What is the difference between the two Vaticans? Are the doctrines the same and the church disipline different? Does it matter which one you follow. Aren't they both Catholic, anotherwords teachings from 2000 years ago. It alltogether confuses me.

-- William (Ducin25@aol.com), March 15, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bump@bump.com), March 16, 2004.

The First Vatican Council (c. 1869-1870) and the Second Vatican Council (c. 1963-1965) were consecutive ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church, all the documents of which were ratified by popes (Bl. Pope Pius IX and Pope Paul VI). The Second was actually (in the mind of Bl. Pope John XXIII, who invoked it) a resumption of the First, which had been cut short by war. We are required to give our assent to all the teachings of all the councils in Church history, and we are required to obey whatever disciplinary rules the Church has in effect during our lifetimes.

Thanks to the Church's charism of infallibility, it is impossible for one ratified ecumenical council to teach doctrines that contradict those of another such council. Each of the two Vatican councils (especially the second, which was longer and produced more documents) re-stated many of the ancient doctrines of the Church, the "deposit of the faith." Each council had its own areas of emphasis and degree of definitiveness. Each reflected the "development of doctrine" that had occurred within the Church since the previous council. Each also laid down changeable disciplinary rules for the governance of the Church in the current times.

If you are still "confused," keep asking questions until the confusion goes away, please!

-- (Let's@Get.Unconfused), March 16, 2004.

Maybe I'm confused here. But I was thinking that Vatican 1 was the old traditional Catholicism with the latin mass. Is it? If so I have heard people say that the older one is beter then the way Vatican 2 is celebrated today.

Ok then, so what's the difference between the old latin mass and the new moderen mass (like in english so people can actualy understand what the priest is saying)?

-- William (Ducin25@aol.com), March 16, 2004.

William,

Maybe I'm confused here. But I was thinking that Vatican 1 was the old traditional Catholicism with the latin mass. Is it?

Yes, you are confused. Both are ecuminical COUNCILS. they are a meeting of bishops and cardinals with the pope to discuss issues in the church. I'm not familiar with Vatican I Council, or what was accomplished there. The council where the mass of trent (the latin mass) was established was the Council of Trent, not Vatican I. Vatican I occured while the mass of trent was still the standard form of the mass, and Vatican II changed the old form of the mass to the new form that you see today.

If so I have heard people say that the older one is beter then the way Vatican 2 is celebrated today.

People are allowed to personally PREFER one form of the mass over the other as a personal preference. HOWEVER, the idea that one is "better" than the other is NOT allowed. Both forms of mass are wholly valid and beautiful acts of religious worship. Understand the difference, or should i provide examples?

Ok then, so what's the difference between the old latin mass and the new moderen mass (like in english so people can actualy understand what the priest is saying)?

MASS OF TRENT: Presented in Latin, Priest faces away from the congregation the whole time, altar is organized differently (because the preist faces the other direction), strong focus on the sinful nature of man and the need to repent before the glory of God, mass is performed by the priest for God, and the people may observe.

CURRENT MASS: In vernacular (language of the country performed in), Preist faces the people so they play a more active role in the act of worship. Altar placed so that the preist can face the congregation. Strong focus on the glorious work that God does, celebration of the glory of God.

Both are equally valid expressions of faith, but one is the current rite, and the other is the old way. both are acceptable, but one has been replaced, as it replaced the others before it.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 16, 2004.

Ok Paul h, so the traditional catholicism like what Mel Gibson follows are the same in doctrines? And the new way mass is observed is when the priest faces you?

-- William (Ducin25@aol.com), March 16, 2004.

so the traditional catholicism like what Mel Gibson follows are the same in doctrines?

Those true Catholics (in union with the pope and believing all doctrines) who prefer the older rite of the Mass are sometimes called "traditionalist Catholics," but that term can be misleading. The truth is that ALL genuine Catholics, of the East or West, whether attending a licitly celebrated older Mass rite or a newer rite of Mass, are "traditional Catholics," because they follows Sacred Tradition (orthodox beliefs and practices, descended from the Apostles), including their full recognition of the supreme authority of the pope. There has been no sign that Mel Gibson is among these "genuine Catholics" yet.

