Defense Of Vatican Ii

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Any good links in the defense of the true meaning of Vatican II and the validity of the Novus Ordo?

[cmotherofpirl]

CCC read the underlined section in 10.

9 "The ministry of catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. The Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching. . . ."12 The Council of Trent initiated a remarkable organization of the Church's catechesis. Thanks to the work of holy bishops and theologians such as St. Peter Canisius, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Turibius of Mongrovejo or St. Robert Bellarmine, it occasioned the publication of numerous catechisms.

10 It is therefore no surprise that catechesis in the Church has again attracted attention in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, which Pope Paul VI considered the great catechism of modern times. The General Catechetical Directory (1971) the sessions of the Synod of Bishops devoted to evangelization (1974) and catechesis (1977), the apostolic exhortations Evangelii nuntiandi (1975) and Catechesi tradendae (1979), attest to this. The Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985 asked "that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals be composed"13 The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, made the Synod's wish his own, acknowledging that "this desire wholly corresponds to a real need of the universal Church and of the particular Churches."14 He set in motion everything needed to carry out the Synod Fathers' wish.

[cmotherofpirl]

http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/index.htm

This website is from a trad who came home to the Church. Great stuff.

[Laudate_Dominum]

dude, here is a link to some good stuff from one of my favorite apologetics websites.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ389.HTM

[phatcatholic]

dude, here is a link to some good stuff from one of my favorite apologetics websites.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ389.HTM

hehe, yup, dave armstrong has all the resources u need, "thedude"

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Thank you. I wish he would sell a print copy of his book about Traditionalism.

[phatcatholic]

Thank you. I wish he would sell a print copy of his book about Traditionalism.

you could always download it and print it out urself or take it to a Kinkos.

[Hananiah]

I hate to play the devil's advocate here, but the facts speak for themselves:

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031208.html

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20040119.html

"The number of adult baptisms is a true sign of the strength of any religious organization. And in the years before the Council the number of adult baptisms was skyrocketing: 38,232 in 1930, 73,677 in 1940, 84,908 in 1945, 119,173 in 1950, 137,310 in 1955, and 146,212 in 1960."

The documents of Vatican II may have been protected by the Holy Ghost from any explicit error, but it is simple fact that that council has produced a lot of bad fruit.

[phatcatholic]

sorry, but these numbers don't prove anything. you still have that tricky matter in statistics of proving a cause-and-effect relationship between the changes of Vatican II and the drop in numbers.

good luck

[phatcatholic]

i formally retract my "good luck" comment. i realize now that this was uncharitable of me to be sarcastic in that way.

[Hananiah]

There are only 2 possible explanations: the council and the cultural revolution of the 60's. But the 60's didn't produce a comporable decline in vocations and church attendance among Protestants, so by the process of elimination, it could only have been the council. The writing is on the wall. Up, up, up, 1965, down, down, down.

That having been said, allow me to repeat that I do believe Vatican II was protected from error by the Holy Ghost. However, the documents are unnecessarily vague in key places, which has made it possible for modernists and progressives to interpret them in ways which put them in contradiction to previous magesterial teaching. For example, Dei Verbum states that the Bible teaches innerantly all the things which God wanted us to know for the sake of our salvation. This statement can be interpreted 2 ways: (1) the Bible is innerant in all it teaches, or (2) the Bible is only innerant when it teaches about salvation; it can contain the most atrocious errors and contradictions when it speaks of other topics. For the past 2000 years, the Catholic Church has taught the former interpretation (Cf. Pope Leo XIII's encyclical, Providessentimus Deus). However, because of this unecessarily vague statement, "Catholic" scholars such as Raymond Brown have been able to spread interpreation #2 throughout our seminaries, and as a result a great number of our priests are extraordinarily heterodox. For example, my priest here at Penn State openly preaches salvation outside the Church, in direct contradiction to the Council of Florence (Denzinger 714) and the papal bull Unam Sanctam. According to him, you can leave the Church and become a Hindu, but as long as you're following your conscience and living a good life, you're still saved.

Likewise, the decay in our liturgy is not so much the result of the documents of Vatican II themselves; rather it is a result of their ambiguity. The real souce of the problem has been the poor implementation of Vatican II's calls for reform, and the atrocious translation of the Latin Liturgy produced by the ICEL.

[Laudate_Dominum]

The documents of Vatican II may have been protected by the Holy Ghost from any explicit error, but it is simple fact that that council has produced a lot of bad fruit.

I disagree in many ways. First of all the cultural revolution of the 1960's certainly did effect all Christians, not just the Catholic Church. There were forces brewing in the Church long before the council that contributed to the problems. I will admit that the confusion following the council was a great occassion for many of these movements to show their true colors I hardly condemn the council as the cause of these problems. I am convinced that many of the things outlined in the documents of Vatican II are the answers to many of the problems in the Church once they are actually implemented and the true "spirit of Vatican II" is brought about.

I blame things like modernist scholarship, corruptions in the ecumenical movement, and the reactionary cultural climate much more than I blame the council itself. Although my personal opinion is that the Council was not perfect. It doesn't have to be perfect to the true and guided by the Holy Spirit. I think it was too easily used by heretics and enemies of the Church as a tool for introducing corruptions. And I think it's clear that the liturgical reform has not been in conformity to Vatican II, neither have the developments in biblical scholarship, moral theology, the ecumenical movement, etc.. But I'm just some dumb layman afterall so my opinions aren't the bomb or anything. But I have read statements from orthodox Bishops and Cardinals that agree with this.

Edited February 8, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[cmotherofpirl]

It takes about 50 years after a Council for the dust to settle.

Hanniah do you believe ourtside the Church there is no salvation, more specifically, are you a feeneyite?

Edited February 8, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Laudate_Dominum]

I don't think Hananiah's views reflect the feeneyites. I agree with most of what was said. I don't believe in salvation outside the Church and the Church has never taught this. It would be against dogma.

The Church does not teach this:

According to him, you can leave the Church and become a Hindu, but as long as you're following your conscience and living a good life, you're still saved.

We don't know, based on Church teachings if this person would be saved. But if they are saved we know it's through Christ and His Church. The Church's teaching on this subject has a negative form not a positive one. So I don't think the statement of Hananiah's implies Feeneyism. If it had been said like this: "if you leave the Church to become Hindoo, and are following your conscience and living a decent life, your damned because you aren't formally Catholic." They would be feeneyite.

And I hope Hananiah believes that there is no salvation outside the Church, because it's a dogma.

Edited February 8, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Is there a possibility of a Vatican III to clamp down on misinterpretations and abuses of Vatican II? I think something nesds to be done. Many young people, being influenced by liberals, now consider pre-Vatican II Catholics and post-Vatican II Catholics a different thing.