Opinions of Vatican II Poll

[laudamus_te]

Satan was smoking? How can Satan enter the church? Well, i can barely remember all the “bells and whistles”. Most of the “Rituals” seemed alot like hocus pocus. Christ wants love, forgiveness, mercy. “I desire Mercy NOT Sacrifice”. Our Lord was with his people even on the Cross. He didn’t turn his back on anyone. Why should the priest? He did condemn the Priests of his time. God wants a personal relationship with us. We are humble out of reverance. He wants our Love, not fear. Let’s change the church again. Go back to the old ways. It will distroy the church as we know it. All the ritual is a great show. It shows no communion with Christ and each other. The Holy Spirit is alive, moving, breathing life into our hearts. God wants action to help each other. All of the holy water in the world can’t show us how to love each other. Peace to all. God help the church is it ignores the people. I’m outta here. Your ship is sinking

I have to believe that you are not a Catholic; otherwise, you have a very shallow and misguided understanding of the faith. If you are, is it any wonder that the Church is in the present crisis?

 

[CherryBomb]

I answered that I don’t like VII, but truthfully, depending on exactly what we’re talking about, I could answer with any of the options.

I disagree completely that the Church should have to change to keep up with modern times. The Church isn’t out of step with us, we’re out of step with the Church. Certainly as technology changes the Church will be faced with new issue (like IVF and cloning), but the previous teachings of the Church will always be able to handle and explain what comes.

What came of VII doesn’t seem like much more than a watering down of Church teachings to try and appease people who found things too difficult or antiquated before. Mantillas are old fashioned, so get rid of them, receiving on the tongue is too weird so just take it in the hand, fasting and abstinence is too hard so let’s make it as easy as possible, etc etc.

I like some of the changes, using vernacular (though I want a return to more Latin usage in the Mass) and more participation from congregation.

 

[Aramis]

This is wrong. The Church’s doctrine and theology does not “evolve.” It is immutable and timeless as it has been handed down, miraculously, from the time of the apostles. The biggest mistake is to think that the Church needs to “change with the times.”

But really, the council was the one pointing away from the traditional teachings of the Church, not Archbishop Lefevbre and the SSPX. The SSPX has only maintained the status quo, as it were, of the Church as it was from all time until the changes of VII, which was only a “pastoral” council and not an infallible one.

Denying the authority of the pope is HARDLY traditional, save for heretics.

And not from all time, merely from the 1500’s expression of the Mass. True it is very close to that before it, but like V II, the expressions of the mass in use, organic to various areas, were not in unity with the theology, and were adjusted to fit it better.

And doctrine does differ amongst the churches in union, in some slight ways. Dogma doesn’t.

Doctrine is continuously being added to by new teaching from the papacy, often shaped with the council of the magisterium.

 

[Walking_Home]

Denying the authority of the pope is HARDLY traditional, save for heretics.

And not from all time, merely from the 1500’s expression of the Mass. True it is very close to that before it, but like V II, the expressions of the mass in use, organic to various areas, were not in unity with the theology, and were adjusted to fit it better.

And doctrine does differ amongst the churches in union, in some slight ways. Dogma doesn’t.

Doctrine is continuously being added to by new teaching from the papacy, often shaped with the council of the magisterium.

---

Would you say the same for those Eastern rite Catholics —who view the Pope as first among equals or give him primacy of honor.

 

[stmaria]

Denying the authority of the pope is HARDLY traditional, save for heretics.

And not from all time, merely from the 1500’s expression of the Mass. True it is very close to that before it, but like V II, the expressions of the mass in use, organic to various areas, were not in unity with the theology, and were adjusted to fit it better

 

[abu_kamoon]

I don’t claim to be a theologian, or Church historian, but my understanding is that the purpose of a Church Council is either to clarify doctrine, or to rule on some issue that hasn’t previously been addressed. To change the mass, is to imply that the Tridentine Mass was somehow deficient.

