The Fruits of Vatican II

[TMC]

That would depend on why they do not believe and why they do not know. Does invincible (too powerful to be overcome) ignorance play a part or are they choosing, making a choice to not believe. Most times not believing is more of a choice to not accept or not listen rather than it being invincible ignorance. This is often preceded by a “do not want to change” or a fear of the possible consequences in life and relationships.

Honestly, this makes no sense to me. Are you saying people that know that refusing to enter the Church will land them in eternal Hell are making that choice, because?

God knows people’s hearts and their circumstances and their life.

This is certainly true, and not in dispute.

There is also the false notion that one can believe Catholicism is true but choose a different route because the Church allows us to choose our own route to salvation, false ecumenism.

I am sure there are people that believe this, but this no one on this thread is suggesting the Church teaches this.

Church teaching goes beyond the Vatican II documents.

You said this is response to my question as to how you square your beliefs with the Church’s teaching. I take this to mean that you disagree with the Church’s teaching on salvation? If not, what do you mean? Can you simply answer the question?

 

[TMC]

Just because we don’t know for sure if any individual will go tell hell for remaining a outside the Church, that doesn’t imply that they are safe. There is a possibility that they might be saved, but this possibility is not reason to teach that they are part of the non-privileged route to Heaven.

Not sure what this has to do with anything I have said. The Church does not teach that anyone can be sure of salvation.

The Church does teach that some who are outside the formal membership of the Church in this life may nonetheless be saved by Christ and His Church.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Are you saying people that know that refusing to enter the Church will land them in eternal Hell are making that choice, because?

So, I do not make any statements of who goes to hell and who does not. That alone is up to God, though, “God does not send anyone to hell, man makes that choice”.

There are many ways to be ignorant of something, one way is to not hear about it either by life or decision, another is to choose not to listen to it, and perhaps another way is to be told wrong or to misunderstand but also we can choose to block what we know to be true out of our minds and try to justify our wrong decisions constantly.

You said this is response to my question as to how you square your beliefs with the Church’s teaching. I take this to mean that you disagree with the Church’s teaching on salvation? If not, what do you mean? Can you simply answer the question?

First I will answer that I do not disagree with Church teaching. Thinking or saying that I do is making an assumption. My dad always told me never assume something, assuming never goes well.

All that I mean, is that there is more to Church teaching than what is found in the Vatican II documents. There is a whole history of catechisms, encyclicals, dogmas and doctrines, Scripture commentaries and more. I am not sure if you are Catholic but if you are, we all need to be about studying our faith and that means as much history and writings we can.

The Vatican II documents have some very beautiful writing on Church teaching in them but so do so many other documents in the Church. Vatican II was not declared infallible and the documents and writings must be read in light of Scripture and Tradition, so in other words, and in all charity, I will follow and believe all of what the Church teaches and says based on it’s history, doctrines and dogmas, and promulgated catechisms not on internet forums because the Church alone interprets Scripture, Tradition and also Vatican II.

 

[TMC]

You know what, I wrote a response to your post (which maybe you saw before I deleted it). It was not rude or combative (I think), but I am worried that our conversation could head that way. We disagree, that much is clear. I made my points, you made yours - I am not sure it is in anyone’s best interest to keep beating that horse. I will just leave it at that, if that’s OK with you.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I think that is a good idea. After reading your deleted post it seems you are not understanding what I am saying , so I will leave it at this, there are different “levels” of Church teaching, each holds different weights of authority, starting from Christ through to our times today. The Church is one, past and present.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I think that is a good idea. After reading your deleted post it seems you are not understanding what I am saying , so I will leave it at this, there are different “levels” of Church teaching, each holds different weights of authority, starting from Christ through to our times today. The Church is one, past and present.

Do you agree that one of the purposes for Vatican II was to reorient the Catholic understanding of salvation, evangelisation and how God regards those outside the Church? That there was some misunderstandings about Church teaching that was causing many Catholics to have a false sense of themselves and a false sense of non Catholics?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Do you agree that one of the purposes for Vatican II was to reorient the Catholic understanding of salvation, evangelisation and how God regards those outside the Church?

