Vatican II- Please Critique Me

[tjmiller]

We must distinguish between the formally infallible and the materially infallible. Between de jure and de facto.

 

[otm]

It seems to me that part of the issue is the underlying assumption that each and every statement of the Vatican - be it the Pope, someone at his behest, or a council - is a doctirnal statement.

Any number of statements are disciplinary, as opposed to doctrinal, and the failure to distinguish between the two leads the unwary reader down the path of condemntaion fo a council (mostly Vatican 2) as not being infallible because of contradiction (of presumed doctrinal statements).

Some times this seems to be the fault of the catechesis given to the one making the objections, prior to the time they begin their “investigation”; other times it seems to be the result of no catechesis at all.

MichellemyBelle:

If God approves something as good, such as the Traditional Roman Rite of the Sacred Liturgy in Latin, and this Rite has developed under the guidance of the Holy Ghost over centuries, then it would be impossible for God to approve of liturgical innovations which basically overthrew and condemned as “bad” what God and His Popes and Councils had approved as good. Therefore, the correct logical conclusion is that it was wrong to abandon the Traditional Roman Rite.

This seems a prime example, and an example of faulty logic. To begin with, I don’t find anywhere that the TLM was declared “bad”. that statement has not been evidenced at all. the conclusion doe not follow. The fact that something is approved as “good” does not have the logical conclusion that it is either exclusive - that is, never to be changed - nor that it is permanent. The various prayers of the Mass, including the various canons, are within the authority of the Church to modify, create, supress, or continue with. Many who go down the path of attempting to attack the Pauline riteexhibit almost zero knowledg of liturgy historically, including the fact that the TLM was not the only approved Mass within the latin or Roman rite after Trent; it is just that the others were not the universal Mass; the TLM was. Trent only supressed those which did not have a 200 year histiry at the time.

 

[Lazerlike42]

otm:

This seems a prime example, and an example of faulty logic. To begin with, I don’t find anywhere that the TLM was declared “bad”. that statement has not been evidenced at all. the conclusion doe not follow. The fact that something is approved as “good” does not have the logical conclusion that it is either exclusive - that is, never to be changed - nor that it is permanent. The various prayers of the Mass, including the various canons, are within the authority of the Church to modify, create, supress, or continue with. Many who go down the path of attempting to attack the Pauline riteexhibit almost zero knowledg of liturgy historically, including the fact that the TLM was not the only approved Mass within the latin or Roman rite after Trent; it is just that the others were not the universal Mass; the TLM was. Trent only supressed those which did not have a 200 year histiry at the time.

Precisely. Latin was not even used in the first few hundred years of the Church. In fact, many vernacular Masses were used all throughout the Church since Trent.

 

[bear06]

Any number of statements are disciplinary, as opposed to doctrinal, and the failure to distinguish between the two leads the unwary reader down the path of condemntaion fo a council (mostly Vatican 2) as not being infallible because of contradiction (of presumed doctrinal statements).

Where oh where is it said that Church discipline are not infallible? Please, once again, read the Catholic Encycopedia’s entry on Ecclesiastical Disciplines.

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

And again:

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law;

Also, you can see under Infalliblity that it’s not only doctrine but facts closely connected to doctrine are also infallible.

Besides all of this, why are we even questioning what is infallible and what is disciplinary in Vatican II. If you look in Pastor Aeternus, a Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution, you will also see that we owe our obedience** and** submission to even disciplines. ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

 

[JSmitty2005]

Lazerlike42:

Precisely. Latin was not even used in the first few hundred years of the Church. In fact, many vernacular Masses were used all throughout the Church since Trent.

For me, the problem with Vatican II has not much to do with Latin. Although I would like to see more of it, especially considering these words from Pope John XXIII:

“The Latin language, which we can truly call catholic, having been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, mother and teacher of all the churches, must be considered a treasure…of incomparable value, and a door which leads into direct contact with the Christian truths handed down by tradition and with the documents of the teaching of the Church.” (Veterum Sapienta)

My issues with V2 are mainly with the approach to other religions and religious liberty. Even when Pope Benedict was Cardinal Ratzinger, he called Gaudium et Spes a “countersyllabus” to Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors because of the direct and explicit contradiction with it. Nostrae Aetate’s approach to other religions is totally foreign to the Church’s perennial teachings and consequently, the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church has been undermined which is why there are so many neo-Pelagianists in the Church today. As for the Liturgy, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with an organic growth or development that’s in line with Tradition, because this has occured for the past 2000 years, but this council destroyed the Liturgy in an attempt to (supposedly) return to that of the early Church, but in all actuallity, it destroyed the work of the Holy Spirit in the Liturgy throughout the centuries. There was also an attempt to conform to the heretical services of Protestantism (which was admitted by a close friend of Paul VI), to make the Church more appealing to Protestants, but why would anyone want to convert to a Church that isn’t much different from their current religion?

