Time to eliminate all confusion about Vatican II

[AlexV]

Enjoy your warped notions of the Papacy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Enjoy your warped notions of the Papacy.

Your’s have certainly been interesting…not Catholic, but interesting.

 

[AlexV]

Oh, mine are quite Catholic. Just not this crazy notion that the clock on Church history and tradition restarts with every new pope.

 

[bear06]

I’m not sure, but I think Bear has pulled up documentation that has the Servant of God Pope John Paul II saying that no emergency existed

Off the top of my head I do have this:
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

The contradictory nature of such a position has been noted by the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts in the following statement:

However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei] and the Decree [of excommunication against Lefebvre]. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances (cf CIC, can 1323-1324). **As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. **This would, in fact, imply the possibility of ‘serving’ the Church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.(93)

And, of course, the Pope is the authentic legislator of the canons.
On 5/5 Lefebvre and Ratzinger reached a protocol agreement. 5/24 Lefebvre changed his mind and sent a letter asking for more bishops to be put on the Roman Commission.
5/30 Ratzinger writes back and says (this is probably what you are looking for and, as it came from the person assigned to deal with the situation in an official communication…):

Concerning the first point, the Holy Father deems it proper to adhere to the principles fixed in point II/2 of the Protocol which you accepted. This Commission is an organism of the Holy See in the service of the [SSPX] and the diverse instances which will have to be handled to establish and consolidate the work of reconciliation. Moreover, it is not the Commission, but the Holy Father who in the final analysis will make the decisions; thus the question of a majority does not arise; the interests of the Society are guaranteed by its representation within the Commission, and the fears which you have expressed are groundless, since the choice of members will be done by the Holy Father himself… Regarding the second point, the Holy Father confirms what I had already indicated to you on his behalf, namely that he is disposed to appoint a member of the [SSPX] as a bishop (in the sense of point II/5.2 of the Protocol), and to accelerate the usual process of nomination, so that the consecration could take place on the closing of the Marian Year, this coming August 15.(78)

matt1618.freeyellow.com/stephen.html

That said, all of this info isn’t really needed. Lefebvre and the Magisterium agree on 1 bishop. Lefebvre said “I need more”. The Vatican said “No you don’t and if you do you will committing a schismatic act” (which therefore shows that the authentic interpretor and legislator deemed there was no necessity or he wouldn’t have told him it was a schismatic act and this also let Lefebvre know that the Magisterium interpreted there to be no necessity).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Oh, mine are quite Catholic. Just not this crazy notion that the clock on Church history and tradition restarts with every new pope.

That’s a silly little aside, Alex, no one here subscribes to that crazy notion either.

 

[reggieM]

I appreciate bear06’s posts in this forum. I just wish there were others who could correct the many incorrect notions and separatist ideas that are communicated on just about every thread of this Traditional Catholic forum.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Off the top of my head I do have this:
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

And, of course, the Pope is the authentic legislator of the canons.
On 5/5 Lefebvre and Ratzinger reached a protocol agreement. 5/24 Lefebvre changed his mind and sent a letter asking for more bishops to be put on the Roman Commission.
5/30 Ratzinger writes back and says (this is probably what you are looking for and, as it came from the person assigned to deal with the situation in an official communication…):

matt1618.freeyellow.com/stephen.html

That said, all of this info isn’t really needed. Lefebvre and the Magisterium agree on 1 bishop. Lefebvre said “I need more”. The Vatican said “No you don’t and if you do you will committing a schismatic act” (which therefore shows that the authentic interpretor and legislator deemed there was no necessity or he wouldn’t have told him it was a schismatic act and this also let Lefebvre know that the Magisterium interpreted there to be no necessity).

Just a quick comment.

The Vatican was not just ‘handing over permission’ so innocently. There was much more going on than that.

Arch. Lefebvre had to meet certain requirments and had to acknowledge certain things which might have gone against his own coinscience. (for example…the equality of the NO vs. the TLM)

Furthermore…It isnt a matter of "hey 4 bishops would be better than 1…so lets milk this oppurtunity’.

Whoose to say that if He was allowed only one successor, that when he finally passed away, that succesor would face the exact same situation. The situation of having to bargain with the Vatican for the survival of tradition.

Had the Vatican allowed the SSPX to acknowledge VII, remain silent on the Novus Ordo, and ordain at least two Bishops…things might have been different than they are today.

I think, and im no expert, but I speculate that the Vatican saw the SSPX as just another one of those thorns that pop up every now and then against Holy Mother the Church. They thought that if they gave the SSPX what they wanted…the problem would cease over time.

At that time…the SSPX alone was celebrating Traditional Masses. So maybe the Church saw them as such a small group, granting them four bishops and so much attention would only spread those pre-Vatican II movements.

