CATHOLICS ONLY: Questioning the authority of Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rising_Suns
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rising_Suns

Guest
Brethren
I am currently a moderator at another forum, and I’ve noticed that more and more of our Catholic members are questioning the authority of Vatican II. Some suggest it was a “mistake”, or a “bad idea”. Some periodically make it a point to note that it defined no dogma, but was only pastoral…or that it was not infallible, that it contradicts Tradition, that it is ambiguious, and so on.

My question is this: Are such opinions as the above listed perfectly permissible and acceptbale for a Catholic to think?

Basically my question is comes down to what submission to the Holy See entails.

Looking forward to your opinions.

Blessings,

-Davide
 
It is wrong to cast aspersions on Vatican II, pontificating on it as if the individual Catholic has any right to question the decisions of a valid Church council.

Some who do this are rabid traditionalists who hate everything that came out of Vatican II, not just the touted “spirit of Vatican II” that actually stands against what the council actually stated, as well as the true spirit of the council.

Others see the confusion after V.II and blame it all on the council instead of on how the directives of the council were implemented.

And still others just miss the Latin and the chanting and reverence of the traditional Latin Mass, which is only natural and in many ways a valid concern. Because it is a valid concern we are seeing a restoration of many pre-V.II customs that were never mandated to be eliminated in the first place.

But, to come right out and declare V.II invalid or the cause of all our difficulties, etc. is not right and ought to be corrected for the sake of those seeking the truth about the Church as well as the good of these misguided Catholics.
 
The Pope and the Magisterium have the authority, given to them by Christ, to call for Councils, such as Vatican II.
The Pope and the Magisterium are the official interpreters and ratifiers of these Councils.
Furthermore, the Pope is the final interpreter regarding Canon Law.

Those who question the Council are setting up their own “authority” and interpretation against the authority and interpretation of the Pope and the Magisterium.

I choose to go with the folks who received their authority from Christ.
 
Della,
Thank you for the reply.

I’m going to play the “Devil’s Advocate” and answer your points in how I think someone of this mindset would answer them:
40.png
Della:
It is wrong to cast aspersions on Vatican II, pontificating on it as if the individual Catholic has any right to question the decisions of a valid Church council.
Click to expand...
But Catholics at the same time should not be mindless slaves, and have every right to question. There have been “bad” pastoral councils in the past that preached bad doctrine. Why should Vatican II be any different? Just look at what has happened over the past 40 years. Remember, Vatican II did not define any new Dogma. It should be judged in light of Tradition that came before it.
But, to come right out and declare V.II invalid or the cause of all our difficulties, etc. is not right and ought to be corrected for the sake of those seeking the truth about the Church as well as the good of these misguided Catholics.
Click to expand...
(I just want to draw attention to the next sentance below, which is a common play on words that seems to often be used. At a quick glance, I seemed to concede your point, yet I still leave the door open)

Perhaps Vatican II was not an invalid council, but it sure left alot to be desired, which could have been the result of corrupt Bishops. I have heard that there was even a Bishop who was a Masionic overseeing VII, and the Protestants that attended also seemed to have more influence over the council than they should have.

Blessings,

-Davide
 
I’ve noticed that more and more of our Catholic members are questioning the authority of Vatican II. Some suggest it was a "mistake
Click to expand...
Yes Vatican II is different from other councils. But I believe that this council is God’s will and far away from a mistake.

It is not a coinsidence that the pope’s crown was donated for charity (around the time of VaticanII), and the papal state was just taken over. These are only signs that the kind of “worldly monarchy power” is about to be cleansed from the church, and the papal seat would never be the same ever since.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Tiara

So then comes many kinds of opinions. Some of them are asking about “this authority” and “that authority”. Well, well, well, I said. If we believe in infallibility, is there any possiblity that all this is a mistake?

How about Trent council shouting “anathema” to Luther, despite of church guilty personels.

We are to remember that Joshua “hang” God enemies in “anathema” in the bible. This word means " to be placed on high" / “hung” / “suspended”. Anathema is to consecrate for God for His case, for all to see. Most of them are guilty ones, but when Jesus came, He said:

John 3
14. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

If only the new testament was not written in greek, the word “anathema” wil literally be there in John 3:14.

So just as Vatican II, was Trent council a mistake? I would say who knows if it was God’s will. These things are too big for all of us to understand.

And who should decide what a catholic suppose to believe? So much effort to be so “exclusive” while the word “catholic” means “inclusiveness”…

By the way, this is only my personal opinion, so it doesn’t matter at all, really.

My eyes r getting weary, I am going to bed right now.

Good night & God bless ya’ll.
 
I dont like the affects of VAT II because now I grew up with “diet catholocism”. My generation has experienced training or education on doctrine, faith, beliefs, dogma. It has lead to the total break down of discipline, reverence, and authority. Alot of things that went into ‘being a catholic’ have been sidelined or destroyed. Not say VAT II did this, by the results are evident.
 
