Opinions of Vatican II Poll

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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. **##

ISTM that quotation is entirely orthodox, & well within the boundaries of a Catholic’s liberty to say as a Catholic. It can be taken in a bad sense - probably any statement could; but that does not make those words objectionable, let alone formally heretical. “X is a heretic” =///= “X is incapable of saying anything that is not heretical”.

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.

IMO, he definitely has a point - even so, no amount of bad behaviour by a Pope “unpopes” a Pope. Besides, neither the legitimacy of the CC nor that of Vatican II (or of any other Ecumenical Council either) is undermined by the vices of Catholics, no matter who they may be. Obscured - quite possibly; but undermined, never.​

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

 

[otjm]

I’m Sorry OTJM, I don’t think I worded my position the way I meant to. I was confessing that I was wrong in blaming the changes in the Mass & that what I bolded of yours above is what I intended to imply. Dose that make any sense?lol

Yes, it does. I just don’t have a lot of patience with the post, ergo propter hoc crowd who want to blame failures on their favorite whipping boy.

 

[gorman64]

Yes, it does. I just don’t have a lot of patience with the post, ergo propter hoc crowd who want to blame failures on their favorite whipping boy.

Dear otjm,

You accusation, the logical fallacy of post hoc, (which assumes that if one event happens after another event, then the first event must be the cause of the second event) is unfounded.

No one has made this argument here…some have made other explanations…why don’t you just argue the merits of these explanations rather then just dismissing them as a fallacy.

Gorman

 

[otjm]

This sounds downright heretical to me. At the least, it is just more modernist gobbledy-gook.

Obviously you have not read much. It sounds heretical to you because it is an area you are unfamiliar with.

This is more gobbledy-gook. There is every reason to presume that the Church could have, and should have resisted the societal changes. Proof? It’s happening today. Every Traditional Latin Mass chapel I have visited looks just like the Church before the Council. They are little oases. The faithful live their lives as the Church teaches them to live them. The time of VII was a time when the Church, more than ever, needed to remain staunch in it’s battle against the evils of modernism, and not to cave in to the pressure as it did.

Other than your personal opinion, could you cite the caving-in facts you seem to be relying on? Specifically, as they relate to V2 documents? and by the way, enough of the bit with modernism; I am not impressed with your lack of knowledge of what Monderism actually was. Quit using it for anything and everything you either don’t like or don’t understand. It is the jingoistic dismissal used all too often to simply dismiss an issue instead of discuss it.

Who were these “many good and holy priests, bishops and theologians?” I’d like to see some names. You’re very good at making these kind of vague, unverified statements to back yourself up. Contraception has never been acceptable, in any form, by the Church.

Can you not read either? Go back and actually read what I said. There was a period of time between the introduction of the Pill in the late 50’s and the issuance of HV when there was no official position on the Pill per se - please don’t come back at me with other documents as I am well aware of them. They were written before the Pill existed, and the information available at the time of the introduction of the Pill to the mass market was that it acted differently than a condom or a spermacide; as such there was a legitimate question as to its licitness. The legitimate question was legitimately answered by HV; but prior to HV the Church had not defined hormonal regulation as contraception. It was new, and the Church had to examine the question to determine if it fit within or without previous definitions of contraception. You are thinking with post encyclica experience. Before HV was issued, it was nowhere near as simple as you want to make it.

You said it. And because the “choices” of VII are not matters of faith, they do not have to be accepted. People like you keep chanting your mantra of “disobedience” regarding followers of the SSPX, who are holding fast to the Traditions (big T) of the Church. Yes, maybe it is a kind of “mantra” for me. One of the ploys of the Communists is that if you repeat something often enough, people will eventually believe it. I figure if you repeat the truth often enough, people will eventually believe it.

Choices can be matters of obedience even if they are not matters of faith or morals; it is always interesting to see people who dismiss V2 take that tact that they are being true to Tradition. Well, if you want to go that route, then let’s all go back to the time before V2 when people like you were expected to have blind, unquestioning obedience. You don’t demonstrate such traits while you prattle on about tradition with a capital “T”; you are every bit as much a cafeteria Catholic as those you condemn so liberally. All those Catholics pre-V2 that you so loudly and fondly reminisce about would never have said a peep about V2; they would not have dared to question the authority of the Pope or a council of bishops.

