Time to eliminate all confusion about Vatican II

Considering that there are so many past and current threads regarding Vatican II, its authority, whether or not it’s infallible, which parts of it we need to obey, etc., I think it’s high time to clear things up once and for all.

All councils have doctrinal and pastoral aspects, so it’s not correct to say that Vatican II was merely pastoral. Vatican II didn’t solemnly define any dogma, true, but that’s only because it didn’t intend to teach infallibly BY THE USUAL NORMS OF EXTRAORDINARY MAGISTERIUM. Instead, it chose to use the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which isn’t as definitive or formal but is just as infallible.

I’d like to add that Vatican II did indeed definitively settle some doctrinal issues and/or proclaim doctrines (not in the same solemn manner as a dogma, mind you, but in a solemn manner nevertheless):
[LIST=1]
*]The subdiaconate isn’t a sacrament but only a sacramental.
*]Consecration to the episcopate isn’t a new sacrament but rather the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders.
*]It cleared up the fact that the Council of Trent didn’t declare that Scripture and Tradition were 2 separate sources but rather 2 parts of the same source.
*]The details of religious liberty in relation to the state were defined solemnly and definitively.
*]The Blessed Virgin Mary is Mother of the Church and is properly understood as a member of the Church.
*]Lumen Gentium Chapter 25 provides the watershed understanding of the doctrine of infallibility and completes the work that Vatican I wasn’t able to deal with in 1870 and which Pius XII dealt with partially in Humani Generis. There is no more comprehensive explication and defense of the Magisterium in any other magisterial document.
*]The ecumenical movement — understood as the desire and work to bring about Christian unity under the headship of the Vicar of Christ and WITHOUT sacrificing doctrine (unlike abuses of ecumenism, which, sadly, have been way too common over the years) — is initiated and fostered by the Holy Spirit. As such, it is our duty as Catholic Christians, to help bring about this unity of Christian persons, this unity of Christendom. This duty and dedication to bringing about unity is part of the Christian life and can manifest itself through prayer and/or action.[/LIST]

Vatican II did not abolish the subdiaconate. 1972 Ministeria Quaedam did. And, now, there are subdeacons in the west again in several orders. And the East never lost them. Rome NEVER said subdeacons were receiving a sacrament. Never. Next issue?

Rome NEVER said episcopal consecration was a “new” sacrament. Next issue?

The Virgin Mary was always considered a member of the Church. Next issue?

On Ecumenism, Christ said to go and preach the Gospel to all. That’s the divine precept of Ecumenism.

Vatican II’s views on Religious Liberty are not infallible, and Catholics are NOT obliged to agree with them.

Curious is that a motu proprio? If so, was it also the same one that supressed the minor orders of porter and exorcist, which also commuted the other two minor orders to institutions?

i have always wondered why the minor orders were doen away with. When lectors and acolytes became institutions the womens ordination bunch must have really gone into a frenzy.

Isn’t what Vatican II did, or did not do, a matter of historical fact? Why is this something that is subject to debate or interpretation?

The Catholic church is experiencing some Vatican II interpretation issues that seem to becoming more prevalent as the council creeps further into our past. Dissenting theologian Fr. Richard P. Mcbrein is really having some fun “interpreting” and doing word play with the documents.

Because the Fathers of Vatican II didn’t come out with any pithy one-liners, and very few people have actually studied the documents for themselves - often, they are receiving information at third or fourth-hand.

I thought that the summary provided by the OP was excellent, by the way - but that’s just my opinion, because although I have read the documents, I haven’t made the kind of in-depth study of them that one really ought to, in order to really understand them.

Some good to excellent books on this subject.

The Rhine Flows into the Tiber by Fr Wiltgen

IOTA UNUM by Romano Amerio

In the Murky Waters of Vatican II by Guimaraes

Has anyone read any of these?

The problem is that if you actually read the documents (I have read every word, in Latin), what’s astonishing is how little they say.

Some points in the Liturgy Constitution are quite specific. Does your parish have Sunday Vespers? If not, you’re violating V2…sort of. The clause uses the deliberative subjunctive (a favorite grammar bit in the documents)…“you should” have Vespers. Doesn’t say you must.

For Latin, the indicative is used…Latin is to be retained…but then the crucial stuff starts, about the door to the vernacular, etc…so is Latin retained? Sure, technically so long as ONE church on earth uses it, say…but the average Catholic doesn’t hear Latin anymore.

People who love documents so much should read the ONE motu proprio John XXIII promulgated at the CHAIR in the Vatican, with FULL ceremonial (incredibly rare): Veterum Sapientia, 1962.

It was the last gasp before Latin suffered its huge decline in the West. It was virtually ignored worldwide.

