Vatican II Review

[JMJ_coder]

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.
.

This says that those not of the Catholic faith aren’t entirely without any Truth at all. For example, Jews and Muslims both believe there is one God. That is certainly true, even though in other regards, such as the triune nature of the Godhead, they are mistaken.

It further states the Church’s respect for other people. Are we not to have respect for everyone because of their human dignity? Respecting a person does not mean you affirm everything they believe.

It further expounds upon the Church’s teaching known (in English) as “outside the Church there is no salvation”. But, there is more than one way besides the ordinary means of Baptism to enter the Church. There is also a Baptism of Blood and a Baptism of Desire. The Church has always taught this. For example, there are Saints – such as Saint Revocatus and companions – who were martyred while they were yet catechumens, that is they hadn’t yet undergone the Sacrament of Baptism. But, due to their martyrdom they experienced a Baptism of Blood. Note: this does not read that everyone goes to Heaven, but that there are extraordinary means of entering the Church that may apply in certain cases (and God is the judge of who qualifies).

 

[JMJ_coder]

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?

There is. It is called the GIRM. There was also a clarifying document that addressed many common abuses which is called Redemptionis Sacramentum.

The problem isn’t that there isn’t clear and concise documentation. The problem is that certain persons ignore them due to either ignorance or disregard.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

Then go with what the Church says. Rather simple.

 

[JMJ_coder]

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.

Unitatis Redintegratio doesn’t mention joining in their assemblies (indeed the canon from 1917 and its commentary seems to refer to their worship services and not prayer period [in any form]), or them joining in our liturgical functions, but something wholly different. And the document is referring to our separated brethren, that is the Protestants and Orthodox, and not to those who may not even worship the One God.

 

[wisdomseeker]

There is. It is called the GIRM. There was also a clarifying document that addressed many common abuses which is called Redemptionis Sacramentum.

The problem isn’t that there isn’t clear and concise documentation. The problem is that certain persons ignore them due to either ignorance or disregard.

really? so, what is the purpose of these document if they are not being tought to the priests? how can a priest be in charge of the Mass if he is not receiving full instruction on the Mass? something really wrong is going on here. what is so difficult in sending these document to all priests and demand that they must be obeyed for the sake of the people and for their own sake. is it not how things were done in the past? what is the problem today?

 

[JMJ_coder]

really? so, what is the purpose of these document if they are not being tought to the priests? how can a priest be in charge of the Mass if he is not receiving full instruction on the Mass? something really wrong is going on here. what is so difficult in sending these document to all priests and demand that they must be obeyed for the sake of the people and for their own sake. is it not how things were done in the past? what is the problem today?

There are different problems in different areas. First, it should be recognized that not every parish is a cesspool of abuse. Many to most parishes strive to faithfully celebrate the Sacred Mysteries according to the authoritative rubrics.

Now, some problems are that in some places liturgical committees are given the charge of preparing the Liturgies. One reason for this is that Liturgies (particularly on special occasions) can be quite complex to coordinate. This is true even in the EF (you don’t actually think that the EF at the National Shrine just happened ). And not everyone on the committee may be up to speed on all the different rubrics. Or they may have honestly overlooked something (maybe they honestly didn’t see where music shouldn’t be played during the Canon of the Mass).

Some problems stem from a misguided sense of lay participation. This often comes across in, say, allowing a lay member to give the homily (big no-no).

Some problems stem from erroneous theological opinion. The most common symptom of this I’ve seen results in changing the words of the Suscipiat Dominus to: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at our hands”.

Very few stem from downright disregard for the Church’s norm or malicious intent.

Why, you may ask, does this continue. Two common answers are 1) the lay faithful may not be aware that an abuse is occurring and if someone does recognize it may not feel the need or courage to say anything and 2) the Church moves slowly on such things – indeed the Church prefers to exhaust every possible means and then some to bring people back to full reconciliation with the Church. Only when the Church feels all avenues of discourse are exhausted will she resort to sanctions such as excommunication (which is still meant to elicit reconciliation with the Church). Sometimes, the choice is made by the offender by doing something that warrants immediate and automatic excommunication (like recently [less than 5 years ago] when a group of woman tried to be ordained).

