Sorry, another question about Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fish90

Guest
I am no great theologian nor have studied the Second Vatican Council in detail. When I hear objections, could you tell me that these are proper defending statements?
  1. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Always been taught by the Church and still is. Many people are taught that the church is evil and they never have a chance or want to understand the truth of the Church. God only chooses if you go to heaven or hell. The lack of sacraments still jeopardizes the acquiring of graces necessary to enter the Kingdom of God.
  2. The new mass- The way the mass is said is a discipline of the Church. You are not sinning if you do not like it, but you are sinning if you do not accept the validity of that particular mass. Also, Latin masses still exist. The person who objects to the new mass can go to a Latin only mass and fulfill their Sunday obligation.
  3. Decline of Vocations- Our society is increasingly drifting away from God. Celibacy is taught as something that will result in extreme loneliness.
-Please tell me if I am correct:confused:
-Also, please inform me of any other objections to Vatican II.👍
 
fish90 said:
I am no great theologian nor have studied the Second Vatican Council in detail. When I hear objections, could you tell me that these are proper defending statements?
  1. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Always been taught by the Church and still is. Many people are taught that the church is evil and they never have a chance or want to understand the truth of the Church. God only chooses if you go to heaven or hell. The lack of sacraments still jeopardizes the acquiring of graces necessary to enter the Kingdom of God.
  2. The new mass- The way the mass is said is a discipline of the Church. You are not sinning if you do not like it, but you are sinning if you do not accept the validity of that particular mass. Also, Latin masses still exist. The person who objects to the new mass can go to a Latin only mass and fulfill their Sunday obligation.
  3. Decline of Vocations- Our society is increasingly drifting away from God. Celibacy is taught as something that will result in extreme loneliness.
-Please tell me if I am correct:confused:
-Also, please inform me of any other objections to Vatican II.👍
Click to expand...
  1. Don’t really understand what you are saying
  2. While true Latin masses still exist they are totally and completely at the whim of the local Bishop. True, a Priest doesn’t have to have permission any longer, but I am pretty sure that any Priest who runs afoul of his Bishops wishes will find himself in a very unpleasant situation. Also, there are many many places that do not have Latin masses at all, especially the Extraordinary Form which is still for all intents and purposes outlawed in many areas.
  3. The decline in vocations is not only rooted in the objection to celibacy or the secularism of society as a whole. the reasons are a lot more complex than that. It was more the devaluation of the religious life as a whole and the concurrent exhaltation of the laity. For instance, no where in the Vatican II documents does it state that the call to the religious life is merely another path to God as so many think it does. No, religious life is and always was considered to be an objectively higher calling. In the old Baltimore Catechism:eek: this was pointed out superbly by an illustration. On one side, a man and a woman were getting married. The caption said this is good. The next illustration showed a Sister being received into her order. the caption said this is better. That idea was seen as elitist by many of the progressives and led to the erroneous interpretation still floating around that there is no difference between a Priest, the religious and the laity. We are all just one big pack moving together down the path. That was never what was believed prior to that time and is what I think, primarily responsible for the drop in vocations. that couped with the fact it just plain isn’t encouraged any longer.
There are numerous other objections to what came out of Vatican II. It isn’t so much the council, it is the misinterpretation of the documents and the wholescale destruction of entire areas of traditional Catholicism that came about after the Council. I along with more than a few others believe what happened was that a very vocal and strategically placed minority in essence rammed through their own agenda. remember, the Conciliar documents were not available for public review for some time after the council. We in general, had to take their word for what was said. Remember Catholics were instructed to be obedient. So we were. The minority won. They took advantage of a situation and ran with it.

I think that had the Councils documents and decisions been carried out in the way they had been intended to be, in most cases, we would not be in the situation that we are in today.

An opinion,nothing more.
 
palmas85 said:
  1. Don’t really understand what you are saying
Click to expand...
I was trying to bring up non-catholic Christians and non-Christians. Many are taught about Catholic “heresies”:mad: and so they think the Church is evil and it is not Christ’s Church. For the non-Christian, their salvation is hindered because they have not been evangelized or have rejected Christianity for their own religion of which they believe is true. As a result, they are taught that rejecting the Church allows them to obey God or be a better non-Chrisitan. I believe this is what is termed invincible ignorance.

