Vatican II : Pope Paul VI's vision VS Pope Benedict XVI's

[Marsha_Adams]

. . . once our priest said that we must look to the altar and not the Tabernacle for adoration and i heard others say to look to the Tabernacle for adoration. which is it? this is all confusing to Catholics.

Just as the laity has been very poorly catechized since Vatican II, the priesthood for many years was also very poorly catechized. Both views you reference (look to the altar/look to the tabernacle) are wrong. You look to the Eucharist for adoration. If Jesus is in the tabernacle look there, if Jesus is on the altar look there - particularly at the point in the Mass when the host and cup are elevated, if Jesus is in the monstrance on the altar look there.

If Catholics are confused about anything they must study the matter out for themselves. Start with the Catechism, then move on to the Church documents and the Encyclicals. A friend of mine was going to the archdiocese two year class for becoming a certified director of religious education. For the first year, she would come home after every class and say to her husband, "Do we believe . . . " He would jump up grab the Catechism and say, “No that is not what the Church teaches, this is what we believe . . .” and he would show her in the Catechism. My boss (in a neighboring diocese) told me the same thing happened with his wife when she was taking classes on religious education. She taught English at a Catholic school and also had to take on some of the religion classes so she needed further education. She would come home and ask him, “Do we believe . . .” Yes there is confusion out there, so we must search the truth for ourselves.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Vatican II was an infallible council, called by Pope John XXIII. He felt the council was needed. Are you going to now say you know more than one of our Holy Fathers?

As the poster who replied to you said…
Where did I deny anything?

As he said, Vatican II put forth no new dogma. Everything that was true the year before the Council was true the year after the Council. Faith and morals have not, and cannot, change.

I do not know more than our Holy Father, nor any of his predecessors.

So, I will await for the following from you:

1. Proof that I denied the Second Vatican Council
2. Proof that I said I knew more than Pope John XXIII
3. An apology for you having put words in my mouth.

I’ll await your response.

Christus resurrexit!

 

[CWBetts]

You insinuated that abuses are the fault of the council. Therefore, Enough said. No apology needed.

 

[pnewton]

The Church is always relevant to the world.

Sometimes, though, the world might not be relevant to the Church.

I see this type of agrument as nothing more than semantical. No one believes that the Church should ignore what is happening in the world and fail to respond to it. At one time the expansion of the Church required Latin be adopted in the Mass to replace original biblical languages. At another, the Protestant Reformation required a response to many changes, including a codification of the Mass. These are was the Church related to affairs in the world. Yes, any ambassador must be able to speak the language and communicate with the people in a foreign land. The Church is in the world and this is not our home. We are ambassadors in a strange land and need to communicate and in both the language and the culture where we live.

 

[JaMc]

Vatican II was not an infallible council. It was a pastoral not a dogmatic council. No doctrines were issued at Vatican II. The directives that were issued being pastoral could be modified or even reversed, without doing damage to the Doctrine of Infallibility.

Now by saying that I am not disputing any of the pastoral directives that resulted from the counsel. I am merely saying that we need to be correct in the language we use about the Council.

I agree. I am unaware of anything from the VII documents which state “If one does/doesn’t believe X, let him be anathema.” Given the changes at Vatican II to the liturgy codified at Trent, either Trent was not infallible, or Vatican II was not infallible. If all councils are “infallible,” then that would be impossible.

The thing I see with Vatican II, is that it is one of those things that looks great “on paper,” and, to a group of bishops and cardinals in Rome, likely seemed like a great idea at the time. However, in practice, there have been a multitude of additional problems which have arisen, which have eclipsed any alleged “problems” which it was intended to correct.

So, to stay on topic, I don’t think there really is much of a difference between Paul VI and BXVI’s vision of Vatican II so much as BXVI has seen what has gone wrong after ~40 years of practice, and sees what changes are necessary to bring things back to where they were supposed to be. Who knows - maybe that internet rumour about the “Missal of Benedict XVI” may turn out to be true someday, and we may get a better, more reverent, OF, and an EF which is once again “alive,” with gradual adjustments that have taken place over the last 500+ years, rather than being “frozen in time” at 1962 (how wonderful it would be to celebrate the Feast of St. Padre Pio at the form of the Mass Padre Pio celebrated himself!)

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

You insinuated that abuses are the fault of the council. Therefore, Enough said. No apology needed.

What I said:

The Church is always relevant to the world.

Sometimes, though, the world might not be relevant to the Church.

In addition, there was/is nothing wrong with the Church that would need to be “updated” or any such foolish business like that.

The Church, by her divine nature, is always relevant to mankind. Man needs Her.

End quote.

Where did I insinuate the abuses were from the Council? Where in my words did you read that? Stop pushing your agenda, and seeing that which you want to see.

Maybe you should start by backing up your allegations and accusations, instead of flinging them about.

 

[diggerdomer]

Vatican II was not an infallible council. It was a pastoral not a dogmatic council. No doctrines were issued at Vatican II. The directives that were issued being pastoral could be modified or even reversed, without doing damage to the Doctrine of Infallibility.

