Does Vatican II "Glorify Man"?

[Kook]

Every Vatican II document talks of Glorifying God, but none talk about glorifying man. I could list you too many instances to name that they talk about glorifying God, but you will not find not one bit of info on glorifying man. I know you won’t find one instance where glorifying man is found. If you could provide those specific quotes for me that someone claimed they glorify man, it would help your cause. But you are probably just bluffing.

For example, from Gaudium et Spes:

According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.

Compare that to the first line of Redemptor Hominis.

Anyways, I’m not sure how SC has been followed at all. The Pauline Mass bears no resemblance to any of the ancient liturgies and is regarded as a huge ecumenical stumbling block by the Orthodox. So much for returning to the Fathers. I have been to parishes all over the country and have never seen chant given pride of place, nor have I seen the parishioners taught to sing the Mass in Latin. Latin has been junked where it was supposed to have been retained. And so forth.

Here’s an interesting article by Cardinal Stickler on this sort of thing:

latinmassmagazine.com/vatican_ii_peritus.asp

As the subject of the language of worship was discussed in the Council hall over the course of several days, I followed the process with great attention, as well as later the various wordings of the Liturgy Constitution until the final vote. I still remember very well how after several radical proposals a Sicilian bishop rose and implored the fathers to allow caution and reason to reign on this point, because otherwise there would be the danger that the entire Mass might be held in the language of the people-whereupon the entire hall burst into uproarious laughter.

I could therefore never understand how Archbishop Bugnini could write, regarding the radical and complete transition from the prescribed Latin to the exclusively vulgar language of worship, that the Council had practically said that the vernacular in the entire Mass was a pastoral necessity (op. cit., pp. 108-121; I am quoting from the original Italian edition).

Not to mention that ditching Latin in general was completely counter to the wishes of Blessed John himself.

 

[tobinatorstark]

For example, from Gaudium et Spes:

Compare that to the first line of Redemptor Hominis.

Anyways, I’m not sure how SC has been followed at all. The Pauline Mass bears no resemblance to any of the ancient liturgies and is regarded as a huge ecumenical stumbling block by the Orthodox. So much for returning to the Fathers. I have been to parishes all over the country and have never seen chant given pride of place, nor have I seen the parishioners taught to sing the Mass in Latin. Latin has been junked where it was supposed to have been retained. And so forth.

Here’s an interesting article by Cardinal Stickler on this sort of thing:

latinmassmagazine.com/vatican_ii_peritus.asp

Not to mention that ditching Latin in general was completely counter to the wishes of Blessed John himself.

Reading your quote on from Gaudium et Spes and comparing that to Redemptor Hominis, it seems you didn’t seem to read far enough into the document before jumping to a false conclusion that man is glorified.

from Gaudium et Spes

1. According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.

But what is man? About himself he has expressed, and continues to express, many divergent and even contradictory opinions. In these he often exalts himself as the absolute measure of all things or debases himself to the point of despair. The result is doubt and anxiety. The Church certainly understands these problems. Endowed with light from God, she can offer solutions to them, so that man’s true situation can be portrayed and his defects explained, while at the same time his dignity and destiny are justly acknowledged.

For Sacred Scripture teaches that man was created “to the image of God,” is capable of knowing and loving his Creator, and was appointed by Him as master of all earthly creatures(1) that he might subdue them and use them to God’s glory.(2) “What is man that you should care for him? You have made him little less than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet” (Ps. 8:5-7).

This is all for God’s glory not man’s glory. Examine the passage from Psalms 8:5-7 from the Haydock Bible Commenatary

Ver. 5. Him. The prophet considers the nature of man at such a distance from the divinity. Being, nevertheless, united with it in Jesus Christ, it is raised far above the angels, Hebrews ii. 6. (Berthier) — When we reflect on the meanness of our nature, on the one hand, and on what God has done for it on the other, we are lost in astonishment. The pagans were aware of the corporal infirmities of man, (Seneca Consol. xi.) but not of his spiritual disorders. Hebrew has here, the son of Adam, or one of the lowest class; and not of ish, which means a person of nobility, vir, Psalm iv. 4. (Calmet) — Yet Christ applies to himself the former appellation, to shew us a pattern of humility. (Haydock) — St. Augustine inquires, what difference there is between man or the son. The Hebrew v, means, likewise, and; yet or would have been better, Exodus xxi. 16. — “Whether he have sold him, or he be in his hand.” (Amama)

