Is Vatican II Infallible

[jwinch2]

The last two popes, have both said that Vatican II must be understood with continuity in Church tradition. To do this, one must first accept Church tradition. Otherwise, it is a fruitless task.

Well put, and very insightful actually. In fact, this probably does as good of a job as anything in explaining some of the issues seen after the council. Those pushing certain changes which were not in line with the Church probably did not understand or accept Church Tradition in the first place. Thus, it was easy to see Vatican II as a break, because that is exactly what they wanted to see.

It also highlights why I think it is a good idea (sorry for sounding like a broken record on this) to study an older faithful catechism along side of the current CCC. This is something I saw recommended elsewhere, so I certainly cannot take credit for it. However, I am in the process of trying this with the following three texts:

• Fundamental of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott
• The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Henry Denzinger
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Perhaps I am alone in thinking this is a good idea. However, so far, it is going well and is giving me a greater appreciation for and understanding of, the CCC.

 

[Lormar]

Well put, and very insightful actually. In fact, this probably does as good of a job as anything in explaining some of the issues seen after the council. Those pushing certain changes which were not in line with the Church probably did not understand or accept Church Tradition in the first place. Thus, it was easy to see Vatican II as a break, because that is exactly what they wanted to see.

It also highlights why I think it is a good idea (sorry for sounding like a broken record on this) to study an older faithful catechism along side of the current CCC. This is something I saw recommended elsewhere, so I certainly cannot take credit for it. However, I am in the process of trying this with the following three texts:

• Fundamental of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott
• The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Henry Denzinger
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Perhaps I am alone in thinking this is a good idea. However, so far, it is going well and is giving me a greater appreciation for and understanding of, the CCC.

I think it is a wonderful idea too and agree wholeheartedly.

It took decades before we heard that the documents of Vatican II must be understood in light of all that came before. Remember: no internet. If your diocesan newspaper, or your pastor or bishop, chose not to mention that fact, how would the average Catholic have known that?

 

[jwinch2]

I think it is a wonderful idea too and agree wholeheartedly.

It took decades before we heard that the documents of Vatican II must be understood in light of all that came before. Remember: no internet. If your diocesan newspaper, or your pastor or bishop, chose not to mention that fact, how would the average Catholic have known that?

Good point.

 

[otjm]

I think it is a wonderful idea too and agree wholeheartedly.

It took decades before we heard that the documents of Vatican II must be understood in light of all that came before. Remember: no internet. If your diocesan newspaper, or your pastor or bishop, chose not to mention that fact, how would the average Catholic have known that?

When I was studying them as the came out, in classes both in high school and college, we didn’t have a problem with that; it was a given. So I would submit that the average Catholic would have had the perception at the beginning, that the documents were in line with previous holdings of the Church.

As more and more people who wanted to “recreate the Church” obtained more and more time at “the microphone”, the idea spread that somehow these documents were the foundation of that recreation. Those who actually read the documents, if they were not simply followers of the next most popular “movement” and easily swayed by the next self-anointed expert, were not lead astray.

However, as I have said before, and will say again, most people are not trained in critical thinking, so when someone gets up as the next guru and starts spouting off, any number of people can and will follow the “tune” the guru plays on their pipes. Some are ill trained; others are well trained but sloppy (to put it politely) in their ability to think clearly. It takes all kinds to make a world, and if you look about, you most definitely will see all kinds.

Many of whom are labeled “liberals” are intelligent people; but they are not necessarily well trained in how to use that intelligence. In addition, many are very well meaning, and people of big hearts. But the are lousy at logic, tend towards tunnel vision, and often cannot step out of their own personal view of things and examine another point of view.

They also may find counterparts at the other end of the spectrum.

 

[Megan7]

Well put, and very insightful actually. In fact, this probably does as good of a job as anything in explaining some of the issues seen after the council. Those pushing certain changes which were not in line with the Church probably did not understand or accept Church Tradition in the first place. Thus, it was easy to see Vatican II as a break, because that is exactly what they wanted to see.

