Does Vatican II "Glorify Man"?

[maurin]

can you give links to these threads. I want to review them before I give an answer

threads to what? You have repeated over and over again that Vatican II MUST BE ACCEPTED.

I’m only asking you what your opinion is: is what we have today the Councils intentions or isn’t it? then I’ve asked you to substantiate your answer with either citations from the Council’s docs, or the relevent paragraphs of the docs themselves.

It shouldn’t be this difficult if you are as familiar with the documents as you expect Neil_Anthony to be.

 

[tobinatorstark]

threads to what? You have repeated over and over again that Vatican II MUST BE ACCEPTED.

I’m only asking you what your opinion is: is what we have today the Councils intentions or isn’t it? then I’ve asked you to substantiate your answer with either citations from the Council’s docs, or the relevent paragraphs of the docs themselves.

It shouldn’t be this difficult if you are as familiar with the documents as you expect Neil_Anthony to be.

A while back I emailed Fr. Mitch Pacwa who does the show “Threshold of hope” I asked him about the council and its teachings. He said “Yes we are to accept Vatican II and its documents and teachings”

In the light of the Liturgy I am using Sacrosanctum Concilium

1. Wherefore the sacred Council judges that the following principles concerning the promotion and reform of the liturgy should be called to mind, and that practical norms should be established.

Among these principles and norms there are some which can and should be applied both to the Roman rite and also to all the other rites. The practical norms which follow, however, should be taken as applying only to the Roman rite, except for those which, in the very nature of things, affect other rites as well.

1. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.

I believe this has been done as stated in SC 4. I also believe every council has called for this in someway or another. I believe this has been implemented quite nicely.

5-2 The wonderful works of God among the people of the Old Testament were but a prelude to the work of Christ the Lord in redeeming mankind and giving perfect glory to God. He achieved His task principally by the paschal mystery of His blessed passions resurrection from the dead, and the glorious ascension, whereby “dying, he destroyed our death and, rising, he restored our life” [12]. For it was from the side of Christ as He slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth “the wondrous sacrament of the whole Church” [13].

I see this being implemented correctly

1. To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, “the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross” [20], but especially under the Eucharistic species. By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes [21]. He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20) .

Christ indeed always associates the Church with Himself in this great work wherein God is perfectly glorified and men are sanctified. The Church is His beloved Bride who calls to her Lord, and through Him offers worship to the Eternal Father.

Rightly, then, the liturgy is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.

From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which .s the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.

I believe that this is implemented correctly

I believe that Sacrosanctum Concilium has been implemented quite correctly.

This document promotes prayer and devotion, participation with the laity and clergy. I do see something may or may not be an abuse in some churches. Chapter III, Section A - General Norms 3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. This maybe the only thing I see that might be a problem or not a problem.

 

[palmas85]

Please explain why you feel that you have been denied your Catholic heritage and birth right?? I too was born after Vatican II. I was born in 1982. I also attended Catholic school grades 1-6. Our town doesn’t have a Catholic high school or else I would have went to that. We never had a problem with people who want to receive by tongue. When prepping from 1st Communion we were shown how to receive by tongue and by hand. Latin wasn’t taught at my Catholic school either. Our Church does have its share of Latin inscriptions inside and yes I do know what they say and mean. I do not know much about our RCIA program, but they are taught and given not only the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but the Baltimore Catechism itself. I too have both those books at home. CCD we were taught a lot of different things. My CCD instructors grew up Pre-Vatican II so we knew how things were done before Vatican II. We were taught fasting and abstinance. There was only so much that could be taught in elementary. Yes I even had a nun. Since I have been out of High School for 9 years and I did go to CCD every week after I entered public school, I took intiative to learn things about the church that I didn’t know. I wouldn’t listen to Jimmy Akin myself, I think he is a terrible apologist. I prefer the likes of Scott Hahn, Fr. Corapi and Fr. Mitch Pacwa. How can you say such a thing as that being Catholic used to mean something??? I have come from 2 cradle Catholic families and they very proud to be Catholic. Lost richness in faith??? Maybe some have, but I have gained a lot of richness in faith over the years. Especially the last 2 years. I for one don’t believe the Novus Ordo mass has more richness and color than the TLM or vise versa. They are on equal grounds. I do find the TLM very beautiful and would like to attend one. I have only seen them on TV. I do get a lot wonderful chills up and down my spine. I beg to differ about the private devotions. I don’t feel we’ve lost anything. The TLM has always been there, private devotions have always been there, fullness in truth has always been there. Maybe it is just me, but I grew Post Vatican II, but knew very much how Pre-Vatican II was. If the Novus Ordo mass and the council documents are what you have problems with, then my friend I really suggest talking talking to a priest. I see no reason to put Vatican II or its documents down by criticizing it and comparing it to Pre-Vatican II.