 

[japhy]

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.

Those sentences are only describing the various religions from their own perspectives. Vatican II did not teach that Buddhists actually attain perfect liberation or supreme illumination through Buddhism.

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.

The holy Bible is found in other Christian communities, is it not? And some of the sacraments, no? Not to mention a desire (albeit disordered, to put it one way) to “do this” in memory of Christ?

Lumen Gentium also taught, in the very next sentence which you decided not to quote, that the presence of those “elements of sanctification and of truth” are “gifts belonging to the Church of Christ” (that is, the Catholic Church), and “are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”

And the Magisterium has issued clarifications on the use of subsitit in that explain that the Council did not teach that the Church of Christ has some other identity than the Catholic Church.

 

[Yggdrasil]

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.

Well, I took my excerpt from the Vatican’s own website. But even if you prefer “His revelation was perfected” as the correct reading, it doesn’t change the wrongness of the statement any. Whether His revelation was “completed” or “perfected” on the cross—and you may take your pick—Dignitatis Humanae is still averring that revelation does not require the Resurrection (among other things) in order to be either “perfect” or “complete.”

Assuming that revelation was perfected on the cross, few people seem to have gotten the memo. Neither the women at the tomb (“why do you seek the living among the dead?”) nor the disciples on the road to Emmaus (“O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken!”) give witness to a full understanding. The Resurrection is the center and sine qua non of revelation; revelation is neither “perfect” nor “complete” without it.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

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.

Cardinal Ratzinger,
Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: “If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus (my emphasis)… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution…”

I will let the quote above speak for itself… Then, Cardinal Ratzinger, explains that the documents discussed above are actually a “counter syllabus” - In direct contradiction of prior teaching. I don’t understand how the Council can “counter” what the Church has already taught?

God Bless

 

[rwoehmke]

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. [/INDENT]

Isn’t it possible that His Revelation as a ordinary human being was completed and any thing that followed was accomplished by a Glorified Human Being?

 

[wisdomseeker]

There are different problems in different areas. First, it should be recognized that not every parish is a cesspool of abuse. Many to most parishes strive to faithfully celebrate the Sacred Mysteries according to the authoritative rubrics.

Now, some problems are that in some places liturgical committees are given the charge of preparing the Liturgies. One reason for this is that Liturgies (particularly on special occasions) can be quite complex to coordinate. This is true even in the EF (you don’t actually think that the EF at the National Shrine just happened ). And not everyone on the committee may be up to speed on all the different rubrics. Or they may have honestly overlooked something (maybe they honestly didn’t see where music shouldn’t be played during the Canon of the Mass).

Some problems stem from a misguided sense of lay participation. This often comes across in, say, allowing a lay member to give the homily (big no-no).

Some problems stem from erroneous theological opinion. The most common symptom of this I’ve seen results in changing the words of the Suscipiat Dominus to: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at our hands”.

Very few stem from downright disregard for the Church’s norm or malicious intent.

Why, you may ask, does this continue. Two common answers are 1) the lay faithful may not be aware that an abuse is occurring and if someone does recognize it may not feel the need or courage to say anything and 2) the Church moves slowly on such things – indeed the Church prefers to exhaust every possible means and then some to bring people back to full reconciliation with the Church. Only when the Church feels all avenues of discourse are exhausted will she resort to sanctions such as excommunication (which is still meant to elicit reconciliation with the Church). Sometimes, the choice is made by the offender by doing something that warrants immediate and automatic excommunication (like recently [less than 5 years ago] when a group of woman tried to be ordained).

thank you for explaining it.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

wisdomseeker: In regards to what you have been asking, I wish to give an example from my own involvement on a parish liturgy committee. For the most part, my Pastor just goes with the flow. So it is the DRE who sits on the liturgy committee as well that I have to deal with. Here is what happened. We got into a heated discussion on the difference between the words “should” and “must” in regards to what the GIRM says! Yeah! She feels that they are two different things. Now I have slowly implemented changes with no argument from the priests. One example is that before Mass one day I put a white cloth on top of the purple, since the top most cloth, the mensa, is supposed to be white. It was moved once by our altar guild. I put it back and it stayed the rest of Lent.

