Questioning Vatican II (Edited Title)

[wewin08]

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.

 

[Dauphin]

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

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.

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.

 

[wewin08]

That was just an example and you are not answering my question completely. I asked for specifics and documentation that backs the Church’s defense. How do I know what you say is true? I’m not saying you’re not right, but you could be wrong.

This is one thing that a lot of people oversee - the wording. In making the infallible dogmatic declaration that all who have a view contrary to faith in Our Lord or the Trinity are rejected, the original Latin of the Council of Florence uses the word “reprobat,” which means “rejects.” It is from the Latin verb reprobo, which means “I reject” or “condemn.”

But here’s the bombshell: In Nostra Aetate #4, Vatican II uses the same verb! In the original Latin (in comparison with The Council of Florence), Vatican II uses “reprobati,” which is the past participle passive of reprobo – the very same verb that the Council of Florence used. This means that Vatican II and the Council of Florence are talking about the *exact * same thing –
they use the exact same verb – and teach exactly the opposite.

The Catholic Church defines that all individuals (Jews, etc.) who have a view contrary to Faith in Christ or the Trinity the Church “reprobat” (rejects). Vatican II tells us that the Jews should not be considered as “reprobati” (as having been rejected). Look it up.

This is one of the most specific contradictions that appeared in Vatican II. Vatican II could hardly contradict Catholic dogma any
more precisely!

 

[Dauphin]

That was just an example and you are not answering my question completely. I asked for specifics and documentation that backs the Church’s defense. How do I know what you say is true? I’m not saying you’re not right, but you could be wrong.

This is one thing that a lot of people oversee - the wording. In making the infallible dogmatic declaration that all who have a view contrary to faith in Our Lord or the Trinity are rejected, the original Latin of the Council of Florence uses the word “reprobat,” which means “rejects.” It is from the Latin verb reprobo, which means “I reject” or “condemn.”

But here’s the bombshell: In Nostra Aetate #4, Vatican II uses the same verb! In the original Latin (in comparison with The Council of Florence), Vatican II uses “reprobati,” which is the past participle passive of reprobo – the very same verb that the Council of Florence used. This means that Vatican II and the Council of Florence are talking about the *exact *same thing –
they use the exact same verb – and teach exactly the opposite.

The Catholic Church defines that all individuals (Jews, etc.) who have a view contrary to Faith in Christ or the Trinity the Church “reprobat” (rejects). Vatican II tells us that the Jews should not be considered as “reprobati” (as having been rejected). Look it up.

This is one of the most specific contradictions that appeared in Vatican II. Vatican II could hardly contradict Catholic dogma any
more precisely!

Does a Jewish child, below the age of reason, reject the Trinity? You’re taking this excerpt from Nostra Aetate to mean something entirely different from what it’s trying to say. It means that a Jew - that is, someone born into the Jewish race - is not automatically rejected by God. It doesn’t say that one may take the position which modern Jews do and be saved.

Nothing from Cantate Domino even comes close to contradicting this. This is a ludicrous objection.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

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.

So, has hell prevailed over the Church?

Is our Pope not actually a Pope, and therefore, not our Pope?

:shamrock2:

 

[bpbasilphx]

Catholics accept Vatican 2 as a true ecumenical council, summoned by the Pope, and receiving its authority from working in union with him.

If you do not accept it, you are simply not a Catholic.

Furthermore, if you do not accept John 23, Paul 6, John Paul 1 and 2, and Benedict 16 as true popes, you are a sedevacantist, which position is neither traditional nor Catholic.

 

[wewin08]

Catholics accept Vatican 2 as a true ecumenical council, summoned by the Pope, and receiving its authority from working in union with him.

If you do not accept it, you are simply not a Catholic.

Furthermore, if you do not accept John 23, Paul 6, John Paul 1 and 2, and Benedict 16 as true popes, you are a sedevacantist, which position is neither traditional nor Catholic.

Now I never said that. I didn’t say this was my belief. I just wanted some opinions.

 

[wewin08]

So, has hell prevailed over the Church?

Is our Pope not actually a Pope, and therefore, not our Pope?

:shamrock2:

Say what?

 

[pnewton]

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.

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.

 

[Just_Lurking]

So, has hell prevailed over the Church?

Is our Pope not actually a Pope, and therefore, not our Pope?

If the Catholic Church is wrong, and therefore not the “One True Church ™”, then does it matter who the Pope is?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
So, has hell prevailed over the Church?

Is our Pope not actually a Pope, and therefore, not our Pope?

Say what?

You either accept that the documents of Vat-II do not contradict Church dogma, which makes you Catholic and one who believes that the Pope is the Pope,…

…or you don’t accept what you must accept to be a Catholic, which makes you not in communion with the Church (Catholic) and one who believes that the Pope (BenXVI) is not our (or more correctly YOUR) Pope as he doesn’t see the supposed “contradictions” that you do, making him a heretic.

So, which is it? Are you Catholic or an “Empty-Chair-ist”?

:shamrock2:

 

[wewin08]

You either accept that the documents of Vat-II do not contradict Church dogma, which makes you Catholic and one who believes that the Pope is the Pope,…

…or you don’t accept what you must accept to be a Catholic, which makes you not in communion with the Church (Catholic) and one who believes that the Pope (BenXVI) is not our (or more correctly YOUR) Pope as he doesn’t see the supposed “contradictions” that you do, making him a heretic.

So, which is it? Are you Catholic or an “Empty-Chair-ist”?

:shamrock2:

Why is everyone putting words in my mouth? I didn’t say this is what I believed. In the first sentance of the first post I made I said “Some people label”. I didn’t say “I label…blah blah blah.” So…save it.

