Anyone here reject Vatican II?

[pnewton]

Is this the case? From all the stats I have seen,

I do not doubt, from what you have seen, this may be this case.

 

[StarMapp]

The council is not to blame for either the secular assault, or for those in the Church who exploited the open windows for their private agenda.

I think it is to blame for breaking with tradition. Note in the next quote that the differences are “fundamental differences” ie:the Great Deposit

“…This manifests itself in the fact that some ecclesial documents today do not have any connection to the positions held by the Magisterium prior to the Second Vatican Council. For example, in the document of Vatican II on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, there is not a single mention of the two previous documents that deal with the ecumenical movement and other religions: Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum and Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos. The approach to ecumenism and other religions in these documents is fundamentally different from the approach of the Vatican II document or Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II. While the current Magisterium can change a teaching that falls under non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching, nevertheless, when the Magisterium makes a judgment in these cases, it has an obligation due to the requirements of the moral virtue of prudence to show how the previous teaching was wrong or is now to be understood differently by discussing the two different teachings. However, this is not what has happened. The Magisterium since Vatican II often ignores previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching, leaving the faithful to figure out how the two are compatible,(bold mine) such…”

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Ripperger.html

 

[commenter]

commenter:

The council is not to blame for either the secular assault, or for those in the Church who exploited the open windows for their private agenda.

I think it is to blame for breaking with tradition. Note in the next quote that the differences are “fundamental differences” ie:the Great Deposit

“… While the current Magisterium can change a teaching that falls under non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching, nevertheless, when the Magisterium makes a judgment in these cases, it has an obligation due to the requirements of the moral virtue of prudence to show how the previous teaching was wrong or is now to be understood differently by discussing the two different teachings.”

Do you have a magisterial source for the part of your quote I cited? I mean, in terms of the “obligation”. Who created that obligation and who would be in a position to evaluate whether the Magisterium “passed” or “failed”? The internet?

I occasionally visit the TLM, but who benefits from writing or reading articles like the one in the Latin Mass Magazine? It is 2018. Do they really believe they can undermine the last six popes without undermining all the earlier popes too? By now they would in effect be trying to eliminate 55 years of tradition.

I am tempted to join our local Latin Mass group, until I went to a day of recollection. The speaker went out of his way to claim there are only 15 “official” decades in the rosary. But all the earlier 15 decades are “official” only because some earlier pope, with no more authority than the saint pope. This kind of nonsense leads to loss of confidence not only in the recent pope, but all popes.

 

[StarMapp]

Fr. made the observation. However the obligation to practice prudence is a virtue that all Catholics need to hone, and a special caution we would assume is practiced by the Magisterium who’s gifted commission is to pass on Divine teaching.

who would be in a position to evaluate whether the Magisterium “passed” or “failed”?
Fr’s excellent reputation as exorcist, renowned psychology prof. and member for hundreds of seminarians are credentials enough for me. If he voiced a concern, then I assume it is not in jest.

I pray the Franciscan crown with added decades for my Fraternity, one for the Confraternity of St. Peter, and also for prayer intentions requests on this forum.

 

[Aulef]

I don’t reject Vatican II and I don’t praise it either.

I can see better the truths taught by the Church before it.

 

[commenter]

Fr. made the observation. However the obligation to practice prudence is a virtue that all Catholics need to hone, and a special caution we would assume is practiced by the Magisterium who’s gifted commission is to pass on Divine teaching.

who would be in a position to evaluate whether the Magisterium “passed” or “failed”?
Fr’s excellent reputation as exorcist, renowned psychology prof. and member for hundreds of seminarians are credentials enough for me.

I think if you were to ask Father if he thinks priests should evaluate popes and bishops - or - if popes and bishops should evaluate priests - I bet he would say the latter, not the former.

Keep in mind there are lots of priests with “excellent reputation” as per the Media. Most are liberal.

Protestants don’t have popes, or a Magisterium. Most of them follow clergy who (in their personal opinion) have excellent reputation and “renown”. If Joel Osteen has books in the airport bookstore, you follow him rather than some minister you never heard of.

“Renown” may be one way to choose between one priest’s advice and another. “Renown” is not, in my opinion, a good substitute for the Magisterium or a way of evaluating it.

 

[pnewton]

I think if you were to ask Father if he thinks priests should evaluate popes and bishops

I think it is the document that is being addressed, not people. He is offering his opinion. True, he is one of 400,000+ priest, and his opinion is kind of take it or leave it. Personally, I do not see this fundamental difference he thinks he sees. Remember that this thread is asking for opinions. We shouldn’t judge people for contrary opinions when presented charitably.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

I think if you were to ask Father if he thinks priests should evaluate popes and bishops

I think it is the document that is being addressed, not people. He is offering his opinion. True, he is one of 400,000+ priest, and his opinion is kind of take it or leave it. Personally, I do not see this fundamental difference he thinks he sees. Remember that this thread is asking for opinions. We shouldn’t judge people for contrary opinions when presented charitably.

I apologize if my statements come out as uncharitable at times. I also have a high regard for this priest, and mean no discouragement towards the earlier poster. Just offering a caution, due to the path other posters have taken.

 

[pnewton]

Just offering a caution, due to the path other posters have taken.

That was my thought as well. I was not thinking of you, but of how many take their opinions into the more personal and sinister direction of slander against the Holy Father, the Council, bishops today, etc. It is good to here opposing view presented properly.

 

[PiusOfTheCross]

A Catholic in good conscience may not reject Vatican II, as doing so would be a rejection of the Holy Ghost.

