Vatican II Ambiguities

[Lucky7]

I see what you are saying Greg. For comparison, this is what the Baltimore Catechism states (which I agree is a good place to start when comparing pre and post V2 teachings):

*189. Which are the two great commandments that contain the whole law of God?

The two great commandments that contain the whole law of God are:

 1.Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength;

 2.Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

And one of them, a doctor of the Law, putting him to the test, asked him, “Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?” Jesus said to him, “‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.’ This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like it, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:35-40)*

The Baltimore Catechism clearly puts God first, then neighbor. It does look as if the V2 document puts them on the same level.

 

[Tigg]

From today’s first reading which I find appropriate for this thread and should comfort those of us with questioning hearts.

Thus says the Lord GOD:
I myself will look after and tend my sheep.
As a shepherd tends his flock
when he finds himself among his scattered sheep,
so will I tend my sheep.
I will rescue them from every place where they were scattered
when it was cloudy and dark.

I myself will pasture my sheep;
I myself will give them rest, says the Lord GOD.
The lost I will seek out,
the strayed I will bring back,
the injured I will bind up,
the sick I will heal,
but the sleek and the strong I will destroy,
shepherding them rightly.

 

[Lucky7]

Even if one looks at what Cardianl Kaspar said and doesn’t go further, he only explains why the formulas are the way they and, as I covered in my strange dialogue above, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

He also said:

Thus, the conciliar texts they hold enormous potential for conflict; open the door to a selective reception in either direction

In other words, the conciliar texts were open to different interpretations…which happens to be the definition of the word “ambiguous”.

 

[Lucky7]

From today’s first reading which I find appropriate for this thread and should comfort those of us with questioning hearts.

Thus says the Lord GOD:
I myself will look after and tend my sheep.
As a shepherd tends his flock
when he finds himself among his scattered sheep,
so will I tend my sheep.
I will rescue them from every place where they were scattered
when it was cloudy and dark.

I myself will pasture my sheep;
I myself will give them rest, says the Lord GOD.
The lost I will seek out,
the strayed I will bring back,
the injured I will bind up,
the sick I will heal,
but the sleek and the strong I will destroy,
shepherding them rightly.

Thanks for trying Tigg, but that didn’t help me.

 

[Sirach2]

And one of them, a doctor of the Law, putting him to the test, asked him, "Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?" Jesus said to him, “‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.’ This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like it, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:35-40)

The Baltimore Catechism clearly puts God first, then neighbor. It does look as if the V2 document puts them on the same level.

Yes, Jesus did put them on the same level. From the Bishops’ website:

Jesus goes beyond the extent of the question put to him and joins to the greatest and the first commandment a second, that of love of neighbor, Lv 19:18.

The scribe wanted to put Jesus to the test, and asked for only the greatest commandment. If Jesus had not wished to equate the two, he would have stopped short, listing only the first, but He went on to annex the second on a par with it.

 

[Sirach2]

Yes, Jesus did put the two commandments on the same level. From the Bishops’ website:

Jesus goes beyond the extent of the question put to him and joins to the greatest and the first commandment a second, that of love of neighbor, Lv 19:18.

The scribe wanted to put Jesus to the test, and asked for only the greatest commandment. If Jesus had not wished to equate the two, he would have stopped short, listing only the first, but He went on to annex the second on a par with it. In that sense, the paragraph from Gaudiem et spes is not deficient.

For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbor: “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself… Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law” (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. 1 John 4:20). To men growing daily more dependent on one another, and to a world becoming more unified every day, this truth proves to be of paramount importance.

 

[pnewton]

The Baltimore Catechism clearly puts God first, then neighbor. It does look as if the V2 document puts them on the same level.

If mentioning one as first is what is critical, then Gaudium et Spes does in fact mention God first; God and neighbor. God actually mentions himself third in Micah 6. Jesus says there is no difference in between the two in Matthew 25. All five of these are true and accurate. There is only confusion is one attempts to only do one or the other. That is what is unnatural, like a spring that yields both fresh and salt water. Love of God compels love of neighbor and love of neighbor is the proper result of love of God.

I am seeing even more the wisdom in the Council for the phrasing in Gaudium et Spes. It seems like it brings a much needed teaching.

 

[pnewton]

He also said:

Thus, the conciliar texts they hold enormous potential for conflict; open the door to a selective reception in either direction

In other words, the conciliar texts were open to different interpretations…which happens to be the definition of the word “ambiguous”.

