It needs reiterating: The Second Vatican Council was pastoral, not dogmatic! (With a note concerning the SSPX)

[KofC660]

As a Catholic, you are free to reject anything from Vatican II that doesn’t agree with all previous councils and the doctrines of the Faith.

The fact that the SSPX and the Church hierarchy get so “worked up” about Vatican II is evidence that there are deeper, personal issues between the two than there are doctrinal issues.

My advice is: let the hierarchs of the SSPX and the Church work it out amongst themselves, and the laity to remain united, both part of the One True Church. SSPXers, don’t criticize the laity for attending Novus Ordo Masses, and “Church” laity, don’t criticize SSPXers for not accepting every little bit of everything that came out of the Second Vatican Council. If the laity are united, the hierarchs will soon be also.

 

[BobCatholic]

As a Catholic, you are free to reject anything from Vatican II that doesn’t agree with all previous councils and the doctrines of the Faith.

There is nothing in Vatican II that disagrees with previous councils and doctrines of the Faith.

However, certain people’s interpretation of Vatican II CAN and does conflict with previous councils and doctrines of the faith - and that is not the same as the Vatican II.

My advice is: let the hierarchs of the SSPX and the Church work it out amongst themselves, and the laity to remain united, both part of the One True Church. SSPXers, don’t criticize the laity for attending Novus Ordo Masses, and “Church” laity, don’t criticize SSPXers for not accepting every little bit of everything that came out of the Second Vatican Council. If the laity are united, the hierarchs will soon be also.

Substitute “Eastern Orthodox” for “SSPX” and your paragraph doesn’t fit. The SSPX are in exactly the same boat as the EO’s:In schism.

 

[KofC660]

There is nothing in Vatican II that disagrees with previous councils and doctrines of the Faith.

However, certain people’s interpretation of Vatican II CAN and does conflict with previous councils and doctrines of the faith - and that is not the same as the Vatican II.

Substitute “Eastern Orthodox” for “SSPX” and your paragraph doesn’t fit. The SSPX are in exactly the same boat as the EO’s:In schism.

I say the same thing about the Eastern Church - let the hierarchs argue amongst themselves, meanwhile I’ll consider my Eastern brothers part of the Church, and I wish they would consider me part of the Church.

 

[BobCatholic]

I say the same thing about the Eastern Church - let the hierarchs argue amongst themselves, meanwhile I’ll consider my Eastern brothers part of the Church, and I wish they would consider me part of the Church.

Are you talking about the Eastern Catholic Churches or the Eastern Orthodox?

EC’s are part of the Church.
EO’s are not.

And I don’t consider the EO’s part of the Church, as they’re still in schism. The EC’s are part of the Church and are wonderful.

 

[BobP123]

The SSPX are in exactly the same boat as the EO’s:In schism.

Frankly, I don’t see how this type of name-calling or ad hominem attack can be productive. Why can’t we just let the higher-ups just settle things amongst themselves? In the meantime, their rites are valid and Canon Law allows one to fulfill his Sabbath obligation at those rites. The SSPX preach no heresy and that’s all we need to know.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

As a Catholic, you are free to reject anything from Vatican II that doesn’t agree with all previous councils and the doctrines of the Faith.

The fact that the SSPX and the Church hierarchy get so “worked up” about Vatican II is evidence that there are deeper, personal issues between the two than there are doctrinal issues.

My advice is: let the hierarchs of the SSPX and the Church work it out amongst themselves, and the laity to remain united, both part of the One True Church. SSPXers, don’t criticize the laity for attending Novus Ordo Masses, and “Church” laity, don’t criticize SSPXers for not accepting every little bit of everything that came out of the Second Vatican Council. If the laity are united, the hierarchs will soon be also.

Here’s why that is easier said than done: Unity begins with a common belief. Now, 99.999% of the conciliar Church thinks differently than the Church did prior to Vatican II on things such as ecumenism and religious liberty, while Tradtionalists still think as the Church has always thought.

For example modern Catholics believe that a man has a right to practice a false religion. This is obviously false since our rights come from God and God gives no one a right to break the first commandment. Since man ha free will he has the ability to practice a false religion, but not the right to do so. Traditional Catholics still hold to what the Church has alway taught on this point - the man has no right to violate the law of God - while the others hold the contrary. And on this point Traditionalists also maintain that the State exceeds its authority if it pretends to grant man a “right” to do what God forbids (belong to a false religion).

Since the new thinking is based on liberal ideas mingled with modernism, Traditional Catholics who, like the Popes of old, detest liberalism and modernism, and who fight it will all their energy, cannot just pretend that these errors don’t exist. The Traditional Catholics fight these errors while the others promote and practice them. This dissagreement in the mind is the root cause of disunity, and cannot just be set aside.

