I've always understood the Council to be a calling of the Holy Spirit and therefore to be heeded under the guidance of the Church. If all the post VII Saints embraced it then I will as well. How can that not be a good Catholic mindset?
Vatican II is not a Super Council which negates all previous Councils. Catholicism is not Islam or Mormonism, there is no doctrine of abrogation. Vatican II was a PASTORAL Council that made no dogmatic statements. As such, it is significantly less important than dogmatic Councils like Vatican I or Trent. Why do you place so much importance on it? Most of its decrees, such as the reform of the liturgy, have been proven to be misguided, the Novus Ordo has become a disaster which itself is in more need of radical reform today than the Latin Mass ever was in 1962, but the much need Reform of the Reform cannot proceed until this irrational fixation with the flawed decrees of Vatican II is gone.
Vatican II is not a Super Council, you keep talking about "embracing it" (whatever that means), but as a pastoral Council, it is less important than dogmatic ones, and therefore it is less important to "embrace it."
If you ever feel like Captain Picard yelling about how many lights there are, it is probably time to leave the thread.
I've always understood the Council to be a calling of the Holy Spirit and therefore to be heeded under the guidance of the Church. If all the post VII Saints embraced it then I will as well. How can that not be a good Catholic mindset?
Vatican II is not a Super Council which negates all previous Councils. Catholicism is not Islam or Mormonism, there is no doctrine of abrogation. Vatican II was a PASTORAL Council that made no dogmatic statements. As such, it is significantly less important than dogmatic Councils like Vatican I or Trent. Why do you place so much importance on it? Most of its decrees, such as the reform of the liturgy, have been proven to be misguided, the Novus Ordo has become a disaster which itself is in more need of radical reform today than the Latin Mass ever was in 1962, but the much need Reform of the Reform cannot proceed until this irrational fixation with the flawed decrees of Vatican II is gone.
Vatican II is not a Super Council, you keep talking about "embracing it" (whatever that means), but as a pastoral Council, it is less important than dogmatic ones, and therefore it is less important to "embrace it."
Who is saying VII is a 'super' Council? Not me. It's a Council and affirmed as an inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore meaningful to Catholicism and faith. It addressed a lot of points that were meant to be incorporated and developed for the purpose of manifesting Christs teachings in the current situation. The problem attitude is one that says we can take it or leave it. 'It's of little relevance.' Is that what the Holy Spirits inspiration amounts to?
See, here's the thing. We don't have to agree that a council is "inspired" in the same sense that Scripture is. In fact, I don't think that premise has ever been advanced by any serious theologian. The one and only thing a council does that is protected from error is when a doctrine is solemnly defined, and even then only if the pope agrees. Other than that, a council is much like a conclave--one hopes that the participants are listening to the Spirit, but it's not guaranteed.
For that matter, the same can be said of a pope's prudential judgments on how to lead the Church, or a bishop's on how to lead a diocese, or a pastor's on how to lead a parish. In all those cases, we hope and pray that they're listening, but there is no guarantee of it.
Yes, once you start claiming Councils are "inspired" by the Holy Spirit then you're going to arrive at the Spirit saying some uncomfortable things. So when people speak of Vatican II being "inspired" by the Holy Spirit, one naturally concludes they hold it as a "super council" because it's not tenable that everything said by prior Councils is so "inspired".
Stella wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 12:43 amI would invite others to really embrace the social doctrine of the Church as per the vision of Vatican II and let that evangelise you. I suspect that’s an aching chasm in the faith of many Catholics fearing/hating the world around them.
Can I ask what your reasoning is for this request/invitation? I know you offered an opinion ("I suspect..."). But where does this really come from? Why would you suggest this instead of, say, the vision of Trent or any other council?
Vatican II is the Church's vision/guidance for the contemporary world. Why would a Catholic not embrace that Council?
