Is Vatican II Infallible

[Sirach2]

So, the ambiguities were intentional according to Cardinal Kasper?

With over 5,200 clergy (bishops and cardinals) present at the Council, doesn’t it seem a bit odd that Card. Kasper is the only one who makes this claim? Surely, one of the other 5,200+ members would have spoken by now.

I think we can just dismiss it as hearsay or private opinion, unless others in the hierarchy come forth to substantiate his claim.

The Cardinal also had this to say, which was omitted from Jwinch2’s post:

Kasper said some critics still consider Vatican II as “a disaster and the greatest calamity in recent times.”** But the cardinal said it was wrong to presume that “everything that happened after the council also happened because of the council**,” and that the critics need to look more closely at more general social trends of that era.

– Overall, Vatican II teachings have given new impetus to life in dioceses, parishes and religious communities, especially through liturgical renewal, new spiritual movements, better knowledge of Scripture and dialogue with non-Catholics, he said.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

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.

This. The Church does not have to explain Herself to us. She speaks for God, we should listen, not constantly question the wisdom of Her decisions as if we know better!

 

[opus101]

With over 5,200 clergy (bishops and cardinals) present at the Council, doesn’t it seem a bit odd that Card. Kasper is the only one who makes this claim? Surely, one of the other 5,200+ members would have spoken by now.

I think we can just dismiss it as hearsay or private opinion, unless others in the hierarchy come forth to substantiate his claim.

The Cardinal also had this to say, which was omitted from Jwinch2’s post:

 

[Sirach2]

One more point to consider. The article is really positive in tone, overall. The link in Jwinch2’s post is not valid. This is a working link which said nothing whatsoever about the language being intentionally worded to cause ambiguity. Recent posts have been put forth [and deleted] that are simply not verifiable as true. What Kasper said in this link was:

– One reason Vatican II documents have “an enormous potential for conflict” is that compromise language was adopted on many crucial issues, opening the door to selective interpretation in one direction or another, Kasper said.

The Cardinal’s phrase “compromise language” indicates that the Church was careful not to impose rigidity with a meaning that may have had other nuances. Nowhere does it say there was deliberate deception to cause ambiguity. This is really slanderous. The “selective interpretation” most assuredly came from those not invested with clerical authority to properly understand the language.

It is seriously slanderous to depict the Cardinal’s words in a light that he did not express. As I searched for more links, since Jwinch’s were not valid, I noted that the questionable trad sites were all linking to one another with repeats of the same paragraph alleged to be the Cardinal’s statement, but altered from the meaning he expressed in my link. SuscipeDomine, Unam Sanctam blog, Angel Queen, SSPX - all of them are having a celebration that trads are now vindicated with an “I told you so.”

I have yet to see - in english - the exact words that the Vatican paper published.

 

[Rich_C]

With over 5,200 clergy (bishops and cardinals) present at the Council, doesn’t it seem a bit odd that Card. Kasper is the only one who makes this claim? Surely, one of the other 5,200+ members would have spoken by now.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s request for a “syllabus of errors” for interpreting Vatican II comes to mind.

 

[Sirach2]

Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s request for a “syllabus of errors” for interpreting Vatican II comes to mind.

And?

He too, is just ONE bishop - and an extremely conservative one, at that. I’ve seen his writings, and he is not one that I would align with the mind of the Church universal.

 

[jwinch2]

The Cardinal also had this to say, which was omitted from Jwinch2’s post:

Which is why I said that the Caridnal’s comments only made sense in the context of what Pope Benedict had already said. His comments were along the same lines of that area you quoted.

I would not suggest that intentional ambiguity was THE factor which led to the problems seen after the council. In fact, prior to the Cardinal’s comments, I probably would not have suggested it as a factor. However, if the Cardinal is being truthful, it would seem naive to think that this did not play a role at some level.

 

[Rich_C]

And?

He too, is just ONE bishop - and an extremely conservative one, at that. I’ve seen his writings, and he is not one that I would align with the mind of the Church universal.

Haha, you dared anyone to name one.

 

[Sirach2]

Haha, you dared anyone to name one.

I concede that you found one. Maybe if you look hard enough, you can find a handful, or even a dozen. How does that equate with 5200?

 

[Esrb99]

And?

He too, is just ONE bishop - and an extremely conservative one, at that. I’ve seen his writings, and he is not one that I would align with the mind of the Church universal.

Are you saying you disregard an ordained bishop’s (who is in good standing with the Holy See) opinions?

 

[Esrb99]

I concede that you found one. Maybe if you look hard enough, you can find a handful, or even a dozen. How does that equate with 5200?

Just because a majority of bishops (may have) thought one way does not make that correct.

