Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter Missa_Solemnis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Missa_Solemnis

Guest
Does anyone here think that Vatican II should be forgotten as a Council of the Church?

Or any of these other options:

(I wouldve made a poll but im afraid I dont know how to)
  1. Vatican II reversed in a Vatican III Council.
  2. Vatican II researched and implemented correctly among parishes.
  3. Vatican II kept but the “Spirit of Vatican II” reformed.
  4. Vatican II kept but some products of it reformed and/or removed e.g the Pauline Mass, EMHC’s, female altar servers. etc.(if number 4 is chosen please specify)
What do you think?

Oh and if anyone could tell me in their post how to make a poll that would be helpful.
 
Missa_Solemnis said:
Does anyone here think that Vatican II should be forgotten as a Council of the Church?

Or any of these other options:

(I wouldve made a poll but im afraid I dont know how to)
  1. Vatican II reversed in a Vatican III Council.
  2. Vatican II researched and implemented correctly among parishes.
  3. Vatican II kept but the “Spirit of Vatican II” reformed.
  4. Vatican II kept but some products of it reformed and/or removed e.g the Pauline Mass, EMHC’s, female altar servers. etc.(if number 4 is chosen please specify)
What do you think?

Oh and if anyone could tell me in their post how to make a poll that would be helpful.
Click to expand...
How can we “forget” an ecumenical council of the Church? That’s like saying God dropped the ball at Vatican II. I think #2 is what we need to do. Much of the “reform” that has taken place in the name of Vatican II was never authorized or envisioned by Vatican II. Maybe it will take another Council to sort the mess out, I don’t know, but I don’t think Vatican II itself is the problem.
 
Veritas41 said:
How can we “forget” an ecumenical council of the Church? That’s like saying God dropped the ball at Vatican II. I think #2 is what we need to do. Much of the “reform” that has taken place in the name of Vatican II was never authorized or envisioned by Vatican II. Maybe it will take another Council to sort the mess out, I don’t know, but I don’t think Vatican II itself is the problem.
Click to expand...
Well it was a pastoral council…so its only binding while the Church choses to implement it.

But thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!
 
Missa_Solemnis said:
Well it was a pastoral council…so its only binding while the Church choses to implement it.

But thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!
Click to expand...
Pax tecum!

That’s not true at all. Vatican II was an ecumenical Church council.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Missa_Solemnis said:
Does anyone here think that Vatican II should be forgotten as a Council of the Church?

Or any of these other options:

(I wouldve made a poll but im afraid I dont know how to)
  1. Vatican II reversed in a Vatican III Council.
  2. Vatican II researched and implemented correctly among parishes.
  3. Vatican II kept but the “Spirit of Vatican II” reformed.
  4. Vatican II kept but some products of it reformed and/or removed e.g the Pauline Mass, EMHC’s, female altar servers. etc.(if number 4 is chosen please specify)
What do you think?

Oh and if anyone could tell me in their post how to make a poll that would be helpful.
Click to expand...
Vatican II was great. Have you read the actual documents?

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax tecum!

That’s not true at all. Vatican II was an ecumenical Church council.

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
Vatican II was a pastoral council by nature. It did not proclaim anything infallibly nor was it a council that dealt with the Church as a whole but rather certain aspects of certain rites.
 
At least one council has been declared invalid in the past (and now I can’t rembmer which one), but I don’t think that will happen with Vatican II. The big issue with that one, IMO, is unworthy impementation, especially in the area of worship and the sacraments. But my experience of the church in the US (which may not be that of other people) was that it was just as bad before the Council; the defects were just better hidden in some respects. “Tis the Month of Our Mother” is not a better hymn than “On Eagle’s Wings,” and genuflecting after you’ve just been kneeling for communion not a sounder practice than hardly kneeling or genuflecting at all.
 
Dear Missa,

In reviewing the options, it seems rather biased to the negative. After reading your profile, it is somewhat easy to figure where you want to take this thread.

