Blaming Vatican II
#21
(07-01-2009, 07:29 AM)glgas Wrote: We all need humility and search what God wanted, not reject the decision of all the bishops based on what we like.

Those of us who reject some teachings of Vatican II (such as that which you quoted) do so not "based on what we like", but on account of the prior papal condemnations of those very doctrines.
Reply
#22
(07-01-2009, 08:06 AM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote:
(07-01-2009, 07:29 AM)glgas Wrote: We all need humility and search what God wanted, not reject the decision of all the bishops based on what we like.

Those of us who reject some teachings of Vatican II (such as that which you quoted) do so not "based on what we like", but on account of the prior papal condemnations of those very doctrines.

I am new here and I know that issues against Vatican II have probably been raised since the inception of this forum, but I find it interesting to hear people who reject some of the teachings.  In so many blogs and websites like Most Holy Family Monastery, there is a vehement rejection of Vatican II on all accounts.  While I don't agree with those people, I can understand how they can strike such a position once they start rejecting parts of the conciliar Church.  Rejecting some teachings however, gives me pause for reflection.

How do we have a valid Church council which teaches anything which might be righteously rejected by the faithful?  Either the council is invalid or the teaching is sound.  I really have a hard time finding a middle ground there.  I don't generally take up extreme dichotomies out of preference, but in this case we are talking about the possible rejection of rightful authority.  If a council of all of the Church's bishops is capable of rendering abject error which is worthy of rejection, then how can they possibly be representative of the true Church whose ecumenical councils are incapable of error?

Personally, I don't reject Vatican II, though I do reject much of its implementation, especially here in the U.S.  Neel made a nice point when he spoke about the fact that most councils took a very long time to implement.  You'd think that with modern communication, this would go a bit faster, but with today's mass media feeding us bad information and especially anti-Catholic information, I am not surprised that it might even take longer for this Council than previous ones to be properly understood.  I don't reject or blame Vatican II, in fact I feel strongly that I cannot.  However, I do reject the light in which our culture has interpreted it from the start.  A call to modern man was heard by modern man as a modern message, how surprising is that?
Reply
#23
(07-01-2009, 09:12 AM)Caritas Wrote:
(07-01-2009, 08:06 AM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote:
(07-01-2009, 07:29 AM)glgas Wrote: We all need humility and search what God wanted, not reject the decision of all the bishops based on what we like.

Those of us who reject some teachings of Vatican II (such as that which you quoted) do so not "based on what we like", but on account of the prior papal condemnations of those very doctrines.

I am new here and I know that issues against Vatican II have probably been raised since the inception of this forum, but I find it interesting to hear people who reject some of the teachings.  In so many blogs and websites like Most Holy Family Monastery, there is a vehement rejection of Vatican II on all accounts.  While I don't agree with those people, I can understand how they can strike such a position once they start rejecting parts of the conciliar Church.  Rejecting some teachings however, gives me pause for reflection.

How do we have a valid Church council which teaches anything which might be righteously rejected by the faithful?  Either the council is invalid or the teaching is sound.  I really have a hard time finding a middle ground there.  I don't generally take up extreme dichotomies out of preference, but in this case we are talking about the possible rejection of rightful authority.  If a council of all of the Church's bishops is capable of rendering abject error which is worthy of rejection, then how can they possibly be representative of the true Church whose ecumenical councils are incapable of error?

Very good post! Yes, that is how I see it also and is what I consider a logical opinion. But many here will disagree as I'm sure you'll soon find out...
Reply
#24
(06-30-2009, 08:07 PM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: Additionally, if the texts of Vatican II had actually been followed instead of the "spirit" thereof, the Church would still have suffered decline, but certainly not the utter calamity that She witnessed.

I am inclined to think that the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" did not so much arise from the Council as give to its proceedings and texts their form and matter; it was already imbibing minds in the 1950s (see, eg, Cardinal Cushing). The Council opened a can of worms simply by gathering in one place the world's bishops, a great number whereof were infected with an optimistic Modernism which, out in the open, appealed to Catholics yearning for change, thereby setting the scene for the subsequent developments of the revolution.

Vatican II is therefore not to be blamed so much for its texts as for its giving occasion to the effervescence of Modernism; many of its texts certainly are ghastly, but they alone could not account for what has happened over the past forty years or so.

I agree. Cusing and the Boston Heresy case proved how bad things actually were in 40s America before the Council.
Reply
#25
Quote:- the majority of the faithful will be served by the dioceses which also hopefully will allow married priest to provide succession like for the Eastern Catholics, they will be more liberalized and shrank.

Surprised I'm the first one to catch that.

I guess you feel this way because in the Novus Ordo the priests are dying off and families are contracepting themselves to death.  Seminaries are empty.  Don't lose heart.  The new Springtime of Vatican II is just around the corner.  Once the authentic Vat. II is implemented then we will see the real fruits!  Just wait and see!

Nah, I ain't drinking the Kool Aid.  I'll stay over here in Tradtion with our large families and bursting seminaries, and single priests who aren't distracted by family concerns.
Reply
#26
(07-01-2009, 12:29 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Very good post! Yes, that is how I see it also and is what I consider a logical opinion. But many here will disagree as I'm sure you'll soon find out...

