Vatican II Review

[JMJ_coder]

For those who have issues with the Second Vatican Council, I would like to hear your complaints about the actual text of the documents of the Council.

When responding, please

• quote and cite the relevant portion from an actual document of Vatican II (they can be found online here)
• show another text from an official Catholic source (e.g., a previous Papal document)
• express how the Vatican II text violates the previous teaching (which should be an actual doctrine and not mere disciplines)

 

[damooster]

While you’re at it, you should ask all of the Catholics who do things “in the Spirit of Vatican II” to also provide textual documentation that states they are allowed to do such things i.e. change words of the liturgy.

 

[JMJ_coder]

While you’re at it, you should ask all of the Catholics who do things “in the Spirit of Vatican II” to also provide textual documentation that states they are allowed to do such things i.e. change words of the liturgy.

The Holy See has (repeatedly!) stated that no one is allowed to alter the words of the Liturgy on their own volition. For the latest to recount this, Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

1. Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. “It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers” or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.

 

[damooster]

The Holy See has (repeatedly!) stated that no one is allowed to alter the words of the Liturgy on their own volition. For the latest to recount this, Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

1. Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. “It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers” or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.

I know this, and you know this, but many Catholics do not know this including some on this forum.

I simply used it as an example because it seems like you are calling out people who do not appreciate Vatican II.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I simply used it as an example because it seems like you are calling out people who do not appreciate Vatican II.

I wouldn’t necessarily call it “calling out”, but yes I am addressing those who tend to think that Vatican II was misguided or even heretical. I agree that those who use a vague “Spirit of Vatican II” to justify any thing that pops into their head are very much in the wrong, but if I wanted to address them I don’t think I would post it in the Traditional Catholicism forum.

 

[Lormar]

JMJ Coder

I have a better idea.

Why don’t YOU take some of the more common arguments used by the SSPX and sedevacantists against the Second Vatican Council and show how THEY are wrong. For example, you might want to show how 1) Dignitatis Humanae lines up with traditional Catholic teaching, 2) how ecumenism squares with Mortalium Animos, 3) since “is” and “subsists in” means the same thing, why was it changed. Just a few ideas for you.

 

[JMJ_coder]

JMJ Coder

I have a better idea.

Why don’t YOU take some of the more common arguments used by the SSPX and sedevacantists against the Second Vatican Council and show how THEY are wrong. For example, you might want to show how 1) Dignitatis Humanae lines up with traditional Catholic teaching, 2) how ecumenism squares with Mortalium Animos, 3) since “is” and “subsists in” means the same thing, why was it changed. Just a few ideas for you.

Because I really don’t know what there complaints are (hence part of the reason of this thread). For example, I don’t know why or in what why the SSPX or others claim Dignitatis Humanae doesn’t line up with traditional Catholic teaching or in what way ecumenism as defined in documents such as Nostra Aetate is out of sync with Mortalium Animos.

 

[Lormar]

By the way, don’t try to engage me in any theological discussions. I am not a theologian. Just a simple soul in the pews who has heard every side of the argument, read copious amounts of documents, books and articles, and is still having a hard time making heads or tails of much of it.

 

[Lormar]

Because I really don’t know what there complaints are (hence part of the reason of this thread). For example, I don’t know why or in what why the SSPX or others claim Dignitatis Humanae doesn’t line up with traditional Catholic teaching or in what way ecumenism as defined in documents such as Nostra Aetate is out of sync with Mortalium Animos.

Oh.

From the way you started this thread, I got the impression that you were some kind of expert (I don’t mean this in a nasty way) on the Second Vatican Council documents.

If you don’t know what their problems are with the documents, I am sure there are plenty of SSPX supporters here who will enlighten you sooner or later.

I’ll go back to reading my book now.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Oh.

From the way you started this thread, I got the impression that you were some kind of expert (I don’t mean this in a nasty way) on the Second Vatican Council documents.

If you don’t know what their problems are with the documents, I am sure there are plenty of SSPX supporters here who will enlighten you sooner or later.

I’ll go back to reading my book now.

I wouldn’t say I’m an expert either. I do have a generally good knowledge of what they say, but only more-or-less scuttlebut knowledge (for lack of any better word) on the objections from groups such as the SSPX on said documents.

 

[jpy15026]

Before Vatican II MORTALIUM ANIMOS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON RELIGIOUS UNITY.January 6th 1928, PIUS XI

1. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated

Vatican** II** DECREE ON ECUMENISM UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO November 21, 1964Pope Paul VI

1. … during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren.

Before Vatican II THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM Pope Pius X
Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

……Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously

“No salvation outside of the Catholic Church”

Throughout the history of the Church, there has always been the dogma that there is only one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. That being so, there is no such thing as liberty of religion, creed or cult.

Saint Cyprian (3rd century): “There is no salvation outside of the Church”.

Creed of Saint Atanasius (4th century), official creed of the Catholic Church: "Whoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly (…) This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.”

The Pope Innocent III (1198-1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our mouths we confess one only Church, which is not of heretics, just the Saint, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic, outside of which we believe that no one can be saved”.

IV Lateran Council (1215), infallible, Canon I: “There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved…”. Canon III: “We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above…”

Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303): “For attachment to Faith, we ought to believe and sustain that there is only one Saint Catholic Church and the same apostolic and we firmly believe and simply confess that outside her there is no salvation nor absolution of sins. (…)Roman Pontiff, we declare, decide, define and pronounce it as of whole necessity for the salvation of all human creature.”

