Vatican II, Pre- and Post-

[Woodsy]

Were I not an investigator into truth, I would never have found my way to the Catholic Church.
What I have found wityhin this Church thus far is able stand up to reason and scrutinty in addition to the Spirit.
One issue of which I am only beginning to scratch the surface, however, is that of Vatican II and the changes it wrought upon the Church.
It seems that we have both proponents and opponents of Vatican II on this board.
Since this is really a wholly Catholic issue, I would really like to see a civil discussion of the issue here. Unfortunately, from what I hace seen today, I fear that the opponents of Vatican II may have trouble refraining from some of their more inflammatory remarks. Prove me wrong on this.
If we could have a thoughtful discussion on the topic, I think that some of us could benefit from it. Everybody, just put forth your best argument regarding the various issues - making certain to provide references for all of your points.
If rational discussion becomes impossible, I voluntarily submit this thread to the mods to close.
<fingers crossed>

 

[CatholicCrusader1095]

Were I not an investigator into truth, I would never have found my way to the Catholic Church.
What I have found wityhin this Church thus far is able stand up to reason and scrutinty in addition to the Spirit.
One issue of which I am only beginning to scratch the surface, however, is that of Vatican II and the changes it wrought upon the Church.
It seems that we have both proponents and opponents of Vatican II on this board.
Since this is really a wholly Catholic issue, I would really like to see a civil discussion of the issue here. Unfortunately, from what I hace seen today, I fear that the opponents of Vatican II may have trouble refraining from some of their more inflammatory remarks. Prove me wrong on this.
If we could have a thoughtful discussion on the topic, I think that some of us could benefit from it. Everybody, just put forth your best argument regarding the various issues - making certain to provide references for all of your points.
If rational discussion becomes impossible, I voluntarily submit this thread to the mods to close.
<fingers crossed>

Tribe,

Inflammatory remarks are the way of the saints, from the old testament prophets, to John the Baptist, to the saints of all ages. They could care less about political correctness. Their primary concern is the salvation of souls, and that means making sure people understand what the Truth is, even if the Truth hurts.

Now.... for a summary of the contradictions wrought by Vatican 2 there are a few good sites, here are two:

www.romancatholicism.org

and

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

 

[CatholicCrusader1095]

Tribe,

Inflammatory remarks are the way of the saints, from the old testament prophets, to John the Baptist, to the saints of all ages. They could care less about political correctness. Their primary concern is the salvation of souls, and that means making sure people understand what the Truth is, even if the Truth hurts.

Now.... for a summary of the contradictions wrought by Vatican 2 there are a few good sites, here are two:

www.romancatholicism.org

and

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Also be sure to find the nearest SSPX chapel, you might want to talk to a traditionalist priest:

www.sspx.org

 

[Woodsy]

CC1095, Political Correctness has no home in my life. And of course the Gospel is inflammatory to a world which despises its truths. I simply mean that unless we temper the manner in which our message is expressed within certain arenas, we run the risk of no one being able to hear it.
I am asking to learn more about why Catholics such as you disagree with Vatican II. I ask this out of a genuine desire to hear and evaluate for myself. Give me that chance.

 

[Woodsy]

CC1095, I likely would never have made an appointment to speak with a Catholic priest without first having been exposed to reasoned discussion on this board about the history and beliefs of the Catholic Church.
I would be happy to meet with a SSPX priest, but I would like to be shown first why I might want to.

 

[CatholicCrusader1095]

CC1095, Political Correctness has no home in my life. And of course the Gospel is inflammatory to a world which despises its truths. I simply mean that unless we temper the manner in which our message is expressed within certain arenas, we run the risk of no one being able to hear it.
I am asking to learn more about why Catholics such as you disagree with Vatican II. I ask this out of a genuine desire to hear and evaluate for myself. Give me that chance.

Tribe,

I am more than happy to give you that chance.

Go to Most Holy Family Monastery and click on their page called "Principle errors of V2". You will see how Vatican 2 contradicts the previous faith on many points.

Here is just one example. Vatican 2 calls heretical martyrs witnesses to Jesus Christ. When you witness to Christ you preach the TRUE FAITH. It is implicitly suggesting that heresies are the true faith.

