Vatican II Review

[SGT_ROCK_33]

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

I believe that it is merely his opinion… I don’t see it as condemning.

But I will let the poster elaborate on his remarks if the poster so chooses…

God Bless

 

[ProVobis]

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

Whoa! Saying someone is not worthy of sainthood isn’t quite the same thing as condemning them to Hell. The Church does it all the time when they don’t promote everyone to sainthood; are they wrong to do that?

 

[MarkThompson]

I believe that it is merely his opinion… I don’t see it as condemning.

But I will let the poster elaborate on his remarks if the poster so chooses…

God Bless

Whoa! Saying someone is not worthy of sainthood isn’t quite the same thing as condemning them to Hell. The Church does it all the time when they don’t promote everyone to sainthood; are they wrong to do that?

Person 1: “James Earl Jones hasn’t led a good life, and he shouldn’t be honored by the NAACP – he assassinated Martin Luther King!”

Person 2: “Uh, don’t you mean James Earl Ray? You should check a little harder into the facts before you start slinging around these criticisms.”

Persons 3 & 4: “Hey, he just said it was his opinion. He’s entitled to an opinion.” “Whoa! Saying he shouldn’t be honored by the NAACP isn’t the same thing as saying he should get the death penalty.”

 

[DavidJoseph]

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

All in charity my friend…

God Bless

No, what he did was accuse Pope John Paul II of something he didn’t do. He’d apparently heard the false claims regarding the “mark of Shiva” business and wrongly assumed that was what was happening in the picture. He didn’t stop to ask for information to determine if His Holiness has actually done what Archbishop Lefebvre and others claimed he had done. If that’s not uncharitable, then I don’t know what is.

 

[JMJ_coder]

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.

In response to your question about “subsists in”, the CDF has issued these statements:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html

^That is the answer to your question.

 

[JMJ_coder]

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

You’ve skirted around this issue in a couple of threads. I’m asking you point-blank:

• Do you think the Vatican II Council was a heretical Council?
• Do you think that the Catholic Church is in a current state of heresy?
• Do you think that there hasn’t been a real Pope since John XXIII?
• Do you think the Mass of Paul VI is an invalid Mass?

Let us at least know where you are coming from.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

after the VII, Catholics flooded the protestants churches and never returned.

 

[Lormar]

after the VII, Catholics flooded the protestants churches and never returned.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? Maybe I didn’t grasp the connection you are making?

 

[ProVobis]

after the VII, Catholics flooded the protestants churches and never returned.

 

[ProVobis]

Person 1: “James Earl Jones hasn’t led a good life, and he shouldn’t be honored by the NAACP – he assassinated Martin Luther King!”

Person 2: “Uh, don’t you mean James Earl Ray? You should check a little harder into the facts before you start slinging around these criticisms.”

Persons 3 & 4: “Hey, he just said it was his opinion. He’s entitled to an opinion.” “Whoa! Saying he shouldn’t be honored by the NAACP isn’t the same thing as saying he should get the death penalty.”

Fair point.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

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.

You’re denying it because you’d rather brush it off then accept it. If you did research you would know this is completely true. I’ve read about it in a book that talks about the life of Archbishop LeFebvre where it specifically states that John Paul II received the mark of a false god. If I can find a link that proves it I will post it, but then again even if I do someone is going to say “Oh that is so wrong”. How do you know it’s false? Have you done research? I can’t say whether you have or not but I doubt it.

And really, telling me I commited a mortal sin by saying John Paul II received the mark of a false god is wrong. You have no place to tell me I’m commiting a mortal sin. Shame on saying such a thing. By the way, you’re basically saying I’m being judgemental, yet do you realize that by saying I’m judgemental you yourself are being judgemental? It’s ok if I judge the actions of John Paul II, there’s nothing wrong with that. Jesus wants us to judge the actions of others, it says so in the Bible. Heck, you see judges judging people in courts everyday. I can’t judge his thoughts, motives or soul, but if I judge his actions there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[CDNowak]

after the VII, Catholics flooded the protestants churches and never returned.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

No, what he did was accuse Pope John Paul II of something he didn’t do. He’d apparently heard the false claims regarding the “mark of Shiva” business and wrongly assumed that was what was happening in the picture. He didn’t stop to ask for information to determine if His Holiness has actually done what Archbishop Lefebvre and others claimed he had done. If that’s not uncharitable, then I don’t know what is.