I fully agree that Priests are not fully formed in matters liturgical in seminary. Also, they do not fully fulfill their office of authority because they don’t like confrontation.

 

[MarkThompson]

wisdomseeker: In regards to what you have been asking, I wish to give an example from my own involvement on a parish liturgy committee. For the most part, my Pastor just goes with the flow. So it is the DRE who sits on the liturgy committee as well that I have to deal with. Here is what happened. We got into a heated discussion on the difference between the words “should” and “must” in regards to what the GIRM says! Yeah! She feels that they are two different things.

Which, of course, they are.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Which, of course, they are.

I view them as being interchangeable.

Webster dictionary:
Main Entry: should
Pronunciation: \shəd, ˈshu̇d
Function: verbal auxiliary
Etymology: Middle English sholde, from Old English sceolde owed, was obliged to, ought to
Date: before 12th century
past of shall
1 —used in auxiliary function to express condition <if he should leave his father, his father would die — Gen 44:22(Revised Standard Version)>
2 —**used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis commanded I should do so — Shakespeare> <this is as it should be — H. L. Savage>
3 —used in auxiliary function to express futurity from a point of view in the past <realized that she should have to do most of her farm work before sunrise — Ellen Glasgow>
4 —used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected **<with an early start, they should be here by noon>
5 —**used in auxiliary function to express a request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement **<I should suggest that a guide…is the first essential — L. D. Reddick>

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

I view them as being interchangeable.

Webster dictionary:
Main Entry: should
Pronunciation: \shəd, ˈshu̇d
Function: verbal auxiliary
Etymology: Middle English sholde, from Old English sceolde owed, was obliged to, ought to
Date: before 12th century
past of shall
1 —used in auxiliary function to express condition <if he should leave his father, his father would die — Gen 44:22(Revised Standard Version)>
2 —**used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis commanded I should do so — Shakespeare> <this is as it should be — H. L. Savage>
3 —used in auxiliary function to express futurity from a point of view in the past <realized that she should have to do most of her farm work before sunrise — Ellen Glasgow>
4 —used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected **<with an early start, they should be here by noon>
5 —**used in auxiliary function to express a request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement **<I should suggest that a guide…is the first essential — L. D. Reddick>

I don’t see how should and must can be interchangeable given the information above…

 

[dmorgan]

I don’t see how should and must can be interchangeable given the information above…

Sarge, that is just another of the “law of unintended consquences” that followed V-II. In an attempt to “Modernize” the Catholic Church, and make Her more “relevant” to modern society we wound up with a good deal of “collateral damage”. Regardless of whether the 16 Documents did or did not change Dogma, they were used by some to change Tradition at the most basic level, the local Parish. And since very few lay members are Canon lawyers, and only recently have we been able to read everything (Documents and first hand accounts) that is now availible on the internet, many of us (myself included ) have only recently realized how our Traditions were changed and why. Now we are trying to reclaim them and the Holy Father seems intent on allowing this while at the same time not creating further division within the Church. IMHO

 

[MarkThompson]

Laws and regulations are not written so as to soften direct statements by paraphrase. (“Er, pardon, but if it’s not too much trouble would you mind not having other gods before me?”) This is particularly true when one document (such as the GIRM) uses both “must” and “should” constructions. The notion that Rome decided to soften its manner of speaking in some – but not very many – instructions, is odd to say the least.

So, if we look at some of the places where the English translation of the GIRM uses “should,” and replace it with “must,” we wind up with bizarre results, where statements clearly intended to be hortatory or descriptive of general procedure are cast as ironclad rules:

If the Psalm cannot be sung, then it must be recited in such a way that it is particularly suited to fostering meditation on the word of God.

The homily . . . must be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and must take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.

The faithful must stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect . . . .

Since the Eucharistic Celebration is the Paschal Banquet, it is desirable that in keeping with the Lord’s command, his Body and Blood must be received by the faithful who are properly disposed as spiritual food.

