Questioning Vatican II (Edited Title)

[Lisa44]

Some people label the ecumenical council that took place from 1962 - 1965 and the declarations that followed it - heretical. Examples of why this is even so are because of many “contradictions” it proclaimed which constituted a revolution against 2000 years of “Christian” teaching and Tradition.
An example on “contradiction” is one of how the Holy Mother Church views other religions.

Vatican II uses the same verb as the Council of Florence (1431-1445) to teach just the opposite. The Council of Florence dogmatically defined that any individual who has a view contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Trinity, or any one of the truths about Our Lord or the Trinity, is rejected by God.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “…the holy Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy
Spirit… Therefore it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.

This is an infallible dogmatic definition of the Catholic Church on individuals who have a view on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Holy Trinity that is contrary to that of the Church (e.g., Jews, Muslims, etc.). The Council of Florence solemnly defines that whoever has a view contrary to the Church’s teaching on Our Lord and the Trinity (e.g., the Jews) is condemned and rejected!

Note: the Council is not merely saying that the view contrary to Our Lord is rejected, but that the individual (e.g., the Jew) is rejected. This dogma is rooted in the truth that Our Lord specifically revealed in Sacred Scripture. Matthew 10:33 - “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.” The word “deny” means to reject or to repudiate. He who denies Our Lord is rejected by Him. But in its Decree on Non-Christian religions, Vatican II taught just the opposite.

Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate** (#4): “Although the
Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be
presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views
followed from the holy scriptures.”

Vatican II denied the divinely revealed truth of Matthew 10:33, which was solemnly defined by the Council of Florence. The teaching of Vatican II is blatantly heretical.

My question is, what is the Church’s defense? Is this not “contradiction”? I would like specifics and quotes from documents of Vatican II or documents that support this. Thanks and in case nobody knows, I am a traditionalist Catholic.

Hi, I don’t have any knowledge of the said documents. Nor can I refute what you are saying as I am basically ignorant of everything except the catachism and the bible.

However, I did want to say that it seems odd to me too, that the new catachism says that the Muslims share the same God as us.

I thought that was untrue also. Just from reading the bible, I thought that Jesus said that we are only saved through Him?

 

[Shlomey]

I did want to say that it seems odd to me too, that the new catachism says that the Muslims share the same God as us.

Something that I have BIG issues with myself. How can the Church declare us to be following the same as those who follow Mohammed, the Antichrist who dissolved Christ’s divine nature?!

Someone please explain this…

 

[TheDoctor]

To the OP: Seems to me like you think some of the folks here have jumped on you a little hard. Maybe they have, but maybe you will understand their reaction if you consider your post:

1. You start off by assuming that all Catholics question Vatican II. No true Catholic does.
2. :tsktsk: You present information you pulled verbatim from an article on the Most Holy Family Monastery site (isn’t there a forum rule against posting stuff from sedevacanist websties?) and ask for the Church’s “defense” to these “contradictions” as if the opinions of sedevacanists carry any weight.
   (P.S. - I have the link to the article but I will not post garbage from a garbage site - PM me if you want it for research).
3. You call yourself a “traditionalist Catholic”. If you really believe that, your first obligation is defense of the true faith, and that starts with not browsing around websites in direct defiance to the Pope or in asking us to defend their accusations.

If you really think the folks at MHFM make a good case, your first obligation is NOT to post their junk, but to read the documents of Vatican II yourself to find out what they really teach.

 

[Lisa44]

To your first obligation is NOT to post their junk, but to read the documents of Vatican II yourself to find out what they really teach.

Uh, I think the Op asked a question. Do you have the answer for them? Thanks

 

[pnewton]

Uh, I think the Op asked a question. Do you have the answer for them? Thanks

Easy.

My question is, what is the Church’s defense? Is this not “contradiction”?

No, it is not a contradiction so no defense is needed. No defense exist or can exist to prove something else which does not exist.

 

[Lisa44]

There are many good criticisms of the Second Vatican Council to be made, and this isn’t one of them.

what do you consider a good criticism?

The Church has never taught that all Jews are condemned upon their birth - rejected by God for no reason other than that they are Jews. This is the position that Nostra Aetate condemns.

