Vatican II - Democratization of the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter derekohachey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

derekohachey

Guest
Hi Folks,

Just read a dismal opinion piece on the Toronto Star and I am looking to answer back. The author mentions that Vatican II aimed at “democratizing” the church. Is there any Vatican II document references on this? Or is this another “spirit of Vatican II” thing?

My recollection of the Vatican II documents does not include this concept, but the documents are vast and I am not an expert on the subject.

Thanks & God Bless,
Derek
 
doesn’t the Church function like most democracies today? in a Parliament system like we have here in Canada, the Cardinals would be the Ministers of Parliament, and the Pope would be the Prime Minister.
 
The Church is a monarchy under Christ with The Holy Father is His chosen representative on earth. Democracy I think is about the people ruling. The Catholic Church is about the Rule of Christ The King and we His chosen people and friends and servants of The King.

TS
 
Yes it is true that the structures are similar. Both systems come from the Old Testament governance system where you have the king, his ministers and his prime minister.

In the new covanent you have:
King: Jesus Christ
Prime Minister: The Pope / Bishop of Rome
Ministers: All the Bishops (this includes Archbishops and all Cardinals that are Bishops)

The main difference is that in the secular system, the ministers and PM are effectively elected by the people whereas in the Catholic Church the Bishops are not elected by the people.

Does this help?
 
In terms of governance, the Vatican is an elected absolute monarchy.

In terms of religious authority, the Pope is elected by the Cardinals to be the supreme pastor of the Universal Church - period. There is no resemblance between the Church and a democracy, and thank God – because it is He who guides the Church in matters of faith and morals.

I can’t possibly imagine the chaos that would reign if the faithful had a “say” on such things, not to mention the complete implosion of Catholic teachings.

Peace,
Dante
 
Thanks guys for weighing in on this. Can anyone answer my original post?
Just read a dismal opinion piece on the Toronto Star and I am looking to answer back. The author mentions that Vatican II aimed at “democratizing” the church. Is there any Vatican II document references on this? Or is this another “spirit of Vatican II” thing?
Thanks again,
 
Would the following be helpful. the whole document does make a good read.The term “spirit of Vatican II” has come to mean something of a derogatory term. It is often however a misunderstanding of that spirit and a distortion of it, rather than the true spirit of V2 itself which was a pastoral council of The Church.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM

POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
HERE
  1. For the nurturing and constant growth of the People of God, Christ the Lord instituted in His Church a variety of ministries, which work for the good of the whole body. For those ministers, who are endowed with sacred power, serve their brethren, so that all who are of the People of God, and therefore enjoy a true Christian dignity, working toward a common goal freely and in an orderly way, may arrive at salvation.
This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*)And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.
  1. The Lord Jesus, after praying to the Father, calling to Himself those whom He desired, appointed twelve to be with Him, and whom He would send to preach the Kingdom of God;(137) and these apostles(138) He formed after the manner of a college or a stable group, over which He placed Peter chosen from among them
- edited out section here due to wordcount
For they not only had helpers in their ministry,(4*) but also, in order that the mission assigned to them might continue after their death, they passed on to their immediate cooperators, as it were, in the form of a testament, the duty of confirming and finishing the work begun by themselves,(5*) recommending to them that they attend to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit placed them to shepherd the Church of God.(148) They therefore appointed such men, and gave them the order that, when they should have died, other approved men would take up their ministry.(6*) Among those various ministries which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office of those who, appointed to the episcopate, by a succession running from the beginning,(7*) are passers-on of the apostolic seed.(8*) Thus, as St. Irenaeus testifies, through those who were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors down in our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested (9*) and preserved.(10*)

Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, (11*) presiding in place of God over the flock,(12*) whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing.(13*) And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles’ office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. (14*) Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, (15*) as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.(149)(16*)
  1. In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe. For sitting at the right hand of God the Father, He is not absent from the gathering of His high priests,(17*) but above all through their excellent service He is preaching the word of God to all nations, and constantly administering the sacraments of faith to those who believe, by their paternal functioning.(150) He incorporates new members in His Body by a heavenly regeneration, and finally by their wisdom and prudence He directs and guides the People of the New Testament in their pilgrimage toward eternal happiness. These pastors, chosen to shepherd the Lord’s flock of the elect, are servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God,(151) to whom has been assigned the bearing of witness to the Gospel of the grace of God,(152) and the ministration of the Spirit and of justice in glory.(153)
 
If you would like to read about the convening and purposes of Vatican2 itself, this Vatican document may be helpful:
vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-21_en.html
VATICAN COUNCIL II: LIGHT FOR THE CHURCH
*** AND FOR THE MODERN WORLD***

Perhaps if you gave a link (if possible) to the Toronto Star article that you have found disturbing, it just may be an aid to posters responding to your concerns. If the author stated that Vatican2 aimed at a democracization of The Church, then he/she would be wrong.

