VII believe or not believe?

[NorthTexan88]

I know ppl on here who are tired of hearing this topic, but please bear with
I truly am trying to get a better understanding of the council. Please do not tell me to read the documents, I already have and I think that made the situation worse bc of some of the wording.

What this thread is not for: bashing, being rude
What this thread is for: giving straightforward answeres in a kid way.

V2 has actually been harder for me to grasp than A LOT of things that are usually stumbling blocks for us protestants becoming Catholic.

This reason I think is because I have never seen a truly definitive answer. Was it an ecumenical or a pastoral council, or a hybrid? If the Holy Spirit was truly present how come there has been so much confusion? Is it binding on believers? Are some parts binding but not others? I read that it was and that it wasn’t? Which one is it?

I’m afraid to say it was not an ecumenical council bc that wud put me outside of the Church, which I don’t want.

The council documents somewhat reminds me of protestantism, there seems to be many different interpretations bc of the vague wording.

And then there is the “spirit” of the council that never seems to die M

My gut tells me to not believe all of it. But if I ever find out with definity that it was an ecumenical council then I will believe it 100% even if there are parts I don’t understand. But I truly believe that it was just a pastoral council bc it did not definie anything.
Is my gut wrong about this?

P.S. There are some on CAF that think if you even say 1 negative thing about V2 then you are a sedevacantist or something…trust me I’m not However, there are those (myself included) who are genuinely confused about the council and it’s aftermath and are just tryin to obey the Church. So please refrain from bashin and harsh language or telling me I am trying to start something when I am definitely not, I would just like to find things out.

 

[1ke]

Yes, it is an ecumenical council. Yes, you have to “believe” all of it, but that should be easy since it did not propose any new teachings.

 

[Rejoice_Always]

However, there are those (myself included) who are genuinely confused about the council and it’s aftermath and are just tryin to obey the Church.

You know the saying …

Roma locuta est; causa finita est.
Rome has spoken; the case is closed.

 

[sllhouette]

I already have and I think that made the situation worse bc of some of the wording.

And then there is the “spirit” of the council that never seems to die

The issue you may be having with wording might be due to your translation. Remember the documents were written in Latin and I am sure some more “liberal” minds would translate the documents the way they want to understand them.

I must address the issue of the “spirit” of the council. There was a group that was set up after the council called Concilium to “continue the spirit of the council”. There were some issues with this group and they tended to do and say things that were contrary to church teaching. Some of the interpretations that Concilium gave of the documents of vatican 2 are unfortunately wrong and persist in the Church today. Because of this I would say that if you read something in Vatican Two that you think is wrong or poorly worded then I would encourage you to reassess your own interpretations. It may well be that you have adopted false assumptions.

I would point you to reading up on a group called Comunio. This movement was led by men like Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henry de Lubac, and Joseph Ratzinger (You should recognize this name!). Although I have yet to read any of their writings, I have heard that they provide good interpretations of Vatican Two and would encourage you to investigate.

You should listen to this: youtube.com/watch?v=m8j24FBRgrA&feature=plcp

Peace be with you.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Hello.

I know ppl on here who are tired of hearing this topic, but please bear with
I truly am trying to get a better understanding of the council. Please do not tell me to read the documents, I already have and I think that made the situation worse bc of some of the wording.

Yep, welcome to Vatican II. Ambiguous documents and teachings.

What this thread is not for: bashing, being rude
What this thread is for: giving straightforward answeres in a kid way.

I hope I can be of service.

V2 has actually been harder for me to grasp than A LOT of things that are usually stumbling blocks for us protestants becoming Catholic.

Just ignore it. Really. Focus on learning the faith rather than worrying about that council. God bless you on your return to the one true Church.

This reason I think is because I have never seen a truly definitive answer. Was it an ecumenical or a pastoral council, or a hybrid? If the Holy Spirit was truly present how come there has been so much confusion? Is it binding on believers? Are some parts binding but not others? I read that it was and that it wasn’t? Which one is it?

There is so much to be said, I will have to keep it as simple as I can. The Second Vatican Council was an ecumenical council. However, it was much different from previous ecumenical councils. Ecumenical councils in the past were called to condemn error and clarify or define doctrine. We can call these dogmatic councils. The Second Vatican Council was different. It was a pastoral council, which is a completely novel concept. (This concept is argued by many as being modernist in itself) What we mean when we say it was pastoral is that it failed to condemn any of the errors of its day, and it didn’t clarify, proclaim or define doctrine infallibly. What that means, is that you can pretty much “ignore” the council and pretend it never happened, unlike previous ecumenical councils which had binding infallible declarations that required assent, and if you refused, you were a heretic.