Are we arging semantics? We all know that “Jew” is a race as well as a religion. Obviously someone born into the Jewish nation is not condemned. But if they as an adult, were to reject Jesus then that would be another story wouldn’t it ?

The Church has only ever taught that heretics, schismatics and others existing outside the Church cannot be saved. Nothing from the Second Vatican Council contradicts this.

And wouldn’t a Jewish person who denied Christ be someone “outside the church”?? And therefore, the Vatican II statement is a contradiction unless it is referring only to the nation of Jews and not the religion.

Easy.

No, it is not a contradiction so no defense is needed. No defense exist or can exist to prove something else which does not exist.

Hi Pnewton Could you show us why or how it is not a contradiction please.

 

[pnewton]

Hi Pnewton Could you show us why or how it is not a contradiction please.

Post nine.

The scripture the OP claims contradicts VII refers to individuals, whereas the passage he claims is in contradiction refers to judging the Jews as a whole as accursed. The word for this behavior is “prejudice” and rightfully condemned.

 

[Lisa44]

Post nine.

The scripture the OP claims contradicts VII refers to individuals, whereas the passage he claims is in contradiction refers to judging the Jews as a whole as accursed. The word for this behavior is “prejudice” and rightfully condemned.

ok, very good. This is the whole context the quote was taken from:

Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (see Jn 19:6), neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion. It is true that the church is the new people of God, yet the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy scripture. Consequently, all must take care, lest in catechizing or in preaching the word of God, they teach anything which is not in accord with the truth of the Gospel message or the spirit of Christ.

It follows that pnewton is right, in this context, it refers to a whole group of people who should not be labelled as ‘rejected’ based on their group, nation or birthright.

 

[Lisa44]

Okay, if you are going to call the Catholic Church’s teaching heretical, perhaps this best be done in the apologetics forum. The quote above does not, repeat does not contradict the verse in Matthew. The remark by Jesus refers to people individually and Vatican II addresses the Jewish people as a group. In other words even though the Jewish people should not be presented as eternally cursed does not contradict that those who deny Christ will still be lost.

My bad, I didn’t see this post. Good thing you don’t mind repeating yourself.

 

[Dauphin]

Hi Pnewton Could you show us why or how it is not a contradiction please.

Of course it refers to the Jewish nation. The modern Jewish religion has no standing in Catholic theology. It’s simply one heresy among many.

 

[Michael96]

I came to the Catholic Church later in life; and one of the things I had to deal with in my own mind (on deciding whether to convert) was how to compare the Church of today with the Church of yesteryear. In my readings I came to a personal conclusion that the Church had indeed significantly changed its teachings over the years (e.g. on how it addresses other faiths, but also on teachings on the nature of purgatory, indulgancies, access to the bible, limbo, the use of venacular in the mass, the nature of confession and penance, etc.). Others of course may disagree, I present my own conclusion as no more and no less than one lay Catholic’s view.

Personally I came to the conclusion that the Church does move and fluctuate in its teachings and that there is no (and has not been) one perfect and unshifting understanding. So I’m happy to accept that teachings do change (as I accepted before joining the Church). Which teachings are right? Probably all we can say is that whatever our view we will have something wrong, so let’s just keep focussing on Christ and trust He will be understanding of our (and his Church’s) imperfect knowledge. I also trust that God will keep a light hand on the tiller of the Catholic Church to correct its course should it go a little off-course at times.

 

[Dauphin]

I came to the Catholic Church later in life; and one of the things I had to deal with in my own mind (on deciding whether to convert) was how to compare the Church of today with the Church of yesteryear. In my readings I came to a personal conclusion that the Church had indeed significantly changed its teachings over the years (e.g. on how it addresses other faiths, but also on teachings on the nature of purgatory, indulgancies, access to the bible, limbo, the use of venacular in the mass, the nature of confession and penance, etc.). Others of course may disagree, I present my own conclusion as no more and no less than one lay Catholic’s view.

Personally I came to the conclusion that the Church does move and fluctaute in its teachings and that there is no (and has not been) one perfect and unshifting understanding. So I’m happy to accept that teachings do change (as I accepted before joining the Church). Which teachings are right? Probably all we can say is that whatever our view we will have something wrong, so let’s just keep focussing on Christ and trust He will be understanding of our (and his Church’s) imperfect knowledge.

