misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

[Thomist_student]

Dear Brother JR,

As you know, Quanta Cura’s syllabus of errors, which certainly seems to fit all of Vatican I’s requirements for papal infallibility (fourth session), CONDEMNS the following, as well as other errors which are widely held by Catholics today (it seems to me):

1. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be
   held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of
   worship.
2. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with
   progress, liberalism and modern civilization.

Fraternally yours in the Truth

 

[StTommyMore]

Dear Brother JR,

As you know, Quanta Cura’s syllabus of errors, which certainly seems to fit all of Vatican I’s requirements for papal infallibility (fourth session), condemns these as well as other errors which are widely held today (it seems to me):

1. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be
   held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of
   worship.
2. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with
   progress, liberalism and modern civilization.

Fraternally yours in the Truth

You are meaking the error of interpreting a text separated from its historical context.

 

[ProVobis]

It is not the Church’s fault that there is no longer a Catholic Europe or a Christian America. These deteriorations would have happened regardless of a Vatican II.

Maybe but don’t you think the Church’s new positions on collegiality and ecumenism had some effect on Catholics and where the lines are drawn between Catholic and non-Catholic denominations and between Christian and non-Christian religions? I agree the number of churchgoers would have declined to some extent anyway.

 

[ProVobis]

And Jesus Christ is present in all of them.

Here’s a question for you. Is Jesus Christ not present in Protestant churches? Didn’t the Vatican II documents tell us to treat them as “brothers?”

 

[Sirach2]

Laszlo:

Why is the form unwanted by the majority of the people more important than the real presence of our Lord. He born in a barn, laid into a manger. He died on the tree of shame. This was the reason why the pharisee and the Jews rejected Him.

Please help me understand your meaning, Lazlo. Are you saying that the form is “unwanted” by a majority of the people (who I assume attend the NO liturgy)? Or did you have another meaning?

Yes, the beauty of the Christmas gospels teaches us also that the first message of Our Lord’s birth was given by the angels to lowly, stinkin’ shepherds, outcasts for all intents and purposes - NOT the religious leaders at the temple. I think we can learn a lot from this incident that is overlooked by many people.

 

[StTommyMore]

Here’s a question for you. Is Jesus Christ not present in Protestant churches? Didn’t the Vatican II documents tell us to treat them as “brothers?”

Jesus is present in Protestant Churches. He is present in the Word being proclaimed and present in the body of believers gathered together. However his presence is not in the minister as He is present in the priest, nor is He present in their version of the Eucharist. The presence of Jesus in the Catholic Church is more complete.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

St.ThommyMore,

In your opinion, do the follow two quotes teach the same truth?

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura: "For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”

Can the above teaching be reconciled with the following from Vatican II?

Vatican II Dignitatis Humanae: "2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. … In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed."

In your opinion, do these two teachings appear to be consistent with one another?

St.ThommyMore,

I want to make sure you saw the above post. Do you see any apparent contradiction between what Pius IX condemned, and what Vatican II taught; or do the above quotes seem to teach the same truth, with Vatican II simply using modern language to express what Pius IX taught?

Many people claim that Vatican II simply taught what the Church always taught, but did so using modern language, while others claim that Vatican II taught the contrary of what the Church taught previously. After reading the above quotes, what do you think?

 

[CradleCath]

You are meaking the error of interpreting a text separated from its historical context.

OK., Let’s just speak in today’s terms. Progress & modernization have always been with us & always will be. The Automobile that my Grandfather thought the latest in modernization (a 35’ Buick) is now obselete. We progress monthly re. medicine & science. Polio was a great fear in my childhood, it’s been conquered.

However, the Truths of Christ, which HE passes along, through us, do not change & have not changed since His time on earth. We are just the messengers. The Truths are NOT ours to change.

We can change how others see those Truths by, not only our words, but our actions…our reverence toward the Eucharist, our attendance at Confession, our behavior during Mass, how carefully our priests are selected & trained…our children are watching, as our Grandchildren. Guess what, the Protestants we work with, those who are our friends & neighbors are watching, too. I don’t particularly like what I’ve seen happen since Vatican II & I’m definitely not happy with what my grown children have seen in those areas.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, nor can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Matthew reported those words of Christ. The fruits of Vatican II SHOULD have improved the situation in the world, at least in the Catholic world. They didn’t.
One only has to look at the figures re Mass attendance, Confession, the abuse of young boys by homosexual priests, etc. etc.

