Vatican II

[blessedtoo]

I think the smoke of satan entered into the Church well before John XXIII became pope.

Dave, I fully agree with your analysis. I believe it was George Weigel in The Courage to Be Catholic that explored this idea of modernism and it’s Pre-Vatican II infiltration in the Church. I guess my question would be why was the Council not more aware of the threat it posed and more deliberate and precise in it’s definitions of the changes it instituted?

 

[gorman64]

I guess my question would be why was the Council not more aware of the threat it posed and more deliberate and precise in it’s definitions of the changes it instituted?

Maybe the modernists (the liberals) took control of the Council?

History seems to indicate this was the case.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Maybe the modernists (the liberals) took control of the Council?

History seems to indicate this was the case.

Interpretations OF history often make this OUT to be the case.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II was modernist?

The Catholic Church yesterday, today, and forever is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. It can never be “modernist” or else Jesus was wrong.

Churchmen, on the other hand, have indeed taught the errors of modernism.

Where are these modernists today?

I’ve run across a few who seemed to cling to modernist errors. But it is not my role to put individual persons on trial. I have no such authority. Nor do I have insight into the internal disposition of their soul, which God alone is the judge. Yet, I can admonish the sinner and instruct the ignorant, and so I prefer to speak against heretical doctines and leave to God the judgment of souls.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Maybe the modernists (the liberals) took control of the Council?

The Holy Spirit had control of the Council.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… why was the Council not more aware of the threat it posed and more deliberate and precise in it’s definitions of the changes it instituted?

The way to salvation is the way of the cross. The heresies and schisms of Church history represent, I think, the unpaid penance of the Catholic Church. They are the sufferings the Church as a body must continue to endure until Christ comes.

What could the Church have said at Vatican II that wasn’t already said more eloquently by earlier popes? And yet those past condemnations of modernism were still ignored.

Perhaps Vatican II should have addressed and anathematized modern heresies. But Arianism grew stronger after the dogmatic approach of Nicea, didn’t it? So such a dogmatic approach is no guarantee of immediate results, is it? Perhaps the best way to refute error is to simply reiterate the truth, which I think Vatican II did, in a manner tailored to a modernist world.

What good does it do to give solid food to a modernist world which can only digest milk? I’ve done my share of catechesis with non-Catholics and poorly catechized Catholics, and I have found that it is important to go out to meet and greet the “prodigal sons” of the modernist world in order to bring them back home. We have to meet them where they are at. If they can’t consume solid food, then we have to regroup and start by giving them milk. See here: Pauline Mass or Traditional Mass?

 

[RobedWithLight]

The way to salvation is the way of the cross. The heresies and schisms of Church history represent, I think, the unpaid penance of the Catholic Church. They are the sufferings the Church as a body must continue to endure until Christ comes.

What could the Church have said at Vatican II that wasn’t already said more eloquently by earlier popes? And yet those past condemnations of modernism were still ignored.

Perhaps Vatican II should have addressed and anathematized modern heresies. But Arianism grew stronger after the dogmatic approach of Nicea, didn’t it? So such a dogmatic approach is no guarantee of immediate results, is it? Perhaps the best way to refute error is to simply reiterate the truth, which I think Vatican II did, in a manner tailored to a modernist world.

What good does it do to give solid food to a modernist world which can only digest milk? I’ve done my share of catechesis with non-Catholics and poorly catechized Catholics, and I have found that it is important to go out to meet and greet the “prodigal sons” of the modernist world in order to bring them back home. We have to meet them where they are at. If they can’t consume solid food, then we have to regroup and start by giving them milk. See here: Pauline Mass or Traditional Mass?

I agree. I likewise pointed out the same thing earlier in another thread, that anathematizing heretics, the so-called meat hatchet approach, does not guarantee results, as the example of the First Vatican Council shows, which didn’t stop the opponents of Papal infallibility from disrupting the unity of the Church. The Pope, following the example of the Good Shephered, must sometimes leave the ninety-nine sheep who are safe to look for those that have strayed far, and lovingly bring them back to safety. Why should we even play the role of the modern Pharisee, who knows only the letter of the law, to question even this?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

However, had Vatican II infallibly defined the neccesity of having Mass in the vernacular (something the Church will never do, but hypothetically) than yes, we’d all be bound to attend vernacular Masses. Thats just an example though.

The Church has always had Mass (Liturgy) in the vernacular. In fact, the Old Roman Missal had translations for Croatian and other Slavic languages.

The Latin Mass was a translation into the vernacular at a time when the Christians would touch nothing the Romans did (including speaking Latin). In Rome the Mass had been said in Greek till it was made into the vernacular Latin when Christianity began to be spread throughout the Roman Empire.

The Eastern Churches (schismatic or uniate) had always had vernacular Divine Liturgies.

Thus, it need not be defined to have vernacular liturgies as they are a part of our tradition.