It also highlights why I think it is a good idea (sorry for sounding like a broken record on this) to study an older faithful catechism along side of the current CCC. This is something I saw recommended elsewhere, so I certainly cannot take credit for it. However, I am in the process of trying this with the following three texts:

• Fundamental of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott
• The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Henry Denzinger
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Perhaps I am alone in thinking this is a good idea. However, so far, it is going well and is giving me a greater appreciation for and understanding of, the CCC.

 

[Lormar]

When I was studying them as the came out, in classes both in high school and college, we didn’t have a problem with that; it was a given. So I would submit that the average Catholic would have had the perception at the beginning, that the documents were in line with previous holdings of the Church.

As more and more people who wanted to “recreate the Church” obtained more and more time at “the microphone”, the idea spread that somehow these documents were the foundation of that recreation. Those who actually read the documents, if they were not simply followers of the next most popular “movement” and easily swayed by the next self-anointed expert, were not lead astray.

However, as I have said before, and will say again, **most people are not trained in critical thinking, so when someone gets up as the next guru and starts spouting off, any number of people can and will follow the “tune” the guru plays on their pipes. ** Some are ill trained; others are well trained but sloppy (to put it politely) in their ability to think clearly. It takes all kinds to make a world, and if you look about, you most definitely will see all kinds.

Many of whom are labeled “liberals” are intelligent people; but they are not necessarily well trained in how to use that intelligence. In addition, many are very well meaning, and people of big hearts. But the are lousy at logic, tend towards tunnel vision, and often cannot step out of their own personal view of things and examine another point of view.

They also may find counterparts at the other end of the spectrum.****
Here is the post I was referring to in the Ecumenism thread. As I said, lacking critical thinking skills has been my downfall.

As for being taught the Second Vatican Council documents, I was in school in the sixties as well, and no one taught us about any of the documents. You are most fortunate to have had a more positive experience.

 

[otjm]

Here is the post I was referring to in the Ecumenism thread. As I said, lacking critical thinking skills has been my downfall.

As for being taught the Second Vatican Council documents, I was in school in the sixties as well, and no one taught us about any of the documents. You are most fortunate to have had a more positive experience.

I had a bunch of Jesuit scholastics and priests teaching me, and I thought at the time they were perhaps the most awesome teachers I would even encounter.

And that was not off the mark. They were rigorous to a fault, demanding, bright, engaged, and not into goofy theology.

 

[crazzeto]

**

The Church understands that we are all sinners in need of a savior (Rom 5:12-21). We are inheritors of original sin and all its consequences, and by actual sin we distance ourselves from God. We can’t save ourselves, but we don’t need to: Jesus Christ has paid the price for our sins. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes through Jesus alone (Acts 4:12), since he is the “one mediator between God and man” (1 Tm 2:5-6)… **

OK, since salvation comes through Jesus alone, what does one have to do to receive it? Anything? Nothing? Some specific thing? What?

… Well it’s written all there actually. Anyway, my question as it stands is there. Where is the absolute in the statement. You are applying something that not there in a literary sense, and its not there in a theological sense either.

Anyway, the link has a good explanation =)

 

[jwinch2]

A very interesting development in the ongoing discussion on the Second Vatican Council took place recently. I started a thread here if anyone is interested. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=776566

Peace of Christ,

 

[Megan7]

A very interesting development in the ongoing discussion on the Second Vatican Council took place recently. I started a thread here if anyone is interested. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=776566

Peace of Christ,

Thank you for the link & thread Interesting to say the least.
Everyone should read this, it will shed a lot of light…

God bless you.
Peace to you as well.

 

[jwinch2]

Proposals for a Correct Reading of the Second Vatican Council
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, ORC

ewtn.com/library/bishops/schneider-proposte.htm

 

[Sirach2]

Proposals for a Correct Reading of the Second Vatican Council
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, ORC

ewtn.com/library/bishops/schneider-proposte.htm

Well, with your latest agenda posting re Vatican II, my gut told me to take the time to read this. Indeed, I hit paydirt near the end.

