Is Vatican II Infallible

[clem456]

news.va/en/news/pope-2nd-vatican-council-work-of-holy-spirit-but-s

Pope Francis said the Holy Spirit pushes people and the Church forward but we resist this and do not want to change. His remarks came during his homily at the Mass on Tuesday morning celebrated at the Santa Marta residence which was dedicated to Benedict XVI in honour of his 86th birthday. Susy Hodges reports:
Text follows:
Pope Francis dedicated Tuesday’s mass to Benedict XVI 16th who turned 86 on this date. “May the Love be with him, comfort him and gave him much consolation,” he said.
Pope Francis’ homily at the mass was centred on the theme of the Holy Spirit and our resistance to it. It took its inspiration from the first reading of the day which was the story of the martyrdom of St. Stephen who described his accusers as stubborn people who were always resisting the Holy Spirit.
Put frankly, the Pope continued, “the Holy Spirit upsets us because it moves us, it makes us walk, it pushes the Church forward.” He said that we wish “to calm down the Holy Spirit, we want to tame it and this is wrong.” Pope Francis said “that’s because the Holy Spirit is the strength of God, it’s what gives us the strength to go forward” but many find this upsetting and prefer the comfort of the familiar.
Nowadays, he went on, “everybody seems happy about the presence of the Holy Spirit but it’s not really the case and there is still that temptation to resist it.” **The Pope said one example of this resistance was the Second Vatican council which he called “a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit.” But 50 years later, “have we done everything the Holy Spirit was asking us to do during the Council,” he asked. The answer is “No,” said Pope Francis. “We celebrate this anniversary, we put up a monument but we don’t want it to upset us. We don’t want to change and what’s more there are those who wish to turn the clock back.” This, he went on, “is called stubbornness and wanting to tame the Holy Spirit.”**The Pope said the same thing happens in our personal life. “The Spirit pushes us to take a more evangelical path but we resist this.” He concluded his homily by urging those present not to resist the pull of the Holy Spirit. “Submit to the Holy Spirit,” he said, “which comes from within us and makes go forward along the path of holiness.”

 

[jwinch2]

news.va/en/news/pope-2nd-vatican-council-work-of-holy-spirit-but-s

Thanks for that. I will be quite interested to see how his future thoughts on the Council are presented. Pope John Paul II started to touch on some of the problems which showed up after the council later in his pontificate, and Pope Benedict spoke more often throughout his time as Pope. Its hard to say exactly what Pope Francis meant by those comments in the article you linked as his homilies are pretty short it seems. Nothing wrong with a short homily mind you, but on a topic that complex, some additional details down the road are likely needed to accurately determine his meanings. It should be interesting seeing how his thoughts on this issue relate to his two predecessors as we progress into his pontificate.

 

[Megan7]

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

Thanks for the links Jason

 

[jwinch2]

Thanks for the links Jason

You are welcome Megan!

 

[eamonnroma]

Since Vatican 2 didn’t formulate any new dogmas, it’s statements and declarations (i.e., schemata) are new formulations or reiterations of the traditionally held dogmas.
If some of the declarations seem to contradict the depositum fidei, then only because the wording is ambiguous to the mind of the erring believer. In such a case it should be patently obvious to both modernists and traditionalists alike that only that interpretation which conforms to tradition can be the correct one.

I think that it is not possible for anyone to formulate a ‘new dogma’ our deposit of faith does not change. When a dogma is defined, such as the Assumption of Mary it is delcaring something as dogma which has always been so. The definition is infact a confirmation of what has always been. It is not as if we are saying that the Assumption only became fact in 1950 when the dogma was defined.

 

[crazzeto]

I think that it is not possible for anyone to formulate a ‘new dogma’ our deposit of faith does not change. When a dogma is defined, such as the Assumption of Mary it is delcaring something as dogma which has always been so. The definition is infact a confirmation of what has always been. It is not as if we are saying that the Assumption only became fact in 1950 when the dogma was defined.

Good distinction

 

[cheezey]

I think that it is not possible for anyone to formulate a ‘new dogma’ our deposit of faith does not change. When a dogma is defined, such as the Assumption of Mary it is delcaring something as dogma which has always been so. The definition is infact a confirmation of what has always been. It is not as if we are saying that the Assumption only became fact in 1950 when the dogma was defined.

