Can we have a polite discussion on the authority of vatican ii?

[basinite]

You not so fast. The schema that was approved was not called Lumen Gentium the schemata bore titles that were descriptive, but the promulgated titles are simply the fitrst few words in the document.

I went to the Vatican’s web site and confirmed what you wrote and you are correct. My bad. :tiphat:

Either way it doesn’t matter what the title is because the Pope taught that Vatican II defined no dogma. Since he was a key player at the council, I think it’s safe to say he probably knows what he’s talking about more then some/all people on this forum.

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined** no dogma at all**, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”
-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), 1988

 

[malphono]

Either way it doesn’t matter what the title is because the Pope taught that Vatican II defined no dogma. Since he was a key player at the council, I think it’s safe to say he probably knows what he’s talking about more then some/all people on this forum.

Right, the title is the title but, to borrow a phrase, not so fast. :tsktsk: It’s a bit of an over generalization to imply that “people on this forum” don’t know what they’re talking about. Maybe “some” but certainly not “all” as I, for one, (I won’t speak for others but there are several), have said quite the same [post=7306889]thing[/post] several times in this thread alone.

 

[Timothy17]

Not so fast. Church Documents are written in Latin not ENGLISH. Its true title is “Lumen Gentium,” which means “Light of the Gentiles.” Not the English “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, or the French…or the German…or the Spanish…or the Chinese… and etc. This is why the Church has Latin as it’s official language. The bishops approved this document as “Lumen Gentium”. Which came from the first sentence of the document, “Christ is the light to the gentiles”.

I am not at all sure where you got the bolded quote from, because it was not from Lumen Gentium, which document’s first line reads :

1. Christ is the Light of nations.

…According to the English translation of said document provided by the Vatican’s website (see above hyperlink for that page), which I imagine it is safe for me to be so bold as to say it is also the official translation.

Pax,
Tim

 

[StTommyMore]

I went to the Vatican’s web site and confirmed what you wrote and you are correct. My bad. :tiphat:

Either way it doesn’t matter what the title is because the Pope taught that Vatican II defined no dogma. Since he was a key player at the council, I think it’s safe to say he probably knows what he’s talking about more then some/all people on this forum.

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined** no dogma at all**, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”
-Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), 1988

DId you miss my quotes from Ratzinger earlier? This quote does nothing to support your lack of accepting the authority of Vatican II.

 

[pnewton]

DId you miss my quotes from Ratzinger earlier? This quote does nothing to support your lack of accepting the authority of Vatican II.

No, but it is in really big type. There will always be those who see font size as adding authority.

 

[CradleCath]

DId you miss my quotes from Ratzinger earlier? This quote does nothing to support your lack of accepting the authority of Vatican II.

Here’s another quote from 1982:

1982, Pope Benedict XVI, then writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, acknowledged that “n]ot every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis many of them have been just a waste of time” and in the very next sentence he wrote that “the last word about the historical value of Vatican Council II has yet to be spoken."

 

[StTommyMore]

Here’s another quote from 1982:

1982, Pope Benedict XVI, then writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, acknowledged that “n]ot every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis many of them have been just a waste of time” and in the very next sentence he wrote that “the last word about the historical value of Vatican Council II has yet to be spoken."

In 1985, he spoke of the fruits of Vatican II. Read The Ratzinger Report

 

[basinite]

Here’s another quote from 1982:

1982, Pope Benedict XVI, then writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, acknowledged that “n]ot every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis many of them have been just a waste of time” and in the very next sentence he wrote that “the last word about the historical value of Vatican Council II has yet to be spoken."

Looks like Pope Paul VI also had his doubts.

“We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of **clouds and storms, and of darkness **… And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” Pope Paul VI.

 

[StTommyMore]

Looks like Pope Paul VI also had his doubts.

“We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of **clouds and storms, and of darkness **… And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” Pope Paul VI.

This is not license to ignore the Council. As an act of the Magisterium it is authoritative, and nor Catholic may reject Vatican II.

 

[malphono]

As our regulars here know (all) too well, for a variety of reasons I am not, and never have been, a big fan of either the “spirit of Vatican II” or Paul VI. That said, however, if I hear that “smoke of Satan” line out of context one more time, I think I’ll scream. :bigyikes:

 

[MarkThompson]

Looks like Pope Paul VI also had his doubts.

