Does Vatican II "Glorify Man"?

[savienu]

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.

I was thinking something similar in regards to future Popes- what is going to happen when all the Cardinals we have were born and raised and ordained after Vatican II and they don’t know Latin, the OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH? It’s going to be problematic, to say the least.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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

Your link says:

The subject matter of infallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the definitions and decrees of councils, and in them alone, to the exclusion of the theological, scientific, or historical reasons upon which they are built up.

Does Gaudium et Spes have any definitions or decress? A quick search of the text doesn’t show the words define or decree anywhere in there. Perhaps its all just pastoral comments, which are excluded from infallibility.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

well… the bishops would have to be capable of writing in a style that made actual definitions and decrees. The liberals don’t seem capable of that! So maybe we don’t need to fear a Vatican III, they can get together and write all sorts of meaningless gobble-dee-gook which makes no sense and therefore isn’t binding.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Your link says:

Does Gaudium et Spes have any definitions or decress? A quick search of the text doesn’t show the words define or decree anywhere in there. Perhaps its all just pastoral comments, which are excluded from infallibility.

Gaudium et Spes doesn’t have any decrees.

This link from EWTN not only lists the 16 documents of Vatican II but what the document is about. ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM

Although Gaudium et Spes doesn’t have any decrees it is linked heavily with another Vatican II document witch does have many decrees Unitatis Redintegratio.

 

[tobinatorstark]

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.

What do you have against the Vatican II council?? What makes it so controversial that it should be openly criticized. Just because masses aren’t in 100% Latin and masses are in vernacular doesn’t always mean the the interpretation is always a misinterpretation. There are more people that know Latin than you think.

 

[tobinatorstark]

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.

I never said that the SSPX is in heresy. The owners of Fisheaters are uncharitable and are not friendly. Even though they accept Vatican II, they view the Church is serious error

fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

This link to this particular page belittles the Church. It seems like their point of view is that the Novus Ordo mass is all Liturgical Abuses. It isn’t. In fact there is 1 pic on that linked page I would consider an Liturgical abuse. I am sure that there were some Liturgical abuses during the Pre-Vatican II era. I love the Pre-Vatican II era and I believe everyone has the right to know what it is all about as well the the post Vatican II era. This linked page I have provided simply belittles the Church in general. Openly exposing Novus Ordo mass as a liturgical abuse is all they are doing in the link provided. Who gives them the right to do so? I want to know. What if I openly criticized the Council of Trent and called it a strictly pastoral council and that it wasn’t infallible and that it had many liturgical abuses and such, while accepting the council. These people just need to accept Vatican II for what it is not try to interpret the council for what isn’t

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Although Gaudium et Spes doesn’t have any decrees it is linked heavily with another Vatican II document witch does have many decrees Unitatis Redintegratio.

Could you (or anyone) tell us how many decrees Unitatis Redintegratio has, and list them? I have the document open, and it doesn’t make it clear at all.

 

[savienu]

I never said that the SSPX is in heresy. The owners of Fisheaters are uncharitable and are not friendly. Even though they accept Vatican II, they view the Church is serious error

fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

This link to this particular page belittles the Church. It seems like their point of view is that the Novus Ordo mass is all Liturgical Abuses. It isn’t. In fact there is 1 pic on that linked page I would consider an Liturgical abuse. I am sure that there were some Liturgical abuses during the Pre-Vatican II era. I love the Pre-Vatican II era and I believe everyone has the right to know what it is all about as well the the post Vatican II era. This linked page I have provided simply belittles the Church in general. Openly exposing Novus Ordo mass as a liturgical abuse is all they are doing in the link provided. Who gives them the right to do so? I want to know. What if I openly criticized the Council of Trent and called it a strictly pastoral council and that it wasn’t infallible and that it had many liturgical abuses and such, while accepting the council. These people just need to accept Vatican II for what it is not try to interpret the council for what isn’t

So…fisheaters take a more moderate view than the SSPX, yet they are teaching heresy but the SSPX is not? The fact of the matter is neither group is teaching heresy. AGAIN, Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Ratzinger AND John XXIII all said Vatican II was pastoral in nature. It was not called to address any specific heresy (unlike Trent). If you didn’t accept Trent, you’d be a Protestant. Saying Vatican II is a valid pastoral council (which is in fisheaters’ mission statement, btw), is speaking the truth. Claiming Trent is not infallible is falsehood.
You have NOT shown where they are teaching heresy. In Christian charity, I request you recant that statement. You can not like fisheaters, and you can say they are disobedient, and I could agree to disagree with you. However, to say they are heretics is uncharitable, slanderous, and patently untrue.

 

[maurin]

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 sounds as if you have some kind of ax to grind if you call them heretics. Neo-cons, possibly. Heretics? no.

You say to accept Vatican II the way it was–well what do we have? the way it was or the way it is? Are you saying that the way it is isn’t the way it was supposed to be, or that the way it is is a perfectly legitimate representation of the way it was supposed to be?

You can stand by whatever you want, but unless you clarify your position, and substantiate it, noone will be interested in your rantings.

 

[peary2]

I keep reading and hearing from traditionalists that Vatican II “glorifies man”. That’s one of their complaints about it. But I can’t find any examples of how it does that.