 

[Lazerlike42]

People have a major misunderstanding here. The word ‘countersyllabus’ does not mean or imply contradiction.

 

[mosher]

There are many misunderstandings here.

I think what is important is that Vatican II is not the source of the errors that happened after the council. Correlation does not prove causation. Pius XII complained about similar abuses in his day mostly in Germanic countries. Also, we must recall that we owe our obedience (by virtue of our baptism) to the Church in all matters even proposed for belief by the Church and discipline is to be followed by the same principle. A distinction must also be made between actions of the Church and actions of a particular church meaning a particular See or even a particular parish.

This goes back to a problem that I addressed in an earlier thread concerning the fact that people wait until the Church formally speaks infallibly on things to assent to them. However, the course of Catholics should be the opposite - we give our assent and then it may later be filtered to a point that it can reach a higher level of certitude and then we gain a greater understanding of the Sacra Doctrina.

 

[MichellemyBelle]

Lazerlike42:

People have a major misunderstanding here. The word ‘countersyllabus’ does not mean or imply contradiction.

Actually it does, Lazerlike. However at this time I find many of the things you are saying to be immature, unknowledgeable, and frankly irresponsible for someone who is a Catholic. You really need to look up the word “counter” and you’ll find what you have said is completely ridiculous.

 

[MichellemyBelle]

Ma’am, I suggest you do a lot of reading. Start with the two links I provided. This is very important. Your soul is in danger here.

Sir, I expound you to do some reading on your own as well. Start with all the Councils, Papal Bulls, Encyclicals from the first Popes until now. You will see the vast difference of what is taught now versus 1,965 years previously. I fear not my soul. I fear yours, truly. Your being led down a path that is erroneous, and at this time you can no longer claim ignorance. You chose ignorance if you do not learn your faith in its totality. Your choice.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Lazerlike42:

People have a major misunderstanding here. The word ‘countersyllabus’ does not mean or imply contradiction.

What does it mean?

 

[MichellemyBelle]

mosher:

There are many misunderstandings here.

I think what is important is that Vatican II is not the source of the errors that happened after the council. Correlation does not prove causation. Pius XII complained about similar abuses in his day mostly in Germanic countries. Also, we must recall that we owe our obedience (by virtue of our baptism) to the Church in all matters even proposed for belief by the Church and discipline is to be followed by the same principle. A distinction must also be made between actions of the Church and actions of a particular church meaning a particular See or even a particular parish.

This goes back to a problem that I addressed in an earlier thread concerning the fact that people wait until the Church formally speaks infallibly on things to assent to them. However, the course of Catholics should be the opposite - we give our assent and then it may later be filtered to a point that it can reach a higher level of certitude and then we gain a greater understanding of the Sacra Doctrina.

We obedience to Christ first, and always to Him. What if the human element of the Church is incorrect? According to what I am understanding from what your saying, we must still be obedient. Please explain the Arian Heresy and how that is good to be obedient? The same can be applied to this day and age.

Your last paragraph made no sense. Your saying what? I’m not being rude I honestly do not have a clue what your saying. Sounds like a democracy, which the Church IS NOT. It is autocratic.

 

[Catholic2003]

Here is what then-Fr. Ratzinger wrote about the magisterial authority of Vatican II shortly after it closed:

The conciliar text by far surpasses the ordinary declarations of papal magisterium, including the encyclicals, regarding the nature of the theological obligation which it entails. It is a document prduced by the most intense work over many years, and it expresses the sense of its faith at which the whole church assembled in council has arrived. It has formulated this document as a profession of its Credo. … The conclusion is that it has an importance of the first rank among modern doctrinal texts, in the sense that is is a sort of central interpretation.

Translated from: La collégialité épiscopale: développement théologique

The idea that Vatican II can be ignored or dissented from by faithful Catholics is utter nonsense.

