Pope calling for clarifications of Vatican II
How hardline of you, Dylan.
Why must it constantly be "re-interpreted"? No other councils needed that.
(05-24-2012, 06:21 PM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: Why must it constantly be "re-interpreted"? No other councils needed that.

Good question.
(05-24-2012, 06:05 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 05:50 PM)JayneK Wrote: The point of this "syllabus" is that it is not a new religion and that it must comply with Catholic teaching.

Point is, the Syllabus of Errors by P. X already addresses the errors of VII.  There is no need for a "new" syllabus any more than there was need for a new mass or a new catechism.

There is a sense in which I agree with this.  The Church has already taught what is true.  But there is still a need to make clear to some people that it applies to them.
(05-24-2012, 06:21 PM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: Why must it constantly be "re-interpreted"? No other councils needed that.

Because it produced a lot of unclear, ambiguous documents that have been interpreted to support liberal positions.  While it may have been better to never have happened in the first place, going back in time and preventing it is not an option.  This is the next best thing.
Thanks for the sample "New Syllabus" Ray.  Seeing it makes me appreciate the advantages of that format.  There is such clarity in collecting all the statements in one document.
Is it possible the Pope knows Vatican 2 failed, but he can't erase it , so the next best thing is to try to explain it in light of catholic tradition. If he came out against what the Council pastorally taught he is afraid there would be a great schism and so he has to work slowly although considering how slow the Vatican does things , he is working super fast.
(05-24-2012, 05:37 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 05:23 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 05:19 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 04:49 PM)Richard C Wrote: I sincerely hope it comes in the form of a new syllabus of errors issued by the Holy Father himself.

I think I know what you mean, but everything VII did wrong was already condemned in Pius X's Syllabus.  A new one really isn't necessary.

There is a certain (erroneous) mindset which sees V2 as superseding everything that came before it.  A new Syllabus, or something comparable, would address this error.

Well, a new religion started then so it makes sense that when people talk about it they don't talk about what happened before it existed.

All of this reminds me of removing a band-aid; slowly with prolonged pain, or one quick yank, a moment of excruciating pain, then done. I vote for the quick yank. Let the healing begin, the remnant will be thankful.
Why does Vatican II have to be clarified at all? It seems that the only thing that needs to be clarified is what authority Vatican II actually has. It didn't pronounce a single anathema and didn't define a single thing. It even explicitly said that it didn't define anything and everything was to be taken in the traditional sense (Nota Previa). The sum and substance of the documents of Vatican amounts to no more than opinions--a bunch of bishops getting together and talking shop over pizza and beer and probably a little weed (Hans Kung was tripping on acid, and that went a little too far for the rest of them).

Anyway, since the solemn magisterium and the ordinary universal magisterium are never invoked (except obliquely in the Nota Previa), the council documents are just an incoherent collection of texts held up by modern bishops as an excuse for doctrinal anarchy. Why agonize over reconciling these ambiguous texts which have no authority? Just throw them away.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)