People like to claim that there were no problems with Vatican II itself, only with the interpretation of it. What they don’t realize is that the ambiguities in the documents are the problem. The ambiguities, which provide for contradictory interpretations, result in disunity, since, as was said, unity is founded on a common belief.

Pope Leo XIII: “How can hearts be united in perfect charity where minds do not agree in faith?” (The Reunion of Christians)

So your thought is good, but in my opinion not possible.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I say the same thing about the Eastern Church - let the hierarchs argue amongst themselves, meanwhile I’ll consider my Eastern brothers part of the Church, and I wish they would consider me part of the Church.

I’m surprised you made that comment. Did you mean that consider the true schismatic heretics in the EO to be part of the one true Church? Schismatics (and there is no doubt that they are), and heretics (and there is no doubt that they are that too) are not part of the Church.

The SSPX is not in schism or heresy, which is why the are still in the Church. If they were in schism or heresy they would cease to be.

 

[Jim_ov_Cov]

Frankly, I don’t see how this type of name-calling or ad hominem attack can be productive. Why can’t we just let the higher-ups just settle things amongst themselves? In the meantime, their rites are valid and Canon Law allows one to fulfill his Sabbath obligation at those rites. The SSPX preach no heresy and that’s all we need to know.

There is no ‘ad hominen’ attack here. The writer is dealing objectively with various bodies (SSPX etc.) No person is named, judged or attacked. This is a throughly accurate description.

 

[stmaria]

There is nothing in Vatican II that disagrees with previous councils and doctrines of the Faith.

However, certain people’s interpretation of Vatican II CAN and does conflict with previous councils and doctrines of the faith - and that is not the same as the Vatican II.

Substitute “Eastern Orthodox” for “SSPX” and your paragraph doesn’t fit. The SSPX are in exactly the same boat as the EO’s:In schism.

You don’t think the document on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism disagree with previous councils and doctrines of faith?

 

[BobCatholic]

In the meantime, their rites are valid and Canon Law allows one to fulfill his Sabbath obligation at those rites.

Canon law says we can fulfill our Sunday obligation at any LAWFUL rite.

SSPX, EO’s don’t count.

The SSPX preach no heresy and that’s all we need to know.

Some of the stuff they preach is out there, so I can easily disagree with that.

 

[BobCatholic]

You don’t think the document on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism disagree with previous councils and doctrines of faith?

It has been misinterpreted, and the MISINTERPRETATIONS are not the same as the document. The misinterpretations contradict the faith, and should be condemned. The document, should not.

Like I said before: The Bible has been misinterpreted to produce heresy. Shall we hold the same standards I see here to the Bible that you believe about V2? I don’t believe so. This would require you to deny the authority of the Bible.

 

[BobCatholic]

The SSPX is not in schism or heresy, which is why the are still in the Church.

They’re not in heresy (yet) but they are definitely in schism.

ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/eccldei.htm

Now, you can easily prove that what you say is true by posting a link to a document that shows the Pope has lifted the excommunications in Ecclesia Dei.

If you’re not able to do so, please retract your errorneous statement or you are pushing an agenda and this is not permitted under CAF rules.

 

[ncjohn]

As a Catholic, you are free to reject anything from Vatican II that doesn’t agree with all previous councils and the doctrines of the Faith.

While you are certainly free to believe this, it is not the teaching of the Church so to state it as “fact” is inaccurate. In any matter in which it is making statements on doctrine, an Ecumenical Council is considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus is binding on all Catholics.

We go down a very slippery slope when we start to think that as lay people we get to start deciding what parts of an Ecumenical Council we do and don’t have to accept. Short of an *ex Cathedra *statement by a Pope, there is no higher authority than an Ecumenical Council. So if one is able to start making such statements about Vatican II, it opens the door for anyone else who wants to start deciding whether to accept statements from other Councils.

I would suggest that if you think there is a lack of continuity between doctrinal statements and clarifications of Vatican II and other Councils that it is more likely a lack of thorough understanding on your part than it is that a true lack of continuity exists.

Peace,

 

[RobNY]

As a Catholic, you are free to reject anything from Vatican II that doesn’t agree with all previous councils and the doctrines of the Faith.

This is false. Both the presupposition that the council erred and that one may reject an ecumenical council.

The fact that the SSPX and the Church hierarchy get so “worked up” about Vatican II is evidence that there are deeper, personal issues between the two than there are doctrinal issues.

