Vatican II-Did it Stray from the Dogmas of the Church?

[Jakub]

Yesterday was the day of the Chair of St. Peter, and may I quote a line of from the morning & evening prayer of yesterday’s Liturgy of the Hours,

“All -powerful Father, you have built your Church on the rock of Saint Peter’s confession of faith”.

Be careful when you criticise Vatican II, the deception occured after and was not the intent of the Council.

Instead of bickering and attacking it, we should be building and repairing from it.

I will not continue to take part in the negative.

james

 

[bear06]

1. A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man… To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church–the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.
   Me: Ignore Why. A philosophical meandoring followed by a genearl searching into the deposit of faith bringing nothing in particular forward.

I find it quite interesting that you think that this quote has nothing to do with the deposit of faith and yet most of the SSPX sites think this is an afront to Tradition with a big “T”. It would seem that everyone has their own interpretation. Hmmmm…

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

Genesis315:

The gates of hell won’t prevail. The Church won’t change the deposit of faith, don’t worry. Have faith in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Perhaps I do not understand or fully appreciate the meanings of “dogmatic council” and “pastoral” council, but it would seem to me that one should heed a pastoral council by virtue of the fact that it is coming from the pastors of the Church, whose responsibility it is to lead the Church. If the pastors of the Church (the Bishops, especially the Pope) intend the council to be pastoral, one ought to follow their pastoral leadership as it is expressed in that council.

 

[oat_soda]

DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

this is a perfect example of how poorly written this document is. this isn’t about faith or morals, but about politics. i agree with TNT.

what about when this religion is opposed to the dignity of life? may a islamic cleric call for the death of all catholics under the pretense of religion? may a satanist kill an innocent life as an expression of his religous freedom? may a homo bishop fornicate with another man and say it’s “sacramental”? if the government doesn’t recognize truth, or the teachings of the church, then how can the government not allow any abomination under the guise of freedom of religion?

by this logic, the church shouldn’t have called on a crusade on the holy land or the cathars. this is totally opposed to catholic tradition.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Vatican II teaches:

• There are many ways to salvation and that all religions should have equal rights
• The church should embrace the Modern world
• The church is a democracy
• Christians much search with others to find the truth
• Vatican II has compromised the BVM as the Mother of God for the sake of ecumenism

1. Yes, there are many ways to Jesus. Some people are born into Christian communities, others are baptized on their death beds, and there is every other possible path imaginable inbetween those two extremes.
2. What, pray tell, is the “Modern world”? Are we speaking of the people, places, and things of this physical Earth or are we referring to the domain of the Devil, as in “the world, the flesh, and the Devil”? The former the Church should embrace – not as lovers, but as a Mother would embrace a child, as one might embrace the Prodigal, the abandoned, those who languish amidst suffering. The latter the Church cannot embrace, and will not embrace, for the world stands for all that is opposed to the Kingdom of God. As the Church is the most visible representation of that Kingdom, the world is its very antithesis, and a house divided cannot stand. Certain elements of the Church have in the past and will in the future choose to love the world more than their God, but the Church as a whole will not, “for the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
3. While some may wish that to be the case, I see no evidence of it. It is true, however, that unlike the other monarchies of the world, all the subjects of this Kingdom are heirs of the King. We are all, so to speak, royalty. Authority is clearly top-down, but everyone must live in manner befitting to sons and daughters of the King.
4. Rather, all men have a responsibility to seek and love the truth. We, however, already know the Name of Him who is the Truth, and we know the name of his Church. The agnostic may wonder if the Truth is found in Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity; we can tell him, for we no longer have to wonder – We have found him.
5. Compromised? Perhaps instead, speaking the truth about Mother Mary in a way that others can understand without having an advanced degree in Catholic-ese. It does no good to preach the Gospel in a language that the hearers do not understand.

 

[BulldogCath]

I think this clearly defines the “New Dogma” introduced at this pastoral Council.

WHAT THE COUNCIL MANDATED

Canon 844, 4 allows the administration of penance, anointing of the sick, and even holy communion to non-Catholics who manifest “Catholic faith” in these sacraments.