What could one expect from such an action? What was to be gained?

I have heard that the original purpose of the Council was hijacked by the Modernists. The Modernists wrote positions that were unnecessarily vague. After the Council, they (who were now in the majority) interpreted these rulings to reflect their Modernist beliefs, and incorporated all sorts of novelties into Church ritual. The church buildings were changed to look more like meeting halls than churches. Statues were removed. Anything that could be considered offensive to a non-Christian was thrown out.

Is this progress? What has happened since VC II? Church attendance and vocations have drastically dropped. And, the Church has fragmented. We now have the Traditional Catholics driving long distances to find a Traditional Mass. At the same time, the Modernists heap scorn on the old mass. Is this the Universal Church?

Today, the problem is that the younger Catholics resist the old mass, as they are as opposed to “change” as the older Catholics (and quite a few younger Catholics who see no depth to the new mass). In my opinion, the mass should never have been tampered with.

My solution: have both masses available to Catholics. I predict that within a generation or two, the new mass will have faded, and virtually all Catholics will be going to the Traditional Mass.

ابو كمون

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What is your opinion of Vatican II?

None of the above - though the fourth choice is closest to MO​

 

[otjm]

Yes they do reflect the orthodoxy of the **liberal council fathers.
**

Two of the writers of some of the documents were Hans Kung {he denies papal infallibility] and Edward Schillbeeckx {he denies the physical Resurrection of Christ]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%BCng

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Schillebeeckx

The Vatican II documents contradict the Traditional teachings of the Church on Ecumenism, Religious liberty and relations with non-Christian religions.

And two more were John Paul 2 and Benedict 16.

The issues with Kung and Schillbeeckx were fairly well subsequent to V2; the presumption that they went off-track later meant that they were off-track earlier is just that - an implication; unless evidence is found to support the implication, it is not proof.

And as to any of them, they may have written some parts fo the proposals; one needs more than a bit of caution with presuming that they had anything more than (name removed by moderator)ut. the decision were made by bishops much older than any of them, bishops who had been ordained probably 20 years minimum earlier than the ordinations of any of the theologians mentioned.

 

[otjm]

I apologise, let me explain my comments. Of course, when you attend a Mass in the Classical Roman Rite you are participating. What I meant was that, for example, in the 1940’s, when my grandmother was catechised, they were told what was happening, but did not know fully what was happening. Yes, they memorized the catechism, a good thing, in my opinion, but they went to mass, and sat through mass, not really knowing what was happening. This is a general statement, not a blanket statement, at all. If I am wrong, or someone has different information, please correct me. Thank you.

You are way more right than most young people want to acknowledge.

 

[otjm]

Well, for me, shorty after the NO mass came to be is when I began to fade out of the Church, and by '72 was out. I was wrong, but I was influenced by the changes of the times and listened to others who didn’t know what they were talking about. Oh, I’d show up for Mass 2 - 3 times a year over the next 30 + years, but never registered in any the Churches in the many places we lived in. I always made the excuses to myself & family that I never knew when I might be transferred because of my occupation. So for me and many others, we blamed the changes of the Mass.

So perhaps the question is, waere the changes in the Mass the reason that many left, or were they they excuse that many used to leave, when the reasons were elsewhere? This was a time of tremendous changes within society - the whole century was one of upheaval; two world wars, the massive changes within some countries of the political sphere (the rise of Communism); massive changes within the family due to physical movement (taking jobs elsewhere, causing the breakdown of the extended family, and subsequently of the nuclear family); the sexual revolution starting after the Lambeth Conference in the 30’s, and driven wildly by the introduction of the Pill in the late 50’s; the breakdown of civil authority in the US starting with the war all have forgotten - the Korean war, the first one in how long that we “lost”, followed by the protracted war in Viet Nam which we provceeded to lose on TV; the change from written and oral information to visual information via the TV; the list goes on and on as to why people in the 60’s and 70’s were so adrift.

