Someone, please explain to me the idea that the teachings from Vatican II are not valid?

The Council was an Ecumenical Council called by the Bishop of Rome who agreed with the documents produced and disseminated them to the faithful? How can that not be binding? God Bless, John

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), February 11, 2003

Answers

Vat II is just as valid as were any other council. People are disgrunteled about the misinterpretation of Vat. II and in their frustration have had different reactions. Some dissent, some try to discredit the council, some wait for better times, some fantacize about the past, some try to suffer with the church through her growing pains. we know that if we are faithful to teh Pope and bishops in communion with him we are on track, all experimentation which is not approved or orthodox will pass. The Truth always wins out in teh end!

Joe

-- Joseph Carl Biltz (jcbiltz@canoemail.com), February 11, 2003.

Hi John,

There is a perfectly easy-to-understand reason why Vatican II isn't valid: there is no one to break your knees if you disagree with it.

See, it used to be that police officers weren't necessary. You could generally be OK if you left your doors unlocked; you could smile watching your kids ride the bus to school, knowing that not only will they be safe, but they will learn healthy, mind-building material in their classrooms. And generally, by and large, "because the Pope says so" was a compelling argument.

But none of this is any longer the case, so we resort to police officers. They started out with mere night sticks, which in this case seems adequate; after all, many police officers in Europe only carry sticks. All the Church needs to enforce Vatican II - to "make it valid" - is a troupe of locally assigned stick-wielding inquisitors. It could be a whole new vocation! Instead of "Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers," we have "Extraordinary Grand Inquisitors." Or the E.G.I. for short.

Starting a schizmatic Church? POW! Teaching CCD children that the Eucharist is just a symbol? WHACK! Flouting liturgical law? CRACK! If the Church is going to start taking culture seriously (since we're talking about inculturation of the Gospel and everything) then she needs to realize that ours is a culture that loudly asserts its autonomy unless it has something to fear.

Hey, St. Peter's Basicilica has "Eucharistic Body-Guards" so you better not even think about taking our Lord home for a little souvenir - not if you like your hands that they put it in. And St. Peter's Church in Louvain? They have a little man we know lovingly as "The Beetle," who will happily eject any misbehaving college student.

Yes, the E.G.I.'s would be a true testament to the active participation of the laity, bringing about true validity to the Council of Vatican II - a validity whose rejection might cost you a trip to a (newly reinvigorated!) Catholic hospital.

***

This is satire. Please don't take it seriously!

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), February 11, 2003.

I like your thinking, Skoo. Bring back the thumbscrews!! ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 11, 2003.

Joe

Vatican Council II was an Ecumenical Council. It was validly called by Pope John XXIII.

The difference between Vatican II and Vatican I or any other Ecumenical Council of the Church is the fact that Vatican II was not a Dogmatic one. Pope Paul VI declared that Vatican II was a pastoral council meaning it did not condemn anyone or define anything.

When one reads Vatican II, one must be very cautious for there are ambiguous statements found within. These statements found their way into the Council Documents thanks to the Liberal/Progressive Bishops and Theologians such as Karl Rahner, Huns Kung, and the Rhine Group. These ambiguous statements allow the Liberal/Progressive catholic to teach their philoso phy or teachings to undermine the Faithful.

Mark

-- Mark Trieger (trieger4@earthlink.net), February 12, 2003.

I do not believe, and don't believe that I can be convinced, that anything that came out of Vatican II was an effort to undermine the faithful. Sorry, If Vatican II had not existed, where would the Church be today?

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), February 12, 2003.

If Vatican II had not existed, where would the Church be today?

Now, there is a pleasant thought.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), February 12, 2003.

It would save me, a lot of gallons of gasoline!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 12, 2003.

A recent article in the New York Times about the impact of the Second Vatican Council on the Church commented matter-of-factly: "The Council's documents, shaped by the bishops and their theological advisers in four two-month sessions held each fall from 1962 through 1965, offer more than enough compromises and ambiguities for conflicting interpretations

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 12, 2003.

THE EDITOR

On 12 August 2002 the American Bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs released a joint-document with their Jewish counterparts entitled "Reflections on Covenant and Mission." Among many other astonishing things, it declares that "campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church." Jewish participant Rabbi Gilbert Rosenthal confirmed that "neither group believes that we should missionize among the other in order to save souls via conversions." Cardinal Keeler, the U.S. Moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations, then contributed his own bravura impression of Judas, passing off this treachery as a "significant step forward in the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Jewish Community in this country."

On 17 August EWTN's Fr. John Echert hit out at the document, fuming: "… parts of it strike me as contrary to divine revelation... It is an embarrassment, lacks any teaching authority, and serves to reveal the thinking of some people who hold powerful positions in the national conference. If a document such as this gains approval, as it currently stands, I will seriously consider the prospect that we are moving into the end times, namely, apostasy."

God bless Father "Go and preach the gospel to all nations"

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 12, 2003.

Ed, Why would it have save you gasoline?

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), February 12, 2003.

The entire Reflections on Covenant and Mission can be found at:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/Documents/ncs_usccb120802.htm

Please read the entire document before passing judgement on the nature and extent of the Jewish/Catholic dialogue.

It is a statement from both sides on what each sees as their respective missions within the framework of their religions.

The Christian mission as stated in the document is and always will be evangalization.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), February 12, 2003.

Dear John

I do not know where we would be today if Vatican II didn't happen. I do believe if the Pope would have (1) Consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and (2) shot down the Liberal/Progressive catholics who hijacked the Council, the church and world would be in a lot better place.

There are many books out there that show how the liberal/progressives hijacked the Coucnil. One such book, I believe is one of the best, is the 11 volume study on Vatican II called "Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani (My God, my God, why hast thous forsaken me?) The first book is called: "In the Murky Waters of Vatican II". The second and third book out is "Desire to Destroy I' and "Desire and Destory II".

What makes these books so great. The author goes to the Liberal/ Progressives to get their thoughts and interpretations on the Council.

Another book is "The Rhine crosses the Tiber". This book explains what happened in everyday in the Council from the hijacking at the beginning to the end.

Mark

-- Mark Trieger (trieger4@earthlink.net), February 13, 2003.

Saving gasoline? Church is now 30 miles away, instead of 1 mile. In this territory, that's how far one has to go, to find a really devout mass. Too many novelties closer to home.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 14, 2003.

Church is now 30 miles away, instead of 1 mile. In this territory, that's how far one has to go, to find a really devout mass. Too many novelties closer to home.

There are many at the traditional chapel I attend who travel more than one hour to get to Mass, most of them with a van full of kids. Don't worry, Ed. God will reward you for your sacrifices.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 14, 2003.

Thanks Jake. God Bless

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 14, 2003.