Vatican II apologetics

[AdvanceAlways]

Hello. I was wondering if any might be able to suggest any good books on the Second Vatican Council that explain how the teachings of the council are in continuity with past councils and teachings of the Church.

I also was wondering what Church documents have been written on how we as Catholics relate to modernity. I was speaking with a friend of mine who attends a traditional chapel (out of communion with Rome) and I was surprised by the things that he was labeling as sinful and anti-Catholic, such as women working, Catholic dialog with Judaism, listening to modern music, etc. That conversation got me wondering about the issue of the Church and Modernity. I know the Council addressed the topic and I was interested in where I could learn more about the topic.

I hope I posted this in the right forum.

 

[Sirach2]

You might want to begin with a document from Vatican II called Gaudium et Spes, the Church in the Modern World.
It addresses many issues today and you might find something that helps sort out your questions.

 

[Joe_5859]

Of course, reading the documents themselves is the best way.

I would recommend Dr. Alan Schreck’s Vatican II: The Crisis and the Promise. That gives a pretty good summary of the teachings and how they’re not a rupture from the past.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Hello. I was wondering if any might be able to suggest any good books on the Second Vatican Council that explain how the teachings of the council are in continuity with past councils and teachings of the Church.

As Joe said, the Council documents themselves are the best resource for what the Council said and how it relates to the Church. You may read the Council documents here.

I also was wondering what Church documents have been written on how we as Catholics relate to modernity. I was speaking with a friend of mine who attends a traditional chapel (out of communion with Rome) and I was surprised by the things that he was labeling as sinful and anti-Catholic, such as women working, Catholic dialog with Judaism, listening to modern music, etc.

Does he have any idea that Vatican-2 had anything to do with these things? (because it doesn’t)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Good advice everyone.

 

[MarcoPolo]

You may also find of interest:

SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS - Lamentabili Sane
Pope Piux X (1907)

ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS - Pascendi Dominici Gregis
Pope Pius X (1907)

ON THE BIBLE AGAINST THE MODERNISTS - Praestantia Scripturae
Pope Piux X (1907)

ON CATHOLICISM IN THE UNITED STATES - Longinqua
Pope Leo XIII (1895)

ON SOCIALISM - Quod Apostolici Muneris
Pope Leo XIII (1878)

ON THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES - In Amplissimo
Pope Leo XIII (1902)

VIRTUE, NATURE, AND GRACE IN AMERICANISM - Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae
Pope Leo XIII (1899)

 

[Jehannette]

Hello. I was wondering if any might be able to suggest any good books on the Second Vatican Council that explain how the teachings of the council are in continuity with past councils and teachings of the Church.

I also was wondering what Church documents have been written on how we as Catholics relate to modernity. I was speaking with a friend of mine who attends a traditional chapel (out of communion with Rome) and I was surprised by the things that he was labeling as sinful and anti-Catholic, such as women working, Catholic dialog with Judaism, listening to modern music, etc. That conversation got me wondering about the issue of the Church and Modernity. I know the Council addressed the topic and I was interested in where I could learn more about the topic.

I hope I posted this in the right forum.

The only section from Vatican II that I am aware which Traditionalists (of which I include myself) claim contradicts previous Church teaching is the following:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. (Dignitatis humanae, 2)

Some will claim that the above contradicts previous Church teachings, and on the surface, it does. However, note that part which I have highlighted in red. Such would not apply to Catholic princes who governed Christian kingdoms during the middle ages, as they were were consecrated by the Church and so governed by divine right and not as a “human power.” Not also the “within due limits” clause; as the “salvation of souls” is the “highest common good,” a “just public order” would both demand and require the suppression of public heresy against the One True Faith and Church by the prince who was governing a Catholic Kingdom:

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. (Dignitatis humanae, 1)

The following website is very useful:

rtforum.org/

 

[Sirach2]

jehannette:

The only section from Vatican II that I am aware which Traditionalists (of which I include myself) claim contradicts previous Church teaching is the following

I disagree with your assumption that this contradicts previous Magisterial teachings.

Pope Pius XII declared in Mystici Corporis Christi, the following:

1. Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe.[198] Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians[199] who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the “faith without which it is impossible to please God”[200] is an entirely free “submission of intellect and will.”[201] Therefore, whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See,[202] that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act.

 

[Jehannette]

I disagree with your assumption that this contradicts previous Magisterial teachings.

Pope Pius XII declared in Mystici Corporis Christi, the following:

I agree with you 100%. A Catholic prince putting an obstinate heretic to death was not “compelling” that individual by “external coercion” to “be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs”; rather, the death penalty for heretics in Catholic societies was the punishment (hence, a consequence) for having spread false beliefs among the Catholic faithful, which was a crime in Catholic kingdoms. Heretics were sometimes tortured to confess their acts and not as a “means of coercion” to embrace the One True Faith, “outside of which no one at all will be saved.” We must keep the truth of what Pope Pius XII said and what Pope Leo X declared:

Condemned Proposition: That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. (Exsurge Domine, 33)

One must freely assent to the One True Faith, as an “submission of intellect and will,” however, that freedom does not give one a license to publicly promulgate false beliefs, especially, in a kingdom which professes the One True Faith, that of the Roman Catholic religion.

Of course, in our day, the Catholic Church is, so to speak, “under new management,” at least until Christ Himself returns in glory.

 

[Sirach2]

… that freedom does not give one a license to publicly promulgate false beliefs, especially, in a kingdom which professes the One True Faith, that of the Roman Catholic religion.

Man, a lot of unorthodox ideas can be taken from your post.

Are you saying that the “kingdom” which professes the One True Faith (Catholicism) has promulgated a false belief … in YOUR humble opinion?

Furthermore, that the Church is not under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? …but under some other unlawful management until Christ returns?

Man, here you go again, shining as mini-pope, adhering with staunch rigor to EENS.
I cesrtainly hope I’m reading your post in a light you did not intend.

 

[Jehannette]

Man, a lot of unorthodox ideas can be taken from your post.

Are you saying that the “kingdom” which professes the One True Faith (Catholicism) has promulgated a false belief … in YOUR humble opinion?

Furthermore, that the Church is not under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? …but under some other unlawful management until Christ returns?

Man, here you go again, shining as mini-pope, adhering with staunch rigor to EENS.
I cesrtainly hope I’m reading your post in a light you did not intend.

No, I am saying the following:

1. Human beings are bound to observe the laws of the government which is over them; which means, as an American, I bound to observe the government’s laws, even if I do not personally agree with those laws. Unless the government is asking me to engage in an immoral act (as determined by the Church), I am bound to obey the government, even if I do not agree with it.
2. As with #1, it is against the law to stand-up in a crowded theater and yell “Fire.” So, too, during the Middle Ages, it was against the law for someone to publicly promulgated falsehoods that were contrary to the Catholic Faith, as such behavior was deemed to be harmful to Catholic society. Catholic princes, as was both their right and duty, outlawed such behavior, and attached the legal consequence of imprisonment or even death. The Church, through her canonical courts (known as the “Inquisitions”) would pass judgment on such individuals, providing them the opportunity to freely recant their falsehoods and errors, and in doing so, she would protect them from “the secular arm” (i.e., the Prince.)
3. The Enlightenment and the French Revolution won. In this respect, the Church is under “new management” in that we have to “play their game” until Christ comes again; when that Day happens, everyone will, of course, know the Truth. Until then, we have the right, as American citizens, to exercise our “religious freedom” granted to us by the Law.