And how much of leaving the Church had to do not with the Mass, but the breakdown in sexual morality and the refusal to admit to self that one had a hard time sitting in Church while sleeping with someone not a spouse? Easy to blame the change in the Mass, when the true reasons are elsewhere.

 

[stmaria]

And two more were John Paul 2 and Benedict 16.

The issues with Kung and Schillbeeckx were fairly well subsequent to V2; the presumption that they went off-track later meant that they were off-track earlier is just that - an implication; unless evidence is found to support the implication, it is not proof.

And as to any of them, they may have written some parts fo the proposals; one needs more than a bit of caution with presuming that they had anything more than (name removed by moderator)ut. the decision were made by bishops much older than any of them, bishops who had been ordained probably 20 years minimum earlier than the ordinations of any of the theologians mentioned.

If you have any courage at all you will read The Rhine flows into the Tber. The author, Father Ralph Wiltgen was pro-Vaticn II. He personally convinced Pope Paul to invite non-christians to the councel for the sake of ecumenism which he supported.

His book is full of interviews with the council Fathers at the time of the Council. He unknowingly shows how a group of liberal priests and theologians took over the council to advance their agenda.

It also reveals that the Novus Ordo was well formulated before the council even began.

Hans Kung interview: beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14204_1.html

Some excerpts from Hans Kung interview

Do you see hope for ecumenism now, or do you think Dominus Iesus has been a major setback?

We are certainly at an impasse, because on the grassroots level, we have a lot of ecumenical understanding, encounter, cooperation, even liturgy. But from the point of view of the hierarchy, they do everything to hinder, for instance**, Eucharistic Communion. **Let me recall only one fact: the first big, national, ecumenical meeting of the Catholic Church and the churches of the Reformation in Berlin [in 2003], public opinion polls showed that more or less 85 percent of German Catholics and Protestants wanted to have intercommunion. But that was absolutely no argument for the bishops, because the bishops in the present system say only what Rome says, and they just ignored it. That gave a great deal of anger, and is only one example of how Rome, the pope, the Curia, is hindering progress in ecumenism. They are very strong in words and gestures and they are always saying we are very ecumenical, but practically speaking, they are hindering it.

On a personal level, what do you like best and least about being Catholic?

I like most that I belong to the whole universal comprehensive Catholic church and that it is not just a national church. I like the catholicity in time: our tradition is one of 2,000 years. And I like the catholicity in space, because it’s a universality of faith and a community of faith which embraces all groups, nations, and regions.
But I have to add–and this answers your other question–this catholicity in time and in space is only meaningful for me if there is, at the same time, a **concentration on the Gospel. **If [the Church] includes everything, and has no criteria for what is really Christian or not, then Catholicism becomes a syncretism of all sorts of superstitions and abuses. The Gospel has to be the norm. I am evangelical and **am for a continual reform of the Church, which was affirmed by the Second Vatican Council. **

Where do you see the Catholic Church not concentrating on the Gospel or becoming superstitious?

For instance, this whole thing about Fatima. Popes going to Fatima and preaching there–the Gospel of Fatima is exaggerated.

But hasn’t John Paul II given Communion to non-Catholics, making exceptions every now and then?

Of course he made exceptions, and probably also Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict XVI] has made exceptions. That is the Roman way: to give favors to the favorites. It is an indication that they are not honest in this issue. If they would be honest, they would permit the others what they do themselves.

You probably agree with him on intercommunion. I suspect you are more liberal than you want to admit.

 

[gorman64]

If you have any courage at all you will read The Rhine flows into the Tber. The author, Father Ralph Wiltgen was pro-Vaticn II. He personally convinced Pope Paul to invite non-christians to the councel for the sake of ecumenism which he supported.

His book is full of interviews with the council Fathers at the time of the Council. He unknowingly shows how a group of liberal priests and theologians took over the council to advance their agenda.