Like I said, do research on it. Your comment was what was uncharitable.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

You’ve skirted around this issue in a couple of threads. I’m asking you point-blank:

• Do you think the Vatican II Council was a heretical Council?
• Do you think that the Catholic Church is in a current state of heresy?
• Do you think that there hasn’t been a real Pope since John XXIII?
• Do you think the Mass of Paul VI is an invalid Mass?

Let us at least know where you are coming from.

1.- Yes, or atleast close to being heretical. Maybe not 100% heretical.

2.- I believe the Church is more in a state of modernism than heresy. It hasn’t reached the point of being in a state of heresy yet.

3.- No, all Popes since John XXIII are real Popes.

4.- No, it isn’t an invalid Mass, but validity isn’t all that matters.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

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

Condemning and saying he should not be made a saint are two differnt things. As a few others have said, there is nothing wrong with me giving my opinion. I didn’t condemn him.

 

[otjm]

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

Your first assumption is that Cardinal Ratzinger said that there was a direct contradiction. Wtih no disrespect to anyone here, words used in a technical sense in a technical document do not necessarily mean the same thing as when used in common language in an ordinary conversation. A counter syllabus is not per se a contradiction; it can also be a filling in of another side to what had been a one-sided statement.

What you may be unaware of is that there are issues within the church concerning some doctrines which appear to have two opposite and contradictory sides. There is one (someone else chime in here - my memory is too short) on which finally the Pope (one now long deceased) said that neither side had the right to say the other side was wrong (seems to me the Augustinians were taking one side). It may come as a bit of a shock that not everything the Church teaches is necessarily a completely blanc-and-white issue decided with no other explanations.

Sorry to be terse and vague; the specific simply escapes me at the moment.

 

[DavidJoseph]

You’re denying it because you’d rather brush it off then accept it. If you did research you would know this is completely true. I’ve read about it in a book that talks about the life of Archbishop LeFebvre where it specifically states that John Paul II received the mark of a false god. If I can find a link that proves it I will post it, but then again even if I do someone is going to say “Oh that is so wrong”. How do you know it’s false? Have you done research? I can’t say whether you have or not but I doubt it.

Yes, I have done research, and no, I’m not denying it simply because I’d rather “brush it off.” I’ve heard various criticisms of John Paul II, but the claim that he made offerings to pagan gods has not been among the criticisms I’ve EVER heard. But if you’re getting it outlandishly wrong regarding the alleged “mark of Shiva” incident, then right there it makes me suspect that your sources regarding the “offering to pagan gods” are highly suspect. At any rate, Catholic apologist James Akin in the Nazareth Resource Library site discusses the alleged “mark of Shiva” issue at cin.org/users/james/questions/q003.htm (see below).

N.B. Please note that this was written several years BEFORE it was clarified that the SSPX isn’t really in schism, hence the characterizations of the SSPX as “schismatic.”

Q: Someone in the schismatic group the Society of St. Pius X told me that when the pope was in India he had his forehead anointed by a Hindu “priestess of Shiva” and that there is a photo to prove it. Is this true?

A: There is a photo of the pope having his forehead anointed by an Indian woman, but she was a Catholic, not a Hindu priestess! She was giving the pope a traditional Indian form of greeting known as “Aarti,” which has no more religious significance than a handshake in western culture or giving someone a wreath of flowers as a welcome in Hawaii.

