Can you be in Communion with Rome if you disagree with some parts of Vatican 2?

[archangelzx]

So I have been visiting Catholic Forums for a while but now I have decided to join the Forums and start making posts. I go to a Roman Rite Catholic Church for Mass and I am canonically part of the Roman Rite but at home and in my heart I pray the prayers in the Byzantine style. In general I at least pray a reader’s version of the Typika daily since most of the Byzantine Liturgical Hours are quite long if prayed properly. The Typika is the Roman Rite version of the Liturgy of the Word in the OF Mass.

I am a fairly traditional Catholic as well. I have been Catholic now for over 5 years; I converted in college from being a Baptist but I was only Baptist for about a year and before that I didn’t really have any faith in Christ. Over the years I have been struggling with Vatican 2. I almost became Orthodox (Orthodox Church in America) a couple years ago but while they have a great liturgy their politics and administration leave something to be desired and I realized how important the Papacy is and I always believed in the Immaculate Conception. So I returned to the Catholic Church and that is also why I now prefer to worship in the Byzantine Rite among other reasons.

So I now finally get to the point that I wanted to make. I wanted to verify if a certain position I have is considered to be in alignment with the Holy Catholic Church. I feel that this post Vatican 2 age is one of the “four dark ages of the Church.” I define a dark age to be a time period where the Church is almost wiped out. The first period I define is the time of Arianism around the First Nicene Council. Many bishops, clergy, and laypeople did not accept the divinity of Christ and even the Bishop of Alexandria excommunicated St. Athanasius to which he was restored later. The second period is the time of Iconoclasm in the 8th and 9th centuries. The Icons were almost wiped out and it was Rome that saved the day in those times. The third period I say is around the 15th century when some of the Popes and clergy were so corrupted that I just find it amazing that we made it out alive through the Council of Trent.

So now we come to our age and day. There are parts of Vatican 2 that I do not accept and I do not believe the council to be ecumenical. I do not accept ecumenism or religious freedom and while I do accept the validity of the new Roman Mass I do not prefer it. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life and that Christ is necessary for Salvation.

So I want to work to restore the Church to the way things were before Vatican 2. I want to cling to the Pope of Rome through what I consider these dark and turbulent times just like in times past.

Are these beliefs heretical or can a Catholic genuinely feel this way and be in line with the Catholic Church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would ask the question myself. And I don’t mind if the Church declares some parts of a council as “optional”, but it has to be for all, not just a certain group. If one group gets special treatment, then there has to be something more to it.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

So I have been visiting Catholic Forums for a while but now I have decided to join the Forums and start making posts. I go to a Roman Rite Catholic Church for Mass and I am canonically part of the Roman Rite but at home and in my heart I pray the prayers in the Byzantine style. In general I at least pray a reader’s version of the Typika daily since most of the Byzantine Liturgical Hours are quite long if prayed properly. The Typika is the Roman Rite version of the Liturgy of the Word in the OF Mass.

I am a fairly traditional Catholic as well. I have been Catholic now for over 5 years; I converted in college from being a Baptist but I was only Baptist for about a year and before that I didn’t really have any faith in Christ. Over the years I have been struggling with Vatican 2. I almost became Orthodox (Orthodox Church in America) a couple years ago but while they have a great liturgy their politics and administration leave something to be desired and I realized how important the Papacy is and I always believed in the Immaculate Conception. So I returned to the Catholic Church and that is also why I now prefer to worship in the Byzantine Rite among other reasons.

So I now finally get to the point that I wanted to make. I wanted to verify if a certain position I have is considered to be in alignment with the Holy Catholic Church. I feel that this post Vatican 2 age is one of the “four dark ages of the Church.” I define a dark age to be a time period where the Church is almost wiped out. The first period I define is the time of Arianism around the First Nicene Council. Many bishops, clergy, and laypeople did not accept the divinity of Christ and even the Bishop of Alexandria excommunicated St. Athanasius to which he was restored later. The second period is the time of Iconoclasm in the 8th and 9th centuries. The Icons were almost wiped out and it was Rome that saved the day in those times. The third period I say is around the 15th century when some of the Popes and clergy were so corrupted that I just find it amazing that we made it out alive through the Council of Trent.

So now we come to our age and day. There are parts of Vatican 2 that I do not accept and I do not believe the council to be ecumenical. I do not accept ecumenism or religious freedom and while I do accept the validity of the new Roman Mass I do not prefer it. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life and that Christ is necessary for Salvation.

So I want to work to restore the Church to the way things were before Vatican 2. I want to cling to the Pope of Rome through what I consider these dark and turbulent times just like in times past.

