Are Catholics Bound to Assent to Vatican II?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vatican II has been a Catch 22 for Latinized EC churches such as the Syro-Malabar Church.

On one hand the pro-Latin factions try to make the liturgy like the OF Mass, while the traditional factions want de-latinization based on Vatican II docs as well.

one thing is clear. There’s obviously something off about Vatican II. The fact that it’s still discussed to this day 50 years later.
 
Last edited:
Alexandria2020 said:
one thing is clear. There’s obviously something off about Vatican II. The fact that it’s still discussed to this day 50 years later.
Click to expand...
People are selling books, articles, websites, conferences, etc proclaiming that V2 is ambiguous, the Source of the Collapse of Catholicism, Filled with Dangerous Loopholes, in Desperate Need of Final Clarification of all those horrible Loose Ends. What’s the REAL lurid, inside story behind that suspicious V2 document? (For premium subscribers only of our website).

Demanding “Clarification” is a cash cow. It’s not a natural discussion, it’s artificially prolonged. The prolongation proves nothing about the Council being “off”, it means the websites are in competition.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
People are selling books, articles, websites, conferences, etc proclaiming that V2 is ambiguous , the Source of the Collapse of Catholicism, Filled with Dangerous Loopholes, in Desperate Need of Final Clarification of all those horrible Loose Ends . What’s the REAL inside story behind that suspicious V2 document?
Click to expand...
look… you got the SSPX… they were excommunicated. and now Pope Francis has given them faculties for confession. So they are still considered part of the church.

it’s like what Lutheran pastor Jordan B Cooper said “Roman Catholics are always interpreting and re-interpreting the canons of various councils.” he says the Church is “multifaceted”. meaning things ofcourse gets complicated.

Based on the past record- I’m sure the OF will eventually be replaced with something else- in the future… maybe 50 years from now, or a 100 years, or 500 years.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
I thought so too. I’ve been thinking there must be a middle ground between Vigano’s idea of forgetting the Council and the hermeneutic of continuity. I think that articl
Click to expand...
Actually, the hermanutic of continuity Is th e middle ground between “Tradition” and full-blown modernism. The principle is, you cant compromise with evil, as Jesus said, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”
 
Chet1 said:
Actually, the hermanutic of continuity Is th e middle ground between “Tradition” and full-blown modernism. The principle is, you cant compromise with evil, as Jesus said, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”
Click to expand...
There always seems to be middle ground in the middle ground, though. However I have somewhat changed my thoughts in the past few days or whenever I wrote that comment. I think the hermeneutic of continuity is sound.
 
SSPX are not “part of the Church”, they are not in communion despite having some extraordinary grants by the Roman Pontiff. Their Masses are still illicit and they are not under a canonical structure.
 
Could you please post proof of this statement of yours?

The SSPX are in an irregular situation, but I do not believe that Pope Francis has said that they are ‘not in communion’. Plus there is a difference between ‘illicit’ and ‘invalid’. An illicit Mass is a VALID Mass and you can indeed fulfill your obligation at an SSPX Mass.

As far as ‘illicit’ goes, well let’s just say that there are plenty of illicit Masses in the OF—and the OF has been around a bit longer than the SSPX to boot.
 
That is 11 years ago. Have you something more recent? I do believe that there have been developments since that letter.

And again, an illicit Mass is not the same as an invalid Mass.
 
Last edited:
You know what has changed. Pope Francis granted them faculties for absolution and arrangements for celebrating weddings. Their canonical status has not changed. It is up to you to prove it has.
 
It appears only 2 persons have read the Word on Fire summary, FAQs on V2. That’s unfortunate. If you haven’t read it, take a few minutes now.
 
