You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
An article on Bishop Schneider's concerns with the documents of Vatican II
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
bobballen_18
Guest
I have never read the Vatican II documents. I am sure I’ve seen snippets here and there, but I’ve never read the actual documents myself. (I know, I probably should, to really know what I’m talking about.) That being said, I have heard all about how Vatican II documents are ambiguous on many points.
My question is, then, what exactly are we supposed to think about Vatican II then? What attitude should we have towards it? The article mentions that the council was called to “deal with pastoral issues”, not to “define dogma” - so, yes, maybe it’s not the best in terms of defining dogma, but is there not value in the documents in terms of addressing pastoral issues? Honestly, I can understand people criticizing it over the poorly written parts or parts that could be construed as misleading, but I’m just concerned with those who write off the council and its documents completely just because of those parts. As I said, since I have never read the documents, I don’t know this for sure, but I’d be willing to bet that there are positive things to take out of Vatican II documents. I just get turned off by people who constantly criticize V II but never say anything positive about it. So I don’t know, maybe I am wrong that there is nothing good about it. I need to read the documents and find out myself, but I’d be interested to hear what others think.
My question is, then, what exactly are we supposed to think about Vatican II then? What attitude should we have towards it? The article mentions that the council was called to “deal with pastoral issues”, not to “define dogma” - so, yes, maybe it’s not the best in terms of defining dogma, but is there not value in the documents in terms of addressing pastoral issues? Honestly, I can understand people criticizing it over the poorly written parts or parts that could be construed as misleading, but I’m just concerned with those who write off the council and its documents completely just because of those parts. As I said, since I have never read the documents, I don’t know this for sure, but I’d be willing to bet that there are positive things to take out of Vatican II documents. I just get turned off by people who constantly criticize V II but never say anything positive about it. So I don’t know, maybe I am wrong that there is nothing good about it. I need to read the documents and find out myself, but I’d be interested to hear what others think.
G
GangGreen
Guest
I love Bishop Schneider. God bless him.
Anyway, I do think it’s time that the Church sat down and ironed out all of the VII documents and issue clarifications on the documents. Much of the abuses that came about after VII were not desired of the council, but instead were driven by people taking ambiguous excepts of the documents and manipulating them to fit their agendas. To see the writings of St. John XXIII and Paul VI and then what actually occurred after the fact is pretty mind boggling. It may take generations to fix the damage. I pray that the leaders act more quickly than that.
Anyway, I do think it’s time that the Church sat down and ironed out all of the VII documents and issue clarifications on the documents. Much of the abuses that came about after VII were not desired of the council, but instead were driven by people taking ambiguous excepts of the documents and manipulating them to fit their agendas. To see the writings of St. John XXIII and Paul VI and then what actually occurred after the fact is pretty mind boggling. It may take generations to fix the damage. I pray that the leaders act more quickly than that.
A
andrewstx
Guest
Do we really think that criticism of Vat II is characteristic of people who call themselves ‘Progressive’ Catholics?
I think it is more in the character of those who call themselves 'Traditionalists".
Think about it. Just my opinion, but I think the article may be ‘off’ just a bit.
I think it is more in the character of those who call themselves 'Traditionalists".
Think about it. Just my opinion, but I think the article may be ‘off’ just a bit.
G
Genesis315
Guest
I respect Bishop Schneider, but I don’t really see from this article how what he says is ambiguous, really is. I hear this claim a lot, but I never see any good examples that aren’t isolated from the clarifications that often come directly after them (if you isolate verses from the Bible, they can be ambiguous too).
For example, he says Lumen Gentium is ambiguous and that it can be read as the Pope just having a primacy of honor and not jurisdiction. On the other hand, it seems crystal clear to me that this is not the case:
Lumen Gentium 22:
I don’t really understand his criticism of the statement concerning the idea that Muslims adore the one God. He sets out to criticize it, but then just affirms it. Lumen Gentium does not say that they have supernatural faith and, as he mentions, supernatural faith is not necessary to worship God as Creator and Principle of all things, as the Muslims do. This is the virtue of religion, which is not a supernatural virtue, but one belonging to justice. See here:
newadvent.org/cathen/12748a.htm
Again, I don’t see the ambiguousness as no where does it say the Muslims believe God’s word with faith, but only that they acknowledge and worship Him.