THANK YOU!!! NOW I understand this, too.
I was wondering how these things were determined so much later.
I’ll need to start another thread to confirm a different dogma/doctrine.
THANK YOU !!!

 

[QuestingKnight]

Actually, the whole Vatican II controversy can be resolved very easily.

• If the Vatican II documents are legal documents and binding on the faithful, then it needs to be clarified exactly what they mean, like any other legal document.

(You’ll notice mundane legal documents do this with sentences like “I … hereby … will and bequeath …” English has Latin and Germanic roots so variant words were used to make sure everyone understood what was contracted)

• If they are not legal documents, then they don’t need to be clarified and they are not binding.

The problem is the wiggle-room. A loosely-worded legal document is a disaster for a deal. Look at the amount of print just this forum alone is generating on these most famous documents! Never mind in the wider Church.

“It means this” says one.
“No it doesn’t!” says another.
“Here’s an argument from precedent” says a thrid
“Vatican II overrules that precedent” says one.

And then you come to the fact that no major problem or heresy was addressed by them.
And then you come back around again to all the swingeing changes they are used to justify, like Catholicism re-started in the 60’s.

So I think I’ve just got off the bus. These days, I just go to the TLM and read up on old devotions, indulgences, stories of saints, exorcisms and, I have to say, the latest scandals. The divide between the old and new mindset is quite stark. At least now, we get a choice. Deo Gratias for that.

 

[Rich_C]

Actually, the whole Vatican II controversy can be resolved very easily.

• If the Vatican II documents are legal documents and binding on the faithful, then it needs to be clarified exactly what they mean, like any other legal document.

(You’ll notice mundane legal documents do this with sentences like “I … hereby … will and bequeath …” English has Latin and Germanic roots so variant words were used to make sure everyone understood what was contracted)

• If they are not legal documents, then they don’t need to be clarified and they are not binding.

The problem is the wiggle-room. A loosely-worded legal document is a disaster for a deal. Look at the amount of print just this forum alone is generating on these most famous documents! Never mind in the wider Church.

“It means this” says one.
“No it doesn’t!” says another.
“Here’s an argument from precedent” says a thrid
“Vatican II overrules that precedent” says one.

And then you come to the fact that no major problem or heresy was addressed by them.
And then you come back around again to all the swingeing changes they are used to justify, like Catholicism re-started in the 60’s.

So I think I’ve just got off the bus. These days, I just go to the TLM and read up on old devotions, indulgences, stories of saints, exorcisms and, I have to say, the latest scandals. The divide between the old and new mindset is quite stark. At least now, we get a choice. Deo Gratias for that.

This. You’ve been killing it today, QK!

I too have the Latin Mass, the Rosary, the Baltimore Catechism and good spiritual works by the saints. I am not worried about what Vatican II means or doesn’t mean. I just try to help other Catholics find what I’ve found, and I pray that every Catholic will have access to the old Mass again. Per omnia secula seculorum. Amen.

 

[clem456]

Actually, the whole Vatican II controversy can be resolved very easily.

• If the Vatican II documents are** legal documents **and binding on the faithful, then it needs to be clarified exactly what they mean, like any other legal document.

(You’ll notice mundane legal documents do this with sentences like “I … hereby … will and bequeath …” English has Latin and Germanic roots so variant words were used to make sure everyone understood what was contracted)

• If they are not** legal documents**, then they don’t need to be clarified and they are not binding.

The problem is the wiggle-room. A loosely-worded legal document is a disaster for a deal. Look at the amount of print just this forum alone is generating on these most famous documents! Never mind in the wider Church.

“It means this” says one.
“No it doesn’t!” says another.
“Here’s an argument from precedent” says a thrid
“Vatican II overrules that precedent” says one.

And then you come to the fact that no major problem or heresy was addressed by them.
And then you come back around again to all the swingeing changes they are used to justify, like Catholicism re-started in the 60’s.

So I think I’ve just got off the bus. These days, I just go to the TLM and read up on old devotions, indulgences, stories of saints, exorcisms and, I have to say, the latest scandals. The divide between the old and new mindset is quite stark. At least now, we get a choice. Deo Gratias for that.

