Does Vatican II "Glorify Man"?

[Neil_Anthony]

I keep reading and hearing from traditionalists that Vatican II “glorifies man”. That’s one of their complaints about it. But I can’t find any examples of how it does that.

Can anyone give an example, where the documents of Vatican II glorify man more than appropriate?

Thanks,
Neil

 

[maurin]

I suppose before anyone attempts to answer your question it would help if you explained what you mean by “glorify man more than appropriate.” Glory belongs to God, according to the Scripture (cf Rev 19:1).

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I suppose before anyone attempts to answer your question it would help if you explained what you mean by “glorify man more than appropriate.” Glory belongs to God, according to the Scripture (cf Rev 19:1).

More than appropriate in the opinion of traditionalists. I don’t really know what is appropriate shrug.

 

[maurin]

That helps to clear up a little your motivation for asking your question. I suppose another question to ask you is, according to the Traditions of our Church, do you believe it is appropriate that man should be glorified?

I’m not trying to give you a hard time, Neil. I think it might be better if we all understand what you are asking before trying to give you an answer (or at least it would be better for me before I try to respond to you).

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

“In the opinion of traditionalists”

I’m 23, so I can’t remember, but…

…Was there ever a time when people who did their best to practice Catholicism weren’t branded “traditionalists?”

I do believe that, at one time, everyone was a “traditionalist,” because tradition used to mean something to Catholics.

But gosh, that was 50 years ago.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

Oh- and to the OP, I would say that Vatican II in itself doesn’t “glorify man” necessarily but that its interpretation does. That is, the priest’s ad populum posture and the playing fast and loose with Mass rubrics to suit whatever group for whom the Mass is being said.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I suppose before anyone attempts to answer your question it would help if you explained what you mean by “glorify man more than appropriate.” Glory belongs to God, according to the Scripture (cf Rev 19:1).

Of course, one of the Fathers (I think it was St. Athanasius) said, “The glory of God is a man or woman fully human.”

And you might want to consider these verses:

Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That helps to clear up a little your motivation for asking your question. I suppose another question to ask you is, according to the Traditions of our Church, do you believe it is appropriate that man should be glorified?

I’m not trying to give you a hard time, Neil. I think it might be better if we all understand what you are asking before trying to give you an answer (or at least it would be better for me before I try to respond to you).

Well, I was brought up in the post-Vatican II church, and I want to find out if I’ve been mistaught something. Here’s what I understand as Church teaching:

Man is the “pinnacle of creation”. We’re higher than the angels, and the Blessed Virgin Mary is Queen of Heaven and Earth, ruler even of the angels.

We were made in God’s image.

I can’t think of anything else. I doubt that traditionalists would disagree with these things, so I’m just wondering, what are they getting at when they say that Vatican II glorified man too much? I’ve investigated their other claims about religious liberty, conciliarism, etc., but this one seems kind of vague and would like to get a better idea of what they are saying.

 

[Walking_Home]

Of course, one of the Fathers (I think it was St. Athanasius) said, “The glory of God is a man or woman fully human.”

And you might want to consider these verses:

Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

---

Of course all this should be understood in the context that we are still creatures and God is our Creator.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I keep reading and hearing from traditionalists that Vatican II “glorifies man”. That’s one of their complaints about it. But I can’t find any examples of how it does that.

Can anyone give an example, where the documents of Vatican II glorify man more than appropriate?

Thanks,
Neil

No Vatican II doesn’t glorify man. If you haven’t read any of the documents of Vatican II yet, I suggest doing so and starting with either Lumen Gentium or Dei Verbum. I think you are maybe getting the wrong impression by some Catholics or maybe a sedavaticantist group rather than a traditionalist group. Most Traditional Catholics accept Vatican II and the current Popes without criticizing the teachings. I would stay away from sites that promote criticizing Vatican II or denying Vatican II altogether. Many here are quite respectful towards Vatican II. I have found no circumstances that Vatican II glorifies man and vise versa with pre-Vatican II. I think our culture needs to be exposed to post Vatican II and Pre-Vatican II. Each has had its pros and cons. Here are list of sites I would recommend staying away from popeinred, mostholyfamilymonastary, fisheaters, traditioninaction, tradtio, sspv, and sspx. NOT all are bad. Some are and some aren’t these are just my list of sites to be avoided

 

[maurin]

Of course, one of the Fathers (I think it was St. Athanasius) said, “The glory of God is a man or woman fully human.”

And you might want to consider these verses:

Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

these are good points, basil, and fleshes out a little bit what I’m asking the OP. I hope I don’t need to clarify that I’m not arguing anything yet. I just want to be certain of what he’s asking in order to avoid any misunderstanding.

