Vatican II heresy?

[neophyte]

Whenever someone tells me about the heresy of Vatican II, I ask them to show me where it is in the documents of the Council. No one’s ever been able to come through.

 

[Vico]

… I always thought Catholic think that they were the superior church out of every single church in the world, and that they were the only true church. …

The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith answered some questions that may increase your understanding:

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[edwest]

Very good response. The ‘changes’ after Vatican II were not even suggested by Vatican II. And all Catholics should give their assent to the Second Vatican Council. It did nothing wrong.

 

[Genesis315]

The Catholic Church recognizes the EO and perhaps certain others in the East as Churches.

It recognized EO particular Churches as such (a particular Church is a valid bishop celebrating a valid eucharist with his flock). It did not recognize the sum total of the EO Churches as a Church. In that sense, there is only one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church: the Catholic Church alone.

Only particular Churches can be spoken of as plural. The EO community of Churches cannot be said to be a Church the way the Catholic communion of Churches can be.

In fact, there is but a single Church,[9] and therefore the plural term Churches can refer only to particular Churches.

Consequently, one should avoid, as a source of misunderstanding and theological confusion, the use of formulations such as «our two Churches,» which, if applied to the Catholic Church and the totality of Orthodox Churches (or a single Orthodox Church), imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular Churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Creed, whose real existence is thus obscured.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[edwest]

James Akin provides a good definition and background for Modernism.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/MODERSM.TXT

 

[edwest]

What were these changes that were greatly needed?

 

[Sophie111]

Sounds like goggeldy goop to me.
Define church? Define Church?
Define catholic. Define Catholic.
You may have left out the word Roman somewhere there?
You didnt really explain where the Eastern Catholic churches fit in. Or is that Churches.

All very confusing.
Good luck if anyone is still listening by the time you finish .

 

[Fauken]

To be brief (perhaps too brief):

Define church? Define Church?

Church (capital) is the institution, church is a place/your parish.

Define catholic. Define Catholic.

Catholic (capital) refers to the Catholic Church, catholic refers more to its definition, which is universal.

You may have left out the word Roman somewhere there?
You didnt really explain where the Eastern Catholic churches fit in. Or is that Churches.

Roman isn’t needed, nor would it be correct to say that only the Latin rite is Catholic. The Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are all Catholic. But the Orthodox are just catholic since they’re not in communion with Rome.

 

[otjm]

I am well aware of Pope Pius X’s use of the term “modernism”, but it had nothing to do with the phrase “getting with the times”. It was specifically directed to the movement, primarily coing out of Germany over a century ago, in Scrpiture scholarship. That movement was pushing that scholarship to essentially “demythologize” Scripture, and the adherents were heading towards atheism.

As I noted, the word gets used interestingly, not by the Church, but by people who find things the Church is doing which they don’t like, so they pull put the boogeyman from under the bed as if it (the term 'modernism") had any relevance. It doesn’t.

Changing the Mass was not a move toward atheism; it was a move toward removing a number of things which over two millenia had been added on (two examples are the prayers at the foot of the altar, originally said before Mass began) and the second Gospel (of St. John), also recited originally outside the Mass. Neither of those things had a whit to do with an atheistic approach to the form of the Mass.

Someone who has studied philosophy (and those with a batchelors in it are not necessarily equipped) would look at various movements within theology; and label it - as the Church does when it finds relativism creeping in. That, for example, would be applied to those who say "all religions are (good, or truthful) with no distinguishing characteristics.

Modernism is not about “getting with the times”. It was about a movement within Scripture scholarship which became a path toward an atheistic attitude and approach to scholarship.

A Catholic scholar who engaged in it was Alfred Loisy (excommunicated in 1908) who wrote in his memoirs “If I am anything in religion, it is more pantheist-positivist-humanitarian that Christian.”

George Tyrrell, an Irish Jesuit, was also excommunicated.

Getting further into what was going on theologically would throw this completely off the OP’s post (or perhaps not). However Pope Pius x could have used far more precise terms (as the Church does now), such as liberalism, secularism and relativism.

And yes, I am well aware that the term modernism is used in relation to architecture, literature, art, and the changes which occured in commerce. They have nothing to do with theology.

 

[otjm]

To your last question, no, I do not agree with your attempt to define it. Pope Pius X, along with his predecessor were caught in a time where theologians were moving beyond a strict scholastic approach to theology and to an explosion of interest in Scripture specifically, and things were moving too fast. Nor do I agree that modernism necessarily indicated a synthesis of various “isms”, although in some instances it certainly resulted in moves in a heretical direction. It ended up in what could be called a smackdown of a lot of theologians, a number of whom were subsequently rehabilitated (e.g. Yves Congar), often attributed to Cardinal Merry del Val. Pope Pius 12 recognized that there was value in modern Scripture scholarship, a point that Cardinal Ottaviani was in disagreement, as exhibited by his preparation of documents at the start of Vatican 2 with the clear intent to reverse Pius’s direction, a point resoundingly rejected at the beginning of the Council.

