Vatican I Vatican II what happened?

[sony]

Do I have this right? Is there a Vatican I and a Vatican II.
If so, what is the difference? And why the spilt?
Please understand I ask this in all sincerity.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

Vatican I and Vatican II were both Ecumenical Councils, Councils in which bishops from all around the world met together to discuss the needs of the Church at those times. Vatican I met 1869-1870, Vatican II met 1962-1965. There is no “split” between them, they are just two separate events held about a century apart.

 

[sony]

Mel Gibson refers to himself as a sectarian Catholic.
What exactly is that?

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

It’s not an official title used by the Catholic Church. To determine what Mr Gibson means by this, one would probably need to refer to his original statement where he said this and see what the context is.

 

[sony]

then, what can be said about sectarian Catholicism, Mel Gibson, and The Passion of the Christ? Sectarian Catholicism is rooted in the sixteenth-century Council of Trent and rejects absolutely the twentieth-century Second Vatican Council as an unwarranted betrayal of that root. It is an exclusive sect, blessing its members with the promise of salvation, cursing non-members with the promise of damnation. The sect regards itself as the remnant of the one, true, Catholic Church established by Jesus on Peter the Rock, whose Roman sedia has been vacant since the death of Pius XII. That one true Church has complete control over the sacred scriptures, to the extent that it and it alone can declare which version of the biblical text is inspired and which is not inspired and that it and it alone can asserting the indubitable meaning of any biblical text. As a self-confessed and publicly active traditionalist Catholic, Mel Gibson must share these beliefs, which are not now Catholic beliefs.

unomaha.edu/jrf/2004Symposium/Lawler.htm

 

[mgarstin]

I do not think Mel Gibson is a Radical Traditionalist, but yes, he is traditional. I do not think that he is sedevacantist, which this article practically claims. I also think he did not like the changes Vatican II made, but this article also claims that Vatican II changed teachings of the Church, which is completely false. That article is not a good source for finding out what Mel really beleives, it is based on assumptions.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

mgarstin:

I do not think Mel Gibson is a Radical Traditionalist, but yes, he is traditional. I do not think that he is sedevacantist, which this article practically claims. I also think he did not like the changes Vatican II made, but this article also claims that Vatican II changed teachings of the Church, which is completely false. That article is not a good source for finding out what Mel really beleives, it is based on assumptions.

I do not think the article in any way claims him to be a sedevacantist but I am unsure on the rad-Trad issue.

Mel Gibson on one of his interviews (I believe it was Dateline) before The Passion of the Christ came out said that he only accepts priests who have been ordained by the correct rite. Now if he means that he only believes that priests ordained by the pre-Vatican II rite are vaildly ordained and the ones who are ordained by the post-Vatican II rite, then there is something wrong.

But the interviewer did not press him on this question.

So I just don’t know.

 

[Church_Militant]

ByzCath:

I do not think the article in any way claims him to be a sedevacantist but I am unsure on the rad-Trad issue.

Mel Gibson on one of his interviews (I believe it was Dateline) before The Passion of the Christ came out said that he only accepts priests who have been ordained by the correct rite. Now if he means that he only believes that priests ordained by the pre-Vatican II rite are vaildly ordained and the ones who are ordained by the post-Vatican II rite, then there is something wrong.

But the interviewer did not press him on this question.

So I just don’t know.

I agrree with you ByzCath

Nor does it really matter since neither Sony’s cited source nor Gibson are authoritative in matters of faith and morals. One notes a silence on the part of Mr. Gibson on these matters and that silence speaks volumes, unlike his production of the Passion of the Christ which is a most definitely squared away presentation of faithful Catholic belief.

In reading the source you offer, I would just shrug and say, so what. The author doesn’t appear to have a good working knowlege of Catholic belief and his paper is far too short to do the issues it brings up proper justice.

My question to sony is…what do you care? The only difference is the development and understanding of the living dogma of the church as we all grow in our knowlege of Our Lord. There is no change in dogma (doctrine), but only definition and clarification of doctrines that the church has always held.

One thing that n-Cs often get messed up on is when Catholics dissent from church teaching for whatever reason, but that is because the need to reconcile their conscience lies on the people in question and not the church unless they have fallen into some heresy at which point the church will speak definitively in defense of the doctrine in question. That has been the way Christainity has handled dissent and heresy for 2,000 years.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[sony]

There is no change in dogma (doctrine), but only definition and clarification of doctrines that the church has always held.

Wow… no change, just definition and clarification.
I don’t think a Traditionalist would agree.But hey, maybe there’s no such thing.
To answer your question:What do I care? Just trying to get a grip.
Did I hit a nerve?

 

[jpusateri]

sony:

Is there a Vatican I and a Vatican II.
If so, what is the difference?

Vatican I was convened and the cardinals did not accomplish too much (only papal infallibility and the Assumption of Mary ) but due to an invasion army coming towards them, they disbanded (ran away). An interesting note is that Vatican I was not officially closed until Vatican II. The first official act of Vatican II was to close Vatican I.

sony:

Wow… no change, just definition and clarification.
I don’t think a Traditionalist would agree.But hey, maybe there’s no such thing.

Definition and clarification updated for better understanding by people TODAY. Just as two people describe the same truth with different sentences and with different emphases, the change is in the words used to describe it, not the underlying concept/belief. One could always say, “but that’s not what you said before.” Yes it sounds different, but if it radically changes your understanding, perhaps you didn’t understand it before…

 

[Sarah_Jane]

jpusateri:

Vatican I was convened and the cardinals did not accomplish too much (only papal infallibility and the Assumption of Mary )

No, the dogma of the Assumption of Mary was defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950.

 

[jpusateri]

Sarah Jane:

No, the dogma of the Assumption of Mary was defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950.

Sarah Jane,

Thank you. Actually I was wrong on TWO counts… I meant to say the Immaculate Conception of Mary. However even that was defined prior to the council in 1854.

There were requests however to discuss the Bodily Assumption of Mary at the council, but the premature ending of discussion prevented that.