Regarding Unitatis Redintegratio, the document says exactly what he is saying, that the elements of truth and sanctification found in other communities properly belong to the Catholic Church, that because of these elements such communities can serve as a means of salvation for such individuals, but only because they draw from the all-embracing means of salvation of the Church, and that those communities cannot be said to partake of the unity that belongs to the Catholic Church ruling out branch theory.
Unitatis Redintegratio:
Gaudium et Spes:
I agree with Bishop Schneider on the doctrines he is professing, but I disagree with his criticisms that these things are ambiguous in the Council’s constitutions and decrees. That being said, I don’t think re-iteration and re-clarification of things can hurt. That is, in fact, why we have living Magisterium in every age.
For example, he says Lumen Gentium is ambiguous and that it can be read as the Pope just having a primacy of honor and not jurisdiction. On the other hand, it seems crystal clear to me that this is not the case:
Lumen Gentium 22:
How is that ambiguous? This of course comes after Lumen Gentium 18 explicitly re-affirmed the definitions of the First Vatican Council on this topic.The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.
I don’t really understand his criticism of the statement concerning the idea that Muslims adore the one God. He sets out to criticize it, but then just affirms it. Lumen Gentium does not say that they have supernatural faith and, as he mentions, supernatural faith is not necessary to worship God as Creator and Principle of all things, as the Muslims do. This is the virtue of religion, which is not a supernatural virtue, but one belonging to justice. See here:
newadvent.org/cathen/12748a.htm
Again, I don’t see the ambiguousness as no where does it say the Muslims believe God’s word with faith, but only that they acknowledge and worship Him.
Regarding Unitatis Redintegratio, the document says exactly what he is saying, that the elements of truth and sanctification found in other communities properly belong to the Catholic Church, that because of these elements such communities can serve as a means of salvation for such individuals, but only because they draw from the all-embracing means of salvation of the Church, and that those communities cannot be said to partake of the unity that belongs to the Catholic Church ruling out branch theory.
Unitatis Redintegratio:
Regarding par. 12 of Gaudium et Spes, again that very document shortly thereafter says the thing he says needed to be said, that man is not the ultimate end of all things, but that through man, these things glorify God as their end:Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.
Gaudium et Spes:
The same document in paragraph 20 also criticizes atheism for doing the very thing Bishop Schneider says can be read into par. 12.
- Though made of body and soul, man is one. Through his bodily composition he gathers to himself the elements of the material world; thus they reach their crown through him, and through him raise their voice in free praise of the Creator.(6)
I agree with Bishop Schneider on the doctrines he is professing, but I disagree with his criticisms that these things are ambiguous in the Council’s constitutions and decrees. That being said, I don’t think re-iteration and re-clarification of things can hurt. That is, in fact, why we have living Magisterium in every age.
A
Abu
Guest
It is very important to read, and to assent to, the teaching of Vatican II. How can you know unless you learn the reality of that teaching yourself?bobballen_18 #2
I have never read the Vatican II documents. I am sure I’ve seen snippets here and there, but I’ve never read the actual documents myself. (I know, I probably should, to really know what I’m talking about.)
The first truth is to know that the Council did develop doctrine, and also to know the difference between dogma and doctrine.That being said, I have heard all about how Vatican II documents are ambiguous on many points. My question is, then, what exactly are we supposed to think about Vatican II then? What attitude should we have towards it? The article mentions that the council was called to “deal with pastoral issues”, not to “define dogma” –
Vatican II has been dogmatic and pastoral as have other Councils, and Christ’s Supreme Vicars have consistently affirmed this. Vatican II developed doctrine.
As Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI placed Vatican II in its rightful place:
"I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the ‘true’ Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp. The cardinal exhorts all Catholics who wish to remain such “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 28-31].
So pastorally inclined like all Councils, Vatican II also developed doctrine profoundly, as the revered Fr John a Hardon, S.J., affirms. Vatican II confirmed that even non infallible doctrine must be received with assent: “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra”…when doctrine is proposed or formulated. *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), 25].
