My only real problem with Vat II Documents

  • Thread starter Thread starter PrayforMallory
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PrayforMallory

Guest
The wording is somewhat vague. I personally can’t grasp the continuity of it, because of parts that seem nebulous.

I can’t really accept that the “Spirit of Vat II” and the documents themselves are totally separate things, only for one reason, and that is that the documents don’tseem to present things with a degree of clarity that would prevent said spirit from emerging.

It’s not necessarily the ideas, but the fact that they can be endlessly debated and explained over and over again that would justify maybe supporting them being rephrased?

I can usually comprehend what I read, but those documents don’t really “settle” things for a lot of folks.

Why this amorphous writing? It was supposed to present the truth to “modern” man, yet it’s less understandable than Vatican I.

I can kinda see how the Spirit of Vat II folks were able to use the stuff to twist things…

Not my job, but it’d be interesting to discuss.
 
I think you need to be a bit more specific and give examples. Now, I have only read a couple of these documents.

I may be ahead of many Catholics, in that I can say even that much (maybe I’m wrong).

I don’t have the documents right at hand here, but I recall reading a shorter document on something like “social communication.” This got quite specific and quite pointed, when it said that each Catholic has to support Catholic media.

I was a young teen during the council, and I was certainly aware of the excitement at the time. The event was so big and it was covered in the press in a way that only the modern newspapers and television could portray it. It spanned a couple years, and it wouldn’t make a very popular DVD collection, for sure.

When it was over, I looked for what had happened, what had changed? I gradually learned that they had produced these “documents”. Well, rooty-toot-toot.

Well, the holy scrifice of the Mass changed – in English and the priest was facing the people. As years passed, a lot of nuns and priests left their orders.

I never felt close to the council at any time. I later thought that the bishops, at least the local bishop, never brought the council home to all the people. Bishops seemed very aloof, to me as a kid, and that impression has never left me.

Perhaps the OP is reflecting on the superficiality of the council. We often heard that there were “debates” at the Council. So, THAT is what the council produced? They actually didn’t finish their work? The documents are still being debated? “Debate” is the “spirit” of the council?

No, the debates are over. The documents are still sitting there for the Church to incorporate. That’s what JPII tried to do. He refers to the Council all the time.

The problem I see is that the Church has never brought the documents down to the parish level – even the decree on the laity.
 
Again, growing up in a Post-Conciliar Church, I never was presented with any contradictions that could be supported.

Although I hate placing people into groups as I see it as divisive, you can say that there are liberals and conservatives in any walk of life. As many people discuss what the extreme-conservative view-point is, there is an extreme-liberalism too, both of which use very similar means to achieve differing results. The extreme-liberal view-point always talks about “the Spirit of Vatican II.” Again, growing up in today’s world, any self-respecting, practicing, obedient Catholic has learned to hate this term. I will not say all people I know, but most people I know who use this phrase have never opened a single document from the Council, nor have read the GIRM, nor have opened up a document from other Councils.

I think that one thing about the Second Vatican Council that should be kept in mind is that the documents assume that we’ve all been catechised in accordance with the Councils that came before it. For example, the reform of the Liturgy makes little to no sense without the Council of Trent, but since the Second Vatican Council was not defining any new teaching, it assumes the reader is familar with the Council of Trent. As such, the Holy Father rightly states that the Second Vatican Council cannot be looked at outside the context of the other Councils. Sadly, the sexual revolution, rebellion, etc., caused for a lot of people (those without the authority) to see revolution in a Council that only called for moderate renewal. The moderate renewal is guided by the Holy Spirit, in union with the Holy See. The revolution was egoism attempting to place themselves above the Holy Spirit, which leads to the sin of pride. The bottom line is that each Council has its growing pains following its implementation, and we’re still in those now. The difference is that today we have mass media and internet so that everyone debates it.
 
A couple of things to remember…the Documents of Vatican II that we are reading in English are translations of the originals, and even in reading the translations, the quality depends on whose translation you read!

My “newer” translation Vatican II documents are quite different from my friend’s “original” English translation…sorry to say, the newer version (which is the one that is highly available) can’t hold a candle to the “old” one (which, as far as I know, is no longer available…unless you can find it on e-bay or in an old book shop). The old version is MUCH better. :hmmm:
 
A follow-up to my last post:

This will probably be more helpful: the “old” version of which I spoke (i.e. the much better translation, in my opinion) is the one edited by Walter Abbott, SJ and published in 1966. The one that is the much weaker translation (in my opinion) is edited by Austin Flannery, OP…I can’t give a publishing date on this one, because it has been revised a few times.