Suppose I were to tell you that I uphold everything the Vatican II Counci teaches? (An option omitted from your poll) Then what? A profusion of “Extremist, Radical, Papist, Ultra-Conservative Roman Catholic” rebuttals from a *“scary Fire and Brimstone Catholic?” * (From your profile)

Since you did not include this as an option, this tells me you assume all others agree with the options you printed, and that no one else would ever pick one that agrees with the Council. You would be wrong.
 
Missa_Solemnis said:
Does anyone here think that Vatican II should be forgotten as a Council of the Church?

Or any of these other options:

(I wouldve made a poll but im afraid I dont know how to)
  1. Vatican II reversed in a Vatican III Council.
  2. Vatican II researched and implemented correctly among parishes.
  3. Vatican II kept but the “Spirit of Vatican II” reformed.
  4. Vatican II kept but some products of it reformed and/or removed e.g the Pauline Mass, EMHC’s, female altar servers. etc.(if number 4 is chosen please specify)
What do you think?

Oh and if anyone could tell me in their post how to make a poll that would be helpful.
Click to expand...
  1. Vatican II reversed in a Vatican III Council.
Absolutly not.
  1. Vatican II researched and implemented correctly among parishes.
Yes, re-reading the documents and correctly implementing them.
  1. Vatican II kept but the “Spirit of Vatican II” reformed.
Follow the documents!
  1. Vatican II kept but some products of it reformed and/or removed e.g the Pauline Mass, EMHC’s, female altar servers. etc.(if number 4 is chosen please specify)
Those items NOT in conformity with the Council Documents should be removed or reformed.
 
I’m still waiting for an authentic interpretation of Lumen Gentium Chapter 1, section 8, second paragraph, specifically: "This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church, . . . (emphisis mine)

Tomster
 
Dear Tomster,

Are you having difficulty with the word “subsist”? I see you emphacized this in your post. At dictionary.com, this is translated as : 1. To exist; be. 2.To remain or continue in existence.

How is this not true in the entire context of the paragraph?

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Something tells me you are in the camp that rejects ecumenism as expounded by the Council documents. I hope I am wrong.
 
Joysong said:
Dear Missa,

In reviewing the options, it seems rather biased to the negative. After reading your profile, it is somewhat easy to figure where you want to take this thread.

Suppose I were to tell you that I uphold everything the Vatican II Counci teaches? (An option omitted from your poll) Then what? A profusion of “Extremist, Radical, Papist, Ultra-Conservative Roman Catholic” rebuttals from a *“scary Fire and Brimstone Catholic?” * (From your profile)

Since you did not include this as an option, this tells me you assume all others agree with the options you printed, and that no one else would ever pick one that agrees with the Council. You would be wrong.
Click to expand...
I didnt assume any such thing.
Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps I was only looking for the opinions of traditionalists? I suppose I should’ve specified. But yes, I wanted to see which of the four options would those in disfavor of Vatican II take… while I value other opinions they dont belong in this specific discuscion.

Sorry if my profile offended you…Its the truth and Im proud of it.

By the way Im not a shismatic…im a member of an FSSP parish.
In full communion with Rome.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
  1. Vatican II reversed in a Vatican III Council.
Absolutly not.
  1. Vatican II researched and implemented correctly among parishes.
Yes, re-reading the documents and correctly implementing them.
  1. Vatican II kept but the “Spirit of Vatican II” reformed.
Follow the documents!
  1. Vatican II kept but some products of it reformed and/or removed e.g the Pauline Mass, EMHC’s, female altar servers. etc.(if number 4 is chosen please specify)
Those items NOT in conformity with the Council Documents should be removed or reformed.
Click to expand...
This is by far the best response to my Original Post.

It’s what I was looking for. Intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut without any personal attacks or references.

Thank you!
 
