Questioning Vatican II (Edited Title)

[Genesis315]

I forgot another example. The Jesuit Suarez (1600s), an expert on St. Thomas Aquinas also makes this distinction:

Thomas, however, rightly distinguishes two kinds of religious practices: there are those which go against reason and against God insofar as he can be recognized through nature and through the natural powers of the soul, e.g., the worship of idols, etc. Others are contrary to the Christian religion and to its commands not because they are evil in themselves or contrary to reason as, for example, the practices of Jews and even many of the customs of Mohammedans and such unbelievers who believe in one true God.

Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III

Notice, the worship of idols is evil because it goes against reason (the true God can be known by natural reason), yet many practices of the Muslims are not evil in and of themselves since they are reasonable acts of worship directed to the one God.

 

[Genesis315]

One more thing, in case you weren't aware, in 2001, John Paul II approved of a Mass that has no consecration formula in it.  Totally against tradition.  It is on the Vatican's website.  It is used by the Assyrian orthodox.  The document is called "Guidlines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East."  It permits Catholics to assist at this Assyrian Orthodox "Mass" and receive Communion.  It is admitted in this document that there is no consecration form as is found in all other Masses, but they claim the prayer of calling down of the Holy Ghost is sufficient for transubstantiation.

Again, your claim here is untrue. The whole reason it was permitted is because it had precedence in tradition. This very anaphora was an approved liturgical prayer centuries earlier. Pope John Paul II approved it because it was approved by his predecessors who presided over the Church when that anaphora was originally in use.

 

[Genesis315]

It’s impossible for the Church to change its teaching. The Church simply wouldn’t be the true church if it could contradict its own teaching. The only possibility is “development of doctrine” which reveals truths always present in the Catholic faith which were not always appreaciated.

The analogy of a bud gradually becoming a flower is sometimes used. Everything was present in the beginning, but only became recognized and defined with the passage of time.

As the fifth century St. Vincent of Lerins explained on this topic (in his Commonitorium on preserving the faith):

For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties…[The Church of Christ] keeps this one object carefully in view–if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it.

Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,— this, and nothing else,— she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only bytradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.

 

[pnewton]

It also permits, as per canon law, Holy Communion to be given to non-Catholics under certain circumstances. This is clearly against Sacred Scripture …

Okay, this part got my curiosity up. What verse are you thinking of, because I think of none that apply to the issue at hand? I do not think it was addressed or even a problem at the time. I do not expect you to research it, though, if you can’t think of it. It truly is a curiosity of mine and nothing more. Just disregard this if you don’t kow off teh top of your head.

 

[Lisa44]

Divine revelation is needed to know of the persons of God and other truths about Him, but knowledge of them is not necessary to have knowledge of God.

Yes, it can be, but it needn’t be that way as the gospel has been spread far and wide. No one needs “divine revelation” to discern the true God because we have the gospels.

No one would argue that Jews worship a different God. Likewise, St. Paul says that the pagans in Acts 17:23 are also worshiping the same God even though they do not yet acknowledge the Trinity. Here are some more examples:

Acts 17 22-23 (From Douay-Rheims)
22. But Paul, standing in the midst of the Areogapus, said: Ye men of Athens, I percieve that in all things you are too superstitious.
23. For passing by and seeing your idols, I found an alter also, on which was writtend: To the Unknown God. What therefore you worship without knowing it, that I preach to you:
24. God, who made the world and all things therein, he being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.
25. Neither is he served with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing: seeing it is he who giveth to all life and breath and all things:
…
30. And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men that all shouldevery where do penance.
31. Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed: giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead.

I beg to differ with you. St Paul does not say that the pagans are “worshipping the same god.” He is mocking their ignorance. They don’t know what the heck they believe in but have alters to everything under the sun, including an “unknown god”. (something “unknown” is just that…its like throwing a bone to something that is beyond their immaginations that they didn’t even consider…they are trying to cover all their bases).

Pope St. Gregory VII (11th century) to a Muslim prince: ‘Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.’

This cannot support your thesis that Muslims worship the same god because it says “we believe in one God, admittedly in a different way”. Indeed, Islam came AFTER Christianity. We all know they reject Jesus, therefore they started a new religion called Islam. They may claim to revere “one” god, but that doesn’t make it the SAME god.

