Vatican II and its changes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miguel25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RoseofMary1 said:
Vatican II produced NO NEW DOGMA. It was a “pastoral” council. Yet, a lot of people act as if ecumenism is now the most important dogma, when it is NOT a dogma of the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, “no new dogma” is not the same as “no dogma.” There were two dogmatic constitutions that did address previous dogma, expounding and teaching on them.
 
This is what is known as a false dichotomy. For example, we use hosts that do not produce crumbs. I have literally never seen even one. Also, whether people talk or not is not relevant to what the priest is saying. There is not causal relationship between the two issues.
 
While Ecclesia Dei was established as the go between Rome and the SSPX – as far as Church law – the one with the experience would be Card. Burke.
 
When the 2 previous popes taught truths on any subject, they always reaffirmed the other truths about that subject, and they were careful not to leave any loose ends that cunning people would use to undermine other parts of Catholic doctrine. If they explained one aspect about one sacrament, (like Marriage) they maintained consistency with other aspects of that sacrament, and left no loopholes liberals could use to weaken teaching on other sacraments (like Eucharist or Confession).
You are right, he is not contradicting essential doctrine, but leaves the door open for others to do so.

The 2 prior popes rarely spoke on doctrinally related issues extemporaneously. I think when they wrote something, they apparently had it vetted by someone, with this assignment: “Given the blind spots and biases dominant in today’s world, what is here that today’s knaves, fools, or the misinformed might be inclined to misinterpret, take out of context, etc?” Then their work was properly edited before publication.

In other words the 2 prior popes were far more aware of the secular world, and its biasing or blinding capabilities, and they took that into account.

(It was hard for me to write that, after opposing his critics for 4 years in person and online).
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
When the 2 previous popes taught truths on any subject, they always reaffirmed the other truths about that subject, and they were careful not to leave any loose ends that cunning people would use to undermine other parts of Catholic doctrine
Click to expand...
This is probably true, though I would note that Amoris Laetitia does this as well, even though no one here discusses 99% of the document that does this. But Pope Francis is definitely different. If it makes you feel better, even St. Paul had to take up correcting people who misused what he wrote and said. I would bet a fairly high percentage of his work was damage control.
 

Hopefully I am simply misunderstanding your post, but if your implication is that Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Hoyos, and Cardinal Cassidy lack the necessary “experience” with Church law, and that for this reason we are free to put Cardinal Burke’s opinions over their judgments, then I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree, as the saying goes.
[/quote]​

Go ahead disagree. But frankly – the SSPX has become – the modern day version of the Old Catholics.
 
Last edited:
If you do either of these things ( i.e. turning your back on the Church and going to one of these schismatic movements) you would be putting yourself in a state of mortal.
 
pnewton said:
This is probably true, though I would note that Amoris Laetitia does this as well, even though no one here discusses 99% of the document that does this. But Pope Francis is definitely different. If it makes you feel better, even St. Paul had to take up correcting people who misused what he wrote and said. I would bet a fairly high percentage of his work was damage control.
Click to expand...
Pope Francis has written a document in which 99% of **the Church’**s implementation is based on 1% of the document. It is not only the CAF posters who pay little attention to that other 99% of the document, it does not seem to have made any impact on bishops’ conferences, dioceses, or Catholic media, that I know of. It does not change the life of people. That 99% of the document you refer to will likely not have to be cleaned up by Pope Francis, or by the next pope either; just the 1%. The longer the delay, the bigger the cleanup.

So we have good reason to focus on that powerful 1% of the document.
 
Last edited:
kristaok said:
I’m personally glad there has been some changes, and I pray for more changes.
Click to expand...
The past several decades are the first era in which “change” is considered a good in itself. Not “change for the better”, but change, itself. Some people don’t care if some bishops change towards the North, and others change toward the South, as long as they keep changing.