It’s impossible for the Church to change its teaching. The Church simply wouldn’t be the true church if it could contradict its own teaching. The only possibility is “development of doctrine” which reveals truths always present in the Catholic faith which were not always appreaciated.

The analogy of a bud gradually becoming a flower is sometimes used. Everything was present in the beginning, but only became recognized and defined with the passage of time.

 

[Michael96]

It’s impossible for the Church to change its teaching. The Church simply wouldn’t be the true church if it could contradict its own teaching. The only possibility is “development of doctrine” which reveals truths always present in the Catholic faith which were not always appreaciated.

The analogy of a bud gradually becoming a flower is sometimes used. Everything was present in the beginning, but only became recognized and defined with the passage of time.

Maybe, but I think it’s possible that the Church loses it’s way just a little sometimes. It’s just my own opinion but when I look at Church history I don’t see a straight line of improving knowledge or developing doctrine; there seems to be some Brownian motion in there as well.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Regarding Nostra Aetate (section on the Jews), there’s a footnote in my version of the Vatican II documents on this…

The Documents of Vatican II, ed. Abbott, 1966, “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions” (Nostra Aetate)

p. 665
In the “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions” there’s a section on the Jews…describing our “spiritual bond”, the beginnings of our faith as being found in the prophets, etc. Lots of warm gestures. They write “In company with the prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address as Lord in a single voice and ‘serve Him with one accord…’” (footnote 19 here).

Footnote 19 says this:
"A reference to ‘conversion’ of the Jews was removed from an earlier version of this Declaration, because many Council Fathers felt it was not appropriate in a document striving to establish common goals and interests first. …

See what’s going on here? They originally mentioned conversion and took it out for now…they were “striving to establish common goals and interests first.” Vatican II is making warm gestures, invitations, overtures, etc. to non-Christian religions first.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Some people label the ecumenical council that took place from 1962 - 1965 and the declarations that followed it - heretical. Examples of why this is even so are because of many “contradictions” it proclaimed which constituted a revolution against 2000 years of “Christian” teaching and Tradition.
An example on “contradiction” is one of how the Holy Mother Church views other religions.

Vatican II uses the same verb as the Council of Florence (1431-1445) to teach just the opposite. The Council of Florence dogmatically defined that any individual who has a view contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Trinity, or any one of the truths about Our Lord or the Trinity, is rejected by God.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “…the holy Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy
Spirit… Therefore it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.

This is an infallible dogmatic definition of the Catholic Church on individuals who have a view on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Holy Trinity that is contrary to that of the Church (e.g., Jews, Muslims, etc.). The Council of Florence solemnly defines that whoever has a view contrary to the Church’s teaching on Our Lord and the Trinity (e.g., the Jews) is condemned and rejected!

Note: the Council is not merely saying that the view contrary to Our Lord is rejected, but that the individual (e.g., the Jew) is rejected. This dogma is rooted in the truth that Our Lord specifically revealed in Sacred Scripture. Matthew 10:33 - “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.” The word “deny” means to reject or to repudiate. He who denies Our Lord is rejected by Him. But in its Decree on Non-Christian religions, Vatican II taught just the opposite.

Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate** (#4): “Although the
Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be
presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views
followed from the holy scriptures.”

Vatican II denied the divinely revealed truth of Matthew 10:33, which was solemnly defined by the Council of Florence. The teaching of Vatican II is blatantly heretical.

My question is, what is the Church’s defense? Is this not “contradiction”? I would like specifics and quotes from documents of Vatican II or documents that support this. Thanks and in case nobody knows, I am a traditionalist Catholic.

First off it’s not an ***ex cathedra decree, ***It’s not addressed to the whole Church it’s a decree addressing the Jacobites.

 

[clmowry]

Hi, I don’t have any knowledge of the said documents. Nor can I refute what you are saying as I am basically ignorant of everything except the catachism and the bible.

However, I did want to say that it seems odd to me too, that the new catachism says that the Muslims share the same God as us.

I thought that was untrue also. Just from reading the bible, I thought that Jesus said that we are only saved through Him?

