Vatican II Review

[Yggdrasil]

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?

I’m afraid I don’t think that’s possible. To suggest that Christ was an “ordinary human being” prior to His death on the cross goes against orthodox theology. Christ is said to have been “fully human and fully divine” from the Incarnation on. He was glorified at the Resurrection, to be sure, but He was “the Word made flesh” all along. Human incredulity is to blame for any misunderstanding. Not just any old person goes around raising the dead and turning water into wine. He even showed His eternal glory to certain Apostles at the Transfiguration. St. Peter confessed Him as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” saw Him transfigured on Mt. Tabor, and nonetheless later on denied Him.

Basically, when we say “Jesus Christ,” we mean the same thing whether we’re talking about the Sermon on the Mount or the appearance to the eleven in the upper room. Dignitatis Humanae is no exception to this.

In order for your interpretation to justify the wording, there would have to have been a prior understanding in the Church that revelation did end on the cross. But the Church’s teaching on revelation has always been that it ended with the death of the last Apostle. Or there would have to have been a pronounced distinction of Christ into temporal segments. I’m not aware of a theory that the post-crucifixion events were somehow only “the accomplishments of a Glorified Human Being” and not included, strictly speaking, in His revelation as well.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

The must and should debate has been moved and opened in a new thread on the Liturgy and Sacraments forum as to not sidetrack this one. The title is “must” vs. “should.”

Pax

 

[JMJ_coder]

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.

There is no official translation of the Vatican II documents into English. There are, I think two common ones (neither from someone at the Vatican) and the Vatican is using one of those. Though, I did year a few years back that the Vatican wanted an authoritative translation to be made.

Here is Austin Flannery, O.P.'s translation: “Finally, he brought his revelation to perfection when he accomplished on the cross the work of redemption by which he achieved salvation and true freedom for the human race.”

Christ’s revelation was ‘I have come to reconcile sinners and set the captives free’. The reconciliation of man and God was accomplished on the Cross. Certainly the Resurrection is important, but still “we preach Christ crucified”. Indeed, he acknowledge that his saving work was fulfilled when he cried out from the Cross “It is completed”. It would be unwise to say Christ was in error because he hadn’t risen yet or ascended so it wasn’t “finished”. Indeed, the totality of it all still is not “finished” because Christ still has yet to come again.

 

[JMJ_coder]

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

Do you have a longer (unabridged) quote, or better yet, a link to the work? One thing I have learned of Pope Benedict’s writing, especially his more scholarly and academic works, is that he tends to take on the arguments of his opponents as his own and work through them as they would before he cuts them to shreds. You’ll sometimes read for pages and pages and think ‘this can’t be right’ before getting to the “this is not correct” and then he’ll give the Catholic view.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Do you have a longer (unabridged) quote, or better yet, a link to the work? One thing I have learned of Pope Benedict’s writing, especially his more scholarly and academic works, is that he tends to take on the arguments of his opponents as his own and work through them as they would before he cuts them to shreds. You’ll sometimes read for pages and pages and think ‘this can’t be right’ before getting to the “this is not correct” and then he’ll give the Catholic view.

So true! This is what makes it difficult for me to read sometimes. But in the end you see the truth!

 

[Lormar]

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

Quite right, Morgan.

My diocese is, for the most part, SITS. So is our outgoing pastor (please Lord, send us a Catholic one). Ordained in 1968, he thinks “rules and rituals in the Church are irrelevant.” And that is a direct quote from him.

It’s wonderful that many of you seem to be in not only good dioceses but good parishes as well. You must understand, however, that that is not the case for many of us and, for about three decades, that was not the case anywhere. Most of you are too young (if you were born yet at all) to know what it was like.

I think that the time has come for us to join forces and take our Church back once and for all.

 

[Lormar]

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

 

[Onegin]

In response to the OP, I’ll start with one issue at a time so they don’t get all melded together. None of my posts will have anything to do with the “Spirit of Vatican II”. I am not interested in that, I am interested in what the documents (and those who wrote them and influenced them) actually have to say.

**Pre-Vatican II teaching: **

Summary: The mystical body of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the Same. The Fullness of Truth is in the Catholic Church. There is no such thing as a “partial-communion” between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic churches:

Pope Pius XII:

“None [of these religious societies differing among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church], not even taken as a whole, constitutes in any way and are not that one, Catholic Church founded and made by Our Lord and which He wished to create. Further, one cannot say in any way that these societies are either members or parts of that same Church, because they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity.”