Even more heinous is the fact that the Council of Florence infallibly stated that a heretic, EVEN IF HE WERE TO DIE FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, could not be saved, unless he abided in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

No heretical martyr lies in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church, and no heretical martyr witnesses and proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ. Such a thing is horrific to even think of.

"The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those abiding in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has abided in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence, A.D. 1442)

VATICAN 2 DISTORTION:
Unitatis redintegratio # 4:

“On the other hand, Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments which derive from our common heritage and which are to be found among our separated brothers and sisters. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and the virtuous deeds in the lives of others who bear witness to Christ, even at times to the shedding of their blood.”




Another error is this idea that heretics are in "partial communion" and are our brothers and sisters. Heretics are not in communion at all with the Church, this has been infallibly stated in papal encyclicals. That they have NO COMMUNION. That they are SEPARATED FROM.

 

[Woodsy]

Alright, what say the Vatican II supporters to this?
1.) Has there been a change from the Church's saying that non-Catholics, even those who die for their belief in Christ, cannot be martyrs ot witnesses to Christ?
And has the position of the Church changed with Vatican II to saying that even non-Catholic Christians may be martyrs and witnesses to the True Faith?

2.) Has the official Church position changed from saying that non-Catholics are not the Brothers and sisters of Catholics to saying that they are? If so, does this represent a change in doctrine or a contradiction?

 

[CatholicCrusader1095]

Here is another very overt statement that condemns all of Vatican 2. Pius XI stated quite clearly that modernists exhibit the following:

"They presuppose that ERRONEOUS VIEW THAT ALL RELIGIONS ARE MORE OR LESS GOOD AND PRAISEWORTHY, IN AS MUCH AS ALL GIVE EXPRESSION, UNDER VARIOUS FORMS TO THAT INNATE SENSE WHICH LEADS MEN TO GOD"

Pope Pius XI BOUND the faithful infallibly to see this idea that false religions are good as erroneous. Those therefore who follow Vatican 2 follow pure heresy, because Vatican 2 teaches that false religions and protestants are esteemed, good, and praiseworthy. No Catholic Council prior to Vatican 2 EVER said that false religions are good, infact they labeled them all kinds of names such as perfidious, blasphemous, perditious, diabolical, etc....

 

[Woodsy]

3.) What is the pro-Vatican II response to the allegation that Pope John Paul II has contradicted the above quote by Pope Pius XI?

 

[CatholicCrusader1095]

Here is another very overt statement that condemns all of Vatican 2. Pius XI stated quite clearly that modernists exhibit the following:

"They presuppose that ERRONEOUS VIEW THAT ALL RELIGIONS ARE MORE OR LESS GOOD AND PRAISEWORTHY, IN AS MUCH AS ALL GIVE EXPRESSION, UNDER VARIOUS FORMS TO THAT INNATE SENSE WHICH LEADS MEN TO GOD"

Pope Pius XI BOUND the faithful infallibly to see this idea that false religions are good as erroneous. Those therefore who follow Vatican 2 follow pure heresy, because Vatican 2 teaches that false religions and protestants are esteemed, good, and praiseworthy. No Catholic Council prior to Vatican 2 EVER said that false religions are good, infact they labeled them all kinds of names such as perfidious, blasphemous, perditious, diabolical, etc....

And lest anyone even remotely tries to say that John Paul 2 doesn't contradict Pius XI, please note this statement of JP2's from Assisi 1986:

"All religions are MORE OR LESS GOOD AND PRAISEWORTHY, IN AS MUCH AS ALL GIVE EXPRESSIOn, UNDER VARIOUS FORMS, TO THAT INNATE SENSE WHICH LEADS MEN TO GOD."

YES, JP2 USED THE EXACT WORDS CONDEMNED BY PIUS XI IN MORTALIUM ANIMOS.

 

[Woodsy]

Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, 1929
"They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule."

Pope John Paul II, January 28 to the cardinals, bishops and theologians who make up the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith :
"It is wrong to consider the church as a path to salvation equal to those of other religions," the Pope added. "It is true that non-Christians—as was pointed out by the Second Vatican Council—can 'earn' eternal life if they seek God with a sincere heart. But in their sincere search for the truth of God they are, in fact, 'called' to Christ and his body, the church. Nevertheless, they find themselves in a deficient situation, compared to those who have the complete means of salvation within the church."