They are all great books. I have read all three.

You misread what I said. I didn’t say Vatican II abolished the subdiaconate. Rather, I said that it proclaimed that becoming a subdeacon, unlike becoming a deacon, wasn’t the sacrament of holy orders but instead just a SACRAMENTAL. That’s a huge difference from saying it abolished the subdiaconate.

You also don’t seem to understand that just because the Church proclaims a dogma or officially clears up a doctrine doesn’t mean the Church ever taught differently prior to then. Rather, it’s letting the faithful know what the truth really is, especially if there’s any confusion.

Rome NEVER said episcopal consecration was a “new” sacrament. Next issue?

Reread what I said above.

The Virgin Mary was always considered a member of the Church. Next issue?

Reread what I said above.

On Ecumenism, Christ said to go and preach the Gospel to all. That’s the divine precept of Ecumenism.

So then why are there so many people out there who call themselves traditionalists and yet claim the Church erred in that area? Heck, when they hear the word “ecumenism,” they automatically assume false ecumenism – the kind the Church condemns! They seem to think all ecumenism is false!

Vatican II’s views on Religious Liberty are not infallible, and Catholics are NOT obliged to agree with them.

Wrong! Catholics must assent to what Vatican II said about religious liberty lest they place themselves out of communion with the Church. The type of religious liberty condemned by Quanta Cura was against MORAL religious freedom, whereas Dignitatis Humanae was against POLITICAL oppression.
[LIST=1]
*]MORAL freedom is one THING
*]POLITICAL freedom is another THING.[/LIST]One was against the Freemasonic liberal statements, the other against Communist dictatorships that ruled half of the world and many Catholic countries at the time (Poland, Lithuania, Slovenia, etc), forcing their people to be godless by imposing atheism.

Catechism of John Paul II:
2108 *The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, ( 37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799) but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right *(Pius XII, 6 December 1953).

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3). The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order.” (cf Pío IX, enc. “Quanta cura”).

Vatican II might have had a completely different outcome had Pope John XXIII survived it. Though it is to be noted that Pope John XXIII elevated Montini (later Paul VI) to Cardinal in contrast to Pope Pius XII who intentionally withheld Montini from the Cardinal position, the reason being that Montini spent too much time dealing with the Communists if I remember correctly.

I’ll be frank. I am having a darn hard problem understanding the Church’s teaching about religious freedom. I read Dignitatis Humanae and the CCC and I conclude that the Church is an advocate of freedom of religion and speech (although certainly not condoning beliefs and speech that it believes heretical). I then read papal documents cited by traditionalists in this forum and come to the exact opposite conclusion…to the extent that if Catholics assumed power in the United States I, as a Protestant, would be precluded from worshipping my faith in public or publicly advocating any religious belief opposed by the Catholic Church. All of which is very confusing in light of the witness of John Paul II who played an instrumental role (along with other people, including Reagan and Thatcher among others) in helping to bring down the Communist empires.

I am NOT required to accept Dignitatis Humanae. The protocol accepted by numerous traditionalists who have signed agreements with Rome specifies Lumen Gentium 25. NOT Dignitatis Humanae, NOT Nostra Aetate, NOT Sacrosanctum Concilium.

After all, for the Apostolic Administration of St. John Vianney the 1962 liturgy is proper. They celebrate Prime…Vatican II said Prime “is to be abolished.” Traditionalists are not required to assent to that.

As for “confusion”, if you think our big problem was people being confused about the Subdiaconate…I’m going to laugh loud and long.

I dont think the controvesy about VII can or could be settled once and for all…

If you won’t accept Dignitatis Humanae or any other encyclical as authoritative, then you’ve placed yourself outside the Church and are no different from other “Catholics” who pick and choose which Church teachings to believe and/or obey. You better not receive the sacraments as long as you refuse to assent to Church teachings either, lest you eat and drink judgment on yourself.

The bit about abolishing Prime is a discipline. But, while Catholics aren’t required to like any particular discipline, they must at least submit to the Church’s authority in such matters – in other words, they must accept the fact that the Church made such a judgment. They don’t have to think the judgment was wise or anything, but publicly claiming the Church made a mistake and openly clamoring for it to change isn’t exactly the obedience that we as Catholics are required to show.

Your view is not Catholic.

You have a totally warped and misguided notion of obedience and communion.

To say that someone is barred from the Sacraments, in a state of excommunication, in effect, because they do not accept a Vatican II document as being infallible is ludicrous and quite un-Catholic.