Pope Leo XIII:

"Jesus Christ never conceived of nor instituted a Church formed of many communities which were brought together by certain general traits - but which would be distinct one from another and not bound together among themselves by ties which make the Church one and indivisible - since we clearly profess in the Creed of our Faith: " ‘I believe in one…Church.’ "

Pope Pius XI:

“It is absurd and ridiculous to say that the Mystical Body can be formed out of separated and disjunct members.”

and

“It is to depart from divine truth to imagine a Church which one can neither see nor touch, which would be nothing more than spiritual in which numerous Christian communities would be united by an invisible bond, even though they are divided in faith.”

(continued in next post)

 

[Onegin]

(continued from above)

**Post-Vatican II teaching: **

Summary: The mystical body of Christ is composed of the Catholic Church and other churches. The fullness of Truth subsists in the Catholic Church but is not confined to it.

From Lumen Gentium:

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, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.

Source: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

**Remarks: **

So, what does “subsists in” really mean? Does it continue the flow of Catholic tradition or does it rupture it? Certain Catholic scholars like Christopher Ferrera would say that the term “subsists in” is an ambiguous term, that should be interpreted as closely as possible with the original word “is.”

As both Mr. Fererra is a lawyer, I would like to say that he is employing what I would broadly call a “presumption” in favour of *Lumen Gentium *being reconcilable with prior teaching. In other words, he is reading “subsists in” with a presumption that it does not conflict with “is”. But from where does this presumption arise? Good faith?

I would like to suggest another approach, one that might appeal to a constitutional lawyer but one that is also logical as well. I propose (as as some others have before me) an originalist argument, namely that to ascertain the meaning of “subsists in”, we need to look at what the authors of* Lumen Gentium* actually intended.

Let’s see what those who were actually at Vatican II (including those who had a hand in drafting the documents) have to say about this:

Fr. Avery Dulles an expert on Vatican II and member of the International Theological Commission:

“The Church of Jesus Christ is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It does indeed subsist in Roman Catholicism, but it is also present in varying modes and degrees in other Christian communities to the extent that they too are what God initiated in Jesus and are obedient to the inspirations of Christ’s Spirit. As a result of their common sharing in the ,reality of the one Church, the several Christian communities already have with one another a real but imperfect communion.”

(emphasis mine)

Source: Vatican ll, the Work That Needs to Be Done, David Tracy (Concillium, Seabury Press, NY, 1978), p. 91

Robert McAfee Brown, a Protestant observer at Vatican II:

“No more is there an imperial demand that the dissidents return in penitence to the Church who has no need of penitence; instead there is recognition that both sides are guilty of the sins of division and must reach out penitentially to one another."

Source: The Ecumenical Revolution, Robert McAfee Brown. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1967, 2nd ed. 1969) p. 67.

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, one of the main drafters of Vatican II documents:

“It is difficult to say that the Catholic Church is still one, Catholic, apostolic, when one says that the others (other Christian communities) are equally one, Catholic and apostolic, albeit to a lesser degree."

Source: Catholic Family News (September 2005, page 15)

Another CFN article cites an interview in 2000 between (at the time) Cardinal Ratzinger (who helped draft Lumen Gentium) and the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine:

Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression according to which ‘the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.’ Instead it preferred the expression ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church…’ because, ‘it wished to affirm the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church.’”

(emphasis mine)

Source: Catholic Family News (July 2005, page 12)

NB: As Pope Benedict has not changed his position on this issue, we can safely say that the above is also the “Papal” position on salvation outside of the Church.

Conclusion:

Taken as a whole, I cannot see how, in good conscience, a Catholic can say that the statements of Pius XI, XII, Leo XIII when compared to those of the Authors of Lumen Gentium and Cardinal Ratzinger can be reconciled.

Let me conclude with this quote by Pius XII who was very clear on the doctrine of *Extra ecclesium nulla salus: *

“It is to be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that this Church is the unique ark of salvation, and that he who does not enter it, will perish in the flood.”

