Vatican II Has the Same Authority as Trent (if one goes, both go)

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eilish_Maura

Guest
Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger): Vatican II Has the Same Authority as Trent (if one goes, both go)
Wednesday, April 20, 2005

It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points . . .

Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism,’ also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.

To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’ and ‘left’ alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and an abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them . . .

I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?

(The Ratzinger Report, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1985, 28-29, 31)

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/04/pope-benedict-xvi-as-cardinal.html
 
…Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . .
I think the Pope has come to see that documents of Vatican II aren’t always so clearly expressed (to say the least), and much of the authentic understanding - which must be in harmony with the past - has been tainted by an erroneous “Spirit of Vatican II”.

This can be seen in his opening the doors for some groups to examine the texts of the essays of the Council and offer critique in light of Apostolic Tradition and previous Magesterial teachings - and addressing the ambeguities of said VII documents.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
The problem is, many Catholics act like the Church started with Vatican II.

They either have no idea about Trent and the other pre-Vat II councils, or they just act that way.
 
Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger): Vatican II Has the Same Authority as Trent (if one goes, both go)
Wednesday, April 20, 2005

It must be stated…etc.
Although The Ratzinger Report was cited at the end of the excerpts, to avoid confusion it should be pointed out that the above title and date belong to the blog post you have cut and pasted from, and not to the Cardinal’s words from 23 years ago.
 
Linguistically, this statement provokes numerous questions.
Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger): Vatican II Has the Same Authority as Trent (if one goes, both go)
Wednesday, April 20, 2005

It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him,
What does “upheld” mean? Does it mean VII was legal or infallible?
and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points . . .
What about the non-decisive points? Those are the problematic ones. Places where the boundaries for the bishops regarding the liturgy are vague for example.
Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . .
I don’t even understand how a Council can "understand itself. " Is a Council sentient?

What does “clearly” mean? Are there “unclear” expressions in Vatican II? (answer: yes)
It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation.
I think the problem is the lack of clarity about what “upholding” or “deciding in favor” of Trent etc means. What constitutes “denying” Vatican II?
And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism,’ also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.
What about "non-partisan choices that are not “extreme”? Who is the arbiter of “extreme?” JPII appointed people that thought that normal practices for 1960 were suddenly “extreme.”
To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council.
From whom? The heirarchy itself has failed to defend Vatican II in light of tradition. JPII and B16 have had very different views on the implementation of Vatican II. Are they both right? Not possible. Is one right and one wrong? If so, which one?
It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’ and ‘left’ alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and an abandonment of the tradition.
Who is “we” in this?
There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience.
What does that mean?
We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow.
Not be faithful to yesterday? How can you do that and claim “tradition?”
And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them . . .
I’m sorry but there are so many loopholes and ambiguities along with subjective options. It’s impossible to figure out exactly what they mean and gain a consensus among the heirarchy. Even the Popes of Vatican II disagree.
I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II.
There is a difference between renouncing Vatican II and denouncing it because of it’s failures and lack of clarity.
In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy.
When anyone could see that Pius IX or Pius X would never have approved the ambiguity or the fallout from Vatican II, it can’t be logical to believe that approving of the Vatican II “renewal” “reform” or “springtime” as approved or allowed by the post conciliar Popes would be in line with the “true obedience” demanded from Vatican I.
But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?
The problem is the level of obedience demanded by Popes. JPII didn’t govern. He cajoled, asked, pleaded. Simultaneously, he allowed bishops to disobey him on all traditional Catholic issues.

So, the problem becomes one of disobeying the Pope by obeying the bishop that disobeys the Pope and consequently risk your faith.

This is the masterstroke of the devil by making disobedience out of obedience.
 
It has the same authority in that V2 was an ecumenical council, but no NEW doctrine was established. Since no NEW doctrine was proclaimed in V2, any confusion about Church doctrine should be looked at by referring to all previous counclis which all proclaimed and or defined doctrine. Today many create Church discipline and beliefs from the vagueness of V2 documents which have created so much grey in our Church, which was so black and white pre V2.
 
It has the same authority in that V2 was an ecumenical council, but no NEW doctrine was established. Since no NEW doctrine was proclaimed in V2, any confusion about Church doctrine should be looked at by referring to all previous counclis which all proclaimed and or defined doctrine. Today many create Church discipline and beliefs from the vagueness of V2 documents which have created so much grey in our Church, which was so black and white pre V2.
Discipline is not the same as doctrine.

If we accept that there can be changes in some of the areas called ‘beliefs’ for lack of a better term (things that do not change doctrine but may be different than earlier times in the church) we cannot reject the same kinds of changes from Vat II onward like what qualifies as a display of reverence.
 
Although The Ratzinger Report was cited at the end of the excerpts, to avoid confusion it should be pointed out that the above title and date belong to the blog post you have cut and pasted from, and not to the Cardinal’s words from 23 years ago.
But then I am not surprised. Those who hate tradition have a way of attempting to mislead the ignorant.
 
Discipline is not the same as doctrine.