Great. Tell us how it was pre Vatican II. I would love to hear what it was like.

 

[savienu]

Please explain why you feel that you have been denied your Catholic heritage and birth right?? I too was born after Vatican II. I was born in 1982. I also attended Catholic school grades 1-6. Our town doesn’t have a Catholic high school or else I would have went to that. We never had a problem with people who want to receive by tongue. When prepping from 1st Communion we were shown how to receive by tongue and by hand. Latin wasn’t taught at my Catholic school either. Our Church does have its share of Latin inscriptions inside and yes I do know what they say and mean. I do not know much about our RCIA program, but they are taught and given not only the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but the Baltimore Catechism itself. I too have both those books at home. CCD we were taught a lot of different things. My CCD instructors grew up Pre-Vatican II so we knew how things were done before Vatican II. We were taught fasting and abstinance. There was only so much that could be taught in elementary. Yes I even had a nun. Since I have been out of High School for 9 years and I did go to CCD every week after I entered public school, I took intiative to learn things about the church that I didn’t know. I wouldn’t listen to Jimmy Akin myself, I think he is a terrible apologist. I prefer the likes of Scott Hahn, Fr. Corapi and Fr. Mitch Pacwa. How can you say such a thing as that being Catholic used to mean something??? I have come from 2 cradle Catholic families and they very proud to be Catholic. Lost richness in faith??? Maybe some have, but I have gained a lot of richness in faith over the years. Especially the last 2 years. I for one don’t believe the Novus Ordo mass has more richness and color than the TLM or vise versa. They are on equal grounds. I do find the TLM very beautiful and would like to attend one. I have only seen them on TV. I do get a lot wonderful chills up and down my spine. I beg to differ about the private devotions. I don’t feel we’ve lost anything. The TLM has always been there, private devotions have always been there, fullness in truth has always been there. Maybe it is just me, but I grew Post Vatican II, but knew very much how Pre-Vatican II was. If the Novus Ordo mass and the council documents are what you have problems with, then my friend I really suggest talking talking to a priest. I see no reason to put Vatican II or its documents down by criticizing it and comparing it to Pre-Vatican II.

I’m pretty sure I explained how I was denied my birth right. I’m not going to go around in circles again and again about this. I do find it interesting that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong, though, including Jimmy Akin. I didn’t say he was my favorite apologist in the world, I said he said his RCIA was awful.

Is there a particular reason you are ignoring the comments I posted from Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict, other than that it contradicts your insistence that the Council made infallible proclamations?

Oh, btw, accepting the Council does not mean it infallibly taught anything. Prior to Vatican II we had to accept and abide by abstaining from meat on Friday- it didn’t make eating meat sinful. The sin was in disobedience to the Church and her authority, which I am not doing by criticizing the documents of Vatican II. One can criticize something and not be disobedient…

 

[tobinatorstark]

. I do find it interesting that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong, though, including Jimmy Akin.
…

I never said that anyone is wrong. You just jumped to the wrong conclusion. I also didn’t say Jimmy Akin was wrong either. He isn’t a great writer nor is a good apologist. He is terrible in both categories. He seriously needs more training to be an apologist in my book.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Great. Tell us how it was pre Vatican II. I would love to hear what it was like.

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.

 

[savienu]

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.

He didn’t twist your words. You said you know what it was like pre-Vatican II. He asked you to tell him what it was like Pre-Vatican II.