(emphasis mine)

(Singulari Quadam, 1854)

 

[wisdomseeker]

(continued from above)

**Post-Vatican II teaching: **

Summary: The mystical body of Christ is composed of the Catholic Church and other churches. The fullness of Truth subsists in the Catholic Church but is not confined to it.

From Lumen Gentium:

Source: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

**Remarks: **

So, what does “subsists in” really mean? Does it continue the flow of Catholic tradition or does it rupture it? Certain Catholic scholars like Christopher Ferrera would say that the term “subsists in” is an ambiguous term, that should be interpreted as closely as possible with the original word “is.”

As both Mr. Fererra is a lawyer, I would like to say that he is employing what I would broadly call a “presumption” in favour of *Lumen Gentium *being reconcilable with prior teaching. In other words, he is reading “subsists in” with a presumption that it does not conflict with “is”. But from where does this presumption arise? Good faith?

I would like to suggest another approach, one that might appeal to a constitutional lawyer but one that is also logical as well. I propose (as as some others have before me) an originalist argument, namely that to ascertain the meaning of “subsists in”, we need to look at what the authors of* Lumen Gentium* actually intended.

Let’s see what those who were actually at Vatican II (including those who had a hand in drafting the documents) have to say about this:

Fr. Avery Dulles an expert on Vatican II and member of the International Theological Commission:

(emphasis mine)

Source: Vatican ll, the Work That Needs to Be Done, David Tracy (Concillium, Seabury Press, NY, 1978), p. 91

Robert McAfee Brown, a Protestant observer at Vatican II:

Source: The Ecumenical Revolution, Robert McAfee Brown. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1967, 2nd ed. 1969) p. 67.

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, one of the main drafters of Vatican II documents:

Source: Catholic Family News (September 2005, page 15)

Another CFN article cites an interview in 2000 between (at the time) Cardinal Ratzinger (who helped draft Lumen Gentium) and the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine:

(emphasis mine)

Source: Catholic Family News (July 2005, page 12)

NB: As Pope Benedict has not changed his position on this issue, we can safely say that the above is also the “Papal” position on salvation outside of the Church.

Conclusion:

Taken as a whole, I cannot see how, in good conscience, a Catholic can say that the statements of Pius XI, XII, Leo XIII when compared to those of the Authors of Lumen Gentium and Cardinal Ratzinger can be reconciled.

Let me conclude with this quote by Pius XII who was very clear on the doctrine of *Extra ecclesium nulla salus: *

(emphasis mine)

(Singulari Quadam, 1854)

great job. and one wonder why the Eucharist has been treated with such unbelief and disrespect. it is because it does not really matter anymore, since what it really matters today is the recognition that it doesnt matter what one believes about Christ. we are all part of the same Church. am i too extreme on this?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

great job. and one wonder why the Eucharist has been treated with such unbelief and disrespect. it is because it does not really matter anymore, since what it really matters today is the recognition that it doesnt matter what one believes about Christ. we are all part of the same Church. am i too extreme on this?

No, not at all. You’ll get called an “extremist” but just ignore such comments and carry on.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

My review of Vatican II, by the way? Two thumbs down. Vatican II even changed the Church’s teaching on praying with people who worship false gods. Originally you weren’t suppsoed to do it, but now you even see the Pope doing it (Paul VI and John Paul II did it the most). So many other changes as well that went against Church teachings.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

My review of Vatican II, by the way? Two thumbs down. Vatican II even changed the Church’s teaching on praying with people who worship false gods. Originally you weren’t suppsoed to do it, but now you even see the Pope doing it (Paul VI and John Paul II did it the most). So many other changes as well that went against Church teachings.

Seriously… What happened? How does the Church go from not praying with non-catholics and heretics, and then all of a sudden embrace them as containing truths? Also, how is it that the Muslims worship the same God? Do they not deny the Holy Trinity?

This is why the 1917 Code was replaced with the 1983 Code. The ideas from Vatican II did not align with the old code and a new code had to made to align with it’s teachings.

Unless, of course, I am completely wrong…

 

[Lormar]

Seriously… What happened? How does the Church go from not praying with non-catholics and heretics, and then all of a sudden embrace them as containing truths? Also, how is it that the Muslims worship the same God? Do they not deny the Holy Trinity?

This is why the 1917 Code was replaced with the 1983 Code. The ideas from Vatican II did not align with the old code and a new code had to made to align with it’s teachings.

