Do you reject the Second Vatican Council?

[GiftOfGod]

By "Second Vatican Council", I am not talking about the little things that were never put into practice and would have had a limited impact if they were, such as restoration of Gregorian Chant and public Vespers.

I am also not talking about the "interpretation" of the Council, which some people believe is where it went wrong.

I am talking about the actual substantive texts of the Council.

[Jayne]

I do not reject the actual texts of the Council. I believe that they are theoretically capable of orthodox interpretation, even though this has not be done in practice.  I think it is scandalous that they have enough ambiguity to allow heterodox interpretations, but do not consider that sufficient reason to reject them.

I am comfortable attending both my local SSPX and "Indult".  I probably prefer the SSPX, but for non-theological reasons.  (They operate more like a parish community.)  I chose other since the answers did not express this.

[Melkor]

"From such an extravegent summary, we can draw only one conclusion: either we must condemn the Second Vatican Council which authorized it, or we must condemn the Council of Trent and all the Popes who, since the sixteenth century, have declared Protestantism heretical and schismatic."
? Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics

Enough said.

[Boniface VIII]

Every Catholic rejects Vatican II as per your description.

[Christina_S]

Every Catholic rejects Vatican II as per your description.

Have you read the Vatican II documents?

[LausTibiChriste]

Yes and I am none of the above (please explain in a comment below)


I was Ecclesia Dei/Indult but had nothing against the SSPX - been to 4 Masses of theirs in my life, they were just always hard to get to.

But I am now Eastern (in practice not on paper). Regardless, I still reject V2 outright. From my own, personal perspective the ONLY fruit it wrought was making Easterns more Eastern. But I view that as a happy accident of Providence rather than any virtue of the Council itself. The Council should be put in the waste basket of history and never talked about again.

[LausTibiChriste]

I believe that they are theoretically capable of orthodox interpretation,

This hermeneutic of continuity nonsense has to stop.

It's been 60 years and it ain't work. Just return to Tradition wholesale.

V2 is a false council.

[Jayne]

I believe that they are theoretically capable of orthodox interpretation,

This hermeneutic of continuity nonsense has to stop.

It's been 60 years and it ain't work. Just return to Tradition wholesale.

V2 is a false council.

I am open to reasoned arguments.  I find mere assertions  uncompelling, whether or not they are accompanied by vulgar language.

[Goldfinch]

The truth is that every traditional Catholic ends up rejecting the Council one way or the other.

While Benedict still tried to salvage it with his convoluted "hermeneutic of continuity", the lines have been clearly drawn. There's no possible agreement between light and darkness, much less a continuity. The failed talks between Rome and the SSPX have demonstrated it. We have the privilege of having 60 years of hindsight: Vatican II was a cataclysm that turned what was the light of the world into a conventicle of heretics and apostates of every kind. Simply put, the tree is rotten and cannot come from the spotless bride of Christ.

[LausTibiChriste]

I believe that they are theoretically capable of orthodox interpretation,

This hermeneutic of continuity nonsense has to stop.

It's been 60 years and it ain't work. Just return to Tradition wholesale.

V2 is a false council.

I am open to reasoned arguments.  I find mere assertions  uncompelling, whether or not they are accompanied by vulgar language.

I do not care what you think juden

[Jayne]

I am open to reasoned arguments.  I find mere assertions  uncompelling, whether or not they are accompanied by vulgar language.

I do not care what you think juden

In case anyone was wondering, this is not a reasoned argument.

[Jayne]

The truth is that every traditional Catholic ends up rejecting the Council one way or the other.

I must admit that, even though I do not formally reject it, I do not treat it the way I do pre-Conciliar teaching.  I approach Conciliar documents with a caution that I do not have towards pre-conciliar teaching.

[james03]

In summary, my view is that Vatican II is non-binding and fallible.  So I reject it.

As far as the descriptions, I'm neo-sede, holding Bergoglio is an heretic.  As far as Mass, I'm a kung fu Trad and will go to whatever TLM is available.  If I have to force rank, I'd say I'm an SSPX Trad.

[Prayerful]

The Hermenuetic of Continuity was something under Benedict and it is a tolerable way to pick the sick old dog of Vatican 2 to sleep.

[The Curt Jester]

I believe that they are theoretically capable of orthodox interpretation,

This hermeneutic of continuity nonsense has to stop.

It's been 60 years and it ain't work. Just return to Tradition wholesale.

V2 is a false council.

In theory, it works.  I can read through the documents (although I have to admit I haven't read ALL of them) and come to an orthodox interpretation.  However, the reality of it is that because they are written in a manner that also permits other interpretations, we will never have a defense of tradition from the V2 documents, making them worthless for that.  So, yes, I agree with you that it's time to stop playing the game.  It only works with people who are already traditional leaning.  Just try giving a traditional interpretation to a pastor (or bishop or pope) who leans the other way and see how far it gets.