Is it fair to say that Church documents are not speaking of legal contracts, but a covenant?

Is it possible for these concepts to be “clarified exactly”? I will tell you, it is not possible for me because my understanding is limited. It’s good to have a Church structure that allows the gifts of theologians and popes etc to flesh these things out. I trust them. If I am steered wrong somehow, God will take care of it I suppose.

If our faith is so uncertain and messy, what is God telling us, or asking us to do in that uncertainty?

 

[DeusSalusNostra]

NO!

Vatican II reiterated doctrine that had already been taught, it just explained it at a different level in relation to the modern world. Vatican II made no Theological/Doctrinal Changes, only Liturgical Changes.

After the Second Vatican Council, a lot of liberals decided to do their own thing in the “Spirit of Vatican II”. Sorry, but this is a false notion. There is but one spirit; the Holy Spirit. One should not be making up the Holy Spirit’s mind for him, now should they? Liberal Interpretations of Vatican II caused, and are still causing, great chaos within Holy Mother Church unfortunately.

*Those silly liberals… *

 

[otjm]

Actually, the whole Vatican II controversy can be resolved very easily.

• If the Vatican II documents are legal documents and binding on the faithful, then it needs to be clarified exactly what they mean, like any other legal document. .

To begin with, the documents were written by theologians, for bishops and theologians. They were not written for the laity.

It was and is the duty of the bishops to take the documents and implement them, primarily with the priests in their diocese. As may be needed, it is the role of the bishop to instruct the faithful as needed.

Your issue of clarifying “exactly” what they mean is for the Magisterium of the Church - the Pope, and the bishops in union with the Pope. and both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have done this as need3ed and necessary.

The fact that they have not sat down and explained it to those in the pew doe s not mean that the Church does not know what they mean;

Some of the work, for example, that has been done in ecumenism has been so far above the pay grade of anyone here as to be completely out of our eyesight. Three examples that come to mind are the work done with the Lutherans, the Anglican/Episcopal members, and with the Jewish community. I am not talking about some people getting together at a soup kitchen, or working on a ballot measure to protect marriage. The work goes on without our notice, and we don’t need to notice.

Furthermore, part of what some people want is the documents to be written in a Scholastic or neo Scholastic language; as Bro. JR has pointed out in a different thread, they were written in the language of spirituality. That does not make them wrong; it makes them different. And those who are not trained in the language of spirituality will have a difficult time understanding them at best; and that is as it should be, as they were not written for that subset.

 

[otjm]

Vatican II reiterated doctrine that had already been taught, it just explained it at a different level in relation to the modern world. Vatican II made no Theological/Doctrinal Changes, only Liturgical Changes.

Actually, I would be a bit careful limiting it to Liturgical changes. One of the questions that was left over from Vatican 1 (which was cut off short) was the relationship of the bishops to the Pope. Vatican one had clarified infallibility of the Pope; but it had left the Church with a lot of bishops, who were seen by some as mid level managers and not much more.

What is often helpful is to sit down and actually read the documents. They are quite interesting and worthwhile reading.

 

[jwinch2]

Furthermore, part of what some people want is the documents to be written in a Scholastic or neo Scholastic language; as Bro. JR has pointed out in a different thread, they were written in the language of spirituality. That does not make them wrong; it makes them different. And those who are not trained in the language of spirituality will have a difficult time understanding them at best; and that is as it should be, as they were not written for that subset.

That argument simply does not make sense to me. Its nothing against Brother JR, and I know he has stated that position here on multiple occasions, but it simply does not add up. The explanation provided by Cardinal Kasper, when he shared some of his thoughts on Vatican II which were published in L’Osservatore Romano, seems much more plausible. This is particularly true when you put the Cardinal’s comments in the context of Pope Emeritus Benedict’s statements on the council, to include its interpretation and implementation.

A blog with a link to the article.
johnthavis.com/cardinal-k…i#.UWx46aKsiSr
The original Italian translated by Google (the English version is not online as of yet).
translate.google.com/translat…ed=0CDMQ7gEwAA
Cardinal Walter Kasper:

“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.”

