What do people have against Vatican II Council?

[paramedicgirl]

**What do people have against Vatican II Council?

It has drained, strained n stained the historic teaching of the Catholic Church.
It implies that Tradition is no longer what “is handed down undiluted”, but a morphology of thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis.

It’s fruits have been confusion, loss of the Catholic members and clergy. A Council that* anti-grows*** the Church may be prophetical, but then so was Judas.

Who was it, again that said, “By your fruits you will know them?”

 

[Icarus210]

For an old anglican moving on to pentecostalism, coming into a SSPX mass, I felt that i had gone back 1600 years. True respectful honour of God, Sunday Best wear! (now i know what it means), women covering their heads (100%), True worship; Just how it SHOULD BE in EVERY church. And the True Prescence in the Host. And my first confession at 53 was an absolute blessing. Then I knew I was HOME.

Iccy

 

[paramedicgirl]

For an old anglican moving on to pentecostalism, coming into a SSPX mass, I felt that i had gone back 1600 years. True respectful honour of God, Sunday Best wear! (now i know what it means), women covering their heads (100%), True worship; Just how it SHOULD BE in EVERY church. And the True Prescence in the Host. And my first confession at 53 was an absolute blessing. Then I knew I was HOME.

Iccy

I know what you mean. I’ve been to several SSPX Masses and I can sum them up in two words: True Reverence.

 

[BillyT92679]

I cannot fathom why any Catholic who claims in good conscience to be so would have any issue whatsoever with an Ecumenical Council of the One True Church. Sure, take issue with how some implemented it, but to say the Council is flawed is to say the Holy Spirit committed error.

 

[Brendan]

I cannot fathom why any Catholic who claims in good conscience to be so would have any issue whatsoever with an Ecumenical Council of the One True Church. Sure, take issue with how some implemented it, but to say the Council is flawed is to say the Holy Spirit committed error.

That is what is really interesting about Vat II. Some of it can be considered infallible ( if anything because it articulates the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium). Lumen Gentium meets that cirteria.

others, such as Sacrosanctum Concilium, are specific to the Latin Church alone. Infallible teachings apply, by definition, to the ENTIRE Church, so a document specific to a particular sui juris Church is not, by definition, infallible.

I happen to think it’s a wonderful document, and I can’t wait until it’s implemented as written. But that doesn’t mean that it can’t be changed either.

 

[scylla]

I have nothing against the Vatican II Council, I am just waiting for it to be implemented.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[paramedicgirl]

I have nothing against the Vatican II Council, I am just waiting for it to be implemented.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[BobP123]

I cannot fathom why any Catholic who claims in good conscience to be so would have any issue whatsoever with an Ecumenical Council of the One True Church. Sure, take issue with how some implemented it, but to say the Council is flawed is to say the Holy Spirit committed error.

Yes, but to say it’s the only council that counts is a bigger error.

 

[gorman64]

Brendan:

That is what is really interesting about Vat II. Some of it can be considered infallible ( if anything because it articulates the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium). Lumen Gentium meets that cirteria.

It is a general council accepted by Paul VI. If Paul VI was a true pope (I say he was not) then the Council cannot contain errors in Faith and morals. It is at a minimum infallibly safe.

others, such as Sacrosanctum Concilium, are specific to the Latin Church alone. Infallible teachings apply, by definition, to the ENTIRE Church, so a document specific to a particular sui juris Church is not, by definition, infallible.

I do not believe this is correct…those laws and disciplines established for the Latin Church are considered universal laws in that they are infallible in the doctrinal decree…whether these laws are most opportune is a matter of a practical judgment. There can be an error in the practical judgment.

I happen to think it’s a wonderful document, and I can’t wait until it’s implemented as written. But that doesn’t mean that it can’t be changed either.

I would disagree with this statement and I would also point out that the (supposed) living magisterium of the Church has carried this out as they saw fit…they are the teaching apostolate!…and they are under the direction and authority of these “popes”. This “magisterium”, if it is true, should be infallible in these areas…the disciplines (including liturgies) established by the Church cannot be contrary to faith and morals.

Gorman

 

[Resurrexit]

…the disciplines (including liturgies) established by the Church cannot be contrary to faith and morals.

I’ve questioned this. Where has a council declared that

1. the Roman Pontiff can invent rites and liturgies
2. these traditions He pulls out of a hat are infallible

I thought He was only infallible in faith and morals.