Anyone who does not recognize Pope John Paul II as a valid successor of St. Peter is a "sedevacantist schismatic" (and probably a heretic too). This is certainly the case with Mel Gibson's father. It is not yet clear if it is also true of Mel, though a 2003 "New Yorker" article for which he was interviewed says that it is so.

Anyone who does accept John Paul II as a valid pope, but does not fully recognize his supreme authority -- either by saying so explicitly (as the Eastern Orthodox do) or by disobediently attending illicitly celebrated Masses in the older rite -- is neither "traditional" nor "traditionalist" nor even "Catholic," but is instead (at best) in de facto schism.

If Mel Gibson is not a sedevacantist schismatic, he is probably this other kind of schismatic. He could be in worse shape, though -- being a dissenter or heretic, since it has been written that he rejects some of what Pope John Paul II has taught. I'd like to see him thoroughly interviewed (on EWTN) on all these topics, so that people could know where he really stands.

-- (Lets@Get.Unconfused), March 17, 2004.

William: please go to the lower part of Catholic Top Level and you wil find a section called. Older Messages (by category)

There you'll see the answer to many of your questions.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), March 17, 2004.

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), March 17, 2004.

So Mr. unconfused, are you sayinmg that if the Pope says we are to go to the new mass and not the old mass and we disagree with it and go to the older one then we are under the wrath of God? Are we to worship every single thing the Pope says and does? I thought only his infallible teachings we must follow but we can disagree with other things he says. Doesn't St. Paul do so with Peter in the Bible?

So your saying Mel Gibson doesn't agree with all Catholic doctrines the Pope claims as infallible. Well, has there ever been a bad pope? What if a corrupt Pope came about. Sure the Church's true followers of the 2000 year old teachings of Christ would remain and prevail but what if a heritical Pope came about. Is that impossible to happen? I mean if he got in there and began to convince people of "new teachings" and would claim them infallible wouldn't that be scary. It's good to know our church history then.

-- William (Ducin25@aol.com), March 17, 2004.

William,

are you sayinmg that if the Pope says we are to go to the new mass and not the old mass and we disagree with it and go to the older one then we are under the wrath of God?

If the pope declares that the old form of the mass is no longer to be used in ANY catholic church then attending an illicit traditional mass would not count towards fulfilling your weekly mass requirement for the sabath. It would not incur the wrath of God, but it wouldnt help you. Preists derive their appostolic succession powers from the bishops, who act on behalf of the pope. If a preist dissents from the pope to follow other ways, he loses his ability to be a licit preist.

Are we to worship every single thing the Pope says and does? I thought only his infallible teachings we must follow but we can disagree with other things he says.

No, we are only to worship God. We are to FOLLOW every doctrine of the faith AND every discipline taught by the vatican. you may not disagree with disciplines of the church, even though they are not proclaimed ex cathedra.

Doesn't St. Paul do so with Peter in the Bible?

no, St. Paul criticizes an ACTION of peter. There is a HUGE difference between an action and a teaching on a discipline or dogma.

So your saying Mel Gibson doesn't agree with all Catholic doctrines the Pope claims as infallible. Well, has there ever been a bad pope?

There have been bad popes. JP II is not one of them. Either way, faithful catholics are still REQUIRED to aquiese to ALL church teachings.

What if a corrupt Pope came about. Sure the Church's true followers of the 2000 year old teachings of Christ would remain and prevail but what if a heritical Pope came about. Is that impossible to happen?

I'll simply answer the last question: Yes, it is an impossible for a pope to teach heresy.

I mean if he got in there and began to convince people of "new teachings" and would claim them infallible wouldn't that be scary. It's good to know our church history then.

cannot happen. There has NEVER been a faulty doctrine OR discipline taught officially by the church. The seal of the Holy Spirit is on the church, and its dogmas and disciplines are guided by the God Himself (the Holy Spirit). While a pope may be a bad person, and bring about bad actions (ie-- crusades 4 and 5), they CANNOT possibly bring about false doctrine or discipline.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 17, 2004.

William, please pardon me if I repeat something Paul H has stated, but I'd like to answer you in my own words.

are you sayinmg that if the Pope says we are to go to the new mass and not the old mass and we disagree with it and go to the older one then we are under the wrath of God?

