The Second Vatican Council and the New Mass

[tiffanythecatholic]

1) The Pope has no special authority on matters not pertaining to faith and morals. He is not prudentially infallible.

2) The Vatican II council was explicitly convened NOT to introduce or change dogma, but to discuss pastoral and administrative changes.

The Popes and Bishops made several PROVIDENTIAL mistakes during and after Vatican II which have allowed communists and universalists excessive leeway to ignore and defame Christ and the Church from inside.

[tiffanythecatholic]

@tiffanythecatholic These liberalizers, who seem to care not at all about Jesus, Heaven or man's sinning nature, have promulgated this lie that those who question Vatican II and modern pastorals are somehow rejecting the Papal or Church authority. But the fact is that ADMINISTRATIVE and PRUDENTIAL error is nothing new in the church. Anyone remember simony? But I have a trust in Jesus Christ and our Lady Fatima to guide and protect the church, even in these dark hours.

[400constantine]

Antipope Benedict XVI.

[tiffanythecatholic]

@400constantine That's heresy, Constantine.

[iotaunam1]

Also, Lumen gentium 16 cannot be reconciled with Catholic dogma, nor can it be understood in an orthodox manner. So there are some instances where a hermeneutic of continuity is useless, and the documents should be scrapped and re-written entirely. One of the main duties of a Council, and its documents is to present a clearer understanding of the faith. Vatican II documents have done the opposite, and we shouldn't have to jump over hoops to try and make the text understood in an orthodox sense.

[iotaunam1]

Hermeneutics of continuity would be good if it worked, however it is simply not possible to reconcile various differences in Vatican II theology with the infallible Magisterium of the past. The Declaration of Religious Liberty is contrary to the Magisterium of the Church. It can only be reconcilled by redefining the terms, and understanding them differently to the sense in which they were written. This is, needless to say, textbook modernism.

[tiffanythecatholic]

@iotaunam1 As Vatican II was convened explicitly NOT to bring into question traditional Catholic teaching or dogma anything in it that DOES contradict the true Faith of Christ's Church is quite simply wrong, and not Catholic need fear for his soul if he rejects it.

[iotaunam1]

@tiffanythecatholic

I would fear for my soul rather if I claimed to worship the god of the Muslims, or that people should have a right to religious liberty, as the Council documents tell me. I think we have come to a point where any right thinking Catholic or theologian should wish that these documents be scrapped entirely, rather that breaking our necks trying to interpret obviously and purposefully ambiguous statements in an orthodox manner. A Councils job is to clarify, not confuse.

[LatinPrayers]

Well isn't it safe to say that Vatican II was not an infallible counsel for the following reasons and correct me if I'm wrong... It hasn't to do with faith and morals but mainly with liturgical issues?

I myself go to the Tridentine Mass. God bless the FSSP.

[tiffanythecatholic]

@LatinPrayers There is absolutely nothing in the Vatican II council that any Catholic is required to accept as a doctrine of faith. It was a pastoral and administrative council, NOT a council of dogma, whose modification by the council was explicitly repudiated.

[cunjoz]

Concerning the New Mass. This is an interesting article.

w w w (dot) liturgysociety (dot) org (slash) JOURNAL (slash) Volume10 (slash) 10_3 (slash) Reid (dot) pdf