But then, I do need a good laugh once in a while; thanks for providing it.

 

[otjm]

Dear laudamus te,

I agree with you up to this last point. otjm is wrong here and you at least appear to agree with him… Yes, we must hold fast to the traditions we have learned…I agree and that’s what I do. We also hold to the certain teachings of the moral unanimity of the Church’s theologians. That is what Pope Pius IX taught us to hold in addition to the defined dogmas of the Church. The Church is infallible in the doctrinal portion of Her disciplines and liturgies. The Church cannot issue a discipline or liturgy that contains doctrinal error. This is what all the pre-Vatican II dogmatic theology manuals teach as a theological certainty. You may not freely reject this theologically certain doctrine…it is at minimun a mortal sin.

Did you notice the contradiction in otjm’s quote…he says faith and morals…then faith. The Church is infallible in faith and morals…which includes the disciplines and worship of the Church.

We must hold fast to all the teachings of the Church…including Her teaching on the infallibility of the disciplines of the Church.

Taken from Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, Monsignor G. Van Noort S.T.D.:

Gorman

I do hope that you didn’t pay too much for the course you took in logic; it wasn’t very good.

The fact that I said faith and morals and later said faith, to anyone with an ounce of intelligence, it would be obvious I did not contradict myself nor did I make a limiting statement.

I was debating whether or not to continue the discussion with you, but I was expecting an intelligent conversation. You have made the point that you are not interested in what others have to say; we are back to the old “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up” routine. Conversation ended.

 

[otjm]

Otjm you said-.

The “liberals” had nothing to do with that; **there were many good and holy priests, bishops and theologians **who felt with the information they had that the Pill was acceptible because it appeared so different from the other means of contraception. and that was the same in 1963. To say that the people in the Church who felt that the Pill was acceptible were “liberals” is simply to tag people whom you disagree with. Acceptance was coming from across the board.

One of those “good and holy” theologians was the heretic Hans Kung:beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14204_1.html

I am not sure what you are trying to get at by quoting Kung; to begin with, he is not and has not been my source for anything. There were a number of theologians who reacted openly and immediately in their dissent to HV; but if you are implying that they are the sum and total of those who questioned the acceptance of the Pill prior to the release of HV, you are sadly mistaken. And I don’t recall saying that Kung was one of the godd and holy anyhing.

Not all theologians and bishops supported the Pill prior to HV, nor have I said they did; nor did all theologians rebell against HV; some did. HV was a watershed event, and it caused a split in the Church that is still reverbrating, and I suspect will for some tiime into the future. I think that perhaps the most effective antidote to the ABC mentality will be a combination of NFP and Theology of the Body (if is not for no reason the George Weigle has called it the time bomb in the Church), coupled with what is starting to appear in society in general - the appearance of abstinence among teenagers, even those who have no professed religion at all. The pendulum is swinging back; slowly, but swinging.

Otjm you said:).

Having followed the ecumenical work that has been done over the last 40 years, in particular with the Anglican/Epsicopalian, Lutheran, and Orthodox dialogues, I most certainly see hope for ecumenism. I see further hope for ecumenism in the work that is done between the Catholic Church and the evangelical and funadamentalist churchs which have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Church in opposing abortion; and the ecumenical work that has been done with Islam in opposing the work of the United Nations to force abortion and contraception on third world countries. I follow the official ecumenical work of the Church, which doesn’t get much press, but is where the true ecumenical work will be done.

What you seem to support is the** false ecumenism **that today’s Church endorses. Has any Church authority told any non-catholic or non-christian to convert? True ecumenism is not, repeat is not, working with Islam to oppose the United Nations or working with evangelicals opposing abortion.

And I am not going to get into an arguement with you about what ecumenism is or isn’t; since you appear to not have any knowledge at all of what the Church is doing, I would suggest that you do some investigation, rather than sitting there deciding that you know more than the Church does. And by the way, the conversions are occuring.