Are these beliefs heretical or can a Catholic genuinely feel this way and be in line with the Catholic Church?

Seems you are unaware pronouncements emanating from an ecumencial council (and subsequently ratified by the pope) can never be heretical as this would contradict the indefectibility of the Church promised by Our Lord?

 

[Stylites]

So I want to work to restore the Church to the way things were before Vatican 2. I want to cling to the Pope of Rome through what I consider these dark and turbulent times just like in times past.

Are these beliefs heretical or can a Catholic genuinely feel this way and be in line with the Catholic Church?

Well, it seems a bit odd to claim that the Church is in a dark age and that one wants to restore Her to pre-Vatican II ways. Ask our own JReducation why Vatican II was needed for the religious orders.

 

[archangelzx]

Seems you are unaware pronouncements emanating from an ecumencial council (and subsequently ratified by the pope) can never be heretical as this would contradict the indefectibility of the Church promised by Our Lord?

I have heard various positions on rather Vatican 2 is considered to be ecumenical or not. My position is that it is not. Vatican 2 is unlike any other ecumenical council in the past i.e. there is no critical issue facing the life of Church. Also an ecumenical council cannot teach heresy. We cannot teach people that its ok to choose whatever religion you want or that every religion is as good as the next. In much of the second millennium it was considered a major sin to pray with heretics and schismatics and now we are encouraged to that after Vatican 2. We now even have a Bible that was worked on together with Protestants and Catholics (the New American Bible).

At the same time I do not have hatred towards non-Catholics. I believe there are some things we can do with Protestants and non-Catholic religions like helping the poor but when it comes to prayer and worship I feel that there should be some separation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not just Vatican II, but also believing that the “new Mass” is heretical… catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=537

Well, they always say that the Mass of Paul VI was a fruit of Vatican II. But does questioning the form of Mass as heretical even though it is a form that the Pope himself celebrate, doesn’t that suggest they are out of communion if they hold to such belief?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;9433476:

Seems you are unaware pronouncements emanating from an ecumencial council (and subsequently ratified by the pope) can never

be heretical as this would contradict the indefectibility of the Church promised by Our Lord?
I have heard various positions on rather Vatican 2 is considered to be ecumenical or not. My position is that it is not. Vatican 2 is unlike any other ecumenical council in the past i.e. there is no critical issue facing the life of Church. Also an ecumenical council cannot teach heresy. We cannot teach people that its ok to choose whatever religion you want or that every religion is as good as the next. In much of the second millennium it was considered a major sin to pray with heretics and schismatics and now we are encouraged to that after Vatican 2. We now even have a Bible that was worked on together with Protestants and Catholics (the New American Bible).

Our individual position is irrelevant since the Magisterium alone provides the authentic interpretation of ecumencial pronouncements. Also, where do the documents of Vatican II specifically state it is not an ecumencial council?

At the same time I do not have hatred towards non-Catholics. I believe there are some things we can do with Protestants and non-Catholic religions like helping the poor but when it comes to prayer and worship I feel that there should be some separation.

There is a vital distinction between communicatio in sacris (sacramental intercommunion) and communicatio in spiritualibus (non-sacramental common prayer) radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-5.php?t=16 ]

 

[archangelzx]

Not just Vatican II, but also believing that the “new Mass” is heretical… catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=537

Well, they always say that the Mass of Paul VI was a fruit of Vatican II. But does questioning the form of Mass as heretical even though it is a form that the Pope himself celebrate, doesn’t that suggest they are out of communion if they hold to such belief?

One thing about Vatican 2 that I find interesting is that I think it was Sacrosanctum Concillium Paragraph 101 that says that Vespers should be offered in the parish church at least on Saturday/Sunday nights (I think it says Sunday nights but that would mean it should be on Saturday night then to anticipate Sunday). How many parishes do you know celebrate Vespers at least weekly?

My point in bringing that up is that Sacrosanctum Concillium had a lot of good intentions. I might even say that the Mass of Paul VI can be equally reverent to the Traditional Latin Mass if said properly. When you see Mass at the Vatican for Christmas or Easter it feels very reverent. I feel that at least in the United States we have interpreted simplicity to mean laziness. Simplicity is not an excuse for laziness.

Other parishes and dioceses really push ecumenism and interfaith relations to the edge. Even still others just want to be heretical and defiant of certain church teachings such as abortion and contraception, closed communion, homosexuality, etc. They design their churches to reflect all this and they usually employ the OF Mass. So when you go into one of these churches it is not the fault of the OF Mass of itself that causes a poor experience but usually laziness or heresy which is the problem. One of my pet peeves are poorly-trained or lazy altar servers who show little reverence or respect at Mass.