The catechism states that “together **WITH US **they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day”. This is a false statement.

Catechism of Pope St. Pius X : 12 Q. Who are infidels?
A. Infidels are those who have not been baptised and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.

Thank you, Muslims are infidels, contrary to what the Catechism says.

Catholic Encyclopedia: As in ecclesiastical language those who by baptism have received faith in Jesus Christ and have pledged Him their fidelity and called the faithful, so the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews and Mohammedans.

Thank you, Muslims are infidels.

Second Vatican Council: The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, …

This is false also. If it said “They adore A god”…I could follow it. But they do not follow “THE” one god. They can’t, they reject Jesus.

Muslims, like the pagans St. Paul met, worship the true God without knowing it.

No, the pagans St. Paul is referring to do not worship the true God, he never says they do. Muslims, also, do not worship the “true God” as you said, “without knowing it”.

Hello?? The muslims rejected Jesus, and thus started their own religion AFTER Christ, to disprove everything Christ teaches.
They know exactly what they believe in, and its NOT Jesus Christ.

 

[Lisa44]

I forgot another example. The Jesuit Suarez (1600s), an expert on St. Thomas Aquinas also makes this distinction:

suarez ways …"who believe in one true god.’

Notice, the worship of idols is evil because it goes against reason (the true God can be known by natural reason), yet many practices of the Muslims are not evil in and of themselves since they are reasonable acts of worship directed to the one God.

“One true god” is not the same as your emphasis on “THE one God.” ‘the’ denotes our God, the true god. Whereas anyone can claim to worship “one true god” that doesn’t make it our god.

Yes, Muslims worship one god. No one disputes that. Do they worship the Christian God? No. To claim they do is preposterous. Are they saved because they worship “one” god? No, because they know about Christ and they reject him.

If Islam came before Christianity then that would be different, but they came afterward, and actively and forcefully rejected Jesus. They’re views are heretical. We don’t say that those with heretical views are the true views, or that they merit anything. Its a false view, just because it involves a singular god does not make it acceptable or in any way, similar to the Christian God. Lets not forget, Islam teaches the exact OPPOSITE of what Christ taught.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Pray for the grace to see the errors that have been eminating from Rome.

So you’re an “empty-chair-ist” then, Joe?

:shamrock2:

 

[pnewton]

The document is called “Guidlines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.” It permits Catholics to assist at this Assyrian Orthodox “Mass” and receive Communion. It is admitted in this document that there is no consecration form as is found in all other Masses, but they claim the prayer of calling down of the Holy Ghost is sufficient for transubstantiation.

I could not find that in the document. Quite the opposite, it says the formula is as ancient in apostolic succession as any.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUASCH.HTM

Or you referring to the Institutive Narrative? I think the document covers that, but then I am probably not the theologian JPII and you are.

 

[Joe17]

P Newton,

In the Guidelines, in Part 4, paragraph 1, it mentions Chaldean Catholics being able to assist at Assyrian Masses and paragraph 3 even says it is a welcome thing for the Assyrian priest to insert the words of institution in.
As to the document saying that it is ancient and apostolic, that is not so.  I would recommend you to two articles [strc.org/March%202004.pdf](http://strc.org/March%202004.pdf)  particularly pages 7-11 and strc.org/June%202007.pdf  .  They concern the scholarly work of the Salmanticenses Carmelites in Spain who in the late 16th century were asked by the pope to examine some Maronite Missals that did not have the words of consecration correct in them.  They reported that the supposed Catholic missals had been corrupted.  There were early heretics and schismatics and some of their books or practices could have even been used by those Maronites in union with Rome.  But Rome never approved of their corrupted books and said that the Masses said with those missals would be invalid.  

Also, concerning giving Holy Communion to non-Catholics, 1983 Code of Canon Law, #'s 844-3/4 permits it under certain circumstances.  The new catechism released 15 years ago reiterates it in paragraph #1401.  Orientalium Ecclesiarum in paragraph #27 says the same thing for the Orthodox.  This all goes against the perennial teaching of the Church.  St Paul condemned this practice in 1 Corinthian ch 11 v 27.

Unfortunately, I must go now. Talk later.

Joe

 

[Lisa44]

This is what the CCC actually says.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

I don’t see where it says the Muslims ARE saved or that their God is the “same” as our God.]

