Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Second Vatican Council

[pataburd]

No. The Holy Spirit protects the Council from doctrinal error, just as the Pope is so protected when he makes an infallible pronouncement.

That does not mean that the disciplinary and prudential decisions of the Council conform to the Sovereign Will of God.

It is entirely possible for an Ecumenical Council to make prudential and disciplinary decisions which are harmful.

Dietrich von Hildebrand makes the distinction between what he termed the “practical” and the “theoretical” aspects of the Council’s decision(s), which your statements above faithfully echo.

Pope Paul VI himself conceded that “the smoke of Satan” had entered the Church, presumably through the “windows” Blessed John XXIII had opened to the world in order to let “fresh air” come in.

St. Paul admonished the Corinthians that they (i.e. as saints) would ultimately be judging angels. Those who raise serious questions about the implementation of the Council decisions (many, like myself, have concerns about how some of the documents themselves were ambiguously worded) are simply being honest in their judgment of the harmful actions and effects that came about after the Council, and very often “in the name of the Council” (chalked up to the notorious “spirit of Vatican II”).

In Dei Verbum, for example, bishops are encouraged to invite Protestants to work with Catholic scholars in translating/advancing Sacred Scripture. While hypothetically a gracious gesture, the practical outcome of such a decision was disastrous, in my opinion, given some of the footnotes and commentaries adjoined to the NAB text by Protestant contributors.

 

[TrueLight]

Pope Paul VI himself conceded that “the smoke of Satan” had entered the Church, presumably through the “windows” Blessed John XXIII had opened to the world in order to let “fresh air” come in.

Wow. Poignant.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Why do “inspired” Catholics reject the Magisterium as if God is giving them the gift of infallibility by judging the Second Vatican Council to be a step towards heresy?

I think we have been having a hard time in communicating this issue here. It seems that if we could develop the virtue of listen wihtout attacking one another, we could understand better.
Just think of the betrayal of Jesus. Remember how the Apostles were left into great confusion that paralyzed them in a way that they did not know what to do? Now, think about the council after the betrayal. The bishops were left with confusion and fear and did not know what to do and the judas took advantage and went to work in the distruction of all Catholic beliefs. Even Paul the VI wepped when he saw what was happening and could do nothing. Today, we realize that something went really wrong…by the fruits we reaped. It is the betrayal that we should be talking about.

 

[wisdomseeker]

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

1. If the Holy Spirit wasn’t with the Second Council of Vatican City, then the gates of hell prevailed.
2. If the gates of hell prevailed, then either Jesus made a mistake or lied to us.
3. Jesus is God.
4. God cannot make a mistake.
5. God will not lie to us.
6. Therefore what Jesus said was true.
7. Therefore the gates of hell have not prevailed.
8. Therefore the Holy Spirit was with the Second Council of Vatican City.
9. Therefore defending the Second Council of Vatican City is also defending the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit instructed Catholics to destroy all the works done inside the Church like the kneelers, images, in all the beauty of the Church done by our ancestrals? do you think it was the work of the HS that all priests abandon their habits and stop confession? do you believe it was the work of the HS for the nuns to abandon their habits and stop teaching the Catholic teachings to the children? there are much more.

 

[Little_One0307]

um how on earth has the church “survived” Vatican II?
we have a pope who joins in heretical prayer with muslims, buddhists and jews, catholics who can justify the likes of gay marriage, contraception, de facto relationships, divorce, multiple marriages and even abortion?
st peter must roll in his grave at the joke the papacy has become- selling out on centuries of dignified tradition to become just like everyone else. heaven must weep

Wow you cannot make broad sweeping statements as that of the Church. No universal generalizations of that nature hold true.

The doctrinal integrity of the Church has survived. The Church’s Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolic Traditions have survived.

The gates of Hell have tried to take down the Church over and over again, but God has continued to uphold the promise and the gates of Hell have not nor will they ever prevail against the Church.

God bless.

