Blaming Vatican II
#41
(07-01-2009, 03:50 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: 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.

I don't think that statement poses a serious threat to our interpretation so far of the Syllabus. There are statements in DH which are far more concerning.  So far, I think that while Pius IX affirmed that a public and State profession of Catholicism is to be desired and should never be scorned by Catholics, he doesn't go so far as to say that one should be forced by law to cease an orderly and private expression of their faith.  The more difficult statements are ones like this:

Quote:Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.
(DH 4)

Should said religious communities be residing in a Catholic state, and should they be (let's say for argument) Muslim, then this would seem to allow a public expression of faith by these communities which would be something which is possibly condemned by Syllabus error number 77.

There is however one problem with explaining it that way.  The condemnation expressed of error 77 does not indicate that Catholicism must be the State religion and that all other forms of religion must be denied public expression.  It says that one may not describe such a State where this is true as lacking expedience.  That's cutting the statement pretty fine, but since the statement is expressed in the negative, it is very difficult for us to read much outside its bounds in the positive. 

Proclaiming the error of a statement is not equivalent to demanding the opposite of what is in error.

Edit: Sorry for editing (again) but I can see an argument which asks: How can the Church teach that we must have the freedom to practice (potentially false) religions publicly when she says authoritatively that we must not call Catholic-only states inexpedient?  It would seem to be a denial that Catholic-only states are expedient.  My guess is that she did not mean to deny this, but rather in light of the fact that there were so few Catholic states at the time, she was demanding freedom for Catholics to practice their own faith by appealing to the reason of those who are not Catholic.

The fact that this was so misapplied in Spain is simply scandalous.
Reply
#42
(07-01-2009, 04:15 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(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!

Haha! Well he'll have eternity to work it out in heaven - he'll probably need every moment of it, too (meaning of course, it can't be done honestly).  :)
Reply
#43
Benno Wrote:
Mhoram Wrote:"It's also pretty clear from the homosexuality scandals that the seminaries became gay-friendly well before most of society did."
Youch, I've never heard that one before. But I've thought along similar lines often...

Well, I know that's blunt, but it's really simple math.  The scandal didn't break until this decade, but many of the abuses were back in the 70s and 80s, and if you look at the age of the culprits, it's clear they were coming through the seminaries by the 50s.  Not all of them of course; some were younger.  But it's obvious that the seminaries stopped kicking them out long before, say, the average American landlord would have rented an apartment to a homosexual couple.
(07-01-2009, 07:52 AM)glgas Wrote:
(06-30-2009, 09:56 PM)Mhoram Wrote:
(06-30-2009, 08:43 PM)Credo Wrote: In its place a greater understanding of the serious weakness which existed in the Church in the 1920s, 30s, 40s, etc will emerge.

What were those weaknesses?  I'm not being facetious here; I'd really like to know. 

In the US loosing the right of the families to the free education of their children

I'm not sure I know what that means, but if it means affirming the rights of parents to control their children's education, that hardly seems like something requiring a whole Council.  Couldn't a Papal encyclical have established that in a couple pages? 

Quote:In Central Europe the rule of the Communis, to which they were sold during WWII.

In Western Europe the growing power of the liberalis/Modernism, which ultimately took over the teh Council

In South America the increasing indifference, and leaning toward the Marxist ideas.

I'm not sure what all these mean either, but I'd have two questions:

1.  Did Vactican II even attempt to address these problems?

2.  If so, did it help, or did they get worse?  It looks to me like government control of education, modernism, communism, and Marxism all increased in popularity, both inside the Church and in general, after Vatican II.

Quote:Try to read the documents with positive attitude. Start with the Dignitatis Humanae: The document explicitly give you rights to worship God in traditional way:

I don't think anyone's saying it's not possible to interpret Vatican II in a way consistent with prior Church teaching, as long as you try really really hard.  But is that the standard?  If a bunch of Church leaders spend a few years putting together a document, isn't it reasonable to expect that they would make sure the interpretation that's consistent with tradition is the obvious one, and not one that lay people fifty years later have to squeeze it into?
Reply
#44
Quote: 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.