 

[AlexV]

“We have to meet them where they are at. If they can’t consume solid food, then we have to regroup and start by giving them milk. See here: Pauline Mass or Traditional Mass? (link)”

If this comment implies that the permissions/indults for the Tridentine Mass, not to mention the formation of a Personal Apostolic Administration that has the Tridentine Mass as its PROPER rite and liturgy, is all an example of the benevolent Mother Church giving “milk” before people can consume “solid food”…then after laughing very loudly, let me note that such a position cannot be substantiated from any of the documents on the Tridentine permissions, let alone the public statements of the pope’s own representative for matters Tridentine.

I might also note that Cardinal Mahony shared your apparent view, and went further (i.e., was more explicit) and said the permission/indult was there only for people who had difficulty 1) making the transition from the one liturgy to the other or 2) had been reared in the SSPX, and was NOT meant for people just to “discover” and experience afresh.

Rome swiftly declared his views were erroneous.

 

[elijahson]

Just for the record: there are two kinds of councils in the church; local (synodal) councils and ecumenical councils. There is no such thing as a “pastoral council.” Vatican II was “pastoral in nature” but it is still an ecumenical council. The dogmatic constitutions issued by the Second Vatican Council have exactly the same weight as a dogmatic constitution issued by any other council.

We are to accept all of the teachings of the Council. To not do so is to become a “cafeteria Catholic” in which on picks and chooses what one will accept and what one will reject.

Deacon Ed

Absolutely right Ed. We must assent to it. We do not have to assent to the INTERPRETATIONS of it though. What has caused the problem here in the States is not Vatican II, but that some theologians amonst us sought to impliment their own interpretations and agendas into it. They, in a sense, became their own “magisterium”. In my opinion they led many astray and may have to answer for it at the judgement. But you are so right brother…we must assent to it…we may however DISSENT from the modernist, liberal interpretations of it…well said…well said…thanks

elijahson

 

[marymonde]

Here are some quotes from the Holy Father’s themselves on the weight of how Vatican II was to be observed:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

Pope John stressed the pastoral, not doctrinal, nature of the Council: The Church did not need to repeat or reformulate existing doctrines and dogmata but rather had to teach Christ’s message in light of the modern world’s ever-changing trends.<<< (My .02…Who knows what this means, “in the modern world”. Christ does not change his Truth because of “trends”. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow).

May I suggest that you read this article in it’s entirety? It’s worth it. I did highlight some relevant quotes for a quick look and see:

seattlecatholic.com/article_20030103_Differing_from_Other_Councils.html

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” 7 Paul VI<<<<

And Cardinal Ratzinger (now His Holiness Benedict XVI) more recently:
“Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II… The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.” 12<<<<

geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/intro.html

The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements..-Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965

A group of Bishops, on June 1964 wrote to Pope Paul VI:

"The ambiguity of this Council was apparent from the
very first sessions… On the eve of the Council’s third
session, we are studying the schemas put forward for
discussion by the Fathers. In the case of certain of these
propositions, we have to avow our grave disquiet and
our keen anxiety.

In these statements, we find absolutely nothing of what
was laid down by His Holiness John XXIII, namely:

'...that accuracy of terms and concepts which was

the particular glory of the Council of Trent and of the
First Vatican Council.’

   The confusion of style and of ideas produces an

almost permanent impression of ambiguity… that are
at least formally opposed to the teachings of the ordinary
Magisterium, as well as the pronouncements of the
extra-ordinary Magisterium made by the Church".

Finally I relay to you the exact words of Pope Paul VI himself:

We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation.... We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.

– Pope Paul VI, 29 June 1972, Feast of Sts. Peter & Paul for the
9th anniversary of his pontificate.

 

[gorman64]

The Holy Spirit had control of the Council.

Dear Dave:

Not if it turns out to be a false council. When it is declared a false council…it will have always been a false council. The declaration will not make it a false council.

God does normally work thru ordinary means…he uses men…where these men who directed the council modernists? God could allow this could He not?

Yours,

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

The Catholic Church yesterday, today, and forever is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. It can never be “modernist” or else Jesus was wrong.

Churchmen, on the other hand, have indeed taught the errors of modernism.

Dear Dave:

My question was rhetorical. Of course the Church cannot be modernist.

Do you mean to say that certain Churchman (The Teaching Apostolate) were modernist? Or that they (The Teaching Apostolate) actually taught modernist false doctrine to the faithful?

You appear to be suggesting that the Teaching Apostolate can teach error and that the Church is somehow separated from its own teaching authorities. I believe this is at least in error and might be heretical.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[Evan]

Dear Dave:

Not if it turns out to be a false council. When it is declared a false council…it will have always been a false council. The declaration will not make it a false council.

God does normally work thru ordinary means…he uses men…where these men who directed the council modernists? God could allow this could He not?

Yours,

Gorman

The pope, in union with the Fathers of the Council, signed and promulgated all the documents of Vatican II. Who on earth would have the authority to declare such a council ‘False’. There is no authority on earth above that of the Pope in union with all the bishops of the church.

