RE: which was to complete to work begun by Vatican I, which was in effect chased out of town when the Italians occupied Rome. It was not to be a doctrinal council, as Trent was. However, it can be asserted, as Benedict has implied, that a party within the Church, treated the Council as not a renewal but as an abrupt departure from the past.
OK, The above statement now makes more sense, especially this : “It was not to be a doctrinal council” and this in regards to Vatican II : “the Council as not a renewal but as an abrupt departure from the past.”
But Let’s analyze this. There seems to be two things I garnered from this.
1) Vatican I is NOT to be a doctrinal council. If so, if the anathema on those who do not recognize the Pope as the Primate of christianity do not have spiritual force. The only force it has is denominational or institutional.
You are ex-communicated from the ROMAN CATHOLIC church, but not necessarily Christ Himself.
2) If Vatican II is a departure from the past, the next question is this — HOW FAR IS THE DEPARTURE? Surely there are doctrines that were espoused in Vatican I and Trent that are SPIRITUALLY BINDING.
But Vatican II does not depart doctrinally from the past, although many in the Church has thought it did. And as far as the language is concerned, even Trent made it clear that what was condemned was not persons but doctrines. The Lutherans were not there, not because they were not asked, but because they chose not to come. Regarding religious liberty, Vatican II says basically,that good people can hold to false doctrines. Some people resent the Catholic notion of “invincible ignorance,” but this is but an acknowledgement of human nature. My Methodist father-in-law, a very good man, absolutely refused to accept the statement that Jesus Christ is a Jew. Yet he was anything but an anti-semite. Go figure.