If you can get a Walter Abbott, SJ copy of the documents from 1966, by all means, do so. The language makes a BIG difference! 👍
 
The funny thing about the Second Vatican Coucil greatly contradicts what the “Spirit of Vatican II” people say. When I was little, while I had heard of a Tridentine Mass, I had never been, nor really knew what one was like, other than it being in Latin with the Priest having his back to the Congregation (I now understand he’s leading them in prayer, facing East, so no need to correct me on that statement). This was viewed as being wrong by the “Spirit of Vatican II” people, but no reason was ever given.

Ok, so I recall reading the GIRM and 1970 Roman Missal one day, just to see what was going on in them (we knew the Roman Missal, or in English “Sacramentary” as the “red book” while altar serving). The first thing that hits you is that the 1970 Roman Missal assumes that the Priest has his back to the Congregation. This is the NOVUS ORDO that assumes back to the people! Other documents assume the Mass is in Latin, the Novus Ordo in Latin. Imagine a 9th grader going to his Parish youth group retreat with books that say “Mass in Latin” and “ad orientem.” Needless to say, I wasn’t well liked by the “youth ministers.”
 
Crumpy said:
I think you need to be a bit more specific and give examples. Now, I have only read a couple of these documents.
Click to expand...
Vatican II is a valid Ecumenical Council of the Church and its documents would therefore be protected from error by the Holy Spirit but that does not mean that there are not some ambiguities present. Probably the most well known example is in Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.

Article #11 states, in part:

"Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affrimed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred scriptures."

Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11 (emphasis mine)

The ambiguity in this statement lies in the phrase “for the sake of our salvation.” There are 2 ways to read this passage. The first way seems to be the most common way it is interpreted. It is also the wrong way. Most seem to believe that this passage is stating that Scripture is without error when it is dealing with matters of salvation but it may contain error when it is dealing with other topics.

The 2nd (and the correct) way to read this statement is that all of Scripture is without error and everything is Scripture is there for the sake of our salvation. This is the only view that meshes with what the Church has traditionally taught on the matter.

There are probably quite a few examples of Popes and Councils teaching this (including the 1st Vatican Council) but I will mention only a couple:

** “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”**

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 20

**Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden “either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,” since divine inspiration “not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.”

Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu 3**

I think that the documents of Vatican II are very vague and ambiguous in a number or places but this in no way means they are erroneous.

James
 
I tend not to find it vague, especially if taken in the context of all the other decrees, etc. of the Council. If it’s taken as a whole and parts aren’t isolated from other parts, it is pretty clear–of course that’s true with a lot of things including Holy Scripture (just look at Protestant isolated proof-texts presented as condemning some Catholic doctrine or another). If there is still a problem, check the copious footnotes and appendices (actually go to the source cited and read it). If it’s still unclear, check the official “relatios.”

That’s just my suggestion 🙂

As an aside, the above method also helped me understand Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility which is also said to be vague and which few people seem to actually understand.
 
James0235 said:
Vatican II is a valid Ecumenical Council of the Church and its documents would therefore be protected from error by the Holy Spirit but that does not mean that there are not some ambiguities present.
Click to expand...
Am I correct in assuming that the original documents in Latin are the ones protected from error by the Holy Spirit and not always the translations into other languages?
 
SisterSnowflake said:
A follow-up to my last post:

This will probably be more helpful: the “old” version of which I spoke (i.e. the much better translation, in my opinion) is the one edited by Walter Abbott, SJ and published in 1966. The one that is the much weaker translation (in my opinion) is edited by Austin Flannery, OP…I can’t give a publishing date on this one, because it has been revised a few times.

If you can get a Walter Abbott, SJ copy of the documents from 1966, by all means, do so. The language makes a BIG difference! 👍
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t the translation found at the Vatican’s official website be the best translation.? No need to go anywhere else.
 
I forget who said it, but a lawyer once read all the documents from VII and concluded that if these were real legal documents, whoever wrote them would be fined/sued or whatever for legal malpractice because there are so many loop wholes in them.

And I agree with your observation on the vagueness part. I haven’t read all of them, but the ones that I have are not clear and that is why I believe we have the problems we have today.
Priests/bishops/laity saw these loop holes are used them to promote their own tastes and believes on all of us.
PrayforMallory said:
The wording is somewhat vague. I personally can’t grasp the continuity of it, because of parts that seem nebulous.

I can’t really accept that the “Spirit of Vat II” and the documents themselves are totally separate things, only for one reason, and that is that the documents don’tseem to present things with a degree of clarity that would prevent said spirit from emerging.

It’s not necessarily the ideas, but the fact that they can be endlessly debated and explained over and over again that would justify maybe supporting them being rephrased?

I can usually comprehend what I read, but those documents don’t really “settle” things for a lot of folks.

Why this amorphous writing? It was supposed to present the truth to “modern” man, yet it’s less understandable than Vatican I.

I can kinda see how the Spirit of Vat II folks were able to use the stuff to twist things…

Not my job, but it’d be interesting to discuss.
Click to expand...
 