I do not agree. Homosexuality is a clear teaching of the Bible yet this has never stopped those who selective read the Bible from saying it is compatible with Christianity. The quote puts any error as a result of the one who* selects* what they want to read and what they want to ignore, what they agree with and what they do not agree with. Now if you are saying that the documents plus a biased agenda results in ambiguity, the I totally agree. I have seen that on** both** sides of the traditionalist/modernist spectrum. That is why we need to respect our position as disciples of the Church, in other words, sheep.

 

[clem456]

Wrong.

The tip of the iceberg of those specific ambiguities are enumerated in my post 98. There are legions more. I don’t know what parish you belong to, or how wide your experience is, but it couldn’t correlate with what those of us on this thread (minimum) have observed within many parishes over the last 20 years, and what many other CAF’ers have also encountered.

As long as we’re comparing anecdotal evidence, my experience in many years of parish ministry is that this particular discussion is of -almost- no concern to everyday Catholics. And I’m not talking about ignorant uneducated CINOs. Priests, deacons, pastoral associates, teachers, school administrators, doctors, engineers, average folk, most of them orthodox Catholics, many of them what would be considered culturally conservative. This “ambiguity” is not remotely an issue. There is concern about reforming our culture at large, yes, and the Church is often blamed unfairly for those cultural problems.
I figure if a monsignor, priest, or a deacon has been through years of intense formation and is not worried about this, why should I, who have zip, nada, formal training in theology.

This thread may demonstrate confirmation bias, folks finding that which they expect to be there. It can seem like the whole world shares our concerns when in reality, we have huddled with just a few people who affirm us. We all do it, we like affirmation. One of the reasons I love Pope Francis’ homilies…he challenges we Catholics to take a breath of fresh air and continue our conversion, which requires stepping out of our own territory.

 

[Sirach2]

Wrong.

The tip of the iceberg of those specific ambiguities are enumerated in my post 98. There are legions more. I don’t know what parish you belong to, or how wide your experience is, but it couldn’t correlate with what those of us on this thread (minimum) have observed within many parishes over the last 20 years, and what many other CAF’ers have also encountered.

I did not see anything specific in your post that made a physical comparison of any document showing ambiguity in its language.

 

[clem456]

I see what you are saying Greg. For comparison, this is what the Baltimore Catechism states (which I agree is a good place to start when comparing pre and post V2 teachings):

*189. Which are the two great commandments that contain the whole law of God?

The two great commandments that contain the whole law of God are:

 1.Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength;

 2.Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

And one of them, a doctor of the Law, putting him to the test, asked him, “Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?” Jesus said to him, “‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.’ This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like it, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:35-40)*

The Baltimore Catechism clearly puts God first, then neighbor. It does look as if the V2 document puts them on the same level.

John Paul 2 wrote an entire encyclical around this scripture passage entitled “Veritatis Splendor”.
He very thoroughly takes this passage apart and explores it. He makes it clear that the command to love neighbor is integral to loving God.
ewtn.com/library/encyc/jp2ver.htm

 

[Sirach2]

Lucky7:

He also said:

Thus, the conciliar texts they hold enormous potential for conflict; open the door to a selective reception in either direction

In other words, the conciliar texts were open to different interpretations…which happens to be the definition of the word “ambiguous”.

How about looking at the word “compromise” which was claimed to be the Cardinal’s word. “a settlement of differences by mutual concessions” per Dictionary.com
That’s not saying, as unorthodox media sources inferred, “deliberate, intentional text chosen to introduce ambiguity.”

The resulting “different interpretations” has been put forth largely by the media, who were often the cause of widespread misinterpretation," as we know from Pope Benedict, who pointed the finger of blame there. This would include the private misinterpretation on the part of laity, possibly some clergy, and who knows else - but I seriously doubt and deny that an Ecumenical Council was maliciously intending to skew its teachings so everyone could just go with their own flow. It shocks me that anyone has fallen for this garbage.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I did not see anything specific in your post that made a physical comparison of any document showing ambiguity in its language.

My repsonse addresses both your post and clem’s. I can’t help it if the latter sees no or little evidence of misunderstandings by Catholics.

There are two issues here. One is the issue of the literal words themselves. The other is the issue of the wrong interpretation or perception of those words, in whatever way the human subjects (lay Catholics) were or were not taught, and whether the subjects in question did or did not examine the documents and/or read authentic, Church-approved interpretations.

The massive rationalizations for heterodoxy in the Church (in both belief and practice) are overwhelmingly attributed to two things:

(1) A wrong interpretation of V2 – whatever the source(s).
(2) The heresy of Americanism – an independent phenomenon that corresponds with the extremities of modern secularism, combined with horrificly poor knowledge of constitutional history. The heresy of Americanism was roughly contiguous with the aftermath of V2, and has been discussed a few times on CAF, including by the very knowledgeable Brother JR (JReducation).