 

[Sirach2]

Are you saying you disregard an ordained bishop’s (who is in good standing with the Holy See) opinions?

Not at all. I’m saying he is noted to be very conservative, which is not the case with the majority of bishops/cardinals, who have a different leaning.

 

[Rich_C]

I concede that you found one. Maybe if you look hard enough, you can find a handful, or even a dozen. How does that equate with 5200?

I’m just having fun with you, sorry.

I have no dog in this fight. Whatever Vatican II means or doesn’t mean, it doesn’t affect me a bit.

 

[Sirach2]

Just because a majority of bishops (may have) thought one way does not make that correct.

And just because one or two think differenty, does not make the majority incorrect, either. Do you believe the Holy Spirit guides the “majority” and a consensus is usually the direction He leads them? I seem to remember something about a 2/3 majority for recognito status.

In this instance, a handful versus 5200 does not even provide grounds for consideration.

 

[Sirach2]

Which is why I said that the Caridnal’s comments only made sense in the context of what Pope Benedict had already said. His comments were along the same lines of that area you quoted.

I would not suggest that intentional ambiguity was THE factor which led to the problems seen after the council. In fact, prior to the Cardinal’s comments, I probably would not have suggested it as a factor. However, if the Cardinal is being truthful, it would seem naive to think that this did not play a role at some level.

At the risk of being redundant, Pope Benedict’s comments were simply a repeat of his book, Spirit of the Liturgy, and a POV he was never comfortable in changing. He, too, is a very noted conservative with a singular wish to bring back practices of old. If I was 85, maybe I’d feel the same way?

I have no doubt the Cardinal expressed an opinion, but I would suspect that trad blogs and websites, and the SSPX may have slanted the truth - just a tad or two in their favor.

 

[opus101]

One more point to consider. The article is really positive in tone, overall. The link in Jwinch2’s post is not valid. This is a working link which said nothing whatsoever about the language being intentionally worded to cause ambiguity. Recent posts have been put forth [and deleted] that are simply not verifiable as true. What Kasper said in this link was:

– One reason Vatican II documents have “an enormous potential for conflict” is that compromise language was adopted on many crucial issues, opening the door to selective interpretation in one direction or another, Kasper said.

The Cardinal’s phrase “compromise language” indicates that the Church was careful not to impose rigidity with a meaning that may have had other nuances. Nowhere does it say there was deliberate deception to cause ambiguity. This is really slanderous. The “selective interpretation” most assuredly came from those not invested with clerical authority to properly understand the language.

It is seriously slanderous to depict the Cardinal’s words in a light that he did not express. As I searched for more links, since Jwinch’s were not valid, I noted that the questionable trad sites were all linking to one another with repeats of the same paragraph alleged to be the Cardinal’s statement, but altered from the meaning he expressed in my link. SuscipeDomine, Unam Sanctam blog, Angel Queen, SSPX - all of them are having a celebration that trads are now vindicated with an “I told you so.”

I have yet to see - in english - the exact words that the Vatican paper published.

Very perceptive.

 

[opus101]

I seem to remember something about a 2/3 majority for recognito status.

In this instance, a handful versus 5200 does not even provide grounds for consideration.

Unless you have your own agenda and an axe to grind. And a propensity for gossip, slander and tabloid sensationalism.

 

[Sirach2]

Unless you have your own agenda and an axe to grind. And a propensity for gossip, slander and tabloid sensationalism.

 

[QuestingKnight]

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.

Yes, why not? Bishops are teachers, after all. As are priests. So teach us why Vatican II means an all-vernacular mass is not just permitted, but a good in itself. How CITH is an improvement on COTT. Why he is personally opposed to the saying of the older rite by his priests. And so on.

Actually, a part of the problem is that Catholics are too obedient. I doubt that introducing girls and folk guitars to Orthodox liturgies would have gone down too well.

I’m going to attend the most solemn mass free from local alterations that I can find.

Here’s a poser for readers:

Why should I have to do that in a world of 1 billion Catholics and a tradition of 2000 years? Does that seem normal to you?

At the current rate of change, when a seductively-dressed girl reclines on what used to be an altar in what used to be a Catholic church, ye won’t think it too strange.

 

[Sirach2]

Yes, why not? Bishops are teachers, after all. As are priests. So teach us why Vatican II means an all-vernacular mass is not just permitted, but a good in itself. How CITH is an improvement on COTT. Why he is personally opposed to the saying of the older rite by his priests. And so on.

Actually, a part of the problem is that Catholics are too obedient. I doubt that introducing girls and folk guitars to Orthodox liturgies would have gone down too well.

I’m going to attend the most solemn mass free from local alterations that I can find.

No sense attempting dialogue when one’s ears are closed.