misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRPO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StTommyMore said:
From DV 1:
Click to expand...
The thing is there was no NEW dogma promulgated at Vatican II & to compare it to other councils, most of which were held to define a dogma/dogmas of the Church is difficult. Many of our councils were held to rebut heresies…the Arian heresy, Nestorianism, etc.

Vatican II was the ONLY strictly pastoral council ever convened, as far as I can deduce. If someone else has info on another pastoral council, please tell us about it.

All of that said, we still cannot “ignore” any council. However, I think that Vatican II should NOT be considered more important than the others, as it has been.

We are discussing here the **misinterpretations & misapplications **of Vatican II & they are many. The ad populum position of the priest at Mass, the loss of the language of the Church & Gregorian Chant, the blending of the ordained priesthood & the Laity, etc.

Many of us have commented over the years, about the vagueness of the documents of Vat. II. My question is, do you think that these documents were purposely left so open-ended by those who hijacked the council?

catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/Ecumenical_Councils.htm
 
CradleCath said:
The thing is there was no NEW dogma promulgated at Vatican II & to compare it to other councils, most of which were held to define a dogma/dogmas of the Church is difficult. Many of our councils were held to rebut heresies…the Arian heresy, Nestorianism, etc.

Vatican II was the ONLY strictly pastoral council ever convened, as far as I can deduce. If someone else has info on another pastoral council, please tell us about it.

All of that said, we still cannot “ignore” any council. However, I think that Vatican II should NOT be considered more important than the others, as it has been.

We are discussing here the **misinterpretations & misapplications **of Vatican II & they are many. The ad populum position of the priest at Mass, the loss of the language of the Church & Gregorian Chant, the blending of the ordained priesthood & the Laity, etc.

Many of us have commented over the years, about the vagueness of the documents of Vat. II. My question is, do you think that these documents were purposely left so open-ended by those who hijacked the council?

catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/Ecumenical_Councils.htm
Click to expand...
The documents are not particularly vague in my opinion. I am not saying that there have not been abuses (there have), but these abuses actually go directly against what was put forth in the documents. Vatican II has the same weight of authority as the other 20 ecumenical councils. To deny the authority of Vatican II is to deny the authority of Trent and the others, because they come from the same authority. Also to place Vatican II above the others is also an error, as to do so removes the foundation upon which Vatican II is built.
 
StTommyMore said:
The documents are not particularly vague in my opinion. I am not saying that there have not been abuses (there have), but these abuses actually go directly against what was put forth in the documents. Vatican II has the same weight of authority as the other 20 ecumenical councils. To deny the authority of Vatican II is to deny the authority of Trent and the others, because they come from the same authority. Also to place Vatican II above the others is also an error, as to do so removes the foundation upon which Vatican II is built.
Click to expand...
Vatican II has the same authority as previous councils when it reaffirms Catholic doctrine. The “new points of doctrine” (Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Afflicta) are statements of the Ordinary Magisterium. And I am of the opinion that the Church should have employed Scholastic terminology instead of clumsily attempting to speak to modern man in his own language. Moreover, yes, there were some vague statements in the documents but I think it’s against the rules to go into too much detail, so I’ll stop here.
 
SouthpawLink said:
And I am of the opinion that the Church should have employed Scholastic terminology instead of clumsily attempting to speak to modern man in his own language.
Click to expand...
I agree with that opinion. Even if a new syllabus were to be issued, it probably wouldn’t do much good with “simple” translations of the documents. Take the 2007 Summorum Pontificum, for example, which has yet to be published in English on the Vatican website. There’s probably a good reason for that.
 
ProVobis said:
I agree with that opinion. Even if a new syllabus were to be issued, it probably wouldn’t do much good with “simple” translations of the documents. Take the 2007 Summorum Pontificum, for example, which has yet to be published in English on the Vatican website. There’s probably a good reason for that.
Click to expand...
But it is in Hungarian. So I don’t think its an issue of “simple” translantion. It has been translated.
 
