Pope: 2nd Vatican Council, work of Holy Spirit but some want to turn back the clock

  • Thread starter Thread starter SuscipeMeDomine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
McCall1981 said:
Ha! Well, maybe clarify is the wrong word.

I mean that without that second sentence he could be talking about the “spirit of Vat II” craziness. But the “in continuity” part is a “hermeneutic of continuity” idea (I think), which means he’s referring to the orthodox/actual Vatican II, rather than the heterodox/coucil of the media/spirit of Vat II stuff.
Click to expand...
Ok, gotcha. I hope so.
 
Lucky7 said:
Not sure if it will wig people out but I suspect it will help to confirm/cement the concerns of some.
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m being overly optimistic (I am trying VERY hard to be optimistic), but in the past two days we got the re-affirmation of the LCWR refrom, and this possibly questionable homily; its a trade off I’ll take 😉

And take it in context with his other homilies (remember a week ago he said negotiating away parts of the faith is apostasy against Christ). I don’t think he said anything objectively wrong here, its just that we know that the liberal crowd will jump all over it, so its frustrating. At least thats how I’m looking at it :confused:
 
McCall1981 said:
Maybe I’m being overly optimistic (I am trying VERY hard to be optimistic), but in the past two days we got the re-affirmation of the LCWR refrom, and this possibly questionable homily; its a trade off I’ll take 😉

And take it in context with his other homilies (remember a week ago he said negotiating away parts of the faith is apostasy against Christ). I don’t think he said anything objectively wrong here, its just that we know that the liberal crowd will jump all over it, so its frustrating. At least thats how I’m looking at it :confused:
Click to expand...
Things need to be clear. They are not…again. When will things be clear? 🤷
 
Lucky7 said:
Things need to be clear. They are not…again. When will things be clear? 🤷
Click to expand...
Sigh, I agree…

I was thinking that since he just approved the LCWR reform, he certainly doesn’t think that what they are doing is “following the Holy Spirit”, or in line with what Vat II intended. But I agree that I wish I didn’t have to think it through like that, I wish it was just made clear in the first place 😦
 
McCall1981 said:
Sigh, I agree…

I was thinking that since he just approved the LCWR reform, he certainly doesn’t think that what they are doing is “following the Holy Spirit”, or in line with what Vat II intended. But I agree that I wish I didn’t have to think it through like that, I wish it was just made clear in the first place 😦
Click to expand...
And since we can’t ask the Holy Father, “Father, what exactly do you mean by that?”, we’re left to wonder and post our opinions on a message board. Awesome.

::tries to remain hopeful things will become clear::
 
If the 2nd Vatican council is the work of the Holy Spirit, so is this part of the document.
  1. § 1. Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.
Particular law in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite.

Servetur is a jussive and it is a COMMAND. There was a reason why this was put into the documents.
§ 2. Cum tamen, sive in Missa, sive in Sacramentorum administratione, sive in aliis Liturgiae partibus, haud raro linguae vernaculae usurpatio valde utilis apud populum exsistere possit, …

So how did we get from Veterum Sapientia, which called for non-vernacular, to haud raro (“not rarely”) to “frequently” to “all vernacular all-the-time” in less than 10 years when the Council commanded Latin to be retained?
 
I’m stealing this from a poster on Fr. Z’s site because I really like it, and because it touches on the missing phrase I mentioned earlier in this thread:

"The Council was the work of the Holy Spirit and contained Truth. Sadly, because of the efforts of many progressives the documents also contained, and this is accepted now by sides, ambiguity and contradictions.
This led, as it was intended to by the Reformers, to two clear and quite separate interpretations of the meaning of the Council. One is correct and is the voice of the Holy Spirit, the other is incorrect and is not the voice of the Holy Spirit. Ergo, which is which?

Pope Benedict ruled authoratively on this problem when he said
“The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council;”

So, pastoral renewal in Continuity by all means, but no new binding teachings or doctrines. That is clear. The “Spirit of Vatican II” interpretation is wrong, in error, and must be dismissed by all Catholics. To interpretate otherwise is to reject the teaching authority of the Vicar of Christ – and the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, by saying,
“In the continuity of the growth of the Church that the Council was? No”,

Pope Francis says that many in the Church, i.e., the Reformers, have not yet accepted Pope Benedict’s ruling, and ought to do so."
 