This is what the CCC actually says.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

I don’t see where it says the Muslims ARE saved or that their God is the “same” as our God.

It says that they "profess to hold the faith of Abraham.”

Given that the God of Abraham IS the God we worship where is this statement incorrect.

I think this has something to do with the following:

Genesis Chapter 16:11-12
11 Besides," the LORD’S messenger said to her: “You are now pregnant and shall bear a son; you shall name him Ishmael, For the LORD has heard you, God has answered you.
12 He shall be a wild *** of a man, his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; In opposition to all his kin shall he encamp.”

And…

Genesis Chapter 17:20-21
20 As for Ishmael, I am heeding you: I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will maintain with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you by this time next year.

The CCC seems to say they would be part of the plan and that they will be judged on the last day

This seems consistent with scripture to me.

Chuck

 

[Lisa44]

You can’t remove Jesus from the trinity and then call it the same god. In the time of Abraham Jesus had not arrived, so naturally they didn’t worship Jesus. Sinse he did arrive, to reject him is to reject God, sinse he is the Son of God and our savior.

 

[clmowry]

You can’t remove Jesus from the trinity and then call it the same god. In the time of Abraham Jesus had not arrived, so naturally they didn’t worship Jesus. Sinse he did arrive, to reject him is to reject God, sinse he is the Son of God and our savior.

Which part of “didn’t say it was the ‘same’ God” was unclear?

Chuck

 

[Joe17]

Chuck,
What Lisa said is right. We don’t divide up the Trinity. I know you don’t, but that is the only way one could even try to claim that the Muslims adore the one, merciful God with us. Christ said he and the Father are one. The Holy Ghost is part of the Trinity. The Muslim faith explicitly rejects that. There is no sugarcoating the fact that the Catechism put out by Rome in the 90’s is in error, to say the least.

 It also permits, as per canon law, Holy Communion to be given to non-Catholics under certain circumstances.  This is clearly against Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  Pray for the grace to see the errors that have been eminating from Rome. 

One more thing, in case you weren't aware, in 2001, John Paul II approved of a Mass that has no consecration formula in it.  Totally against tradition.  It is on the Vatican's website.  It is used by the Assyrian orthodox.  The document is called "Guidlines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East."  It permits Catholics to assist at this Assyrian Orthodox "Mass" and receive Communion.  It is admitted in this document that there is no consecration form as is found in all other Masses, but they claim the prayer of calling down of the Holy Ghost is sufficient for transubstantiation.  Christ gave the forms specifically, more or less, for two of the sacraments in Scripture, Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.  The Church cannot change the substance of these forms.  JPII totally ignores this.  All that people receive at that Mass is bread, objectivley committing idolatry.  
This is something to think and pray about before attempting to defend what Vatican II and it's aftermath has given to the world.

Joe

 

[Genesis315]

What Lisa said is right.  We don't divide up the Trinity.  I know you don't, but that is the only way one could even try to claim that the Muslims adore the one, merciful God with us.

This is not true. In traditional Catholic teaching and philosophy the true God can be discovered by natural means without access to revelation. He is the non-contingent Creator. By it’s very essence, such a being must exist and can only be one. Therefore any person or people who believed in and adore such a non-contingent being and Creator on which all else is contingent have always been deemed to have discovered the true God. Divine revelation is needed to know of the persons of God and other truths about Him, but knowledge of them is not necessary to have knowledge of God.

No one would argue that Jews worship a different God. Likewise, St. Paul says that the pagans in Acts 17:23 are also worshiping the same God even though they do not yet acknowledge the Trinity. Here are some more examples:

Pope St. Gregory VII (11th century) to a Muslim prince: ‘Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.’

Catechism of Pope St. Pius X : 12 Q. Who are infidels?
A. Infidels are those who have not been baptised and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.

Catholic Encyclopedia: As in ecclesiastical language those who by baptism have received faith in Jesus Christ and have pledged Him their fidelity and called the faithful, so the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews and Mohammedans.

Also see this chapter on Islam in Hillair Belloc’s "Great Heresies."
ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT

Second Vatican Council: The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.

Muslims, like the pagans St. Paul met, worship the true God without knowing it.

I hope that helps