SouthpawLink said:
Vatican II has the same authority as previous councils when it reaffirms Catholic doctrine. The “new points of doctrine” (Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Afflicta) are statements of the Ordinary Magisterium. And I am of the opinion that the Church should have employed Scholastic terminology instead of clumsily attempting to speak to modern man in his own language. Moreover, yes, there were some vague statements in the documents but I think it’s against the rules to go into too much detail, so I’ll stop here.
Click to expand...
You are of a different opinion that HH Benedict XVI.
 
SouthpawLink said:
Is it his opinion that every sentence of the sixteen conciliar documents is de fide or even De fide ecclesiastica definita?
Click to expand...
It is his opinion that it is illogical to reject the authority of Vatican II, while accepting the authority of earlier councils
 
Dear fellow members:

I have been reading many of the replies concerning the impact over the past few decades of Vatican II, and the replies are quite varied over a large continuum. My wife and I read to each other each morning with our coffee over this subject, and other related subjects. The research we do is endless, it appears. One book we read recently, which I recommend, is: What went wrong with Vatican II __ The Catholic crisis explained.. by Ralph M. McInerny. It’s a small book in paperback, and would answer at least a few of the questions which many of you have asked.

Your brother-in-Christ,

dieselsubvet
 
dieselsubvet said:
Dear fellow members:

I have been reading many of the replies concerning the impact over the past few decades of Vatican II, and the replies are quite varied over a large continuum. My wife and I read to each other each morning with our coffee over this subject, and other related subjects. The research we do is endless, it appears. One book we read recently, which I recommend, is: What went wrong with Vatican II __ The Catholic crisis explained.. by Ralph M. McInerny. It’s a small book in paperback, and would answer at least a few of the questions which many of you have asked.

Your brother-in-Christ,

dieselsubvet
Click to expand...
Two far better books to read would be The Ratzinger Report and Crossing the Threshold of Hope, both of which deal extensively with Vatican II.
 
StTommyMore said:
Two far better books to read would be The Ratzinger Report and Crossing the Threshold of Hope, both of which deal extensively with Vatican II.
Click to expand...
But don’t dismiss Dr. McInery, Tommy. He was a Thomist of note, very orthodox, and faithful to the Holy See (ie, he’s not SSPX or in any way in rebellion against the Church).
 
JKirkLVNV said:
But don’t dismiss Dr. McInery, Tommy. He was a Thomist of note, very orthodox, and faithful to the Holy See (ie, he’s not SSPX or in any way in rebellion against the Church).
Click to expand...
Given the title of his work, his bias is clear.
 
At_Trent said:
That’s right, throw him into the coliseum with the trads and open the lion’s gate 😉
Click to expand...
Call me crazy, but I think it is a good idea to understand the bias of an author when approaching his work.
 
StTommyMore said:
Call me crazy, but I think it is a good idea to understand the bias of an author when approaching his work.
Click to expand...
Read the first chapter… the link is above this post.

That is how you judge a book, by reading at least some of it. Not by it’s cover or title.

I see your point, but we should seek info to do as you say, not assume a bias.
 
I’m going to make myself quite clear on this:

1.) A lot of changes made in the name of Vatican II (or in “the spirit of Vatican II”) had nothing to do with Vatican II, and a lot of people making opportune changes to what they thought the Catholic Church should be like and then used Vatican II as a scape-goat.

2.) One should not identify one’s-self as a “liberal, progressive, conservative, orthodox” or any other name to describe their faith. One should be willing to search for the truth, and in doing so one will completely submit to the authority of the church as founded by Jesus Christ Himself.

3.) Go to Poland and visit the Catholic Churches there. There was none of this tearing down of altars and putting in tables, etc that we see in western countries. They waited for the official translation of the documents, and did their best to carry them out to the letter. I have been so blessed to have had a spiritual up-bringing with Polish clergy in my own parish. They never bought into this “spirit of Vatican II” nonsense.