Posted by Joysong
In reviewing the options, it seems rather biased to the negative. After reading your profile, it is somewhat easy to figure where you want to take this thread.
Click to expand...
Suppose I were to tell you that I uphold everything the Vatican II Counci teaches? (An option omitted from your poll) Then what? A profusion of “Extremist, Radical, Papist, Ultra-Conservative Roman Catholic” rebuttals from a “scary Fire and Brimstone Catholic?” (From your profile)
Click to expand...
Missa Solemnis:
Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps I was only looking for the opinions of traditionalists? I suppose I should’ve specified.
Click to expand...
That would have been appropriate, but on a public forum, the subject is usually open to viewpoints of both sides.
I wanted to see which of the four options would those in disfavor of Vatican II take
Click to expand...
It would become a monologue voiced by only one group, and as far as I can determine, be more or less inviting an attack on the Vatican II Council, especially since you left no option to reply that they were “in favor.” Using the word “disfavor” confirms my statement, “it seems rather biased to the negative.”

Again, you assume all traditionists are in disfavor, but want to know the extent of it.
Sorry if my profile offended you…Its the truth and Im proud of it.
By the way I’m not a shismatic
Click to expand...
Can you show me where I stated either of these?
 
Missa_Solemnis said:
Does anyone here think that Vatican II should be forgotten as a Council of the Church?

What do you think?

.
Click to expand...
I think this is a banned topic. V2 documents are Church teaching, to dissent is heresy. However to work to implement the actual work of V2 (and get rid of the garbage that has been foisted on people in the name of V2) is a worthy aim.
I would further propose that it be a violation of church law to embark on a discussion of V2 or to implement any change in your parish based on V2 docs unless you can prove that you have actually read the documents.
 
puzzleannie said:
I think this is a banned topic. V2 documents are Church teaching, to dissent is heresy. However to work to implement the actual work of V2 (and get rid of the garbage that has been foisted on people in the name of V2) is a worthy aim.
I would further propose that it be a violation of church law to embark on a discussion of V2 or to implement any change in your parish based on V2 docs unless you can prove that you have actually read the documents.
Click to expand...
Amen to that! This attitude of being more Catholic than the Pope is tiresome.
 
Missa_Solemnis said:
Does anyone here think that Vatican II should be forgotten as a Council of the Church?

Or any of these other options:

(I wouldve made a poll but im afraid I dont know how to)
  1. Vatican II reversed in a Vatican III Council.
  2. Vatican II researched and implemented correctly among parishes.
  3. Vatican II kept but the “Spirit of Vatican II” reformed.
  4. Vatican II kept but some products of it reformed and/or removed e.g the Pauline Mass, EMHC’s, female altar servers. etc.(if number 4 is chosen please specify)
What do you think?

Oh and if anyone could tell me in their post how to make a poll that would be helpful.
Click to expand...
If it’s going to be forgotten, then only the Pope himself in communion with all the bishops could forget about it.

I pick number 2. Either the hierarchy is going to implement the true reforms, or the silly laity will continue to be totally misguided about what the Church teaches. There is no such thing as a “spirit” of Vatican II. There is the Holy Spirit. Also, # 4 seems to agree with #2.
 
Joysong said:
Dear Tomster,

Are you having difficulty with the word “subsist”? I see you emphacized this in your post. At dictionary.com, this is translated as : 1. To exist; be. 2.To remain or continue in existence.

How is this not true in the entire context of the paragraph?

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Something tells me you are in the camp that rejects ecumenism as expounded by the Council documents. I hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...
i think his concern is that the word “subsists” could imply that the church of christ could also exist in churches outside the catholic church. i think the phrase “only subsists” would be more appropriate
 
If traditionalists were as preoccupied with living out the Gospel as they are about obsessing about the Mass, Christianity would not be in the dire straits it is. What are you so proud of? Causing unecessary division among God’s people and making people feel bad because they don’t agree with your superiority complex? Give me a break. Become a priest, then maybe you can become Pope and change it all. :rolleyes: 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top