CATHOLICS ONLY: Questioning the authority of Vatican II

[Genesis315]

Vatican II was unique in that it didn’t define any new dogma, nor did it condemn any errors, not even Communism. If you read Blessed John XXIII’s opening address, this was deliberate. The point of the council was to present doctrine in a different way as well as give the Church some direction in the rapidly changing modern world.

Firstly, it is an ecumenical council and therefore was an organ of the infallible extraordinary magesterium, it just chose not to exercise that authority (usually only a paragraph or a couple sentences of a council may fall under this classification).

That being said, a reading of the Vatican II documents in light of Tradition (how else should we read it?) will make it obvious that there are no errors.

The biggest criticisms seem to be regarding religious freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) and Lumen Gentum and EENS. However, DH affirms that all human beings have a moral obligation to be Catholic and Lumen Gentum states that oen must remain in the unity and bosom of the Church to be saved.

I think what happened is that a bunch of junk was implemented in the name of Vatican II. Since VII seemed so different due to its style and since it had no specific condemnations or strict definitions, the innovators in the Church were able to claim it as authorizing stripping down churches, abusing the Mass, teaching a freedom of conscience that more closely resembled freedom of perdition, and disobeying the pope in the name of collegiality.

When it comes down to it, Vatican II was just fine, it was just taken advantage of by innovators.

 

[USMC]

Orionthehunter:

Local councils don’t speak with the authority of infallibility.

But here is the question: Is a general Council of the Church, which specifically avoids engaging the extrordianary (i.e. infallible) magesterium, protected by the charism of infallibility?

That is to say, if a general Council does not speak infallibly, is it still guaranteed to be infallible? Is the charism of infallibility engaged when the Church specifically avoids engaging it?

According to the Paul VI, who was the Pope at the time of Vatican II, Vatican II specifically avoided engaging the extraordinary magesterium.

He said: "…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

So, Vatican II was different than every other general council of the Church, because every other General council dealt with the definition of dogma, which is always protected by infallibility. Vatican II was not that kind of Council. It was of a different “nature” as the Pope said. It was not a dogmatic council that defined what Catholics are to believe. It was instead a pastoral council, which deals more with the application of the faith. That is how it differred from other councils and why it did not engage the extraordinary magisteriums, nor define any dogmas. It was merely pastoral in nature.

Pope Paul VI: "Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral. --Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General Audience

Vatian II was only indirectly dogmatic, in that it did reiterate what has been defined infallibly by previous councils. But it added no new dogmatic teachings. It was the first general Church council ever not to define a dogma, and thus the first general Church council ever to not be protected by the charism of infallibility, since it purposefully did not engage the extraordinary magisterium.

Infallibility is tied to doctrinal definitions. God gave that protection to the Church so it would never go astray when it defined dogmas. The Church teaches that its dogmas are truths that have been revealed by God, through the Church. That is true, since God protects the Church from error when it defines doctrines; but when the Church is teaching on the pastoral level (which is what it did at Vatican II), it is not dealing directly with dogma (and thus not engaging the extraordinary magisterium), but rather teaching on level of the application of the faith, and discipline.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “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”.
Irionthe hunter:

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.

But did the new Mass come from Vatican II? Certainly not. Vatican II did call for some minor reforms to the liturgy, but what we have today is either in direct contradiction to what Vatican II said, or something that the council Fathers never intended, not immagined.

For example: Vatican II said the Canon was to remain in Latin as it had been for over 1500 years; but it allowed for the use of vernacular in certain parts. Today, in direct disobedience to the Council, the Canon is no longer in Latin. Who is responsible for this disobedience to the council?

And the Council said absolutely nothing about communion in the hand, which was considered a sacrilege during the Concil, neither did it mention Eucharistic ministers; not altar girls; nor the priest facing the people; nor profane music. In fact, Vatican II specifically said Gregorian Chant was to be retained.