BTW. Please no Post hoc ergo propter hoc posts. I’ve already dealt with that so many times. As often as not, what happens “after” is influenced by what happened first.

 

[CradleCath]

Banal rhetoric. No emphasis on the Sacrifice? You seem to be unfamiliar with the text of the Novus Ordo.

An you seem to be a little RUDE, Carl. I attended the Novus Ordo Mass for 40 years & I think you know that. I had no choice.

Tell you what… Pretend that YOU have no choice. That you MUST attend the TLM. for only 40 SUNDAYS. Come back & we’ll discuss it, then.

 

[JReducation]

Dear Brother JR,

As you know, Quanta Cura’s syllabus of errors, which certainly seems to fit all of Vatican I’s requirements for papal infallibility (fourth session), CONDEMNS the following, as well as other errors which are widely held by Catholics today (it seems to me):

1. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be
   held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of
   worship.
2. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with
   progress, liberalism and modern civilization.

I believe that this is where we see the theological genius of men like Pope John XXIII, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI. Number 77 is not a sustainable position for today. It was at the time when it was stated, because there was a Catholic Europe. There were alliances between Church and State. Those circumsances no longer exist. The point that the Holy Fathers are making is that it’s not a matter of expedience, it’s a matter of reality. No nation on earth will accept such a position. The secular reaction would be to fill threatened and to push the Church as far back as possible.

The Church has to approach the secular world in a different way, not change its message. Today, the Church speaks about and defends its right to be a voice in the market place… Try to imagine if the USCCB challenged the American people by declaring that Catholicism must be the official religion of the State. You may as well shoot yourself in the foot. However, if you state clearly and unequivocally that you (the Church) has the right to express itself in the market place and the right to serve as the moral voice of American society, you may still get some rejection, but you won’t be condemned as a threat.

Let’s look at the March for Life that took place just this week. The Church did not hide in the sand. There were hundreds of thousands of Catholics out there. The bishops, clergy and religious worked alongside lay leaders to make the Church’s message heard. You want the Church to get the message of the Gospel to the world. You don’t want the Church to present herself in a way that she cannot sustain.

To present herself as the only Church or the official Church for the USA is never going to happen. In the end, the question is why was this the rule back then? It was the rule because it made it possible for the Church to preach the Gospel. Pope Benedict is saying that conditions changed, not the mission. He’s not conforming to anything. To admit that things have changed is not an error.

Maybe but don’t you think the Church’s new positions on collegiality and ecumenism had some effect on Catholics and where the lines are drawn between Catholic and non-Catholic denominations and between Christian and non-Christian religions? I agree the number of churchgoers would have declined to some extent anyway.

Let’s look at this in bried, because of shortage of space. Ecumenism is a new word, the concept and the work is not new. It was introduced into the Church in 1223 by Francis of Assisi when the Church allowed the Franciscans to establish the Custody of the Holy Land with a promise to the Muslims and Jews that the friars would minister to the Christians there, but would never attempt to convert the Jews and Muslims. They never promised not to live the Gospel in a very public way and preach by their example. The promise was just to work cooperatively without proselytism. It has worked for almost 800 years.

Collegiality is a very misunderstood term. It simply means that all men and women are members of the People of God and that all bishops form one body. It also protects the rights of bishops to govern without intervention from other bishops. It allows the bishops to participate in decision making. It takes nothing from the Pontiff or from the bishops. St. Clement of Rome , 3rd successor of Peter, spoke about this in his letter to the Corinthians.

Here’s a question for you. Is Jesus Christ not present in Protestant churches? Didn’t the Vatican II documents tell us to treat them as “brothers?”

Christ is present everywhere. There is no place in the universe where the eternal Logos is not present. There are different means by which he makes himself present. In the Reformation Communities he makes himself present in the word, in the life of prayer, and in the life of faith of the people. Because there is no sacramental priesthood, he cannot make himself present in the Eucharist. Remember, the key is that “we believe in one Baptism”. It does not mean that we believe in the Catholic Baptism. Through Baptism we come into communion with each other. That communion is completed through the sacraments of initiation. If you take out the Eucharist and Confirmation, then you have an incomplete communion or an imperfect communion.

He is present among pagans, Muslims and Jews who seek to find Truth and to find salvation. As Augustine says, man can only search for God because he has been found by God. The drive of these people is a work of grace. Grace is simply a share in the Divine Life. Again, Christ is present, but in a very different way than how he’s present among Catholics and Orthodox.

