Blaming Vatican II
#31
(07-01-2009, 01:13 PM)James02 Wrote:
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.  

Very good points, James. Thanks for sharing! I'm sure they will be taken into consideration.
Reply
#32
Thanks to you both, veritatem and James,

I appreciate your responses to my questions and hopefully you don't think that I intend any ill will by them.  I do not claim that Vatican II contains any proclamations of infallible dogma.  I understand completely that it was a pastoral council and was aware of Pope Paul VI's statements that this was so.  However I do think that there is a difference between a council which does not proclaim dogma and a council which errs. 

I wish I could word my question better, but here's the best I can do:

Do you both claim that Vatican II taught fallibly about dogmas already infallibly defined?

I can fully understand the view that the Council taught fallibly on a variety of new topics, but this question above is the one that stumps me.  An answer of "Yes" says that an ecumenical council is capable of errors even when its teachings have the authority of the pope and are about subjects which are already de fide

I am with you when you say that the documents of Vatican II are often vague and sometimes have the sound of teachings which are errors.  But, so far my investigations of these have shown that one can interpret them in ways which are not erroneous.  Should we have cause to believe that a valid ecumenical council which is headed by the pope can actually fail to understand the Sacred Magisterium well enough to avoid teaching it in error?  With that ghastly thought, I prefer to interpret V2 in the ways which are not erroneous and chalk the whole thing up to a message which failed to achieve its aim, but not one which is erroneous in its content.
Reply
#33
(07-01-2009, 02:19 PM)Caritas Wrote: I am with you when you say that the documents of Vatican II are often vague and sometimes have the sound of teachings which are errors.  But, so far my investigations of these have shown that one can interpret them in ways which are not erroneous.  Should we have cause to believe that a valid ecumenical council which is headed by the pope can actually fail to understand the Sacred Magisterium well enough to avoid teaching it in error?  With that ghastly thought, I prefer to interpret V2 in the ways which are not erroneous and chalk the whole thing up to a message which failed to achieve its aim, but not one which is erroneous in its content.

Then try this:

From the Infallible Magisterium:

Blessed Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors Wrote:(As I'm sure you know, the condemnations in the Syllabus are stated negatively, i.e, they must be read with 'It is a condemned opinion that' understood before each)

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852

From the Council:

Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II Wrote:The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.[2] This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
Reply
#34
(07-01-2009, 02:33 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Then try this:

From the Infallible Magisterium:

Blessed Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors Wrote:(As I'm sure you know, the condemnations in the Syllabus are stated negatively, i.e, they must be read with 'It is a condemned opinion that' understood before each)

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852

From the Council:

Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II Wrote:The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.[2] This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

Okay, how about:

Pope Pius IX was teaching that we do not have a God-given right as human beings to make a moral decision to worship however we like.  Thus, not all faiths are equivalent, the only true faith is that professed by the Catholic Church, and we all have a moral obligation to be a member of her to the extent that we know about her.

Pope Paul VI taught that human beings have a civil right to religious freedom.  That each person has a free will and that the State should not prevent people from exercising that will in their quest for the truth about God.
Reply
#35
(07-01-2009, 02:49 PM)Caritas Wrote:
(07-01-2009, 02:33 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Then try this:

From the Infallible Magisterium:

Blessed Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors Wrote:(As I'm sure you know, the condemnations in the Syllabus are stated negatively, i.e, they must be read with 'It is a condemned opinion that' understood before each)

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852

From the Council:

Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II Wrote:The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.[2] This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

Okay, how about:

Pope Pius IX was teaching that we do not have a God-given right as human beings to make a moral decision to worship however we like.  Thus, not all faiths are equivalent, the only true faith is that professed by the Catholic Church, and we all have a moral obligation to be a member of her to the extent that we know about her.

Pope Paul VI taught that human beings have a civil right to religious freedom.  That each person has a free will and that the State should not prevent people from exercising that will in their quest for the truth about God.

Good try, but the Magisterium was quite clear, as summed up by Blessed Pius, that there was not and could not be a civil right to religious freedom. False religions could be tolerated to avoid a greater evil, but even toleration was seen as the lesser evil.

Blessed Pius, Syllabus of Errors Wrote:77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
Reply
#36
(07-01-2009, 03:03 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Good try, but the Magisterium was quite clear, as summed up by Blessed Pius, that there was not and could not be a civil right to religious freedom. False religions could be tolerated to avoid a greater evil, but even toleration was seen as the lesser evil.

Blessed Pius, Syllabus of Errors Wrote:77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

(77) Ah for the good ole days when we actually had Catholic states.  Of course such states are better, but where are they now?  There's a difference between condemning the error that says they aren't better and demanding freedom of religious exercise in those which might  not even be Catholic to begin with.  Note of course that it mentions "religion of the State".  This doesn't explicitly deny that people might worship privately some other religion in her borders.

(78) And yet we know that it is also de fide that no man can be forced to convert to Catholicism.  Might we then draw a distinction between the "public exercise" in order to reconcile the statements?  How do we define public exercise of worship?

(79) Again this refers to public exercise and it gives the reason for disparaging the public exercise of false religions as corruption.

In none of these does Pope Pius IX deny that a person the right to worship in his own way in private.  Though I am sure such worship is morally wrong if it is not in accordance with the Catholic faith, I would be morally wrong to prevent him or pass laws against him from doing so.

