misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

[JReducation]

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.

I think that you need to sort through several things to understand what Francis wanted, what he accomplished and the mission of the friars.

First, Francis did not spend his life trying to convert the Muslims. This is not true. Francis tried to travel to the Middle East three times, because each time the trip was canceled for one reason or another. On the third trip, he made it as far as Dalmietta where he met the Sultan.

Second, Francis believed that if he could convert the Muslims, it would bring the end to the Crusades and convert the Muslims at the same time. He was certainly trying to achieve both, conversion and peace.

Third, Francis did not succeed in converting the Muslims nor the Sultan, but he did make a friend. The Sultan agreed to give the friars passage through his territory to the Holy Land, which is still in effect to this day. But the agreement was that any attempt to convert them would be dealt with by penalty of death. Francis agreed to send friars to minister to the Christians in the Holy Land.

Fourth, Francis did send the friars to the Holy Land. The proof that you want is the existence of a canonical Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land that has been there since the 13th century and has always operated the same way. The friars minister to the Christians and they do not proselytize the Muslims or Jews. This does not mean that they do not receive or welcome Muslims or Jews who want to convert. It means that they do not proselytize. This was the agreement. If truth be told, the Catholic Church has never encouraged proselytizing. We don’t go door to door (an example). The difference between the friars’ presence in the Holy Land can best be explained by compairing the friars’ presence in the Americas. In the Americas they set out to preach to the indigenous peoples and convert them. They have never done this in the eight centuries that they have been present in the Holy Land.

Fifth, the challenge to walk on the burning coals was written into the Legenda Maiore Franciscana at some point in the 13th century. No one really knows if this actually happened. The early reports by the friars who accompanied Francis on the journey to Dalmietta do not include this story. We don’t know if they simply left it out or if it was a legend . The fact is that it was published as a legend. There is nothing wrong with believing that it is historical fact or that it’s hagiography. The important point in this story is Francis’ faith and his confidence in God’s Providence.

Sixth, after this trip, Francis never went back or attempted to go back to the Middle East. But the province existed since appoximately 1220. Later the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land was founded and received canonnical approval in 1342. The friars had been there since the 1200s. It is there for you or anyone else to see how they minister and how they work with the Muslims and Jews in what is today Israel. 198.62.75.4/www1/ofm/cust/TShistry_En.html

How do I know this? This is my community.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

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!

I knew Regis Scanlon, OFM, Cap personally. He is an excellent Church Historian and Ecclesiologist. You can trust his understanding. He was always a brilliant and very orthodox theology student.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Yes, but this is where it gets tricky. We are told to accept them in this communion, yet we tell them their communions or confirmations aren’t at all valid. I believe that most of them believe they are valid; not only that but they maintain consubstantiation even makes more sense than transubstantiation. Tough, this issue of ecumenism. Maybe the Polish people with their opłatek (unconsecrated host) exchanges offer the best solution, albeit in a non-Mass environment. Then again, maybe not.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, but this is where it gets tricky. We are told to accept them in this communion, yet we tell them their communions or confirmations aren’t at all valid. I believe that most of them believe they are valid; not only that but they maintain consubstantiation even makes more sense than transubstantiation. Tough, this issue of ecumenism. Maybe the Polish people with their opłatek (unconsecrated host) exchanges offer the best solution, albeit in a non-Mass environment. Then again, maybe not.

You are absolutely right when you say that it’s “tought”. This is what the Council was trying to tell us. The message was that we have to be patient. Force is not the way to bring someone around.

It is important to remember that some people cannot wrap their head around transubstantiation. It’s not that they don’t want to do so. There are some honest and very good people in the Reformation communities who want to do whatever God wants. They have a very hard time believing that God wants them to “worship” a wafer. I’m not saying it’s a wafer. I’m saying it the way that it looks to them. I have always tried to figure out when people are taking the easy way out or when they are sincerely frightened of doing something wrong.