The Council never exercised infallibility. It had the potential to, being an ecumenical council, but it didn’t. It deliberately remained “on a modest level” to quote then Cardinal Ratzinger.

What about the teachings, are they infallible? Vatican II was an exercise of the ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium of the Church is infallible when teaching what is already defined, or what has always been believed or accepted in the Church. Therefore, if the ordinary magisterium teaches something contrary to Tradition, it cannot possibly be infallible. It would be in error. When the ordinary magisterium is not infallible we call this the authentic magisterium.

So, what this means is that when Vatican II teaches something “that is already defined, or what has always been believed or accepted in the Church”, what it is teaching is infallible. But, if Vatican II teaches something that is contrary to Tradition, it cannot be infallible and also must be rejected because it is contrary to what has always been taught.

I’m afraid to say it was not an ecumenical council bc that wud put me outside of the Church, which I don’t want.

It was an ecumenical council. A good one? No.

The council documents somewhat reminds me of protestantism, there seems to be many different interpretations bc of the vague wording.

You’re not the first to realize this.

And then there is the “spirit” of the council that never seems to die M

There’s no such thing, regardless of what people claim.

My gut tells me to not believe all of it. But if I ever find out with definity that it was an ecumenical council then I will believe it 100% even if there are parts I don’t understand. But I truly believe that it was just a pastoral council bc it did not definie anything.
Is my gut wrong about this?

Just ignore the council. It issued no infallible declarations so you can ignore it without being a heretic.

P.S. There are some on CAF that think if you even say 1 negative thing about V2 then you are a sedevacantist or something…trust me I’m not However, there are those (myself included) who are genuinely confused about the council and it’s aftermath and are just tryin to obey the Church. So please refrain from bashin and harsh language or telling me I am trying to start something when I am definitely not, I would just like to find things out.

Tell me about it. I swear that I’ve seen more than one person on CAF say that the Vatican II documents are beautiful writing!

I had to give an incredibly vague and short answer. If you want any more info, just chuck me a PM!

God bless buddy.

ImmaculataFides

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

If the Holy Spirit was truly present how come there has been so much confusion? Is it binding on believers? Are some parts binding but not others? I read that it was and that it wasn’t? Which one is it?

Chaos followed after Nicaea I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II and Nicaea II as well. The situation after Chalcedon was much worse than the situation after Vatican II really, with rioting and lynchings and that sort of stuff.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I know ppl on here who are tired of hearing this topic, but please bear with
I truly am trying to get a better understanding of the council. Please do not tell me to read the documents, I already have and I think that made the situation worse bc of some of the wording.

What this thread is not for: bashing, being rude
What this thread is for: giving straightforward answeres in a kid way.

Fair enough.

Two key interpretative principles:
(1) V2 must be read in the light of the all that has been (formally) taught by the Church down through time.
V2 states this and intends to uphold the constant teaching of the CC. Dei verbum, 1; Lumen gentium, 1, 18, 51; Sacrosanctum concilium, 55; Unitatis redintegratio, 1, 4]
Therefore, the documents should be read in this manner.

(2) (a) One can explain and articulate the same revealed truth in a manner which may help people of a different time and culture understand it better in addition to and w/o prejudice to its traditional or official formulation and meaning.
(b) One can use texts and formulations from the Fathers or ancient liturgies for the same purpose and in the same way.

V2 has actually been harder for me to grasp than A LOT of things that are usually stumbling blocks for us protestants becoming Catholic.

This reason I think is because I have never seen a truly definitive answer. Was it an ecumenical or a pastoral council, or a hybrid?

V2 is an Ecumenical Council with an almost exclusively pastoral purpose–unlike just about every other EC.

If the Holy Spirit was truly present how come there has been so much confusion?

Yes, the Holy Spirit was truly present.
Any conclusion prejudicial to V2 based upon post-conciliar confusion would also call into question Nicea I, Constantinople I, Chalcedon, and Nicea II to name a few.

Is it binding on believers?

Yes, as per principles (1) and (2) above.

Are some parts binding but not others? I read that it was and that it wasn’t? Which one is it?

The CC has traditionally taught that there are different degrees of theological certitude. V2 acknowledges this Lumen gentium, 54;Unitatis redintegratio, 11]

I’m afraid to say it was not an ecumenical council bc that wud put me outside of the Church, which I don’t want.

A Catholic should affirm that it is an EC.