Yes, you are correct, that was one of the purposes of Vatican II to evangelize to non Catholics. It didn’t change any doctrine or dogma, though, but yes it was meant to explain, but not change.

That there was some misunderstandings about Church teaching that was causing many Catholics to have a false sense of themselves and a false sense of non Catholics?

Unfortunately, now some have gone the other extreme and still have a false sense of themselves and non-Catholics.

Whether it is pre or post Vatican II, the Church is the same, it is one, and it is God who gives us salvation through the Church. We never have been able to save ourselves.

It is also charitable and good to be grateful to those who have gone before us, since they themselves out of love and charity, preserved and handed down the faith to us.

 

[Dovekin]

Elements of Salvation exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. Sacraments, Scripture, etc. People can be saved by these, or they would not be called “of Salvation.” Even non-Christian religions can have what is holy and true because they also have a relationship with God who created and sustains them. St. John Paul II reaffirmed this in his first encyclical. I think he even says the Church has taught this from the earliest days.

Is that what you were asking?

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.
Lumen Gentium 15

 

[Maximian]

it’s easy for a new convert to understand.

But is it? Is it obvious that a sacrifice is taking place? That is something that is much more obvious in EF.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But I think language has a big influence. Like the movies. Most Americans cannot digest subtitled movies.

But is it? Is it obvious that a sacrifice is taking place? That is something that is much more obvious in EF.

I am quite sure both of you are correct. Liturgy of Ordinariate (Divine Worship) is praised for practically encompassing everything- it is deeply ritualistic like EF, it has ancient practices brought back by OF, it has vernacular of OF and also rubrics are very respected like in EF, which leads to reverence. It is based upon continuous tradition like EF too. (I am not saying Vatican II is not based upon continuous tradition or anything like that, but EF developed organically to be what it is. OF was practically made from scratch and changes were imposed at the same time without prior organic development).

I think doing the EF in English would be great.

Same!

 

[christofirst]

Let’s assume, only as a metaphor of course, that the fruit of Vatican II is a lemon . Some of us are embracing the changes and making lemonade, figuratively, while others can only focus on the bitterness of changes they never wanted and so continue to resist.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

while others can only focus on the bitterness of changes they never wanted and so continue to resist

I think your metaphor is pretty clever, but quite high number of people who are not enthusiastic about those changes didn’t really “resist” them neither would I say they “never wanted” them… it is more about effects it had. Vatican II is not to blame for current era’s problems, but did it succeed in helping? Not too much. I wasn’t even alive pre-V2 times, when I came into Church it already had those changes. It isn’t that I hate change, but I simply see some negative effects of some things (and I later found that they came with V2). Again, it is not fault of Vatican II in itself, but Council did kind of fail to prevent this.

But all, those who embrace or oppose some changes Vatican II brought, should be making lemonade out of everything profitable. We should be making lemonade out of entire faith which encompasses entire Tradition of the Church, hence all Ecumenical Councils (Vatican II too of course).

 

[Maximian]

The EF doesn’t depend so much on words. It’s a totally different kind of spirituality, contemplative rather than extrovert.

 

[christofirst]

I was born in 1962, so like you I only really know the post-Vatican II Church. Based on talks I’ve had with my mother, however, to more seriously answer the original question, and at the risk of over-generalization, I would say that one of the most appealing fruits of Vatican II, in my opinion, is the emphasis of God’s mercy over His judgment. We all know that justice is tempered by mercy, and mercy is tempered by justice, but Pope Francis has said that mercy is God’s greatest attribute, thus surpassing the constraints of justice.

This audacious claim, which I personally do not think would have been made before the Council, gives much hope to sinners like myself, while seeming to raise the ire of some legalists and traditionalists. Again, my apologies if I’m overgeneralizing and haven’t expressed myself so well. (I’m running late for an appointment, so this is a hastily prepared post.)

 

[Dovekin]

BroJames96:

it’s easy for a new convert to understand.

But is it? Is it obvious that a sacrifice is taking place? That is something that is much more obvious in EF.

How is that “much more obvious in EF”?