**This used to be considered a mortal sin and was gravely forbidden (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 731, 21) because it implicitly denies the dogma, “Outside the Church, no salvation” . **

This is an inadmissible surrender to modernist ecumenism.

• canon 1055, no longer defines marriage by its primary end, the procreation of children, but mentions this only after a secondary end, the good of the spouses. And this latter, as we can see in the light of annulments now given, has become the essence of marriage: the partners give each other their whole selves (and not just “the exclusive and perpetual right over the body of the partner as regards the acts capable in themselves of generating offspring,” 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1081, 2) for their self-fulfillment in wedlock (canon 1057, 2). There is considered to be no marriage where one spouse cannot provide the other this help (canon 1095, 20 and 30, canon 1098, etc., cf. canon 1063, 40). Whence today’s annulments’ fiasco: in the United States, for example, there were 338 annulments granted in 1968; there were 59,030 in 1992.

Canon 336 codifies the collegiality of Vatican II. The “college of Bishops,” a 20th century invention, is now made a permanent subject, together with the Pope, of supreme and full power over the Universal Church. A bishop, moreover, participates in this universal jurisdiction by the mere fact of his consecration (cf. canon 375, 2).

This collegiality tampers with the divine constitution of the Church, derogates from the Pope’s powers, and hampers his government of the Church (and that of the Bishops in their dioceses). “Episcopal Conferences” now assume authority, which thus becomes impersonal and unanswerable.

These are but the most grave deficiencies; other defective points include the following:

• mixed marriages (canons 1125, 1127),
• diminution in censures (excommunication of freemasons, etc.),
• the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas is no longer strictly enjoined in seminaries (canons 251ff), and
• general absolutions are more readily available (canons 961-963, etc.).

Further innovations from the Second Vatican Council Include :

• new catechisms,
• new liturgy-in new churches, around a table,
  with communion in the hand, from lay ministers
  aided by altar-girls, etc.,
• new Bibles and Canon Law,
• involvement with non-Catholics,
• new orientations-world “justice,” “peace,” …
• laymen doing what priests did, …
• The New Mass (Novus Ordo Missae)

1. Yes, there are many ways to Jesus. Some people are born into Christian communities, others are baptized on their death beds, and there is every other possible path imaginable inbetween those two extremes.

1. What, pray tell, is the “Modern world”? Are we speaking of the people, places, and things of this physical Earth or are we referring to the domain of the Devil, as in “the world, the flesh, and the Devil”? The former the Church should embrace – not as lovers, but as a Mother would embrace a child, as one might embrace the Prodigal, the abandoned, those who languish amidst suffering. The latter the Church cannot embrace, and will not embrace, for the world stands for all that is opposed to the Kingdom of God. As the Church is the most visible representation of that Kingdom, the world is its very antithesis, and a house divided cannot stand. Certain elements of the Church have in the past and will in the future choose to love the world more than their God, but the Church as a whole will not, “for the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
2. While some may wish that to be the case, I see no evidence of it. It is true, however, that unlike the other monarchies of the world, all the subjects of this Kingdom are heirs of the King. We are all, so to speak, royalty. Authority is clearly top-down, but everyone must live in manner befitting to sons and daughters of the King.
3. Rather, all men have a responsibility to seek and love the truth. We, however, already know the Name of Him who is the Truth, and we know the name of his Church. The agnostic may wonder if the Truth is found in Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity; we can tell him, for we no longer have to wonder – We have found him.
4. Compromised? Perhaps instead, speaking the truth about Mother Mary in a way that others can understand without having an advanced degree in Catholic-ese. It does no good to preach the Gospel in a language that the hearers do not understand.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think this clearly defines the “New Dogma” introduced at this pastoral Council.

WHAT THE COUNCIL MANDATED

Canon 844, 4 allows the administration of penance, anointing of the sick, and even holy communion to non-Catholics who manifest “Catholic faith” in these sacraments.