My advice is: let the hierarchs of the SSPX and the Church work it out amongst themselves, and the laity to remain united, both part of the One True Church. SSPXers, don’t criticize the laity for attending Novus Ordo Masses, and “Church” laity, don’t criticize SSPXers for not accepting every little bit of everything that came out of the Second Vatican Council. If the laity are united, the hierarchs will soon be also.

If the SSPX-- or anyone-- rejects a ecumenical council duly ratified by the pope then we have reason to criticize them. It is shocking that any allegedly traditional Catholic would dare to suggest such a thing.

It needs reiterating: The Second Vatican Council was pastoral, not dogmatic! (With a note concerning the SSPX)

Unfortunately, this is only a twisting of words. Whether pastoral or dogmatic, it was an ecumenical council. We are bound to believe the teachings of ecumenical councils. What authority do we have to pick and choose what we like from ecumenical councils and what we don’t like? Instead, let us profess the faith, “whole and undefiled.”

-Rob

 

[stmaria]

It has been misinterpreted, and the MISINTERPRETATIONS are not the same as the document. The misinterpretations contradict the faith, and should be condemned. The document, should not.

Like I said before: The Bible has been misinterpreted to produce heresy. Shall we hold the same standards I see here to the Bible that you believe about V2? I don’t believe so. This would require you to deny the authority of the Bible.

The book* The Rhine flows into the Tiber *has the actual dialogue from the debate on Religious Liberty. This was one of the most fiercely debated documents at the Council. The document on Religious Liberty is in the words of Cardinal Ottaviani, “ a very serious matter to assert that every kind of religion has the freedom to propagate itself.”
Those who say that the document is merely about the **civil right **of an individual to profess his religion would get an argument from Cardinal Ottaviani as well as from Cardinal Palacios who said on the floor of the Council that the text was full of ambiguities and he charged, “**new doctrine being favored at the expense of traditional doctrine”. **Cardinal Monreal said the entire text was, “ pervaded by a twofold ambiguity. **Only the Catholic Church had received the mandate to teach all nations. Objectively speaking, no other religious doctrine had the right to propagate itself.” **
Cardinal Browne of the Roman Curia stated that the declaration could not be approved in its existing form. Archbishop Parente of the Roman Curia said, “ The rights of God were subordinated in the text to the rights of man.”
Monsignor Meglio, an Italian specialist on international law said “ since the declaration on religious freedom has no dogmatic value, the negative votes of the Council Fathers will constitute a factor of great importance for the future studies of the declaration itself, and particularly for the interpretation to placed on it.”

Mgr. Lefebvre and Cardinal Ottaviani voted no for the declaration.

The Declaration is directly contrary to the teachings of Pope Pius Pope Pius IX “Quanta Cura” 3.2 “that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right….whereby they may be able to openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word or mouth…they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition”

 

[ncjohn]

The book* The Rhine flows into the Tiber *has the actual dialogue from the debate on Religious Liberty. This was one of the most fiercely debated documents at the Council. The document on Religious Liberty is in the words of Cardinal Ottaviani, “ a very serious matter to assert that every kind of religion has the freedom to propagate itself.”
Those who say that the document is merely about the **civil right **of an individual to profess his religion would get an argument from Cardinal Ottaviani as well as from Cardinal Palacios who said on the floor of the Council that the text was full of ambiguities and he charged, “**new doctrine being favored at the expense of traditional doctrine”. **Cardinal Monreal said the entire text was, “ pervaded by a twofold ambiguity. **Only the Catholic Church had received the mandate to teach all nations. Objectively speaking, no other religious doctrine had the right to propagate itself.” **
Cardinal Browne of the Roman Curia stated that the declaration could not be approved in its existing form. Archbishop Parente of the Roman Curia said, “ The rights of God were subordinated in the text to the rights of man.”
Monsignor Meglio, an Italian specialist on international law said “ since the declaration on religious freedom has no dogmatic value, the negative votes of the Council Fathers will constitute a factor of great importance for the future studies of the declaration itself, and particularly for the interpretation to placed on it.”

Mgr. Lefebvre and Cardinal Ottaviani voted no for the declaration.

The Declaration is directly contrary to the teachings of Pope Pius Pope Pius IX “Quanta Cura” 3.2 “that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right….whereby they may be able to openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word or mouth…they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition”

That’s all very interesting, but ultimately the Council ratified the documents as they are presented, despite the dissent of Lefebrvre and Ottaviani, just as Vatican I ratified its documents despite the vociferous dissent of numerous Cardinals who either left in opposition or changed their vote to make it unanimous after the measures passed in obedience to the will of the Church as directed by the Holy Spirit.