Ver. 6. Angels. Elohim means also “God,” as St. Jerome, &c., explain it. Thou hast placed man like a deity upon earth. But St. Paul adopts the sense of the Septuagint. (Calmet) — St. Jerome doubted whether the epistle to the Hebrews belonged to him or he would have done the same. Some of the Fathers suppose, (Berthier) that the prophet speaks of man before the fall. (Theodoret) — Yet he has Christ principally in view. (Calmet) — A little less may be better rendered, "“for a little while:” Greek: brachu ti, Acts v. 34., and Isaias x. 25.; modico, Hebrews ii. Notwithstanding the prerogatives of Adam, before the fall, what is said by the prophet and St. Paul can be true of none but Christ; who was subject to death only for a short space, and quickly rose from the tomb, Lord of all, 1 Corinthians xv. 26. If we do not see it yet, (Hebrews ii. 8., and Psalm lxix. 2.) our faith must not waver. He is crowned, and will one day assert his dominion. (Berthier) (Matthew xxviii. 18., and Ephesians i. 19.) (Calmet) — In his assumed nature, Christ became less than the angels; but he has raised it above them, and is appointed Lord of angels, men, and creatures of every description. The sea and the winds obey him, Matthew viii. (Worthington)

 

[tobinatorstark]

Could you cite the specific paragraph in SC 6 which states that “Gregorian Chant is the norm, but it is not required?”

And to be perfectly honest with you, 90 out of a hundred NO Masses I have been to do not incorporate Chant at all. The other 10, the Agnus Dei has been sung. Is that what you are referring to?

Since you are to rude and lazy to look up Sacrosanctum Concilium 6 I will provide what I am talking about.

1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

nowhere is it taught in this document or any other that Gregorian Chant is required. I have even asked my parish priest and a few other on another Catholic forum. The answer is not it isn’t required but it is very much encouraged as seen in SC 116

 

[mary1173]

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 agree wholeheartedly. Neil neds to do more reading of approved Catholic teachings. The Pope’s enciclicals and Vatican II’s teachings would be an excellent place to start.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I agree wholeheartedly. Neil neds to do more reading of approved Catholic teachings. The Pope’s enciclicals and Vatican II’s teachings would be an excellent place to start.

Thank you Mary!!! I pointed out so much how God is glorified and not man in Sacrosanctum Concilium and I could have listed every one of them in the other 15 documents of Vatican II if I wanted to, but that would be quite a list. I chose to use SC for the purpose of the Liturgy. Most people like Neil and others have posted in this thread treat Vatican II as it were inferior and that Novus Ordo mass has nothing but liturgical abuses and that is all they look for. They accept the council and the Popes but seem not want to follow them and just want to criticize and put it down, which is a no no according the documents and many priest, bishops, cardinals and Popes. May God bless you!

 

[maurin]

Since you are to rude and lazy to look up Sacrosanctum Concilium 6 I will provide what I am talking about.

1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

nowhere is it taught in this document or any other that Gregorian Chant is required. I have even asked my parish priest and a few other on another Catholic forum. The answer is not it isn’t required but it is very much encouraged as seen in SC 116

Your unnecessary opening comments le sigh aside, where in the document are the tunes of Haugen, Haas, not to mention popular protestant secular music (shine, Jesus, shine and that ilk) qualified as polyphony?

Again, we are not talking about Parishes which are the exception. We are discussing the majority of Parishes.

 

[mary1173]

Thank you Mary!!! I pointed out so much how God is glorified and not man in Sacrosanctum Concilium and I could have listed every one of them in the other 15 documents of Vatican II if I wanted to, but that would be quite a list. I chose to use SC for the purpose of the Liturgy. Most people like Neil and others have posted in this thread treat Vatican II as it were inferior and that Novus Ordo mass has nothing but liturgical abuses and that is all they look for. They accept the council and the Popes but seem not want to follow them and just want to criticize and put it down, which is a no no according the documents and many priest, bishops, cardinals and Popes. May God bless you!