And the move to canonize Cardinal del Val, was at the behest of Pius 12, lest anyone think ill of him.

 

[edwest]

I was there before and after Vatican II. I was in Catholic school and we had a Religion class. The nuns told us what to expect. So I went to Church one day and there was a small altar in front of the High Altar. The priest faced the people and spoke English. My first language was not English. I did not love God less because of this.

However, removing visible signs like statues and so on was never officially permitted. Modern Church architecture has suffered at the hands of dissidents. Above all, there must a sense of the sacred when walking into God’s House of Prayer. The Real Presence is there.

 

[vsedriver]

Orthodox, oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian church of the east.

these are also Catholics.

 

[commenter]

Very good response. The ‘changes’ after Vatican II were not even suggested by Vatican II. And all Catholics should give their assent to the Second Vatican Council. It did nothing wrong.

Well, a few actually were suggested. Some were arguably compatible, though that could be disputed. Many other changes were definitely against the Council. It’s hard to say, as the world changed rapidly since then

 

[edwest]

Dissident groups formed right after Vatican II ended. The goal was an attack on society by Hippies, anarchists and others, and an attack inside the Church. Time doesn’t change anything, only people trying to break what they don’t like in an effort to turn the world into their image and likeness. It was bad. Very bad.

My fellow Catholics, be watchful. Do not follow the crowd. Stand on what you believe though the world tries to tell you otherwise.

 

[Sophie111]

To be brief (perhaps too brief):

Sophie111:

Define church? Define Church?

Church (capital) is the institution, church is a place/your parish.

Define catholic. Define Catholic.

Catholic (capital) refers to the Catholic Church, catholic refers more to its definition, which is universal.

You may have left out the word Roman somewhere there?
You didnt really explain where the Eastern Catholic churches fit in. Or is that Churches.

Roman isn’t needed, nor would it be correct to say that only the Latin rite is Catholic. The Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are all Catholic. But the Orthodox are just catholic since they’re not in communion with Rome.

Now that is clear!

Would you mind now translating “Technically the Catholic Church is the only Church in existence”
into something more understandable?

BTW it seems you would agree that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the only Church in existence?

Why is it incorrect to say the RCC is a different Church from, say, the Marionite Catholic Church?

It would seem RCC is a poor title…you suggest it should be more properly called the Latin Rite Church or Latin Rite Catholic Church?
And why is the word Catholic needed…all Latin Rite Churches are Catholic surely?

If the RCC is but one rite of many that make up the Catholic Church then it would seem that “The Catholic Church” and the “Roman catholic Church” are not the same thing at all.

 

[Fauken]

Would you mind now translating “Technically the Catholic Church is the only Church in existence”
into something more understandable?

Sure! God established only one Church: the Catholic Church, whose Pope is Francis and headed and protected by Christ. Only the Catholic Church contains the most complete and true doctrine of all religions in the world. There are many churches, but there is only one Church.

BTW it seems you would agree that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the only Church in existence?

No, though my last sentence should have answered that for you. God cannot deny nor go against Himself. If God is truth, then it makes no sense that He established all of these churches in Christianity which conflict with each other on what truth is. Truth is not relative: we cannot make opposing claims (“The Pope is needed”/“The Pope is not needed”) and yet both still be right. The Eastern rites (which is more accurate to say in hindsight) are separate from the Latin rite, but they are all part of one Church. There is no separate institution that say, the Syro-Malabar rite is in that the Latin rite is not. The Syro-Malabar and the Latin rites are all in one Church.

EDIT (after I saw your edits):

Why is it incorrect to say the RCC is a different Church from, say, the Marionite Catholic Church?

It would seem RCC is a poor title…you suggest it should be more properly called the Latin Rite Church or Latin Rite Catholic Church?
And why is the word Catholic needed…all Latin Rite Churches are Catholic surely?

If the RCC is but one rite of man

Asking why the Latin rite is different from the Maronites is like asking how could the Americans and the English be different since they both speak English: they’re different cultures, for one. We Latin Catholics have our traditions and practices, the Maronites have their traditions and practices. However, we all agree on the same things in terms of doctrine and dogma. We have different liturgies for celebrating Mass, but the Masses are valid and so too are all the other Sacraments.

Yes, RCC is a poor title, and for the most part (there are a few exceptions) all Latin rite Churches are Catholic. However, the reason why it’s a bad name is because calling it the Roman Catholic Church ignores the other 22-23 non-Latin rites in the Church that do not use the Latin rite. While the Pope is of the Latin rite and is in charge, there are still those other 22-23 rites that call him their Pope and are obedient to him despite not being of the Latin rite. We have our differences, but we are united in our beliefs and under our Pope. We are Catholic.