 

[Woodsy]

This web page: http://www.truecatholic.org/heresiesjp2.htm
has some arguments with which I truly do not know what to do.

 

[nyj]

Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, 1929
"They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule."

Pope John Paul II, January 28 to the cardinals, bishops and theologians who make up the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith :
"It is wrong to consider the church as a path to salvation equal to those of other religions," the Pope added. "It is true that non-Christians—as was pointed out by the Second Vatican Council—can 'earn' eternal life if they seek God with a sincere heart. But in their sincere search for the truth of God they are, in fact, 'called' to Christ and his body, the church. Nevertheless, they find themselves in a deficient situation, compared to those who have the complete means of salvation within the church."

So do you think that those two comments conflict?

 

[Woodsy]

So do you think that those two comments conflict?

Nope. I specifically posted two statements which seem to show that Pope Pius XI and Pope John Paul II are in agreement.
I am not arguing against Vatican II or Pope John Paul II. I am seeking to facilitate a discussion. I am willing to entertain the idea that I am in way over my head, though...

 

[CatholicCrusader1095]

Nope. I specifically posted two statements which seem to show that Pope Pius XI and Pope John Paul II are in agreement.
I am not arguing against Vatican II or Pope John Paul II. I am seeking to facilitate a discussion. I am willing to entertain the idea that I am in way over my head, though...

Tribe,

No those two statements are not in agreement. JP2 is addressing salavation in the second statement while Pius XI is addressing whether false religions are good and praiseworthy. But that second statement is also important: Pope John Paul 2 is in that second statement CONTRADICTING the Council of Florence which teaches that OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH there is utterly no salvation. It is also a dogma that it is necessary to hold the Catholic FAITH for salvation.

 

[CatholicKid]

If Vatican II is not a true Council then the jaws of death have prevailed against the Church. That will NEVER happen. Follow the Holy Father; he won't steer us wrong. "Where Peter is there is the Church."

 

[Woodsy]

I have seen the SSPX'ers refuted here, but I have not seen specifics of their arguments addressed.
When CatholicCrusader wrote:

"Pope John Paul 2 is in that second statement CONTRADICTING the Council of Florence which teaches that OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH there is utterly no salvation."

was he misrepresenting Pope John Paul II's position or statements?
I am not comfortable with the anger, hostility, and lack of restraint displayed by the SSPX'ers here, and am kind of shocked at some of the invective. So I'm not trying to stand up for them, just wanting to see the Catholic answers to their complaints.
Honestly, I am really just seeking to understand the specific issues.
But again, I am completely new to The Church, knowing less than anyone else here, so I may just not be "getting" it.
It may be that this thread is fruitless and I shouldn't have started it. I was hoping to see the kind of discussion that goes on when Protestants question Catholic doctrine. The Catholic answers always impress me, as do the Catholic board members who do the answering.
Later.

 

[La Minturnesa]

If Vatican II is not a true Council then the jaws of death have prevailed against the Church. That will NEVER happen. Follow the Holy Father; he won't steer us wrong. "Where Peter is there is the Church."

Vatican II was a true Council, but it was a PASTORAL Council. From Pope John XXIII's Opening Address:

"The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

"For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character. "

From the Nota Praevia of Lumen Gentium:

"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."


I.e., the Second Vatican Council, being a PASTORAL Council, pronounced no dogma. No assent of faith is required toward the Council or its documents because it is NOT an infallible Council. Pastoral orientations are not "orthodox" or "unorthodox" (necessarily); they are either "wise" or "unwise", they either give good fruit or bad. The Council must be interpreted ONLY in "accordance with the norms of theological interpretation." Anything that contradicts what has always been taught, anything that harms the Faith, MUST BE REJECTED.

Looking back at the Council, it is obvious that the new pastoral orientation was unwise and has produced nothing but bad fruit:

Since Vatican II:

Priests in USA:
1930-1965 doubled to 58,000
since 1965: 45,000
Projection: by 2020: 31,000, half over 70

Priestless parishes:
1965: 1%
2002: 15%

Ordinations in USA:
1965: 1,575
2002: 450

Seminarians:
1965: 49,000
2002: 4,700 ( -90%)

Seminaries:
1965: 600
2002: 200

Sisters:
1965: 180,000
2002: 75,000, average age 68

Teaching nuns:
1965: 104,000
2002: 8,200 ( -94%)