 

[otm]

bear06:

Where oh where is it said that Church discipline are not infallible? Please, once again, read the Catholic Encycopedia’s entry on Ecclesiastical Disciplines.

we may be having a difference of definition here. The rubrics of the Mass are discipline; e.g. whether you stand at a certian point or kneel is a discipline and can be changed. Sometheing that is infallible has the connotation that it cannot be changed, because otherwise the word infallible would have no meaning. The language of the Mass is a discipline, as it can be changed. Eating meat on Friday is a discipline that can be changed.

bear06:

Also, you can see under Infalliblity that it’s not only doctrine but facts closely connected to doctrine are also infallible.

One needs to distinguish what facts are closely associated with a doctrine. The poster was appearing to assume that if an issue was discussed or determined in the documents of Trent, that it was therefore doctrine. That simply is not the case; not that Trent’s documents did not make doctrinal statements, but that not all statements were doctrinal. She is going down the path that the Mass is unchangealbe. In its essence that is ture; in its particulars it is not true. My comments were not that discipline is not to be followed because it is not doctrine; but that it was not permanent and unchanging because it was not doctrine.

Besides all of this, why are we even questioning what is infallible and what is disciplinary in Vatican II. If you look in Pastor Aeternus, a Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution, you will also see that we owe our obedience** and** submission to even disciplines. ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

 

[otm]

JSmitty2005:

My issues with V2 are mainly with the approach to other religions and religious liberty. Even when Pope Benedict was Cardinal Ratzinger, he called Gaudium et Spes a “countersyllabus” to Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors because of the direct and explicit contradiction with it. Nostrae Aetate’s approach to other religions is totally foreign to the Church’s perennial teachings and consequently, the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church has been undermined which is why there are so many neo-Pelagianists in the Church today.

Not having read the Cardinal’s comments, I am not going to tilt with them. However, the word “nuance” comes to mind, and I find it hard to believe that the Church has succeeded in an official document of directly contradicting another official Church document, unless either the former was not infallible and the later was, or neither are considered to be infallible. The Gospel comments about the preservation of truth still apply. What some people consider to be a direct contradiction is all too often under scrutiny not a contradiction at all, but an expansion upon an issue.

As to neo Pelagianists, I sincerely doubt that Gaudium et Spes is the source of their confusion; much more likely it is poor catechesis repeated by the many who have never read the document to begin with. Blaming Gaudium et Spes is the wrong source.

JSmitty2005:

As for the Liturgy, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with an organic growth or development that’s in line with Tradition, because this has occured for the past 2000 years, but this council destroyed the Liturgy in an attempt to (supposedly) return to that of the early Church, but in all actuallity, it destroyed the work of the Holy Spirit in the Liturgy throughout the centuries.

You are welcome to not like the Pauline rite Mass, but to contradict the welcome use of it by the likes of John Paul 2 and Benedict 16th, not to mention hundreds of Cardinals, thousands of bishops and tens of thousands of priests is to put you fairly close to the SSPX crowd. To suggest that the liturgy was destroyed and the work of the Holy spirit was destroyed is to call allof them fools and d**ned fools.

JSmitty2005:

There was also an attempt to conform to the heretical services of Protestantism (which was admitted by a close friend of Paul VI), to make the Church more appealing to Protestants, but why would anyone want to convert to a Church that isn’t much different from their current religion?

You need to start reading some different material. I have my doubts that you have been to very many Protestant services, as the Mass of Paul 6th doesn’t even begin to look like them. Further, in its essential lines, it mirrors the TLM more closely than either of them mirror the many Masses (aka Divine Liturgies or Sacred Mysteries) of the other 22 rites of the Catholic Church. Your comment is taken, I suspect, from the materials of the likes of the SSPX crowd, as no one ever seems to be able to find the documentation to show that there is any truth whatsoever that the liturgy of the Mass or any part of it was modeled on any Protestant service. It is just another one of those constantly repeated urban legends that takes a life of its own, totally bereft of any legitimate parenthood.

 

[mosher]

MichellemyBelle:

We obedience to Christ first, and always to Him. What if the human element of the Church is incorrect? According to what I am understanding from what your saying, we must still be obedient. Please explain the Arian Heresy and how that is good to be obedient? The same can be applied to this day and age.

Your last paragraph made no sense. Your saying what? I’m not being rude I honestly do not have a clue what your saying. Sounds like a democracy, which the Church IS NOT. It is autocratic.