One could, I suppose, reject the interpretation of Vatican II and remain and good conscience, but I know not.

We should just follow what Bp. Athanasius said and promulgate a Syllabus of Errors for the interpretation.

 

[PiusOfTheCross]

You comment is 100% correct with the exception of your part on the Rosary.

No earlier Pope formed the Mysteries of the Rosary. It was Mary through the Dominican Order. To disregard these ‘official’ Mysteries would be to disregard the 15 promises of the Rosary. Further, St. John Paul said the Luminous Mysteries were an encouragement, not an imperative.

 

[Psychae]

A Catholic in good conscience may not reject Vatican II, as doing so would be a rejection of the Holy Ghost.

THIS.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

WHAT IF the Holy Ghost was not behind Vatican II?
How can we look at the fruit of Vatican II and see the work of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Psychae]

WHAT IF the Holy Ghost was not behind Vatican II?

That’s not an option.

 

[pnewton]

How can we look at the fruit of Vatican II and see the work of the Holy Spirit?

As in, charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, and chastity?

I see these.

Unfortunately, I also see the fruits of the Holy Spirit belittled as being part of the “Church of Nice.”

 

[commenter]

Loud-living-dogma:

How can we look at the fruit of Vatican II and see the work of the Holy Spirit?

As in, charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, and chastity?

I see these.

Unfortunately, I also see the fruits of the Holy Spirit belittled as being part of the “Church of Nice.”

Chastity? You see more chastity now than in 1960? Yup, that’s us. (I could also have zeroed in on Self Control, for Catholics or all persons. )
I am just teasing, your post is a good response.

Someone else could, accurately, point out the rampant disobedience, attacks on doctrine, liturgical abuses, and appalling passivity Catholics show on many issues, especially abortion. But those bad things happened after Vatican II, not necessarily as a result of it. Bad things happened to non Catholic religious groups and secular society in the West, also.

A fair criticism of VII is that it helped the Church adapt to some things that were already obvious, but not to other things that would happen soon after. It did not adequately predict the internal assault on doctrine, or the external secularization of society, especially the power of the media.

It was imperfect, like all other councils, in that it did not predict the future.
The bad stuff after the council was the implementation. Too often it was heard, “If you don’t support my agenda, that means you are against Vatican II”.

I am sure sometimes bad people misused the Council of Trent. That does not mean the Council itself was bad.

 

[pnewton]

Chastity? You see more chastity now than in 1960? Yup, that’s us. (I could also have zeroed in on Self Control, for Catholics or all persons. )

I am just teasing, your post is a good response.

I knew that was coming. The last three of the twelve sure are an issue. My only answer to that would be that the Church has held the line a heck of a lot better than society. Sexual sin is something of festering disease that is very hard to cure with salt. I do not see abortion as a doctrinal issue, but as an extension of this very disease. The only reason to want abortion, and want it available, is to have sex without consequences.

I really believe all the liturgical issues are overblown, with the abuses being few and over-represented. I am seeing fewer examples now, and the issues that are debated are extraordinarily minor and insignificant.

 

[commenter]

I do not see abortion as a doctrinal issue, but as an extension of this very disease. The only reason to want abortion, and want it available, is to have sex without consequences.

I think abortion is a doctrinal issue that goes beyond the “consequences” issue. There is a whole movement within society that accepts the consequences for other kinds of actions, but demands abortion as a SACRED RIGHT.

Organizations that promoted legal abortion also promoted ordination of women, and those that promoted ordination also promoted legal abortion. Those who said women have right to say “This is My Body”, also want the right to say “This is my body”. There is a ferocity, a fanaticism here that goes down deep, to the dogma level. I have met people, including nuns, who have essentially reconstructed their belief system to take the Right to Abortion into account.

I won’t blame Vatican II too much for failing to predict this. I do hold accountable those in Church leadership who see this now, and fail to adequately respond, now.

 

[pnewton]

I think abortion is a doctrinal issue that goes beyond the “consequences” issue.

Of course it is a doctrine, but I still really believe the reason for its acceptance is more lust and less feminism. I think it is only a symptom of a much deeper problem.

I do hold accountable those in Church leadership who see this now, and fail to adequately respond, now.

Might I ask what response you would deem adequate to stop abortion?

 

[commenter]

commenter:

I think abortion is a doctrinal issue that goes beyond the “consequences” issue.

I do hold accountable those in Church leadership who see this now, and fail to adequately respond, now.

Might I ask what response you would deem adequate to stop abortion?

First, let me say some Church leaders have been very solid on prolife. The answer to your question is complicated, and varies from place to place. Here is the problem with my diocese.

For 45 years we have had bishops who come frequently to gatherings of prolifers, and tell the prolifers that prolife is important. Our current bishop meets with prolifers almost every month(!) and always gives a solid message. To us.

But proabortion speakers sometimes get invited to local “Catholic” institutions, to promote agendas other than abortion. Sometimes they even get free advance publicity through the diocesan newspaper, and the diocese even puts the event in “announcements for parish bulletins” email, so parishes may promote this speaker.

One speaker especially hostile to prolife was invited by a “Catholic” peace and justice group, hosted by a “Catholic” high school, and the nun in charge of diocesan Catholic education even used the event as an occasion to give awards to parochial students.

Pretty much the same thing happened at my former parish, which had an isolated prolife group. The message, “if you people feel the need for prolife activity, by all means, we will meet your need”. But prolife had no influence on anything else. If prolifers lost interest in abortion and got interested in playing Bridge tournaments next year, the parish would gladly set aside rooms, tables, cards and snacks.

Sorry for describing the problem rather than the solution.