I think I will look for the old copy since it seems truer to the original text. I have a copy of the Austin Flannery, OP one and it even says on the cover that was translated to include inclusive language which made me want to vomit right away.
SisterSnowflake said:
A follow-up to my last post:

This will probably be more helpful: the “old” version of which I spoke (i.e. the much better translation, in my opinion) is the one edited by Walter Abbott, SJ and published in 1966. The one that is the much weaker translation (in my opinion) is edited by Austin Flannery, OP…I can’t give a publishing date on this one, because it has been revised a few times.

If you can get a Walter Abbott, SJ copy of the documents from 1966, by all means, do so. The language makes a BIG difference! 👍
Click to expand...
 
I will probably get tossed for this but Vat.2 was a disaster for the one true church…as one who was teaching in a small c catholic high school the poor nuns went berserk…many left being brainwashed that its better to just open up soup kitchens and join the demoncrat party…the so called religion dept was made up of Nam draft dodgers and com-symps…like McCain and Obama and Hillary…vatican 2 caused the biggest most horrible upheavel in the RCC of all times…never would this have happened under PiusX11…thats why the corporations…our rulers hate him so…JohnX111 was the first pope to have an interview with a communist and it proved to be a disaster…but notice how he was sooo complimented by the controlled media…then came Paul…who changed the Mass and its wording…removing the prayer at the end re: St.MIke and the devil…so yes…satan hates the RCC above all else but we are still here…and those great Catholics in china are our role models…they really believe…we just go thru the motions…chat about that ‘political wafer’ smirk and be PC ie: like those who murdered Jesus…all the best…it cant happen here ,enjoy the high fuel and food prices…see,being quiet and pc has brought you nothing…nothing…
 
Nino said:
then came Paul…who changed the Mass and its wording…removing the prayer at the end re: St.MIke and the devil…so yes…satan hates the RCC above all else but we are still here…and those great Catholics in china are our role models…they really believe…we just go thru the motions…chat about that ‘political wafer’ smirk and be PC ie: like those who murdered Jesus…all the best…it cant happen here ,enjoy the high fuel and food prices…see,being quiet and pc has brought you nothing…nothing…
Click to expand...
First off, for the sake of argument, in what way do you consider Pope Paul VI as having changed the Mass and its wording? Also, the Prayer to St. Michael was NEVER part of the Mass (I know there are people getting ready to jump me for saying that, but hear me out first). All of the Leonine Prayers were not part of the Mass at all, and were only prescribed to be said after certain Masses, such as a Low Mass. But the Mass itself was technically ONLY everything after the Introit and everything before Ite, Missa est. Everything else was technically before and after the Mass.
 
James0235 said:
Vatican II is a valid Ecumenical Council of the Church and its documents would therefore be protected from error by the Holy Spirit but that does not mean that there are not some ambiguities present.

I think that the documents of Vatican II are very vague and ambiguous in a number or places but this in no way means they are erroneous.
Click to expand...
rwoehmke said:
Am I correct in assuming that the original documents in Latin are the ones protected from error by the Holy Spirit and not always the translations into other languages?
Click to expand...
Can someone please document this idea that individual official Church documents—even issued by ecumenical councils—are, ipso facto, error-free through the agency of the Holy Spirit as if they were Holy Scripture? Because I don’t see it reflected in Canon 749 for example:Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
 
Our_Refuge said:
Shouldn’t the translation found at the Vatican’s official website be the best translation.? No need to go anywhere else.
Click to expand...
Well, for some of us “old school” geeks, there is nearly nothing quite as grand as having a book in your hands! The computer, as amazing as it is, just isn’t the same! 👍
 
Eric_Olsen said:
I think I will look for the old copy since it seems truer to the original text. I have a copy of the Austin Flannery, OP one and it even says on the cover that was translated to include inclusive language which made me want to vomit right away.
Click to expand...
Aint that the truth!
 
Our_Refuge said:
Shouldn’t the translation found at the Vatican’s official website be the best translation.? No need to go anywhere else.
Click to expand...
No, not necessarily. For one thing, the Vatican’s web site still doesn’t have the official Latin text of Summorum Pontificum!
 
Is that maybe it hasn’t been read in its entirety. The documents are a dry and hard read. Another problem is that peolple may not have been properly catechized to what the documents say.

From what I’ve read so far, I don’t have any trouble understanding what it says. In many areas it’s very clear cut. All the discussion has been about the Vatican II documents, and nothing mentioning the post Counciliar documents that explained a little more in detail what the Vatican II Council meant.

Side note: My reference source is
Vatican Council II: The Counciliar and Post Counciliar Documents
General Editor, Austin Flannery, O.P.
1988 Revised Edition
Costello Publishing Company
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top