Edit: I would like to temper that final comment with the understanding that such private worship doesn't present some sort of denial of a publicly professed Catholic faith, especially if such people are Catholic clergy.
Reply
#37
(07-01-2009, 03:03 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-01-2009, 02:49 PM)Caritas Wrote:
(07-01-2009, 02:33 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Then try this:

From the Infallible Magisterium:

Blessed Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors Wrote:(As I'm sure you know, the condemnations in the Syllabus are stated negatively, i.e, they must be read with 'It is a condemned opinion that' understood before each)

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852

From the Council:

Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II Wrote:The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.[2] This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

Okay, how about:

Pope Pius IX was teaching that we do not have a God-given right as human beings to make a moral decision to worship however we like.  Thus, not all faiths are equivalent, the only true faith is that professed by the Catholic Church, and we all have a moral obligation to be a member of her to the extent that we know about her.

Pope Paul VI taught that human beings have a civil right to religious freedom.  That each person has a free will and that the State should not prevent people from exercising that will in their quest for the truth about God.

Good try, but the Magisterium was quite clear, as summed up by Blessed Pius, that there was not and could not be a civil right to religious freedom. False religions could be tolerated to avoid a greater evil, but even toleration was seen as the lesser evil.

Blessed Pius, Syllabus of Errors Wrote:77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

Yes, Lamentabili sane and Newschoolman debated this for some time: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...79.30.html.

You might want to skim through the 20 pages or so, but there are several teachings cited in that discussion which are worthy of consideration.
Reply
#38
(07-01-2009, 03:27 PM)Caritas Wrote: (77) Ah for the good ole days when we actually had Catholic states.  Of course such states are better, but where are they now?  There's a difference between condemning the error that says they aren't better and demanding freedom of religious exercise in those which might  not even be Catholic to begin with.  Note of course that it mentions "religion of the State".  This doesn't explicitly deny that people might worship privately some other religion in her borders.

Destroyed by liberalism, modernism and Vatican II. The last one, Franco's Spain, was forced by Rome, under the 'Spirit of Vatican II' to change it's laws which conformed to the Traditional Magisterium. False religions were tolerated completely as long as they made no public manifestation including signage on their meeting places.

(07-01-2009, 03:27 PM)Caritas Wrote: (78) And yet we know that it is also de fide that no man can be forced to convert to Catholicism.  Might we then draw a distinction between the "public exercise" in order to reconcile the statements?  How do we define public exercise of worship?

Anything that does not take place behind closed doors.

(07-01-2009, 03:27 PM)Caritas Wrote: (79) Again this refers to public exercise and it gives the reason for disparaging the public exercise of false religions as corruption

In none of these does Pope Pius IX deny that a person the right to worship in his own way in private.  Though I am sure such worship is morally wrong if it is not in accordance with the Catholic faith, I would be morally wrong to prevent him or pass laws against him from doing so.

Edit: I would like to temper that final comment with the understanding that such private worship doesn't present some sort of denial of a publicly professed Catholic faith, especially if such people are Catholic clergy.
[/quote]

Agreed, except that in absolute contradiction to the Magisterium, the Council teaches that

Vatican II (My emphasis) Wrote:This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
Reply
#39
(07-01-2009, 03:50 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-01-2009, 03:27 PM)Caritas Wrote: (77) Ah for the good ole days when we actually had Catholic states.  Of course such states are better, but where are they now?  There's a difference between condemning the error that says they aren't better and demanding freedom of religious exercise in those which might  not even be Catholic to begin with.  Note of course that it mentions "religion of the State".  This doesn't explicitly deny that people might worship privately some other religion in her borders.

Destroyed by liberalism, Modernism and Vatican II. The last one, Franco's Spain, was forced by Rome, under the 'Spirit of Vatican II' to change it's laws which conformed to the Traditional Magisterium. False religions were tolerated completely as long as they made no public manifestation including signage on their meeting places.

(07-01-2009, 03:27 PM)Caritas Wrote: (78) And yet we know that it is also de fide that no man can be forced to convert to Catholicism.  Might we then draw a distinction between the "public exercise" in order to reconcile the statements?  How do we define public exercise of worship?

Anything that does not take place behind closed doors.

(07-01-2009, 03:27 PM)Caritas Wrote: (79) Again this refers to public exercise and it gives the reason for disparaging the public exercise of false religions as corruption

In none of these does Pope Pius IX deny that a person the right to worship in his own way in private.  Though I am sure such worship is morally wrong if it is not in accordance with the Catholic faith, I would be morally wrong to prevent him or pass laws against him from doing so.

Edit: I would like to temper that final comment with the understanding that such private worship doesn't present some sort of denial of a publicly professed Catholic faith, especially if such people are Catholic clergy.

Agreed, except that in absolute contradiction to the Magisterium, the Council teaches that

Vatican II (My emphasis) Wrote:This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
[/quote]

Yes, it appears to be a glaring contradiction, and there seem to be many others that are just as contradictory. I have yet to see how such statements can be reconciled without dishonest mental gymnastics.
Reply
#40
(07-01-2009, 04:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Yes, it appears to be a glaring contradiction, and there seem to be many others that are just as contradictory. I have yet to see how such statements can be reconciled without dishonest mental gymnastics.

I agree. Interestingly, about five or six years ago, I had a conversation with a good friend, a Roman trained theologian and orthodox Trad-leaning NO priest (he's since learned the OF), who maintained that all of VII could be reconciled with the Magisterium. I posed the questions I've posed in this thread to him. He's still trying to reconcile DH with the Magisterium!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)