I wouldn’t expect you to understand it. Unfortuantelly those who find themselves outside of the Church never understands legitimate development of doctrine. It has been my experience that those who claim that obedience is held first to Christ and then to the Church do not understad the incarnate nature of the Church nor the inability of the Church to err in matters of faith and morals. Further, the argument of equating modernism to Arianism while it is a good simily lends credance to a position opposed to yours. This is because of the proof of the faithfulness of the Church even while Bishops and political figures were apart from Her. Such rantings are a view of tradition that can only be equated to the static view the protestants have of Scripture. Both are wrong and irrational.

 

[JSmitty2005]

otm:

As to neo Pelagianists, I sincerely doubt that Gaudium et Spes is the source of their confusion; much more likely it is poor catechesis repeated by the many who have never read the document to begin with. Blaming Gaudium et Spes is the wrong source.

I think that Nostrae Aetate is more of the source of it than Gaudium et Spes.

otm:

you fairly close to the SSPX crowd.

Not yet, but I’ve been seriously considering it lately.

otm:

I have my doubts that you have been to very many Protestant services, as the Mass of Paul 6th doesn’t even begin to look like them.

I’ve been to fundamentalist, methodist, and lutheran services. So, you’re right…not too many. But I do remember explicitly asking my parents why we weren’t Lutheran or why Lutherans weren’t Catholic b/c it was almost exactly the same. However, this similarity, as well as my traditionalist leanings, may be a result of having been raised in a very liberal parish. I underwent a conversion and recognized that Catholicism is True Christianity. But once I had that realization, I then sought True Catholicism and it seems hard to come by in the New Church .

otm:

Your comment is taken, I suspect, from the materials of the likes of the SSPX crowd, as no one ever seems to be able to find the documentation to show that there is any truth whatsoever that the liturgy of the Mass or any part of it was modeled on any Protestant service.

I heard that Paul VI was trying to imitate Protestant services here (it’s a video - a little less than an hour - and you need RealPlayer):

ccsg.it/radio/WWHL.ram

 

[Lazerlike42]

JSmitty2005:

Not yet, but I’ve been seriously considering it lately.

JSmitty, I have been defending you a lot today, but if you join the SSPX or go to their Masses, I think you are starting down a dangerous path.

 

[Lazerlike42]

MichellemyBelle:

http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2005/qa-oct-05.htm#Question 82

ATo begin, ALL Magisterial documents bind the faithful. To dissent from any Magisterial documents is to be in grave and possibly mortal sin.

1. But Vatican II was the 21 ecumenical council and it was the continuation of Vatican I, the 20th ecumenical council, and both were confirmed and approved by the reinging pope.

My reply:
Huh? To claim that Vatican II enjoys the infallible protection granted at Vatican I is the greatest stretch of the imagination one could hope for. If this were the case, no pope, after the first Council, would ever have had to invoke the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit. We could just “assume” God’s protection. I would grant that, had the same Bishops been in attendance at both Vatican I and II, your statement could have a more plausible reception for the more clear-thinking posters, but I think that highly unlikely.

Cardinal Ratzinget has made it clear that the faithful are bound to submission to Vatican II, as does the current code of canon law and as have every pope since. You have two choices - you may be a sedevacantist, or you may submit to the council.

Lazerlike states:
4)I think what Atila and the other critics of Vatican II need to do is accept the council in matters of faith and morals and interpret its problem areas in line with Tradition. They need to take Vatican II away from the liberals and make their own council. Wouldn’t that be a switch?! 95% of VII is unproblematic…

My reply:

This portion of the post is my personal favorite, as it is loaded with all kinds of speedy rationalism which is the last refuge of an unstable mind, and Sun’genuis’ demonstrates this aptly starting with, I think what Atila and the other critics. Now, here’s the big switch:

The Abby of Nantz did precisely what was suggested. On three occasions this Tradition-loving abbot asked none other than Ratzinger to simply ask the then reigning pope (JP2) to make a declaration from the Chair of Peter regarding the matter of the Vatican II documents. Here, it is well to note that any bishop has the right, and duty, to ask the pope for clarification when there is doubt and especially when the faith is at stake. Humbly, the good abbot asked Cardinal Ratzinger to ask this question of the pope. Ratzinger’s reply was “I lost the request”. After three attempts the abbot gave up knowing full well Ratzinger would not comply. Had he (Ratzinger) done so, the pope would have, indeed, been forced to state the truth. This couldn’t happen because the house of Novus Ordo cards would crash in on Novus Ordo heads, including yours, and what you would be faced with is the required consumption of a very large slice of humble, Novus Ordos pie.

Do you realize that the Latin Mass was once the Novus Ordo Mass?

