Vatican II heresy?

[DictatorCzar]

So the Vatican II made me change thoughts about Catholicism, but there’s some Catholics that don’t believe in the Vatican II and they believe it defeats the purpose of Catholicism. They even believe that the Vatican II is Heresy. Plz explain if the Vatican II is heresy or not.

 

[InTheFold]

What changed at Vatican II

Things changed with the Second Vatican Council. No one disputes that the Catholic faith remained what it has always been. The Church still teaches what the Church always taught. But the Council did not assemble 2,860 bishops to recite the catechism. The fact that the bishops commissioned the...

www.catholicregister.org

You can read the document here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

Or a summarized version here:

The documents that came out of Vatican II

There were 16 documents approved by the Second Vatican Council — four constitutions, nine decrees and three declarations.Constitutions:o The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) is about how Catholics read the Bible and the role of scholarship. Key quote: The tradition that...

www.catholicregister.org

Please try not to deal with those people in the future. It will gnaw away at your faith I you arent careful. Trust me, I used to struggle with this subject a lot.

I trust in Jesus’ promise of an indestructable Church more than some amatuer “professional theologians” Also 100% pretty please stay away from the Dimond brothers (aka Vaticancatholic.com) I’m guessing that’s probably where you heard it from (a majority do)

Just my opinion of course

 

[Roseeurekacross]

nevermind …

 

[Roguish]

@DictatorCzar When you create a new thread, there is a box to the right of where you type your text, that shows threads that are similar, right? The purpose of that is to prevent users from creating new threads for topics that have already been discussed, or are being discussed at present. The following recent thread discusses the exact same topic that you have started. Please read it.

Needing opinions on Vatician II heresy claims Moral Theology

Hey everyone! I am a protestant who has started to learn about the cathloic faith. I was really beginning to understand cathloic faith and teaching and enjoying my time. However in my research I had found some people claiming that Vatican II is heretical and that there is nobody saved who believes and follows those teachings. Now i never grew up decerning church docterin and im.not sure what to make of it. If Vatican II is heretical wouldn’t that make 99% of the cathloic church in heresy? Anybod…

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Never mind

 

[DictatorCzar]

In the Vatican II, it says that there are true churches other than the Catholic Church like the Orthodox, oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian church of the east. But some Catholics are against this and they say that the Catholic Church is the only way through salvation, not the other churches.

 

[DictatorCzar]

Not specifically sure, but a Byzantine Catholic told me.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

ok How about a little more expansion on what changed your thoughts about catholicism in VatII. Or are you going on hearsay ? On what someone told you?

 

[DictatorCzar]

I’m not going on heresy based on what someone’s tellling me. I always thought Catholic think that they were the superior church out of every single church in the world, and that they were the only true church. But based on the Vatican II, the Catholics aren’t as radical as I thought they would be, they were more conservative about uniting churches and keeping peace.

 

[Sophie111]

I wish I knew what this sentence means .

 

[otjm]

Perhaps you need to define “modernism” as you understand it. It is also interesting that you bring up the issue of believing in Vatican 2. Vatican 2 is not a matter of believing; it is a matter of changes, disciplinary in nature, which the bishops felt were needed.

One certainly can disagree with conclusions which the bishops came to. But when the great majority of bishops reach a decision, one is bordering on trying to pitch water uphill with a pitchfork.

 

[TK421]

So the Vatican II made me change thoughts about Catholicism, but there’s some Catholics that don’t believe in the Vatican II and they believe it defeats the purpose of Catholicism. They even believe that the Vatican II is Heresy. Plz explain if the Vatican II is heresy or not.

Everything said in any of the official documents of Vatican II was already being widely taught before the Council. St Francis de Sales - a man who lived 4 centuries before Vatican II - embodied almost everything contained in the Council. The documents elevated those ideas and teaching to the highest level of authority.

Ecumenical Councils by definition cannot be heretical because they are what define heresy in the first place (or a Pope speaking the Chair).

 

[Roguish]

Perhaps you need to define “mondernism” as you understand it.

Interesting question. Although you didn’t direct the question at me, I venture the answer that in the context of the present discussion modernism refers to revamping the Church to “get with the times”. In other words, modernism is the view that the Church must adapt to the world (regardless of which way the world is going).

Vatican 2 is not a matter of believing; it is a matter of changes, disciplinary in nature, which the bishops felt were needed.

I don’t think that’s a realistic assessment of what VC2 was. Redesigning the liturgy of the Mass was not a “disciplinary” change, and neither were the now most (in)famous of the VC2 documents concerned with discipline. They are documents describing the Church’s views and intents for the “coming age”, and therefore they are really “doctrinal” statements, albeit in a somewhat loose sense. Whether one subscribes to those views and intents is a matter of believing in their theological and moral correctness, their adequacy, etc., so we can hardly take the position that VC2 is “not a matter of believing”.

 

[otjm]

That is most definitely not what modernism encompasses.

The difficulty is that a number of people go around throwing out the charge that things they don’t like are either modernism, or the result of modernism. Words have meaning; when that meaning is not known, then we reduce conversations to “something I don’t like and don’t agree with”.

And the changes to the Mass were most definitely disciplinary - they were not doctrinal. Further, if one were to lay out the EF and the OF side by side, they would find there are far fewer differences than what is suggested by some who do not like the OF.

One of the greatest objections to Vatican 2 was that it did not define doctrine. It most certainly nuanced it in some instances, but the great majority of the work is disciplinary. I suggest reading them (though it is a bit tedious at times).

 

[Roguish]

And the changes to the Mass were most definitely disciplinary

Ok, otjm. It’s funny though that for all the Novus Ordo’s “disciplinary changes”, in all my life I’ve never seen anyone “disciplined” at Mass As for modernism, you asked for a definition, I made an attempt at giving one. Yours may be different.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

there’s some Catholics that don’t believe in the Vatican II and they believe it defeats the purpose of Catholicism. They even believe that the Vatican II is Heresy.

Not quite correct. I’d just like to point out that you can’t be Catholic and at the same time call Holy Mother Church heretical. These poor souls are misguided and in need of our prayers.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Only the really extreme (sedevacantists, etc.) traditionalists believe that Vatican II contains heresy in my experience. There are many others who find that there are ambiguities in the wording of some documents and in particular places in those documents, that could be interpreted as contrary to the traditional teachings of the Church.

That’s just my observation.

 

[Rozellelily]

Most Catholics believe that the Pope is guided (on certain matters) by the Holy Spirit so there can be no heresy.
The Catholic Churches teachings ‘build on one another’ and are relevant to each generation but the fundamentals never themselves change.

 

[commenter]

The Catholic Church recognizes the EO and perhaps certain others in the East as Churches.

The Catholic Church at Vatican 2 DID recognize Protestant groups as Ecclesial Communities (not churches). This is new from the council.

Blockquote

 

[commenter]

Other than the the document on Liturgy, documents mostly reflect changes that had been taking place already. Some laity had already been far more active by the 1950s, so a document recognized and tried to guide that.

Convents already were in process of renewal, so a doc tried to guide that. Catholics were already using TV and radio. Do you think broadcasting was adequately covered in the council of Trent?

Since WWII, Catholics had been involved informally with Ecumenical contacts, and were already discussing the need to oppose antisemitism, partly as a result of Hitler. So some new docs were needed to help direct or formalize the Church’s response. The docs on Catholic Education, Priests, and so on took into account existing trends and tried to influence them in light of Church teaching.