Can we have a polite discussion on the authority of vatican ii?

[Warrenton]

But one thing has not changed: the stubborn refusal of the SSPX to accept Vatican II on the grounds of principle…the very thing Ratzinger called illogical.

This is the thing, though, what exactly do the bishops want us to understand when they say “accept Vatican II?”

It is hard to get a simple answer to that question.

For example, if I say I hold the view that there is no salvation outside the Church, I will be told by one person that V2 upholds that tradition, and by another, the tradition has changed.

If I say I hold to the old mass, again, I will be told both that V2 upholds the tradition and that it does not.

The problem, it seems, is not that V2 is or is not authoratative, but in determining what precisely the authority is.

Which begs the question, why is V2 so chimerical?

 

[StTommyMore]

This is the thing, though, what exactly do the bishops want us to understand when they say “accept Vatican II?”

It is hard to get a simple answer to that question.

For example, if I say I hold the view that there is no salvation outside the Church, I will be told by one person that V2 upholds that tradition, and by another, the tradition has changed.

If I say I hold to the old mass, again, I will be told both that V2 upholds the tradition and that it does not.

The problem, it seems, is not that V2 is or is not authoratative, but in determining what precisely the authority is.

Which begs the question, why is V2 so chimerical?

My advice to you is to actually read the documents for yourself.

 

[Warrenton]

My advice to you is to actually read the documents for yourself.

I have read a number of them. They leave one bewildered.

I don’t question their authority, and I find it interesting that for such a long thread, there is so little discussion on what V2 bids us to believe that we did not believe before.

If the answer is “nothing” then how can we decry SSPX? Under such a view, they are truly the “rebels without a cause.”

If the answer is “something,” then we have to identify what that something is.

An elusive council, V2.

 

[malphono]

An elusive council, V2.

No. What is “elusive” is the ever-shifting SSPX position on the matter. This whole thing could have come to an agreeable end before the 1988 circus but Mgr Lefebvre (possibly under the influence of others) did one his famous vacillations (another that comes to mind is recanting his assent to Dignitatis Humane, but never mind that). And since Mgr Lefebvre’s earthly demise, the SSPX seems to have become ever more stridently right-wing in its tone (perhaps a result of the same negative influence suggested earlier?). Personally, I hope that Mgr Fellay has the strength of character to distance himself from that (and thus from the influence of another who would likely be his rival), and bring this matter to an end. There is nothing intrinsic to any Vatican II documents (the so-called “dogmatic ones” or otherwise) that cannot be agreed to without the SSPX compromising either itself or its orthodoxy. Others have done. They can too.

 

[StTommyMore]

I have read a number of them. They leave one bewildered.

I don’t question their authority, and I find it interesting that for such a long thread, there is so little discussion on what V2 bids us to believe that we did not believe before.

If the answer is “nothing” then how can we decry SSPX? Under such a view, they are truly the “rebels without a cause.”

If the answer is “something,” then we have to identify what that something is.

An elusive council, V2.

I disagree. The documents are clear and straightforward. The problem with both the hyper-liberals and the ultra-conservatives is that they both think the documents say something that they don’t.

 

[Shin]

I get the feeling we’re losing touch with reality because of some rhetorical goals here.

Clear and straightforwards?

Read the before of Church documents pre-Vatican II. Read the after.

There’s a difference. Pope John Paul IInd vs. say Pope Pius XI…

Who is more clear and straightforwards?

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=edwest2;7313881]A bit drastic, don’t you think? My Church and neighboring Churches were not totally destroyed.

That’s nice. My Church was. I lived across from the Cathedral parish, that made it easier for my husband & myself to cart 3 babies to Mass, Novena, Benediction, etc. I was a stay-at-home Mom at the time, so I watched the flat-bed trucks that were loaded with our Statues leave the first day. Second day the Communion Rail was simply chopped into pieces & hauled away with the Confessionals. The choir loft was left alone for a couple of years, but it wasn’t used. Instead we had guitar music , with tamborines & were supposed to sing along with Dylan’s song “Blowin’ in the wind”. The “group” was seated at the right in the Sanctuary. If I remember correctly “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” was a popular Mass tune, also.

At the time of Vatican II, dissidents inside and outside the Church demanded change. Vatican II had ZERO to do with it. Nothing. The changes most people think of were not even suggested by Vatican II:
catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

I read your link, I’d already read it & I know what the council did NOT call for. But, you see…it happened anyway. This proves my point that, IF Vatican II was supposed to be authoritative, why did so many or our hierarchy disobey/add to/ subtract from…etc.

BTW. How can someone who is “outside the Church” be a Catholic dissident.

A priest on Catholic radio talked about **certain problems **

in the seminaries in the 1970s. One significant problem was that while prospective priests were taught Humanae Vitae, they were also told that the Church would change its stance on artificial contraception someday. The result? On becoming priests, they told parishioners that artificial birth control was a personal conscience matter. Recently, a priest on Catholic radio said that this problem is being corrected.

Gee, a priest of the radio…what a terrific source. “Certain problems” in the Seminary??? During the 70’s the minor Seminary that had served our state for many years closed because the priests were raping the young boys there. That left problems that could NOT be corrected.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Thomas_Aquinas_Preparatory_Seminary

 

[Thomas_Casey]

NOTE

You have one of the longest lasting threads on the forum, because you have kept contraversy and unnecessary arguments out of it. Try to keep it that way.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[malphono]

There’s a difference. Pope John Paul IInd vs. say Pope Pius XI…

Who is more clear and straightforwards?

FWLIW, (and this has absolutely nothing to do with Vatican II or its documents), my vote goes to PP Pius XI. One of the two (PP Benedict XV was the other) “forgotten” (perhaps “ignored” is more accurate) Popes of the XXth Century.

 

[Shin]

Vatican II had a huge effect – it’s not a self contained little bubble. If you read the documents from the Holy Office for example, read your interpretations of Canon Law, pre and post, Papal documents, everything.

There’s a big difference in how direct and straightforwards they are, or are not. And that makes sense because Pope John Paul IInd embraced Vatican II -and- its methodology.