Can anyone give an example, where the documents of Vatican II glorify man more than appropriate?

Thanks,
Neil

It has been my experience over the years that the so-called ‘traditionalists’ as a rule of thumb have never taken the time to read the Vatican II documents. Likewise, the same may be said of the liberal bent in the Church. The Truth is somewhere in the middle. Vatican II is consistent with the age-old teachings of the Church with regard to humankind.

 

[tobinatorstark]

It has been my experience over the years that the so-called ‘traditionalists’ as a rule of thumb have never taken the time to read the Vatican II documents. Likewise, the same may be said of the liberal bent in the Church. The Truth is somewhere in the middle. Vatican II is consistent with the age-old teachings of the Church with regard to humankind.

agreed.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It has been my experience over the years that the so-called ‘traditionalists’ as a rule of thumb have never taken the time to read the Vatican II documents. Likewise, the same may be said of the liberal bent in the Church. The Truth is somewhere in the middle. Vatican II is consistent with the age-old teachings of the Church with regard to humankind.

Well, I can read the canons of all the other councils and they make perfect sense. When you read vatican II, you really don’t know whats being said. I can see why some people don’t bother finishing them.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Well, I can read the canons of all the other councils and they make perfect sense. When you read vatican II, you really don’t know whats being said. I can see why some people don’t bother finishing them.

not finishing the documents is just causing misinformation and misinterpretation. Vatican II is just as important as all the other councils. There is nothing in the documents that contradict the faith and is controversial. Have you read the documents through and thouroughly?? If not then why bash Vatican to and criticize it.

 

[tobinatorstark]

If you didn’t accept Trent, you’d be a Protestant.
.

Likewise for Vatican II. We must absolutely accept Vatican II

 

[Neil_Anthony]

not finishing the documents is just causing misinformation and misinterpretation. Vatican II is just as important as all the other councils. There is nothing in the documents that contradict the faith and is controversial. Have you read the documents through and thouroughly?? If not then why bash Vatican to and criticize it.

Nope, I just read quotes here and there. And when people discuss them, no one knows what the mean. The liberals say it means one thing, the conservatives say it means another, and the SSPX say it means something else.

If a sentence has 3 different meanings, who decides which one is the real meaning? Or are all 3 meanings infallible?

How can you say it doesn’t contradict the faith, when you don’t even know for sure what it means? There must be some interpretations that do contradict the faith, and others that don’t. You have to at least admit that.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Nope, I just read quotes here and there. And when people discuss them, no one knows what the mean. The liberals say it means one thing, the conservatives say it means another, and the SSPX say it means something else.

If a sentence has 3 different meanings, who decides which one is the real meaning? Or are all 3 meanings infallible?

How can you say it doesn’t contradict the faith, when you don’t even know for sure what it means? There must be some interpretations that do contradict the faith, and others that don’t. You have to at least admit that.

If you haven’t finish the documents and just read here and there, then who are you to openly criticize Vatican II. As Catholics the Church interprets via the power of Holy Spirit. Also if you haven’t read the documents then you have no business in trying to understand where the SSPX comes from.

 

[maurin]

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.

Likewise for Vatican II. We must absolutely accept Vatican II

It’s a simple question I asked you much earlier in the conversation. I’ve copied it below:

You say to accept Vatican II the way it was–well what do we have? the way it was or the way it is? Are you saying that the way it is isn’t the way it was supposed to be, or that the way it is is a perfectly legitimate representation of the way it was supposed to be?

You can stand by whatever you want, but unless you clarify your position, and substantiate it, noone will be interested in your rantings.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If you haven’t finish the documents and just read here and there, then who are you to openly criticize Vatican II. As Catholics the Church interprets via the power of Holy Spirit. Also if you haven’t read the documents then you have no business in trying to understand where the SSPX comes from.

So by that logic, since I’m not smart enough to understand the documents, and since my attention span is too short to read them, I am not culpable for any mistake, and therefore I should just stick to the religion my grandparents taught my parents, trust the SSPX, and God will forgive me no matter how it turns out?

 

[maurin]

So by that logic, since I’m not smart enough to understand the documents, and since my attention span is too short to read them, I am not culpable for any mistake, and therefore I should just stick to the religion my grandparents taught my parents, trust the SSPX, and God will forgive me no matter how it turns out?

Actually, Neil_Anthony, there was no logic in the post you were responding to.

It seems from this post of yours that your family assists Mass at an SSPX Chapel? It’s not clear to me by your comment above.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Actually, Neil_Anthony, there was no logic in the post you were responding to.

It seems from this post of yours that your family assists Mass at an SSPX Chapel? It’s not clear to me by your comment above.

No, my family doesn’t go to SSPX chapels. I just know that the faith my grandparents learned is similar to what the SSPX preaches today. It’s the faith everyone learned back then. I go to a regular catholic parish.

I just don’t think its fair that because I haven’t read all the vatican II documents, that I can’t participate in a discussion about whether a particular part of one of the documents is ambiguous or whether it contradicts earlier councils. It makes no sense?

If it did make sense, then I would have no business thinking for myself about any of this stuff, and wouldnt be culpable for a bad choice of churches.