There is often heated discussion about items in a Council. That does not make them less liable to adherence after their adoption however. Those who place themselves in opposition to the ratified documents of the Church then place themselves outside the Church.

 

[rwoehmke]

For example modern Catholics believe that a man has a right to practice a false religion. This is obviously false since our rights come from God and God gives no one a right to break the first commandment. Since man ha free will he has the ability to practice a false religion, but not the right to do so. Traditional Catholics still hold to what the Church has alway taught on this point - the man has no right to violate the law of God - while the others hold the contrary. And on this point Traditionalists also maintain that the State exceeds its authority if it pretends to grant man a “right” to do what God forbids (belong to a false religion).

People like to claim that there were no problems with Vatican II itself, only with the interpretation of it. What they don’t realize is that the ambiguities in the documents are the problem. The ambiguities, which provide for contradictory interpretations, result in disunity, since, as was said, unity is founded on a common belief.

Well the point has been made time and again over the centuries that Faith requires and act of the will and that one has no right to force the decision against the will. Hence the freedom to chose ones religion and possibly make a wrong choice. It is not a right to choose wrongly it is a freedom to do so. Subtle but there is a difference.

That being said, I told another friend today that the smart position is not to try to privately interpret the documents of the Council, but to depend on what the Pope and Majority of Bishops tell us they mean. Private interpretation has a danger of placing one in the camp of those who hold to sola scriptura and private interpretation.

The log has been sawn and resawn and the horse beaten to death and beyond about whether we are bound to accept Vatican II as a legitimate Ecumenical Council and at least three Popes have said yes. So…do you follow the Pope or your private interpretation?

 

[BobCatholic]

The book* The Rhine flows into the Tiber *has the actual dialogue from the debate on Religious Liberty. This was one of the most fiercely debated documents at the Council. The document on Religious Liberty is in the words of Cardinal Ottaviani, “ a very serious matter to assert that every kind of religion has the freedom to propagate itself.”

Please show me the text of Vatican II that says this.

Those who say that the document is merely about the **civil right **of an individual to profess his religion would get an argument from Cardinal Ottaviani

I would challenge it too, where is this in Vatican II?

The good Cardinal saw how it could be misinterpreted, and that’s my point: ANYTHING can be misinterpreted by heretics!

I said it before: The Bible was misinterpreted by heretics, does this mean we should blame the Bible or the heretic? The same thing about Vatican II. Misinterpreted by heretics. You seem to blame the council instead of the heretics.

This is an inconsistent standard. Using your standard, we should blame the Bible for the heretics’ misinterpretations of scripture, instead of the heretics.

I disagree.

Point the finger at heretics, not at the council nor the Bible.

 

[stmaria]

Please show me the text of Vatican II that says this.

I would challenge it too, where is this in Vatican II?

The good Cardinal saw how it could be misinterpreted, and that’s my point: ANYTHING can be misinterpreted by heretics!

I said it before: The Bible was misinterpreted by heretics, does this mean we should blame the Bible or the heretic? The same thing about Vatican II. Misinterpreted by heretics. You seem to blame the council instead of the heretics.

This is an inconsistent standard. Using your standard, we should blame the Bible for the heretics’ misinterpretations of scripture, instead of the heretics.

I disagree.

Point the finger at heretics, not at the council nor the Bible.

Were Lefebvre and Ottaviani and the Roman Curia heretics or conservative Catholics that wanted to hold on to the traditional teachings of the church.?

The* Rhine flows into the Tiber *is considered the most accurate and unbiased book about Vatican II. A journalist priest, who was actually at the Council, wrote it at the time of the Council. The book contains interviews with the Fathers and press releases about the events inside the Council.

Cardinal Palacios who said on the floor of the Council that the text was new doctrine and the text was ambigious.

The Holy Spirit cannot be ambigious.The Declaration is not infallible dogma.Error does not have God-given rights.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

As a Catholic, you are free to reject anything from Vatican II that doesn’t agree with all previous councils and the doctrines of the Faith.

Not really. A “pastoral” teaching means one that is designed for particualr circumstnaces, not for all peoples at all times. However that doesn’t mean that those to whom it was addressed are free to reject it.

For instance at school we once had to wear greatcoats. Then fluoresecent cagools came out. They were so obviously a sensible precaution against traffic that they were allowed. Now I suspect that hooded overcoats are forbidden. American readers might wonder why, but British ones will understnad exactly what a “hoodie” signifies.

That’s a clear case of pastoral rules, in this case made by a school for its pupils rather than by a Church for its members, but of a similar status.