“We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of **clouds and storms, and of darkness **… And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” Pope Paul VI.

You’re omitting the very next line!
Crediamo - osserva il Santo Padre - in qualcosa di preternaturale venuto nel mondo proprio per turbare, per soffocare i frutti del Concilio Ecumenico, e per impedire che la Chiesa prorompesse nell’inno della gioia di aver riavuto in pienezza la coscienza di sé.
My translation:
We believe - observes the Holy Father - in some preternatural way he [Satan] has come into the world itself to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from bursting into a hymn of joy for having gotten back in fullness its self-consciousness.
So now you see – the problem was not Vatican II, it was that the Devil tried to squelch the spirit of Vatican II. The Council was finally getting the Church back to self-consciousness, until the smoke of Satan started to suffocate its fruits. In other words, Paul VI is saying pretty much the precise opposite of what this quotation is trotted out nonstop to attempt to prove.

As our regulars here know (all) too well, for a variety of reasons I am not, and never have been, a big fan of either the “spirit of Vatican II” or Paul VI. That said, however, if I hear that “smoke of Satan” line out of context one more time, I think I’ll scream. :bigyikes:

I’m not a big fan of the “spirit of Vatican II” either, but now you have it in context – and, surprise!, Paul VI did not in fact attribute the Council to Satan. Gee, who woulda’ thunk it.

 

[basinite]

You’re omitting the very next line!
Crediamo - osserva il Santo Padre - in qualcosa di preternaturale venuto nel mondo proprio per turbare, per soffocare i frutti del Concilio Ecumenico, e per impedire che la Chiesa prorompesse nell’inno della gioia di aver riavuto in pienezza la coscienza di sé.
My translation:
We believe - observes the Holy Father - in some preternatural way he [Satan] has come into the world itself to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from bursting into a hymn of joy for having gotten back in fullness its self-consciousness.
So now you see – the problem was not Vatican II, it was that the Devil tried to squelch the spirit of Vatican II. The Council was finally getting the Church back to self-consciousness, until the smoke of Satan started to suffocate its fruits. In other words, Paul VI is saying pretty much the precise opposite of what this quotation is trotted out nonstop to attempt to prove.

I’m not a big fan of the “spirit of Vatican II” either, but now you have it in context – and, surprise!, Paul VI did not in fact attribute the Council to Satan. Gee, who woulda’ thunk it.

Who’s taking who out of context! I didn’t say Pope Paul VI attributed the council to Satan. I simply pointed out that he also had his doubts about whether Vatican II would be fruitful.

Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, have all been quoted as expressing doubts about the “fruit” of Vatican II. As well as numerous Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Theologians. It should come of no great surprise that millions of Catholics have found the “fruit” of Vatican II lacking. Whether this lack of fruit is because of “Satan” ( as Pope Paul VI believed), the “Spirit” of Vatican II (As John Paul II believed), or the “ambiguous” nature of some of the documents themselves (as many Theologians believe), we will probably never fully know until Heaven.

 

[MarkThompson]

Who’s taking who out of context! I didn’t say Pope Paul VI attributed the council to Satan. I simply pointed out that he also had his doubts about whether Vatican II would be fruitful.

Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, have all been quoted as expressing doubts about the “fruit” of Vatican II. As well as numerous Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Theologians. It should come of no great surprise that millions of Catholics have found the “fruit” of Vatican II lacking. Whether this lack of fruit is because of “Satan” ( as Pope Paul VI believed), the “Spirit” of Vatican II (As John Paul II believed), or the “ambiguous” nature of some of the documents themselves (as many Theologians believe), we will probably never fully know until Heaven.

My last sentence there was in response to Malphono’s comment, not yours. Sorry if you misunderstood. At any rate, Paul VI was not expressing doubts about the fruits of Vatican II. He was lamenting that the fruits of Vatican II were being smothered and the Church’s progress was being impeded. That’s the problem: this quote is always trotted to “prove” the exact opposite point about Vatican II and its “spirit” than the one Paul VI was trying to make.

 

[StTommyMore]

Who’s taking who out of context! I didn’t say Pope Paul VI attributed the council to Satan. I simply pointed out that he also had his doubts about whether Vatican II would be fruitful.

Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, have all been quoted as expressing doubts about the “fruit” of Vatican II. As well as numerous Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Theologians. It should come of no great surprise that millions of Catholics have found the “fruit” of Vatican II lacking. Whether this lack of fruit is because of “Satan” ( as Pope Paul VI believed), the “Spirit” of Vatican II (As John Paul II believed), or the “ambiguous” nature of some of the documents themselves (as many Theologians believe), we will probably never fully know until Heaven.

Until the majisterum speaks denouncing VAtican II, we may not oppose it. To oppose Vatican II is to oppose Trent.

 

[The_Reginator]

Until the majisterum speaks denouncing VAtican II, we may not oppose it. To oppose Vatican II is to oppose Trent.

I’ve read this comment about opposing VII a few times.
What does this exactly mean? If I’m opposed to the OF, but not calling it illicit, does that constitute opposing VII? Could someone give some examples of where people often oppose the Council?

 

[diggerdomer]

AFAIK, no.

But it was used just to justify a watering-down of our worship and beliefs and a massive emphasis on populism.

Where as the Church used it as such? That’s a serious accusation, imho. I would appreciate details.

I challenge any priest in a liberal diocese to preach regularly about mortal sin, Hell and damnation. i.e. some the basics of our faith. Just out of interest to see what the reaction would be

What does the Church teach about preaching, at Mass? In your opinion? I don’t mean what you or I want to hear, but rather, what the Magisterium teaches regarding the homily at Mass? What do you think, and more importantly, what Magisterial reference can you provide?

Thinking about it, the New Mass, as said today, might, historically, be a last, desperate attempt to chase after the laity instead of leading them to holiness.

Where does the Catholic Church authoritatively teach about a “New Mass”? I"m not sure I understand your point.

Aren’t all Catholic Masses celebrated today…Catholic Masses?

Why do you think the Magisterium is “chasing after” the laity?

Thanks.

 

[malphono]

I’m not a big fan of the “spirit of Vatican II” either, but now you have it in context – and, surprise!, Paul VI did not in fact attribute the Council to Satan. Gee, who woulda’ thunk it.

Yeah, I know and that is, of course, why I’m ready to scream over the constant overuse of the out-of-context “smoke” quote.

 

[pnewton]

Who’s taking who out of context! I didn’t say Pope Paul VI attributed the council to Satan.

Did he? I noticed you didn’t link the post you quoted. The exact context is not written down anywhere I have ever found. Instead I have always found things that “he said that he sais that he said”, type of evidence. This quote was supposedly made why the Holy Father was ill. Was he aware of what he was saying or was something he said misheard and/or exaggerated?

This is why we go by what we know, not rumor. We have the actual documents of Vatican II, published, on-line and signed in the originals by the Catholic Church meeting in ecumenical council. The best way to approach evidence is to go with what is known to understand what is vague. Going in the opposite direction makes us vulnerable to conspiracists.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

As a rather traditional Catholic struggling with the changes in the Church in the last 40 - 50 years I find the following troubling when trying to convince myself that Vatican II did not create a break with the past:

And:

Before I converted, the impression I had from many Catholics was that Vatican II virtually remade the Church and that anything that came before VII could be questioned and generally belonged to ‘dinosaurs’.

Now I’m wondering how much of VII might have broke with Tradition – no break, I hope. But I am still wondering.

Reginator:

The problem wasn’t the Council - Read the actual words of the documents. The problem was a motivated, organized group of activists with a disobedient, unbiblical agenda. The problem wasn’t the Council - The Church wasn’t exactly in great shape to begin with. The Church really was in need of reform, as too many 15 Minute Masses, too many things that bordered on real superstition, Too little real teaching by too few priests and others in the Church on the Scriptures and the essentials of the Faith (Catholics had a good Catechism, but most stopped learning after that), Hitler’s Rise to Power, WWII and the Holocaust all should have proven.

The Church had become unable to “Turn the world upside down” as it had done even when Christians were fewer than 1% of the population of the Roman Empire. and, That which can no longer “Turn the world upside down” becomes susceptible to having the world turn it “Upside down”. So, Pope John XXII knew the Church was in trouble - He had seen the difficulty the Church had in dealing with WWII and how thw Pope had to intervene and use his personal authority repeatedly, and how he himself had been placed into danger, because the Church had been unable to mobilize to keep Hitler from getting into Power or to stop Hitler’s Aggressive War or any of the other Horrible things he & his henchmen did.