Your response to the vocation issue was wonderful. I have rarely or even never heard that point. Thank you for that response.

Do you see that the church-goers will see the truth of Vatican II and not its misinterpretation in the near future?
 
fish90 said:
I was trying to bring up non-catholic Christians and non-Christians. Many are taught about Catholic “heresies”:mad: and so they think the Church is evil and it is not Christ’s Church. For the non-Christian, their salvation is hindered because they have not been evangelized or have rejected Christianity for their own religion of which they believe is true. As a result, they are taught that rejecting the Church allows them to obey God or be a better non-Chrisitan. I believe this is what is termed invincible ignorance.

Your response to the vocation issue was wonderful. I have rarely or even never heard that point. Thank you for that response.

Do you see that the church-goers will see the truth of Vatican II and not its misinterpretation in the near future?
Click to expand...
I think you have a mis-understanding. The Church always has taught that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, and the only way for salvation.

However, the Church has also always taught that those who either don’t know about the Catholic Church or were never brought up in the Catholic Church may have God’s mercy, because it is not their fault. This is even before Vatican II. However, it doesn’t mean their religious is equal, and that we shouldn’t want them to be converted to the Catholic Faith.

After Vatican II, some people did start saying that “all religions are equal” and that “Judaism still has a completely valid covenant with God” as if Jesus Christ were not part of this covenant. So Vatican II did teach extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. However, some people for one reason or another began to teach otherwise, in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
 
thunderballs75 said:
I think you have a mis-understanding. The Church always has taught that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, and the only way for salvation.

However, the Church has also always taught that those who either don’t know about the Catholic Church or were never brought up in the Catholic Church may have God’s mercy, because it is not their fault. This is even before Vatican II. However, it doesn’t mean their religious is equal, and that we shouldn’t want them to be converted to the Catholic Faith.

After Vatican II, some people did start saying that “all religions are equal” and that “Judaism still has a completely valid covenant with God” as if Jesus Christ were not part of this covenant. So Vatican II did teach extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. However, some people for one reason or another began to teach otherwise, in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
Click to expand...
😃 Thanks for the clarification.
 
palmas85 said:
  1. Don’t really understand what you are saying
  2. While true Latin masses still exist they are totally and completely at the whim of the local Bishop. True, a Priest doesn’t have to have permission any longer, but I am pretty sure that any Priest who runs afoul of his Bishops wishes will find himself in a very unpleasant situation. Also, there are many many places that do not have Latin masses at all, especially the Extraordinary Form which is still for all intents and purposes outlawed in many areas.
Click to expand...
There is no salvation outside the Church, Jesus: “those who seek the truth hear my voice” Only by them entering the Church before they die will they be saved. This doesn’t mean that they are guilty of the sin of un-belief before joining only that they lack the necessary means to go to heaven, plus they will fall into mortal sin without access to the graces of the sacraments .
  1. The decline in vocations is not only rooted in the objection to celibacy or the secularism of society as a whole. the reasons are a lot more complex than that. It was more the devaluation of the religious life as a whole and the concurrent exhaltation of the laity. For instance, no where in the Vatican II documents does it state that the call to the religious life is merely another path to God as so many think it does. No, religious life is and always was considered to be an objectively higher calling. In the old Baltimore Catechism:eek: this was pointed out superbly by an illustration. On one side, a man and a woman were getting married. The caption said this is good. The next illustration showed a Sister being received into her order. the caption said this is better. That idea was seen as elitist by many of the progressives and led to the erroneous interpretation still floating around that there is no difference between a Priest, the religious and the laity. We are all just one big pack moving together down the path. That was never what was believed prior to that time and is what I think, primarily responsible for the drop in vocations. that couped with the fact it just plain isn’t encouraged any longer.
Click to expand...
Again if there is salvation outside the Church why dedicate your life to penance and evangelize? The general understanding of today’s Catholics is there is salvation outside the Church contrary to Church teaching.
There are numerous other objections to what came out of Vatican II. It isn’t so much the council, it is the misinterpretation of the documents and the wholescale destruction of entire areas of traditional Catholicism that came about after the Council. I along with more than a few others believe what happened was that a very vocal and strategically placed minority in essence rammed through their own agenda. remember, the Conciliar documents were not available for public review for some time after the council. We in general, had to take their word for what was said. Remember Catholics were instructed to be obedient. So we were. The minority won. They took advantage of a situation and ran with it.
Click to expand...
I think that had the Councils documents and decisions been carried out in the way they had been intended to be, in most cases, we would not be in the situation that we are in today.
Click to expand...
Vatican II Church is a mess because of Vatican II.
this thread covered a lot of the problems:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=311095
 