 

[bear06]

Dear Dave:

Not if it turns out to be a false council. When it is declared a false council…it will have always been a false council. The declaration will not make it a false council.

God does normally work thru ordinary means…he uses men…where these men who directed the council modernists? God could allow this could He not?

Yours,

Gorman

These suggestions are, of course, very dangerous. Did you ever stop to think for a moment that even if you, yourself are not saying that Vatican II was a false council, you could be leading others to do so?! You seem to fail to ever say what you mean and resort to alluding to things. Condemning the council is way out of you purview. You are to assent to it unless some future Pope declares it invalid which would seem to be your wish but is highly unlikely. Geez, the SSPX don’t even go as far as you.

 

[marymonde]

These suggestions are, of course, very dangerous. Did you ever stop to think for a moment that even if you, yourself are not saying that Vatican II was a false council, you could be leading others to do so?! You seem to fail to ever say what you mean and resort to alluding to things. Condemning the council is way out of you purview. You are to assent to it unless some future Pope declares it invalid which would seem to be your wish but is highly unlikely. Geez, the SSPX don’t even go as far as you.

I am just curious if someone agrees with what the past Holy Father’s said about the councils as stated above, if you thought it was wrong? It seems the weight of the council was non-binding, so it really had no bearing on what a Catholic had to retain or not. If it was merely pastoral, and no dogmatic definitions were pronounced, there is nothing as Catholics binding us to accept all that came from it. So there actually isn’t much of a point defending something we are not obligated to incorporate into the Catholic faith. Why would I follow teachings that His Holiness Paul VI claimed:

" We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties."

What would make me want to abide to anything that a pope considered darkness and uncertainty? Please show me, please, where a Holy Father ever made a statement in the history of Holy Mother Church like this, from another dogmatic council. On the contrary other councils clarified and made clear the intent of what the faithful were to follow.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

When it is declared a false council…

Beginning holding breath…now.

Since an ecumenical council in the history of Catholicism has never been declared un-ecumenical by successor popes, your thesis that this will someday happen is unconvincing.

At most, the non-immutable disciplinary norms and doctrinal decrees may change. Until then, I stick with the chair of Peter.

God does normally work thru ordinary means…he uses men…where these men who directed the council modernists? God could allow this could He not?

Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman explained it best…

Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman:
"I say with [St. Robert] Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biased. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience." [John Henry Newman “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26]

 

[bear06]

I am just curious if someone agrees with what the past Holy Father’s said about the councils as stated above, if you thought it was wrong? It seems the weight of the council was non-binding, so it really had no bearing on what a Catholic had to retain or not. If it was merely pastoral, and no dogmatic definitions were pronounced, there is nothing as Catholics binding us to accept all that came from it. So there actually isn’t much of a point defending something we are not obligated to incorporate into the Catholic faith.

Well, the first quote is not a direct quote from the Holy Father. The second and third and fourth quotes are something we all know: No new doctrine was proclaimed. Nobody is debating that.

So now, Dave has kindly just posted these on another thread but they are applicable to your comments. Here’s what the then Cardinal Ratzinger has said regarding the council and its infallibility:

It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. … [Vatican II is] one part of the** unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith**." (Cardinal Ratzinger’s July 13, 1988 remarks to the Bishops of Chile regarding the Lefebvre Schism).

“…** it is clear that conciliar decisions are infallible **in the sense that I can be confident that here the inheritance of Christ is correctly interpreted” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Canon of Criticism, Salt of the Earth [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997])

“You may not, however, affirm that the conciliar texts, which are magisterial texts, are incompatible with the Magisterium and with Tradition.” (Cardinal Ratzinger letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on July 20, 1983)

 

[rwoehmke]

As we well know, even before Vatican II we were taught things by teachers who may have accurately taught what the Church taught or may not have gotten it quite right.We have Popes and Bishops, but there are often lots of in-betweeners who do not always reiterate what the Pope and Bishops are teaching.
Since Vatican II the reliability of our direct teachers has continued to decline. Why else do we see such gorp being taught to RCIA Candidates or RFP students by incompetents. It drives me to almost to despair when I read comments and questions in these forums about RCIA, Catechesis, and Liturgical events. The engine and tender may still be on track, but many of the cars and the caboose are off the rails and it is not the fault of the 21st Ecumenical Council…

 

[bear06]

As we well know, even before Vatican II we were taught things by teachers who may have accurately taught what the Church taught or may not have gotten it quite right.We have Popes and Bishops, but there are often lots of in-betweeners who do not always reiterate what the Pope and Bishops are teaching.
Since Vatican II the reliability of our direct teachers has continued to decline. Why else do we see such gorp being taught to RCIA Candidates or RFP students by incompetents. It drives me to almost to despair when I read comments and questions in these forums about RCIA, Catechesis, and Liturgical events. The engine and tender may still be on track, but many of the cars and the caboose are off the rails and it is not the fault of the 21st Ecumenical Council…

So true. This is why we have to get in there and get them back on track.