If this is being quoted accurately, this is stunning (to me anyway) in that it supports what many have said in that the council is ambiguous and easily open for misinterpretation. Moreover, according to Cardinal Kasper, this happened through an intentional process of placing divergent opinions immediately next to each other in the text.
Cardinal Walter Kasper:

“For most Catholics, the developments put in motion by the council are part of the church’s daily life. But what they are experiencing is not the great new beginning nor the springtime of the church, which were expected at that time, but rather a church that has a wintery look, and shows clear signs of crisis.”

The fact that he specifically states the word “crisis” is quite telling. For years, traditionalists, rightly or wrongly, have been using this word to describe the state of the Church. They have been repeatedly told that this is not true, and even when this has not happened, any link between a perceived crisis and Vatican II has been stoutly denied. Cardinal Kasper, who is certainly not known as a traditionalist, seems to have no problem using that specific word.
Cardinal Walter Kasper:

“For those who know the story of the twenty councils recognized as ecumenical, this [the state of confusion] will not be a surprise. The post-conciliar times were almost always turbulent. The [Second] Vatican, however, is a special case.”

For many years, the narrative has been that what took place after Vatican II was just a normal reaction to the implementation of a council, and that there was nothing special about our current situation. Here, the Cardinal suggests that this narrative is partially true, but also partially false. Yes, according to him, there are bound to be some issues after a council. However, he also plainly states that what we have experienced after Vatican II is not normal but rather, that it is somehow different. He does not go on to explain his meaning here, or at least I have not been able to find that text, but it is possible that he is referring to his original statement of placing divergent opinions side by side in the council text. However, that is mere speculation on my part.

 

[Megan7]

That argument simply does not make sense to me. Its nothing against Brother JR, and I know he has stated that position here on multiple occasions, but it simply does not add up. The explanation provided by Cardinal Kasper, when he shared some of his thoughts on Vatican II which were published in L’Osservatore Romano, seems much more plausible. This is particularly true when you put the Cardinal’s comments in the context of Pope Emeritus Benedict’s statements on the council, to include its interpretation and implementation.

A blog with a link to the article.
johnthavis.com/cardinal-k…i#.UWx46aKsiSr
The original Italian translated by Google (the English version is not online as of yet).
translate.google.com/translat…ed=0CDMQ7gEwAA

If this is being quoted accurately, this is stunning (to me anyway) in that it supports what many have said in that the council is ambiguous and easily open for misinterpretation. Moreover, according to Cardinal Kasper, this happened through an intentional process of placing divergent opinions immediately next to each other in the text.

The fact that he specifically states the word “crisis” is quite telling. For years, traditionalists, rightly or wrongly, have been using this word to describe the state of the Church. They have been repeatedly told that this is not true, and even when this has not happened, any link between a perceived crisis and Vatican II has been stoutly denied. Cardinal Kasper, who is certainly not known as a traditionalist, seems to have no problem using that specific word.

For many years, the narrative has been that what took place after Vatican II was just a normal reaction to the implementation of a council, and that there was nothing special about our current situation. Here, the Cardinal suggests that this narrative is partially true, but also partially false. Yes, according to him, there are bound to be some issues after a council. However, he also plainly states that what we have experienced after Vatican II is not normal but rather, that it is somehow different. He does not go on to explain his meaning here, or at least I have not been able to find that text, but it is possible that he is referring to his original statement of placing divergent opinions side by side in the council text. However, that is mere speculation on my part.

Thank you Jason I will read this later on.
God bless you.

Pax

 

[jwinch2]

Thank you Jason I will read this later on.
God bless you.

Pax

Peace Megan,

 

[QuestingKnight]

…

Some of the work, for example, that has been done in ecumenism has been so far above the pay grade of anyone here as to be completely out of our eyesight. Three examples that come to mind are the work done with the Lutherans, the Anglican/Episcopal members, and with the Jewish community. I am not talking about some people getting together at a soup kitchen, or working on a ballot measure to protect marriage. The work goes on without our notice, and we don’t need to notice.

…

Furthermore, part of what some people want is the documents to be written in a Scholastic or neo Scholastic language; as Bro. JR has pointed out in a different thread, they were written in the language of spirituality. That does not make them wrong; it makes them different. And those who are not trained in the language of spirituality will have a difficult time understanding them at best; and that is as it should be, as they were not written for that subset.