**This used to be considered a mortal sin and was gravely forbidden (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 731, 21) because it implicitly denies the dogma, “Outside the Church, no salvation” . **

This is the exact point that WanderAimlessly made. Once again.

WanderAimlessly:

Both ends of the spectrum have problems with separating disciplines from dogmas
Radical Traditionalists (RadTrads) elevate disciplines to the level of dogma, while Radical Modernists (Mod Squad) lower dogmas to the level of disciplines.

Canon Law is discipline not dogma.

Discipline can and does change, dogma does not.

 

[rwoehmke]

Hey Lil Doggie, give me a break. Bulldogs don’t know when to let go either. We can talk, talk, talk, but Vatican II isn’t going to go away. Vatican I didn’t either but the Old Catholics finally did. As my daughter says to me,“Suck it up Dad, and get back to living.”

 

[BulldogCath]

MAN’S “DIGNITY” RESULTS FROM THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST

The Council says a great deal about the “dignity” of man which is said to originate in "man’s call to communion with God” The Council also tells us that “Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us to dignity beyond compare. For, by His Incarnation… the Son of God, in a certain way united Himself with each man”(Gaudium et Spes). John Paul discusses this in his encyclical *Redemptor Hominis. “we are dealing”, he says, “with ‘each’ man, for each one is included in the mystery or Redemption, and with each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery.” Again, in a speech given in 1981 he states that "from now on and always, without regret and without turning back, God shall be with all mankind, becoming one with it, to save it and to give it His Son, the Redeemer… For all time, the Incarnation bestows upon man his unique, extraordinary and ineffable dignity… Man redeemed by Christ, and… to each man without any exception whatever _ Christ is in a way united, *even when man is unaware of it.” He repeats this in his Christmas message for 1980: “Man was taken up by God as son in this Son of God becoming man… in this Son we are all made new to ourselves.” He repeated the same message in a General Audience in 1981: “From now on, and always… God shall be with all mankind, becoming one with it to save it… for all time the Incarnation bestows upon man his unique, extraordinary and ineffable dignity” (General Audience March 25, 1981).

Now the traditional Church teaches that man, despite the fact that he is made in the image of God, is in a fallen state. Hence it follows that his true dignity lies in his conforming to that image. Man, being free is capable of cooperating with grace or rejecting it; capable of being raised to the dignity of the sons of God or remaining in his fallen state destined to perdition. Sin is never dignified. It also teaches that Christ is primarily and principally the head of those who are united to him in act, whether by glory in heaven, or by charity, or at least by faith, on earth. Christ is also the Head of those who are united to Him potentially _that is, who have the real possibility of converting to Him.

In this latter category fall the non-believers, who, as long as they are alive, are able to acquiesce freely to the grace received from Christ. St. Thomas Aquinas said with regard to those who do not convert to Christ during their lives: “as soon as they leave this world, they cease totally to be members or Christ”. So it is not the sole fact of the Incarnation that unites all mankind to Christ _ rather, each man must freely adhere to the Grace of Christ. To the best of my knowledge neither Vatican II nor John Paul II make any mention of the need for personal conversion as the sine qua non for this claim to dignity.

 

[BulldogCath]

Living-I am living quite well

Thanks for the advice. And hey, as soon as you have a gay teacher teaching your kid in school about “Heather and her two Mommies” and “My two Dads”, just suck it up and get on with living as hey, cant do nothin about it…right?

rwoehmke:

Hey Lil Doggie, give me a break. Bulldogs don’t know when to let go either. We can talk, talk, talk, but Vatican II isn’t going to go away. Vatican I didn’t either but the Old Catholics finally did. As my daughter says to me,“Suck it up Dad, and get back to living.”