duckbill said:
There is no salvation outside the Church, Jesus: “those who seek the truth hear my voice” Only by them entering the Church before they die will they be saved. This doesn’t mean that they are guilty of the sin of un-belief before joining only that they lack the necessary means to go to heaven, plus they will fall into mortal sin without access to the graces of the sacraments .
Click to expand...
Sorry, this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Please see Catechism 846 ff.
duckbill said:
Vatican II Church is a mess because of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
What Church are you referring to? No Catholic could say that. Vatican II is the 21st ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. There is no higher teaching authority for the Catholic Church. If Vatican II (meaning, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI and ALL the Catholic Bishops) messed up your Church, then your Church must not be the Catholic Church. I’m confused. Can you clarify what you meant? Thanks.
 
thunderballs75 said:
I think you have a mis-understanding. The Church always has taught that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, and the only way for salvation.

However, the Church has also always taught that those who either don’t know about the Catholic Church or were never brought up in the Catholic Church may have God’s mercy, because it is not their fault. This is even before Vatican II. However, it doesn’t mean their religious is equal, and that we shouldn’t want them to be converted to the Catholic Faith.

After Vatican II, some people did start saying that “all religions are equal” and that “Judaism still has a completely valid covenant with God” as if Jesus Christ were not part of this covenant. So Vatican II did teach extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. However, some people for one reason or another began to teach otherwise, in the “spirit of Vatican II”.
Click to expand...
Would you dive into this doctrine. Is this correct? If there is a Protestant or Orthodox person, there salvation can happen because they belong to the Church through the common beliefs that exist. The problem is that their religion is not in full communion with Christ’s Church and so are in dissent and/or heresy. Can you expand anyone?

How do non-Catholics both non-Christian and Christian enter heaven?
 
  1. The new mass- The way the mass is said is a discipline of the Church. You are not sinning if you do not like it, but you are sinning if you do not accept the validity of that particular mass. Also, Latin masses still exist. The person who objects to the new mass can go to a Latin only mass and fulfill their Sunday obligation.
  2. Decline of Vocations- Our society is increasingly drifting away from God. Celibacy is taught as something that will result in extreme loneliness.
**2. “Latin mass” is an ambiguous term, as the Ordinary Form may be celebrated in Latin. Pope Benedict does so all the time. If you mean the Extraordinary Form, then use this term instead of “Latin mass.”
  1. Orthodoxy has a decline in vocations as well, especially among those raised in the Church. Most are coming from converts lately. Eastern Catholicism, which has never required celibacy or suffered the liturgical upheavals of the Latin Church, also has a decline. **
 
fish90 said:
Do not Protestants and especially the Orthodox belong to the Church through their common beliefs? Does not that make them a part of Christ’s Church until they realize the truth of the Church (no offense to Protestants or Orthodox) and refuse to enter into it?
Click to expand...
They belong to Christ. They are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
 
fish90 said:
Would you dive into this doctrine. Is this correct? If there is a Protestant or Orthodox person, there salvation can happen because they belong to the Church through the common beliefs that exist. The problem is that their religion is not in full communion with Christ’s Church and so are in dissent and/or heresy. Can you expand anyone?

How do non-Catholics both non-Christian and Christian enter heaven?
Click to expand...
There is possible and then there is likely. While salvation is possible without being a practicing Catholic, it’s a heck of a lot less likely. And that possibility of salvation is not through following any other faith but through the merits of Christ and what his Church teaches.