The OF Mass is ok in and of itself. Its the Church trying to reach out to souls in a more understandable way. I personally think they should have put out more education and literature on the Latin Mass but the bottom line is that we are trying to reach souls for Christ. My personal favorite version of the Mass is the LIturgy of St. John Chrysostom

 

[archangelzx]

Our individual position is irrelevant since the Magisterium alone provides the authentic interpretation of ecumencial pronouncements. Also, where do the documents of Vatican II specifically state it is not an ecumencial council?

There is a vital distinction between communicatio in sacris (sacramental intercommunion) and communicatio in spiritualibus (non-sacramental common prayer) radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-5.php?t=16 ]

I thought “Communicatio in Sacris” meant literally “Communicating in the Sacred”. In the teachings and documents of the Holy Office which I believed existed from 1669 to 1939 you see admonitions for Catholics and non-Catholics not to worship or even pray together. Even if you have valid reasons to pray together you may cause scandal by your actions.

It is certainy true that Pope John 23rd opened Vatican 2 as an ecumenical council. It was necessary as well to a certain point since we never closed Vatican 1 properly. However, there do seem to be teachings that contradict the Bible. I have a hard time understanding why we shouldn’t evangelize the Jews and Muslims. The Jews still cling to the Old Law of Moses and the Muslims are all together another story.

I am also troubled in modern times of how much we celebrate Vatican 2 and I do not see much reflection on other ecumenical councils of the Church. Pope Benedict is making 2012 a big year because it is the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican 2. Have you heard much news on the other 20 ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church?

 

[Mike30]

Well, it seems a bit odd to claim that the Church is in a dark age and that one wants to restore Her to pre-Vatican II ways. Ask our own JReducation why Vatican II was needed for the religious orders.

With all due respect to Brother JR whom I admire greatly by the way, while Vatican II may have been needed in the religious orders, in order to get them back to their charisms, were they as equally needed by the laity at large? I think therein lies the real question. What may be appropriate for religious orders may not necessarily be appropriate for those of us not in orders or institutes or communities.

The Religious have always been called to another level as it were. I daresay that most of us on this forum could not even begin to handle the lifestyle.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

So now we come to our age and day. There are parts of Vatican 2 that I do not accept and I do not believe the council to be ecumenical. I do not accept ecumenism or religious freedom and while I do accept the validity of the new Roman Mass I do not prefer it. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life and that Christ is necessary for Salvation.

It was an ecumenical council; no one in the traditional camp questions that. The only questions are the very two Declarations you suggested, in so many words, Nostra Aetate & Dignitatis Humanae. If you read these Declarations at face value without aid of the past, you’re going to get end up with this “spirit of Vatican II.” They do not contain error, the only problem is that they are very interpretive and are incomplete in message. The only way to secure hermeneutics of continuity is to read Vatican II with the lens of the past. “The spirit of Vatican II” people think Vatican II was a retrograde policy which has final say, without proper catechesis this sort of thinking is inevitable. Presently, the only way to heal these wounds is by catechetical training at the parish level but hopefully in the future Rome will do this at the Papal level which would be a lot easier then having to present an entire history lesson every time and then teach what Vatican II said.

 

[archangelzx]

With all due respect to Brother JR whom I admire greatly by the way, while Vatican II may have been needed in the religious orders, in order to get them back to their charisms, were they as equally needed by the laity at large? I think therein lies the real question. What may be appropriate for religious orders may not necessarily be appropriate for those of us not in orders or institutes or communities.

The Religious have always been called to another level as it were. I daresay that most of us on this forum could not even begin to handle the lifestyle.

For one thing you probably wouldn’t be on Catholic Forums or the Internet much unless your order was very loose on your schedule and lifestyle structure. I would also like to take the time to impress some of my Byzantine beliefs in that we shouldn’t have religious orders to begin with. I think all monasteries should simply be under the jurisdiction of their local bishop or the Pope directly and leave it at that and that we should have a common rule for all Orders which is how things are generally done in the Eastern Catholic Churches and in the Orthodox Church.