To the first point, where are the mass conversions as a result of all this ecumenical work? Ecumenism was a joke here in the UK until Pope Benedict, God bless him, set up Anglicanorum Coetibus. Those who are not Catholics are in error to a greater or lesser degree; real ecumenism is trying to convert them.

To the second: What language was used or what the intent was, is moot. What matters is how the VII documents are used. And they are used as if they are legal documents. Therefore, their intent, if it is not clear, must be clarified.

On and on it goes. The endless apologia. And while it goes on, your local parish co-ordinator is consciously or subconsciously working out how to push just a little nudge closer to protestantism. And it will seem very up-to-date.

You see, we can inoculate against bodily infections but the only inoculation against ideas is a strong servitude to Christ by means of the proper sacraments, prayer, fasting, penance and caritas.

 

[Sirach2]

To the second: What language was used or what the intent was, is moot. What matters is how the VII documents are used. And they are used as if they are legal documents. Therefore, their intent, if it is not clear, must be clarified.

And to whom do you believe it should be clarified? Laity? Our clergy understands the documents and the intent, whereas laity get in an uproar whenever they try to decipher it according to their limited understanding. If a pastor doesn’t understand it, he can always consult with his bishop. How many lay persons have a hot line to the bishop in order to grasp every nuance that seems amiss to them? Where is the trust and filial submission that should be the response of laity? This incessant doubting and questioning does not reveal an obedient heart, IMO.

 

[clem456]

To the first point, where are the mass conversions as a result of all this ecumenical work? Ecumenism was a joke here in the UK until Pope Benedict, God bless him, set up Anglicanorum Coetibus. Those who are not Catholics are in error to a greater or lesser degree; real ecumenism is trying to convert them.

I am just wondering if there are statistics or something indicating who has been converted and who has not. Who’s in charge of determining who is converted and who is not, and to what degree?
What about Catholics who are in need of conversion? Are there some of those? (perhaps all?)

To the second: What language was used or what the intent was, is moot. What matters is how the VII documents are used. And they are used as if they are legal documents. Therefore, their intent, if it is not clear, must be clarified.

On and on it goes. The endless apologia. And while it goes on, your local parish co-ordinator is consciously or subconsciously working out how to push just a little nudge closer to protestantism. And it will seem very up-to-date.

You see, we can inoculate against bodily infections but the only inoculation against ideas is a strong servitude to Christ by means of the proper sacraments, prayer, fasting, penance and caritas.

 

[Tomster]

That argument simply does not make sense to me. Its nothing against Brother JR, and I know he has stated that position here on multiple occasions, but it simply does not add up. The explanation provided by Cardinal Kasper, when he shared some of his thoughts on Vatican II which were published in L’Osservatore Romano, seems much more plausible. This is particularly true when you put the Cardinal’s comments in the context of Pope Emeritus Benedict’s statements on the council, to include its interpretation and implementation.

A blog with a link to the article.
johnthavis.com/cardinal-k…i#.UWx46aKsiSr
The original Italian translated by Google (the English version is not online as of yet).
translate.google.com/translat…ed=0CDMQ7gEwAA

If this is being quoted accurately, this is stunning (to me anyway) in that it supports what many have said in that the council is ambiguous and easily open for misinterpretation. Moreover, according to Cardinal Kasper, this happened through an intentional process of placing divergent opinions immediately next to each other in the text.

The fact that he specifically states the word “crisis” is quite telling. For years, traditionalists, rightly or wrongly, have been using this word to describe the state of the Church. They have been repeatedly told that this is not true, and even when this has not happened, any link between a perceived crisis and Vatican II has been stoutly denied. Cardinal Kasper, who is certainly not known as a traditionalist, seems to have no problem using that specific word.

For many years, the narrative has been that what took place after Vatican II was just a normal reaction to the implementation of a council, and that there was nothing special about our current situation. Here, the Cardinal suggests that this narrative is partially true, but also partially false. Yes, according to him, there are bound to be some issues after a council. However, he also plainly states that what we have experienced after Vatican II is not normal but rather, that it is somehow different. He does not go on to explain his meaning here, or at least I have not been able to find that text, but it is possible that he is referring to his original statement of placing divergent opinions side by side in the council text. However, that is mere speculation on my part.

So, the ambiguities were intentional according to Cardinal Kasper?