In a sense, the excomunication backfired. For it has done nothing but hindered SSPX relations with Rome…and the purpose of excomunication is to bring people BACK to the Church.

Gosh…its just one big headache.

 

[bear06]

The Vatican was not just ‘handing over permission’ so innocently. There was much more going on than that.

Not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

Arch. Lefebvre had to meet certain requirments and had to acknowledge certain things which might have gone against his own coinscience. (for example…the equality of the NO vs. the TLM)

And?

Furthermore…It isnt a matter of "hey 4 bishops would be better than 1…so lets milk this oppurtunity’.

Well,I agree with you here. It’s a matter of disobedience.

Whoose to say that if He was allowed only one successor, that when he finally passed away, that succesor would face the exact same situation. The situation of having to bargain with the Vatican for the survival of tradition.

Again, and? Whose to say that the Pope didn’t know what he was doing and that it was for the good of the Church and the SSPX too?

Had the Vatican allowed the SSPX to acknowledge VII, remain silent on the Novus Ordo, and ordain at least two Bishops…things might have been different than they are today.

Sigh! Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t. This still doesn’t excuse Lefebvre. I highly doubt that the Vatican didn’t think this through. And since letters were sent back and forth for a few weeks it would be quite impossible to say this was a snap judgment.

I think, and im no expert, but I speculate that the Vatican saw the SSPX as just another one of those thorns that pop up every now and then against Holy Mother the Church. They thought that if they gave the SSPX what they wanted…the problem would cease over time.

Obviously this is not the case since they have been offered far more than was offered to Lefebvre and they still continue to cause trouble.

At that time…the SSPX alone was celebrating Traditional Masses. So maybe the Church saw them as such a small group, granting them four bishops and so much attention would only spread those pre-Vatican II movements.

What’s the point in speculating and coming up with theories on how the Vatican tried to keep traditionalists down?

In a sense, the excomunication backfired. For it has done nothing but hindered SSPX relations with Rome…and the purpose of excomunication is to bring people BACK to the Church.

I disagree completely. We now have the FSSP and the Institute. These two wonderful organizations probably wouldn’t have been seen as needed if the Pope hadn’t told SSPX they were wrong. Now we have traditionalism in the context of obedience which is a far greater draw than the SSPX. In our area, the FSSP were drawing people and now we have the Institute in our diocese.

Gosh…its just one big headache

On this we can agree. Let’s continue to pray for a resolution!

 

[paramedicgirl]

I’m not saying “objectively right,” I’m saying “objectively excommunicated.”

And I think you’ll find, if you research it, that the pope does indeed determine who is and who is not in communion with him (esp. when he’s confirmed that person to be in schism and thus NOT in communion). This is the way it’s been throughout the history of the Church.

That is actually true, and only God can override the Pope on this matter. There have been one or two saints who have died excommunicate and later they have been canonized.

Are you gonna make me look it up?

 

[arieh0310]

That is actually true, and only God can override the Pope on this matter. There have been one or two saints who have died excommunicate and later they have been canonized.

Are you gonna make me look it up?

St Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius.

 

[piojunbabia]

On Ecumenism, Christ said to go and preach the Gospel to all. That’s the divine precept of Ecumenism.

Vatican II’s views on Religious Liberty are not infallible, and Catholics are NOT obliged to agree with them.

Ecumenism - as far as I know is leveling all religions equal… Is it true that V2 said that? I wonder the religion of Satan is included in ‘ALL’

Religious Liberty not infallible? then why teach it?

Ave Maria!

 

[jmcrae]

Ecumenism - as far as I know is leveling all religions equal.

That is the world’s definition of ecumenism. The Vatican’s definition of ecumenism is to make the Catholic Church better understood in the world, and more attractive for people to convert.

 

[japhy]

Ecumenism - as far as I know is leveling all religions equal… Is it true that V2 said that? I wonder the religion of Satan is included in ‘ALL’? Religious Liberty not infallible? then why teach it?

Here’s what Pope Paul VI said in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, promulgated before Lumen Gentium:
Then we see another circle around us. This too is vast in extent, yet not so far away from us. It comprises first of all those men who worship the one supreme God, whom we also worship. We would mention first the Jewish people, who still retain the religion of the Old Testament, and who are indeed worthy of our respect and love.

Then we have those worshipers who adhere to other monotheistic systems of religion, especially the Moslem religion. We do well to admire these people for all that is good and true in their worship of God.

And finally we have the followers of the great Afro-Asiatic religions.

Obviously we cannot agree with these various forms of religion, nor can we adopt an indifferent or uncritical attitude toward them on the assumption that they are all to be regarded as on an equal footing, and that there is no need for those who profess them to enquire whether or not God has Himself revealed definitively and infallibly how He wishes to be known, loved, and served. Indeed, honesty compels us to declare openly our conviction that the Christian religion is the one and only true religion, and it is our hope that it will be acknowledged as such by all who look for God and worship Him.