Those who try to take the easy way out are pushing the Lord away. Those who are afraid of doing something wrong are not pushing God away. They are really frightened. I try to think of it in terms of those people who have unreasonable fears, such as a fear of the dark. We all know that the room does not change when you turn off the lights. But some people are not so sure; therefore, they are afraid of the dark. In other words, their fear is unreasonable, but it’s very real. It’s not a choice that they make. The same happens with faith. For some people of other faiths, there is a genuine fear of making the wrong choice or going down the wrong path.

I can attest to this having come from Judaism. I had to convince myself that my fears were unreasonable. What worked for me was the Franciscans. I would say that I became a Franciscan and later a Catholic. As crazy as this may sound, let me show you how it works.

I was educated by these very holy men whom I loved. When everyone turned their back on the Jewish kids in our neighborhood, the friars welcomed us in their school. When we had family or financial problems, the friars paid for our groceries and listened to our problems. When other Christians bullied us, the friars stood up for our rights. I began to observe them. I began to learn about their founder and I was impressed by how much they loved this man whom they had neve rmet. At that time, this man had been dead over 700 years. But they talked about him as if he were in the next room. I picked up a book about Francis of Assisi. I was moved by his love for Jesus.

This morved me to look at this Jesus from a different point of view. Instead of looking at him as a Messiah, I looked at him as Jew. He became my model of the Perfect Jew. The next step was accepting that this Jew was the Messiah about whom the prophets had spoken. But in the back of my mind there was always a little voice that said, “What if I misundestood something?” It was when I was able to answer the question with a reasonable answer that I was able to take the leap. I looked at my friars again and said to myself, “If the worse that can happen is that I become like these men, then God should be pleased.” I began to study Jesus as Messiah at that point.

You see, it takes time. You have to allow people of real faith to get past their fears of doing the wrong thing and their fear of offending God. The best way to do that is through your actions. I had attended the friars’ school from grades 2 to 12. I had sat through their religious ed classes. It was required. None of that moved me. What moved me was them. They were incredible. Everything that I had been told about Catholics was proven wrong by these holy and intelligent men. I had heard that Catholics were superstitious and that they were nasty. The friars were rational and very charitable. I realized that some Catholics were superstitious and nasty, but not because they’re Catholic. Catholicism does not teach supersitition or mean.

Yes, we have to be patient with our brothers and sisters. We invite, we share and we give good example. Of course, we must always pray that we may all be one. To charge at them as if this were a war is a horrible approach. It only reinforces what some of them fear.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

Why is the form unwanted by the majority of the people…

Whoa, I missed that !

Look here

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=454571

90 days running, and from day one, over 70 % answered “yes” they would attend a TLM if it were offered near them.

That’s a poll taken on a forum where the playing field is level, and by that I mean where the SP of H.H. BXVI is well known.

Don’t count the typical parish where 90 % of the members have no idea what the SP is about as not wanting the TLM. That’s absurd.

 

[JReducation]

Whoa, I missed that !

Look here

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=454571

90 days running, and from day one, over 70 % answered “yes” they would attend a TLM if it were offered near them.

That’s a poll taken on a forum where the playing field is level, and by that I mean where the SP of H.H. BXVI is well known.

Don’t count the typical parish where 90 % of the members have no idea what the SP is about as not wanting the TLM. That’s absurd.

I had never thought of it this way, but it makes sense. SP did not make front page on the NY Times.

In our own Franciscan family, friars spend months reading SP and writing to Major Superiors with questions. Major Superiors were going back to friar theologians to find the answers. It’s not as black and white as people think it is. It was not the best explained document put out by Rome, especially for religious communities that have priests, which is most religious communities.

You really cannot count those who are trying to understand the rules as being opposed or those who have barely heard about SP either.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

It is important to remember that some people cannot wrap their head around transubstantiation. It’s not that they don’t want to do so. There are some honest and very good people in the Reformation communities who want to do whatever God wants. They have a very hard time believing that God wants them to “worship” a wafer. I’m not saying it’s a wafer. I’m saying it the way that it looks to them. I have always tried to figure out when people are taking the easy way out or when they are sincerely frightened of doing something wrong.

