Vatican II Council Strictly Pastoral According To Popes VI & Benedict XVI

[centurionguard]

I think it’s sad in a number of ways that everytime some reference to the EF (Latin Mass) is brought in to view or in the aire of discussion at CAF even if indirectly before anything to do concerning before the Vatican II Council, you have whistle and horn blowers and drum beaters yelling out to the tune of the SSPX. I’m well aware of their position in view of the Pope and Magisterium of the Catholic Church. At the very least as devout Catholic Christians in heart we have the obligatory duty to pray for them instead of spelling out negative coments that causes contentious sentiments about the SSPX or that anything relating to the EF of the Mass.

My intention of posting wasn’t to give an ambiguous wrong impression with regards to the Vatican II Council. Only to bring out a matter of fact as reminder that the Councils before had a greater importance. It was the intention of the Vatican II Council to ratify and impress upon the Laity the importance of the past infalible teachings of the Council of Trent and Vatican I.

Nor was it the intention of the Vatican II Council to lessen or exalt EF Mass verses the OF Mass in importance. Personally I have a particularly unique love for both Masses, with the Sacrificial nature of Jesus offered for the remission of sins culminating at the focal point at either Form of the Mass. That’s where our humble adoration and thankfulness truly belongs.

Fraternally in Christ
Chris

 

[Melchior_1]

Only to bring out a matter of fact as reminder that the Councils before had a greater importance.

It was the intention of the Vatican II Council to ratify and impress upon the Laity the importance of the past infalible teachings of the Council of Trent and Vatican I.

These two items contradict each other though a bit. If Vatican II was “merely” pastoral and “simply” re-affirmed other Councils, then Vatican II essentially is those Councils.

I’ve used this analogy before to explain why Vatican II is the same importance as other Councils even if it is “merely pastoral”; if Trent/Vatican I was water, then Vatican II is an ice cube. Same matter, different form and expression on how it’s carried out.

I’ll say it again; if Vatican II re-iterated past dogma and doctrine, that’s an exercise in infallibility.

 

[centurionguard]

These two items contradict each other though a bit. If Vatican II was “merely” pastoral and “simply” re-affirmed other Councils, then Vatican II essentially is those Councils.

I’ve used this analogy before to explain why Vatican II is the same importance as other Councils even if it is “merely pastoral”; if Trent/Vatican I was water, then Vatican II is an ice cube. Same matter, different form and expression on how it’s carried out.

I’ll say it again; if Vatican II re-iterated past dogma and doctrine, that’s an exercise in infallibility.

I don’t see how it contradicts. All infalliable teachings, dogma and doctrine in the Church always has to be re-iterated or taught for lack of a better expression.

Many Catholics see the Vatican II Council strictly for its institution of a New Mass (“only”) translated into vernacular languages. Certainly in a Modern Era struggling with Morality; Vatican II Council was far more reaching than for its New instituted Mass alone.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

These two items contradict each other though a bit. If Vatican II was “merely” pastoral and “simply” re-affirmed other Councils, then Vatican II essentially is those Councils.

I’ve used this analogy before to explain why Vatican II is the same importance as other Councils even if it is “merely pastoral”; if Trent/Vatican I was water, then Vatican II is an ice cube. Same matter, different form and expression on how it’s carried out.

I’ll say it again; if Vatican II re-iterated past dogma and doctrine, that’s an exercise in infallibility.

I really liked your great summation here. The problem I have with these many “merely pastoral” threads is that the unstated subtext always seems to be a loophole-searching attitude that “Since it was merely pastoral, I can just nod politely in its direction and then ignore it.” This seems especially true when questions come up concerning “Nostra Aetate” and our relationship with the Jewish people.

 

[Sirach2]

My intention of posting wasn’t to give an ambiguous wrong impression with regards to the Vatican II Council. Only to bring out a matter of fact as reminder that the Councils before had a greater importance. It was the intention of the Vatican II Council to ratify and impress upon the Laity the importance of the past infalible teachings of the Council of Trent and Vatican I.

Let’s please just cut to the chase. Do you believe Vatican II is infallible and that we must each render our religious assent?

.

 

[centurionguard]

Let’s please just cut to the chase. Do you believe Vatican II is infallible and that we must each render our religious assent?

.

Respectfully; lets just say if you haven’t already perceived what I’ve already contested to thus far in this thread despite your aforementioned statement, then you’d have no reason to question my response. Unless of course you believe there’s ambiguity in what I’ve expressed thus far.

 

[ProVobis]

Let’s please just cut to the chase. Do you believe Vatican II is infallible and that we must each render our religious assent?

Would that mean no subsequent Pope or council can undo any of it? I’m not sure I’d want to go there.

 

[Sirach2]

Would that mean no subsequent Pope or council can undo any of it? I’m not sure I’d want to go there.

No pope can bind another pope in perpetuity, PV, and I think you have been here long enough to know that. Br. JR has spoken of this many times.

 

[Sirach2]

Respectfully; lets just say if you haven’t already perceived what I’ve already contested to thus far in this thread despite your aforementioned statement, then you’d have no reason to question my response. Unless of course you believe there’s ambiguity in what I’ve expressed thus far.

Let me guess - you do not believe V-II is infallible, or else you would not have posted that link? Why skirt around the bush? It is yes or no, with possible reservations in either answer. No, I did not discern that what you posted from a blog is your feeling as well. That’s why I asked.

Would you care to clarify?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTE

Since the Holy Father and the CDF have already told us what we are to believe about Vatican II, this discussion is not necessary. Read the Holy Father’s statements at time of the 50th anniversary of the Council and those of Archbishop Mueller. There is the answer to this thread.

Thank you for sharing.