Council of Florence (1438-1445): “… firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her(…)”

The infallible Council of Trent (1545-1563) besides condemning and excommunicating Protestants, it also reiterated everything that was declared in previous Councils proclaiming: “…our catholic faith, without which is impossible to please God…”

Pope Pius IV (1559-1565), one of the popes of the Council of Trent:”… This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved…” (Profession of faith of the Bull “Iniunctum nobis”, 1564)
**
continued…
**

 

[jpy15026]

Vatican II
DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and **promote **the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.
3. *The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.
**
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
Second Vatican Council
8. …….This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.
.

 

[Lormar]

There you go, Coder! This oughta keep you busy…

 

[CDNowak]

I’ll answer the given quote on EENS: no contradiction. There are things that all religions hold that are part of Truth. There are good things promoted in common by all, and cooperation in these matters is an acceptable course of action. Nevertheless, one cannot attain salvation by following another path.

Unitatis Redintegratio concerns a matter of discipline, so it remains a superficial argument.

 

[dmorgan]

I am not a theologian, nor do I have a degree in any field, but I do know how to read. For arguments as to any Doctrinal changes to the Holy Catholic Church I rely on those more learned than I.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm
sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_January/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatici.htm
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/conciliar.htm
traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=33&catname=5

These are but a few.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Here’s one that doesn’t get enough airplay, in my opinion. It’s a theological error of such immense proportion that I’m almost tempted to believe it was unintended. Perhaps it was an oversight, or a misstatement. Nevertheless, it’s there in the document and the Council publicly claimed the guidance of the Holy Spirit (does God misspeak? Heaven forbid!)

Dignitatis Humanae plainly states that Christ’s revelation was completed on the cross:

When He completed on the cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men, He brought His revelation to completion. (DH, §11)

This is error. When Our Lord, dying on the cross, said “it is consummated,” He was referring to the Old Law being fulfilled, and the perfect atonement for the sins of mankind, and the gift to His Church of his life-giving blood. Indeed: consumatum est. But to say that His revelation was completed on the cross means that His revelation did not include, say, the big event that followed: the Resurrection! The Resurrection is arguably the center of the Christian faith. It is integral to revelation—as St. Paul put it, “if Christ be not raised, then your faith is in vain.” This is not to mention all the other aspects of revelation following Christ’s death on the cross: His glorious Assumption, the Great Commission, the gift of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and so on. Finally, the Church has always taught that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, so why she’d suddenly change her mind and say it ended on the cross is baffling.

The strangest part of all of this is that Dignitatis Humanae is plainly contradicted by another document of Vatican II, Dei Verbum, which includes the post-crucifixion events and the Apostolic generation:

Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. (DV, §4)

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Holy See has (repeatedly!) stated that no one is allowed to alter the words of the Liturgy on their own volition. For the latest to recount this, Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

1. Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. “It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers” or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.

so, they are doing anyway, arent they? so, take the document to them and show them.
we are not the ones advocating for such changes, they are.

 

[JMJ_coder]

so, they are doing anyway, arent they? so, take the document to them and show them.
we are not the ones advocating for such changes, they are.

Many do. Visit the Liturgy forum and there are plenty of threads that deal with this and similar situations. The general protocol for liturgical abuse is 1) talk with the Priest and if that doesn’t work 2) talk with the Bishop and if that doesn’t work 3) talk with the Nuncio and if that doesn’t work 4) talk with Rome and if that doesn’t work it must not be an abuse.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Here’s one that doesn’t get enough airplay, in my opinion. It’s a theological error of such immense proportion that I’m almost tempted to believe it was unintended. Perhaps it was an oversight, or a misstatement. Nevertheless, it’s there in the document and the Council publicly claimed the guidance of the Holy Spirit (does God misspeak? Heaven forbid!)

Dignitatis Humanae plainly states that Christ’s revelation was completed on the cross:

When He completed on the cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men, He brought His revelation to completion. (DH, §11)

This is error. When Our Lord, dying on the cross, said “it is consummated,” He was referring to the Old Law being fulfilled, and the perfect atonement for the sins of mankind, and the gift to His Church of his life-giving blood. Indeed: consumatum est. But to say that His revelation was completed on the cross means that His revelation did not include, say, the big event that followed: the Resurrection! The Resurrection is arguably the center of the Christian faith. It is integral to revelation—as St. Paul put it, “if Christ be not raised, then your faith is in vain.” This is not to mention all the other aspects of revelation following Christ’s death on the cross: His glorious Assumption, the Great Commission, the gift of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and so on. Finally, the Church has always taught that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, so why she’d suddenly change her mind and say it ended on the cross is baffling.

The strangest part of all of this is that Dignitatis Humanae is plainly contradicted by another document of Vatican II, Dei Verbum, which includes the post-crucifixion events and the Apostolic generation:

Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. (DV, §4)

This seems to be a problem with the English translation. The Latin original reads:
Tandem in opere redemptionis in cruce complendo, quo salutem et veram libertatem hominibus acquireret, revelationem suam perfecit.

This is probably better translated “His revelation was perfected”, or something similar.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Many do. Visit the Liturgy forum and there are plenty of threads that deal with this and similar situations. The general protocol for liturgical abuse is 1) talk with the Priest and if that doesn’t work 2) talk with the Bishop and if that doesn’t work 3) talk with the Nuncio and if that doesn’t work 4) talk with Rome and if that doesn’t work it must not be an abuse.

Right.

Never so much confusion within the Church. it seems like no one can give you an answer about anything. so, priests just go on doing their own thing. changing the Mass everyway they can without anyone to stop them.

my question is: where is the Catholic Church? can we do something like get a signature letter from all Catholics sent to the holy father asking for better overseing of the Mass? or even a better explanation sent to the priests on what the Mass should be?