 

[archangelzx]

It was an ecumenical council; no one in the traditional camp questions that. The only questions are the very two Declarations you suggested, in so many words, Nostra Aetate & Dignitatis Humanae. If you read these Declarations at face value without aid of the past, you’re going to get end up with this “spirit of Vatican II.” They do not contain error, the only problem is that they are very interpretive and are incomplete in message. The only way to secure hermeneutics of continuity is to read Vatican II with the lens of the past. “The spirit of Vatican II” people think Vatican II was a retrograde policy which has final say, without proper catechesis this sort of thinking is inevitable. Presently, the only way to heal these wounds is by catechetical training at the parish level but hopefully in the future Rome will do this at the Papal level which would be a lot easier then having to present an entire history lesson every time and then teach what Vatican II said.

Then the people I know who are “traditional” at a local Roman Rite parish that I used to belong to before I moved must not be part of that camp. Their argument as well as probably those in the SSPX and some sedevacantists would be that Vatican 2 cannot be ecumenical because the teachings in Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae, and Redemptio Unitatis (I think thats how its spelled) seem to contradict the Bible. What should our attitude be towards Jews and Muslims as Catholics?

 

[Mike30]

For one thing you probably wouldn’t be on Catholic Forums or the Internet much unless your order was very loose on your schedule and lifestyle structure. I would also like to take the time to impress some of my Byzantine beliefs in that we shouldn’t have religious orders to begin with. I think all monasteries should simply be under the jurisdiction of their local bishop or the Pope directly and leave it at that and that we should have a common rule for all Orders which is how things are generally done in the Eastern Catholic Churches and in the Orthodox Church.

Unfortunately this particular forum is for discussion of the Roman Church and its traditions, not the traditions of the Eastern or Orthodox Churches. There is a sticky concerning that.

 

[archangelzx]

Unfortunately this particular forum is for discussion of the Roman Church and its traditions, not the traditions of the Eastern or Orthodox Churches. There is a sticky concerning that.

Good call. Plus its probably a deviation from the point of the thread as well. However I think its bad to make a distinction between Traditional and Eastern because in a certain sense Eastern Catholicism is very traditional as it goes all the way back to each of the Apostles in a special way.

I do understand on the forum though that Traditional refers to Traditional “stuff” in the Latin Church while Eastern refers to the “stuff” of the various Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;9433580:

Our individual position is irrelevant since the Magisterium alone

provides the authentic interpretation of ecumencial pronouncements. Also, where do the documents of Vatican II specifically state it is not an ecumencial council?

There is a vital distinction between communicatio in sacris (sacramental intercommunion) and communicatio in spiritualibus (non-sacramental common prayer) radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-5.php?t=16 ]
I thought “Communicatio in Sacris” meant literally “Communicating in the Sacred”. In the teachings and documents of the Holy Office which I believed existed from 1669 to 1939 you see admonitions for Catholics and non-Catholics not to worship or even pray together. Even if you have valid reasons to pray together you may cause scandal by your actions.

The past pronouncements from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office were non-definitive teachings barring Catholic participation due to the lack of systematic guidelines from the Holy See pertaining to the Ecumencial Movement. Nevertheless, communicatio in spiritualibus was conditionally permitted in ecumencial conferences before Vatican II:
“Although in all these meetings and conferences any communication whatsoever in worship must be avoided, yet the recitation in common of the Lord’s Prayer or of some prayer approved by the Catholic Church, is not forbidden for opening or closing the said meetings” (Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office’s Instruction [of 20 December 1949] on the Ecumencial Movement Ecclesia Catholica, n. 5)

It is certainy true that Pope John 23rd opened Vatican 2 as an ecumenical council. It was necessary as well to a certain point since we never closed Vatican 1 properly. However, there do seem to be teachings that contradict the Bible. I have a hard time understanding why we shouldn’t evangelize the Jews and Muslims. The Jews still cling to the Old Law of Moses and the Muslims are all together another story.

Precisely where do any of the ecumenical pronouncements from Vatican II state the Catholic Church is no longer to observe the Great Commission?

I am also troubled in modern times of how much we celebrate Vatican 2 and I do not see much reflection on other ecumenical councils of the Church. Pope Benedict is making 2012 a big year because it is the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican 2. Have you heard much news on the other 20 ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church?

How does the public commemoration of the opening session of Vatican II necessarily minimize the authority of previous ecumencial councils? Just because surviving veterans from World War II publicly commemorate D-Day doesn’t mean the American Civil War or World War I was of any lesser historical importance!

 

[Exorcist]

So I have been visiting Catholic Forums for a while but now I have decided to join the Forums and start making posts. I go to a Roman Rite Catholic Church for Mass and I am canonically part of the Roman Rite but at home and in my heart I pray the prayers in the Byzantine style. In general I at least pray a reader’s version of the Typika daily since most of the Byzantine Liturgical Hours are quite long if prayed properly. The Typika is the Roman Rite version of the Liturgy of the Word in the OF Mass.