40.png
Rising_Suns:
Are such opinions as the above listed perfectly permissible and acceptbale for a Catholic to think?
Click to expand...
Let’s take a look
40.png
Rising_Suns:
Some suggest it was a “mistake”, or a “bad idea”.
Click to expand...
I think the distinction should be made between the council and the implementation. This can be confusing. Still, I do think that one may disagree with the decision to have a council in the first place.
Pope Paul himself said “the opening to the world has become a veritable invasion of the Church by worldly thinking. We have perhaps been too weak and imprudent.” – Speech, November 23, 1973
40.png
Rising_Suns:
Some periodically make it a point to note that it defined no dogma, but was only pastoral…
Click to expand...
I’m certain its okay to make this point since Pope Paul himself made it on more than one occasion. Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral. --Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General Audience

Pope Benedict has spoken about this as well. In 1988 he said: The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.
40.png
Rising_Suns:
or that it was not infallible
Click to expand...
This too is okay to say since Pope Paul has said it: …in view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility. `` Audience of 12 January, 1966
40.png
Rising_Suns:
that it contradicts Tradition, that it is ambiguious, and so on
Click to expand...
This is a little hairer. But Pope Benedict has said: The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as part of the entire living tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. Again, I think he is speaking to the implementation of the Council rather than the council itself. But this poor implementation, this “Spirit of Vatican II” was aided by the ambiguity of many of the documents. I think that has to be admitted, and I think it is okay to say. The Council can be interpreted in the light of tradition, which is why even Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents. We know, however, that oftentimes they haven’t been interpreted that way.

I hope that helps.
 
Vat II was a strange phenomenon. It didnt necessarily teach heresy, anything new, etc… But it did allow for the creation of a new mass, which, until recently was fine, but now i crave to try a latin mass. And i totally understand what the traditionalists are saying. Just go to mass, and view it as a mass worshipping a God who is actually present (i.e you can see Him), and see how much people really dont respect the fact that God is really in the tabernacle. The old mass (though ive never been) certainly seemed to keep the faithful in line when they went to sacrifice to God.
 
I wasent alive for Vatican II, not Catholic till that long ago, What were some of the things it “Changed” that people have a problem, and why do they have a problem with it? :confused:
 
40.png
Rising_Suns:
But Catholics at the same time should not be mindless slaves, and have every right to question. There have been “bad” pastoral councils in the past that preached bad doctrine. Why should Vatican II be any different? Just look at what has happened over the past 40 years. Remember, Vatican II did not define any new Dogma. It should be judged in light of Tradition that came before it.
Click to expand...
Please tell me one past “bad” council that preached “bad doctrine.” If there is such one (I don’t think there is), it wouild be an attack on infallibility and then the entire house comes crumbling down.

Secondly, it is appropriate to discuss whether the implementation has been perfect but it is not appropriate to disagree with the doctrine as that would be “dissenting.” And if one were to analyze all past councils, I think you would find implementation problems that required clarification and education but that doesn’t mean there was “bad doctrine.”

Finally, a common theme of those disatisfied with the state of their individual diocese or beyond is that the change doesn’t suit them and they effectively then advocate a change contrary to the direction of the Bishop. To me, that appears to be an usurption of responsibility that is exclusively the Bishop, the local ultimate teaching authority. Such usurption seems rather “protestant” to me.

Granted, there have been changes done by some Bishops that probably are not consistent with Vatican II and we need to support the correction. However, it must be done in a spirit of deference and reverance of the authority granted the Bishop.

We also need to keep in mind that such “abuses” are unfortunate misinterpretations that have not been positive (any misinterpretation of the Truth and Teaching is inherently negative as there is on Truth inspired by the Holy Spirit) and the consequence of the imperfection of Bishops who are like us, sinners.

This being said, past misinterpretations used to require hundreds of years for them to become known or gain the attention of Rome and then decades for their correction. Becuase of modern communication, such misinterpretations more quickly get attention and will be more quickly corrected. For this we should be grateful.

In the meantime, we need to still always be respectful of our Bishops.
 
40.png
Rising_Suns:
Brethren
I am currently a moderator at another forum, and I’ve noticed that more and more of our Catholic members are questioning the authority of Vatican II.Davide
Click to expand...
  1. Have they actually read the documents.
  2. The timing of VII was atrocious.
  3. The implementation has been a severe problem, but
    corrections have been and are continuing to be put into
    place.
  4. A Council is a Council. Period.
  5. The major problem is that dissent, linked to V II but not a
    part of it, was allowed to flourish without constraint until the
    mid-'80’s.
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
Please tell me one past “bad” council that preached “bad doctrine.” If there is such one (I don’t think there is), it wouild be an attack on infallibility and then the entire house comes crumbling down.
Click to expand...
Continuing my roleplaying…

I’m not speaking of Ecumenical councils, but rather, local councils. There have been councils in the early Church that taught things contradictory to Tradition, and have subsequently been ignored. Vatican II was not an “Ecumenical Council”, but rather, pastoral.
Secondly, it is appropriate to discuss whether the implementation has been perfect but it is not appropriate to disagree with the doctrine as that would be “dissenting.”
Click to expand...
But Vatican II did not define any new doctrine. Therefore, there is nothing really to assent to. It’s just a matter of discipline really.
 