 

[BobP123]

I’ve questioned this. Where has a council declared that

1. the Roman Pontiff can invent rites and liturgies
2. these traditions He pulls out of a hat are infallible

I thought He was only infallible in faith and morals.

Actually only when he declares anything EX CATHEDRA. And it has to be clearly defined for the entire Church, not just the Roman Rite.

 

[Resurrexit]

Actually only when he declares anything EX CATHEDRA. And it has to be clearly defined for the entire Church, not just the Roman Rite.

Well there is also the universal ordinary magisterium… but that’s not the point.

Where does it say the Pope is infallible in discipline?

 

[anamchara]

I cannot fathom why any Catholic who claims in good conscience to be so would have any issue whatsoever with an Ecumenical Council of the One True Church. Sure, take issue with how some implemented it, but to say the Council is flawed is to say the Holy Spirit committed error.

This is how I feel. It seems the ones who have the biggest issues with it are the ones who don’t like girl altar servers etc…the list goes on. So they will dig and find anything they can wrong with it. I’ll admit there are abuses but not as many as some would like us to think. Personally, I think these abuses would have happened even without Vatican II. Times changed and the Church did as well, thank goodness in my opinion

Having said that, I have full respect for the traditionalists and what they desire. They have every right to worship the way they want. Just don’t play games with Vatican II and stop putting blame on the council.

 

[Brendan]

I do not believe this is correct…those laws and disciplines established for the Latin Church are considered universal laws in that they are infallible in the doctrinal decree…whether these laws are most opportune is a matter of a practical judgment. There can be an error in the practical judgment.

 

[BobP123]

Well there is also the universal ordinary magisterium… but that’s not the point.

Where does it say the Pope is infallible in discipline?

You got me. Need to define discipline first though. If theology or faith is based on it, that you shouldn’t take too many liberties with changing it.

 

[BobP123]

I cannot fathom why any Catholic who claims in good conscience to be so would have any issue whatsoever with an Ecumenical Council of the One True Church. Sure, take issue with how some implemented it, but to say the Council is flawed is to say the Holy Spirit committed error.

Well, openness to various methods of implementation reveals a flaw, does it not? Clear definitions and executions must be stated. Ambiguity carries no theological weight and no one with a conscience should listen to the spin others try to put on those documents. The Holy Spirit commits no error. If anything the Holy Spirit prevented doctrinal pronouncements from being introduced into the documents and we can thank Him for that.

Having said that, have you actually read all the Vatican II documents?

 

[gorman64]

I’ve questioned this. Where has a council declared that

1. the Roman Pontiff can invent rites and liturgies
2. these traditions He pulls out of a hat are infallible

I thought He was only infallible in faith and morals.

Dear Resurrexit,

Let me start by asking you where you learned that a council’s declaration (and that is very vague in itself) is required for something to require your assent?

Secondly, the Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. This is taught in all of the pre-Vatican II dogmatic theology manuals.

These doctrines classified as theologically certain require your assent…Pope Pius IX teaches this in Tuas Libenter:

“For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1683.

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

Brendan:

Doctrine applies to the ENTIRE CHURCH, Latin Rite, Byzantine, Maronite, Chaldean…etc.

I’m not sure what you mean by this…but I don’t disagree with it as I understand it.

If an infallible truth exists, it exists for all. But since the instructions of S.C. apply only to the Roman Church, it cannot, by definition, be considered an infallible document.

It becomes part of the teaching of the magisterium of the Church when confirmed by the Pope. The infallibility of the Church tells us it cannot contain doctrinal error. What source are you reading for your understanding of the Church’s infallibility?

Are you really trying to claim that a teaching can be declared to be infallible, but only for Latins, and not Byzantines???:confused

I’m not claiming that at all. Teacings are not “declared” to be infallible…it is the charism of infallibilty belongs to the Pope and also to the Church…it is that charism of infallibility that protects both the Pope and the Church from leading the faithful into error by teaching false doctrine or establishing evil disciplines and liturgies.

Gorman

 

[Brendan]

Gorman,

Can a doctrine of the Church be infallibly true for Latin Rite Catholics, but not for Byzantine Catholics?

Can a doctrine be infallibly true for one Catholic, but not another?

 

[gorman64]

Gorman,

Can a doctrine of the Church be infallibly true for Latin Rite Catholics, but not for Byzantine Catholics?

Can a doctrine be infallibly true for one Catholic, but not another?

Brendan,

Well, something true is just, well, true isnt it? Where are you getting this “infallibly true”?

I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make here…yes, doctrines are common the the entire Church…that should be obvious…I would think.

Gorman