And are you STILL going to ignore my question about the Popes?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Back to the original poster - I already brought up a couple of instances in Gaudium et Spes that brings up references to the exaltation of man while I neglected the most obvious - the very theme of the Council itself:

**Updating the Church to suit ‘modern man.’ **

The very concept of aggiornamento within the Church to accommodate “modern man” smacks of enlightenment - and the glorification of man- as if somehow more technologically advanced gadgets enlightens us to the point of a higher consciousness; a new breed of man.

My question is: If modern man was the man of the 1960’s what are we today? Post-Modern-Men? Super-enlightened man? Mega? No, ULTRA!!!..

Ahhhh… yesssss… Ultra-man!

grin actually, I think many people say we live in a post-modern world, although its very unclear what they mean!

I think its great that the council tried to word the faith in a way that modern men would understand.

I just want to make sure that there weren`t any infallible declarations that contradict previous infallible declarations, which of course would make infallability a joke.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Please explain why you feel that you have been denied your Catholic heritage and birth right??

This wasn’t addressed to me, but I want to answer it anyway:

1. My grade 9 Catholic school religion teacher told us that the resurrection was symbolic
2. I wasn’t taught about the Church’s long traditions of spirituality, but instead was taught some modern stuff which wasn’t of use to me. Only now in my late 30’s am I learning about how Catholics always used to pray and meditate before the 1960’s.
3. My catholic peers weren’t taught catholic morals, and did their best to mock me and discourage me and otherwise peer pressure me into not following catholic morality. And how could I disagree? If the priest doesn’t have a problem with these things, why should I? Am I more holy than the priest?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

If you feel so strongly about Vatican II, why don’t you address the specific topic of this thread? Use your expertise to show us how the problematic quotes already pointed out actually aren’t problematic. No one is going to be convinced by your complaining, you have to convince people with reason and logical argument.

 

[tobinatorstark]

This wasn’t addressed to me, but I want to answer it anyway:

1. My grade 9 Catholic school religion teacher told us that the resurrection was symbolic
2. I wasn’t taught about the Church’s long traditions of spirituality, but instead was taught some modern stuff which wasn’t of use to me. Only now in my late 30’s am I learning about how Catholics always used to pray and meditate before the 1960’s.
3. My catholic peers weren’t taught catholic morals, and did their best to mock me and discourage me and otherwise peer pressure me into not following catholic morality. And how could I disagree? If the priest doesn’t have a problem with these things, why should I? Am I more holy than the priest?

Neil,

I am sorry about your bad experience. I respect your honest answer. I was taught the opposite. I was taught about spirituality and I was taught Catholic morals. I was taught that the resurrection was real as well as the Eucharist with Christ being present. I was taught how a Catholic should and should not act. We learned about the saints in religion as well as Christ. We read scripture, we learned about the mass and its significance. We weren’t exposed to some of the stuff that some people said they were exposed to.

 

[maurin]

A while back I emailed Fr. Mitch Pacwa who does the show “Threshold of hope” I asked him about the council and its teachings. He said “Yes we are to accept Vatican II and its documents and teachings”

In the light of the Liturgy I am using Sacrosanctum Concilium

1. Wherefore the sacred Council judges that the following principles concerning the promotion and reform of the liturgy should be called to mind, and that practical norms should be established.

Among these principles and norms there are some which can and should be applied both to the Roman rite and also to all the other rites. The practical norms which follow, however, should be taken as applying only to the Roman rite, except for those which, in the very nature of things, affect other rites as well.

1. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.

I believe this has been done as stated in SC 4. I also believe every council has called for this in someway or another. I believe this has been implemented quite nicely.

5-2 The wonderful works of God among the people of the Old Testament were but a prelude to the work of Christ the Lord in redeeming mankind and giving perfect glory to God. He achieved His task principally by the paschal mystery of His blessed passions resurrection from the dead, and the glorious ascension, whereby “dying, he destroyed our death and, rising, he restored our life” [12]. For it was from the side of Christ as He slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth “the wondrous sacrament of the whole Church” [13].

I see this being implemented correctly

1. To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, “the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross” [20], but especially under the Eucharistic species. By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes [21]. He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20) .