In his book, *Sources of Renewal *Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (St Pope John Paul II) wrote: “It may be said that every Council in the Church’s history has been a pastoral one, if only because the assembled bishops, under the Pope’s guidance, are pastors of the Church. At the same time every Council is an act of the supreme Magisterium of the Church. Magisterium signifies teaching based on authority, a teaching which is the mission of the Apostles and their successors, it is part of their function and an essential task.” The Saint goes on: “All this has been signally confirmed by Vatican II, which, while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment.” (Ibid, p 38-39).
“….collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, F John A Hardon, S.J., 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.
The *Dogmatic Constitution On The Church *#8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].
“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).
E
edwest2
Guest
We must assent to Vatican II in its entirety. To clarify on what some see as problems, a few words from Pope Benedict:
ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/
ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii
Peace,
Ed
ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/
ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii
Peace,
Ed
O
otjm
Guest
It would appear that in the many discussions which go on (and on, and on, and on) about the documents of Vatican II, that one issue seems to be entirely overlooked.
The documents of Vatican II were not written for the “target audience” which most often is attempting to discuss them.
As on, they were not directed to the laity.
They were directed to the bishops of the world (who also were the writers and the voters upon those documents) primarily; and secondarily, to theologians and priests (and at the time it would appear that those two groups were often one and the same), and then only thirdly to the laity.
This is not to posit, and some twits did, that the laity essentially had no business reading (by way of example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church) - it was only meant for the bishops…
The fact that they were not directed to the laity is not to say the laity should not read them; but the vast, vast majority of the laity is not trained in Church documentation/history, so often they simply do not understand the breadth and depth upon which Vatican II documents rest. And in not understanding that, they often can go down rabbit holes which don’t actually exist - at least in the documents and their historical theological underpinnings. The rabbit holes are simply of the reader’s making.
One must also keep mind that the documents were not totally universally accepted, during Vatican II, by all the bishops. Some simply didn’t “get it”, or couldn’t wrap their minds around the subtleties, or were stuck in one mode while the Church was changing to a different one.
If a bishop has problems with the documents, it would seem better for not only him, but also his immediate flock (and now in the digital age, the extended flock whom he might touch) that he keep his doubts/disagreements/issues to himself, and take them up at a higher level, rather than hanging the laundry out for all to see.
Just sayin’.
The documents of Vatican II were not written for the “target audience” which most often is attempting to discuss them.
As on, they were not directed to the laity.
They were directed to the bishops of the world (who also were the writers and the voters upon those documents) primarily; and secondarily, to theologians and priests (and at the time it would appear that those two groups were often one and the same), and then only thirdly to the laity.
This is not to posit, and some twits did, that the laity essentially had no business reading (by way of example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church) - it was only meant for the bishops…
The fact that they were not directed to the laity is not to say the laity should not read them; but the vast, vast majority of the laity is not trained in Church documentation/history, so often they simply do not understand the breadth and depth upon which Vatican II documents rest. And in not understanding that, they often can go down rabbit holes which don’t actually exist - at least in the documents and their historical theological underpinnings. The rabbit holes are simply of the reader’s making.
One must also keep mind that the documents were not totally universally accepted, during Vatican II, by all the bishops. Some simply didn’t “get it”, or couldn’t wrap their minds around the subtleties, or were stuck in one mode while the Church was changing to a different one.
If a bishop has problems with the documents, it would seem better for not only him, but also his immediate flock (and now in the digital age, the extended flock whom he might touch) that he keep his doubts/disagreements/issues to himself, and take them up at a higher level, rather than hanging the laundry out for all to see.
Just sayin’.
T
Tigg
Guest
Thank you, OP, for this article.
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t find the documents of Vatican II to be particularly difficult or ambiguous. I always suspect that some people use the term “ambiguous” to signal that they disagree with what is being taught.
As to the article in the OP, I am immediately suspect of anything that relies on Michael Voris as an authority, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone that is familiar with him and his work.
