Vatican II

[St_John]

I’ve noticed, fortunately, here at these forums, some of the more uncharitable posters of the ultra-traditionalist variety losing their postings privileges for their unChristian postings of late. I’m thankful for it. I was wondering about some of these people who actually seem to be disobedient and disrespectful of our leadership.

My advise to these people who are so critical is to quit trying to challenge those above them in the Church.

 

[Ace86]

I’m still waiting for an authentic interpretation of Lumen Gentium Chapter 1, section 8, second paragraph, specifically: "This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church, . . . (emphisis mine)

Tomster

This might help you:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

*IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

1. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity — will never be lacking.52

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60*

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

If traditionalists were as preoccupied with living out the Gospel as they are about obsessing about the Mass, Christianity would not be in the dire straits it is. What are you so proud of? Causing unecessary division among God’s people and making people feel bad because they don’t agree with your superiority complex? Give me a break. Become a priest, then maybe you can become Pope and change it all.

I don’t think I have done anything to merit such a response.

And I am discerning a vocation anyway.

Also, I don’t see how traditionalists are prone to being “less” occupied with living out the gospel. I live a Christian life as best as I can, and in my opinion devotion to the traditional aspects of the Church is one of the ways I choose to live out the gospel.

Seeing that this thread has been lead into a direction that I did not intend for it to go at all. Im going to peacefully request that anyone who reads it simply not respond. If you want to, thats up to you but I for one am not going to come back to ‘defend’ it.

 

[kleary]

Does anyone here think that Vatican II should be forgotten as a Council of the Church?

Or any of these other options:

(I wouldve made a poll but im afraid I dont know how to)

1. Vatican II reversed in a Vatican III Council.
2. Vatican II researched and implemented correctly among parishes.
3. Vatican II kept but the “Spirit of Vatican II” reformed.
4. Vatican II kept but some products of it reformed and/or removed e.g the Pauline Mass, EMHC’s, female altar servers. etc.(if number 4 is chosen please specify)

What do you think?

Oh and if anyone could tell me in their post how to make a poll that would be helpful.

No, but I feel that ALL of the reforms after Vatican II need to be abolished and we need to start over from the time before the Council to find out what on earth went wrong.

 

[Anima_Christi]

Does anyone here think that Vatican II should be forgotten as a Council of the Church?

Or any of these other options:

(I wouldve made a poll but im afraid I dont know how to)

1. Vatican II reversed in a Vatican III Council.
2. Vatican II researched and implemented correctly among parishes.
3. Vatican II kept but the “Spirit of Vatican II” reformed.
4. Vatican II kept but some products of it reformed and/or removed e.g the Pauline Mass, EMHC’s, female altar servers. etc.(if number 4 is chosen please specify)

What do you think?

Oh and if anyone could tell me in their post how to make a poll that would be helpful.

I agree that Vatican II should be reversed, but calling a “Vatican III” council to do it would be a disaster. I hope that eventually it will be reversed and the Church will return to tradition, but this is not likely with our current situation. Since Vatican II was pastoral in nature, and defined no dogma, and therefore was not a dogmatic council, it received no special protection from the Holy Ghost and is certainly not infallible. I see no reason why, theoretically, it could not be abandoned.

 

[Anima_Christi]

Dear Tomster,

Are you having difficulty with the word “subsist”? I see you emphacized this in your post. At dictionary.com, this is translated as : 1. To exist; be. 2.To remain or continue in existence.

How is this not true in the entire context of the paragraph?

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. 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. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Something tells me you are in the camp that rejects ecumenism as expounded by the Council documents. I hope I am wrong.

Is “subsist” somehow clearer and less vague than a simple “is”? How is “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” clearer than “the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church”? (It is heresy to say that the Church of Christ exists outside of the one, visible Catholic Church).

 

[Ceil-1]

Missa Solemnis;1672988*:

I don’t think I have done anything to merit such a response.

I meant you in a general sense. You are implicated by your association.

Also, I don’t see how traditionalists are prone to being “less” occupied with living out the gospel. I live a Christian life as best as I can, and in my opinion devotion to the traditional aspects of the Church is one of the ways I choose to live out the gospel.

