Pope calling for clarifications of Vatican II
#31
(05-24-2012, 08:38 PM)charlesh Wrote: 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.

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#32
(05-24-2012, 08:38 PM)charlesh Wrote: 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.

Indeed.  All this hand wringing over reinterpreting this and rewriting that and rewording the other and clarifying, emphasizing and refocusing is really pointless.  Vatican II is a product of its time, the 60s.  Its a pile of pablum; trying to be profound by using a lot of words and saying nothing; optimistic in the face of looming disaster, happy when solemnity was called for, gullible when circumspection was demanded.  In other words, a waste of time which produced nothing but much paving material for the road to hell.  

The pope needs to just ignore it.  Don't abrogate it.  Don't clarify it.  Don't study it.  Just ignore it.  Pretend it never happened.  Declare our long ecclesial nightmare is over and move on.  Some mistakes can't be fixed and in such a case we should simply pretend it never happened. Gone and forgotten, that's my motto.
Reply
#33
Clarify VII? It belongs in the cloaca!

cloaca - a waste pipe that carries away sewage.
Reply
#34
What if we just revoke Vatican II, the New Mass, the New Catechism, and the New Code of Canon Law and return to the Preconciliar texts.  And condemn the various errors stemming from the Council as Heresies and close the matter?~!
Reply
#35
It's funny, because the Vatican can issue texts all day long til the cows come home, but at the end of the day, the Pope and the Curia need the balls to ENFORCE what they back. 

Otherwise it's all a dead letter anyways, and not even worth the paper it's printed on.
Reply
#36
(05-24-2012, 10:22 PM)Virgil the Roman Wrote: What if we just revoke Vatican II, the New Mass, the New Catechism, and the New Code of Canon Law and return to the Preconciliar texts.  And condemn the various errors stemming from the Council as Heresies and close the matter?~!

The Novus Ordo may eventually be allowed to fall into desuetude or be suppressed (probably incrementally through a series of reforms I would imagine), in time a new Catechism may replace the CCC and canon law may be revised, and the errors of our day may be condemned, but I doubt Vatican II  will ever be "revoked" or directly condemned.

The Church tends not to accuse or condemn its own Magisterium directly.  I've mentioned this example multiple times on this site, but I think it is quite illustrative.  At the Council of Constance, in the decree Haec Sancta (Session 5) the Council explicitly declares that the Pope is subject to a general Council (obvious heresy),  and in the decree Frequens (session 39), it required Popes to call Councils every ten years forever, and when one ended to start planning the next (a decree obviously motivated by the concilliarist heresy). Subsequent Popes complied. Eventually, Aeneas Piccolomini, a former concilliarist, was elected Pope, taking the name Pius II.  He definitively condemned concilliarism in the decree Excecrabilis, but did not mention Constance. He also completely ignored Constance's directives to call Councils.

However, even more strikingly, in another bull, In Minoribus, where he officially repudiates his own past errors and again condemns concilliarism  he states:

"With these authorities, we recognize the power and the authority of a General Council as it was declared and defined in our age at Constance when the Ecumenical Council was assembled there. For we revere the Council of Constance and all Councils that were approved by our predecessors."

The only time the authority of a General Council is declared and defined at Constance, it is done in a heretical way that falls under the very condemnation of this Bull and Pius' other decree (and some people argue Pope Benedict's hermeneutic of continuity is pushing it!). He goes so far to accuse himself  (with the famous phrase, "reject Aeneas, accept Pius"), but does not accuse the Council.  I think eventually there may be a condemnation of some of the errors of our time, but I doubt you'll ever see an Ecumenical Council directly condemned.
Reply
#37
(05-24-2012, 03:30 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 03:26 PM)Walty Wrote:
(05-24-2012, 03:07 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I would like to see serious, official attempts to reconcile the documents.

Practically speaking, one has to wonder about the prudence of such a thing.  Perhaps the documents (or parts of them) can be reconciled.  If that were the case, would it be prudent to do so now or in close proximity to the crisis?  We know that, even according to the documents themselves, they are not doctrinally essential to the faith.

This is a speculative question, but if they can be put on the back-burner, wouldn't it be most prudent to do so, at least until the plethora of heresies tied to overzealous or erroneous reading of the Conciliar documents dies down?  It would seem a bit like mining a theologian during the thick of the 13th century whom most Albigensians had revered. 

It seems to me that the most likely practical effect from such a process is to pull the rug out from under liberal theologians.  I see that as a very good thing.

I don't think the Hans Kungs of the world will care. They'll just keep on keeping on.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#38
Fascinating, SaintSebastian. I just read this page, http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/05/c...iumph.html, about the Council of Constance. A tale of an outright heretical ecumenical council and the original "line-item veto." The Council of Constance is a legitimate council, counted among the ecumenical councils of the Church, but parts of it introduce novelty and are explicitly heretical and revolutionary. I didn't know that what makes it legitimate was the approval of only some parts of it by subsequent popes. Perhaps there is no parallel with Vatican II, because all of those texts were promulgated by Paul VI.

Still, as there is nothing formally defined or anathematized at Vatican II, the ambiguous texts could just fall into desuetude. The legion of heretical ideas invoked "in the spirit of Vatican II" could be condemned as separate issues. If anybody ever asks about the council documents in the future, historians can point to the Nota Previa and the hermeneutic of continuity. If then asked, "so what was the point of it all?" they can respond, "There was none. It was incoherent. People didn't think in the XX Century. They just felt things. With their emotions."

This scenario makes perfect sense. Or maybe it's wishful thinking. Perhaps it will be like Fr. Malachi Martin (R.I.P.) said, that the institutional Church will continue to disintegrate and completely apostasize, leaving the underground Church as the only thing left. Perhaps it will be as Fr. Pulvermacher (R.I.P.) said, that once there are no more valid holy orders left, the Mass will be re-allowed. In this case, smells and bells and pretty vestments can be a demonic temptation if they are separated from apostolic succession and the Truth. Personally, I'm not a fatalist and think it can go either way, depending on the free will of the men who have the power to make a difference.
Reply
#39
(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.

We already have one of those. The Communist manifesto.
Reply
#40
(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.

I was going to say this. People think VII makes PPX's syllabus a thing of the past. Perhaps a new syllabus will make people think VII is a thing of the past.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)