---

Of course all this should be understood in the context that we are still creatures and God is our Creator.

And as the Virgin is compared to the moon–reflecting the sun’s light, as she reflects Light Himself, and is not the source of the Light, I’m trying to ascertain how Neil understands “glorifying man.”

Sancto Spirtu gave a perfectly reasonable response: it is not the documents themselves which necessarily glorify man–although arguments can be made to the contrary (which I’m not making here, so please don’t ask)–but in praxis absolutely do.

 

[Walking_Home]

these are good points, basil, and fleshes out a little bit what I’m asking the OP. I hope I don’t need to clarify that I’m not arguing anything yet. I just want to be certain of what he’s asking in order to avoid any misunderstanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Of course all this should be understood in the context that we are still creatures and God is our Creator.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

And as the Virgin is compared to the moon–reflecting the sun’s light, as she reflects Light Himself, and is not the source of the Light, I’m trying to ascertain how Neil understands “glorifying man.”

Sancto Spirtu gave a perfectly reasonable response: it is not the documents themselves which necessarily glorify man–although arguments can be made to the contrary (which I’m not making here, so please don’t ask)–but in praxis absolutely do.

I don’t really have any idea what they mean by glorifying man. I’m asking the question generally…

How do they glorify man in praxis? What do you mean by glorifying man?

 

[maurin]

I don’t really have any idea what they mean by glorifying man. I’m asking the question generally…

How do they glorify man in praxis? What do you mean by glorifying man?

It might be helpful, again since it’s your question, *what do you think *they mean by “glorifying man?”

Personally, I’ve never used the phrase in the context (I think) you’re using it.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It might be helpful, again since it’s your question, *what do you think *they mean by “glorifying man?”

Personally, I’ve never used the phrase in the context (I think) you’re using it.

I don’t know what they mean, thats why I’m asking

I was listening to bishop williamson go on about how “modern man worships himself” and was wondering what he was talking about. also heard other traditionalists say similar things, not sure what they meant

 

[em3boone]

No Vatican II doesn’t glorify man. If you haven’t read any of the documents of Vatican II yet, I suggest doing so and starting with either Lumen Gentium or Dei Verbum. I think you are maybe getting the wrong impression by some Catholics or maybe a sedavaticantist group rather than a traditionalist group. Most Traditional Catholics accept Vatican II and the current Popes without criticizing the teachings. I would stay away from sites that promote criticizing Vatican II or denying Vatican II altogether. Many here are quite respectful towards Vatican II. I have found no circumstances that Vatican II glorifies man and vise versa with pre-Vatican II. I think our culture needs to be exposed to post Vatican II and Pre-Vatican II. Each has had its pros and cons. Here are list of sites I would recommend staying away from popeinred, mostholyfamilymonastary, fisheaters, traditioninaction, tradtio, sspv, and sspx. NOT all are bad. Some are and some aren’t these are just my list of sites to be avoided

I must disagree with your list. I agree with several of the sites you avoid however there is nothing wrong with Fisheaters or SSPX. Fisheaters has a wealth of knowledge. If you have a problem with the forum that’s fine as they are personal opinions like yours and mine but that doesn’t negate the value of the actual site itself. And the SSPX is on its way to full reconciliation, they are not schismatics or heretics. Several faithful Diocesan priests have said the Society’s publishing wing puts out good stuff but some can be a bit iffy. If the Pope wants to bring them back in you shouldn’t be so quick to push them away.

Lets not turn this into a battle. I was simply offering a different view for people who will read your post. I’ve seen a tendency for this to turn into a derailing fight which we should avoid, but I felt both sides should be represented.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I must disagree with your list. I agree with several of the sites you avoid however there is nothing wrong with Fisheaters or SSPX. Fisheaters has a wealth of knowledge. If you have a problem with the forum that’s fine as they are personal opinions like yours and mine but that doesn’t negate the value of the actual site itself. And the SSPX is on its way to full reconciliation, they are not schismatics or heretics. Several faithful Diocesan priests have said the Society’s publishing wing puts out good stuff but some can be a bit iffy. If the Pope wants to bring them back in you shouldn’t be so quick to push them away.

Lets not turn this into a battle. I was simply offering a different view for people who will read your post. I’ve seen a tendency for this to turn into a derailing fight which we should avoid, but I felt both sides should be represented.