Answer this question then:  What does it mean that a Council is NOT infallible?  I

Besides that, mostly I blame Vat. II for being ambiguous.  But why should the Church "interpret" Vatican II?  Wouldn't it be better to have it declared a failed pastoral, non-binding, fallible Council and then return back to Traditional Catholicism? 
Reply
#45
Getting back to the topic of this thread:

Quote:I have a question for all those who blame the Council for the bad shape of the Church: How do they expect a renewal [of that part of the Church that "implemented Vatican II]?

.......What will then lift ... [that part of the] Church [which impemented  Vatican II] from the depth of the Modernism [and make it like that part of the Church which ignored Vatican II, and has been enjoying tremendous success and growth]?
  Hmmm....maybe ignoring Vatican II would help???

Quote: Would not be better to search for the chain of events, as a complex issue, instead of blaming Vatican II?
False dichotomy.  We need to weed out Marxism, Feminism, and Universalism (EENS must be preached) AND throw out Vatican II.
Quote:Matt 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
Bound on Earth and in Heaven:  Vatican II is a fallible, non-binding, pastoral council.
Reply
#46
Mhoram Wrote:What were those weaknesses?

Off hand, not having systematically studied the "good ole' days" before the Council, a number of things come to mind.

For one, the liturgy was quite neglected. This comes as a shock to many traditionalists, no doubt. However the Irish minimalism forged over hundreds of years of British persecution had spilled over onto the Continent and especially the United States. (It is no coincidence these are the places where the Irish most sought refuge.) As a result the Low Mass unfortunately became the Sunday norm, along with a severe lack of hymnody. A collaroy to this point is that private devotions had crept their way into the faithful's hearing of Mass. This was not a good development. More damning than anything else on the liturgical front - and we do not blame the Irish for this - was the practical loss of the Divine Office to the non-Ordained faithful. Besides maybe Sunday Vespers and Compline, the richness of the Office was unknown to Latins in the days before the Council.

Catholic education, from children's catechism to seminary philosophy, was basically reduced to rote memorization. From a personal vantage point, I see rather forboding imitations of this in my traditional parish nowadays. The children can give word-for-word regurgitation's of the Baltimore Catechism to the delight of parents. However I have casually asked some of these same children the same questions from a different angel and have received blank stares in return. The late, great William Marra - whom many trads may be familiar with - also pointed out this educational deficiency among pre-Vatican II clergy.

To continue in the area of catchesis, it is clear that there was also a large inability to grasp the difference between Church Doctrine, and traditions or customs. This can be evidenced by the supprising number of people one runs across even today who are deeply unsettled, for instance, by the changes to Friday abstinence. It is to them as if someone declared a forth person added to the Trinity.

A reorientation of the laity, not a barnacles on the Church but as vital members, was also long past due.

From what reading I have done, it seems that these were some of the weak areas prior to 1962. Did it need a Council to address? That's for another post....



Oh, BIG edit: Don't think that the liberalism we associate with the "Spirit of Vatican II" came out of nowhere. Bad theologians, philosophers and Biblical commentaries were bubbling under the surface throughout the whole first half of the 20th century.
Reply
#47
(07-01-2009, 08:28 PM)Credo Wrote: Oh, BIG edit: Don't think that the liberalism we associate with the "Spirit of Vatican II" came out of nowhere. Bad theologians, philosophers and Biblical commentaries were bubbling under the surface throughout the whole first half of the 20th century.
NO WAY!! That was when the Tridentine Mass was universal. There simply couldn't be any errors. Although it is curious that all the Bishops at V2 were ordained pre-V2..... 



Reply
#48
Quote from jovan: "And, of course, that's the exact opposite of what the Council actually did. In reality, it undermined and/or contradicted much of the Traditional Magisterium"

Perhaps for clarity sake, please list out the specific 'underminings' and 'contradictions' for a more informed discussion..
Reply
#49
(07-01-2009, 07:57 PM)James02 Wrote: Answer this question then:  What does it mean that a Council is NOT infallible? 