These very theologians that were silenced by Pius XII were the very theologians that were brought back by Pope John XXXIII as periti to the Vatican II council to help write the VII documents. **They were silenced by Pius XII **not just “someone in the Holy Office”

Either the Church has the authority to determine who is or is not acceptable within the guidelines of the Magisterium or it doesn’t. I would presume that you would grant that the Church does have such authority. You are presuming that Pius XII did this personally; it was done through the Holy Office, which was always at his direction; but presuming that he had a specific hand in the issue is at best naive. They are not the first theologians who have been silenced by the Church, only later to be acknowledged as tru to the Faith. And given that all are sinful (to quote Paul), they probably won’t be the last. I do not, however, in spite of Benedict 16’s frienship with Kung, whom you seem wont to quote, beleive that he will be rehabilitated.

 

[otjm]

Otjm is this an “ex cathedra”declaration

we do by **our apostolic authority **repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, **adding the penalty of excommunication **against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter “Docentes” of the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents

Nope. It is a statement invoking apostolic authority. Apostolic Authority is not synonymous with making a de fide statement of faith or morals. It is a juridical statement invoking penalties, which is within the power of the Pope. You seem to be taking “fronm the cghair” to mean any official statement the pope makes. That is an overly broad meaning of Ex Cathedra; as it is used by the Church it is restricted to mean specifically the definition of doctrine (as in the Immacualte Conception and the Assumption). Cardinal Ratzinger when asked about the statement by John Paul 23 concerning the inability of the Church to ordain women said that it was not an Ex Cathedra statement, but rather an official teaching by the Pope reiterating a 2000 year held position concerning the Sacrament of Ordination, and teh infallible part was the fact that the Church had definitively held it for 2000 years. Nothing new was defined; it was simply forcefully stated that this was already the positon of the Church as it always had been.

 

[laudamus_te]

But then, I do need a good laugh once in a while; thanks for providing it.

You’re welcome. For the record, I refuse to participate in discussion with anyone such as yourself who’s only recourse is to make personal attacks. Where is the charity we are all supposed to be observing? I guess it doesn’t apply to those of us who support the SSPX. Not that I’m surprised. It’s the same story with Rome. Anyone and everyone is welcome except of course those dangerous ones who hold fast to the traditional teachings of the Church.

By the way, you might want to take more care that you are crediting your forum quotes to the correct people. You have my name in a couple of quotes up there that don’t belong to me.

 

[gorman64]

Nope. It is a statement invoking apostolic authority. Apostolic Authority is not synonymous with making a de fide statement of faith or morals. It is a juridical statement invoking penalties, which is within the power of the Pope. You seem to be taking “fronm the cghair” to mean any official statement the pope makes. That is an overly broad meaning of Ex Cathedra; as it is used by the Church it is restricted to mean specifically the definition of doctrine (as in the Immacualte Conception and the Assumption). Cardinal Ratzinger when asked about the statement by John Paul 23 concerning the inability of the Church to ordain women said that it was not an Ex Cathedra statement, but rather an official teaching by the Pope reiterating a 2000 year held position concerning the Sacrament of Ordination, and teh infallible part was the fact that the Church had definitively held it for 2000 years. Nothing new was defined; it was simply forcefully stated that this was already the positon of the Church as it always had been.

This is nonsense. Did you read the excerpt from the theology manual that I posted earlier?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2357766&postcount=127

The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

1. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

1. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.

1. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.

This shows everyone that you don’t know what you’re talking about…

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

otjm:

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.

No one should listen to you…for you own sake as well as that of others.

Gorman

 

[st_raphael]

What does this conversation have to do with Vatican 2?

 

[vocatio]

Hijack! What is the purpose of the survey? A politically charged survey is no survey at all. It just incites … descent or riots or something. And is it technically possible to set up a pole on this board without allowing comments? It seems like there’s a lot of unwanted comments here by people pushing their own agendas. Also, do you think that the choices would be better if you added something like…

I don’t know anything about Vatican II
or
I do not understand Vatican II
or
something that conveys additional information about the participant? But what do I know? I’m just God’s fool attempting to make sense out of it all again.

PAX Christi tecum

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, people, or I will close the thread. Thank you.