While Vatican II was an ecumenical council, it was not a dogmatic council (which makes one wonder why it was called in the first place), and managed to make its documents so ambigious that heresy flourished, citing those documents. There were no statements of that council to reject, and I don't reject it anyhow. I said that citing VII is poor form and that I wouldn't be surprised to see the council condemned.

A nice use of obfuscation to criticize supposed ambiguity. The first two conciliar documents in Abbott's The Documents of Vatican II are given the English titles "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" and "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation."

If Vatican II was indeed an ecumenical council then it's hard to see why it's "poor form" to cite it. & instead of "I wouldn't be surprised to see it condemned" it would be more straightforward for you to say "I hope to see it condemned." (Don't hold your breath.)

& as for why the council was called - I think that attitudes like yours provide one very good reason.

Shalom,
George

But, you guys believe he should have more temporal sway, right? And how much should he have? The whole penninsula of Italy? The old boundaries of the western Roman Empire? All of Europe? Africa too? What about Asia? North and South America?

Just wondering...and appreciating your candor.

The entire freaking planet.

The temporal power the Pope does and should have is over Vatican City. He doesn't need anymore than that to ensure the Church's independence from secular powers.

I said that citing VII is poor form and that I wouldn't be surprised to see the council condemned.

This is a little surprising. From your website:

The Second Vatican Council stated, "For since Christ died for all (Rom. 8:32) . . . we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery" (Gaudium et Spes 22). This includes the young and those severely retarded.

Link: http://www.catholic-cadet.com/answers/oct02.html

Don't get me wrong, I respect you and your website.....but why the inconsistency?

Don't get me wrong, I respect you and your website.....but why the inconsistency?

Because that was when I was starting to learn about the Faith. I've learned quite a bit since then. Should probably delete that section.

A nice use of obfuscation to criticize supposed ambiguity. The first two conciliar documents in Abbott's The Documents of Vatican II are given the English titles "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" and "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation."

Simple regurgitation of everything that had been said by prior councils and papal statements. No anathemas, no dogmatic decrees, nothing.

If Vatican II was indeed an ecumenical council then it's hard to see why it's "poor form" to cite it.

Because it made itself so ambigious that it can be cited in favor of almost any position.

& instead of "I wouldn't be surprised to see it condemned" it would be more straightforward for you to say "I hope to see it condemned." (Don't hold your breath.)

It will be condemned, given enough time.

& as for why the council was called - I think that attitudes like yours provide one very good reason.

It was called because the pope thought that was what God wanted. Vatican I had never been finished after all. But one needs only to look at the Council and resulting mayhem to know what crack Paul VI was speaking of.
"It is as if from some mysterious crack -- no, it is not mysterious -- from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God."

Just quickly: the ones I disagree with to some extent (not all totally): 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 37, 38, 49, 55, 75, 77 & 78. Some of them are probably just quibbles, though. I also left out some that I didn't fully understand...

Originally posted by spl_cadet

It will be condemned, given enough time.

It was called because the pope thought that was what God wanted. Vatican I had never been finished after all. But one needs only to look at the Council and resulting mayhem to know what crack Paul VI was speaking of.
"It is as if from some mysterious crack -- no, it is not mysterious -- from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God."

So you don't believe in papal infallibility then? Not even when he's speaking ex cathedra (as I'm presuming would've been the case with authorising Vatican II)?

Simple regurgitation of everything that had been said by prior councils and papal statements. No anathemas, no dogmatic decrees, nothing.

Because it made itself so ambigious that it can be cited in favor of almost any position.

It will be condemned, given enough time.

It was called because the pope thought that was what God wanted. Vatican I had never been finished after all. But one needs only to look at the Council and resulting mayhem to know what crack Paul VI was speaking of.
"It is as if from some mysterious crack -- no, it is not mysterious -- from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God."

So it's quite clear that this boils down to the fact that you don't like Vatican II. That being the case, there's no need to continue the discussion.

Shalom,
George

If you do a Google search for "from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God" you will find several conservative sites citing this quote of Paul Paul VI.

I'm not completely sure you want to be aligning yourself with these sort of things, Cadet. At least one of them argues that Vatican 2's messiness was the "3rd *real* secret" given by Our Lady of Fatima.

What this effectively does is say that Pope John Paul II is a liar when he said the 3rd prediction was his assassination attempt. If the current Pope is a liar, why be Catholic at all?