“together with us they adore** the one, merciful god**, mankind’s judge on the last day”

Do you think that together, Muslims and Christians worship The one merciful God?

Doing things “together” means a unity. Unity means the same. Yes, it implies that they worship the same god.

I worship together with Christians, not “together” with Muslims.

Last time I checked, Christians worshiped the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. You know this.

Muslims worship a God, who they claim spoke to the prophet Muhammad and told him that the gospels were made up by men and wrong. Instead, this god told him that he should have many wives, and have divorce easily…that they should kill Christians and Jews.

Pleeaaseee, do not tell me that “together” with me, “they adore the one merciful god, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Because those are fighting words!
If you love Jesus Christ, you would not allow anyone to speak such heresy. Its an insult. It’s an insult because youre saying that “its okay, that some people reject Jesus, they still worship together with us.” thats a lie. A lie. Its NOT okay to reject Jesus. And we do not worship with those who do!

Thats like saying, Buddhists, together with us, worship the one true god. Satanists, together with us, worship the one true god…

Jews, together with us, worship the one true god…

 

[pnewton]

As to the document saying that it is ancient and apostolic, that is not so.

We might just have to disagree. I have to believe the Vatican over strc, whoever they are. That is why I asked specifically for official source, not biased.

 

[PaulinVA]

I don’t know. The first quote says that people who reject Christ are not part of his Church. The second quote says that the Jews are not rejected by God.

Where’s the contradiction?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

We might just have to disagree. I have to believe the Vatican over strc, whoever they are. That is why I asked specifically for official source, not biased.

The STRC is some variety of “empty-chair-ists” who believe we are “Popeless”, no doubt.

Don’t they “smell” that way to you?

Check out their site: strc.org/

:shamrock2:

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t question Vatican II. I question the less than squared away interpretations of some of its teaching documents from both traditionalist Catholics and others who err in the other direction altogether. Both are wrong IMO and both do harm to the faithful with their contention.

Frankly anyone who has the audacity to accuse the pope of heresy loses my ear from the outset.

The polemics of so many traditionalists is one reason that even though I pray most of my Rosary and DMC in Latin and grew up with the EF as well as the OF Masses, I will not attend a TLM even though there is one near where I live.

I don’t want anyone to get the scandalous (IMO) impression that I agree with the more vocal traditionalists and their rhetoric.

I have absolutely no sympathy at all at all for anyone who even infers sede vacantism and that especially includes people like MHFM.

If anyone holds these positions, you’re wasting your breath even talking to me. I think it’s shameful the interactions that I’ve seen between some of the traditionalists and both Catholics and n-Cs, and I believe that they need to prayerfully reconsider their remarks because some of them are as far out of line and the worst of a-Cs.

I agree with the saying that goes…
Lead,
Follow,
or get outta my way!

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi, I thought this was a good question. But the replies you got, most of them were really insulting and rude. I have no idea why Catholics can be so rude to people who ask genuine questions on this forum. Why do they think that everyone in the world should be as smart as them? If you are so smart, then ADDRESS the question on POINT. And EXPLAIN why it is a fallacy.

I really feel sorry for people who are new to the faith who read things on the internet and then come here honestly questioning what seems like a contradiction, and then get their head BLOWN off by these Catholics.

Really, if the truth is so apparent, why can’t you just explain the error in the persons thinking if it is so blatant. And please do so in a nice respectful manner. There is no need to be so rude.

I so agree with you. i see so many Catholics being rude and mean to each other in theses forums. what a great example of our faith humnnnn?

where is the love we suppost to have for each other. we Catholics are the true brothers and sisters. i see many Catholics calling people of other religions brothers and sisters while the same time forgetting that the true bothers and sisters are those of our own faith.

May God have Mercy on us.

 

[pnewton]

The polemics of so many traditionalists is one reason that even though I pray most of my Rosary and DMC in Latin and grew up with the EF as well as the OF Masses, I will not attend a TLM even though there is one near where I live.

I am largely of the same mindset. I am blessed to be in a very orthodox setting, but were I to be in one of the areas that cater to dissent (of the Catholics for a Free Choice variety) I might then consider it. If I had to choose between two churches where factions yanked away from Church teaching, I think I would prefer the traditionalist pole.