Catholics and Orthodox are the only people who have Christ present through every possible means. We have a communion with each other and with Christ that is in word, in desire, in prayer and in sacrament. What separates us from the Orthodox are questions that can be resolved with patience and time.

That’s what the Church looks for, the opportunity to interact and share with others, being very patient and giving it as much time as it takes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[StTommyMore]

An you seem to be a little RUDE, Carl. I attended the Novus Ordo Mass for 40 years & I think you know that. I had no choice.

Tell you what… Pretend that YOU have no choice. That you MUST attend the TLM. for only 40 SUNDAYS. Come back & we’ll discuss it, then.

I actually do attend the EF on a fairly regular basis. I drew my conclusion because the Sacrifice is central to the NO. Read the text of the Order of Mass and it will be clear.

 

[Sirach2]

Thomas_Aquinas:

want to make sure you saw the above post. Do you see any apparent contradiction between what Pius IX condemned, and what Vatican II taught; or do the above quotes seem to teach the same truth, with Vatican II simply using modern language to express what Pius IX taught?

Your post was a carbon copy on another forum’s discussion, so I wonder whether you are reigniting flames for the purpose of learning, or simply “igniting.” If learning, as one who is in doubt and seeking truth, and not simply to paste splinters in the Church’s eye, there is an excellent teaching that may help you. For brevity, I post only an excerpt, but you can read to your heart’s content at this site. I quote:

We must understand the intention of the Second Vatican Council when they drew up the Dignitatis Humanae. The Council stated: “Over and above all this, in taking up the matter of religious freedom this sacred Synod intends to develop the doctrine of recent Popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and on the constitutional order of society.”

However, in no way did the Council intend to apply the principles of religious freedom in a person’s relation to the state, as set forth in the Dignitatis Humanae, to a** person’s relationship to the Church**. This is why the Council states clearly immediately at the beginning of Dignitatis Humanae,
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore, it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
The principles governing religious liberty in relation to the Church are set down in Lumen Gentium, not in Dignitatis Humanae. This point is absolutely crucial for understanding the Council’s teaching on religious liberty and the misunderstanding of this teaching since the close of Vatican II.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

Ecumenism is a new word, the concept and the work is not new. It was introduced into the Church in 1223 by Francis of Assisi when the Church allowed the Franciscans to establish the Custody of the Holy Land with a promise to the Muslims and Jews that the friars would minister to the Christians there, but would never attempt to convert the Jews and Muslims. They never promised not to live the Gospel in a very public way and preach by their example. The promise was just to work cooperatively without proselytism. It has worked for almost 800 years.

No way. Produce a quote to support that assertion. St. Francis spent his life trying to convert the Mulsims. He challenged the Sultan to a trial by fire to determine who had the true God.

When brought to the Sultan, Francis said, “I am sent by the Most High God, to show you and your people the way of salvation by announcing to you the truths of the Gospel” (8). And when Saint Francis preached, the Sultan felt himself very much drawn to Francis and to the power of his words. So much so, that he invited Francis to stay with him.

“Willingly,” Francis replied, “if you and your people will be converted to Christ”(9).

Francis then proposed his famous challenge. He said: “If you yet waver between Christ and Mohammed, order a fire kindled and I will go into it with your priests that you may see which is the true Faith” (10).

Of course, the infidels would not take up the challenge, but St. Francis offered.

Don’t try to paint the great St. Francis as an ecumenical weakling who did not “proselytize”. Since he possessed true charity, he did all he could to save the souls of the infidels by converting them to the true faith.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

Your post was a carbon copy on another forum’s discussion, so I wonder whether you are reigniting flames for the purpose of learning, or simply “igniting.”

Read back through this thread to find out why I posted those quotes. If you would like, since St.ThommyMore did not reply to the post, feel free to answer the question of whether or not the two quotes I posted are in agreement with one another. And, BTW, the quote you provided from the article was very weak and explained nothing.

Clarify what you mean by religious liberty in relation to the state and religious liberty in relation to the Church. And just so you know, the Catholic State can (and did for many centuries) forbid the public practice of a false religions for the good of its citizens, and it has every right to punish those who violate the law by publicly practicing a false religion, or spreading heresy.

 

[Sirach2]

Thomas_Aquinas …

As I said, my post was simple and brief, and not meant to be a theological treatise on the matter, which seems to be what you are aiming for. I believe Fr. Scanlon presented a very thorough explanation, so it is not necessary for me to repeat any of it. He is extremely knowledgable on this topic and gives the assurance of having done extensive research, including the exposé of Bp. Fellay and Fr. Feeney, who got it wrong, as most of us know.

