Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Geremia on January 31, 2019, 10:10:05 AM
-
Much has been discussed about the Modernism of Vatican II, but what's are Vatican II's best doctrinal developments?
-
The period at the end of the last sentence of the last docuмent.
-
:jester:
-
I don't think any doctrine was well-developed at the Vatican II pseudo-council.
-
There were some narrative passages that I think were very well done and edifying ... but these dealt with merely an explanation of established Church dogma. Anything new introduced by Vatican II was problematic without exception.
For those Traditional Catholics, however, who believe that infidels can be saved ... well, Vatican II does an admirable job of laying out the ecclesiology behind such positions; these Trad Catholics should consider the V2 "subsistence" ecclesiology to be both brilliant and sublime.
-
Much has been discussed about the Modernism of Vatican II, but what's are Vatican II's best doctrinal developments?
That's like asking which animal's shat smells the best!
-
As an aside, I haven't read a lot of it.
But you can tell just by the implementation of it that something was off. If they meant something theologically sound, it was overshadowed by the aftermath — 50 years of crumbling parishes, sinking vocations, and bad, neo-Marxist theology.
I personally don't know if the NO is invalid or not; it's not something I feel personally qualified to give an answer on.
But it's a stretch to say that anything good came out of Vatican II.
-
For those Traditional Catholics, however, who believe that infidels can be saved ... well, Vatican II does an admirable job of laying out the ecclesiology behind such positions; these Trad Catholics should consider the V2 "subsistence" ecclesiology to be both brilliant and sublime.
That means the Novus Ordo, SSPX, and all of the major sede groups for they all agree that Pagans, Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists...…. can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards. The individual priests might not all believe it, but it is taught to them as "dogma" in their seminaries, and if they question it, they get the boot.
-
That's like asking which animal's shat smells the best!
Tell me about it. I can't believe that a Traditional Catholic asked this question.
-
As an aside, I haven't read a lot of it.
But you can tell just by the implementation of it that something was off. If they meant something theologically sound, it was overshadowed by the aftermath — 50 years of crumbling parishes, sinking vocations, and bad, neo-Marxist theology.
I have read most, maybe all, of the docuмents. It is a characteristic of pretty much all of them that they contain enough ambiguity to be easily interpreted in a heterodox way. This is what made it possible for the implementation to be so horrible. It is not really possible to talk about its "best doctrinal developments". About the best that can be said that it is capable of being understood in an orthodox way by those who have the will to do so. And even that is debatable.
As if this weren't bad enough, this sort of ambiguity continues throughout the subsequent Church docuмents, making it possible for Catholics to hold any number of heretical positions while claiming they have the approval of the Church.
-
Much has been discussed about the Modernism of Vatican II, but what's are Vatican II's best doctrinal developments?
Can you give us a clue, Geremia?
-
I can't believe that a Traditional Catholic asked this question.
Tradition stopped in circa 1960?
-
Can you give us a clue, Geremia?
For example, it did mention Mary more than any other council and said Gregorian chant should be given pride of place in the liturgy.
Was Bp. Fellay wrong in saying that 95% of the council is Catholic/orthodox?
-
For example, it did mention Mary more than any other council and said Gregorian chant should be given pride of place in the liturgy.
Was Bp. Fellay wrong in saying that 95% of the council is Catholic/orthodox?
Gregorian chant is an excellent example of the problem. Look at Sacrosanctum Concilium 116:
The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.
The first half sounds great (although even it is weakened by the phrase "other things being equal"). But then the second half undermines it to a point that people can do the opposite. We are left with the vague expression "accord with the spirit of the liturgical action". In effect, the endorsement of Gregorian chant is permission to do just about anything.
-
For example, it did mention Mary more than any other council and said Gregorian chant should be given pride of place in the liturgy.
Was Bp. Fellay wrong in saying that 95% of the council is Catholic/orthodox?
Wasn't there a schema prepared specifically on Mary that was discarded?
.