As for a person like the OP who doesn’t know much about the Pre-Vatican II the SSPX isn’t the best site. Although the SSPX is in negotiation with the Vatican and working on its way to reconcillation, which is good, I feel that the SSPX is too much of a complicated matter for the OP. I have serious problems with fisheaters and have had bloody debates with the supposed owners of that site. While yes it provides a wealth of Pre-Vatican II information, it openly criticizes Vatican II, the documents and teaching, which is a no no. As mentioned above, I have had some bad debates with the “supposed” owners of the site. They are very rude and uncharitable men. As a member of Catholic Culture as well I agree with their review of fisheaters.com. Enough about them. I don’t want to get suspended because of lack of charity towards them.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

As for a person like the OP who doesn’t know much about the Pre-Vatican II the SSPX isn’t the best site. Although the SSPX is in negotiation with the Vatican and working on its way to reconcillation, which is good, I feel that the SSPX is too much of a complicated matter for the OP. I have serious problems with fisheaters and have had bloody debates with the supposed owners of that site. While yes it provides a wealth of Pre-Vatican II information, it openly criticizes Vatican II, the documents and teaching, which is a no no. As mentioned above, I have had some bad debates with the “supposed” owners of the site. They are very rude and uncharitable men. As a member of Catholic Culture as well I agree with their review of fisheaters.com. Enough about them. I don’t want to get suspended because of lack of charity towards them.

found this on fisheaters:

The Error: an overly strong focus on the dignity of man coupled with an over-emphasis on the natural virtues (as opposed to the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity which come from God alone rather than nature). This ignores original sin and the need for supernatural grace, leading to a sort of Utopianism that sees peace as possible without recognizing the Kingship of Christ, and seemingly gives the Church a new mission: peace on earth rather than the salvation of souls. This attitude, and teachings rooted in it, contradict Pope Pius X’s "Quas Primas’’, Pope Leo XIII’s "Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae,’’ ‘‘Rerum Novarum,’’ Pope Pius X’s ‘‘Notre charge apostolique,’’ and other papal and conciliar documents that deal with social teaching.

The Truth: There is no peace without the Prince of Peace. Man has lost his likeness to God through original sin, and this likeness can only be restored through supernatural grace. Without this likeness, there will be strife among peoples and nations, and no amount of “Can’t we all just get along?” thinking can overcome it. The purpose of the Church and all Her laws is the salvation of souls. Peace on earth is a fruit of man’s regaining his likeness to God through the Sacraments and faith, but not the Church’s primary goal.

fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

 

[tobinatorstark]

found this on fisheaters:

The Error: an overly strong focus on the dignity of man coupled with an over-emphasis on the natural virtues (as opposed to the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity which come from God alone rather than nature). This ignores original sin and the need for supernatural grace, leading to a sort of Utopianism that sees peace as possible without recognizing the Kingship of Christ, and seemingly gives the Church a new mission: peace on earth rather than the salvation of souls. This attitude, and teachings rooted in it, contradict Pope Pius X’s "Quas Primas’’, Pope Leo XIII’s "Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae,’’ ‘‘Rerum Novarum,’’ Pope Pius X’s ‘‘Notre charge apostolique,’’ and other papal and conciliar documents that deal with social teaching.

The Truth: There is no peace without the Prince of Peace. Man has lost his likeness to God through original sin, and this likeness can only be restored through supernatural grace. Without this likeness, there will be strife among peoples and nations, and no amount of “Can’t we all just get along?” thinking can overcome it. The purpose of the Church and all Her laws is the salvation of souls. Peace on earth is a fruit of man’s regaining his likeness to God through the Sacraments and faith, but not the Church’s primary goal.

fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

That page is filled with nothing but attacks on the Post-Vatican II church. I urge you to read the 16 documents of Vatican II as well as the Pope Benedict’s newest encyclical Caritas in Veritate you can find all documents at www.vatican.va. All fisheaters is and I repeat and I will stand by this statement a site that promotes heresy. Openly criticizing Vatican II is strictly heretical. A grave no no. Criticizing the council has been frown upon by those who have done mass before the Vatican II council and after the council.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That page is filled with nothing but attacks on the Post-Vatican II church. I urge you to read the 16 documents of Vatican II as well as the Pope Benedict’s newest encyclical Caritas in Veritate you can find all documents at www.vatican.va. All fisheaters is and I repeat and I will stand by this statement a site that promotes heresy. Openly criticizing Vatican II is strictly heretical. A grave no no. Criticizing the council has been frown upon by those who have done mass before the Vatican II council and after the council.

It doesn’t make much sense anyway… obviously while we CAN’T ever create UTOPIA on our own, we should TRY to make things as good as we can.

I can’t believe that anyone pre- or post- vatican II ever disagreed with that. So what’s the issue?