Rising_Suns said:
Continuing my roleplaying…

I’m not speaking of Ecumenical councils, but rather, local councils. There have been councils in the early Church that taught things contradictory to Tradition, and have subsequently been ignored. Vatican II was not an “Ecumenical Council”, but rather, pastoral.

But Vatican II did not define any new doctrine. Therefore, there is nothing really to assent to.
Click to expand...

Local councils don’t speak with the authority of infallibility. They can be corrected by the Pope/Magisterium when their incorrectness comes to Rome’s intention. And while not an expert, Vatican II changed how we worship and as CAtholics we are called to be unified in our expression of worship and for this we must submit and be obedient.
 
40.png
Rising_Suns:
Della,
Thank you for the reply.
Click to expand...
Your’re welcome! 😃
I’m going to play the “Devil’s Advocate” and answer your points in how I think someone of this mindset would answer them:
Click to expand...
Okay. 🙂
But Catholics at the same time should not be mindless slaves, and have every right to question. There have been “bad” pastoral councils in the past that preached bad doctrine. Why should Vatican II be any different? Just look at what has happened over the past 40 years. Remember, Vatican II did not define any new Dogma. It should be judged in light of Tradition that came before it.
Click to expand...
There are too many answers for one simple question: was V.II a valid council or not? The first is not an argument but an excuse for disobedience. The 2nd, is misleading because there haven’t been and “bad” councils attended by all the bishops, so this point is a non sequitur. And thirdly, whether a council defines any “new” dogma or not has nothing to do with its validity.
(I just want to draw attention to the next sentance below, which is a common play on words that seems to often be used. At a quick glance, I seemed to concede your point, yet I still leave the door open)

Perhaps Vatican II was not an invalid council, but it sure left alot to be desired, which could have been the result of corrupt Bishops. I have heard that there was even a Bishop who was a Masionic overseeing VII, and the Protestants that attended also seemed to have more influence over the council than they should have.

Blessings,

-Davide
Click to expand...
Once again lies, deception, and excuses. These aren’t arguments but attempts to mislead and so deflect any sound arguments against their position. I wouldn’t bother attempting to answer such “questions”, which aren’t really questions as much as they are traps for the unwary, like the Pharisees tried on Jesus with the whole, who do we owe allegiance to, God or Caesar? thing from last Sunday’s Gospel reading. :rolleyes:
 
Pastoral doesn’t mean that it doesn’t contain dogma. It does mean that it didn’t define any new dogma. Certainly there were dogmatic statements made in the council such as Lumen Gentium. It’s not called a dogmatic constitution for nothing. Also, a great document on obedience is Pastor Aeternus ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

2
. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
Click to expand...
 
Montie Claunch:
I wasent alive for Vatican II, not Catholic till that long ago, What were some of the things it “Changed” that people have a problem, and why do they have a problem with it? :confused:
Click to expand...
I would say that the most important thing that changed by VAT II is : the way the church “handles the truth”.

In the past, in the time of church fathers, and especially when roman culture is very strong in the church, the truth is seen as the way typical roman greek scholars seen it : they debate about all kinds of things, then they decide which one is “the most accurate”. Thus, any “discrepancy” than what is “formulated” will call to a “schism” thus need to be diciplined (read : ex-communicated), to protect herself from “errors”.

VAT II changes the way the church handles “different opinions”. It does not change the formulation by church fathers (basic truths of church doctrines), though.

After VAT II, different opinions are seen as “subjective truths, as seen by the individual person”, and it is not necessarily call for “condemnation” . Instead it is call for “respectful discussion”. Everyone are to “respect each other, regardless what their religions are”. People of different religions are seen as “loved by God” as much as believers. In this, she does not let go of “the truth” she has been holding on to : instead she calls harder for “evangelization” because God’s love for “the other nations” are to be manifested through preaching the gospel. But in doing this, respectable peaceful dialog is the tool.

To have peaceful dialog does not mean “the basic truth” is “negotiable” (this basic truth is : that Christ is Lord and salvation is only through Him).

But some “tradition” with small “t” are negotiable. Now is the time to differentiate what are those Tradition (with big T), among those with the small “t”. Tradition of the manifestation of the “Kingdom of God” on earth will have to stay with St. Peter’s calling (together with the other diciples) to tend God’s flocks. But traditions guilty of “causing separation” and “worldly monarch” background are some of those which likely “about to be let go” : because “to scatter the flock” is definitively not the call of the church, instead the call is “to gather and seek the lost”.

So these are the important things that-- in my opinion-- VAT II has brought to change the face and the self of the church forever. The changing church is still going on though. It is a long process of change for all of us-- our attitude toward The Truth-- as well as the intellectuals and leaders in the academical church-- the way we alll think-- as one but broken body of Chirst.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top