Now by saying that I am not disputing any of the pastoral directives that resulted from the counsel. I am merely saying that we need to be correct in the language we use about the Council.

I wasn’t aware that there were different kinds of ecumenical councils. How does one know if an ecumenical council is infallible or not? I’ve never heard of the Church using such terminology to distinguish between ecumenical councils.

Thanks for any help. I’d really like to know more about what the Church teaches on this.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

I wasn’t aware that there were different kinds of ecumenical councils. How does one know if an ecumenical council is infallible or not? I’ve never heard of the Church using such terminology to distinguish between ecumenical councils.

Thanks for any help. I’d really like to know more about what the Church teaches on this.

I can’t really help you there. My guess would be if the Council results in the issuance of new dogma then it is dogmatic and infallible. I said what I did because I have read many Bishops, Cardinals and theologians who said V2 was pastoral not dogmatic, and I figured they must know what they were talking about.

 

[diggerdomer]

I can’t really help you there. My guess would be if the Council results in the issuance of new dogma then it is dogmatic and infallible. I said what I did because I have read many Bishops, Cardinals and theologians who said V2 was pastoral not dogmatic, and I figured they must know what they were talking about.

Oh.

I agree, I’ve often heard Vatican II referred to as a “pastoral” Council. I just don’t think that has anything to do with whether it’s infallible or not; it’s an ecumenical Council like all the rest, regardless of whether one describes it further as pastoral, or dogmatic, or whatever. At least, that’s how I think of it. Again, I’m just not aware of any way that the Church distinguishes between ecumenical councils, formally, apart from their being ecumenical and having the teaching authority that goes along with being ecumenical.

Thanks for responding.

 

[Ockham]

Aims and spirit of Vatican II

John XXIII wanted a pastoral Council and one of renovation. This thought of his was by some people interpreted a distorted and limited sense.

In his first encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram, June 29, 1959, he stressed that the Council was meant primarily to promote the increasing of the faith, the renewal of traditions, and the updating of ecclesiastic discipline.

This would have constituted a spectacle of truth, unity and charity, and it would have been for the separated brothers an invitation to the unity wanted by Christ(9).

In the meeting of the antipreparatory commission, on June 30, 1959, the Pope repeated: “The Council is convoked, first of all because the Catholic Church …] proposes to attain new vigor for its divine mission. Perennially faithful to the sacred principles on which it stands and to the immutable doctrine entrusted by the Divine Founder, the Church …] always following the footprints of ancient tradition, intends …] to strengthen life and cohesion in the face of the many daily contingencies and situations, and it will establish efficient norms of conduct and activity. Therefore, in front of the whole world, it will appear in its splendor.”

The Pope, therefore elevated the prayer to the Lord, so that in front of the new bubbling of fervor and of works in the Catholic Church, even the separated brothers would feel a new call to unity(10).

The word **“pastoral,” **in the mind of the Pope, did not restrict itself to something practical, separated from doctrine: it is inconceivable to have pastoral without doctrine, which is the first foundation.

Ignorance, contempt, and disownment of truth are the cause and the root of all evil, which disturbs individuals and populations.

vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-21_en.html

Here’s a brief summary of the 21 Ecumenical Councils. Most people know the Gospels were affirmed at the first council of Nicea, veneration of images at the second, Trent codified the Mass, and papal infallibility became doctrine at Vatican I. It’s interesting that New Advent doesn’t have any description of what happened at Vatican II.

newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

Here’s another summary again with nothing to say about V2:
piar.hu/councils/

In a 22 December 2005 speech to the Roman Curia, Pope Benedict XVI decried those who interpreted the documents of the Council in terms of “discontinuity and rupture”. The proper interpretation, he said, is that proposed at the start and at the close of the Council by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. On opening the Council, Pope John XXIII stated that the Council intended “to transmit the doctrine pure and entire, without diminution or distortion”, adding: “It is our duty not only to guard this precious treasure, as if interested only in antiquity, but also to devote ourselves readily and fearlessly to the work our age requires. … This sure unchangeable doctrine, which must be faithfully respected, has to be studied in depth and presented in a way that fits the requirements of our time. For the deposit of the faith, that is, the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, is one thing, and the way in which they are enunciated, while still preserving the same meaning and fullness, is another.” After thus quoting his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI then declared: “Wherever this interpretation has guided reception of the Council, new life has grown and new fruit has ripened. … Today we see that the good seed, though slow in developing, is nonetheless growing, and our profound gratitude for the Council’s work is growing likewise.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

 

[diggerdomer]

Here’s a brief summary of the 21 Ecumenical Councils. Most people know the Gospels were affirmed at the first council of Nicea,

I don’t think the first Council of Nicaea had anything to do with the Gospels. The link didn’t indicate any either. It’s most famously known for addressing the Arian heresy.

 

[diggerdomer]

It’s interesting that New Advent doesn’t have any description of what happened at Vatican II.

newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

Oops…forgot to also note…it’s interesting but not at all surprising that the New Advent site doesn’t’ describe Vatican II, it’s quoting the old Catholic Encyclopedia from 1917 (I think that’s the right year…or 1913…whatever). Vatican II hadn’t happened yet so of course there’s no text to put there.