 

[dang71]

I don’t question Vatican II. I question the less than squared away interpretations of some of its teaching documents from both traditionalist Catholics and others who err in the other direction altogether. Both are wrong IMO and both do harm to the faithful with their contention.

Frankly anyone who has the audacity to accuse the pope of heresy loses my ear from the outset.

The polemics of so many traditionalists is one reason that even though I pray most of my Rosary and DMC in Latin and grew up with the EF as well as the OF Masses, I will not attend a TLM even though there is one near where I live.

I don’t want anyone to get the scandalous (IMO) impression that I agree with the more vocal traditionalists and their rhetoric.

I have absolutely no sympathy at all at all for anyone who even infers sede vacantism and that especially includes people like MHFM.

If anyone holds these positions, you’re wasting your breath even talking to me. I think it’s shameful the interactions that I’ve seen between some of the traditionalists and both Catholics and n-Cs, and I believe that they need to prayerfully reconsider their remarks because some of them are as far out of line and the worst of a-Cs.

I agree with the saying that goes…
Lead,
Follow,
or get outta my way!

well said. just this morning, before i read your post, i was thinking i might add a post about the OP to assuming that EVERYONE was questioning V2, but you beat me to it.

i have been involved in some “heated” discussions with traditionalists, and my reasons for not attending an EF mass includes what you have said above, but i find it difficult to fault someone who is holding strong to their faith (even if that faith is a little too far to one side). we all get “hot under the collar” in these internet forums, so my thought is not to be holding grudges because someone shot at my faith. think of the persecution Christians have experienced throughout the years, and a little heated discussion in a forum doesn’t seem altogether that bad.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am largely of the same mindset. I am blessed to be in a very orthodox setting, but were I to be in one of the areas that cater to dissent (of the Catholics for a Free Choice variety) I might then consider it. If I had to choose between two churches where factions yanked away from Church teaching, I think I would prefer the traditionalist pole.

you are blessed.

where i am i feel the CC going the other way.
they been talking about VII a lot. the changes is an obedience to VII. but i thougth that the holy father was bringing the Church into more reverent service to our Lord. the way i see is that everything is very informal. the music i dont care for the much. the words of Praise to our God gone out the door.
they are changing many things in the Church including moving the choir to the front of the Church. now the priest tells us to clap to the altar boys and girls at the end of mass. the first words of the priest is good morning everyone. the church is recruiting young people to play guitar and drums. people holding hands to pray Our Father. i just dont know anymore.
i am very unconfortable to what is happening with the Franciscan parishes and non Franciscan parishes in my area. i cant seem to find any traditional Catholicism in my area.

God bless all.

 

[clmowry]

“together with us they adore** the one, merciful god**, mankind’s judge on the last day”

Do you think that together, Muslims and Christians worship The one merciful God?

Doing things “together” means a unity. Unity means the same. Yes, it implies that they worship the same god.

I worship together with Christians, not “together” with Muslims.

Last time I checked, Christians worshiped the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. You know this.

Muslims worship a God, who they claim spoke to the prophet Muhammad and told him that the gospels were made up by men and wrong. Instead, this god told him that he should have many wives, and have divorce easily…that they should kill Christians and Jews.

Pleeaaseee, do not tell me that “together” with me, “they adore the one merciful god, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Because those are fighting words!
If you love Jesus Christ, you would not allow anyone to speak such heresy. Its an insult. It’s an insult because youre saying that “its okay, that some people reject Jesus, they still worship together with us.” thats a lie. A lie. Its NOT okay to reject Jesus. And we do not worship with those who do!

Thats like saying, Buddhists, together with us, worship the one true god. Satanists, together with us, worship the one true god…

Jews, together with us, worship the one true god…

So are they even still human? Just wondering?

Pick a sentence fragment and draw to many conclusions from it. A frequent pastime amongst Christians it would seem.

Where does the church say that any of the groups you have listed see God to be the “same” as the Triune God of Christianity or that they “are” saved by their religions?

And before we really get into this conversation, do you really want to stick by your position that the God of the Jews was/is “not” the God of Christianity. Is that really the position you want to take?

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

“together with us they adore** the one, merciful god**, mankind’s judge on the last day”

So lets start with all of what the CCC says on the subject, not just the little snip it with which you are so upset.

The Church and non-Christians

839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”; “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; **these profess to hold **the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . . .

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world."

According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.