We must learn to “discern the spirit”. If our behavior is causing division, confusion or causing others to commit sin (lack of charity, loss of faith, disobedience to rightful authority), it is not coming from the Holy Spirit and must be rejected. Since the whole premise of this movement is based on, leads to, and promotes these negative things, it is clearly not of the Holy Spirit and is a temptation. I think the Church has been very generous to this faction, and they are showing nothing but ingratitude and rebelliousness. Much like a spoiled child not getting his way. There is a right way to handle things which are, admittedly, very wrong. But, if we love the Lord, we will be very careful how we approach it, that we do not lead others astray.

 

[SPH1]

Vatican II was a proper council.

It is the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” that is the source of problems. Too many people follow this fictitious “council”, instead of Vatican II.

 

[Tomster]

Is “subsist” somehow clearer and less vague than a simple “is”? How is “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” clearer than “the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church”? (It is heresy to say that the Church of Christ exists outside of the one, visible Catholic Church).

Let’s take a look a good hard look at what that language means, precisely. Classically, and correctly, it had long been the case that the Church, so admirably described, simply IS the Roman Catholic Church. Saying “subsists in” instead of “is” conveys a different message. To subsist basically means to exist, or persist. It is the use of the word “in,” grammatically introduced by the word “subsists,” which carries with it an implicit denial of identity. To state that “a thing is (exists, or subsists) IN a thing,” is to imply that the first thing IS NOT the same thing as the second thing.

Tomster

 

[Atreyu]

Let’s take a look a good hard look at what that language means, precisely. Classically, and correctly, it had long been the case that the Church, so admirably described, simply IS the Roman Catholic Church. Saying “subsists in” instead of “is” conveys a different message. To subsist basically means to exist, or persist. It is the use of the word “in,” grammatically introduced by the word “subsists,” which carries with it an implicit denial of identity. To state that “a thing is (exists, or subsists) IN a thing,” is to imply that the first thing IS NOT the same thing as the second thing.

Tomster

(then) Cardinal Ratzinger:

Unfortunately once again I cannot follow the reasoning of my esteemed colleague, Jüngel. I was there at the Second Vatican Council when the term “subsistit” was chosen and I can say I know it well. Regrettably one cannot go into details in an interview. In his Encyclical Pius XII said: the Roman Catholic Church “is” the one Church of Jesus Christ. This seems to express a complete identity, which is why there was no Church outside the Catholic community. However, this is not the case: according to Catholic teaching, which Pius XII obviously also shared, the local Churches of the Eastern Church separated from Rome are authentic local Churches; the communities that sprang from the Reformation are constituted differently, as I just said. In these the Church exists at the moment when the event takes place.

…

The Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Church, is convinced that a definition [that the Church exists in pieces] of this kind is irreconcilable with Christ’s promise and with fidelity to him. Christ’s Church truly exists and not in pieces. She is not an unattainable utopia but a concrete reality. The “subsistit” means precisely this: the Lord guarantees the Church’s existence despite all our errors and sins, which certainly are also clearly found in her. With “subsistit”, the intention was to say that, although the Lord keeps his promise, there is also an ecclesial reality outside the Catholic community, and it is precisely this contradiction which is the strongest incentive to pursue unity. If the Council had merely wished to say that the Church of Jesus Christ is also in the Catholic Church, it would have said something banal. The Council would have clearly contradicted the entire history of the Church’s faith, which no Council Father had in mind.

…

The concept expressed by ‘is’ (to be) is far broader than that expressed by ‘to subsist’. ‘To subsist’ is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.

source
It seems to me the holy father views rejection of this teaching constitutes heresy - or at the least a rejection of the historical Catholic teaching (as per my emphasis).

“…would that the error would soon cease also.”

Oh, another thing. Doesn’t this teaching constitute a dogmatic definition…?

 

[Atreyu]

At least one council has been declared invalid in the past (and now I can’t rembmer which one)

Are you talking about the “Robber” synod at Ephesus? I have read that the Papal legates at the proceeding Council at Chalcedon rejected this Robber synod precisely because it was done outside of the authority of the bishop of Rome. Was the Vatican II Council conducted in a similar manner…?

 

[Genesis315]

The OP is treading on dangerous ground:

My 1876 Catechism says this:

Q. Is it a great sin to refuse submission to a general Council? *
A. It is the greatest act of criminal pride and presumption, accompanied by the awful guilt of heresy or schism, or both. We call it extremely criminal, as well as irrational; because the man who will not submit, prefers his own single opinion—and this in a matter, regarding which he is neither qualified nor authorized to judge—*to the deliberately formed decision of an immense assemblage of the best qualified, and most competently authorized, legitimate judges.