 

[Kyrby_Caluna]

**Thanks for your replies. I’m in a review right now. I will be taking my exam this December for the Nursing Licensure Examination here in my country, the Philippines. Here in my country where people are predominantly Catholics (about 80%), the aftermath of the “inspired” Second Vatican Council is bearing its good fruits. I will never judge the Magisterium as though they are leading as to confusion. I don’t have any authority to do that. We don’t have. As Catholics, we are bound to follow the Magisterium because Christ is faithful in his promise to guide his Church. His guidance, through the Holy Spirit, is always manifested in an ecumenical council whether it is for a dogmatic reason or otherwise pastoral reasons. Those who oppose the Second Vatican Council must re-read the documents in an open heart to the Holy Spirit. No Catholic is a real Catholic if he rejects or malign the Magisterium. We don’t have any authority to say that a council is heretic or not. We only have Christ the faithful One who promise to lead his Church infallibly. AMEN. **

 

[Little_One0307]

Kyrby,

Hi, might I make a suggestion. Can you please drop the large bold black font? It is not needed to get the point across in your post. Thanks.

God bless.

 

[Warrenton]

This is an interesting excerpt. Note the comment “desire to be understood by all.” How can that be dogmatic? How is that even a teaching comment? How can it be proved? Who desired what?

Then note the discussion of “modern man as he is.” How is he? Is he hale, or infirm? Misguided, or informed? Credulous, or sceptical? Again, how can this kind of thing be proved? What does it even mean? What does it have to do with theology, except in an attenuated sense?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please do not use font size greater than 2. It is very difficult to read and they are sizes that are usually for short texts. If a poster has a visual problem and needs a larger font, there are two ways to go about it.

You can go to Internet tools and click the zoom, which will increase the size of your image or you can write a word processor, such as Microsft Word, in any size that you need, then copy and paste into the response window. Our software will automatically reduce it.

I am currently using size # 2.

Thank you for your cooperation

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[InquisitorMax]

Pressing the CTRL key and the plus + key on your computer makes text in your browser larger.

CTRL and the minus - key makes it smaller.

 

[Little_One0307]

Pressing the CTRL key and the plus + key on your computer makes text in your browser larger.

CTRL and the minus - key makes it smaller.

Hi,

Wow this is pretty cool. Thanks for sharing this. I don’t have to go and looking for it in my settings, I always get confused as to where it is.

God bless. Now back to topic.

 

[bjryman]

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

1. If the Holy Spirit wasn’t with the Second Council of Vatican City, then the gates of hell prevailed.
2. If the gates of hell prevailed, then either Jesus made a mistake or lied to us.
3. Jesus is God.
4. God cannot make a mistake.
5. God will not lie to us.
6. Therefore what Jesus said was true.
7. Therefore the gates of hell have not prevailed.
8. Therefore the Holy Spirit was with the Second Council of Vatican City.
9. Therefore defending the Second Council of Vatican City is also defending the Holy Spirit.

I was with you until number 7. The link between number 7 and number 8 is tenuous…at best. Remember, the physical Church Magisterium has been comprised of, from the beginning, mostly old men. (My wife’s term, given her propensity to wonder about the lack of female direct (name removed by moderator)ut…but that’s another posting).

It is a cop out to claim, unequivicolly that all the men attending the councils, and all the politics of these men, was completely, fully guided by the Holy Spirit. It would be much more useful for each person to study deeply the history of our church, from all avenues available…the good, the bad, and the ugly, of the evolving Magisterium. Then from that “informed conscience”, we might better have a dialog on these subjects.

The number one positive outcome of Vatican II, IMO, was returning the laity to full engagement in the church liturgy and ministries as was the case with the earliest Christian gatherings in folks homes, and small buildings. We should never forget, that it was when the Roman Empire mandated that the Christian religion become the State religion, that the change from humble rubrics to “high society”, “big building”, “ostentatious trappings” began.

