Vatican II HELP: break from tradition?>
#1
Hi everyone. Tommorrow I am having a class and I need help. It is theology on the modern Church. Only problem is the guy who wrote the book appears to harbor modernist beliefs in some areas.  The second chapter is entitled "A Revolutionary Event." How can I fight against the hermeneutics of rupture by providing places from the V II documents on continutiy. Where does it say that the second council is inline with all other Church councils preceeding it?

Other facts appreciated and thank you my friends!
Reply
#2
The Second Vatican Council was a rupture and break from tradition. The modernists are just being honest when they say that it was revolutionary. They put their heretical language and time bombs into the documents.

Nowhere is there anything in the Vatican II documents that suggest continuity with previous Councils. The documents were pastoral and not infallible. You will find no dogma or protection from the Holy Spirit in them. The Vatican II documents belong in the trash can.
Reply
#3
BlessedKarl Wrote:How can I fight against the hermeneutics of rupture by providing places from the V II documents on continutiy.

All the documents are studded with references to past Councils, popes and saints.
Reply
#4
(08-26-2009, 06:29 PM)Credo Wrote:
BlessedKarl Wrote:How can I fight against the hermeneutics of rupture by providing places from the V II documents on continutiy.

All the documents are studded with references to past Councils, popes and saints.

That could be argued against as "selective quoting".  It doesn't disprove rupture which is what is being asked for.  For example, Luther quoted Scripture - was he continuous with the Church or did he rupture from it?

Continuity has to show the same understanding of the same things.  It may be a "nuanced" understanding, but the root understanding needs to be the same.

Example: If X was a sin, X should still be a sin today though we may have a better understanding of the degree of seriousness of X, then there is continuity.  But if X was a sin and today it is not, there is rupture.
Reply
#5
It may be selective quoting, but I'm just trying to help BlessedKarl out here.

In all honestly, no matter how much one wishes to redeem Vatican II, it must be taken into consideration that there were documents already prepared before the Council even started which were just waiting to be signed by the bishops. However, as unbiased history admits, there was a liberal takeover very early in the Council and those works were thrown out. From that point on the conservative elements within Vatican II, led by Cardinal Ottaviani and supported by men like Archbishop Lefebvre, could only fight a rearguard defense for the remainder of the gathering.
Reply
#6
(08-26-2009, 06:10 PM)BlessedKarl Wrote: Hi everyone. Tommorrow I am having a class and I need help. It is theology on the modern Church. Only problem is the guy who wrote the book appears to harbor modernist beliefs in some areas.  The second chapter is entitled "A Revolutionary Event." How can I fight against the hermeneutics of rupture by providing places from the V II documents on continutiy. Where does it say that the second council is inline with all other Church councils preceeding it?

Other facts appreciated and thank you my friends!

Revolution is "a sudden, radical, or complete change". For a stable rock as the Catholic Church is this is something negative, and does not fit with the inline characteristics.
Reply
#7
(08-26-2009, 06:29 PM)Credo Wrote:
BlessedKarl Wrote:How can I fight against the hermeneutics of rupture by providing places from the V II documents on continutiy.

All the documents are studded with references to past Councils, popes and saints.

Indeed -- and all of the documents are ALSO studded with revolutionary tenets and modernist idealism.  It has ALWAYS been the agenda of the Modernists to carefully mix truth with lies, so as to make the lies seem truthful.  Vatican II is a NON-DOGMATIC, PASTORAL council which in essence means absolutely nothing.  This council was used by the liberals within the Church to ignite revolution -- NOTHING more.  They now have a "council" that proclaims their modernists ideals, which to the everyday Catholic who doesn't understand that Vatican II is unlike the previous 20 councils seems important and worthy of obedience.  Vatican II is unlike the other councils because 1) it is "pastoral" and not dogmatic, and 2) because it contains texts that are a strict departure from the Living Tradition of the Church (like stating that Moslems "worship the same God that we do" when they degrade Jesus Christ to a mere prophet - and stating that the modern Pharasaic Jews do the same, when they loathe Christ which is proven in plain texts in their anti-Christian Talmud).  The edicts on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism are also a STRICT departure from the Faith even proclaimed only years before by Pope Pius XII.
Reply
#8
If "by their fruits you shall know them" holds true, then it is hard to argue V2 wasn't a revolution.
Reply
#9
(08-28-2009, 05:03 AM)ggreg Wrote: If "by their fruits you shall know them" holds true, then it is hard to argue V2 wasn't a revolution.

Theologically there is a serious problem: You are not angel, you do not see then things comprehensive, so you are not supposed to make judgment what is the fruit of what.

How can you be so sure, that without Vatican II still would be 60+% Church attendance in the US?

God and the Christian morality was expelled from the schools  in the fifties. The media (TV chanels) was given free to the hand of the atheist liberals in the fifties. The process to separate the mothers from the families and to force them to work started in the fifties.

Instead of blaming Vatican II you shall do everything for the unity of the Church, so She can resist the evil.

You shall understand that less than half of a percent of the priests worldwide are traditional, despite the tremendous increase of the diocesan traditional priests in the last two years. This is insufficient even for the survival, much less for the revesring of the world. Your goal should be as was for Jesus: 'Ut unum sint', and for this you should seek what connects and not what divides. 
Reply
#10
Quote: Instead of blaming Vatican II you shall do everything for the unity of the Church, so She can resist the evil.

You shall understand that less than half of a percent of the priests worldwide are traditional, despite the tremendous increase of the diocesan traditional priests in the last two years. This is insufficient even for the survival, much less for the revesring of the world. Your goal should be as was for Jesus: 'Ut unum sint', and for this you should seek what connects and not what divides

I have no "unity" with heretics.  As far as Traditional priests, you yourself admit the "tremendous" increase in traditional priests in just two years.  20 years ago, things were very bleak.  Keep being a Traditionalist.

BlessedKarl, for your homework, Google Notae Previa and you will see that Vatican II was pastoral only, and non-binding.  Furthermore Pope Paul VI declared it fallible, as well as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger.  I don't think you can argue against Vat. II being revolutionary.  Instead argue it was a big mistake and needs to be put on the Index of Forbidden Books.  Let me repeat, a pastoral, non-binding, fallible Council is truly a novelty.  Luckily if you obey the Church, you will accept that it is non-dogmatic, non-binding, and fallible.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)