Does Vatican II "Glorify Man"?

[tobinatorstark]

It doesn’t make much sense anyway… obviously while we CAN’T ever create UTOPIA on our own, we should TRY to make things as good as we can.

I can’t believe that anyone pre- or post- vatican II ever disagreed with that. So what’s the issue?

it is suggesting that Vatican II wasn’t infallible and that everything taught in Vatican isn’t accurate.

 

[maurin]

it is suggesting that Vatican II wasn’t infallible and that everything taught in Vatican isn’t accurate.

hi, can you provide us with some sort of substantiation for your claim about the infallibility of the Second Vatican Council? I’m not sure if I understand what you’re talking about here. You are implying that the Teachings of the Council are infallible Teachings. Could you please provide links which substantiate this view?

 

[maurin]

…fisheaters, … these are just my list of sites to be avoided

I’m no fan of the fisheaters forums, but from what I have observed on their homepage, they basically reproduce Documents of the Church, along with commentaries on those documents and pious writings from Saints and Doctors of the Church. Why should we avoid any of these? Oughtn’t we read them and know them?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

it is suggesting that Vatican II wasn’t infallible and that everything taught in Vatican isn’t accurate.

I thought it was common knowledge that Vatican II didn’t teach any new doctrine which could come under infallibility?

 

[RosaryCrusader]

To the original poster… off the top of my head I can think of a couple items for concern which introduce humanism into Catholic theology. V2’s Guadium et Spes where it states:

*12. According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.

1. For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbor: “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself… Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law” (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. 1 John 4:20). To men growing daily more dependent on one another, and to a world becoming more unified every day, this truth proves to be of paramount importance.*

 

[Neil_Anthony]

To the original poster… off the top of my head I can think of a couple items for concern which introduce humanism into Catholic theology. V2’s Guadium et Spes where it states:

12. According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.

What’s wrong with this one? Wasn’t the world made for mankind to enjoy?

24. For this reason, love for God and neighbor

is the first and greatest commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbor: “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself… Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law” (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. 1 John 4:20). To men growing daily more dependent on one another, and to a world becoming more unified every day, this truth proves to be of paramount importance.

Hmm, I thought those were two separate commandments, with the first one more important than the other?

 

[RosaryCrusader]

To the original poster… off the top of my head I can think of a couple items for concern which introduce humanism into Catholic theology. V2’s Guadium et Spes where it states:

12. According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.

What’s wrong with this one? Wasn’t the world made for mankind to enjoy?

I think the Baltimore Catechism says it best:

Baltimore Catechism No. 3 Lesson 4:

Q. 210. Why did God create all things?
A. God created all things for His own glory and for their or our good.

Note which is first and which is second.

Brother Alexis Bugnolo of the Franciscan-Archive website has some nice material on this found here:

franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/flaws.html

RosaryCrusader:

1. For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbor: “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself… Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law” (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. 1 John 4:20). To men growing daily more dependent on one another, and to a world becoming more unified every day, this truth proves to be of paramount importance.

Neil_Anthony:

Hmm, I thought those were two separate commandments, with the first one more important than the other?

And you would be right in thinking that which is precisely the problem. Christ told us the greatest commandment followed by the second greatest commandment. Gaudium et Spes erroneously lumps them into one “greatest” commandment putting both on equal footing thus distorting the relationship and duties of man towards God and man towards neighbor.

 

[savienu]

Where does any Church document or has any Vatican official said that criticizing Vatican II is HERETICAL?

…yeah, that’s what I thought.

If the SSPX is not in heresy (which they aren’t) then fisheaters CERTAINLY is not.

Let us remember that there is a female saint in our history who openly criticized the Pope to his face. In fact, St. Paul ALSO openly criticized the Pope. Were they heretics?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

And you would be right in thinking that which is precisely the problem. Christ told us the greatest commandment followed by the second greatest commandment. Gaudium et Spes erroneously lumps them into one “greatest” commandment putting both on equal footing thus distorting the relationship and duties of man towards God and man towards neighbor.

That’s true. According to Jesus in the gospel, its like this:

Two Most Important Commandments

1. Love God
2. Love neighbour

But according to this encyclical, its like this:

Most Important Commandment
1a. Love God
1b. Love neighbour

Is this heresy, or just poor enumeration?

 

[savienu]

That’s true. According to Jesus in the gospel, its like this:

Two Most Important Commandments

1. Love God
2. Love neighbour

But according to this encyclical, its like this:

Most Important Commandment
1a. Love God
1b. Love neighbour

Is this heresy, or just poor enumeration?

I wouldn’t call it heresy, but I WOULD call it ambiguous.

 

[Walking_Home]

That’s true. According to Jesus in the gospel, its like this:

Two Most Important Commandments

1. Love God
2. Love neighbour

But according to this encyclical, its like this:
**
Most Important Commandment
1a. Love God
1b. Love neighbour**

Is this heresy, or just poor enumeration?

---

But if you notice the first commandment is distinct from the second. The bold section above (1a and 1b) still incorporates the 2 commandments into one.

 

[maurin]

I wouldn’t call it heresy, but I WOULD call it ambiguous.

my feelings also, Sav. It’s the ambiguities inherent and rampant in the documents that we reject, not necessarily the documents themselves (with a couple of exceptions which are the basis of the upcoming doctrinal talks).