Anesti33 said:
SSPX are not “part of the Church”, they are not in communion despite having some extraordinary grants by the Roman Pontiff.
Click to expand...
They are indeed “part of the Church” since having their excommunications rescinded (and the priests always were). You’re confusing two concepts of communion (not uncommon). There used to be a great essay on the concept of membership in the Church from Fr. Hardon that is sadly no longer online. In it, he addresses a writer who "confused ‘communion in some privileges enjoyed by Catholics in good standing’ with ‘communion in the essential practices of the Catholic faith’” which define membership. He clarifies:
The first kind of communion, it is clear, may be lacking while formal membership is retained. Thus, for example, a recalcitrant priest may be suspended “a divinis.” He is, therefore, “lacking in communion with the Church,” to the extent that, as a priest, he may not celebrate the Divine mysteries; yet, for all that, he is still a member of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
The SSPX are in the “recalcitrant priest” category–in fact they have more privileges than a priest suspended “a divinis.” So they are members of Church, even if their communion with the Church is lacking in some ways. In contrast, protestants for example lack communion in certain elements necessary for membership in the Church. They are not part of the Church despite having partial communion with the Church in some elements (like baptism).
 
Last edited:

12. Did Vatican II cause the erosion we are seeing the Church—clerical corruption, the rise of the “nones,” the drop in vocations, the lack of belief in the Real Presence?​

No. It is important to note, first of all, that Catholicism is a global Church, and this erosion is a largely Western phenomenon. As the World Christian Database confirms, Catholic Church membership has significantly increased since Vatican II, with the most dramatic growth in Africa. (In fact, the only place where the Church has not been growing since Vatican II is in Europe.) It is projected that, by 2050, the largest percentage of Catholics will be in Africa:

https://www.wordonfire.org/vatican-ii-faq/#continuity
 
Actually you’re probably right, the TLM group is moribund in the late '60s, and the modernists are way out in left field. John Paul’s hermanutic attempts to interpret the (actually very orthodox,) documents of V2 in light of and with reference to tradition. It attempts to apply the breaks to the modernist juggernaut, while bringing the traditionalists, as equal players into the twety-first century Church.
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
The SSPX are in the “recalcitrant priest” category–in fact they have more privileges than a priest suspended “a divinis.” So they are members of Church, even if their communion with the Church is lacking in some ways.
Click to expand...
The quote by Fr. John Hardon, SJ is interesting. Consider posting the whole thing. I heard him speak once, read some of his books.

Btw, there’s confusion in the thread between SSPX (members) , SSPX (organization), and SSPX (attached Laity).
The Church “recognition” of one does not equate to recognition of the other. The fact that the Church has discussions and liaison with SSPX, or with the PNCC, for instance, and some sacramental recognition now for individuals in both, shouldn’t be overestimated.

The SSPX and the PNCC remain separate now, in 2020, not because of assent to V2, or V1, but because they have their own Laity; formally, for PNCC, informally, for SSPX. The PNCC is similar to SSPX, plus a few more decades.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
The quote by Fr. John Hardon, SJ is interesting. Consider posting the whole thing. I heard him speak once, read some of his books
Click to expand...
It’s actually from his thesis/dissertation, written under the supervision of Sebastian Tromp (the main author of Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis and certain key passages of Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium). The title is “A comparative study of Bellarmine’s doctrine on the relation of sincere non-Catholics to the Catholic Church.” In context, he is countering the position of someone who said Protestants are members, but lack full communion. He is explaining how they are not members, but how a lack of full communion can indeed exist with membership in other circumstances. Like I said, it used to be online (it had a lot of good info on belonging to the Church by desire too).

Here’s where it used to be online:

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Mystical_Body/Mystical_Body_003.htm

They took down due to “typing errors” years ago, and never put it back up sadly. I think because it was republished and now being sold, they can’t give it away for free anymore. I had saved that passage because it showed how the idea of “partial communion” was not controversial before Vatican II. But it applies here as well.
commenter said:
The fact that the Church has discussions and liaison with SSPX, or with the PNCC, for instance, and some sacramental recognition now for individuals in both, shouldn’t be overestimated.
Click to expand...
In any event, the PNCC and SSPX are not comparable as is evident simply with how Rome relates to them. Talks with the PNCC come under the dicastery responsible for ecumenism because they are separated Christians. The SSPX instead come under the Ecclesia Dei commission, and now subsumed into the CDF, because it is an internal matter.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top