Perhaps it’s not only the wafer but the act. Maybe some only understand the communion as something that is passed around, such as they picture Christ doing at the Last Supper. Not that I like it but sometimes I think this is why communion-in-the-hand from an EMHC has become so popular. Don’t forget, when this CITH practice was first allowed, it was permitted for everyone to receive from the ciborium proper until they quickly put an end to that.

No doubt there are some good people in the Reformation communities. Perhaps many of them don’t have the grudge against the Church as their parents and grandparents had. At the same time many Catholics have drifted off into their denominations. Maybe the “brothers” part meant everything is equal and go wherever it suits you best. An unintended consequence of Vatican II’s ecumenism?

 

[ProVobis]

I had never thought of it this way, but it makes sense. SP did not make front page on the NY Times.

Wherever I saw any articles on the topic, the first sentence usually included the word “schismatic” in there somewhere. What does the secular press know anyway?

In our own Franciscan family, friars spend months reading SP and writing to Major Superiors with questions. Major Superiors were going back to friar theologians to find the answers. It’s not as black and white as people think it is. It was not the best explained document put out by Rome, especially for religious communities that have priests, which is most religious communities.

You really cannot count those who are trying to understand the rules as being opposed or those who have barely heard about SP either.

Last I checked, the SP is on the Vatican website only in Latin and Hungarian. Perhaps that’s one document they couldn’t risk having mistranslated.

 

[JReducation]

Wherever I saw any articles on the topic, the first sentence usually included the word “schismatic” in there somewhere. What does the secular press know anyway?

Last I checked, the SP is on the Vatican website only in Latin and Hungarian. Perhaps that’s one document they couldn’t risk having mistranslated.

I don’t know why that is. My guess is that the English translators who work for the site may have a back-log. The religious communities did receive the official copy in the five languages used by the Holy See: Italian, English, French, Spanish and German. They were sent to the generalates at the same time that they were sent to the different Bishops’ Conferences.

The problem for the religious was that not all of the rules in SP apply to us. SP made it clear that religious had to look toward their Major Superiors and toward their statutes.

The English translation that was put out on the Internet is poorly translated. Word order is off and even some punctuation is off, which changes the meaning of some sentences. I’ve seen both copies, the popular version that circulated on the Internet,which I don’t know who translated it and the copy that we received. Because my community is tiny, we received our copy courtessy of the Generalate of the Capuchin Franciscans. The English translation on the Internet is slightly different from the translation that came from Rome. But the difference is not enough to do major damage. In fact, these minor differences only affect religious, not the laity or secular clergy.

I think that those religious who read the popular translation that is circulating were confused by that reference to Superiors Major and common laws. There are no such creatures as “superiors major” and common law can mean many things. In the official translation they obviously mean superiors who have Ordinary power and the statutes of the religious institutes, not common laws in the local diocese.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

The English translation that was put out on the Internet is poorly translated.

Probably any translation into English would fall into that camp. Even the simple word “extraordinary” (meant to be flattering in the original) seems offensive to many.

 

[JReducation]

Perhaps it’s not only the wafer but the act. Maybe some only understand the communion as something that is passed around, such as they picture Christ doing at the Last Supper. Not that I like it but sometimes I think this is why communion-in-the-hand from an EMHC has become so popular. Don’t forget, when this CITH practice was first allowed, it was permitted for everyone to receive from the ciborium proper until they quickly put an end to that.

No doubt there are some good people in the Reformation communities. Perhaps many of them don’t have the grudge against the Church as their parents and grandparents had. At the same time many Catholics have drifted off into their denominations. Maybe the “brothers” part meant everything is equal and go wherever it suits you best. An unintended consequence of Vatican II’s ecumenism?

The term brother and sister are correctly used. The documents that refer to non-Catholics make it very clear that there is The One Church. In fact, the documents do not refer to the Protestants as churches. Observe the use of Reformation Communities or Separated Brethren or Other Christians. They deliberately avoid the use of the word “Church” except when speaking of the Orthodox, because they are true Churches.

The CITH issue is blown out of proportion. It does not change the truth about the Eucharist. I think the big issue for non-Catholics and non-Orthodox is the idea that a human being can make this happen. The way it sounds to them is that we are attributing some magical power to the priest. The whole concept of Alter Christus and Ontological change is very difficult to understand.