Unless, of course, I am completely wrong…

In my old pre-VII prayer books, for the Examination of Conscience under the First Commandment, it was listed as a sin to go into non-catholic churches and pray with non-catholics and take part in their services.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Seriously… What happened? How does the Church go from not praying with non-catholics and heretics, and then all of a sudden embrace them as containing truths? Also, how is it that the Muslims worship the same God? Do they not deny the Holy Trinity?

This is why the 1917 Code was replaced with the 1983 Code. The ideas from Vatican II did not align with the old code and a new code had to made to align with it’s teachings.

Unless, of course, I am completely wrong…

Oh no, you’re spot on with this post.

This is why I don’t believe John Paul II should be made a saint. He offered a sacrifice to pagan gods once, and received the mark of a false god on his forehead by a woman priest. Are false gods not devils? As Archbishop LeFebvre said, “How can the Pope receive the mark of the Devil on his forehead?” (I posted this in another thread, too). Sure, John Paul II obviously worshiped God, but the fact is he was trying to reach out to other religions and that was something doctrinal that was changed at Vatican II. Some people will deny that anything doctrinal was changed at Vatican II when really several doctrinal things were changed. This was doctrinal.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

In my old pre-VII prayer books, for the Examination of Conscience under the First Commandment, it was listed as a sin to go into non-catholic churches and pray with non-catholics and take part in their services.

Yeah, it shows how Vatican II has mis-led people.

 

[Onegin]

Yeah, it shows how Vatican II has mis-led people.

It’s all so sad.

I got some seriously questioning looks from some of my Catholic aquaintances when I was talking to them about things that are no longer taught in Catechism, that should otherwise be obvious to a Catholic like the fact that you may not receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin and that fornication is a mortal sin etc.

These things would have been obvious to a 5 year old a century ago but today? Few Catholics even know the basics.

As one woman at the Novus Ordo parish in town says “I expect to be taught the Faith in the homily but the homilies no longer have anything to do with teaching us the Faith.”

How sad.

This means that we should no longer assume that fellow Catholics understand the Faith, in fact, we should assume the contrary! This is how I have been able to combat my initial anger that there were so few Catholics interested in embracing Tradition. The sad fact is that they don’t have enough information to - and that is not their fault.

This is why our focus must change from berating fellow Catholics about accepting modernist abuses to educating them on why these abuses are wrong in the first place. If the Priests don’t want to do it, then I guess it falls to the lay people to at least try.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Oh no, you’re spot on with this post.

This is why I don’t believe John Paul II should be made a saint. He offered a sacrifice to pagan gods once, and received the mark of a false god on his forehead by a woman priest. Are false gods not devils? As Archbishop LeFebvre said, “How can the Pope receive the mark of the Devil on his forehead?” (I posted this in another thread, too). Sure, John Paul II obviously worshiped God, but the fact is he was trying to reach out to other religions and that was something doctrinal that was changed at Vatican II. Some people will deny that anything doctrinal was changed at Vatican II when really several doctrinal things were changed. This was doctrinal.

When did he allegedly offer sacrifice to pagan gods? I can’t believe that. Prove it.

As for “receiving the mark of a false god on his forehead by a woman priest,” that is utterly and totally false and calumnious. Such claims show that if you repeat a lie enough, it will eventually be believed as true. I’ve seen the picture that purportedly shows Pope John Paul II receiving what was referred to as the “mark of Shiva” from a woman who was said to be a Hindu priestess. Problem is, it’s NOT AT ALL what you think. The woman in question was CATHOLIC, and she was giving His Holiness a traditional Indian greeting called an “aarti,” which, among Indian Catholics, is commonly given to the main celebrant of a Mass. However, it really has no more religious significance than a handshake.

Rash judgment can be a mortal sin, you know. I urge you to repent.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Rash judgment can be a mortal sin, you know. I urge you to repent.

Hang on now… SpiritusSanctus merely posted an opinion and didn’t condemn anyone.

All in charity my friend…

God Bless

 

[MarkThompson]

Hang on now… SpiritusSanctus merely posted an opinion and didn’t condemn anyone.

All in charity my friend…

God Bless

Well, he pretty much condemned the late Holy Father as unworthy of sainthood.