If, however, there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion chant must be ended in a timely manner.

We ought to be careful, too; the general result of confusing requirements and requests is less the increased performance of the requests than the decreased fulfillment of the requirements. It’s a little bit like boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome: the more you tag relatively unimportant matters and issues of personal preference with “must,” the less people will believe you when you try to tell them about the things that actually must be done.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Sarge, that is just another of the “law of unintended consquences” that followed V-II. In an attempt to “Modernize” the Catholic Church, and make Her more “relevant” to modern society we wound up with a good deal of “collateral damage”. Regardless of whether the 16 Documents did or did not change Dogma, they were used by some to change Tradition at the most basic level, the local Parish. And since very few lay members are Canon lawyers, and only recently have we been able to read everything (Documents and first hand accounts) that is now availible on the internet, many of us (myself included ) have only recently realized how our Traditions were changed and why. Now we are trying to reclaim them and the Holy Father seems intent on allowing this while at the same time not creating further division within the Church. IMHO

I couldn’t agree more… The Curia has a lot of work to do in righting the ship.

God Bless

 

[dmorgan]

We ought to be careful, too; the general result of confusing requirements and requests is less the increased performance of the requests than the decreased fulfillment of the requirements. It’s a little bit like boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome: the more you tag relatively unimportant matters and issues of personal preference with “must,” the less people will believe you when you try to tell them about the things that actually must be done.

Mark with all due respect ( ) I must disagree slightly. As a certified “Old Fart” i see this statement as a part of the overall problems within Holy Mother Church. Our modern society does not like “must” or “obey” or any other dictate that requires submission. Western society shows these effects on just about every level. How many speed limits do you follow? When you stop “requiring” and start “suggesting” you wind up with anarchy. What I see from Priests that will not adhere to the GIRM and Bishops that ignore Rome is the same anarchy that results from “suggestions” rather than strongly enforced rules. Either we are One Catholic Apostolic Church Under the See of Peter, or we become a loosly nit collective of similar churches that do their own thing as they desire. IMHO

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark with all due respect ( ) I must disagree slightly. As a certified “Old Fart” i see this statement as a part of the overall problems within Holy Mother Church. Our modern society does not like “must” or “obey” or any other dictate that requires submission. Western society shows these effects on just about every level. How many speed limits do you follow? When you stop “requiring” and start “suggesting” you wind up with anarchy. What I see from Priests that will not adhere to the GIRM and Bishops that ignore Rome is the same anarchy that results from “suggestions” rather than strongly enforced rules. Either we are One Catholic Apostolic Church Under the See of Peter, or we become a loosly nit collective of similar churches that do their own thing as they desire. IMHO

You’re quite right, but of course I took that into account. If people did obey every time we said “you must,” then there would be little danger in applying it too often. But some issues really are matters of personal preference, or “things that we hope will happen but it’s not worth wasting time on”: The communion chant should end promptly. People should stand for the entrance procession. What happens if we put “must,” though? If you have a bum knee, “must” you stand? Are you excommunicated latae sententiae if you don’t?

The result of that would be either (1) that you would need a very long and detailed code to spell out every exception or nuance to the rule, or (2) if you didn’t, that people would naturally surmise that there were exceptions and nuances to the rule. The former option is undesirable, because it assumes bad faith and it’s difficult to manage. The latter option is even worse, because now what happens when you want to write a rule that says, “the bread used for the Eucharist must contain wheat flour”? Because there ain’t no exceptions to that – not in a time of wheat blight, not if you have a wheat allergy, not on the Moon. So what do you write, exactly?

And, by and large, priests and the laity alike do approach the liturgy and Rome’s norms with good faith. True, if there’s a loophole to be exploited someone, somewhere, will do it. But stamping out conceivable abuses by microlegislation is not worth the risk of obliterating the legitimate scale of gravity which we have in the terms “may,” “should,” “must,” and “is absolutely forbidden.” Besides, if our shelf-full of tax code proves anything, it’s that the more you write the more loopholes you will create.