I think that, if Bishop Fellay was right in his estimate of 95% "Catholic/orthodox", then that only goes to show that Vatican II is not a Council of the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith and it should be discarded. 95% Catholic is not Catholic at all.
-
For example, it did mention Mary more than any other council and said Gregorian chant should be given pride of place in the liturgy.
Was Bp. Fellay wrong in saying that 95% of the council is Catholic/orthodox?
Since when is "Gregorian chant" a doctrinal issue? And since when does Modernist writings not include orthodox and heretical things at the same time?
Geremia, you seem to have become another Francis and Vatican II defender. Wouldn't you be more at home at Catholic "Answers"?
-
Was Bp. Fellay wrong in saying that 95% of the council is Catholic/orthodox?
Rat poison is 99% nutritious food.
-
Gregorian chant is an excellent example of the problem. Look at Sacrosanctum Concilium 116:
The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.
The first half sounds great (although even it is weakened by the phrase "other things being equal"). But then the second half undermines it to a point that people can do the opposite. We are left with the vague expression "accord with the spirit of the liturgical action". In effect, the endorsement of Gregorian chant is permission to do just about anything.
Still, this gives proof to the lie that Vatican II did away with the Latin liturgy.
-
Still, this gives proof to the lie that Vatican II did away with the Latin liturgy.
It's not a lie. The very same passage that talks about giving pride of place to Gregorian chant can also be used justify practically any music. Earlier in the same docuмent, there is permission to use more vernacular in the liturgy at the discretion of the bishops. It did not say that Latin must be removed but nevertheless made it possible for vernacular to become the norm.
The Vatican II docuмents are open to widely different interpretations. I suspect that many, maybe most, of the Council Fathers who signed them believed they were agreeing to something orthodox. They could not have foreseen what happened.
There was something called "the Spirit of Vatican II" which was a widespread movement to interpret and implement the docuмents in the most liberal way possible, even to the point of heresy. This "Spirit" dominated the Church hierarchy in the decades immediately after the Council, even more than it does now. (Although Francis has been changing that.)
This, by the way, is the historical context of the founding of the SSPX in which one must understand the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. When I encounter the sort of people who claim he was schismatic, I sometimes try to explain this background to them.
-
Well, the term "sacred" music was a technical term clearly defined by Pope St. Pius X and excluded the types of musical aberrations which made their way into the Novus Ordo. I have no problem with this passage at all. Most of the liturgical experimentation and abuses came in the aftermath of Vatican II and were not directly put into motion by anything in Vatican II.
What this passage is saying is that --
1) Chant is #1 in the Church
2) Other forms of SACRED music (a reference to things like polyphony) may also be used.
Both these were taught by St. Pius X. What this is saying is that Chant has pride of place over polyphony (et al.) ... not that guitar music is now OK. St. Pius X clearly excluded in detail types of music that cannot be considered "sacred" music.
-
Well, the term "sacred" music was a technical term clearly defined by Pope St. Pius X and excluded the types of musical aberrations which made their way into the Novus Ordo. I have no problem with this passage at all. Most of the liturgical experimentation and abuses came in the aftermath of Vatican II and were not directly put into motion by anything in Vatican II.
What this passage is saying is that --
1) Chant is #1 in the Church
2) Other forms of SACRED music (a reference to things like polyphony) may also be used.
Both these were taught by St. Pius X. What this is saying is that Chant has pride of place over polyphony (et al.) ... not that guitar music is now OK. St. Pius X clearly excluded in detail types of music that cannot be considered "sacred" music.
This is the correct interpretation and probably the intent of most Council Fathers. But the "Spirit of Vatican II" involves a "hermeneutic of discontinuity" that ignores the teaching of St. Pius X. Rather than understanding the definition of sacred music according to previous teaching, these people take it in isolation, using a subjective, ahistorical definition. Such people are convinced that Vatican II says that guitar music is OK, among a great many other abuses and heresies.
I daresay it is true that most, if not all, of Vatican II is orthodox when interpreted in light of tradition. It is more of a problem that it was not interpreted this way. And sometimes the docuмents themselves seemed to foster these bad interpretations. (Dignitatis Humanae may be an example.)