In the past people said change was endorsed if it went in a good direction, and opposed if it went in a bad direction. In a football game you might gain yards, or you might lose yards on a play. You would not say you were automatically successful only because there were lots of changes.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
That 99% of the document you refer to will likely not have to be cleaned up by Pope Francis, or by the next pope either; just the 1%. The longer the delay, the bigger the cleanup.

So we have good reason to focus on that powerful 1% of the document
Click to expand...
You understand, I hope that this assumes the point that it is wrong, which may not be the case.It may well be that we will move forward and the “clean up” will have more to do with the dissent from this point than any correction.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
That 99% of the document you refer to will likely not have to be cleaned up by Pope Francis, or by the next pope either; just the 1%. The longer the delay, the bigger the cleanup.

So we have good reason to focus on that powerful 1% of the document (end, my prior post)
next person’s post:
You understand, I hope that this assumes the point that it is wrong, which may not be the case.It may well be that we will move forward and the “clean up” will have more to do with the dissent from this point than any correction.
Click to expand...
I admit, I assumed that if a portion of a document triggers:
  • bishop against bishop,
  • Catholic teaching in one place against Catholic teaching in another place
  • One pope’s teaching opposed to another pope’s teaching
  • Countless other Catholics confused
That:
this whole process (point, or omission, in the document) is somehow “bad”. That is why I used the term “clean-up”.
 
Officially they are. This is something that only someone not familiar with the facts & history of the topic would venture to debate. If you would like more insight you might check out what Pope Benedict XVI & Francis have had to say.
 
Reaffirming traditional dogma, yes. Ecumenism is NOT a doctrine of the Catholic faith. It is a Masonic principle. Our Lady, through many approved apparitions, warned that the world would be ruled by Masons and it would creep into the church.
 
I will never believe in private revelations that runs counter to the Catholic Church and will denounce those who attack in the name of Mary, pitting the Mother of Christ against the Body of Christ.
 
I think that Pope Francis is quoted out of context by too many people who should know better.
 
poche said:
I think that Pope Francis is quoted out of context by too many people who should know better.
Click to expand...
True.

All popes are sometimes quoted out of context, especially in recent decades when the secular media has become so powerful. But the 2 prior popes were very careful about what they said, leaving very few loose ends or threads that an uninformed person, or cunning bad person, would be tempted to quote out of context. They did not give off the cuff press conferences in the back of the plane. They did not have media-annointed “friends of the pope” giving semi official, semi-papal press conferences or attacking orthodox Catholic bishops.

They were occasionally quoted out of context anyway, but less often, with far less damage done.
 
My memory tells me otherwise. I remember similar issues arising with Pope Benedict, and not just with his statement. Caritas in Veritate was met with backlash, as were some unofficial statements about the SSPX. I suspect that the idea that Pope Francis is somehow unique in this comes from the amount of agreement or disagreement individuals have with the different popes.
 
I notice that the same people who bad mouth Pope Francis also bad mouthed Popes Benedict and John Paul II. These people are people who I think should know better.
 
poche said:
I notice that the same people who bad mouth Pope Francis also bad mouthed Popes Benedict and John Paul II. These people are people who I think should know better.
Click to expand...
You are partly right, there is a permanent, anti-papal element in the Church since the late 1960s.
Some of those people are indeed badmouthing the current pope and his predecessors. They will bad mouth his successor too.

But beside that, there are many other people who found the 2 prior popes coherent and consistent in affirming Catholic doctrine. Catholics, and non Catholics, did not necessarily agree with it, but both knew what the Church taught. Some of these people are concerned, not that the current pope is teaching heresy - he is not - but that there is too much ambiguity, too many loose ends. This has or will likely cut down on vocations and conversions to the Catholic Faith.

This is not badmouthing. It simply is asking for more prudence and discretion. The Vatican now is like a tenant in an apartment building who keeps forgetting to lock the outside door to the building. This tenant does not directly cause harm. But given that the neighborhood has a rising crime rate his actions (or rather carelessness) puts others at danger.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top