 

[T700]

Why is everyone putting words in my mouth? I didn’t say this is what I believed. In the first sentance of the first post I made I said “Some people label”. I didn’t say “I label…blah blah blah.” So…save it.

Because you made a lengthy post espousing things in opposition to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church and ended with the fact that you are a “traditionalist”.

I am well aware that not all traditionalists hold these opinions, but when presented the way you did and ending with that self administered description, a reasonable person can make assumptions about you. If you truly don’t hold those beliefs, you might want to be more careful about the manner in which you post, so as to not accidentally paint yourself in that way.

Paul

 

[Cruikshank_s]

Because you made a lengthy post espousing things in opposition to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church and ended with the fact that you are a “traditionalist”.

I am well aware that not all traditionalists hold these opinions, but when presented the way you did and ending with that self administered description, a reasonable person can make assumptions about you. If you truly don’t hold those beliefs, you might want to be more careful about the manner in which you post, so as to not accidentally paint yourself in that way.

Paul

Agreed, you did post it in a way that insinuated that you proudly held said belief… shamelessly i might add. but hey, that’s why God gave us second chances, just double check your posts next time and question how others will read them.

 

[eelpis]

You might question the divinity of Christ but if you question ecumenism you are anathema!!!

 

[puzzleannie]

Some people label the ecumenical council that took place from 1962 - 1965 and the declarations that followed it - heretical.

if “some people” are not popes disregard them. Catholics hold the whole teaching of the magesterium of the Church, they do not pick and choose. If one holds that the docs of V2 are heretical they also hold that Jesus lied when he promised the Holy Spirit would protect the Church in her teaching office. Now there is a real heresy for you. also thread title is wrong “everybody” does not reject V2 so speak for yourself

 

[dang71]

forgive me if i get something wrong here, but i am not a biblical or canonical expert.

looking at this from a biblical perspective:

wasn’t it Abraham that was instructed by God to cut a cow in half, and lay the two pieces out on the ground? and wasn’t it God who passed between the two halves, in the form of a cloud of smoke, to show the ETERNAL covenant between God and the Jewish race? If there is an eternal covenant between God and the Jewish race, how can the V2 document be taken as erroneous or contradictory?

looking at this logically:

the first quote from the OP states that anyone holding a contrary veiw to the curch is outside the church.

the second quote states that Jews should not be “presented as rejected”.

these two quotes do not contradict each other. the first exhorts us to believe what the church teaches, the second states something the church teaches.

i don’t really see any issue with these quotes as presented here, maybe someone could educate me?

 

[Genesis315]

Some people also label the Council of Chalcedon as heretical and contradicting the Council of Ephesus. Some people label the First Vatican Council as heretical. There are those that label the Councils of Lyons II and Florence as heretical and contradicting Constantinople I. I could go on and on. For almost every ecumenical Council, there are those that label it heretical, betraying the faith, etc., etc.

 

[Genesis315]

When studying all the Councils and other magisterial texts of the Church, it’s ok to question things, but do so giving the lawful pastors of the Church the benefit of the doubt rather than the splicings of anti-Catholic sites.

 

[Lisa44]

Catholics accept Vatican 2 as a true ecumenical council, summoned by the Pope, and receiving its authority from working in union with him.

If you do not accept it, you are simply not a Catholic.

Furthermore, if you do not accept John 23, Paul 6, John Paul 1 and 2, and Benedict 16 as true popes, you are a sedevacantist, which position is neither traditional nor Catholic.

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.

If the Catholic Church is wrong, and therefore not the “One True Church ™”, then does it matter who the Pope is?

You either accept that the documents of Vat-II do not contradict Church dogma, which makes you Catholic and one who believes that the Pope is the Pope,…

…or you don’t accept what you must accept to be a Catholic, which makes you not in communion with the Church (Catholic) and one who believes that the Pope (BenXVI) is not our (or more correctly YOUR) Pope as he doesn’t see the supposed “contradictions” that you do, making him a heretic.

So, which is it? Are you Catholic or an “Empty-Chair-ist”?

:shamrock2:

Why is everyone putting words in my mouth? I didn’t say this is what I believed. In the first sentance of the first post I made I said “Some people label”. I didn’t say “I label…blah blah blah.” So…save it.

Because you made a lengthy post espousing things in opposition to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church and ended with the fact that you are a “traditionalist”.

I am well aware that not all traditionalists hold these opinions, but when presented the way you did and ending with that self administered description, a reasonable person can make assumptions about you. If you truly don’t hold those beliefs, you might want to be more careful about the manner in which you post, so as to not accidentally paint yourself in that way.

Paul

Agreed, you did post it in a way that insinuated that you proudly held said belief… shamelessly i might add. but hey, that’s why God gave us second chances, just double check your posts next time and question how others will read them.

You might question the divinity of Christ but if you question ecumenism you are anathema!!!

if “some people” are not popes disregard them. Catholics hold the whole teaching of the magesterium of the Church, they do not pick and choose. If one holds that the docs of V2 are heretical they also hold that Jesus lied when he promised the Holy Spirit would protect the Church in her teaching office. Now there is a real heresy for you. also thread title is wrong “everybody” does not reject V2 so speak for yourself

Hi, I thought this was a good question. But the replies you got, most of them were really insulting and rude. I have no idea why Catholics can be so rude to people who ask genuine questions on this forum. Why do they think that everyone in the world should be as smart as them? If you are so smart, then ADDRESS the question on POINT. And EXPLAIN why it is a fallacy.

I really feel sorry for people who are new to the faith who read things on the internet and then come here honestly questioning what seems like a contradiction, and then get their head BLOWN off by these Catholics.

Really, if the truth is so apparent, why can’t you just explain the error in the persons thinking if it is so blatant. And please do so in a nice respectful manner. There is no need to be so rude.