The council documents somewhat reminds me of protestantism, there seems to be many different interpretations bc of the vague wording.

Not if read according to principles (1) and (2) above.

And then there is the “spirit” of the council that never seems to die M

Don’t worry about the “spirit of V2.” That just means everything that the lefties wanted the church to teach or thought it should have taught, but it actually didn’t. What we are bound by is what the docs actually teach in the light of #s(1) and (2) above.

My gut tells me to not believe all of it. But if I ever find out with definity that it was an ecumenical council then I will believe it 100% even if there are parts I don’t understand. But I truly believe that it was just a pastoral council bc it did not definie anything.
Is my gut wrong about this?

I think a familiarity with the history and teaching of other ECs and all the teachings of Rome will “educate” your gut.

Last, a few thoughts.

First, I have met some Traditionalists who read the Docs of V2 like a Fundamentalist “hears” a RC. So for example if I say in some conversation to a Fundie, “God has redeemed the human race.” Their response is “See, there it is! Right there! Proof you RCs don’t believe in Jesus. He is the one Savior and Mediator between God and man. No salvation comes except through Him. Unless you RCs start to believe in Him, you can’t be saved.”
Imposing the worst possible interpretation on a text will make any text look absurd and heretical. The question that interests me is What mentality impels one to do that?

Second, a lot depends on specifics. What teachings specifically are problematic to you? and why?

 

[CalCatholic]

Yes, it is an ecumenical council. Yes, you have to “believe” all of it, but that should be easy since it did not propose any new teachings.

 

[Jehannette]

I know ppl on here who are tired of hearing this topic, but please bear with
I truly am trying to get a better understanding of the council. Please do not tell me to read the documents, I already have and I think that made the situation worse bc of some of the wording.

What this thread is not for: bashing, being rude
What this thread is for: giving straightforward answeres in a kid way.

V2 has actually been harder for me to grasp than A LOT of things that are usually stumbling blocks for us protestants becoming Catholic.

This reason I think is because I have never seen a truly definitive answer. Was it an ecumenical or a pastoral council, or a hybrid? If the Holy Spirit was truly present how come there has been so much confusion? Is it binding on believers? Are some parts binding but not others? I read that it was and that it wasn’t? Which one is it?

I’m afraid to say it was not an ecumenical council bc that wud put me outside of the Church, which I don’t want.

The council documents somewhat reminds me of protestantism, there seems to be many different interpretations bc of the vague wording.

And then there is the “spirit” of the council that never seems to die M

My gut tells me to not believe all of it. But if I ever find out with definity that it was an ecumenical council then I will believe it 100% even if there are parts I don’t understand. But I truly believe that it was just a pastoral council bc it did not definie anything.
Is my gut wrong about this?

P.S. There are some on CAF that think if you even say 1 negative thing about V2 then you are a sedevacantist or something…trust me I’m not However, there are those (myself included) who are genuinely confused about the council and it’s aftermath and are just tryin to obey the Church. So please refrain from bashin and harsh language or telling me I am trying to start something when I am definitely not, I would just like to find things out.

There’s nothing in the Second Vatican Council which contradicts the previous Councils of the Catholic Church, or the Ordinary and/or Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. Even the SSPX says that they “agree with 95%” of Vatican II. If you have some sections of the Council that trouble you, we can discuss those if you post them.

 

[DavidFilmer]

This reason I think is because I have never seen a truly definitive answer. Was it an ecumenical or a pastoral council, or a hybrid?

You are confused about what an Ecumenical Council is. V2 was absolutely Ecumenical (no Catholic would disagree). It was ALSO pastoral.

Where people disagree is whether the Council was dogmatic. Not all Ecumenical Councils promulgate dogma (at least one - the Fifteenth Ecumenical Council (the Council of Vienne) promulgated absolutely no dogma whatsoever - it didn’t even come close). Many Councils promulgate both Doctrine (which is infallible) and rules (which are subject to change). For example, the Council of Nicea (the first Ecumenical Council) promulgated one Creed and twenty Canons, and not one single Canon of the Council of Nicea was doctrinal - they were ALL rules (many of which are no longer in force). Then you have some really dogmatic Councils - such as Trent. But all are Ecumenical.

A Council may be Ecumenical (requiring complete assent of all Catholics) without officially promulgating Doctrine. Whether or not V2 was dogmatic is a matter of debate - and nobody except the Magesterium of the Church can definitively say for sure. But it does not matter to any faithful Catholic - the Council is Ecumenical and must be accepted in its entirety.