Let’s face it, the average Catholic would be blown away if he or she had to sit through a theology class at the doctoral level and read everything that has been written to explain ontological change, ontology and transmission of the priesthood through the imposition of hands. The answers to those questions are in thousands of writings and arguments that date back to the first century and have been expanded during the last 2,000 years.

To condense all of this into a coherent sentence that a person born outside of the Apostolic Churches will accept on faith alone is a challenge to both the speaker and the receiver. I read the posts on these threads about the Catholics and the non-Catholics and I often smile, because some Catholics truly believe that it’s simple. One should hear the faith from the Catholic Church and say something like, “Oh OK, if you say so.”

It’s not that simple. Human beings are not so simple and faith is very intimate. Faith is a covenant relationship. People of faith, Catholic or other have serious concerns about violating their covenant, as they perceive it.

It’s as I always say. “You can say that the moon is made out of cheese, but why should I believe you?” My other saying, “Faith requires witnesses.” You can’t just say it. You have to prove it through your life.

At the March for Life in Washington, DC I walked next to a wonderful Evangelical man. He was delightful, polite, and I could tell that he was a man of deep faith. We talked about the life issues. I could feel that we are in communion on this moral point, which is no small thing. I left thinking how difficult it would be for a man of such deep convictions to suddenly shelve them and begin to pray the rosary or pray before the Blessed Sacrament. It’s not that I don’t want that for him. It’s that I could see his deep faith in sola scriptura and I could see what a challenge it would be for him think outside of that box.

At one point, I began to pray my rosary and asked him if he wanted to join me. He politely declined and began to pray sub-vocally as I prayed the rosary alongside him. I was not going to push the rosary on this man. He was not ready for this at all. However, when I finished, he did ask questions about the beads. He was surprised when I said that they were counters and not necessary in order to pray the rosary. Then I showed him my fingers and he laughed. He said that he had not heard that before. He had seen people kissing the rosary and thought that it was some talisman. That, made me laugh. That’s how ecumenism works. You build on what you have in common and you invite, don’t push or frighten people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[laszlo]

The term brother and sister are correctly used. The documents that refer to non-Catholics make it very clear that there is The One Church. In fact, the documents do not refer to the Protestants as churches. Observe the use of Reformation Communities or Separated Brethren or Other Christians. They deliberately avoid the use of the word “Church” except when speaking of the Orthodox, because they are true Churches.

How do you interpret the dogma of ‘One Church’ against the "they are true Churches’?

 

[StTommyMore]

How do you interpret the dogma of ‘One Church’ against the "they are true Churches’?

they are different expressions of the true Church

 

[ProVobis]

He was surprised when I said that they were counters and not necessary in order to pray the rosary. Then I showed him my fingers and he laughed. He said that he had not heard that before.

Just imagine had we’d all be born with four appendages instead of five. We might be on a ecumenical octal system.

 

[Judge_Mental]

Well, what about articles like these? The nub of the problem seems to be that the documents are ambigious. maybe those who wrote them didn’t think progressive clergy and laity would ‘run away with the ball’ but those documents and the New Mass were constant touted as the reason for all the changes. Out with the old, in with the new.

sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_January/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=46290

If you can read them traditionally or progessively, then they need to be clarified.

 

[StTommyMore]

Well, what about articles like these? The nub of the problem seems to be that the documents are ambigious. maybe those who wrote them didn’t think progressive clergy and laity would ‘run away with the ball’ but those documents and the New Mass were constant touted as the reason for all the changes. Out with the old, in with the new.

sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_January/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=46290

If you can read them traditionally or progessively, then they need to be clarified.

You can diregard anything from the SSPX website as balderdash.

 

[white_sheep]

An issue with realcatholictv.com is that they sow seeds of dicontent by questioning the interpertations of Vatican II. They cherry pick specific comments to support their point of view and then broadcast it as fact.

That isn’t an issue at all. Only a very confused or disingenuous person would claim that all too often people’s “interpretations” of Vatican II are nothing like what is actually written in any of the documents from Vatican II.