In other words, the Catholic Church’s truest base tradition is from the pre-Roman Empire State Religion times. Those who claim that the real tradition is of the latin Mass, gothic cathedral buildings and the like are choosing to pick a point in time in the middle of our heritage.

Vatican II, in its purest form, intends to move us towards our true roots.

I trust that we all can remember those roots. The fact that some us us choose to prefer he more formal rubrics and liturgyis fine…but claiming that this condition is the “true tradition” is a bit misplaced.

 

[PA650]

I was with you until number 7. The link between number 7 and number 8 is tenuous…at best. Remember, the physical Church Magisterium has been comprised of, from the beginning, mostly old men. (My wife’s term, given her propensity to wonder about the lack of female direct (name removed by moderator)ut…but that’s another posting).

It is a cop out to claim, unequivicolly that all the men attending the councils, and all the politics of these men, was completely, fully guided by the Holy Spirit. It would be much more useful for each person to study deeply the history of our church, from all avenues available…the good, the bad, and the ugly, of the evolving Magisterium. Then from that “informed conscience”, we might better have a dialog on these subjects.

The number one positive outcome of Vatican II, IMO, was returning the laity to full engagement in the church liturgy and ministries as was the case with the earliest Christian gatherings in folks homes, and small buildings. We should never forget, that it was when the Roman Empire mandated that the Christian religion become the State religion, that the change from humble rubrics to “high society”, “big building”, “ostentatious trappings” began.

In other words, the Catholic Church’s truest base tradition is from the pre-Roman Empire State Religion times. Those who claim that the real tradition is of the latin Mass, gothic cathedral buildings and the like are choosing to pick a point in time in the middle of our heritage.

Vatican II, in its purest form, intends to move us towards our true roots.

I trust that we all can remember those roots. The fact that some us us choose to prefer he more formal rubrics and liturgyis fine…but claiming that this condition is the “true tradition” is a bit misplaced.

To move back to our roots and nothing more than the heresy of antiquarianism.
againstallheresies.blogspot.com/2006/01/heresy-of-antiquarianism.html

Moreover, the issue of the Vatican II Council entails the particular popular viewpoints that surrounded the council at the time. Such as,

"The text [of the Second Vatican Council] on the Church was kept open primarily because it was to be supplemented by a text on ecumenism which would develop a viewpoint only hinted at in the Church text. Taking both texts into account, we can view in a positive light the undeniably admitted ecumenical outlook of the schema of the Church.1 … A basic unity–of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church–must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it."2 Fr. J. Ratzinger

 

[ProVobis]

Vatican II, in its purest form, intends to move us towards our true roots.

Exactly what does this mean? Worshipping in catacombs? Worrying 24/7 about being persecuted? Dying for Christ?

Or is it a phrase intended to insult all Christian developers since the early days of the Church? Did all these tall cathedrals build themselves?

 

[dmorgan]

From reading many theological treatises on V-II, from both the affirmative and the negative camps, from both religious and lay theologians it seams to me that we as a Church have arrived at “Yes, that, but this also”.
The calls by traditional, noted theologians and Clergy for the +Holy Father to address-revoke-explain the documents from V-II; along with the calls from those who support most if not all of the changes that have occurred since the council to address-uphold-expand the so called “spirit of V-II” have reached a stalemate.
Even reading the Documents that H.H. has written on the issues of the Liturgy (S.P. & U.E.) show a “this, but also that” style that shows a shift in theology from a governing sense.
20 Councils of the Church had crises and Faith issues to deal with and gave definitive statements either pro or con. Right habits were declared and anathemas were stated. Black/white, right/wrong. Vatican II was a “pastoral” council not called to address a heresy or attack on the Church, but to bring the Church up-to-date. While not declaring new Dogma, many of the documents certainly left room for re-interpretation and the new liberties gained by the +Bishops councils left open many new (and not for the better) interpretations on the “spirit” of the council’s intentions.
The history of the past 40 years shows that every aspect of society has been evolving this same way. And not for the better. “I’m OK;You’re OK”, “Do Your Own Thing” “Whatever” . These are the bullet points for society and it would seem also for the Church. Evangelical Catholics, Charismatic Catholics, Traditional Catholics, Parish shopping Catholics. makes one wonder what happened to Catholic(universal) Catholics!
Division breeds further division. As a former military guy, i can tell you one of the best ways to defeat an enemy is to cause division in his ranks. Divide and conquer. Sure looks like we have suffered from this if you look at Mass attendance figures.
I am not a theologian. I do not have the skills to read the original council documents in the Latin and discern whether Dogma was changed, whether cracks were created, whether traditions were rendered useless. That is why i would like to see, such as +Bishop Schneider called for, a syllabus of what the documents do, and do not say as regards the dogmas and doctrine that existed pre-VII. A one time, definitive Yes means Yes and No means No. Plain english (uh Latin).
Until then, just Pray, Believe and Pray some more.

