Are you required to accept the Second Vatican Council?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Askmea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
Ask if they read the actual documents. What specifically do they disagree with. 90 percent of the time people object not to the documents themselves but the implementation.
Click to expand...
I think most critics object to the ambiguity of the documents, so that they allow multiple, contradictory interpretations. The documents lack the good of clarity.
 
commenter said:
There are people who work full time to keep the uncertainty pot simmering on V2. It’s a career.

Some are on the Left, such as National Catholic Reporter, Call to Action, and others. They use the “Spirit of Vatican 2” to justify their agendas.

Some are on the Right. Like those on the Left, they use “the pot is still simmering!” argument to justify their own independence from pope and bishop.

Religious organizations do everything they can to perpetuate their existence. “Stay in the organization just a little bit longer until this or that document is clarified. Things are still a little bit bubbling now.”

Trust me, neither the Left nor the Right want things to be clear. Ever. Better to change the subject to 2020, and what actions are prudent for Catholic individuals to take now.
Click to expand...
Excellent points and well articulated.
 
Bernoulli said:
40.png
commenter:
Ask if they read the actual documents. What specifically do they disagree with. 90 percent of the time people object not to the documents themselves but the implementation.
Click to expand...
I think most critics object to the ambiguity of the documents, so that they allow multiple, contradictory interpretations. The documents lack the good of clarity.
Click to expand...
The goal of every writer is to get quoted.
I suspect the most writers who get quoted, the “critics” who come to our attention, are those who find ambiguity in the documents.
 
If we’re free to choose which councils we accept and which we reject, then we’re free to reject the Council of Trent. The basic point, that your friend seems to be missing, is that councils don’t require his approval. Their authority is conferred by the Church, not by him.
 
For me it comes down to this… even if the V2 church is wrong, but as an obedient, faithful child I defer to her judgment, regardless of my feelings… I am safe.

If the V2 church is wrong, and I split off and follow my own discretion… it’s still a roll of the dice.

If the V2 church is right, and I split off and follow my own discretion… I am screwed.

I’m not a scholar, theology, or lawyer of church dogma… I have to defer to my faith in Christ, and be an obedient child. My real challenge however, is figuring out how to protect my own children from some of the negative results of V2.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that in the early years SSPX simply opposed the documents as wrong. But opposition can sometimes be refuted.

In recent years SSPX has argued that the documents are unclear or ambiguous and need to be clarified. But who’s to say when they are “clarified enough”?

Kind of an open ended thing.
 
I have read that unlike the Council of Trent, V2 was nin-dogmatic and non-infallible. Is this true? If so, is it fair to compare. Also, don’t preceding infallible dogma take precedent, with subsequent dogma not being permitted to contradict anything thereof?
 
Last edited:
In recent years SSPX has argued that the documents are unclear or ambiguous and need to be clarified. But who’s to say when they are “clarified enough ”?
Click to expand...
Yes, the SSPX has changed its stance on the Vatican II documents somewhat in recent years, though that was mostly around 2012 when the SSPX seemed to be acquiescing a bit because an agreement with the Vatican for regularization was looming on the horizon. An agreement never occurred. They have since largely gone back to speaking the way they used to.

If we can reject Vatican II, then consequently, we are to presume we’re free to reject other Councils as well. This is exactly what happened after the First Vatican Council - some Catholics at the time did not agree with the dogmas of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, so they left the Church but still practiced the customs and beliefs as they existed before 1870. These people were known as “Old Catholics”.

Traditionalist groups such as the SSPX are not much different in this regard. Yes, not everything that followed Vatican II was good and some of the documents can be considered ambiguous. But to reject the Council and the New Mass altogether as some sort of products of Protestantism or, as the SSPX has sometimes said, even Freemasonry?

Not only are these serious charges with no evidence, but it also sets a dangerous precedent. If the laity is told they can reject Church Councils, they will be conditioned to reject any other Church teaching they don’t agree with.