Excellent!  I hope you're right about that.  I would really like to understand that counter argument.  Perhaps there are threads where that subject has been debated which I could read?  I have to admit, already I like the tone and intellectual approach which so many members here use in debates; it's quite edifying.
Reply
#27
(07-01-2009, 01:02 PM)Caritas Wrote:
(07-01-2009, 12:29 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Very good post! Yes, that is how I see it also and is what I consider a logical opinion. But many here will disagree as I'm sure you'll soon find out...

Excellent!  I hope you're right about that.  I would really like to understand that counter argument.  Perhaps there are threads where that subject has been debated which I could read?  I have to admit, already I like the tone and intellectual approach which so many members here use in debates; it's quite edifying.

Yes, find your way to the Extraordinary Form (Diocesan) "vs." SSPX Discussion forum and you will find countless threads on this subject. I haven't been quite able to understand the approach, but there are many posters who frequent that forum that would be more than willing to explain it, I'm sure.
Reply
#28
(07-01-2009, 09:12 AM)Caritas Wrote: How do we have a valid Church council which teaches anything which might be righteously rejected by the faithful?  Either the council is invalid or the teaching is sound.  I really have a hard time finding a middle ground there.  I don't generally take up extreme dichotomies out of preference, but in this case we are talking about the possible rejection of rightful authority.  If a council of all of the Church's bishops is capable of rendering abject error which is worthy of rejection, then how can they possibly be representative of the true Church whose ecumenical councils are incapable of error?

Pope Paul VI stated, in his General Audience of the 12th of January, 1966: "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

Further, in his General Audience of the 6th of August, 1975, he said that "differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic but doctrinal and pastoral". See the Seattle Catholic article "'Differing from other Councils...'".

As a summary introduction to the problematic teachings of Vatican II, I would suggest that you read the article "Controversial Comparisons".
Reply
#29
Caritas Wrote:I am new here and I know that issues against Vatican II have probably been raised since the inception of this forum, but I find it interesting to hear people who reject some of the teachings.  
Welcome.  I hope you have come with an open mind about Vatican II.  You might learn something.

Quote:How do we have a valid Church council which teaches anything which might be righteously rejected by the faithful?  Either the council is invalid or the teaching is sound.  I really have a hard time finding a middle ground there.  I don't generally take up extreme dichotomies out of preference, but in this case we are talking about the possible rejection of rightful authority.  If a council of all of the Church's bishops is capable of rendering abject error which is worthy of rejection, then how can they possibly be representative of the true Church whose ecumenical councils are incapable of error?
I usually have to post this info once a month.   I hope you don't make me do it again.  Will you take my word that the Council ITSELF, in what could arguably be the only infallible time of the Council, solemnly declared it was PASTORAL only (we have no idea what a Pastoral council is, only that it is not dogmatic), and that it was NON-BINDING on the Church?  Second, will you take my word that Pope Paul VI declared that the Council was NOT infallible (therefore it was fallible, capable of error).  This was also a first.  So we have a non-dogmatic, pastoral, fallible, non-binding council.  Go back and re-read your post and see if that answers things.  You were presupposing a dogmatic, infallible, binding council.

Quote:Personally, I don't reject Vatican II, though I do reject much of its implementation, especially here in the U.S.  Neel made a nice point when he spoke about the fact that most councils took a very long time to implement.  You'd think that with modern communication, this would go a bit faster, but with today's mass media feeding us bad information and especially anti-Catholic information, I am not surprised that it might even take longer for this Council than previous ones to be properly understood.
Which one is it, understood or implemented?  What will it mean "to implement Vatican II"?  Be specific.  There is one example, and that is the Novus Ordo Mass which was an implementation of Vatican II.

Quote: I don't reject or blame Vatican II, in fact I feel strongly that I cannot.  However, I do reject the light in which our culture has interpreted it from the start.  A call to modern man was heard by modern man as a modern message, how surprising is that?
Vatican II was filled with ambiguities ON PURPOSE.  
Reply
#30
Let's talk specifics.  We have two examples of Vat. II being ambiguous.  First, we have "the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ", and we have the declaration that the Bible is without error in those areas necessary for salvation.  Pope Benedict has already "interpreted the Council in light of Tradition" by stating that the Council meant that the Catholic Church IS the Church established by Christ.  We can also easily foresee a Pope reaffirming Trent that ALL of the Bible is needed for salvation, so it is without error.

Question 1:  Why did Vat. II issue these ambiguities?  There are two possible reasons.  Either the Council was called to issue tautologies (The Church of Christ is the Church of Christ, the inerrant Word of God is the inerrant Word of God), or evil actors who had invaded the Church wanted to leave the Church open for future heresies:  Moses didn't really part the Red Sea.  That story isn't needed for your salvation, so don't worry about it.  Jesus didn't really BODILY rise from the dead.  etc.... or Moslems are actually part of the Church in some way.  Jews are part of the Church in some way, and are saved.  Fr. Feeney saw that one coming awhile back.

Question 2:  No matter what, would you use the Council documents to instruct your children on Biblical inerrancy or EENS?  Heck no.

In my house, Vatican II is already on the index of forbidden books.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)