SM

Originally posted by spiritmech

If the current Pope is a liar, why be Catholic at all?
SM

I think deep down inside Cadet yearns to be Orthodox.

I think deep down inside Cadet yearns to be Orthodox.

Poke and prod spl_cadet
But be careful of what you may get

:P

rusty

So you don't believe in papal infallibility then? Not even when he's speaking ex cathedra (as I'm presuming would've been the case with authorising Vatican II)?

Authorization of a council isn't an infallible act. The councils are only infallible through the pope anyhow.

If you do a Google search for "from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God" you will find several conservative sites citing this quote of Paul Paul VI.

I'll fess up to what may be obvious: I sympathize with traditionalism, and would be a traditionalist if it weren't for a dislike of Latin and being too lazy to go that far out of my way to an indult TLM. Don't sympathize with ultratraditionalism though, which rejects Vatican II as an authentic council (rather than just saying it was extremely messed and pointless) and rejects the pope.

I'm not completely sure you want to be aligning yourself with these sort of things, Cadet. At least one of them argues that Vatican 2's messiness was the "3rd *real* secret" given by Our Lady of Fatima.

What this effectively does is say that Pope John Paul II is a liar when he said the 3rd prediction was his assassination attempt.

Personally, I think that the Third Secret refers to probably the next pope (yeah, I go for St. Malachy's list), rather than JPII. I think he's misinterpreted it.

If the current Pope is a liar, why be Catholic at all?

Why don't you ask the Borgias that?

I think deep down inside Cadet yearns to be Orthodox.

Nah. Eastern Catholic maybe once I see the Divine Liturgy (there's a Byzantine Catholic church pretty close to the university that I'm transferring to this fall, the Franciscan University of Steubenville), but never Orthodox. It's either Catholicism or apostasy, everyone else is wrong.

Originally posted by spl_cadet

Personally I'm not quite sure what the idea being condemned is, but I wouldn't quote Vatican II in defense of any position either. I wouldn't be surprised to see that council and its writings condemned by the next pope or his successor.

Sounds like someone isn't a big fan of Vatican II.

According to this interesting book, you'd be a "Culture 1" Catholic.

Thank God. According to his definitions, I'd need to be a Modernist heretic to be a Culture 2 Catholic.

Originally posted by Amazing Rando

Sounds like someone isn't a big fan of Vatican II.

According to this interesting book, you'd be a "Culture 1" Catholic.

Well I'd probably define myself as a Culture 1 Catholic as well, but there were many varied responses to VII, from super-liberal, to ultra-conservative. Most of the hippies who caused so much trouble in the past few decades are dying of heart disease, so things are improving.

Now other denominations are being hit harder than the Roman Catholic Church is, namely the Methodist and Episcopalian and Presbyterian groups, with respect to the conservative/liberal divide.

SM

Originally posted by spl_cadet

Thank God. According to his definitions, I'd need to be a Modernist heretic to be a Culture 2 Catholic.

That's exactly what he said Culture 1's would say of Culture 2's! So you've read the book?

Originally posted by spiritmech

Well I'd probably define myself as a Culture 1 Catholic as well, but there were many varied responses to VII, from super-liberal, to ultra-conservative. Most of the hippies who caused so much trouble in the past few decades are dying of heart disease, so things are improving.

I read the book about 4 years ago, but if I remember correctly, Culture 1's are those Catholics who are absolutely enamored over the traditions of the Church, th hierarchical structure, etc.

A Culture 2 Catholic would be one who doesn't care as much for the Tradition (with a captital T), but still feels as if his or her spiritual home is with the RCC. I'm not phrasing it quite right- as I recall, it's not a divide between "die-hard" Catholics and "lukewarm" Catholics as much as it is between Catholics who simply have different definitions of what the Church is- nor is it a black and white, liberal vs. conservative divide either, for you'll find plenty of theological liberals and conservatives amidst both wings.

Now other denominations are being hit harder than the Roman Catholic Church is, namely the Methodist and Episcopalian and Presbyterian groups, with respect to the conservative/liberal divide.

SM

That's quite true.

Hmmm...going back to an older argument. I have to say Catholics are right. To divide state and Church is ridiculous. They should work in tandem. They deal with seperate issues, but sometimes they coincide. I think that the Church should have a say in moral issues. Otherwise, what basis are you going to form morality? It seems to me that there would be no other adequate basis.