 

[dieselsubvet]

My wife and I both are cradle Catholics beginning in the 1940’s. Those of you who are also senior citizens have witnessed the incredible changes in the Catholic Church, especially in recent decades. I have read many of the replies of you fellow members, and let me simply say that some of you are approaching this subject with a somewhat singular dimension mindset. My wife and I have been studying and researching material dealing with the results of Vatican II for the past several months. I perceive the subject matter being discussed here as a multifactorial equation. There are numerous interacting variables which must be considered in order to reach realistic conclusions. Some of these factors are the period of time during which Vatican II occurred; e.g., the cultural and sexual revolution of the 1960’s, the Viet Nam War and its aftermath, the counterculture movement beginning in the 1960’s ( all authority, religious and civil, was considered in a negative light); the diminution of moral values, and especially the beginning of the fragmentation of the family (e.g., the divorce rate in the U.S. in 1950 was 10% - it was actually considered a social stigma at that time - while today the divorce rate is over 50%). Another factor to add to this equation, is the drastic reduction in emphasis on catechesis in Catholic schools in recent decades. I began Catholic School in the late 1940’s, educated by the Benedictine Order ( I was surrounded by black habits ). We were taught Catechism as though it were a separate college course; strict discipline in school was the order of the day. I’m sure many of you can add other variables to this equation which interacted with the results of Vatican II.

 

[CradleCath]

You can diregard anything from the SSPX website as balderdash.

Carl, you shouldn’t say things like that when Rome is trying to reconcile
with the SSPX. We should be praying that this schism can be worked out & many of us believe that they are quite right about some of the “misinterpretation & misapplications of Vatican II”. That IS what this thread is about.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

My wife and I both are cradle Catholics beginning in the 1940’s. Those of you who are also senior citizens have witnessed the incredible changes in the Catholic Church, especially in recent decades. I have read many of the replies of you fellow members, and let me simply say that some of you are approaching this subject with a somewhat singular dimension mindset. My wife and I have been studying and researching material dealing with the results of Vatican II for the past several months. I perceive the subject matter being discussed here as a multifactorial equation. There are numerous interacting variables which must be considered in order to reach realistic conclusions. Some of these factors are the period of time during which Vatican II occurred; e.g., the cultural and sexual revolution of the 1960’s, the Viet Nam War and its aftermath, the counterculture movement beginning in the 1960’s ( all authority, religious and civil, was considered in a negative light); the diminution of moral values, and especially the beginning of the fragmentation of the family (e.g., the divorce rate in the U.S. in 1950 was 10% - it was actually considered a social stigma at that time - while today the divorce rate is over 50%). Another factor to add to this equation, is the drastic reduction in emphasis on catechesis in Catholic schools in recent decades. I began Catholic School in the late 1940’s, educated by the Benedictine Order ( I was surrounded by black habits ). We were taught Catechism as though it were a separate college course; strict discipline in school was the order of the day. I’m sure many of you can add other variables to this equation which interacted with the results of Vatican II.

I read this post, and the similar one from yesterday (or the day before?). I thought of responding yesterday, but wasn’t sure where to begin. You say you’ve been studying this for several months. I’ve been studying it for about 13 years. Overtime you begin to see what has transpired to bring us to where we are today. It takes a while to completely understand what has happened. I am going to recommend a few encyclical for you to read. When you read these, consider what the Popes are warning about and compare it to what is happening today. In doing so, I believe the picture will begin to take shape.

Keep in mind the saying: “As goes the Church, so goes the world”. Notice, the saying is not “as goes the world, so goes the Church”, but “as goes the Church so goes the world”. I am of the firm opinion that the situation in the world is due to the situation in the Church.

Here are the encyclicals I recommend:

1.) Humanum Genis, by Pope Leo XIII

3.) Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX

2.) Libertas, Pope Leo XIII

3.) Our Apostolic Mandate, Pope St. Pius X

4.) Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI

5.) Quas Primas, Pope Pius IX

6.) Pascendi, Pope St. Pius X (this is a difficult encyclical to understand)

If you read these, I believe you will begin to understand what is happening in the Church. The first three or four paragraphs of Pascendi give a clue as to what has happened.