 

[rwoehmke]

Hey Buddie, hang in there. My kids are all well out of school, but if something don’t change soon we are all going to have young folks that follow that idiot from Hollywood. We will be hearing all about Rumtha and the power of Crystals. I wouldn’t waste my time fighting Vatican II with all this New Age stuff starting to inundate us. Makes a much better entertaining evening to read all these arguements than watching TV.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Shaking my head and asking myself, “Why do I bother…” :nope:

sigh

*“In light of the fact that for over 20 years the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre constantly denounced the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, as irreconcilable with orthodox Catholic doctrine, it is curious, to say the least, to discover that he himself, along with Pope Paul VI and most of the other fathers of Vatican II, was actually one of the signatories to the document.”

*Ooooooooo wanna read more? Be my guest…

home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/dignitatis.htm

Post hoc ergo propter hoc…(some of you rad trads please double check my Latin)…Lefebvre was a modernist and a liberal and anyone who supports his Society is helping to undermine and destroy the traditions of our Catholic faith.

Unless that Lefebvre signature is a Masonic forgery??? :bigyikes:

 

[bear06]

Dr. Bombay:

Shaking my head and asking myself, “Why do I bother…” :nope:

sigh

"In light of the fact that for over 20 years the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre constantly denounced the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, as irreconcilable with orthodox Catholic doctrine, it is curious, to say the least, to discover that he himself, along with Pope Paul VI and most of the other fathers of Vatican II, was actually one of the signatories to the document."

Ooooooooo wanna read more? Be my guest…

home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/dignitatis.htm

Post hoc ergo propter hoc…(some of you rad trads please double check my Latin)…Lefebvre was a modernist and a liberal and anyone who supports his Society is helping to undermine and destroy the traditions of our Catholic faith.

Unless that Lefebvre signature is a Masonic forgery??? :bigyikes:

Well, Lefebvre did change his mind - alot…

 

[Dr.Bombay]

bear06:

Well, Lefebvre did change his mind - alot…

Typical liberal…always flitting from one grand Utopian idea to the next…

 

[HagiaSophia]

Just a blurb to say that post #40 was never answered and I thought perhaps it was just “lost” in the rest of the thread…

 

[HagiaSophia]

MAN’S “DIGNITY” RESULTS FROM THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST

The Council says a great deal about the “dignity” of man which is said to originate in "man’s call to communion with God”… To the best of my knowledge neither Vatican II nor John Paul II make any mention of the need for personal conversion as the sine qua non for this claim to dignity.

May I enquire - is this your original writing or is it from one of the "restoration’ sites? I ask because I saw no url provided to the original writer of the material if it is not yourself.

 

[TNT]

HagiaSophia:

May I enquire - is this your original writing or** is it from one of the "restoration’ sites?** I ask because I saw no url provided to the original writer of the material if it is not yourself.

RE:

Originally Posted by BulldogCath
MAN’S “DIGNITY” RESULTS FROM THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST

If it was, or not…Would you agree or disagree with it ?
Even before you knew the source?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Could someone give me info on this Lefebvre being a liberal stuff.

It just doesnt sound right. From what I have read he did whatever he had to trying “save” the TLM and the “trash” that was going to infect the Church. I wrote a letter to sspx about Lefevre, but I didnt get a reply, I might have got them mad. My beef with him was when he blatantly started ordaining people knowing full well that he shouldnt have been, on the site they dance around the issue with leagal junk, but it doesnt work. I dont see Lefebvre as a bad guy, in fact I admired a lot that he did, I just didnt like the ordaining stuff.

 

[bear06]

Catholic Dude:

Could someone give me info on this Lefebvre being a liberal stuff.

It just doesnt sound right. From what I have read he did whatever he had to trying “save” the TLM and the “trash” that was going to infect the Church. I wrote a letter to sspx about Lefevre, but I didnt get a reply, I might have got them mad. My beef with him was when he blatantly started ordaining people knowing full well that he shouldnt have been, on the site they dance around the issue with leagal junk, but it doesnt work. I dont see Lefebvre as a bad guy, in fact I admired a lot that he did, I just didnt like the ordaining stuff.

We’re being sarcastic. Sorry. Basically, the rad-Trads and the liberals are two sides to the same coin and often use the same tactics. It’s all about their own private interpretations of the Church’s teachings.