“Cafeteria Catholicism” is not and never has been true Catholicism.
 
NOTE: There are really two different SSPX groups.
1.the regular SSPX
2. the “SSPX Resistance” - which is a splinter group who believes the SSPX is too liberal
Click to expand...
This is correct. I cannot stress enough how dangerous the 2nd group you mention is. The SSPX has its problems but I wouldn’t label them a cult. The “SSPX Resistance”, however, I would consider to be a cult. Catholics should avoid them at all costs.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, a Council is a Council, just as a Pope is a Pope. There aren’t first- and second-class Councils, and there aren’t first- and second-class Popes. If acceptance of Vatican 2 was no more than Paul VI’s “personal opinion,” then acceptance of Trent was no more than Pius IV’s “personal opinion.”
 
ThomasMT said:
40.png
commenter:
But who’s to say when they are “clarified enough ”?
Click to expand...
A lot of the more negative thing resulting from V2 are being argued as “unintended.” That in it of itself suggests lack of clarity.
Click to expand...
Perhaps half the theologians trained and then promoted in decade prior
to V2 used their positions of power granted under Pope Pius XII to go on and dissent.

Does this “unintended” negative things prove that the teaching of Pius 12, Pius 11, and Trent, which helped form them, was faulty and ambiguous? Lack clarity?

Of course not. Their dissent proves original sin.
 
Last edited:
K.e.williams22 said:
The council in and of itself was not a bad thing
Click to expand...
The problem was that it had in fact no real purpose. All previous councils were called to settle specific questions. This council in itself had no such clear purpose.
Furthermore the dishonest use of the council made by some started right from the beginning. Anyone who reads the eyewitness account by Fr Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) can draw no other conclusion.
So was it “in and of itself” a bad thing? That’s not easy to say.
 
Last edited:
When a Council says something, it sometimes gives you an indication of how its statements are to be taken. This particular council called itself “pastoral” not “dogmatic”. Furthermore it spoke of aggiornamento, updating, which confirms that it was dealing with the pastoral needs of the 1960s, not with eternal dogma to be accepted for all time.
 
Maximian said:
The Rhine Flows into the Tiber
Click to expand...
That’s a good source. Some others I’d recommend for a variety of points of view:

The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story by Roberto de Mattei
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: A Counterpoint for the History of the Council by Agostino Marchetto
The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty by Michael Davies
Religious Liberty and Contraception by Fr Brian Harrison
 
Last edited:
Yes, I know these circles quite well and though I wouldn’t use the word cult they are extremely off beam. And by the way I have a suspicion that the occasionally People calling themselves “resistance” are actually SSPV (resistance are followers of Bishop Williamson whereas SSPV are sedevacantist).
 
Last edited:
I thought the second Vatican council was originally called to handle the problem with how many people were leaving the church. While yeah there were, as I said, some “interesting figures”, I mean by that there were people involved in this council who wanted nothing more than the changes that have been brought about. Such as the reformation of the liturgy. I think the council was called with good intention, but was not followed through or handled appropriately. Hence why we are in the mess we’re in today.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
40.png
Maximian:
The Rhine Flows into the Tiber
Click to expand...
That’s a good source. Some others I’d recommend for a variety of points of view:

The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story by Roberto de Mattei
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: A Counterpoint for the History of the Council by Agostino Marchetto
The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty by Michael Davies
Religious Liberty and Contraception by Fr Brian Harrison
Click to expand...
These books are mostly encouraged by SSPX. Their real message is for the SSPX supporter to stay put. Don’t move.

That’s not a real response to the original poster. He seems to be looking for something different for his SSPX acquaintance.
 
Last edited:
Two of them are. Cardinal Brandmuller praised Mattei’s book. Marchetto was praised by Benedict and Francis as having the best hermeneutical approach to the Council. Davies argues Dignitatis Humanae is not infallible and contradicts prior teaching while Harrison argues it does not. I believe Harrison’s argument is stronger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top