Maybe now we can understand why Cardinal Stickler said the following:

"Now, we must underline what should be considered the correct name of the Mass of the Second Vatican Council: ‘the Mass of the post-conciliar liturgical commission’. A simple glance at the liturgical constitution of the Second Vatican Council immediately illustrates that the will of the Council and the will of the liturgical commission often do not coincide, **and are even evidently contrary.” **

So, let no one tell you that the Novus Ordo Mass at your local Parish is the Mass of Vatican II. It is anything but.

 

[Genesis315]

francisca:

After VAT II, different opinions are seen as “subjective truths, as seen by the individual person”, and it is not necessarily call for “condemnation” .

See, I think this subjective truth stuff is the misinterpretation. The Church still teaches that non-Catholics are in grave error. Read Dominus Iesus. The difference is, we understand that it is most likely not their fault for the sins of heresy and schism in this day and age. Telling them they are anathema doesn’t make them want to come back to the flock. Instead, showing love and respect and living the Truth will have them come home.

 

[francisca]

Genesis315:

See, I think this subjective truth stuff is the misinterpretation. The Church still teaches that non-Catholics are in grave error. Read Dominus Iesus.

Dominus Iesus means “Jesus is Lord”. This is the most basic truth of the church.

If a person neglect this truth, we are to discuss with him about this biggest truth that will save him. I agree with you in this.

Genesis315:

When it comes down to it, Vatican II was just fine, it was just taken advantage of by innovators.

Until now I do not understand the terms such as “innovators”, “fundamentalists”, “prograssives”, “liberals”

I always see these as “good qualities”. What I mean is : what is so bad being “fundamental” in following Christ ? What is so bad being “liberal” if what Jesus is doing is to liberate us? What is so bad being “innovative” in giving thanks and praise to god?

Are these qualities to be seen as “threat” to church tradition, or rather, these qualities are the ones to make the tradition able survive?

 

[Catholic2003]

USMC:

So, Vatican II was different than every other general council of the Church, because every other General council dealt with the definition of dogma, which is always protected by infallibility.

Lateran I, II, and III dealt with purely disciplinary matters, and did not define any doctrine.

 

[AquinasXVI]

If we see a trend in history it should be this. That every council that steers the church to a certain direction will have an adjustment period of about 100 years. What we’ve experienced in the misuse, abuse, misrepresentation of Vatican II is part of the slow process. As we can all see now, the dust is starting to settle and the merits of this council (lest we forget that the Magisterium is protected by the Holy Spirit) will start to reveal itself. Several fruits are already apparent. The writing of the CCC. The coming home of many many converts. Etc. etc.

So we cannot judge Vatican II either way at this point, we are still much too close to the event. What the environment will be in 2060 may be more fruitful than anyone of us can imagine. But also it is our part to apply V II with all of its sincerity.

My take.

in XT.

 

[francisca]

AquinasXVI:

So we cannot judge Vatican II either way at this point, we are still much too close to the event. What the environment will be in 2060 may be more fruitful than anyone of us can imagine. But also it is our part to apply V II with all of its sincerity.

My take.

in XT.

Yes, what we see is a small part of a long process. And we are to be sincere in our search for The Truth : to seek it by crossing the the borders of our own minds over to what is set by God for us. We are to be couragious in the search because we know that God the Holy Spirit, His love for us, will never depart from us. Thus we are not covered by “institionalized” way of thinking of men, but daring to hope for much greater glory that God want our children & us to witness.

Jeremiah 33
3 Call to me, and I will answer you; I will tell to you things great beyond reach of your knowledge.

read : Jeremiah 33 : 3 -9 [all men shall be fearful when they see the peace God has design for us – verse 9]

 

[jimmy]

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. 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

We are obliged to obey all councils of the Church that cover our jurisdiction, whether they are ecumenical or not. They are by the authority of Peter, therefore we must follow them.

That said, I accept Vatican II, but it does seem like it was a mistake. It was the wrong time and the wrong place. Changing the liturgy at that time was poor thinking. However, nothing in it is false.