As to the article in the OP, I am immediately suspect of anything that relies on Michael Voris as an authority, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone that is familiar with him and his work.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Let’s be fair here. You’ve presented translations, which themselves are interpretations. And it’s not like the Vatican has never asked for a retranslation or two. Take 10 different translators, you’ll get 10 different translations. I’ve stated some questionable translations like, for example, “frequently” when “haud raro” (literally “not rarely”) had been drawn up by the council fathers. Subtle difference perhaps but clearly biased.I respect Bishop Schneider, but I don’t really see from this article how what he says is ambiguous, really is.
That said, I believe JPII and BXVI stated or implied that there is to be no rupture between pre-council and post-council matters. That is what we are required to accept.
M
Megan7
Guest
Thanks for the link, will check it out.
G
GangGreen
Guest
Voris shouldn’t be taken as an authority on anything. Last time I checked, he is a lay person. However, to discount his work is silly. The wealth information about Catholicism put out by his organization is wonderful and a large portion of it is quite educational for any Catholic no matter what side of the fence you are. Just because you may disagree with his views, doesn’t mean his arguments are unfounded.I don’t find the documents of Vatican II to be particularly difficult or ambiguous. I always suspect that some people use the term “ambiguous” to signal that they disagree with what is being taught.
As to the article in the OP, I am immediately suspect of anything that relies on Michael Voris as an authority, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone that is familiar with him and his work.
T
TMC
Guest
I certainly disagree with his views. I have no problem with anyone exploring any theological theories or musings, including Voris’ material. But I think one would be hard put to defend his material as “Catholic”, given that his own bishop has asked him to stop referring to his organization as “Catholic,” and the fact that he has apparently been banned by some dioceses and other Catholic organizations.Voris shouldn’t be taken as an authority on anything. Last time I checked, he is a lay person. However, to discount his work is silly. The wealth information about Catholicism put out by his organization is wonderful and a large portion of it is quite educational for any Catholic no matter what side of the fence you are. Just because you may disagree with his views, doesn’t mean his arguments are unfounded.
G
GangGreen
Guest
Not sure what that has to do with anything. Those things more have to do with the fact that he’s critical of the current state of the Church especially liberal priests and bishops. None of the content on CMTV goes against any Catholic teachings. They are actually highly in accordance with them. He is highly supportive of the Pope as well. So I’m not sure how you can call them “hardly” Catholic. If you want to say that his views on controversial issues are off, go ahead. However, the teaching content on that website is some of the best I’ve seen anywhere.I certainly disagree with his views. I have no problem with anyone exploring any theological theories or musings, including Voris’ material. But I think one would be hard put to defend his material as “Catholic”, given that his own bishop has asked him to stop referring to his organization as “Catholic,” and the fact that he has apparently been banned by some dioceses and other Catholic organizations.
Many of those Catholic organizations that ban him can hardly even call themselves Catholic. He also has tons of priests and religious who appear on his shows regularly and support CMTV. He also has clearly interviewed a bishop (Schneider) and probably others. On his website CMTV has countless shows explaining the faith, teaching about the faith, and debunking myths about the faith.
T
TMC
Guest
So, the Archdiocese of Detroit and the Diocese of Scranton “can hardly call themselves Catholic”?Not sure what that has to do with anything. Those things more have to do with the fact that he’s critical of the current state of the Church especially liberal priests and bishops. None of the content on CMTV goes against any Catholic teachings. They are actually highly in accordance with them. He is highly supportive of the Pope as well. So I’m not sure how you can call them “hardly” Catholic. If you want to say that his views on controversial issues are off, go ahead. However, the teaching content on that website is some of the best I’ve seen anywhere.
Many of those Catholic organizations that ban him can hardly even call themselves Catholic. He also has tons of priests and religious who appear on his shows regularly and support CMTV. He also has clearly interviewed a bishop (Schneider) and probably others. On his website CMTV has countless shows explaining the faith, teaching about the faith, and debunking myths about the faith.
Again, I think that people can listen to whomever they please, but when it comes to learning what the Church teaches, I would consult the Church, and not someone who has been asked by his own bishop to stop doing what he is doing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.