 

[Sophie111]

We are in an apologetics forum. Disagreeing with your views or observing that they are so abstract as to be meaningless words/sounds is all part of the cut and thrust surely.

If you mean I have been disrespectful to your person that is another matter.
If that is what you are trying to say please explain how.
I am not aware of having done so.

 

[Sophie111]

…The Eastern rites (which is more accurate to say in hindsight) …are all in one Church.

Thats consistent so far as it goes.

Sophie111: it seems you would agree that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the only Church in existence?
Faulken: No

You’ve lost me again sorry.
You defined “Church” as “the institution” as opposed to “church” the building/place/parish.

It is fairly clear that the “Orthodox Church” is a separate institution and worthy of the name “Church”.
Likewise it could be argued that there are many Protestant Churches.
These are clearly different politically whole and complete institutions in themselves.
Therefore there are many Churches in existence.

I accept there is only one Catholic Institution with many sub-units that you call Rites. These are a single political unit (ie a Church) under a Pope who claims to be heir to Peter.

God cannot deny …not make opposing claims (“The Pope is needed”/“The Pope is not needed”) and yet both still be right.

Not sure what this has to do with my question. It is a fact that there are many conflicting Churches (call them Christian Institutions if you wish) who do not agree on a single governing person or body despite Jesus’s teaching.
Who is the “true heir” (if there is one single one) is moot. Obviously every Church by definition must claim to be the true heir of Christianity if they wish to remain credible. But who would know.

Sophie111: Would you mind now translating “Technically the Catholic Church is the only Church in existence” into something more understandable?

So this still seems to make no sense given your definition of “Church” as “Institution”.

Faulken: Sure! God established only one Church: the Catholic Church, whose Pope is Francis and headed and protected by Christ. Only the Catholic Church contains the most complete and true doctrine of all religions in the world.

This is just a description of the historical Catholic Church today. It is not really a “translation” of the above somewhat metaphysical and abstract statement that kicked this all off.

There are many churches, but there is only one Church.

You defined “church” as a place/parish. So yes there are many churches in the world be they Roman Rite, Anglican (is that a Rite or a Church), or Orthodox (Rite or Church?).

However to say that only Catholic churches form a greater unity (“Church”) does appear to deny the facts. There are other high level groupings of churches that are distinct from each other such as Anglican and Orthodox as i just observed. If they are not called “Rites” then they must be “Church”.
If they do not belong to the “Catholic Church” then they must be separate “Churches”.

To simply say only the Catholic Church (Latin Rite, Marionite Rite, Syro-Malabar Rite etc) is to be called “Church” because Jesus willed all to be one seems no more than polemical semantics.
It is an incontrovertible fact that the Christian followers of Jesus are hopelessly fragmented not only into churches but a number of over-arching distinct institutions with separate governance bodies that most people call “Churches”.

 

[Sophie111]

EDIT (after I saw your edits):

Sophie111:

Why is it incorrect to say the RCC is a different Church from, say, the Marionite Catholic Church?

It would seem RCC is a poor title…you suggest it should be more properly called the Latin Rite Church or Latin Rite Catholic Church?
And why is the word Catholic needed…all Latin Rite Churches are Catholic surely?

If the RCC is but one rite of man

Asking why the Latin rite is different from the Maronites is like asking how could the Americans and the English be different since they both speak English: they’re different cultures, for one. We Latin Catholics have our traditions and practices, the Maronites have their traditions and practices. However, we all agree on the same things in terms of doctrine and dogma. We have different liturgies for celebrating Mass, but the Masses are valid and so too are all the other Sacraments.

Yes, RCC is a poor title, and for the most part (there are a few exceptions) all Latin rite Churches are Catholic. However, the reason why it’s a bad name is because calling it the Roman Catholic Church ignores the other 22-23 non-Latin rites in the Church that do not use the Latin rite. While the Pope is of the Latin rite and is in charge, there are still those other 22-23 rites that call him their Pope and are obedient to him despite not being of the Latin rite. We have our differences, but we are united in our beliefs and under our Pope. We are Catholic.

All good.
Though it now seems to me the primary reason why RCC is not a different Church from the Marionite Church is simply because we share the same governing body full stop. Nothing to do with dogma or doctrine per se. That simply flows from single governance.

You may have overlooked this question:
“If the RCC is but one rite of many that make up the Catholic Church then it would seem that “The Catholic Church” and the “Roman Catholic Church” are not the same thing at all.”

 

[otjm]

The use of the term “disciplinary” refers to rules. Rules were changed in the Vatican 2 documents. Vatican 2 did not “change” doctrine. While it did complete what was started in Vatican 1, as Vatican 1 was cut short after considering the papacy but not getting to the bishops, which was to be the second part of Vatican 1, reading the documents will clarify that the rules - the way the Church went about things - was changed.

As to Modernism, I would invite you to reference the document by Jimmy Akin.