D
DavidJoseph
Guest
No you’re not free to reject it. Traditional Catholics who reject Vatican II are just another type of cafeteria Catholic.
- Status
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
So you’re saying I’m a cafeteria Catholic? If you say so.
What place do you have to tell me what I can and cannot reject?
A
anthony022071
Guest
JMJ Coder,
The only thing really wrong with Vatican 2 is its collectivist,busy-body,over-reaching,overly optimistic approach to social justice,as in Gaudiem et Spes. Pope Benedict has criticized this document for those reasons. Parts of it are poorly-written because the writers were trying to describe all the new circumstances and conditions of the modern world,such as economic globalism,and improvements in technology and communications. The bishops were biting off more than they or anyone else could chew,and they were influenced by the example of the United Nations and by socialism. Many bishops still think along those lines.
The only thing really wrong with Vatican 2 is its collectivist,busy-body,over-reaching,overly optimistic approach to social justice,as in Gaudiem et Spes. Pope Benedict has criticized this document for those reasons. Parts of it are poorly-written because the writers were trying to describe all the new circumstances and conditions of the modern world,such as economic globalism,and improvements in technology and communications. The bishops were biting off more than they or anyone else could chew,and they were influenced by the example of the United Nations and by socialism. Many bishops still think along those lines.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
I’m just repeating what the Church says. Don’t shoot the messenger.So you’re saying I’m a cafeteria Catholic? If you say so.
What place do you have to tell me what I can and cannot reject?
"You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application" (Pope Paul VI in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, Nov. 10, 1976).
And Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became pope, said the following in “The Ratzinger Report”:**
“It is … impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that uph olds 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**” (28-29).
"There is no ‘pre’ or ‘post’ conciliar Church; there is but one, unique Church that walks the path toward the Lord, ever deepening and ever better understanding the treasure of faith that he himself has entrusted to her. There are no leaps in this history, there are no fractures, and there is no break in continuity** . . . " (35).
**By the way, didn’t I read in a previous thread that you attend FSSP Masses? You know that the FSSP and other approved Latin Mass orders accept Vatican II, right? So why do you attend FSSP Masses when your beliefs and opinions are more in line with the SSPX? Just curious.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
How is the social doctrine of Vatican II more of what you describe than the social papal documents before the Council, particularly Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum?
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
You can accept or reject whatever you want – you have a free will. However, I think he is trying to say that a Catholic rejecting Vatican II would be in essentially the same boat as one rejecting any other doctrine (such as the Eucharist).So you’re saying I’m a cafeteria Catholic? If you say so.
What place do you have to tell me what I can and cannot reject?
A
anthony022071
Guest
The emphasis of Vatican 2 and since then is upon collective or social responsibility and action,and upon the responsibility of governments to ensure the personal welfare of people. Social or collective responsibility means in practice that we are all supposed to participate in a collective effort to do good and that society delegates to the government the responsibility of caring for the poor and needy,and rations out wealth and resources. This is not what God commanded us to do. This is a socialist way of thinking. It smothers the individual under the collective will or the govermnent. It heaps unnecessary burdens upon people. The commandments are aimed at us as individuals,not as a collective will. And we sin as individuals,not as a collective will. We live and act as individuals,not as a society. Modern Catholic thinking on social justice does not do justice to our God-given free will and to personal responsibility and to original sin.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
this is not a correct statement. the Traditions of the Church are being held by the Traditional Catholics while the liberals of the VII are in their continuously attempt to destroy the Catholic Faith. you should be greatfull to them for their sufferings in fighting the liberals for the Church. have you read St Catherine of Siena. i intend to buy the new book by fr. thomas Mcdermott. she is a great example for us today. the VII people became happily worldly and no longer understand the power of the devil against the Church. i know i live around these people and every sunday something has changed in teh Mass, one never knows what is going to happen from one sunday to another.
after VII, the Churches were destroyed. this kind of thing has only been done by the pagans who hated the Church and now these things were being done by Catholics themselves. it was very sacrilegious if you ask me. this did not come from God. God does not have a history of destroying His own House. He builds it.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Oh I’ve read that letter from Paul VI to Archbishop LeFebvre before. Not surprising that Paul VI would want Archbishop LeFebvre to go along with it since Paul VI was in charge of the Vatican II reform. Sorry if I came off as “shooting the messenger”. I was just saying I don’t have to accept Vatican II. As I said, many Traditional Catholics don’t.
As for your question about FSSP, the reason they accept Vatican II is because they reached a compromise with Rome. They accepted both Masses although the one they will always prefer will be the TLM (well most of them). That’s why FSSP isn’t really allowed to speak negatively about the NO, whereas the SSPX will say whatever they want to about it. The reason I attend FSSP Masses is because I don’t really have an SSPX parish near me. I have one about two or two and a half hours away from me but I haven’t gotten a chance to drive that far yet. I do plan on attending that parish one Sunday very soon, though. I still approve of FSSP Masses. It’s still the Traditional Latin Mass.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Vatican II isn’t really doctrine, though.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Fantastic post!
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
But it is an Ecumenical Council. And, an Ecumenical Council bears the same infallibility as when the Pope proclaims a doctrine ‘ex cathedra’.
If the Council was only ‘pastoral’ and not dogmatic at all, then 1) there is nothing for which to say it is heretical, because heresy deals with matters of doctrine and not discipline and 2) regardless the faithful still owe the assent of obedience to all the lawful disciplinary legislation given by those in authority in the Church.