No problem tobinatorstark, some people need to read and UNDERSTAND what they read, otherwise it can be a big mistake to try to ‘‘interpret’’ what is being said. PRIVATE interpretation is frowned upon by Vatican II anyway. Priests and Bishops along with the guidance of Pope Benedict XVI’s words are what are to be followed. Not pick and choose as you personally wish. The rules are there to be followed…not scoffed at.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That is not the question in the title ​

V2 doesn’t. What it does do, is present a “vision” of what man is for, and what his true identity is, what the vocation of man is. It should perhaps have said more about sin, as this is a fact of human life - but (with that qualification) it does “join the dots” between many doctrines & practices, & between doctrine & practice. The total vision it provides is what other Councils have tended not to provide, because they have taught by providing canons, things not joined together as a single & unified picture; they don’t explain how the teachings join up, inter-relate, & affect one another. V2’s method has the drawback that one has to read a lot more to get the picture. But in the long run, I think it’s a more rewarding method. FWIW, the acts of Councils are not for us the public - the intended readers aren’t the lay faithful, but the bishops. So some of the criticisms against V2 are based on a misunderstanding; we may not know Christology from a hole in the wall, but the bishops are meant to

V2 is strongly influenced by a Greek, non-Augustinian, attitude; not (as before in the West) an attitude strongly emphasising human sin, wretchedness, & the need of salvation & a Saviour, & so, a Church. The West has emphasised the action of the Church as a device imparting salvation - the other attitude is more speculative & mystical. Latin theology wasn’t changed in three years - the Council’s doctrine of the Church goes back decades before John XXIII; but people seem to overlook that - not surprisingly.

ISTM Greek Christianity, perhaps because the controversies have been largely Christological but not focussed on soteriology (as in the Latin West they have), have a profound insight into Christ, but less insight into the disaster of sin. That may perhaps be why V2 has a somewhat different taste or tone or atmosphere from the others.

That explains a lot! And answers my question. Thanks!

 

[sking1972]

I believe this argument is based upon things like the following:

1. Use of the word “presider” which unfortunately implies that priest’s function is merely ornamental
2. Having the priest turn towards the people; I believe this has hurt the faithful by undermining the mystery of the Eucharistic miracle.
3. Use of the vernacular rather than Latin
4. Use of EEMs
5. Permitting laypersons to read the lessons
6. Communion in the hand
7. Use of altar girls (a practice, by the way, which has been squarely condemned by previous popes).

I’m sure I could list others had I the time.

Keep in mind, however, that many times what you see at a so-called “Novus Ordo” Mass are either abuses or license taken by the priest (or ignorance) and may not look anything like what the Council had in mind. I have it on good authority that a group of Norbertines in California celebrate the Novus Ordo quite reverently and in such a manner than more than a few “traditionalists” would feel quite at home.

We go to Mass to worship God, not to demonstrate our abilities at singing, oratory, etc. As John the Baptist said, “I must decrease so that He may increase”. Priests who are fond of making a spectacle out of themselves - or laypersons who are guilty of the same - would be wise to take that to heart.

 

[Kook]

Thank you Mary!!! I pointed out so much how God is glorified and not man in Sacrosanctum Concilium and I could have listed every one of them in the other 15 documents of Vatican II if I wanted to, but that would be quite a list. I chose to use SC for the purpose of the Liturgy. Most people like Neil and others have posted in this thread treat Vatican II as it were inferior and that Novus Ordo mass has nothing but liturgical abuses and that is all they look for. They accept the council and the Popes but seem not want to follow them and just want to criticize and put it down, which is a no no according the documents and many priest, bishops, cardinals and Popes. May God bless you!

Who has been saying such?

It seems that most folks have been pointing out re: the liturgy is that the Pauline Mass just doesn’t seem to look much like what was contemplated in SC.

The other bits have been to confirm what is historical fact, namely, that VII must be read very carefully due to the intentional use of ambiguous terms and phrases that could be “reinterpreted” in its aftermath as changes in doctrine. The “spirit of Vatican II” that is so often decried these days is a direct result of these distortions. Hence my quote from GeS above. It is not all that difficult to find, for example, supporters of liberation theology taking this language and using it to push man-centered theology as being Catholic teaching.

 

[palmas85]

you totally just twisted my words around. It didn’t say my expeirences was Pre-Vatican II. I said we were exposed to Pre-Vatican II.