A letter dated November 22, 1994 from the Pontifical Council for Social Communications explains the custom and its role in Indian society:

“Indian Catholics . . . use ‘Aarti’ when a child returns home after receiving First Holy Communion, and when a newly married couple are received by their respective families. Nowadays, ‘Aarti’ is often performed to greet the principal celebrant at an important liturgical event, as it was on the occasion shown in the photograph. On such occasions, ‘Aarti’ is usually offered by a Catholic married lady, and certainly not by a ‘priestess of Shiva’ as has been alleged.”

The letter, by Archbishop John P. Foley, president of the pontifical council, went on to note: “Use of the ‘Aarti’ ceremonial by Indian Catholics is no more the worship of a heathen deity than is the decoration of a Christmas tree by American Christians a return to the pagan rituals of Northern Europe.”

Your schismatic friend in the Society of St. Pius X should check his facts before spreading such malicious gossip about the holy father (cf. Acts 23:1-5). He was simply about to say Mass and received the traditional Indian form of greeting for the celebrant.

And really, telling me I commited a mortal sin by saying John Paul II received the mark of a false god is wrong. You have no place to tell me I’m commiting a mortal sin. Shame on saying such a thing. By the way, you’re basically saying I’m being judgemental, yet do you realize that by saying I’m judgemental you yourself are being judgemental? It’s ok if I judge the actions of John Paul II, there’s nothing wrong with that. Jesus wants us to judge the actions of others, it says so in the Bible. Heck, you see judges judging people in courts everyday. I can’t judge his thoughts, motives or soul, but if I judge his actions there is nothing wrong with it.

Now wait just a minute here! I **never **told you that you committed a mortal sin. What I said was that it’s RASH JUDGMENT and that rash judgment CAN BE a mortal sin. I never said you were guilty of mortal sin. Rash judgment is at least an objectively venial sin, though. At any rate, you stated a grossly incorrect “fact.” You rashly assumed that His Holiness had received the mark of Shiva when in reality he did no such thing. And yet you accuse ME of being judgmental? Talk about judgmental! It doesn’t matter that you claim to have been judging His Holiness’ actions rather than intentions; the fact is, you made judgments about actions that His Holiness never even did in the first place, which is just as bad.

 

[MarkThompson]

It may come as a bit of a shock that not everything the Church teaches is necessarily a completely blanc-and-white issue decided with no other explanations.

Not completely blanc-and-white? Talk about a one-sided view!
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[otjm]

(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)

It may be of no particular help to your understanding, but factually, the Church does not re-baptize those Protestants who were baptized using the Trinitarian Formula and water. The Church considers them baptized; and you might want to look at what the Church held baptism to be, pre-Vatican 2. In short, people who were baptized were baptized into Christ and into the Church, even though they might be members of a church that did not offically recognize Batism as having the sacramental effect the Church considers it to have. When they became Catholics, they did not re-baptize them.

Why not? Because by baptism they were jointed to the Church, although they may have been taught any number of heretical positions subsequently.

 

[otjm]

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?

Yes, that is a bit too extreme; it ignores the reasons why we are where we are. Your comment really reduces to “it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t matter”, which doesn’t state any facts.

Catechesis went down the rabbit hole in the late 1960’s & early 1970’s, due to essentially throwing out a doctrinal approach to teaching the faith (The Baltimore Catechism) and replacing it with a “feel good, me and my buddy Jesus let’s all love one another” routine. And as catechesis was sorely and significantly lacking, people did not learn their faith. It wasn’t laziness on the part of students, or people outright rejecting the doctrines of the Church, but was rather a dumbing down of doctrines in a thoroughly misguided attempt to build faith. What no one seemed to figure out was that faith built on little or no basic information was meaningless.

The world of the US was far, far different 60 years ago than it is today. The US itself was far more conservative, not just politically but socially and morally. Protestantism was far stronger then than it is now;- for example, the laws on the books concerning the illegality of artifical birth control were for the msot part due to the Protestants. and as the Protestants accepted birht control more readily, those laws were removed or rewritten.

The Eucharist is not “treated with such unbelief” the belief simply wasn’t taught. It is a sad fact, but often one treated as if people were taught differently, but rejected the teaching. They didn’t reject the teaching; they were never taught.