Never forget that each pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. As supreme pastor, he is not only the chief teacher but the chief "legislator" (lawgiver) of the Church. He has the power and right to implement a new or modified rite of the liturgy, and he has the power and right to suppress (wholly or in part) an older rite of the liturgy. When he makes a decision in this regard, it is our duty to obey his marching orders (even if we disagree with his choices). When we disobey the pope's directives, we commit sins of disobedience. It is up to God (not me) to decide whether these are mortal or venial sins. Some acts of disobedience (such as habitually and intentionally attending Mass where it is forbidden to be celebrated) could place a person in schism, making him no longer Catholic and placing his soul in grave danger.

Are we to worship every single thing the Pope says and does?

Surely you know that "worship" means "adore," don't you? Neither I nor anyone else suggested doing such a thing, did we? We are to believe whatever the pope teaches about faith and morals, and we are to obey the rules by which he chooses to govern the Church. That is not adoration. That is not "worship."

I thought only his infallible teachings we must follow but we can disagree with other things he says.

Sorry, but you thought wrongly. We must assent to all of his teachings on faith and morals, and we are to obey all the laws and regulations that he gives to us. We are not permitted to doubt or reject his teachings, but we are permitted to hold an opinion that he could have imposed better disciplinary laws and regulations.

So your saying Mel Gibson doesn't agree with all Catholic doctrines the Pope claims as infallible.

Read my previous message. I never said that outright, because I don't know for sure. I stated things carefully: "He could be in worse shape, though -- being a dissenter or heretic, since it has been written that he rejects some of what Pope John Paul II has taught." See? I said that "it has been written" in at least one article about Gibson, but I would like to hear confirmation of it from his own lips.

what if a heritical Pope came about. Is that impossible to happen? I mean if he got in there and began to convince people of "new teachings" and would claim them infallible wouldn't that be scary.

It is impossible for this to happen. There are two schools of theological speculation about this. One says that, because of the papal gift of infallibility, the Holy Spirit would prevent a pope from trying to teach a heresy to the whole Church (even striking him dead, if necessary). The other school says that, in the moment a pope may try to teach a heresy to the whole Church, he would cease to be pope and would automatically depose/abdicate himself.

-- (Let's@Get.Unconfused), March 18, 2004.

The other school says that, in the moment a pope may try to teach a heresy to the whole Church, he would cease to be pope and would automatically depose/abdicate himself.

no personal offense to the poster of this, but this "school" is patently incorrect. It is the OFFICE of the papacy which is immune to fallable doctrine. therefore, no member who belongs to this office may teach fallable information. WHY NOT? the infallability comes from a belief that God will protect His ENTIRE church from false doctrines. If the pope were to teach a false doctrine, even with the BS line that he would extricate himself from being pope, it would mislead members of the church.

Further evidence that this school of thought is wrong is the fact that no doctrinal teaching of any sort which is proclaimed by any pope has been found to be incorrect.

The following of this school of thought leads to all sorts of schism, from groups like sedevacantists (sp?) to anyone who personally disagrees with a doctrine of the church believing that the pope extricated himself and therefore that doctrine was not binding. It is a venomous belief that is not correct.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 18, 2004.

Does anyone have a good book written by a Catholic about "The Pope"? I want to understand more about him. I was for the war in Iraq when it began, not so sure now, but I remember the pope was against it so since I disagreed with him does that mean I sinned. If he says for me to eat carrots more than apples and I don't am I sinning? I'm not kidding either! I'm serious! I don't really understand.

What I kinda grasp is we must believe all doctrine he teaches, and obey all church disipline? So that would not include his opinon on other things like the war, or politcs, or eating candy or junk food every now and then (not obsesivly of course)?

This has always been a confusing issue for me so I want to understand more. I mean what if he said "We should own cats instead of dogs since they make better pets in my opinon?" Should I get rid of my dog now or else I would be sinning if I didn't? Or, "We should all like the color blue because it's more soothing so we all have to start using it more than other colors." I'm not saying this to be rude or disrespectful and it might sound silly but I'm serious. It sounds like extreme dictatorship!

These are just some questions I need to ask!

-- William (Ducin25@aol.com), March 27, 2004.