-
What this passage is saying is that --
1) Chant is #1 in the Church
2) Other forms of SACRED music (a reference to things like polyphony) may also be used.
Both these were taught by St. Pius X. What this is saying is that Chant has pride of place over polyphony (et al.) ... not that guitar music is now OK. St. Pius X clearly excluded in detail types of music that cannot be considered "sacred" music.
It seems that virtually all of the Conciliar bishops in the world since Vatican 2 completely disagree with your interpretation. If they are the Catholic Church, then their interpretation most definitely trumps yours.
-
That's not my interpretation. Sacred music was defined by St. Pius X. Unfortunately, many Traditional Catholics are ignorant of the term.
Bishops weren't "interpreting" anything ... they just did what they wanted to while using Vatican II as their pretext. They didn't even pretend to be doing any kind of "hermeneutic" when it came to their liturgical aberrations. That "hermeneutic of continuity" expression was developed later by the more conservative bishops who kept clinging to their desire for Vatican II to be considered a legitimate Catholic Council.
-
That's not my interpretation. Sacred music was defined by St. Pius X. Unfortunately, many Traditional Catholics are ignorant of the term.
Bishops weren't "interpreting" anything ... they just did what they wanted to while using Vatican II as their pretext. They didn't even pretend to be doing any kind of "hermeneutic" when it came to their liturgical aberrations. That "hermeneutic of continuity" expression was developed later by the more conservative bishops who kept clinging to their desire for Vatican II to be considered a legitimate Catholic Council.
Why should anyone believe you over all of the bishops?
-
It's not a lie. The very same passage that talks about giving pride of place to Gregorian chant can also be used justify practically any music. Earlier in the same docuмent, there is permission to use more vernacular in the liturgy at the discretion of the bishops. It did not say that Latin must be removed but nevertheless made it possible for vernacular to become the norm.
The Vatican II docuмents are open to widely different interpretations. I suspect that many, maybe most, of the Council Fathers who signed them believed they were agreeing to something orthodox. They could not have foreseen what happened.
There was something called "the Spirit of Vatican II" which was a widespread movement to interpret and implement the docuмents in the most liberal way possible, even to the point of heresy. This "Spirit" dominated the Church hierarchy in the decades immediately after the Council, even more than it does now. (Although Francis has been changing that.)
This, by the way, is the historical context of the founding of the SSPX in which one must understand the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. When I encounter the sort of people who claim he was schismatic, I sometimes try to explain this background to them.
"Spirit of Vatican II' has become a synonym for 'do whatever' with no reference to what the docuмents have to say.
-
It seems that virtually all of the Conciliar bishops in the world since Vatican 2 completely disagree with your interpretation. If they are the Catholic Church, then their interpretation most definitely trumps yours.
They might change their minds if they bothered to read the docuмents. If they thought about it they might change their minds about what 'spirit of Vatican II' actually means.
-
They might change their minds if they bothered to read the docuмents. If they thought about it they might change their minds about what 'spirit of Vatican II' actually means.
You don't believe that the bishops have actually read any of the docuмents?
-
You don't believe that the bishops have actually read any of the docuмents?
You know, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them haven't read them. That's how little these guys care about theology anymore.
-
This is not an "interpretation". You clearly haven't studied enough theology to know the definition of SACRED music ... the term which has escaped many of you.
-
This is not an "interpretation". You clearly haven't studied enough theology to know the definition of SACRED music ... the term which has escaped many of you.
Actually, I agree with you. You clearly haven't read many of my posts.
The point is, if these men are bishops of the Catholic Church, you are wrong in assigning such definitions because the Teaching Church has, by her actions, demonstrated the true meaning of the Vatican 2 docuмents. On the other hand, if these men are usurpers, they have no authority and their understanding of these principles have no validity.