As to specific ambiguities in the documents, that is not my argument, and I suggest that that is not important. Lots of Americans also think that Jefferson and Hamilton and their colleagues thought things and wrote things that they didn’t. The effect of ignorance is the same. When ignorance controls the assumptions, ‘Houston, We have a Problem.’

When millions of Catholics, in scientifc polls (not just “anecodtes” ), in recorded statements of all kinds (electronic, print, broadcast) attribute their heterodox beliefs and desires for the Church as “the effect of Vatican 2,” then there is concrete evidence for erroneous understanding.

And in spades, not sparsely. I would know this, and the average Catholic would know this, if he/she bothered to read on the topic and never asked a single question of any parishioner.

And the fruit of that erroneous understanding is, I repeat, massive, across Catholicism, but particularly in the First World countries. It has been noticed and commented upon by the Vatican. It is not some reactionary observation of some extremist Catholic groups. It’s evident in liturgies, on discussion forums, and in the press when Catholics are quoted (as opposed to mere editorials or ‘summarized’ impressions).

 

[edwest2]

So, what to do? Contact the Holy See? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? It is clear when Pope Benedict said the meaning of the Council of the fathers was immediately covered over/crossed out by the media version and this created a message or messages in people’s minds that overwrote what the fathers said. That is clear. Want me to call the USCCB? I just did a few hours ago.

There are places to get answers and action. Talk is not getting us anywhere at the moment, though it’s fine to examine the issues.

Peace.
Ed

 

[Lucky7]

Want me to call the USCCB? I just did a few hours ago.

I’m curious…how did that work out for you? Did you get through? Hear back?

Because I called the USCCB over a month ago to ask about the status of the so-called investigation into the Girl Scouts…

and I’m still waiting to hear back.

 

[pnewton]

The other is the issue of the wrong interpretation or perception of those words,…

(2) The heresy of Americanism …

And the fruit of that erroneous understanding is, I repeat, massive, across Catholicism, but particularly in the First World countries…

I looked through your post and found this particular line through it that I think is one of the main sources of conflict with the Church today. Perception from an modernist perspective in the educated countries. I think the more people learn, the less open they are to being taught, especially in an environment that eschew authority and promotes individualism.

Thus my concern that the concept of ambiguity lies more in us than in the documents themselves.

 

[Lucky7]

I do not agree. Homosexuality is a clear teaching of the Bible yet this has never stopped those who selective read the Bible from saying it is compatible with Christianity. The quote puts any error as a result of the one who* selects* what they want to read and what they want to ignore, what they agree with and what they do not agree with. Now if you are saying that the documents plus a biased agenda results in ambiguity, the I totally agree. I have seen that on** both** sides of the traditionalist/modernist spectrum. That is why we need to respect our position as disciples of the Church, in other words, sheep.

You’re not disagreeing with me then. You are disagreeing with Cardinal Kasper. He said nothing of biased agendas.

 

[Lucky7]

If mentioning one as first is what is critical, then Gaudium et Spes does in fact mention God first; God and neighbor.

No, it actually states that the “first great commandment” is to love God and neighbor. Per Jesus, the first great commandment is to love God (not neighbor). The second commandment is to love neighbor. Yes, both are related, but we are to love God first.

 

[edwest2]

As long as we’re comparing anecdotal evidence, my experience in many years of parish ministry is that this particular discussion is of -almost- no concern to everyday Catholics. And I’m not talking about ignorant uneducated CINOs. Priests, deacons, pastoral associates, teachers, school administrators, doctors, engineers, average folk, most of them orthodox Catholics, many of them what would be considered culturally conservative. This “ambiguity” is not remotely an issue. There is concern about reforming our culture at large, yes, and the Church is often blamed unfairly for those cultural problems.
I figure if a monsignor, priest, or a deacon has been through years of intense formation and is not worried about this, why should I, who have zip, nada, formal training in theology.

This thread may demonstrate confirmation bias, folks finding that which they expect to be there. It can seem like the whole world shares our concerns when in reality, we have huddled with just a few people who affirm us. We all do it, we like affirmation. One of the reasons I love Pope Francis’ homilies…he challenges we Catholics to take a breath of fresh air and continue our conversion, which requires stepping out of our own territory.

Well, that didn’t make much sense. There are two extremes: nobody but me cares or the whole world cares. This has nothing to do with “affirmations” and everything to do with Church history. That matters to some people. As a person who studies history, things either happened or they didn’t but it takes time to look and examine.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’m curious…how did that work out for you? Did you get through? Hear back?

Because I called the USCCB over a month ago to ask about the status of the so-called investigation into the Girl Scouts…

and I’m still waiting to hear back.

They gave me the information I was looking for.

Ed