I don’t question the authority or the truth of Vatican II. The only thing that I am unsure about is the title Ecumenical. I thought that a council must define something for it to be an ecumenical council. I have also heard that it is the canons that are infallible, not the entire council.

 

[misterX]

I guess i could be called a radical traditionalist. i think v.c.2 has weakend the church. i don’t understand the need for change… I mean was there anything wrong with the church pre.v.c.2? If no why change it. If so then you cannot ever use the churches long history as a defence which so many here do when arguing the virtues of the faith with a protestant. You must only rely on the church’s history over the last 40 odd years. And what great tradions you have built up since then. hippie sing alongs at mass. holding each other hands while praying. saying that there are other ways to Jesus besides his church, praying with pagans at scared sites. abandoning latin mass. cause some people are too stupid or lazy to read the english translation which is written right besides the latin. No wonder the churchs that have has remained more “radical” in its traditions are full, while the attendence at other new age liberal churchs are sliping.
+

 

[francisca]

misterX:

I guess i could be called a radical traditionalist. i think v.c.2 has weakend the church. i don’t understand the need for change… I mean was there anything wrong with the church pre.v.c.2?

The problem is the world is changing. What was not there now is here. And I am talking about the way we talk in the internet : so called “information era”… everybody can freely have their own opinions.

But this is not the only reason. The much greater reason is history of schisms which lead to more and more separations. It’s as if those church condemnations were of a kind of spirit, once it was said, the separation becomes “alive” thus keeps on separating the flocks. Surely Romans 8 says that “there should be no more condemnations for those who are in Christ Jesus”. Thus this has to stop-- at least for those who are in Christ. We know that Jesus also pray specially for the unity of the body so that the world may know that God has sent Him.

The other reason is the church has learned bitterly from history all kinds of violence in the name of religions.

For example in the time of the crusade, the church was trying to abolish “heresy”, but what was the outcome? She thought that it was the best way to stand for the truth-- to be like Joshua and David-- fight physically for God. But what happened was God spoke to St. Franciscus Asisi. Franciscus Assisi went for the cursade but came back with his own defeat. God then spoke to him of what He wanted, and it was not like what men of the time think of. God of love hates violence : in this the church has learnt several hard lessons. The fact that some kind of greater schisms were the triggers of several violence in the name of God, the church learns hard that condemnations are not the way to handle them.

The other example is the second world war. Hitler was not the only reason that the holocaust was possible. Before the time came, hatred agaist the Jews was long there creeping deep among the teaching of loving your neigbours. When the fullness of time came, it was a like “the day of reckoning”… But several years before this happened, Jesus spoke to St. Faustina Kowalska in apparition about “the coming great war”, and she has to pray for “Trusting in Divine Mercy”.

The exact words was there in the Canon XII on Justification of Trent council condemning schism of the 1500. Only this time Jesus want Sr. Faustina to say that we are to trusting Divine Mecy instead of “let them be anathema”.

During the debates with Luther, there were some rather negative comments about the Jews were “vocally” spoken.

St Faustina was born and lived in Poland, the first country that Hitler attacked to open the war, around one year after she died. A few years later we had a Polish Pope, who studied Sr. Faustina diary-- which contains the words of Jesus she wrote in Polish and her journal of His apparitions to her-- then canonized Her.

I believe that VAT II will certainly not weaken the church, instead-- with good pastoral guidance-- the church will soar on eagles wings : become a lot stronger in understanding and manifesting God’s Love in the world to come.

God bless you.

 

[Tonks40]

francisca:

The problem is the world is changing. What was not there now is here. And I am talking about the way we talk in the internet : so called “information era”… everybody can freely have their own opinions.

But this is not the only reason. The much greater reason is history of schisms which lead to more and more separations. It’s as if those church condemnations were of a kind of spirit, once it was said, the separation becomes “alive” thus keeps on separating the flocks. Surely Romans 8 says that “there should be no more condemnations for those who are in Christ Jesus”. Thus this has to stop-- at least for those who are in Christ. We know that Jesus also pray specially for the unity of the body so that the world may know that God has sent Him.