4.) Calling the Missal of 1962 “The Mass of Ages” is plain wrong. It is a development of the Missal of 1570, when the liturgy was reformed, and liturgies written between 1370 and 1570 were considered invalid, but older liturgical traditions from pre-1370 were permitted to be retained, hence why the Dominicans have their own style of liturgy.

5.) There are many good Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Theologians, Catechists, Seminarians, Acolytes, Altar-Servants, Teachers, and other Laity whom are seeking to correct the gross errors made during the 1970’s in the wave of post-Vatican II changes.

6.) For one thing, the New English Translation of the Missal will make things much better. At the last St Stephen’s Guild Conference we extensively trained in the new translation.

7.) Everybody get off your high-horses and realise that we are all sinners. There is no Pre-V2 and Post-V2 church. It is the same “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church”. Instead of doing what you think is right and then trying to justify your actions before God, seek out what is true, right and humble yourself before the God whom will ultimately be your judge.

8.) It’s not about you, what you like, what you want, what you think or what you feel. It’s all about GOD, and it isn’t always pleasant.

9.) You are a sinner, I am a sinner, Clergy are sinners, Laity are sinners. Don’t think of yourself as being so good as to get into heaven upon your merits. Remember that there are two main types of people out there: Saints who think themselves as sinners, and sinners who think themselves to be saints.

10.) Go and ACTUALLY READ all of the Vatican II documents, before you decide what a “post-Vatican II” church is like.
 
hartleymartin said:
I’m going to make myself quite clear on this:

1.) A lot of changes made in the name of Vatican II (or in “the spirit of Vatican II”) had nothing to do with Vatican II, and a lot of people making opportune changes to what they thought the Catholic Church should be like and then used Vatican II as a scape-goat.

2.) One should not identify one’s-self as a “liberal, progressive, conservative, orthodox” or any other name to describe their faith. One should be willing to search for the truth, and in doing so one will completely submit to the authority of the church as founded by Jesus Christ Himself.

3.) Go to Poland and visit the Catholic Churches there. There was none of this tearing down of altars and putting in tables, etc that we see in western countries. They waited for the official translation of the documents, and did their best to carry them out to the letter. I have been so blessed to have had a spiritual up-bringing with Polish clergy in my own parish. They never bought into this “spirit of Vatican II” nonsense.

4.) Calling the Missal of 1962 “The Mass of Ages” is plain wrong. It is a development of the Missal of 1570, when the liturgy was reformed, and liturgies written between 1370 and 1570 were considered invalid, but older liturgical traditions from pre-1370 were permitted to be retained, hence why the Dominicans have their own style of liturgy.

5.) There are many good Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Theologians, Catechists, Seminarians, Acolytes, Altar-Servants, Teachers, and other Laity whom are seeking to correct the gross errors made during the 1970’s in the wave of post-Vatican II changes.

6.) For one thing, the New English Translation of the Missal will make things much better. At the last St Stephen’s Guild Conference we extensively trained in the new translation.

7.) Everybody get off your high-horses and realise that we are all sinners. There is no Pre-V2 and Post-V2 church. It is the same “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church”. Instead of doing what you think is right and then trying to justify your actions before God, seek out what is true, right and humble yourself before the God whom will ultimately be your judge.

8.) It’s not about you, what you like, what you want, what you think or what you feel. It’s all about GOD, and it isn’t always pleasant.

9.) You are a sinner, I am a sinner, Clergy are sinners, Laity are sinners. Don’t think of yourself as being so good as to get into heaven upon your merits. Remember that there are two main types of people out there: Saints who think themselves as sinners, and sinners who think themselves to be saints.

10.) Go and ACTUALLY READ all of the Vatican II documents, before you decide what a “post-Vatican II” church is like.
Click to expand...
Thank you for being the voice of faith and reason in this discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top