Vatican II Magisterium

  • Thread starter Thread starter yosupman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will admit that a lot of “influential” people have miss-interpreted Vatican II in the last 40 years.
Can you name one Bishop, or one Pope, who has given us the “correct” interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae - Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty? It is not as though this document did not immediatly cause chaos in the Church due to its apparent contradiction to what the Popes taught prior to Vatican II.

I have never seen any Bishop attend to interpret this controversial document in line with what the Church has always taught.

And if so many of the Bishops who were present at Vatican II have misinterpreted the documents, why in the world would you expect that a layperson would interpret it “correctly”?

Actually, Rome has finally agreed to address the apparent contradictions in this document, and many other ambiguities that have come about since Vatican II,* thanks to the persistence of the SSPX.*

Rome has wanted an agreement with the SSPX for years. For the good of the Church, the SSPX said they would not sign an agreement before the Pope admitted that the old Mass was never abrogated (which Rome told them privately all alone), and clarify the apparent contradictions in the Vatican II documents. In 2007, the Pope admitted that the old Mass was never abrogated, and it is now making a comeback along with the expected good fruits; and now Rome is in doctrinal talks with the SSPX over the apparent contradictions and ambiguities in the Vatican II documents.

For those with eyes to see, God is using the SSPX to restore the Church; and that explains why the devil unleashes such hatred toward them. The same exact thing happened with St. Athanasius, who stood virtually along in defense of the truth during the Arian crisis. St. Athanasius was banned from his diocese 5 times; spent 17 years in exilse; was condemned by a council of 300 Bishops; accused of all kinds of horrible sins, such as witcraft; and excommunicated by the Pope. The saying was “Athanasius against the world”. Yet in the end he was proven right, and canonized.

**Bishop Rudolph Graber, of Regensburg: **“What happened over 1600 years ago [at the time of the Arian heresy] is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria [the patriarchal see of St. Athanasius] is today the whole universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character.” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 23)

Here’s a few quotes from St. Basil and St. Gregory who lived at the time.

St. Basil: " The danger is not confined to one Church… This evil of heresy spreads itself. The doctrines of Godliness are overturned; the rules of the Church are in confusion; the ambition of the unprincipled seizes upon places of authority; and the chief seat is now openly proposed as a reward for impiety; so that he whose blasphemies are the more shocking, is more eligible for the oversight of the people. Priestly gravity has perished; there are none left to feed the Lord’s flock with knowledge; ambitious men are ever spending, in purposes of self-indulgence and bribery, possessions which they hold in trust for the poor. The accurate observation of the canons are no more; there is no restraint upon sin. Unbelievers laugh at what they see, and the weak are unsettled; faith is doubtful, ignorance is poured over their souls, because the adulterators of the word in wickedness imitate the truth. Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship, as schools of impiety"

St. Basil: “Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer and assembled in the deserts, – a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise inform, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven”.

St. Basil: " Only one offense is now vigorously punished, an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into the deserts. The people are in lamentation… The ears of the simple are led astray, and have become accustomed to heretical profaneness. The infants of the Church are fed on the words of impiety.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus: “Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for excepting a very
few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel [the Church] by the influence of the Spirit, all temporized, differing from each other only in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle being overcome by fear, or by interests or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance”.
 
The Council of Basel/Florence is a good reference for this matter as well.
 
I have read the documents of Vatican II. Again it was peoples misinterpretation of the documents that led to the chaos. Nothing the documents goes against church teaching. As for the SSPX, they have a long way from being in communion with Rome. It is best to avoid the SSPX altogether in my opinion. I have my own beef with them, in which I will not mention here.
 
I agree with Ultima Ratio. His arguments contain logic. Some of you others are either just
provoking disagreement or are liberals in disguise. If that makes me “disagreeable” then so be it.

Have a “nice” day.
 
Ok, you are right, my typing stinks. I see Ultima, that you have a problem with DH from Vatican II. Lay it out for me, what teaching you think in this document is heretical. Then we’ll talk.

Thanks,

yosup
 
I agree with Ultima Ratio. His arguments contain logic. Some of you others are either just
provoking disagreement or are liberals in disguise. If that makes me “disagreeable” then so be it.

Have a “nice” day.
You sir are…uhhhhh.uhhhh, are… DISAGREEABLE!!! …Just joking. Corsair, what is your background. Were you raised as an SSPXr, do you attend the Fraternity of St. Peter, etc. I can’t communicate if I don’t know where you’re comming from.

I am an orthodox Catholic. I have always attended an orthodox Catholic church with reverent liturgy. Also, I have attended the Fraternity of St. Peter.

Also I am logical, but you have to be able to get through my typing errors.
 
Ok, you are right, my typing stinks. I see Ultima, that you have a problem with DH from Vatican II. Lay it out for me, what teaching you think in this document is heretical. Then we’ll talk.

Thanks,

yosup
I second that.
 
I have a question to other traditionalists out there - some traditionalists believe that since Vatican II was a “pastoral” council, that there are actual errors in the official documents.

I take the position that the the magisterium will never teach anything contrary to the deposit of faith. When the charism of infallibility is used, this to identify a truth that has always been taught.

So therefore, yes, Vatican II did not define any teachings, but authoritatively handed on what has always been taught.

It’s been mentioned that only when the Vatican II council taught something that’s been believed always and everwhere that the teaching was free from error. But in the same breath some traditionalists will say the Vatican II councl taught doctrines in conflict with the deposit of faith.

Here is an example of their logic: When the church teaches that murder is wrong, its infallible. But in the same document that church is able to teach murder is ok, and therefore that teaching is not infallible. Huhhhh?
ALL ecumenical councils are PASTORAL! That is the reason they are called. Vatican II was called because of the massive changes in the Church which began in the pontificate of Leo XIII.

In the 20th Century, the Church greatly suffered under Communism in both Eastern Europe and Asia. For example, in the 1940s, Church organization was completely overhauled in what was then Czechoslovakia. Bishops were arrested and replaced by those chosen by the Communist Party. Thousands of religious and priests were jailed, murdered, or exiled. Convents and monasteries were closed, and the teaching of the catechism was banned in schools. As a result, the Czech Republic today is the most atheistic country in Europe though it is now a democracy. This persecution was a microcosm of what occurred in other countries under communist dictatorship.

At the same time, the West was becoming permeated with a secular humanism emanating from an atheistic philosophy that had its roots in communist thought that continues to this day. By 1960, the Church in Europe and Asia had radically changed and a radical shift was taking place in the western European Church as well. Both Popes Pius XII and John XXIII understood this all too well and felt it necessary to convene an ecumenical council, which Pope John XXIII did, as he carried out the desire of his predeccesor. Paul VI was of the same opinion and decided to continue the council after the death of John XXIII. The confusion and conflicts that arose after the Council were due, in large part, to this alarming development within the Church, and had to be addressed. It was during the pontificates of John Paul II and presently Benedict XVI that the Church has finally begun a return to its traditional roots.
 
I have never seen any Bishop attend to interpret this controversial document in line with what the Church has always taught.
I don’t understand. You seem to be saying either that the Church was not teaching via the documents of Vatican II, or the Church stopped teaching then (as apparently all bishops since then have gotten something wrong?). Can you clarify? Thanks.
 
I don’t understand. You seem to be saying either that the Church was not teaching via the documents of Vatican II, or the Church stopped teaching then (as apparently all bishops since then have gotten something wrong?). Can you clarify? Thanks.
I guess he doesn’t want to clarify for us. I am just as anxious as you to here a response
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top