 

[Dauphin]

That is the world’s definition of ecumenism. The Vatican’s definition of ecumenism is to make the Catholic Church better understood in the world, and more attractive for people to convert.

How’s that goin?

 

[japhy]

How’s that goin?

We wouldn’t mind if you who prefer the Gregorian Rite helped out.

Seriously, though, the two reasons ecumenism efforts have been derailed are: a) a muddled understanding of the Catholic faith in the last few decades, and b) a failed understanding of what Catholic ecumenism is about. Some people have the terrible notion that the Catholic Church accepts other religions and seeks to dialog with them just so that we can be on each other’s “myFaves” list.

 

[Dauphin]

Wrong! Catholics must assent to what Vatican II said about religious liberty lest they place themselves out of communion with the Church.

What if I cannot, in good conscience, assent to this teaching? I see the teaching contained in Dignitatis Humanae in direct contradition to the solemn teaching contained in Immortale Dei, Quanta Cura, and the Syllabus of Errors.

I have no difficulty accepting that people cannot be forced to act contrary to their conscience. I feel that this teaching is perfectly reconcilable with previous Magisterial teaching. However I cannot in good conscience accept the following teaching contained in Dignitatis Humanae:

*“Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles…Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.” *

This is in plain, 100% contradiction to the solemn teaching of the Magisterium:

Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).

Condemned Errors:

“Liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

“… the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining… offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

*77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. *(Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors).

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. (Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors).

And to top it off, Pope Pius IX condemns these errors in a solemn fashion, invoking his full Apostolic authority:

“Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” - Quanta Cura

Could the contradiction be any clearer? Dignitatis Humanae quite simply reversed the previous teaching of the Magisterium. If the Church compels me to say otherwise, then it may as well be telling me to say that two plus two equals five.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Old thread alert from February 2007…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

What if I cannot, in good conscience, assent to this teaching? I see the teaching contained in Dignitatis Humanae in direct contradition to the solemn teaching contained in Immortale Dei, Quanta Cura, and the Syllabus of Errors.

I have no difficulty accepting that people cannot be forced to act contrary to their conscience. I feel that this teaching is perfectly reconcilable with previous Magisterial teaching. However I cannot in good conscience accept the following teaching contained in Dignitatis Humanae:

*“Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles…Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.” *

This is in plain, 100% contradiction to the solemn teaching of the Magisterium:

Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).

Condemned Errors:

“… the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining… offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

“Liberty of conscience and of worship … should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society …” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

*77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. *(Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors).

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. (Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors).

And to top it off, Pope Pius IX condemns these errors in a solemn fashion, invoking his full Apostolic authority:

“Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” - Quanta Cura

Could the contradiction be any clearer? Dignitatis Humanae quite simply reversed the previous teaching of the Magisterium. If the Church compels me to say otherwise, then it may as well be telling me to say that two plus two equals five.

Fr. Yves Congar, a peritus of Vatican II said the following:

Yves Congar: “It cannot be denied that a text like this [D.H. of Vatican II] does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-79 of the document.” (“The Crisis in the Church and Archbishop Lefebvre”, Cerf, 1976. p.51)

 

[eelpis]

Fr. Yves Congar, a peritus of Vatican II said the following:

Yves Congar: “It cannot be denied that a text like this [D.H. of Vatican II] does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-79 of the document.” (“The Crisis in the Church and Archbishop Lefebvre”, Cerf, 1976. p.51)

That depends on what hermeneutics you apply, that of rupture or that of continuity. Vatican II is just one in a row of many councils and should be interpreted in line with tradition and you can do just that. It’s so sad when catholics jump to conclusions and say that Vatican II teaches in contradiction to tradition, it does not because it cannot. Don’t give the lefties the pleasure of “owning” Vatican II.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

That depends on what hermeneutics you apply, that of rupture or that of continuity. Vatican II is just one in a row of many councils and should be interpreted in line with tradition and you can do just that. It’s so sad when catholics jump to conclusions and say that Vatican II teaches in contradiction to tradition, it does not because it cannot…

Would you agree that in order to interprete Vatican II with the “hermeneutic of continuity”, a person would need to interpret Vatican II in such a way that it is in line with what the Church has always taught?

I’m sure you will reply by saying yet.

Ok, then, is it wrong for a person to hold to what the Church has always taught and to refuse to depart from it based on Vatican II?

In other words, we should continue to believe what the Church has always taught, right?

What if someone interprets Vatican II in a way that is contrary to what the Church has always taught? Is that proof positive that they are misinterpreting Vatican II?

I’m curious, can you reconcile the quote from Vatican II given a few posts above by Dauphin, with the quotes at the bottom of Dauphin’s post?