would as well. Again there may be some would object, but I think they are decidedly in the majority.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Alphonse il Segundo - 07-18-2019

(07-18-2019, 11:07 AM)Filiolus Wrote: I will not be arguing against the VII documents here. I think it's essential to obedience, piety, and charity that one interpret them in as orthodox a manner as possible. When ambiguity of language allows for multiple interpretations, it is only a matter of charity to interpret the words well.

I would agree with you on the first point. It is always necessary to interpret Councils in the orthodox way. 

The only problem is that this is exactly what didn't happen, and it wasn't chiefly traditional Catholic who did the misinterpreting. A lot of liberals used the council as a one line justification for whatever innovation they felt like serving up that morning. Communion in the hand, dinner tables in place of altars, guitars at the mass, altar girls, stupid vestments and clown masses are nowhere to be found in the Council.

In fact, the documents tend to support traditional Catholic's points. 

The problems comes in with the ambiguity of language. I would assume that you and I would interpret any ambiguous passage with the right intention, but we know that many people do not have the right intention. Experience has demonstrated that that ambiguity was the undoing of the Council. When you have so much room for interpretation it is almost a guarantee that there will be a malicious soul who is going to use that to corrupt and to subvert the Truth. And that is what happened. To my knowledge the Council didn't teach universalism, it didn't teach that all religions are essentially the same, it didn't command that the Liturgy be utterly destroyed and replace and it didn't command that we upend Catholic sexual morality. But it was used to do justify just that.

I would say that 95% of the traditional Catholics moved towards tradition because of abuses and misapplications of the Council apart from anything that the Council actually said.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-18-2019

(07-18-2019, 02:11 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote:
(07-18-2019, 11:07 AM)Filiolus Wrote: I will not be arguing against the VII documents here. I think it's essential to obedience, piety, and charity that one interpret them in as orthodox a manner as possible. When ambiguity of language allows for multiple interpretations, it is only a matter of charity to interpret the words well.

I would agree with you on the first point. It is always necessary to interpret Councils in the orthodox way. 

The only problem is that this is exactly what didn't happen, and it wasn't chiefly traditional Catholic who did the misinterpreting. A lot of liberals used the council as a one line justification for whatever innovation they felt like serving up that morning. Communion in the hand, dinner tables in place of altars, guitars at the mass, altar girls, stupid vestments and clown masses are nowhere to be found in the Council.

In fact, the documents tend to support traditional Catholic's points. 

The problems comes in with the ambiguity of language. I would assume that you and I would interpret any ambiguous passage with the right intention, but we know that many people do not have the right intention. Experience has demonstrated that that ambiguity was the undoing of the Council. When you have so much room for interpretation it is almost a guarantee that there will be a malicious soul who is going to use that to corrupt and to subvert the Truth. And that is what happened. To my knowledge the Council didn't teach universalism, it didn't teach that all religions are essentially the same, it didn't command that the Liturgy be utterly destroyed and replace and it didn't command that we upend Catholic sexual morality. But it was used to do justify just that.

I would say that 95% of the traditional Catholics moved towards tradition because of abuses and misapplications of the Council apart from anything that the Council actually said.

I agree with this 100%. And the ambiguity in the documents was intentional per Schillebeeckx; so the liberal interpretations were planned and inevitable from the get-go. I'm not going to sit here and claim the documents were great and there were no problems in them. Of course there were. But it is our duty as Catholics not to overstate our case; and in frustration and anger that's exactly what some trads do.

Again, where ambiguity can be used to our advantage we should do it. And for those passages that can be read in light of tradition, I'll fight tooth-and-nail for them to be read that way by liberals and trads alike.