These ambiguities have given rise to, not to mention credence to and the support of, the modernist errors rampant in the Church of the past 40 years.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I wouldn’t call it heresy, but I WOULD call it ambiguous.

Maybe thats the only real, yet implicit, teaching of Vatican II:

“The best way to present the gospel to this modern world is to be very ambiguous about everything, so they don’t realize that they disagree!”

 

[savienu]

Maybe thats the only real, yet implicit, teaching of Vatican II:

“The best way to present the gospel to this modern world is to be very ambiguous about everything, so they don’t realize that they disagree!”

Agreed.

 

[tobinatorstark]

hi, can you provide us with some sort of substantiation for your claim about the infallibility of the Second Vatican Council? I’m not sure if I understand what you’re talking about here. You are implying that the Teachings of the Council are infallible Teachings. Could you please provide links which substantiate this view?

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

this talks about infallibity of Ecumenical Council as well as infallibility in general. Sir. you are very uncharitable in your tone. You take the same attitude as those I debated from fisheaters. You cannot criticize the Vatican II council or any council for that fact only. Who gives YOU the authority to criticize the teachings of the Pope and the Councils that he and his cardinals preside at. Look at Papal infallability as well. If the first 20 ecumenical councils can be infallible why can the 21st. Why put it down, but rather correct misinterpretations of the council like what is being done now or have a Vatican III

 

[RosaryCrusader]

That’s true. According to Jesus in the gospel, its like this:

Two Most Important Commandments

1. Love God
2. Love neighbour

But according to this encyclical, its like this:

Most Important Commandment
1a. Love God
1b. Love neighbour

Is this heresy, or just poor enumeration?

I think in this particular case it’s more than ambiguous but I wouldn’t be so quick to use the word “heretical” (which these days has become a 25 cent word) and I don’t think it best for laymen to use it in describing an official Church document - flawed and ambiguous as they appear to be.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I’m no fan of the fisheaters forums, but from what I have observed on their homepage, they basically reproduce Documents of the Church, along with commentaries on those documents and pious writings from Saints and Doctors of the Church. Why should we avoid any of these? Oughtn’t we read them and know them?

As mentioned for the OP he, isn’t ready and may not understand their positions. I have had bad blood with fisheaters because they are heretics with some of the links and other views they have. I will always stand by this. Enough about fisheaters. I don’t recommend any website that puts down Vatican II or makes false accusations. Just accept Vatican II the way it was or stop complaining.

 

[savienu]

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

this talks about infallibity of Ecumenical Council as well as infallibility in general. Sir. you are very uncharitable in your tone. You take the same attitude as those I debated from fisheaters. You cannot criticize the Vatican II council or any council for that fact only. Who gives YOU the authority to criticize the teachings of the Pope and the Councils that he and his cardinals preside at. Look at Papal infallability as well. If the first 20 ecumenical councils can be infallible why can the 21st. Why put it down, but rather correct misinterpretations of the council like what is being done now or have a Vatican III

Vatican II was just pastoral, according to the Popes:
catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/02/vatican-ii-was-just-pastoral-according.html

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. 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.” (emphasis mine)

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile

“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document” (Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966).(emphasis mine)
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112_it.html

So, while we must accept it, there is nothing to say we can’t criticize it, especially the way it’s been implemented.

 

[savienu]

As mentioned for the OP he, isn’t ready and may not understand their positions. I have had bad blood with fisheaters because they are heretics with some of the links and other views they have. I will always stand by this. Enough about fisheaters. I don’t recommend any website that puts down Vatican II or makes false accusations. Just accept Vatican II the way it was or stop complaining.

It is extremely uncharitable for you to call them heretics without any basis for the accusation. They post NOTHING that espouses or teaches heresy. Everything they post is the teachings of the Church for the last 2000 years. That’s not heresy. Are you not familiar with what a heretic actually is? Even the SSPX are not considered heretics by the Church, so how can you say fisheaters, which is not an SSPX site (although they are sympathetic to the SSPX) are heretics? I could understand if you said they were schismatics, (although I would still disagree), but your charge of heresy is blatant slander.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

this talks about infallibity of Ecumenical Council as well as infallibility in general. Sir. you are very uncharitable in your tone. You take the same attitude as those I debated from fisheaters. You cannot criticize the Vatican II council or any council for that fact only. Who gives YOU the authority to criticize the teachings of the Pope and the Councils that he and his cardinals preside at. Look at Papal infallability as well. If the first 20 ecumenical councils can be infallible why can the 21st. Why put it down, but rather correct misinterpretations of the council like what is being done now or have a Vatican III

You know I was thinking about what a Vatican III would look like these days and I’m convinced it would make the current disaster even worse & for a variety of reasons. One of which being the 2nd Vatican Council issued it’s work in latin. The Bishops and periti could read it and write it - they had the official translation to fall back on when questions arose.

Now fastforward to today with next to nobody knowing a lick of latin; each would have to rely on their interpreter which would double the number of “experts” for each council father - one theological, one linguistical. One would hope that ICEL would not be employed for such a task for the Americans. The whole idea would seem to just open it’s arms for even more confusion as each Bishop is told by their interpreter what they think this or that document means.

Or… the Vatican would have to employ their own official translators for the major languages. Either way it would not be pretty and the purity of thought (and doctrine) that the latin would convey would be lost to multiple interpretation.