As for Prime…another mere “discipline”…Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy…weightier than Dignitatis Humanae…says it is to be abolished. Yet is hasn’t been in plenty of places in Communion with Rome. Oh well. Catholics are not required to remain silent. Some American bishops moved Ascension Thursday, an ancient feast, to Sunday. I don’t have to keep my mouth shut that it was a blunder and assault on Catholic tradition.

Dignitatis isn’t an encyclical, either.

Get it straight: we’re not required to assent to everything the pope, a bishop, or even a Council says. Infallibility is far more limited and restricted than you imply/assert. And communion with the Church is far less easy to break than you seem to think.

My bad – I misspoke. Dignitatis Humanae is a Vatican II document, not an encyclical. But you’re required to accept all of a council’s teachings. Quit trying to make excuses why a certain teaching isn’t really a teaching. That’s what some people who advocate contraception, women priests, etc. do – they try and claim the Church doesn’t REALLY teach those things officially – or that such teachings aren’t infallible – and that we’re not bound by them. And if you don’t accept any given Church teaching, then it’s not fitting that you receive the Eucharist, as it’s a sign that you’re truly in union with the Church and its teachings.

I never said everything a pope or bishop says is Gospel truth either; quit putting words in my mouth.

As for those places that celebrate Prime, could it be that perhaps they were given special permission to do so?

And when you were younger, you didn’t always agree with all the rules your parents made, right? Probably they made some rules that were downright silly or unreasonable, eh? Well that wouldn’t have excused you disobeying them. And if you followed their orders but openly and loudly complained to your friends about how “stupid” their rules were, that wouldn’t make you very obedient either.

In all, I’m afraid it’s YOU who have a warped view of obedience and communion. I will pray for you.

The protocols accepted by Catholic so-called traditionalists speak of Lumen Gentium 25.

Nothing else.

YOUR error is making everything have equal weight. In your universe, whatever a Council says must be assented to by the faithful as if it were infallible.

Where exactly is that stated in an authoritative document?

Vatican II states that Vespers should be celebrated on Sundays in churches. St. Peter’s, like many Roman basilicas, does not celebrate Sunday Vespers every week. Where is the assent to Vatican II? Disobedience! Loss of communion!

Let’s not forget that the average Catholic hasn’t the slightest clue what Vatican II said…and they do just fine.

It was not a doctrinal or dogmatic council.

As for Communion reception…your remarks there are offensive, plain and simple, not to mention arrogant.

I am going say just a little bit in regards to this thread. When I first saw it I had the impulse to move on…but then I thought just perhaps my own past experience might help someone out there who may be confused by all this.
I am a little soul who once belonged to the Tridentine Rite Catholic Church aka. Fatima Crusaders a.k.a. Francis K. Schukardt’s Group. I was a “sister” for ten years in their convent. After much suffering and turmoil I left due to very serious scandal given by the leaders.
Today I count that a blessing. I have found peace, firm footing, and a Mother who has so comforted me that I wonder how I ever survived the angry rebellion that came so close to a repeat of the protestant reformation. I have been freed of schism that so terribly rends the Body of Christ. Another little soul brought me back to my Mother.
Dear Mother Angelica…She first made me very upset…now she makes my soul sing!
Trust…Peace…The Spirit of God is not in contentious arguments.
Either Christ is the Bridegroom and the Holy Spirit is leading His Church or we might as well all be atheist. I rest in the sure
bliss that the gates of Hell Will Not Prevail. I know that the Holy Father can not err in matters of Faith and Morals.
I too fought against accepting the Holy Councils of Vatican ii. I too fought against the Mass of P.Paul Vl.
But then I faced the TRUTH.
Christ is still at the helm.
This is still His Bride.
The Holy Spirit is still protecting the Roman Catholic Church.
I believe that the source of greatest suffering for our dear Saviour in the garden of olives was that His church…the church born from his ripped and bleeding side…would be so torn asunder…

You find my remarks my offensive because they’re true, and they affect your conscience, yet you want to rationalize your behavior.

You’re wrong about Vatican II not being a doctrinal council. I addressed that in my original post, but you’re essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala . . . " in the hope that by repeating yourself it will make your claims true.

I also never said that everything carries the same weight. But listen to what Pope Paul VI said to Archbishop Lefebvre in a letter dated Nov. 10, 1976:

“You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature, only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. **But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application” **(emphasis added).

Also, do you attend indult Masses? If so, then with that attitude you’d be better off attending SSPX or independent Masses, where they have all of that which you love, namely, Tridentine Masses, with none of that which you hate, namely, loyalty to the Holy Father. It’s rather like liberal-minded “cafeteria Catholics” who, instead of becoming Protestant, insist on picking and choosing which teachings to accept and at the same time continue to call themselves Catholics and receive the sacraments, albeit objectively sacrilegiously.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.