 

[QueenofPeace23]

I was with you until number 7. The link between number 7 and number 8 is tenuous…at best. Remember, the physical Church Magisterium has been comprised of, from the beginning, mostly old men. (My wife’s term, given her propensity to wonder about the lack of female direct (name removed by moderator)ut…but that’s another posting).

It is a cop out to claim, unequivicolly that all the men attending the councils, and all the politics of these men, was completely, fully guided by the Holy Spirit. It would be much more useful for each person to study deeply the history of our church, from all avenues available…the good, the bad, and the ugly, of the evolving Magisterium. Then from that “informed conscience”, we might better have a dialog on these subjects.

.

I must be blind because all it said was that the Holy Spirit was with the people at the Council. Just as in the case of selecting Pope, there can be a myriad of people with differing views, but we trust that the leaders of the Church are overall guided by the Holy Spirit. If people are questioning that premise then in my opinion, they are on very dangerous ground. Are you saying the Holy Spirit overall did not guide the Council?

 

[QueenofPeace23]

Exactly what does this mean? Worshipping in catacombs? Worrying 24/7 about being persecuted? Dying for Christ?

Or is it a phrase intended to insult all Christian developers since the early days of the Church? Did all these tall cathedrals build themselves?

Well you know, the heretical sects of Christianity including many mainline Protestant Churches deny the early gifts for example of the Holy Spirit. I would say this is part of the true roots of the Church. Yet I would bet you’d see not many on this thread defend the gifts of the Holy Spirit, speaking in different tongues , Baptism of the Holy Spirit, etc.

Pope JP II said:
n March 1992:

" * At this moment in the Church’s history, the Charismatic Renewal can play a significant role in promoting the much-needed defense of Christian life in societies where secularism and materialism have weakened many people’s ability to respond to the Spirit and to discern God’s loving call. Your contribution to the re-evangelization of society will be made in the first place by personal witness to the indwelling Spirit and by showing forth His presence through works of holiness and solidarity.[13]

Moreover, during Pentecost 1998, the Pope recognized the essential nature of the charismatic dimension:

“The institutional and charismatic aspects are co-essential as it were to the Church’s constitution. They contribute, although differently, to the life, renewal and sanctification of God’s People. It is from this providential rediscovery of the Church’s charismatic dimension that, before and after the Council, a remarkable pattern of growth has been established for ecclesial movements and new communities.”*

To have people on this site doubt the presence of the Holy Spirit in rooms full of Cardinals in Vatican II, in other words implying that overall they erred (if in fact that is what you are doing) is to insinuate the the Holy Spirit did not in fact prevail in VII. Sorry, I think I’ll go with Cardinals including four future pontiffs, before I’ll accept the words of someone on this site who is a strong traditionalist, with regard to the presence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in VII.

Also, on the Holy Spirit: Introduction - from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit Who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with His work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are further more special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning “favor, gratuitous gift, benefit.” Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church

No offense but I think you have to be a bit more intimate with the Holy Spirit before you can make these massive statements.

