Vatican II

[TradCatholic12]

How do the different traditionalist societies in the Church view Vatican II. For instance, does the Fraternity of Saint Peter say that one does not need to agree with the documents because it was pastoral, or do they need to agree with the documents? What about the Institute of Christ the King? Thanks.

 

[Joe17]

Hello,

The FSSP and ICK must give their assent to what Vatican II teaches and accept the New Mass as valid and licit. Concerning pastoral or dogmatic, that is a play on words. What VII taught concerning ecumenism and interfaith movements was condemned by previous Church teaching, particularly Mortalium Animus. That there is enough to disregard Vatican II. Religous liberty is another reason. Also, the subsist in factor touches doctrine. Doctrine never changes. It is either always true, or it has never been true.

Sounding like a broken record, I suggest you visit [christorchaos.com](http://christorchaos.com)  for an almost daily analysis of the problems in the Church and the recent going ons.  Also, I recommend "Tumultuous Times" by the Radecki brothers which is chock full of  what has happened since VII with statistics and sources to back them up.  With everything in life, we should be consistent, especially when it comes to the Faith and truth.  Either VII is Catholic, or it is not.  If it isn't, then don't associate with it.  Please pray for me, and I will pray for you.

Joe

 

[TradCatholic12]

There is different types of assent though. It can range from respect all the way to assent of faith. What does the Fraternity and Institute believe about Vatican II?

 

[kleary]

How do the different traditionalist societies in the Church view Vatican II. For instance, does the Fraternity of Saint Peter say that one does not need to agree with the documents because it was pastoral, or do they need to agree with the documents? What about the Institute of Christ the King? Thanks.

Vatican II MUST line up with all other previous Ecumenical Councils. It must not dissagree with one of them in matters of the Catholic Faith.

If you believe that Vatican II changed Church teaching you are misinterpreting Vatican II. Remember Archbishop Lefebvre also signed the documents of Vatican II. You MUST interpert the documents of Vatican II in line with Sacred Tradition…if you come at odds with previous teaching in Vatican II - then that teaching needs to be rejected (the document is not being interpreted correctly).

As a member of a “traditionalist” parish I must believe that Vatican II was a valid ecumenical council of the Catholic Church- of which no dogmas necessary for Catholics to believe were made- which is the plain old truth of the matter.

Ken

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

My FSSP priest once told me we only “have to accept” the two dogmatic constitutions of the council. I suspect because of the setting that he wasn’t trying to say the other documents weren’t part of the Magisterium of the council but that he was trying to point out which documents were trying to teach in an authoritative manner.

The proper obedience owed to the council is the religious submission of mind and will owed to the rest of the ordinary Magisterium - we ought to defer to it, and can’t reject it without cause, but if something seems not to fit with the previous (and longer) ordinary Magisterium we are free to raise questions as to whether element X is contradictory and thus perhaps incorrect. Note: I’m not trying to assert that any particular element is contradictory with what went before (after careful examination), but seeing as how Paul VI made it clear that the extraordinary Magisterium was never employed, we must be clear that the council does not demand that sort of acceptance/obedience.

 

[cam100]

How do the different traditionalist societies in the Church view Vatican II. For instance, does the Fraternity of Saint Peter say that one does not need to agree with the documents because it was pastoral, or do they need to agree with the documents? What about the Institute of Christ the King? Thanks.

As far as I know, neither society has an “official viewpoint” on Vatican II except that they both accept it as an Ecumenical Council of the Church. Both societies are in full communion with the Catholic Church. However, I think you will find a range of opinions within the individual members of the societies. So, depending upon whom you ask with each society, you will get a different answer regarding their viewpoint on Vatican II.

 

[cam100]

Sounding like a broken record, I suggest you visit [christorchaos.com](http://christorchaos.com)  for an almost daily analysis of the problems in the Church and the recent going ons.  Also, I recommend "Tumultuous Times" by the Radecki brothers which is chock full of  what has happened since VII with statistics and sources to back them up.

The owner of that site is a sedevacantist, that is, he believes that the answer to the problems within the Church is just to claim that all recent popes are imposters and not true popes. This also eliminates most of the hierarchy of the Church. I would avoid getting information on the Church from this site, as it is colored by this false assumption.

The book Tumultuous Times was also written to promote sedevacantism. The first part has a pretty good history of the various Church councils over the ages, but I would not recommend the book because it is steeped in sedevacantism.