Until we get past this:
"Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L’Osservatore Romano this past Friday. In offering some reflections on the challenges facing the Church and the continued (perpetual) problem of the “true implementation of Vatican II”, Kasper, speaking with reference to the documents of the Council, stated:

“In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.” (Cardinal Walter Kasper, L’Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)"

And get a definitive interpretation of the Council Documents, these arguments will continue to divide us. I, personally, would really like to see a syllabus on the major Documents clearly stating the Official Interpretation. One way or the other, clearly stated. And put a stop to all the erroneous interpretations that H.H. Pope Benedict refereed to in his statements regarding the external influences regarding the Council documents.
 
ProVobis said:
So how did we get from Veterum Sapientia, which called for non-vernacular, to haud raro (“not rarely”) to “frequently” to “all vernacular all-the-time” in less than 10 years when the Council commanded Latin to be retained?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it was the work of the Holy Spirit. 😃
 
Pulvis said:
And get a definitive interpretation of the Council Documents, these arguments will continue to divide us. I, personally, would really like to see a syllabus on the major Documents clearly stating the Official Interpretation. One way or the other, clearly stated. And put a stop to all the erroneous interpretations that H.H. Pope Benedict refereed to in his statements regarding the external influences regarding the Council documents.
Click to expand...
They are clearly stated in the Latin.
 
Perhaps now there will be no ambiguity for the SSPX. It looks as if all traditional minded folks are being invited onto the boat that is leaving the dock.
 
Pulvis said:
Until we get past this:
"Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L’Osservatore Romano this past Friday. In offering some reflections on the challenges facing the Church and the continued (perpetual) problem of the “true implementation of Vatican II”, Kasper, speaking with reference to the documents of the Council, stated:

**“In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction.” **(Cardinal Walter Kasper, L’Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)"

And get a definitive interpretation of the Council Documents, these arguments will continue to divide us. I, personally, would really like to see a syllabus on the major Documents clearly stating the Official Interpretation. One way or the other, clearly stated. And put a stop to all the erroneous interpretations that H.H. Pope Benedict refereed to in his statements regarding the external influences regarding the Council documents.
Click to expand...
And all I can say is How was this allowed to happen? Why is there so much confusion in the Church over this? And I’m tired of hearing from folks that there really isn’t confusion …that it’s all overstated. No, it’s a problem and it needs to be fixed.
 
McCall1981 said:
So would you say that the “misinterpreatations” of Vat II are intentional?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call them “misinterpretations.” Having studied some of the translations, I would say that there was a definite bias in them. Was it intentional? I have no idea.
 
Interesting, I just read from someone that speaks Italian and listened to this homily in Italian that the Enligh translation we’re getting is pretty different from what Francis said.

This person said that in Italian there is a bit of “levity” and “irony” in it that doesn’t come through with the English, and that it sounds a lot better listened to in Italian, rather than read in English. Thats encouraging…
 
McCall1981 said:
Interesting, I just read from someone that speaks Italian and listened to this homily in Italian that the Enligh translation we’re getting is pretty different from what Francis said.

This person said that in Italian there is a bit of “levity” and “irony” in it that doesn’t come through with the English, and that it sounds a lot better listened to in Italian, rather than read in English. Thats encouraging…
Click to expand...
Levity and irony?
Oh, so instead of rebuking the mindset of those who do not want Vatican II to have ever happened he just made fun of them?
 
McCall1981 said:
Interesting, I just read from someone that speaks Italian and listened to this homily in Italian that the Enligh translation we’re getting is pretty different from what Francis said.

This person said that in Italian there is a bit of “levity” and “irony” in it that doesn’t come through with the English, and that it sounds a lot better listened to in Italian, rather than read in English. Thats encouraging…
Click to expand...
But what does “it sounds a lot better” sound like? Is it still unclear?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top