TS
 
This may also be helpful in understanding V2 also - and points out that “pastoral council” is not strictly correct re Vatican2, which was an Ecumenical Council of The Church called for pastoral reasons rather than for doctrinal reasons.

This Rock - Quick Questions
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401qq.asp

**Q: *How do I answer Traditionalists who claim that the Second Vatican Council was only a pastoral council and didn’t define anything new? Also, do you know if there are any apologetical books out yet countering Traditionalists? ***
A: The best book on the subject is the now unfortunately out-of-print The Pope, the Council, and the Mass by James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead. Here is how they respond to this argument:
"The term ‘pastoral council’ as applied to Vatican II is merely a popular description and does not refer to any specific type of council recognized by the authority of the Catholic Church (the teachings and decisions of which would presumably somehow not be as binding upon members of the Church as those of a ‘dogmatic’ council). In the Church there are traditionally councils, or synods, which are styled ‘national councils,’ ‘provincial councils,’ or ‘general (ecumenical) councils,’ but none styled specifically a ‘pastoral council.’
“Pope John XXIII, in calling the Council, stated that the reasons he was doing so were of a character that could be broadly termed ‘pastoral,’ although Pope John himself, in using the word, merely spoke of the need today of a Church Magisterium ‘that is predominantly pastoral in character.’ Pope Paul VI similarly spoke of the ‘pastoral nature of the Council’ in his weekly general audience of January 12, 1966, but he didn’t call it a ‘pastoral council’ as if this were some new species of Church gathering that the faithful might go along with or not, as they chose” (p. 33).
This is only a small snippet from a much longer answer the authors give on this topic. To fully appreciate the strength of their argument, try to find a copy of the book. It will be reprinted in about a year, but in the meantime, if you can find it through interlibrary loan or on the Internet, it is well worth the search.
 
There was no attempt to democratize the Church. Vatican II did propose a greater role for the laity.

God bless,
Ed

Choose Jesus.
 
This is a difference between us and Protestants. One of the many things that attracted me was that we are NOT a democracy.
 
This is a difference between us and Protestants. One of the many things that attracted me was that we are NOT a democracy.
and what i always say…

truth is not a democracy 👍

that is why its important our Church is not a democracy. what Jesus says is the truth. it doesn’t matter if 5 billion other people don’t agree with His teachings
 
Thank you all folks for the info on this thread. I will probably finish my answer to the Stars’ Ted Schmidt later on today.
 
I might be too late, but what the article said is really a distortion (perhaps “misunderstanding” is more diplomatic) of the reality of Vatican II, not an outright lie.

It is entirely true that the Council Father did endeavor to call the laity to more complete participation in the role and mission of the Church. Some folks put on rose colored glasses and like to pretend that we had no problems in the Church prior to Vatican II (or that they were truly minor). This is simply not so. For a long time there had been an increasing trend of artificial separation between one’s faith life and the rest of life. For too many, catholicism was a system that one worked and rules that one obeyed in order to be rewarded with heaven one day. What a poor substitute for the genuine reception of Grace and the life changes the Christ wants to make in our lives! Traditionalists heap scorn on the idea that pre-VaticanII the laity was only asked to pray, pay and obey. But that was precisely the experience of many in my family!

The mistake that has since been made has beento presume that the active faith life of the laity can or even should supplant the clergy in leadership and discernment of Scripture and Tradition. Laity can certainly participate in study and discussion, but in the end we have leadership for a God-given purpose.

In my view, we laity are the foot soldiers of the Church Militant. Foot soldiers get little glory and human nature is such that everybody wants to be the colonels and generals. But you can’t win a battle without well trained and capable foot soldiers, so excuse me but I need to go sharpen my sword now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top