Vatican II and Trent

[royal priest]

How do Catholics interpret Vatican II in light of the Council of Trent?

 

[Charles in Ky]

To me as a cradle Catholic, Trent is the measuring stick.

Vatican II has been described as a pastoral Council versus a doctrinal one.

The issue that many Catholics have with Vatican II is not the council itself but the ambiguity of the documents.

And following the council, the novus ordo Mass, sometimes referred to the new Mass or the Pauline Mass, opened the door to an innumerable Novelties and liturgical abuses.

On paper, placing the Novus Ordo Missae next to the 1962 Roman Catholic missal, one can see an obvious reduction in the prayers of the Mass.

Those that defend the novus ordo like to say that it encourages more active participation by the laity. But in truth, there is simply more Audible participation.

The new Mass can be seen as an about-face from the Gregorian Rite as codified by Pope Saint Pius V.

The reason it was codified is because a universal form was needed. One could attend the Catholic Mass anywhere in the world and it would be the same. It was prayed in Latin.

Once the novus ordo was presented as the norm, soon we saw a reversion back to the reasons the Mass was codified.

Anyhow, without starting to list what started occuring, one can still find a reverent novus ordo today. I attend both forms.

 

[Meowzltov]

How do Catholics interpret Vatican II in light of the Council of Trent?

Vatican II is an infallible ecumenical council, not a pastoral council. It's documents cannot be questioned. We interpret Trent in the light of Vatican II. But rest assured there is no absolute contradiction.

The only real problems arise in the abominable things that have been done in "the spirit of Vatican II."

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Vatican II is an infallible ecumenical council, not a pastoral council. It's documents cannot be questioned. We interpret Trent in the light of Vatican II. But rest assured there is no absolute contradiction.

The only real problems arise in the abominable things that have been done in "the spirit of Vatican II."

Vatican II is pastoral with the exception of two documents which claim to be infallible.

Those two documents are Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum.

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation." — Lumen Gentium Appendix

 

[AvilaSurfer]

I’m amused by non-Catholic questions in here sometimes. I’m also amused by the user names some people pick. That’s all. I’m just amused.

 

[Rhamiel]

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

"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


I do not think it is unreasonable to think that Vatican II might be declared a Robber Council some time in the future

 

[Hamlet7768]

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

"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

Right. St John XXIII did not convene the council to declare anything previously undeclared, but rather to bring the Church to the World.

I do not think it is unreasonable to think that Vatican II might be declared a Robber Council some time in the future

Now that, I think, verges on unreasonable. On whose authority should we speculate that a Council is a Robber Council? Our own? Then we are no better than the Protestants. We must hold faith that Vatican II is a true council, and rather seek to bring the true spirit of the council to the Church. Which, yes, means reading the bloody documents and interpreting them in light of Tradition. Which includes Trent.

So that's where Vatican II and Trent meet. The latter informs the former, frames it and gives it context.

 

[Markie Boy]

Trent states no salvation outside the Church pretty clearly.

Vatican II a very ecumenical tone.

They don't rhyme very well to me.

This is from someone that would like to be Catholic, but keeps bumping into issues.

 

[Meowzltov]

Vatican II is pastoral with the exception of two documents which claim to be infallible.

Those two documents are Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum.

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation." — Lumen Gentium Appendix

The doctrinal statements of ecumenical councils are infallible. That would be more than just two of Vatican II's. For example, Nostra Aetate contains doctrinal statements, and so is infallible.

 

[chevyontheriver]

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

"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

True. But there were those dogmatic constitutions, of which Dei Verbum was one, so we have something claiming to be dogmatic that at the same time is claimed not to be infallible.

I do not think it is unreasonable to think that Vatican II might be declared a Robber Council some time in the future

It's implementation by the bureaucrats based on 'THE SPIRIT of Vatican II' is definitely 'Robber' all the way. The words of Vatican II do seem better, although in many places the words can be read in two ways. That's why, 25 years after the council, John Paul II had a synod on how to interpret Vatican II. That helped. of course those bureaucrats are well dug in to the infrastructure of the Church.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The doctrinal statements of ecumenical councils are infallible. That would be more than just two of Vatican II's. For example, Nostra Aetate contains doctrinal statements, and so is infallible.

Nostra Aetate does not claim to be infallible.

But Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum claim to be infallible.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church. The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith."
— Lumen Gentium, 25

 

[Rhamiel]

It's implementation by the bureaucrats based on 'THE SPIRIT of Vatican II' is definitely 'Robber' all the way. The words of Vatican II do seem better, although in many places the words can be read in two ways.

this is why i think it might be counted as a Robber Council in the future

all through history Church Councils have caused division
but that division is normally over those who accept the council and those who reject it
this is the only time I can think of where the major split is over two ways of reading the Council

 

[Meowzltov]

Nostra Aetate does not claim to be infallible.

But Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum claim to be infallible.

It doesn't have to make that claim. It is so simply by being a doctrinal document of an ecumenical council.

 

[concretecamper]

We interpret Trent in the light of Vatican II

Nope. We interpret VII in light of Trent. We have to since Trent came first.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Nope. We interpret VII in light of Trent. We have to since Trent came first.

And Trent is clear Catholicism all the way through whereas VII is sometimes clear but other times ambiguous and mixed with ideas outside of Catholicism. The meaning of Trent never had to be debated whereas the meaning of VII was debated from the time it first came out and is still being debated.

 

[chevyontheriver]

this is why i think it might be counted as a Robber Council in the future

all through history Church Councils have caused division
but that division is normally over those who accept the council and those who reject it
this is the only time I can think of where the major split is over two ways of reading the Council

You are right about councils causing division. But mostly councils are called after there is a division, and because existing teaching is not clear enough to resolve the issue. So the norm is that the issue is then resolved by a definition of a council, and then it takes a few years for it to all settle out.

With Vatican II there was no blatant division to begin with, but we still get that period of time for it to all settle out. I think the pre-council division was there, but more invisible, deeper than most of us could imagine. The council triggered it, not on purpose, but inevitably. The Modernist Underground surfaced. It was already there, slowly sapping the faith. But it had it's big chance, it's make or break moment at and after the council.

John Paul II called the Synod on the interpretation of Vatican II so as to challenge the 'Spirit of Vatican II' meme. His point was that if anything, the 'spirit' needed to be associated with the 'words', and that all of it was a continuation of the Church, not a rupture.

What we have going on now is 'rupture' on steroids. They call it 'paradigm shift'. But John Paul II and his Synod on Vatican II have shown us how Vatican II is supposed to be interpreted. It is the hermeneutic of continuity. And that required and requires a 'reform of the reform'. So quickly that is being forgotten now that we are told that the paradigms all must shift. Hogwash. Vatican II stands, and John Paul II has shown us how to read it.

We are divided now, so quickly. And it's big like the Arian thing or the Reformation thing. It's natural to question how we got here. I think the roots are not so much in Vatican II but in something that was older and well hidden, plain old fashioned Modernism, the stuff of Tyrrell and Loisy and company, bloomed in a thousand diocesan bureaucracies, undoing the faith. I think Vatican II can be read as an antidote to Modernism. That's why the Modernists don't like the 'words' of Vatican II and have to go beyond the 'words' to the 'spirit'.

 

[Meowzltov]

It's implementation by the bureaucrats based on 'THE SPIRIT of Vatican II' is definitely 'Robber' all the way.

Heaven help us. You'll get no argument from me that the things done in the name of the "spirit of Vatican II" damaged the church.

 

[Hamlet7768]

And Trent is clear Catholicism all the way through whereas VII is sometimes clear but other times ambiguous and mixed with ideas outside of Catholicism. The meaning of Trent never had to be debated whereas the meaning of VII was debated from the time it first came out and is still being debated.

I can't help but point out that none of us were there either at or immediately after Trent. I haven't researched on Trent's impact specifically, but I seriously doubt it was instantly and universally accepted. If that were the case, it would certainly be one of very few councils with that distinction, if not the only one!

It also doesn't help that we live in a world of instantaneous informational access. In the 24 hours since the tragic school shooting in Florida, we now know the likely perpetrator's name, his face, his weapons, his likely motive, and his victims. Compared to how things were even in the day of Vatican II, that's amazing. Compared to the days of Vatican I? Incredible. Compared to the days of Trent? Inconceivable!

We have come to expect news every day, and to a degree we expect every day's news to be The Big Headline after which nothing is the same. Thinking this way is inviting insanity.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The Protestants didn't accept Trent. But there's no reason why a faithful Catholic wouldn't accept Trent since Trent is dogmatic and clearly teaches Catholicism all the way through. There is nothing in Trent that is ambiguous and no teaching that is foreign to Catholicism. And that's how Trent is unlike VII.