-
One benefit would be in Perfectae Caritatis. Perfectae Caritatis called upon all of the religious communities to follow the original charism of the foundation of their communities. In the case of the SSPX and other similar communities the fact that the TLM is an important part of their charism then any attempt to take it away would be contrary not just to the spirit of Vatican II, but also to the explicit instructions of the docuмent itself.
-
One benefit would be in Perfectae Caritatis. Perfectae Caritatis called upon all of the religious communities to follow the original charism of the foundation of their communities. In the case of the SSPX and other similar communities the fact that the TLM is an important part of their charism then any attempt to take it away would be contrary not just to the spirit of Vatican II, but also to the explicit instructions of the docuмent itself.
However, PC “urges them to adjust their way of life to modern needs” (§ 10), “to the needs of our time” (§ 18), “to the requirements of time and…to modern conditions” (§ 20) “Therefore let constitutions…be suitably re-edited and…adapted to the Decrees of this sacred Synod.” (§ 3). (source (http://www.dominicansavrille.us/little-catechism-of-the-second-vatican-council-part-eight-the-nine-decrees/))
-
However, PC “urges them to adjust their way of life to modern needs” (§ 10), “to the needs of our time” (§ 18), “to the requirements of time and…to modern conditions” (§ 20) “Therefore let constitutions…be suitably re-edited and…adapted to the Decrees of this sacred Synod.” (§ 3). (source (http://www.dominicansavrille.us/little-catechism-of-the-second-vatican-council-part-eight-the-nine-decrees/))
Yes, but unlike other communities, the SSPX, FSSP, and some other communities have as an important part of their charism the TLM. Adaptations and 're-editing' means that tehy can use the telephone every now and then. They can go online and communicate with other people in order to fulfill their mission of bringing Catholic Tradition to the rest of the world.
-
Exposure to more of Scripture at Mass.
But strictly speaking that’s not a “doctrinal” development.
I’m not aware of any good “doctrinal” developments, much less a plurality that could encompass a “best.”
-
That means the Novus Ordo, SSPX, and all of the major sede groups for they all agree that Pagans, Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists...…. can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards. The individual priests might not all believe it, but it is taught to them as "dogma" in their seminaries, and if they question it, they get the boot.
Try to be a little more fair. First, His Excellency Bp. Fellay doesn't believe what you seem to think H.E. believes, "It is a terrible docuмent, completely heretical, which claims that the Jєωs can be saved without coming through Our Lord (par. 36). Exactly the opposite of what Sacred Scripture teaches us, along with the first Pope himself, Saint Peter, who says this to the Jєωs: “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In other words, there is no other means of being saved except through Our Lord. And here Cardinal Koch thinks that you can make a statement saying the contrary. But, he tells us in black and white (in the Preface): “This is not doctrinal teaching.” http://sspx.org/en/can-pastoral-council-be-debatable
Second, because Vatican II is non-infallible and pastoral - unlike all other previous Ecuмenical Councils - it can be questioned further, "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; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest." (Pope Benedict XVI) http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/02/vatican-ii-was-just-pastoral-according.html
Third, the salvation question has become very confused. I'm with St. Thomas and St. Augustine. God will certainly bring a pagan who seeks the truth to Christian Faith, and probably bring one who desires Holy Baptism to the Sacrament itself which will save him.
Fourth, as pointed out in the first link, with regard to this thread topic, "In the Council, surely, we find repeated a great number of dogmas; it says that there is the Holy Trinity, that Our Lord Jesus is God, it says all that! They even say, in the Council, that in order to be saved, one must go through Our Lord. That is said in the Council. There was even someone who had fun demonstrating that we were more faithful to the Council than the Jesuits." CCC 848, citing Ad Gentes, and CCC 161, citing Mk 16:16 and Dei Filius from Vatican I, seems to agree with this. But no one is sure - and this is part of the problem - because many like Barron and others openly teach even atheists can be saved as atheists. Such persons, as ABL used to say, should be reduced to perpetual silence.