I am a fairly traditional Catholic as well. I have been Catholic now for over 5 years; I converted in college from being a Baptist but I was only Baptist for about a year and before that I didn’t really have any faith in Christ. Over the years I have been struggling with Vatican 2. I almost became Orthodox (Orthodox Church in America) a couple years ago but while they have a great liturgy their politics and administration leave something to be desired and I realized how important the Papacy is and I always believed in the Immaculate Conception. So I returned to the Catholic Church and that is also why I now prefer to worship in the Byzantine Rite among other reasons.

So I now finally get to the point that I wanted to make. I wanted to verify if a certain position I have is considered to be in alignment with the Holy Catholic Church. I feel that this post Vatican 2 age is one of the “four dark ages of the Church.” I define a dark age to be a time period where the Church is almost wiped out. The first period I define is the time of Arianism around the First Nicene Council. Many bishops, clergy, and laypeople did not accept the divinity of Christ and even the Bishop of Alexandria excommunicated St. Athanasius to which he was restored later. The second period is the time of Iconoclasm in the 8th and 9th centuries. The Icons were almost wiped out and it was Rome that saved the day in those times. The third period I say is around the 15th century when some of the Popes and clergy were so corrupted that I just find it amazing that we made it out alive through the Council of Trent.

So now we come to our age and day. There are parts of Vatican 2 that I do not accept and I do not believe the council to be ecumenical. I do not accept ecumenism or religious freedom and while I do accept the validity of the new Roman Mass I do not prefer it. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life and that Christ is necessary for Salvation.

So I want to work to restore the Church to the way things were before Vatican 2. I want to cling to the Pope of Rome through what I consider these dark and turbulent times just like in times past.

Are these beliefs heretical or can a Catholic genuinely feel this way and be in line with the Catholic Church?

Have you ever made the effort to actually read the post conciliar documents of the council?

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Then the people I know who are “traditional” at a local Roman Rite parish that I used to belong to before I moved must not be part of that camp. Their argument as well as probably those in the SSPX and some sedevacantists would be that Vatican 2 cannot be ecumenical because the teachings in Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae, and Redemptio Unitatis (I think thats how its spelled) seem to contradict the Bible.

Do the documents truly contradict Sacred Scripture or are these SSPX types choosing an interpretation that is in contradiction to Sacred Scripture? As you know, one can extrapolate a number of interpretations off anything that is ambiguous but if an interpretation can be demonstrated that is not contrary to the Deposit of Faith then that should be the primary.

What should our attitude be towards Jews and Muslims as Catholics?

No different then a pagan who is ignorant of Christ, evangelize to them that the Catholic Church is the only ark of salvation that is guided by God Himself by way of reason and faith. “To convert somebody, go and take them by the hand and guide them.” - St. Aquinas

 

[archangelzx]

Have you ever made the effort to actually read the post conciliar documents of the council?

Did you read my comment about Sacrosanctum Concillium Paragraph 101 earlier in the thread? Yes I have read most of the Vatican 2 council documents. I’m not one of those people who simply complain about the effects of the council just in general. I used to be but I wanted to pin point the exact problems and so I have tried to do some research.

 

[archangelzx]

The past pronouncements from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office were non-definitive teachings barring Catholic participation due to the lack of systematic guidelines from the Holy See pertaining to the Ecumencial Movement. Nevertheless, communicatio in spiritualibus was conditionally permitted in ecumencial conferences before Vatican II:
“Although in all these meetings and conferences any communication whatsoever in worship must be avoided, yet the recitation in common of the Lord’s Prayer or of some prayer approved by the Catholic Church, is not forbidden for opening or closing the said meetings” (Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office’s Instruction [of 20 December 1949] on the Ecumencial Movement Ecclesia Catholica, n. 5)

Precisely where do any of the ecumenical pronouncements from Vatican II state the Catholic Church is no longer to observe the Great Commission?

How does the public commemoration of the opening session of Vatican II necessarily minimize the authority of previous ecumencial councils? Just because surviving veterans from World War II publicly commemorate D-Day doesn’t mean the American Civil War or World War I was of any lesser historical importance!

Nostra Aetate Paragraph 5

"5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man’s relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: “He who does not love does not know God” (1 John 4:8).

No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.

The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15) "

I am hoping that this last paragraphs means that we should be nice to people in general but people might interpret that as well to say that we should not evangelize people of other religions. The Nation-State should promote Catholicism and barely but politely tolerate other religions. Maybe we could get a tax break for being Catholic?