I’ve seen in a couple of books on the American Roman Catholic Church how as the RCC in America was accepted, many of the Bishops became concerned with getting power and privilege and not so much with preaching the Gospel or teaching the Faith. I guess that was an easy trap yo fall into - So many people were Catholics, and Catholics represented such a huge voting block which was getting more and more prosperous every decade.

I guess you could say the Council had a lot to deal with, and then the well-organized activists took over in many countries after the Council was over, and most of the bishops who just trusted in God (or those who just muddled through) never knew what hit them. They used a phrase I’ve seen a lot now in Constitutional Studies “Living Document” - This allows them to make the documents mean anything they want them to, even and including exactly the opposite of what the documents actually say - For instance, “This is my Body…This is my Blood… My words are Spirit and Life.” becomes “It’s just a Sign - the read and wine don’t actually become Christ’s Body and Blood. Everyone knows we’re the REAL Body of Christ - Just read the Apostle Paul.”

That’s why I urge you to read the actual words of the Council - My father had me reading them in the 1970’s. You’ll find the Council Fathers believed the Mass should be said or sung out loud in Latin, and that those parts that were translated should be done in “Transcendent Language”, That Music should be beautiful and Gregorian and other ancient chants of the Church accorded “Pride of Place” in the Mass. You’d find that they believed that ALL Catholics should learn Latin, not just the priests (I don’t know Latin:shrug:, so I haven’t done my job), and that priests should be fluent in Latin and another ancient language (Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew) so they could study and transmit the Scriptures to their congregations.

In most places, the Council was FAR more traditionalist & conservative than its Liberal “Supporters” have ever conceded that it was. In fact, I know one priest who, after 25 years of trying to say the Mass facing the People and feeling uncomfortable with it, read the Constitution on the Liturgy and concluded that the Council Fathers never wanted the Mass to be said facing the People, and that they never wanted Lating to be dropped. He started saying the Mass of Pope Paul VI in Latin Ad Orientum and he said that he immediately felt at one with the Lord. He has done the Extraordinary Form, but he usually doe the Ordinary Form in Latin, Ad Orientum - Canon One (The Roman Canon), Gregorian Chants on Sundays and Holy Days…

I’ll have to catch up with him one of these days…
In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

This is not license to ignore the Council. As an act of the Magisterium it is authoritative, and nor Catholic may reject Vatican II.

St. Thomas:

I would submit that it’s the people who have been doing all of this garbage and then using “The Spirit of Vatican II” who have been Ignoring the Words and Teachings of the 2nd Vatican Council. and that people such as Basinite and Reginator are should be treated with a little more Charity - If I hadn’t read the Council Documents so many years ago myself, I’d be as confused as they are.

I’ve seen that quote from Pope Paul VI in plenty of places. Given the garbage the Church endured in the late 1960’s - late 1970’s, I can understand why he said what he said. A lot of people experimented in ways never even dreamed of by the Fathers of the Council, and I think it’s safe to say that a lot of these people used “The Spirit of the Council” to justify things the Fathers of the Council actually spoke against and that, in many cases, were opposed to the Tradition of the Church (I saw some of these myself). I still remember dealing with one of those situations myself in late 1977. It involved a priest who believed the Council gave him license to do Sunday Masses with the following:

1. Changed Readings from those assigned (always dropping at least one & sometimes replacing all w/ some sort of non-Scriptural reading);
2. No Creed of any kind - No Nicene/Apostles Creed;
3. Sermons that had nothing to do with any of the Readings assigned for the Day - Often Buddhist or Zen Meditations;
4. Use of Leavened, Sweetened Bread - Not Valid Matter for Confecting the Eucharist (Already checked with Orthodox Bishops); and
5. Canon 5 - “Make it up as you go” often with no “Words of Institution”.

I remember when he called me a “Jesus Freak” because I dared to bring a Bible when I went to talk to him. So, I can understand the confusion some of these people have. We all have to realize that none of this garbage has anything to do with the Words of Vatican II - That it’s all the “Spirit” of Vatican II these Activists who wanted to remake the Church in their own image conjured up.

That is why Pope Benedict XVI is trying to “Reform the Reform”.
Your Servant in Christ, Michael