The other reason is the church has learned bitterly from history all kinds of violence in the name of religions.

For example in the time of the crusade, the church was trying to abolish “heresy”, but what was the outcome? She thought that it was the best way to stand for the truth-- to be like Joshua and David-- fight physically for God. But what happened was God spoke to St. Franciscus Asisi. Franciscus Assisi went for the cursade but came back with his own defeat. God then spoke to him of what He wanted, and it was not like what men of the time think of. God of love hates violence : in this the church has learnt several hard lessons. The fact that some kind of greater schisms were the triggers of several violence in the name of God, the church learns hard that condemnations are not the way to handle them.

The other example is the second world war. Hitler was not the only reason that the holocaust was possible. Before the time came, hatred agaist the Jews was long there creeping deep among the teaching of loving your neigbours. When the fullness of time came, it was a like “the day of reckoning”… But several years before this happened, Jesus spoke to St. Faustina Kowalska in apparition about “the coming great war”, and she has to pray for “Trusting in Divine Mercy”.

The exact words was there in the Canon XII on Justification of Trent council condemning schism of the 1500. Only this time Jesus want Sr. Faustina to say that we are to trusting Divine Mecy instead of “let them be anathema”.

During the debates with Luther, there were some rather negative comments about the Jews were “vocally” spoken.

St Faustina was born and lived in Poland, the first country that Hitler attacked to open the war, around one year after she died. A few years later we had a Polish Pope, who studied Sr. Faustina diary-- which contains the words of Jesus she wrote in Polish and her journal of His apparitions to her-- then canonized Her.

I believe that VAT II will certainly not weaken the church, instead-- with good pastoral guidance-- the church will soar on eagles wings : become a lot stronger in understanding and manifesting God’s Love in the world to come.

God bless you.

Very insightful! Thanks!

 

[JSmitty2005]

Certain things seemed to be forgetton or done away with after V2 that never should have been (most of them not officially, but they were nonetheless suppressed or ignored by the so-called ‘progressives’): Confession, chastity, the Real Presence, No Salvation Outside the Church, contraception, celibate priesthood, all male priesthood, Latin, the priest facing the altar, Marian devotions, the fact that church architecture should stir spirituality within us, the rosary, praying to saints, sacramentals, headcoverings, statues, and homilies on serious things that matter like sin, hell, and purgatory. Great saints were suppressed like Philomena, Christopher, and Catherine of Alexandria. I believe the problem with the council was in its interpretation and application by dissident Church leaders. History and tradition seemed to be done away with. People don’t see the Catholic Church any differently than any other Christian denomination anymore. I have a Catholic friend that’s engaged to a non-Catholic and she doesn’t understand the big deal in switching to his nondenominational church. Despite all this, I have faith in the Holy Spirit that everything will be worked out in the end.

 

[quasimodo]

Vatican II did not define any new doctrines nor did it do away with any doctrines. The problem is how to handle “emphasis.”

Trent emphasized the “visible church” because the protestants, of necessity, emphasized the “invisible church.” This emphasis on the visible led many to behave and think as though the “invisible” nature of the church was unimportant. Not true, the invisible church is very important. Vatican II re-emphasized it.

Without denying that the church Christ founded is the Catholic church, Vatican II said the church Christ founded subsists in the Catholic Church (in recognition of the salvific elements that lie outside the formal bounds of the church: belief in the Trinity, faith in Christ, scripture, Grace, metanoia, etc.) But some people hear “subsists” and think that it means the church denies it is the church Christ founded. Not so, it is a matter of emphasis.

There is no problem with Vatican II at all. The implementation of Vatican II was a disaster. The mythos of the “Spirit of Vatican II” led to all manner of nonsense. This mythos is someting to be rejected.

I would recommend that the next council should not close until the bishops have decided how to implement it and then they should all be required to implement it by the Pope of that time.