An interpretation of rupture of doctrinally lesser weight is shown in the pastoral-liturgical field. One can cite under this topic the loss of the sacred and sublime character of the liturgy and the introduction of more anthropocentric gestural elements. This phenomenon makes itself evident in three liturgical practices well known and widespread in nearly all the parishes of the Catholic world: the nearly total disappearance of the use of the Latin language, the reception of the Eucharistic Body of Christ directly on the hand and standing, and the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the modality of a closed circle in which priest and people continually look each other in the face. This manner of praying, that is: not all facing in the same direction, …

Most people will not read that lengthly of an article, unelss they are trads wanting to reinforce your negativity. Bishop Schneider is well-known for his stand against the liturgy and asked BXVI to take action with regard to reforming these practices. Nothing has appeared in writing that demonstrates Pope Benedict’s giving consideration to Bp. Schneider’s objections.

I have to ask myself, what intent you had in posting this?

Also, why does the personal opinion of this single bishop merit the attention of our members here, except to stir up controversy against V-II … again?

 

[jwinch2]

Well, with your latest agenda posting re Vatican II, my gut told me to take the time to read this. Indeed, I hit paydirt near the end.

Most people will not read that lengthly of an article, unelss they are trads wanting to reinforce your negativity. Bishop Schneider is well-known for his stand against the liturgy and asked BXVI to take action with regard to reforming these practices. Nothing has appeared in writing that demonstrates his giving weight to Bp. Schneider’s objections.

I have to ask myself, what intent you had in posting this?

Also, why does the personal opinion of this single bishop merit the attention of our members here, except to stir up controversy against V-II … again.

Why does any opinion of any Bishop merit attention on anything, to follow your logic. No one forced you to read it. I saw the article because someone else sent it to me, and thought it would perhaps be interesting in relation to this thread, a thread which I did not start by the way.

As for my supposed negativity, you can respond or not, to anything I say, as you like. I have started exactly one thread on Vatican II, which was in response to an article published in the Vatican’s own newspaper on the issue. In that thread, I deliberately avoided posting several links which were quite negative and went out of my way to search out other ones which were not.

As for anything I might have posted in this thread, if you have counter arguments to anything I have stated, offer them. Otherwise, your reliance on the use of ad hominem logical fallacy is very telling.

Now, to the areas you highlighted, which are hardly controversial. All of these things have been said by many others, to include the Prefect of the CDF, two popes, and Vatican documents, to include those of Vatican II. Because of that, I am quite unsure what you thought was so out of line about them. Pope Benedict spoke and wrote about facing East in the Liturgy. Cardinal Arinze has spoken repeatedly about kneeling for Holy Communion. The documents of Vatican II as well as other documents speak about the importance of Latin in the Liturgy, as did Pope John XXIII. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict spoke and wrote about the errors in the implementation of the liturgical changes from the council. This is hardly new, or controversial stuff.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4
youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0g3UMRtMM&feature=related
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_lingua-latina_en.html
adoremus.org/SacrosanctumConcilium.html
catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=55976
clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/gwh.htm
sacredarchitecture.org/articles/the_eschatological_dimension_of_church_architecture/
adoremus.org/JPII25SC.html

 

[Sirach2]

Why does any opinion of any Bishop merit attention on anything, to follow your logic. No one forced you to read it.** I saw the article because someone else sent it to me**, and thought it would perhaps be interesting in relation to this thread, a thread which I did not start by the way.

So did you read it before posting?

As for my supposed negativity,

Well if the shoe fits, Jason, you’re posting negative [but lawful] controversial points mentioned within the article. Perhaps you did not read it, due to its sheer length.

Now, to the areas you highlighted, which are hardly controversial …

Are you serious? Did you not notice the closure of Ad Orientem thread, due to the same arguments about facing the people? Then you post it here again? And how many threads have closed over CITH - standing? And use of latin versus the vernacular? Why stir it up again? Let’s give it a rest for pities sake.

 

[jwinch2]

So you did not read it before posting?

I read it, and frankly did not see anything controversial at all. I was far more interested in the idea that someone was willing to talk about the need to properly understand the council, which is something that Pope Benedict spoke about frequently.

Well if the shoe fits, Jason, you’ve posting negative [but lawful] controversial points mentioned within the article. Perhaps you did not read it, due to its sheer length.