Jesuits:
1965: 3,559
2000: 389

Christian Brothers seminarians:
1965: 912
2000: 7

Franciscans:
1965: 3,379
2000: 84

Catholic High Schools: - 50%

Catholic Parochial Schools: -4,000

Catholic marriages: - 33%

Annulments:
1968: 338
2002: 50,000

Mass attendance:
1958: 3 out of 4
2002: 1 out of 4

Lay religious teachers who OK:
contraception: 90%
abortion: 53%
divorce and remarriage: 65%
missing Mass: 77%

Catholics aged 18-44 who don't believe in Real Presence: 70%

 

[isshinwhat]

Pope John Paul 2 is in that second statement CONTRADICTING the Council of Florence which teaches that OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH there is utterly no salvation. It is also a dogma that it is necessary to hold the Catholic FAITH for salvation.

The Catholic Church still holds that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. I believe most, but not all, traditionalists are confusing formal and informal heresies. An informal heretic can still be considered "within the Church," though he is not in full communion with her. Such is the case with Protestants today. To say that the Council of Florence was addressing all heretics is not accurate. Formal heretics, yes, informal, no. That is what was meant by the statement from UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO:

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(1 Cor. 11, 18-19; Gal. 1, 6-9; 1 Jn. 2, 18-19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(1 Cor. 1, 11 sqq; 11, 22) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[La Minturnesa]

The Catholic Church still holds that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. I believe most, but not all, traditionalists are confusing formal and informal heresies. An informal heretic can still be considered "within the Church," though he is not in full communion with her. Such is the case with Protestants today. To say that the Council of Florence was addressing all heretics is not accurate. Formal heretics, yes, informal, no. That is what was meant by the statement from UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO:

God Bless,

Neal

No traditional Catholic I know confuses material and formal heresy (in fact, it is the traditional Catholics who are MOST clear on this. Catholics who don't understand this concept are either sedevacantist or those who think the Pope can do no wrong because every little thing he does must be infallible and must be defended or else the Petrine ministry is a lie and the Gates of Hell have prevailed, and so forth).

But material heretics are still -- heretics. They must be brought to the Truth. And unless those material heretics have never comitted a mortal sin, they are dead members of the Church and need the Sacrament of Penance.

The pastoral change since Vatican II assumes that the baptized heretics are in a state of grace and don't need conversion. In addition, our hierarchs act as though the other Sacraments don't matter and don't give real grace. No matter the claims that "we haven't changed Church teaching" they want to come up with, the actions of our hierarchs demonstrate clearly that conversion is no longer the point.

Might some who are formally outside the Church be saved? Sure, but writer Harold E. Welitz sums up the issue:

"Let's say that a father kept a loaded gun in the house. Now, certainly it has occurred since the invention of the revolver that a bullet has failed to fire when the trigger was pulled. Therefore, based on this possibility should the father continually remind his children that if they play with a gun and shoot at each other, it may not go off? Would that be a wise and prudent father, one who truly cares or his children? If the father continually discussed the possibility that the gun may not go off if the trigger were pulled, would he be misleading his children? Yes! Although what he is saying is not false, it is deceptive because it implies that something that is rare is actually likely. The result will be that the children will become more negligent in playing with loaded guns, which most likely will kill one of them. Should the father not say: "Do not play with a loaded gun, whatever you do! If you play with a loaded gun, someone will get killed." A wise and prudent father may realize there are a very slight percentage of bullets that are defective, but he knows it is not wise to continually remind his children of this, lest they become forgetful of the dangers of playing with loaded guns."

The post-conciliar hierarchs don't tell people to not play with loaded guns, as it were. They instead let the kiddies play because, well, sometimes, maybe, it's possible that the gun doesn't go off. The post-conciliar indifferentism is nowhere as evident as it is in the Assisi events, where heretics, infidels, and apostates are encouraged to pray to their gods, and conversion isn't mentioned.

The salvation of those who are formally outside the Church is never, EVER to be assumed. We may pray for it, we may hope that those who are formally outside the Church are acting in invincible ignrorance, are animated by charity and a faith in God Whom they truly seek (the only way we can hope that they are saved), but we can't ASSUME it and act as though they've just simply "chosen another path," and so on. The Commission was to go forth and preach the Gospel and baptize; it wasn't to engage in "dialogue."