It also reveals that the Novus Ordo was well formulated before the council even began.

Hans Kung interview: beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14204_1.html

Some excerpts from Hans Kung interview

Do you see hope for ecumenism now, or do you think Dominus Iesus has been a major setback?

We are certainly at an impasse, because on the grassroots level, we have a lot of ecumenical understanding, encounter, cooperation, even liturgy. But from the point of view of the hierarchy, they do everything to hinder, for instance**, Eucharistic Communion. **Let me recall only one fact: the first big, national, ecumenical meeting of the Catholic Church and the churches of the Reformation in Berlin [in 2003], public opinion polls showed that more or less 85 percent of German Catholics and Protestants wanted to have intercommunion. But that was absolutely no argument for the bishops, because the bishops in the present system say only what Rome says, and they just ignored it. That gave a great deal of anger, and is only one example of how Rome, the pope, the Curia, is hindering progress in ecumenism. They are very strong in words and gestures and they are always saying we are very ecumenical, but practically speaking, they are hindering it.

On a personal level, what do you like best and least about being Catholic?

I like most that I belong to the whole universal comprehensive Catholic church and that it is not just a national church. I like the catholicity in time: our tradition is one of 2,000 years. And I like the catholicity in space, because it’s a universality of faith and a community of faith which embraces all groups, nations, and regions.
But I have to add–and this answers your other question–this catholicity in time and in space is only meaningful for me if there is, at the same time, a **concentration on the Gospel. **If [the Church] includes everything, and has no criteria for what is really Christian or not, then Catholicism becomes a syncretism of all sorts of superstitions and abuses. The Gospel has to be the norm. I am evangelical and **am for a continual reform of the Church, which was affirmed by the Second Vatican Council. **

Where do you see the Catholic Church not concentrating on the Gospel or becoming superstitious?

For instance, this whole thing about Fatima. Popes going to Fatima and preaching there–the Gospel of Fatima is exaggerated.

But hasn’t John Paul II given Communion to non-Catholics, making exceptions every now and then?

Of course he made exceptions, and probably also Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict XVI] has made exceptions. That is the Roman way: to give favors to the favorites. It is an indication that they are not honest in this issue. If they would be honest, they would permit the others what they do themselves.

You probably agree with him on intercommunion. I suspect you are more liberal than you want to admit.

Dear stmaria,

And wouldn’t the “conservative” Catholic reply, “He is not an approved teacher…he has been stripped of any connection with the official Teaching Apostolate…why are you quoting him?”

From the referenced article:

February 2004–Hans Kung is a Christian theologian whose influential writings have been criticized by the Vatican, which in 1979 stripped him of his right to teach as a representative of the Church.

What exactly is your point with the Hans Kung stuff anyway?

Gorman

 

[BobP123]

And two more were John Paul 2 and Benedict 16.

The issues with Kung and Schillbeeckx were fairly well subsequent to V2; the presumption that they went off-track later meant that they were off-track earlier is just that - an implication; unless evidence is found to support the implication, it is not proof.

And as to any of them, they may have written some parts fo the proposals; one needs more than a bit of caution with presuming that they had anything more than (name removed by moderator)ut. the decision were made by bishops much older than any of them, bishops who had been ordained probably 20 years minimum earlier than the ordinations of any of the theologians mentioned.

In any case, it sounds as if you’re defending these heretics. And I was taught that it was a mortal sin just to raise doubts about our Catholic beliefs. I have no choice other than put you on ignore.

 

[Like]

In any case, it sounds as if you’re defending these heretics. And I was taught that it was a mortal sin just to raise doubts about our Catholic beliefs. I have no choice other than put you on ignore.

Bob, how rude can you get? Just do it, no need to inform all other members of this board, as it implies you think others should do the same.

PS: 10 to 1 you won’t do it, at least for any duration.

Please put me on ignore!