Perhaps you would prefer people to only post things which you agree with? As for the rest, I did not link or post any comments within the article. I simply linked the article, that is it.

Are you serious? Did you not notice the closure of Ad Orientem thread, due to the same arguments about facing the people? Then you post it here again? And how many threads have closed over CITH - standing? And use of latin versus the vernacular? Why stir it up again? Let’s give it a rest for pities sake.

You can be sarcastic and use the little “roll eyes” emoticon all you like. I frankly do not care. The truth is that the topics are not controversial at all. They have been spoken on many times. People often seem to wish to make them into something worthy of controversy, which is entirely different. There are plenty of people who wish to substitute their own preferences for those of the Church and argue from positions of emotion rather than reason, which pretty much always leads to controversy.

As for the threads you mentioned, I did not participate in that first one, so I cannot comment. As for the rest, threads have been closed on pretty much every topic imaginable here on CAF. If we used your standard, we wouldn’t talk about anything at all to include social justice, abortion, elections, female priests, etc. Heck, I’ve seen threads on our Blessed Mother closed more than once since I have been here.

If certain topics bother you, I suggest staying away from them. That’s what I do now with threads on political issues.

 

[Sirach2]

I read it, and frankly did not see anything controversial at all.

Perhaps you would prefer people to only post things which you agree with? As for the rest, I did not link or post any comments within the article. I simply linked the article, that is it.

If certain topics bother you, I suggest staying away from them. That’s what I do now with threads on political issues.

Well, I’m sure I have not engraced myself where you’re concerned, since I am unwilling to argue again about lawful practices of the Church when there is no need to do so per forum rules. The choice is not mine, so the decision is out of my hands. If you want to debate practices that are not already licit and permitted, I have no problem with that.

I believe it is very telling that Pope Benedict did not address Bp. Schneider’s objections. Nor should we.

 

[jwinch2]

Nor should we.

You are free to decide what you do or do not choose to discuss here on CAF, as is everyone else. However, the moderators do repeatedly warn people not to discuss each other, but rather than arguments presented. Despite this, your last several posts have been about my agenda, my negativity, my motivations, etc. If you are unable or unwilling to follow forum rules on this issue, perhaps you should just leave it alone instead of posting.

Either way, I don’t recall telling you what topics to post on or what links to share, so please extend me the same courtesy.

 

[Sirach2]

You are free to decide what you do or do not choose to discuss here on CAF, as is everyone else. However, the moderators do repeatedly warn people not to discuss each other, but rather than arguments presented. Despite this, your last several posts have been about my agenda, my negativity, my motivations, etc. If you are unable or unwilling to follow forum rules on this issue, perhaps you should just leave it alone instead of posting.

Either way, I don’t recall telling you what topics to post on or what links to share, so please extend me the same courtesy.

I think you’re hitting below the belt. Read my words again, please.

Well, with your latest agenda posting re Vatican II …
[as per closed post in Back Fence and your post directing others to it that was removed from this thread].

Well if the shoe fits, Jason, you’re posting negative [but lawful] controversial points mentioned within the article.
*

I have to ask myself, what intent you had in posting this? [rhetorical personal musing.]

And yes, most fishies would call me a pain.*

 

[jwinch2]

I think you’re hitting below the belt.

Think what you like. I disagree, and I am done engaging with you on this issue. If you wish to have a legitimate discussion of the strengths or weakness of Bishop Schneider’s statements, or anything else presented in this thread, I am all for it. If you plan is to question my motivations, etc. you are wasting your time.

And yes, most fishies would call me a pain.

I have little doubt of that.

 

[Pulvis]

I respected the fact that Bishop Schneider asked His Holiness for a syllabus on the Council to correct wrong or malformed interpretations of the Council Documents. Personally, for what it’s worth, I would like to see this, if for no other reason just to settle this once and for all. Now we Have Cardinal Kasper saying that the Documents were ambiguous intentionally.

““In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.” (Cardinal Walter Kasper, L’Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)”

So perhaps we do need clarity and definitive explanations to the Faithful as to what the Documents do, and do not say. This would also eliminate the ability of either side from utilizing the Council to push an agenda.