If the Council dealt with doctrinal issues for which a charge of heresy could be leveled then since it was an Ecumenical Council, it is protected by the Holy Spirit from such errors via the chrism of infallibility and thus to reject said teachings is the same as rejecting any other divinely inspired teaching (such as the Eucharist or the Immaculate Conception).
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
I just don’t think the Holy Ghost was pleased with that Council. It was more of a false Ecumenical Council. It violated doctrine and Tradition by reaching out to other religions, therefore placing it in error and probably in heresy, or atleast close to it.
G
gospel_life
Guest
No, an ecumenical council cannot be in heresy. That is Tradition and applies to ALL ecumenical councils. If Vatican II could proclaim heresy the same would be true of any other council and the traditional teaching of the Church would be nullified. You can’t be a “traditionalist” and reject the Tradition of the Church. You cannot reject an ecumenical council and be in communion with the Church. You can disagree with the prudence of disciplinary items that arise from a council, though you are still required to accept and obey them while they are in force, but you cannot reject or claim the portions that refer to doctrine to be in error.
Further, as has been pointed out before, to claim that the council is heretical is to proclaim that the Popes during and since the council who have supported it are teaching heresy. A true Pope cannot teach heresy so if they have taught heresy they cannot be true Popes. Thus, to reject the council as heretical is to reject that there is, or has been since the council, a true Pope. This is, by definition, sedevacantism which is why one cannot reject the council and be in communion with the Church. Yes, there are many traditionalists who reject the council but they are not in communion with the Church.
The poster who mentioned you just putting your fingers in your ears and singing “la la la” pretty much hit it on the head. The need to continue spouting this uninformed and incorrect understanding of the Church, mirroring the opinions expressed on the sedevacantist websites without question, destroys any credibility you might otherwise have and parodies the valid traditionalist movement you claim to support. The plain and simple truth is that one cannot claim to be in communion with the Church while simultaneously claiming that it is heretical, or that one supports the Pope while claiming that he is supporting and teaching heresy.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
I believe that BXVI is trying to fight against those in communion with the Church who are spousing heresies in the name of the Council II. being in communion with the CC does not guarantee one is not teachings heresies to Catholics. now and days, we have Catholics who support gay marriage and women priests. yet, they are still very happily in teh Church causing dissentions and advancing their false teachings, all this is against the Church’s teachings, is it not? why are they allowed to stay in communion with the Church? why are they allowed to teach their heresies within the Church while those who wants to preserve the Truth in morals and Faith are rejected? do you know why?
G
gospel_life
Guest
The fact that some in the Church may be misrepresening Church teaching does not translate to the Church teaching heresy.
And while you fail to mention it, there are as many misrepresenting things to the other side by virtue of proclaiming the Church to be in heresy or that the Vatican II documents “change” doctrine. They too are “…still very happily in teh Church causing dissentions and advancing their false teachings…”
The Church works continuously on both sides of the spectrum. The fact that such work goes on behind the scenes without our specific knowledge does not mean that it isn’t occurring. The Church may not be able to police every word spoken by every individual but it does continue to consistently proclaim its message. While there are those being misled on both sides of the Truth, the Truth is there to find for those who truly seek it.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Actually, those “Catholics” who espouse gay marriage, contraception, women priests, or any other heresy aren’t in communion with the Church either.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
i never said the Church teach heresy, did i?
this misrepresentation of the Teachings of the Church has been the norm, that is where the problem lies. the truth is this, what does VII teaches? and who is following the teachings of VII? where can we find those who are following the teachings of VII?
Example, apparently no where it says that the priest is to face the people, yet that is what we have today. where does it say that the Altars were to be destroyed, yet that is what happened.
the Latin was never to be deserted, yet there is not but just memory of it and people with aversion to the Latin language. tell me who is following the teachings of VII? where are they?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
tell that to StAnatasia, the poster on the other thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6603502#post6603502
G
gospel_life
Guest
All of those things are disciplinary matters that can be changed by the Church. The directions to do the things that are currently in practice come from several different sources. Some were in fact directed by the Vatican II documents themselves. Others were the result of the commission appointed to implement the documents. Others come from other Papal decisions, such as the decisions to allow CITH and female altar servers.
You may not find them to be prudent decisions but they are all validly approved by the Pope before promulgation and thus licit and valid. None of them are in conflict with what Vatican II said, though some may address issues not addressed during Vatican II. Being disciplinary matters however they can be changed at will by any Pope, though no Pope can bind a future Pope into continuing them.
I’m curious about where you have seen altars being destroyed though. I have never encountered any such thing. Those churches that had high altars, at least in my experience, simply added freestanding altars in front of them for celebration of the Pauline Mass. Newer churches simply never installed high altars since the TLM was not in great use outside of indult parishes. I am aware of places that removed communion rails but this is the first I have heard of altars being “destroyed”. Could you give some specific examples? I don’t think there would be anything “illegal” about doing so if the Church wanted to but I would certainly question the judgment of “destroying” such beautiful and expensive works.
By the way, I never said you claimed the Church to be teaching heresy. I simply stated that there are those here and elsewhere who do so while claiming to be faithful to the Tradition of the Church, which is an oxymoron. I will say though, as a matter of simple fact, that you are among those here who mispresents things as being “Church teachings”–as exemplified in this very post and the things you claim to be “Teachings of the Church”–and creates confusion and dissension by doing so. I tend to believe it is done simply from not knowing better rather than bad intentions, as is often the case here, but it is interesting coming from one questioning why those who misrepresent the Church’s teachings aren’t disciplined. Unfortunately in this internet age, there are a lot of people who confine themselves to questionable websites as their sole or main source of information and then quote that as if it were gospel.
- Status