If we accept that there can be changes in some of the areas called ‘beliefs’ for lack of a better term (things that do not change doctrine but may be different than earlier times in the church) we cannot reject the same kinds of changes from Vat II onward like what qualifies as a display of reverence.
The point is, there should be no change in “belief” since there was no doctrine proclaimed to substantiate it. Doctrine and beliefs are unchanged and the same since V2 was not doctrinal. If V2 helped clarify all previous councils, good for them, if not, please refer to the previous councils.
 
More depressing news for those modernists:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7227629.stm

It is totally amazing how the modernists just refuse to see.
More statistical evidence that Vatican II Council should be dumped all together.
Those who keep looking for the “new springtime” better regroup.
 
The problem is, many Catholics act like the Church started with Vatican II.
They either have no idea about Trent and the other pre-Vat II councils, or they just act that way.
The other problem is that some seem to think VII was not legitimate and has not authority and was just plain wrong.
 
More depressing news for those modernists:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7227629.stm

It is totally amazing how the modernists just refuse to see.
More statistical evidence that Vatican II Council should be dumped all together.
Those who keep looking for the “new springtime” better regroup.
I might be inclined to agree with you, but the article does not prove your point.

It shows that as a group the “members of the consecrated life” are aging rapidly, and going to God. It does not demonstrate that the shortage in vocations (thus, the imbalance of the demographics) has anything to do with Vatican Council II.

It also seemd to say that the total membership of the church declined slightly as a percentage of the worldwide population, which I found interesting.

Again, I am not sure that the blame should be placed on Vatican Council II, and I am not convinced that dumping the Council (as if that were a possibility) would reverse these trends.

Peace and all good things,
Michael
 
I might be inclined to agree with you, but the article does not prove your point.

It shows that as a group the “members of the consecrated life” are aging rapidly, and going to God. It does not demonstrate that the shortage in vocations (thus, the imbalance of the demographics) has anything to do with Vatican Council II.

It also seemd to say that the total membership of the church declined slightly as a percentage of the worldwide population, which I found interesting.

Again, I am not sure that the blame should be placed on Vatican Council II, and I am not convinced that dumping the Council (as if that were a possibility) would reverse these trends.

Peace and all good things,
Michael
If you study statistics it is quite evident that the problems in the church today are a direct cause of the abrupt changes that happened after Vatican II and the introduction of the new mass. However, I will add that modernism and its revolutionary ideas began seeping into the church long before…in fact, it began with the French Revolution.
 
More depressing news for those modernists:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7227629.stm

It is totally amazing how the modernists just refuse to see.
More statistical evidence that Vatican II Council should be dumped all together.
Those who keep looking for the “new springtime” better regroup.
Uh, if we’re going to look at stats then we’d have to dump Trent too. People still left the church and there were no mass returns. We don’t dump councils when they fail (and I’m not actually sayng that it’s failed) to achieve their goals within a set amount of time. In fact, the councils, themselves, don’t set timelines. We’d have to dump a whole lot of councils if we were going to use your criteria.
 
It has the same authority in that V2 was an ecumenical council, but no NEW doctrine was established. Since no NEW doctrine was proclaimed in V2, any confusion about Church doctrine should be looked at by referring to all previous counclis which all proclaimed and or defined doctrine. Today many create Church discipline and beliefs from the vagueness of V2 documents which have created so much grey in our Church, which was so black and white pre V2.
Who made the argument you feel compelled to address?

Here’s a good answer on the authority of Ordinary Magisterium and VII:
catholic-legate.com/qa/v2infallible.html
 
Uh, if we’re going to look at stats then we’d have to dump Trent too. People still left the church and there were no mass returns. We don’t dump councils when they fail (and I’m not actually sayng that it’s failed) to achieve their goals within a set amount of time. In fact, the councils, themselves, don’t set timelines. We’d have to dump a whole lot of councils if we were going to use your criteria.
Vatican Council II was a pastoral council, Pope Paul VI himself declared:
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

You can and should read up a bit more on it here:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm

The Council of Trent was a dogmatic Council. Of the documents and statements there came seventeen dogmatic decrees, covering all aspects of Catholic religion.

Worth your while to read:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent#List_of_dogmatic_decrees
 
Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger): Vatican II Has the Same Authority as Trent (if one goes, both go)
Wednesday, April 20, 2005

It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points . . .

Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism,’ also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.

To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’ and ‘left’ alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and an abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them . . .

I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?

(The Ratzinger Report, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1985, 28-29, 31)

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/04/pope-benedict-xvi-as-cardinal.html
Ha, ha, ha…:ROFLMAO: The Novus Ordo parishes do not even follow “Vatican II”!

If so Latin and Gregorian Chant would remain. What we see in our parishes is NOT “Vatican II.”

Communion in the hand is NOT “Vatican II”
Lay ministers of Holy Communion is NOT “Vatican II”
Female altar servers is NOT “Vatican II”
Mass “facing the people” is NOT “Vatican II”.
Replacing the altar with the table is NOT “Vatican II”
Removing the communion rail is NOT “Vatican II”.

Ken
 
Who made the argument you feel compelled to address?

Here’s a good answer on the authority of Ordinary Magisterium and VII:
catholic-legate.com/qa/v2infallible.html
The statement posed to start the thread. Thanks for the document. With that answer, could you tell me what is new doctrine in V2? What do I have to do or believe specifically as a result of V2. This is part of the “vagueness” of V2. Dogma does not change, so what is there new again? Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top