If, as you claim, it would be detrimental to throw out Vatican II, and it will happen, then it is presupposed that there is something good about Vatican II and the documents that went forward from it. I simply ask you to demonstrate three (3) events that even the man-in-the-pew can recognize are the fruits of this Council. Again, please list three fruits of Vatican II.

1. Catholics are much more knowledgable about Scripture than before
2. Catholic apologetics has grown leaps and bounds since Vatican II. Before Vatican II, Catholics could be drawn away left and right by anti-Catholic Protestants. Now, this is far more difficult.
3. People participate in the Mass now, as opposed to not even paying attention before, chatting to one another, or falling asleep.
4. In the past, Masses were very, very frequently rushed through to such a degree that many of the words were probably not even said properly and thus many Masses were invalid. This problem no longer occurs.
5. Conversions to the Catholic Church are way, way, way up.

 

[Lazerlike42]

MichellemyBelle:

Actually it does, Lazerlike. However at this time I find many of the things you are saying to be immature, unknowledgeable, and frankly irresponsible for someone who is a Catholic. You really need to look up the word “counter” and you’ll find what you have said is completely ridiculous.

First of all, the Syllabus of Errors was not even a Magisterial document, so even if it was contradicted, it wouldn’t matter. That being said, Cardinal Ratzinger did not say thatit was contradicted.

I will quote a site you really ought to read.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or CDF) referred to the Vatican II Constitution Gaudium et Spes (GS) as a “counter-syllabus”. This reference is unfortunate, not for the truth of the statement properly understood but for the images it conjures. In the minds of those who assert the positions of the post-modernists, it confirms their presumptions, which would (if true) put the entire status of the deposit of Catholic doctrine in peril. Likewise, many well-meaning people who are at a loss to explain the problems of the Church today in a logical manner assert that the teachings of the Council or the Popes since the Council is somehow responsible for the problems we see on all levels. To them these comments by Cardinal Ratzinger about a “counter-syllabus” are often taken to mean that the Syllabus has been controverted in its teachings. Rather, the intended meaning of the Cardinal Prefect was that the condemnation of errors in the Syllabus could logically be seen as being countered by positive teaching in GS that encapsulates the elements of truth contained in the aforementioned errors. Understanding the statement in this light, the negative element of the summary condemnations complimented by the later positive and elaborated teaching encapsulating what elements of truth the previously condemned errors contained results in the climate moving from negative and reactive to positive and pro-active. GS outlined a positive agenda while the Syllabus of Errors (andQuanta Cura which accompanied it) merely condemned errors and outlined no actual agenda.

• matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html

Have you read the links I provided? Is God not worth the time to you? I do not suggest that He is, but I would point this out: I always make an effort to consider all sides in a disagreement. I have considered the statements of those opposed to Vatican II. I have also considered those in favor of it. This is what God expects of all of us. He expects us to make every effort that we know the truth. We will be held accountable one day if we turn out to have done what was wrong and did not make an effort to ensure that we were on the right path. I would suggest to you that God is giving you an opportunity here. If you truly mean to embrace the Catholicism of the past, you ought to be aware that in the past it was considered a mortal sin to speak to a person as you have spoken to me.

I also would point out that you have a problem here. On the one hand, you use Ratzinger to try to prove your point, but ignore him when he says taht all are bound to submit to Vatican II:

The conciliar text by far surpasses the ordinary declarations of papal magisterium, including the encyclicals, regarding the nature of the theological obligation which it entails. It is a document prduced by the most intense work over many years, and it expresses the sense of its faith at which the whole church assembled in council has arrived. It has formulated this document as a profession of its Credo. … The conclusion is that it has an importance of the first rank among modern doctrinal texts, in the sense that is is a sort of central interpretation.

Translated from: La collégialité épiscopale: développement théologique

 

[bear06]

we may be having a difference of definition here. The rubrics of the Mass are discipline; e.g. whether you stand at a certian point or kneel is a discipline and can be changed. Sometheing that is infallible has the connotation that it cannot be changed, because otherwise the word infallible would have no meaning. The language of the Mass is a discipline, as it can be changed. Eating meat on Friday is a discipline that can be changed.

I agree with you on what a discipline is but you need to read
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm to understand negative and positive infalliblity. Dave did a great job explaining this:itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/04/are-ecclesiastical-disciplines.html

My comments were not that discipline is not to be followed because it is not doctrine; but that it was not permanent and unchanging because it was not doctrine

I agree with you on this but whether it’s infallible is another story. Disciplines can change.