It's a great question, James.  it's not clear to me either.  In fact such questions are why I am here.  In a strictly literal sense, I would say that it means the Council makes no solemn and infallible proclamations.  Here is what Pope Paul VI said:

"as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic sentence."

The question I have regarding that is: Does this mean that it gives the council license to teach error? 

Of course it doesn't.  To me there is a difference between avoiding solemn statements which safeguard the Church's teaching, and the allowance that they might teach us errors about existing dogmas. 

I have heard repeatedly that a set of teachings which are not infallible are not preserved from error.  Which, I agree is true.  However this doesn't indicate the kind of teachings nor the kinds of errors from which they are not preserved.  Should we assume that every teaching of a non-infallible Council is prone to grave doctrinal error?  That doesn't sound very Catholic to me.

It's one thing for the Church while speaking non-infallibly to say something like: "The Blessed Virgin Mary wore blue clothing every day."  It's another thing for the Church in the same non-infallible voice to teach about the existing dogmas of ecumenism in error.  This is especially egregious if said dogmas were affirmed infallibly within the last 100 years of the Council, which they were.  In other words, it's not like these bishops, cardinals and the Pope were ignorant of some obscure implication of an ancient teaching while speaking non-infallibly.  One would literally have to assert that they consciously rejected such teachings if one wished to say that they erred.  This of course would be equivalent to calling every single one of them a heretic.

Doesn't anyone else here draw that same distinction?
Reply
#50
(07-02-2009, 09:38 AM)Caritas Wrote:
(07-01-2009, 07:57 PM)James02 Wrote: Answer this question then:  What does it mean that a Council is NOT infallible? 

It's a great question, James.   it's not clear to me either.  In fact such questions are why I am here.  In a strictly literal sense, I would say that it means the Council makes no solemn and infallible proclamations.  Here is what Pope Paul VI said:

"as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic sentence."

The question I have regarding that is: Does this mean that it gives the council license to teach error? 

Of course it doesn't.  To me there is a difference between avoiding solemn statements which safeguard the Church's teaching, and the allowance that they might teach us errors about existing dogmas. 

I have heard repeatedly that a set of teachings which are not infallible are not preserved from error.  Which, I agree is true.  However this doesn't indicate the kind of teachings nor the kinds of errors from which they are not preserved.  Should we assume that every teaching of a non-infallible Council is prone to grave doctrinal error?  That doesn't sound very Catholic to me.

It's one thing for the Church while speaking non-infallibly to say something like: "The Blessed Virgin Mary wore blue clothing every day."  It's another thing for the Church in the same non-infallible voice to teach about the existing dogmas of ecumenism in error.  This is especially egregious if said dogmas were affirmed infallibly within the last 100 years of the Council, which they were.  In other words, it's not like these bishops, cardinals and the Pope were ignorant of some obscure implication of an ancient teaching while speaking non-infallibly.  One would literally have to assert that they consciously rejected such teachings if one wished to say that they erred.  This of course would be equivalent to calling every single one of them a heretic.

Doesn't anyone else here draw that same distinction?

In summary, it was a reckless abuse of authority:  the Pope in union with the Bishops of the world employed an infallible teaching method to teach fallibly. Can they do this? From the explanations I've always read, the Pope teaching in union with the bishops carries the mark of infallibility:

Teacher: Level of Magisterium: Degree of certitude: Assent required:
1. Pope, ex cathedra; Extraordinary (and universal); Infallible; Full Assent of Faith
2. Bishops, in union with Pope, defining doctrine at General Council; Extraordinary (and universal teaching of the Church); Infallible; Full Assent of Faith
3. Bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison, in union with Pope; Ordinary and universal teaching of the Church; Infallible; Full Assent of Faith
4. Pope; Ordinary; Fallible; Religious submission of intellect and will
5. Bishops; Ordinary; Fallible; Religious submission of intellect and will

Although I pulled this summary from wikipedia, these are the facts that I understand; if this is not a good summary, please correct it. If number three (though not dispersed) carries the weight of an infallible teaching, can it be but pastoral in nature? Wouldn't a council need to teach that this can be so?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)