Fifth, a proverbial 95% in V2 and the CCC can be read in light of Tradition. The main issue in Vatican II was not declared - a dogmatic definition of the Kingship of Christ and the necessity of explicit faith in Him for salvation, the universal Mediation of our Immaculate Mother as Co-Redemptrix with Christ, a dogmatic condemnation of Communism, condemnation of impure publications and the "free love" movement that was beginning, directions to all Catholic states to explicitly honor the Twin Hearts in their constitutions etc.
If those things had been done, the Council would borne good fruit. They remain to be done and must necessarily be done in future.
And the TLM of course should have been preserved unchanged as the only Mass of the Latin/Roman Rite. It must be restored now.
-
Try to be a little more fair. First, His Excellency Bp. Fellay doesn't believe what you seem to think H.E. believes, "It is a terrible docuмent, completely heretical, which claims that the Jєωs can be saved without coming through Our Lord (par. 36). Exactly the opposite of what Sacred Scripture teaches us, along with the first Pope himself, Saint Peter, who says this to the Jєωs: “There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In other words, there is no other means of being saved except through Our Lord. And here Cardinal Koch thinks that you can make a statement saying the contrary. But, he tells us in black and white (in the Preface): “This is not doctrinal teaching.” http://sspx.org/en/can-pastoral-council-be-debatable
Second, because Vatican II is non-infallible and pastoral - unlike all other previous Ecuмenical Councils - it can be questioned further, "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; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest." (Pope Benedict XVI) http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/02/vatican-ii-was-just-pastoral-according.html
Third, the salvation question has become very confused. I'm with St. Thomas and St. Augustine. God will certainly bring a pagan who seeks the truth to Christian Faith, and probably bring one who desires Holy Baptism to the Sacrament itself which will save him.
Fourth, as pointed out in the first link, with regard to this thread topic, "In the Council, surely, we find repeated a great number of dogmas; it says that there is the Holy Trinity, that Our Lord Jesus is God, it says all that! They even say, in the Council, that in order to be saved, one must go through Our Lord. That is said in the Council. There was even someone who had fun demonstrating that we were more faithful to the Council than the Jesuits." CCC 848, citing Ad Gentes, and CCC 161, citing Mk 16:16 and Dei Filius from Vatican I, seems to agree with this. But no one is sure - and this is part of the problem - because many like Barron and others openly teach even atheists can be saved as atheists. Such persons, as ABL used to say, should be reduced to perpetual silence.
Fifth, a proverbial 95% in V2 and the CCC can be read in light of Tradition. The main issue in Vatican II was not declared - a dogmatic definition of the Kingship of Christ and the necessity of explicit faith in Him for salvation, the universal Mediation of our Immaculate Mother as Co-Redemptrix with Christ, a dogmatic condemnation of Communism, condemnation of impure publications and the "free love" movement that was beginning, directions to all Catholic states to explicitly honor the Twin Hearts in their constitutions etc.
If those things had been done, the Council would borne good fruit. They remain to be done and must necessarily be done in future.
And the TLM of course should have been preserved unchanged as the only Mass of the Latin/Roman Rite. It must be restored now.
With the promulgation of Summorum Pontificem this is a reality.
-
Whatever truth the V2 docuмents proclaimed, they did so half-heartedly and, in turn, included a liberal slant to it, so that a contrary position could be inferred by liberals. There is nothing clear, unambiguous or definite about the V2 docuмents. There are multiple other councils, books which explain V2's topics infinitely better. V2 is as useful to a catholic as a 1st grade math book is to a scientist.
-
From one of the docuмents of Vatican II;
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
-
LG (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)'s "universal call to holiness" ch. 5, correctly interpreted in the non-ecuмaniacal sense, settled a debate of whether "the infused contemplation of the mysteries of faith and the union with God which results therefrom [is] an intrinsically extraordinary grace, or is it, on the contrary, in the normal way of sanctity" (cf. ch. 6 of Christian Perfection & Contemplation (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=2952) by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.).
For example:
all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity […] all the faithful of Christ are invited to strive for the holiness and perfection of their own proper state