Reverse Vatican II

I don't like Vatican II's changes. Interfaith Dialogue, don't have to be a Christian to be saved, no Latin, etc. WI Benedict XVI uses Papal Infallibility to reverse the changes upon becoming Pope?
 
I don't like Vatican II's changes. Interfaith Dialogue, don't have to be a Christian to be saved, no Latin, etc. WI Benedict XVI uses Papal Infallibility to reverse the changes upon becoming Pope?

...

...

That's not really how papal infallibility works, y'know. Also, what you're really asking is more like WI Vatican II Documents and Declarations Were Actually Obeyed, which would require more than just the Pope to happen.
 

Germaniac

Donor
I don't like Vatican II's changes. Interfaith Dialogue, don't have to be a Christian to be saved, no Latin, etc. WI Benedict XVI uses Papal Infallibility to reverse the changes upon becoming Pope?

Ok, well alright. Aside from the obvious air of superiority seemingly spewing out of this post, it would only cost the church more problems. The Latin service pushed people away, most people can't stay awake in their native tongue try listening in Latin.

Second the attempts at reconciliation between the eastern and western churches could be one of the greatest achievements of the upcoming few decades.

Third, If there actually is "Salvation" :rolleyes: Then wouldn't it be for those who are kind good hearted people and not necessarily for those who are born to parents of the catholic faith or are born in geographical areas in which there are large amounts of catholics.

Fourth, you are misunderstanding the idea of Papal Infallibility and wouldn't the acknowledgment that the previous pope was wrong be an attack on the very idea of it. It would cause an uproar in the church establishment.
 

MrP

Banned
Ok, well alright. Aside from the obvious air of superiority seemingly spewing out of this post, it would only cost the church more problems. The Latin service pushed people away, most people can't stay awake in their native tongue try listening in Latin.

Second the attempts at reconciliation between the eastern and western churches could be one of the greatest achievements of the upcoming few decades.

Third, If there actually is "Salvation" :rolleyes: Then wouldn't it be for those who are kind good hearted people and not necessarily for those who are born to parents of the catholic faith or are born in geographical areas in which there are large amounts of catholics.

Fourth, you are misunderstanding the idea of Papal Infallibility and wouldn't the acknowledgment that the previous pope was wrong be an attack on the very idea of it. It would cause an uproar in the church establishment.

While I disagree with the mindset of the OP, I think you're a wee bit Ianist about this. ;) I can't say listening to the Mass in English presents massive problems fro most of those I know!
 
Well in a way Pope Benedict has partially reversed the liturgical reforms. The Latin (Tridentine) Mass is now completely 'legal' in the Church -- any priest can say it at any time (and many do regularly). But those priests who say Latin Mass must assent to the documents of Vatican II and affirm that the new Mass is valid, even if they prefer the old one.

I am just wondering what could have been 'reversed' at the time of Vatican II. The Papal States were long gone by 1963 -- why would a Pope decide to affirm his regal role? OTL Pope Paul did the opposite and gave his tiara away. Maybe a roll back of the idea of freedom of religious conscience? -- but in 1963 the world had clearly begun to enter a (post)modern, much more secular society, and an insistence that people had no _right_ to practice other religions would ring somewhat hollow in an increasingly agnostic world (Church still teaches that it is the only true Church and way to salvation, however.) 1963 was not 1540, so there is no Protestant Reformation to battle against, no scuffle over which European country gets to be Catholic and which Protestant. And, contrary to popular belief, the Novus Ordo Mass happened after the Council. Ironically, that's supposed to imitate very early Christianity in its form, so perhaps there you have a reversal.
 
I don't like Vatican II's changes. Interfaith Dialogue, don't have to be a Christian to be saved, no Latin, etc. WI Benedict XVI uses Papal Infallibility to reverse the changes upon becoming Pope?

As said before, infallibility does not work that way. And technically, most of the bad stuff folks associate with Vatican II was not even part of said Council - it was the work of Bugnini and his ilk...

BTW, I don't think "reversal" of Vat II is the appropiate term... the more accurate one, in my opinion, would be more, a "reform of the reform". And yes, I am a Traditionalist.
 
I don't like Vatican II's changes. Interfaith Dialogue, don't have to be a Christian to be saved, no Latin, etc. WI Benedict XVI uses Papal Infallibility to reverse the changes upon becoming Pope?

I think we need Vatican III in order to reverse Vatican II... Papal infallibility isnt sufficient enough...
 

Hendryk

Banned
I don't like Vatican II's changes. Interfaith Dialogue, don't have to be a Christian to be saved, no Latin, etc. WI Benedict XVI uses Papal Infallibility to reverse the changes upon becoming Pope?