Christ indeed always associates the Church with Himself in this great work wherein God is perfectly glorified and men are sanctified. The Church is His beloved Bride who calls to her Lord, and through Him offers worship to the Eternal Father.

Rightly, then, the liturgy is considered as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs; in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.

From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which .s the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.

I believe that this is implemented correctly

I believe that Sacrosanctum Concilium has been implemented quite correctly.

This document promotes prayer and devotion, participation with the laity and clergy. I do see something may or may not be an abuse in some churches. Chapter III, Section A - General Norms 3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. This maybe the only thing I see that might be a problem or not a problem.

that’s all very nice, and I do appreciate the effort you put into your post, but you haven’t answered my question. I’ll reprint it again:

I’ll repeat again my question: What we have today, what we are experiencing in the Church, from CITH and the disappearance of Latin and Gregorian Chant from the Liturgy (just a couple of examples from current conversations on this forum, and,again, not in any particular Parish, but in the majority of Parishes), are these direct results of the Council’s Teachings, or are they in opposition to what the Council taught?

Could you tell us how CITH, the disappearance of Latin and Gregorian Chant from the Liturgy are in line with the Council? Or “all inclusive language”? Or the circus of the sign of peace at the expense of the Agnus Dei? Or the noisy atmosphere in the Church before Mass when the red Sanctuary Candle is lit?

 

[tobinatorstark]

If you feel so strongly about Vatican II, why don’t you address the specific topic of this thread? Use your expertise to show us how the problematic quotes already pointed out actually aren’t problematic. No one is going to be convinced by your complaining, you have to convince people with reason and logical argument.

I have addressed Sacrosactum Concilium. In this document. It answers what was proposed. Does Vatican II Glorify Man? No it doesn’t. Examine these from Sacrosanctum Concilium. 5-2, 6-1, 7-2, 8-1, 9-2, 10-2, 106, 112-4, 122-1 and 127-3 all talk about glorification of God not man.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I have addressed Sacrosactum Concilium. In this document. It answers what was proposed. Does Vatican II Glorify Man? No it doesn’t. Examine these from Sacrosanctum Concilium. 5-2, 6-1, 7-2, 8-1, 9-2, 10-2, 106, 112-4, 122-1 and 127-3 all talk about glorification of God not man.

Um… you pick a few quotes from one document, say that it doesn’t glorify man, and rest your case?

Someone pointed out specific quotes that they claim glorify man. From a different document. If you can’t see why that doesn’t work… maybe you’re in over your head?

 

[tobinatorstark]

Um… you pick a few quotes from one document, say that it doesn’t glorify man, and rest your case?

Someone pointed out specific quotes that they claim glorify man. From a different document. If you can’t see why that doesn’t work… maybe you’re in over your head?

which document are you referring to?? I can provide examples from other documents since the constitution of the Liturgy wasn’t good enough for you. But it will have to wait. I have a Knights of Columbus function to help with.

 

[tobinatorstark]

that’s all very nice, and I do appreciate the effort you put into your post, but you haven’t answered my question. I’ll reprint it again:

Could you tell us how CITH, the disappearance of Latin and Gregorian Chant from the Liturgy are in line with the Council? Or “all inclusive language”? Or the circus of the sign of peace at the expense of the Agnus Dei? Or the noisy atmosphere in the Church before Mass when the red Sanctuary Candle is lit?

Sacrosanctum Concilium Chapter 6 is on Sacred Music. I urge you to read Chapter 6 on Sacred Music especially 116. Gregorian Chant is the norm, but it is not required. Every mass that I have been to has had Gregorian Chant in it.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Um… you pick a few quotes from one document, say that it doesn’t glorify man, and rest your case?

Someone pointed out specific quotes that they claim glorify man. From a different document. If you can’t see why that doesn’t work… maybe you’re in over your head?

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.

 

[maurin]

Sacrosanctum Concilium Chapter 6 is on Sacred Music. I urge you to read Chapter 6 on Sacred Music especially 116. Gregorian Chant is the norm, but it is not required. Every mass that I have been to has had Gregorian Chant in it.

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?

 

[Walking_Home]

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?

---

So far-- haven’t experience an OF Mass–that incorporates Chant.–usually its “bands”.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

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.