Leaving someone with their only realistic option for salvation being a perfect act of contrition at the end of their life is negligence on our part. It’s difficult enough to come to that point as a practicing Catholic, much less as a person without the benefit of the graces we receive from the sacraments. That’s why we must evangelize. It’s our responsibility to ensure we share the Gospel with as many people as we can in whatever way is appropriate to our station in life. We can’t slack and say it doesn’t matter just because salvation is possible for anyone. We are judged not only on the basis of what we do but what we fail to do.

By the way, people today who were brought up in whatever Protestant tradition they follow are not heretics, schismatics or apostates because they were never Catholics. Those who initially broke from the Church during the Reformation, or those who were raised Catholic but subsequently rejected it, are a different matter.
 
Alindawyl said:
There is possible and then there is likely. While salvation is possible without being a practicing Catholic, it’s a heck of a lot less likely. And that possibility of salvation is not through following any other faith but through the merits of Christ and what his Church teaches.

Leaving someone with their only realistic option for salvation being a perfect act of contrition at the end of their life is negligence on our part. It’s difficult enough to come to that point as a practicing Catholic, much less as a person without the benefit of the graces we receive from the sacraments. That’s why we must evangelize. It’s our responsibility to ensure we share the Gospel with as many people as we can in whatever way is appropriate to our station in life. We can’t slack and say it doesn’t matter just because salvation is possible for anyone. We are judged not only on the basis of what we do but what we fail to do.

By the way, people today who were brought up in whatever Protestant tradition they follow are not heretics, schismatics or apostates because they were never Catholics. Those who initially broke from the Church during the Reformation, or those who were raised Catholic but subsequently rejected it, are a different matter.
Click to expand...
I read on another forum about this and they were talking about the soul and the body of the Church. Very difficult for me to completely understand. This reply was great. Thank you.
 
I was there for Vatican II. First, we had the Latin Mass, then we had a new, smaller altar with the priest facing the people. I was in Catholic school. It was explained that the Mass would now be in English so that the people could better participate in their own language. Eventually, abstaining from eating meet on Fridays was eliminated. Nothing else changed. Some adults did not like the change but were obedient after their questions were answered.

In 1968, a small minority within the Church blasted the publication of Humanae Vitae which warned Catholics about what would happen if they used artificial birth control. The Church understood that some people were getting the idea that with The Pill they could have sex and avoid the consequences. The Pope told the faithful that the temptation to devalue the love of your life would increase. It was a Pastoral warning to all of the faithful. But some within the Church could not accept this. A priest posted on this forum how he and other priests were asked to sign a statement in protest to Humanae Vitae, which warned that if Catholics did not heed the warning that sexual promiscuity would increase, which it did. To the point where today, boys accuse girls of being a goody two shoes for refusing to have sex before marriage.

In 1970, a Time magazine cover story told about a number of religious leaving the Church in disagreement.

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,876637,00.html

Once again, sex was a contributing factor.

Peace,
Ed
 
diggerdomer said:
Sorry, this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Please see Catechism 846 ff.
Click to expand...
Well maybe you never read council of Florence ruling:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
What Church are you referring to? No Catholic could say that. Vatican II is the 21st ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. There is no higher teaching authority for the Catholic Church. If Vatican II (meaning, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI and ALL the Catholic Bishops) messed up your Church, then your Church must not be the Catholic Church. I’m confused. Can you clarify what you meant? Thanks.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has been a mess since Vatican II it started as the modernist heresy but was enforced since Vatican II.
They changed things that were not necessary and has only caused division within the Church ever since.
 
duckbill said:
Well maybe you never read council of Florence ruling:
Click to expand...
Florence does not contradict what the Catechism teaches.

Who is “they” that changed things and caused division in the Catholic Church? Thanks.
duckbill said:
The Catholic Church has been a mess since Vatican II it started as the modernist heresy but was enforced since Vatican II.
They changed things that were not necessary and has only caused division within the Church ever since.
Click to expand...
Who is “they” that changed things and caused division in the Catholic Church? Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top