As said before, infallibility does not work that way. And technically, most of the bad stuff folks associate with Vatican II was not even part of said Council - it was the work of Bugnini and his ilk...

BTW, I don't think "reversal" of Vat II is the appropiate term... the more accurate one, in my opinion, would be more, a "reform of the reform". And yes, I am a Traditionalist.

I think we need Vatican III in order to reverse Vatican II... Papal infallibility isnt sufficient enough...
Guys like you are one of the reason I'm happy to no longer be a Catholic. Will you just listen to yourselves? Vatican II was the best thing that happened to the Catholic Church in 200 years.

Let's make a list. Vatican II admitted that religious freedom is preferable to religious coercion (Dignitatis Humanae). Yeah, I see why you find that shocking :rolleyes:

There was also that shameful declaration that the Jews weren't supposed to be accused of killing Jesus after all (Nostra Aetate).

Oh, yeah, let's not forget that heretical declaration that human rights are a good thing, and that democracy is on second thought a good system (Gaudium et Spes).

Indeed, I see why you guys want to go back to the pre-Vatican II situation.
 
Hendryk- I don't think Don_Giorgio means what you think he means. AFAIK he's Orthodox not Catholic, so I think he wasn't saying "we need to reverse Vatican II" but "Papal Infallibility is insufficient to do so were we to want to".
 

Hendryk

Banned
Hendryk- I don't think Don_Giorgio means what you think he means. AFAIK he's Orthodox not Catholic, so I think he wasn't saying "we need to reverse Vatican II" but "Papal Infallibility is insufficient to do so were we to want to".
Ah, I'd misunderstood his post. Okay then. That still leaves Polish Eagle and Francisco Cojuanco. I incidentally remember the latter being on record as an advocate of revoking the right to divorce.
 
Guys like you are one of the reason I'm happy to no longer be a Catholic. Will you just listen to yourselves? Vatican II was the best thing that happened to the Catholic Church in 200 years.

Let's make a list. Vatican II admitted that religious freedom is preferable to religious coercion (Dignitatis Humanae). Yeah, I see why you find that shocking :rolleyes:

There was also that shameful declaration that the Jews weren't supposed to be accused of killing Jesus after all (Nostra Aetate).

Oh, yeah, let's not forget that heretical declaration that human rights are a good thing, and that democracy is on second thought a good system (Gaudium et Spes).

Indeed, I see why you guys want to go back to the pre-Vatican II situation.

Uhh... that is a misrepresentation about,my beliefs. I subscribe to all of Vatican II - I'm no SSPX schismatic. I believe in religious freedom, think that the Jews are not collectively guilty of deicide, and while I think that democracy isn't perfect, I don't oppose it either. The only one you're right about is where I oppose legal divorce (which is not a right, merely an allowance of statute law).

Same applies to most mainstream Trads. We subscribe to everything that Council put forward - our objection is to the implmentation.
 
Anyway, if a marriage is freely entered into why have a right to divorce? People can't get out of contracts without the consent of the other party- why marriages?
 
Anyway, if a marriage is freely entered into why have a right to divorce? People can't get out of contracts without the consent of the other party- why marriages?
It comes down to the fact that the Catholic Church thinks marriage (or sacramental marriage, anyway) is more than a mere contract...
 
I don't like Vatican II's changes. Interfaith Dialogue, don't have to be a Christian to be saved, no Latin, etc. WI Benedict XVI uses Papal Infallibility to reverse the changes upon becoming Pope?

There is a great deal of confusion here over many things incl. the difference between pastoral and doctrinal functions. A WI that would have at least 1 foot on terra firma would be Pope Benedict announcing a project to reconcile the documents of Vatican II with those of previous Church Councils. This idea has been floated by Traditionalists from time to time and is Fellay's third condition for reconciliation. I don't see it happening but at least it would be worth discussing.
 
Well in a way Pope Benedict has partially reversed the liturgical reforms.

By any remote chance did you ever read the cover letter Pope Benedict sent along with Summorum Pontificum? You know the part where he says:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

This fear is unfounded."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b..._ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html
 
Anyway, if a marriage is freely entered into why have a right to divorce? People can't get out of contracts without the consent of the other party- why marriages?

Sure you can. Changed circumstances are often used as a rationale to get out of a contract without the consent of the other party.
 
By any remote chance did you ever read the cover letter Pope Benedict sent along with Summorum Pontificum? You know the part where he says:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

This fear is unfounded."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b..._ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Summorum Pontificum does not challenge the primacy of the Ordinary Form. It's true that Benedict hoped that the there would be some liturgical reform in the extraordinary form (i.e. vernacular readings, use of the new prefaces). For the moment it seems that the two uses are still quite distinct in practice, and this hoped-for cross pollination between the two rites has yet to be realized in my view.
 
Top