Maybe it is just me, but I grew Post Vatican II, but knew very much how Pre-Vatican II was.

Your exact words. How did I twist them? You said you knew how pre Vatican II was. I merely asked you to let us know what it was like.

Come on kid, I know you can enlighten a few of us here. Let us in on it!

 

[PJM]

=Neil_Anthony;5421460]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

***In FACT and in intent NO!

In personal translation and Obvious effects YES!***

 

[aingil]

To the original poster… off the top of my head I can think of a couple items for concern which introduce humanism into Catholic theology. V2’s Guadium et Spes where it states:

1. For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbor: “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself… Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law” (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. 1 John 4:20). To men growing daily more dependent on one another, and to a world becoming more unified every day, this truth proves to be of paramount importance.

It seems fairly obvious to me that the document is stating that we can’t love God without loving each other. That is the whole point of the body of Christ. We are to love God more, and we are to love others because of God (not the other way around). However, we can not just love God without loving those around us. If we are indifferent to our neighbor, how can we learn to love God. Our relationships with others teach us how to love.

No where does the statement suggest that loving Neighbors is equal with loving God. That’s just nonsensical.

Honestly I can not understand why many trads do not just give VII documents a thinking through instead of coming up with conclusions that are clearly not what the documents were stating.

 

[chrisb]

If Vatican II didn’t glory man, Jesus surely did by the Incarnation.

 

[palmas85]

It seems fairly obvious to me that the document is stating that we can’t love God without loving each other. That is the whole point of the body of Christ. We are to love God more, and we are to love others because of God (not the other way around). However, we can not just love God without loving those around us. If we are indifferent to our neighbor, how can we learn to love God. Our relationships with others teach us how to love.

No where does the statement suggest that loving Neighbors is equal with loving God. That’s just nonsensical.

Honestly I can not understand why many trads do not just give VII documents a thinking through instead of coming up with conclusions that are clearly not what the documents were stating.

I have asked myself the exact same question about progressives since the late sixties… Trads, as you them, hardly have a monopoly on coming to the wrong conclusions concerning Vatican II

Noy by a long shot.

 

[jeenagrace]

The roots of man glorifying himself could be found in the humanistic ideas of the Renaissance times. And twentieth century too added to this ideology to a great extent. At a closer look we can see that glorifyication of man is a subtle aim of marxism, feminism etc, in their rejection of Christian value of suffering. We can see this humanistic tendency in the modern man’s philosophy and life, where life is mostly about how to suffer less and enjoy more. Abortion, euthanasia (man need not suffer), homosexuality (“they are special people”), contraception, etc advocates love of man, love of man’s freedom.

When we think of Vatican II, there has been a concern over the “false spirit of Vatican II” as some call it which actually goes to the extent of glorifying man!! One can see traces of glorifying man even in certain decisions like believers can receive Holy Communion in hand,disappearance of the use of veil,etc and also in different kinds of laws being made lax. Don’t you see a demystification of God and glorification of man in these things?

Well, we need not worry since the Lord knows how to take care of His Church. We only need to dwell more upon the majesty of God and realize our true value as children of God. Actually the true value of man is this - we are mere creatures; but after the Incarnation we are made children of the Almighty!!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I have asked myself the exact same question about progressives since the late sixties… Trads, as you them, hardly have a monopoly on coming to the wrong conclusions concerning Vatican II

Noy by a long shot.

It’s because progressives don’t care what is written down… everything they believe is based on emotions, not history or dogma or councils (unless they find a council they sort of like, then they use it as a basis and extrapolate from there )

 

[aingil]

It’s because progressives don’t care what is written down… everything they believe is based on emotions, not history or dogma or councils (unless they find a council they sort of like, then they use it as a basis and extrapolate from there )

You know, I find it odd that when I point out that way in which the example was used was deliberately misconstrued, and called ambiguous when the meaning is obvious…the reaction is “Well progressives are bad too.” Who said they weren’t? I think on both sides of the extreme, spiritual pride is keeping people from recognizing the truth and implementing it. Especially when the quote cited had so much truth in it. Which apparently neither side can recognize.

(I’m not saying that all trads are like this, they aren’t. I’m saying that those who choose to be like this need to wake up.)