 

[stmaria]

Dear stmaria,

And wouldn’t the “conservative” Catholic reply, “He is not an approved teacher…he has been stripped of any connection with the official Teaching Apostolate…why are you quoting him?”

From the referenced article:

What exactly is your point with the Hans Kung stuff anyway?

Gorman

he was one of the theologians responsible for some of the VII documents. Don’t you find it odd that Hans Kung who denies papal infallibility among other things is still a priest in good standing and was never excommunicated yet Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated within 72 hours?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please keep to the thread topic. If you wish to discuss side issues start new threads. Thank you.

 

[gorman64]

he was one of the theologians responsible for some of the VII documents. Don’t you find it odd that Hans Kung who denies papal infallibility among other things is still a priest in good standing and was never excommunicated yet Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated within 72 hours?

My point was that he has no teaching authority in the conciliar church. Why was he not excommunicated? They appear to only excommunicate traditionalists or others who are a threat to their agenda.

 

[stmaria]

My point was that he has no teaching authority in the conciliar church. Why was he not excommunicated? They appear to only excommunicate traditionalists or others who are a threat to their agenda.

That we can agree on.

 

[otjm]

Dear Pius X have you not read Pascendi? It was written by your namesake Pope Pius X. It is “ex cathedra” and it states, “that most pernicious doctrine which would make of **the laity **the factor of progress in the Chruch”

You speak of " fresh air " and modern times. Do you believe that as the world changes, religion should also change?

Pascendi is not Ex Cathedra. Ex Cathedra is a declaration of doctrine; and there have only been two times in the Church’s history that a pope has spoken Ex Cathedra - the declaration fot he dctrine of the Assumption, and the declaration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

There have been numerous arguements as to whether or not JP2’s declaration concerning the ordination of women was Ex Cathedra, and Rome itself has said officially “no”; that it was part of the ordinary Magisterial tyeaching held for 2000 years; it was infallible, but for that reason, not because of an Ex Cathedra statement.

As to “religion should also change?” one needs to define what one means by religion, and by change. at any given time the Church can emphasize one aspect of the faith and not another; in fact, can emphasize one aspect to the point where another aspect may seem ignored, or may even be misuderstood to not exist or have changed. at another time in history, andother aspect can be emphasized.

For example, at one point in the history of the /Church, the Church held that one could only go to Confession/Reconcilliation once in one’s lifetime. That changed - and it could reasonbly be said that when it id, “religion” changed.

So should “religion” change? Yes, if you mean how it is practiced, as the practice can be historically related and as history changes, the practice can change.

Should “religion” change? If by that you mean the doctrines of the Church, the Church’s position is that doctrines cannot change; but it is also the positon of the Church that our understanding, and the nuances of the doctrine cna change if for no other reason than the Church has had more time to reflect on the matter, both from Scripture and Tradition, and our understanding can grow and be better defined. But the doctrine itself does not change.

In short, your question can be answered either way, depending on how you are defining the term. And it causes a tremendous amount of confusion when two people of good will are trying to talk about something, but dont’ agree on the definition fo the terms they are using.

 

[otjm]

Thanks for that clarification. It appears that the Spanish NO is making significant headway. Yet no fast enough, judging by all the hispanics leaving for (more) charismatic religions.

The problem, according to Ralph Martin is that the hierarchy (and most particularly many of the priests, although some of the bishops are in this boat too) voted for liberation theology, and the peopel in the pews voted for Christ. He said it a bit more eloquently than I do, but the essence of his comments is that the clergy were all wrapped up in a warmed over Marxism as applied to theology, with emphasis on the here and now reorganization of political and economic models. And the masses of Hispanics, who were notoriously poorly catechized, heard Christ preached by the fundamnentalists, the evangelicals, and the charismatic churches, and voted with their feet, hearts and minds. It is not an issue of the NO vs. the Tridentine rite; it is an issue of preaching the Gospel, of metanoia, of “Who do you say I am?”.