 

[ProVobis]

To have people on this site doubt the presence of the Holy Spirit in rooms full of Cardinals in Vatican II, in other words implying that overall they erred (if in fact that is what you are doing) is to insinuate the the Holy Spirit did not in fact prevail in VII. Sorry, I think I’ll go with Cardinals including four future pontiffs, before I’ll accept the words of someone on this site who is a strong traditionalist, with regard to the presence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in VII.

But we also had an “admission” by a Pope that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. Can we still defend the so-called spirit of Vatican II, which traditionalists supposedly object to, in this light? Maybe we should go back to re-reading the Vatican II documents, especially those which agreed with the first 20 ecumenical councils.

 

[QueenofPeace23]

But we also had an “admission” by a Pope that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. Can we still defend the so-called spirit of Vatican II, which traditionalists supposedly object to, in this light? Maybe we should go back to re-reading the Vatican II documents, especially those which agreed with the first 20 ecumenical councils.

There is nothing where Paul VI said that VII was the smoke of Satan, rather that the fullness envisioned of the council was affected by the Smoke of Satan. In my opinion, the child abuse occurring and which had occurred, as well as a massive influx of homosexual non-celibates, by those who were also consecrating hosts is a more likely source of the “Smoke of Satan”, and until it began to be cleaned up, this scourge remained in full force.

 

[pataburd]

From reading many theological treatises on V-II, from both the affirmative and the negative camps, from both religious and lay theologians it seams to me that we as a Church have arrived at “Yes, that, but this also”.
The calls by traditional, noted theologians and Clergy for the +Holy Father to address-revoke-explain the documents from V-II; along with the calls from those who support most if not all of the changes that have occurred since the council to address-uphold-expand the so called “spirit of V-II” have reached a stalemate.
Even reading the Documents that H.H. has written on the issues of the Liturgy (S.P. & U.E.) show a “this, but also that” style that shows a shift in theology from a governing sense.
20 Councils of the Church had crises and Faith issues to deal with and gave definitive statements either pro or con. Right habits were declared and anathemas were stated. Black/white, right/wrong. Vatican II was a “pastoral” council not called to address a heresy or attack on the Church, but to bring the Church up-to-date. While not declaring new Dogma, many of the documents certainly left room for re-interpretation and the new liberties gained by the +Bishops councils left open many new (and not for the better) interpretations on the “spirit” of the council’s intentions.
The history of the past 40 years shows that every aspect of society has been evolving this same way. And not for the better. “I’m OK;You’re OK”, “Do Your Own Thing” “Whatever” . These are the bullet points for society and it would seem also for the Church. Evangelical Catholics, Charismatic Catholics, Traditional Catholics, Parish shopping Catholics. makes one wonder what happened to Catholic(universal) Catholics!
Division breeds further division. As a former military guy, i can tell you one of the best ways to defeat an enemy is to cause division in his ranks. Divide and conquer. Sure looks like we have suffered from this if you look at Mass attendance figures.
I am not a theologian. I do not have the skills to read the original council documents in the Latin and discern whether Dogma was changed, whether cracks were created, whether traditions were rendered useless. That is why i would like to see, such as +Bishop Schneider called for, a syllabus of what the documents do, and do not say as regards the dogmas and doctrine that existed pre-VII. A one time, definitive Yes means Yes and No means No. Plain english (uh Latin).
Until then, just Pray, Believe and Pray some more.

D_M,
I’m with you ALL THE WAY, in terms of the Vatican publishing, disseminating and ensuring the implementation of a syllabus for definitively interpreting the often ambiguous Vatican Council II documents/declarations.

The problem now is that Rome has, since the close of Vatican II, effectively resigned its administrative role to ensure that its authoritative statements are truly heeded and acted upon. We often see Rome’s clear directives either ignored altogether or given disaffected lip-service by Euro- or North American bishops’ conferences. A democratic will among the bishops undermines the papal initiative.

Cordially,
PAB