In the OF, we at least say, together as a community, May the Lord accept this sacrifice…. There is no similar affirmation in the EF since it is in Latin. (we are talking about a new convert, presumably unschooled)

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I think you are correct… though while this very much applies to laity, older Priest who I’ve met that celebrates EF had this approach about God’s mercy too- without forgetting God is just as well. I quite like how traditionally, Priests would not just speak about God’s mercy but also tell you what to do and how to do- homilies would be about making changes very often, and sometimes about realizing how God loves you and how merciful He is… but I found that when all homilies I hear are about God’s mercy or God’s goodness, it may be nice but in the end it does not help me make changes to my life. Which is why I myself personally do not quite like when all Priest talks about are these things…

(I’m running late for an appointment, so this is a hastily prepared post.)

I’ll pray that you make it, good luck whatever it is about!

How is that “much more obvious in EF”?

Sacrificial prayers. When I started attending Mass (OF), I would not even know it was a Sacrifice (and I count my time after I started Altar Serving too) or that it was primarily Sacrifice. I thought Mass represents Lord’s Supper and not Sacrifice on the Cross. When I got Missal for EF this was much more clear. Yes, it was in Latin and vernacular would be nice too, but in the end people are supposed to get translations I guess.

And one more thing about Latin… it should not disappear. I am all in favor for Latin hymns during Liturgy (because they would bring people to Latin without necessarily making anyone not understand Liturgy itself), about Latin prayers outside the Liturgy and even Latin Liturgies themselves (provided audience is not made of people attending first time I guess). Latin has a certain advantage to it as a dead language.

I am a student in neighboring country- language is actually so similar I could speak it as a kid. Yet when I attended first Mass in that country, I did not know what to respond and I was kinda surprised by some prayers. I checked Latin and apparently our translation is quite precise in some parts (“Pray Brothers and Sisters that my Sacrifice is liked by God Father Almighty” “May Lord receive the Sacrifice from thy hands, for the glory and praise of His name, for good of us, and entire Holy Church”) than theirs (“Pray Brothers and Sisters that God receive this Sacrifice” “May Lord receive Sacrifice from thy hands for good of the Church”). Apparently one language (French IIRC) even removes distinction between Priest and Laity (“May Lord receive our Sacrifice”). Sometimes reverence is lost in the translation, and it isn’t simply because it is impossible to say the same in that language (I am fairly certain it is possible to say original form in language of country where I study, as it has even better terms than my own when it comes to those things). It is hard to judge for Vatican whether or not translation is completely correct or best possible- especially if they do not even know the language. Latin has no such problem, which is why it ought to be kept as universal and standard for the Church.

 

[whatistrue]

Is it obvious that a sacrifice is taking place? That is something that is much more obvious in EF.

How obvious is it if you don’t understand the language?

 

[Dovekin]

When I got Missal for EF this was much more clear. Yes, it was in Latin and vernacular would be nice too, but in the end people are supposed to get translations I guess.

This is the question I am asking. Is sacrifice much more obvious if you have to get a translation to understand it? @Maximian says the spirituality is “contemplative rather than extrovert” which I think excludes having an interpreter next to you.

Or am I wrong? Is sacrifice much more obvious if you have an interpreter? Even that seems questionable, since the interpreter will be concerned to explain the words, not the ritual. I am sincerely trying to understand the concept.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

This is the question I am asking. Is sacrifice much more obvious if you have to get a translation to understand it?

Ah, I see. Well, in the end OF’s prime form is celebration in Latin. Vernacular is allowed, but primarily Liturgy has been designed to be celebrated in Latin hence you can’t compare OF to EF in a sense that EF is wrong because it only allows Latin. Sacrifice is much more obvious from rituals and gestures of EF than from rituals and gestures of OF- so if one does not understand Latin, EF is still superior in this aspect.

Interpreted isn’t necessary. Missal is something that makes this possible (I have digital version in mobile and it explains rituals and gestures too), and I guess in time you would be expected to understand or at least have an idea about what is happening at EF. Same way one does not comprehend everything first time he attends OF.

 

[whatistrue]

Sacrifice is much more obvious from rituals and gestures of EF than from rituals and gestures of OF-

(I have digital version in mobile and it explains rituals and gestures too),

If it’s so obvious, why was there a need for explanation?