Beyond that, I see no need to address this further, unless perhaps you did not feel called to read the link. Those of us on this forum are less qualified to satisfy your curiosity and debate your allegations of the Church being in error.

Thomas_Aquinas:

*StTommyMore, *

*Have you ever read what the Church taught regarding religious liberty prior to Vatican II (right up to the time of Pius XII), and compared it to what Vatican II taught on this subject? *

If this is the post you were referring to re your motivation, it just seems like bait to me.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

He is extremely knowledgable on this topic and gives the assurance of having done extensive research, including the exposé of Bp. Fellay and Fr. Feeney, who got it wrong, as most of us know.

What did Bp Fellay get wrong?

Beyond that, I see no need to address this further, unless perhaps you did not feel called to read the link. Those of us on this forum are less qualified to satisfy your curiosity and debate your allegations of the Church being in error.

When did I claim the Church was in error? I simply provided two quotes and asked if he thought the two teachings were in agreement. When you replied for him, I asked you the same question. Neither of you have chosen to reply to the simple question, which, in my opinion, reveals the answer.

And no need to explain why you don’t want to debate this subject. The reason is very clear to me.

 

[dieselsubvet]

I have been reading several pages of replies on the subject of “misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II”. So you will all know who is making this reply: my wife and I both grew up in the Catholic Church beginning in the late 1940’s, and both attended Catholic schools. After reading many of your replies, let me simply say that most of you, seem to have a one dimensional mind set. After considerable research on this subject over the past several months, I view the crisis in the Catholic Church at present (especially relating to Vatican II) as being a multifactorial equation. There are many other variables that need to be taken into account, such as the period of time in which relevant events were taking place; cultural changes, both in the U.S. and the rest of the world ( e.g., the “sexual revolution” of the 1960’s, and the Viet Nam War, etc.); changes in the community in the U.S. On this topic, those of you who are also senior citizens may feel as I do that I’m from another planet ; numerous changes during this time frame relating to the family. And I’m sure many of you can add other factors as well impacting the Catholic Church in this time frame, which all need to be taken into consideration to yield a more realistic approach in dealing with the crisis in the Church today.

 

[pnewton]

Dear Brother JR,

As you know, Quanta Cura’s syllabus of errors, which certainly seems to fit all of Vatican I’s requirements for papal infallibility (fourth session), CONDEMNS the following, as well as other errors which are widely held by Catholics today (it seems to me):

1. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be
   held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of
   worship.
2. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with
   progress, liberalism and modern civilization.

Fraternally yours in the Truth

This is not difficult for me to understand. Having a right to do something, does not mean it should always be done. I have a right to free speech in this country. There are many times when prudence dictates I should hold my tongue.

I think number 80 is only confusion because modern sounds like modernism. It also sounds like modem, yet we do not confuse those two.

As to the OP, although I am late, I am of the opinion that this future action of the Holy Father is no more worthy of speculation than the number of angels who can dance on a pin (four, BTW). Michael Voris has no part of the Magisterium and has no knowledge of the future. He has no special insight on what God will do in *His *Church. Rather, the only prudent action is to respond if and when some change is instituted. As for me, I will respond with obedience, as that is my job as a lay Catholic.

 

[pnewton]

BTW. Please no Post hoc ergo propter hoc posts. I’ve already dealt with that so many times. As often as not, what happens “after” is influenced by what happened first.

It is still quite legitimate to bring up this fallacy everytime someone engages in speculative alternative history (i.e. we do not know what the difference would have been if there had been no Vatican II) or causality which can not be proven is implied or assumed. It is and will ever remain a fallacy to blame Vatican II on some of the things you mention. I am sure your desire to end the post hoc prompter hoc posts will end when Vatican II is no longer blamed for events for which blame can not be proven.

 

[Sirach2]

Thomas_Aquinas,

While I did accurately mention Fr. Feeney, I made a mistake in saying Bp. Fellay, whereas I should have said Charles Curran, who was mentioned in the article. I must have mistaken it from the other forum.

Nevertheless, since you want to pin me down with an answer beyond that which I already gave, I will echo the words of Fr. Scanlon:

So, did Vatican II reverse Pius IX’s teachings on religious liberty as found in Quanta Cura?
Absolutely not!
Did the Council develop this teaching?
Certainly!