(As we can see also, even if we’re not dealing with doctrine (and therefore there is no gilt of heresy), refusing submission to a general council even in pastoral directives results in the guilt of schism.)

Anyway, Vatican II has resulted in few fruits for the same reason Lateran V resulted in even fewer fruits, no one actually implemented the directives. A cursory reading of the Council will show that the whole point is to re-evangelize the world since it had fallen away from the Catholic faith in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. It was the first missionary council rather than what I call a fortress council because for the first time since the Pre-Nicea I period there was no Christendom. It was also to bring back the stray sheep back into the one fold. The laity and clerics, instead of obeying their lawful superiors (the Council) and going out into the world to work towards these goals, have instead become lukewarm and indifferent. It’s just like when the pope and pastors failed to implement the directives of Lateran V that we got the “Reformation” instead. It took that horrible turn of events to wake everybody up. Hopefully it doesn’t take that kind of thing this time around.

Read the documents that apply to your state in life, and go put them into action.

 

[Rykell]

Good post, Genesis! Thank you.
Father Dubay gave a presentation this morning with similar thoughts. He didn’t mince words, nor beat around the bush.
Very timely.

 

[scylla]

Vatican II was perfectly valid and should not be ignored. Faithful Catholics look for truth and submit to it and work toward honestly being obedient to truth.

What should be immediatly destroyed is the attitude of disobedience that is so prevelant in the Church. There are those who insist on trying to make the Church some sort of hippy, do what you want, ignore Vatican II and make it your own kinda Church. That is the real evil.
People who act like they are following Christ by stating we need to be charitable and ignoring truth.
Being nice and ignoring truth is the road to Hell.

I know plenty of atheists who are plenty nice and never want to seek truth, because that means that they have to change.

We are Catholics who need to submit to truth, reform our lives, radically at times to be in conformity with Christ’s truth. You don’t become a Saint by ignoring truth.

So the “spirit of Vatican II as everyone knows is wrong and should be exterminated” There is no excuse for people not teaching truth and even suggesting concepts contrary to the Catholic faith, which we see all the time.

Vatican II needs to be faithfully implemented and all these abuses need to be eliminated. If you just agree and say yes there are abuses but people are participating now, then you need to change your thinking. I can get people to participate in Mass if I have dancing girls and a nice football game, heck they fill stadiums by doing that. This doesn’t lead people to confession, penance and reform.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Tomster]

source
It seems to me the holy father views rejection of this teaching constitutes heresy - or at the least a rejection of the historical Catholic teaching (as per my emphasis).

“…would that the error would soon cease also.”

Oh, another thing. Doesn’t this teaching constitute a dogmatic definition…?

If I state that a thing is, exists, or subsists in my car, that thing cannot be my car itself, but something else being, existing, or subsisting inside my car (such as a suitcase in the trunk or a dog in the back seat). Had the phrase used at that point been “subsists as,” it would have been rendered harmless, since identity would still be implied. What that statement means therefore is that the Church is not, but merely subsists in, “the Church.” That is sheer nonsense since anything is always totally equal to and identical to itself. That is like saying that three is sometimes (but not always) equal to three.

One here (and as it turns out, throughout all the Vatican II documents) has to judge from context just what is referred to by each instance of the phrase “Catholic Church.” In some cases in these documents, it is clearly a reference to the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church of Christ, the visible and eternal Roman Catholic Church, headed by the pope. However in other instances such as the one in this quote, it clearly refers to an entity which is distinct from that Church. This other entity, distinct from that Church Christ established, had no distinct name for itself with which to set it apart from the Roman Catholic Church. For clarity and convenience of nomenclature I will refer to that distinct entity as “the Vatican institution.”

The intent of those who used the phrase “subsists in” where the word “is” belonged was to have the “Catholic Church,” in fact the Vatican institution, affirm that other (rival) religious organizations are sources of Divine Grace. At the Council, many conservative fathers intervened to have that passage (and others like it) corrected, but they were simply outvoted. The question was officially raised in an intervention, and then simply ignored by a room full of people who simply wanted to get it over and done with so they could move on to other things and return home, rather than seriously consider opening the document for further wrangling yet one more time.

The key operative phrase in this quote is “subsists in.” Having one thing merely “subsist in” another implies that, while having an overlap, connection, or relationship between the two, there may now be portions of each which do not belong to the other. For example, if a club were to state in its constitution that “This club “is” the Rotary Club,” it is claiming identity with the Rotary Club. As such, they would be bound by its rules. If that club’s constitution states that “This club subsists as the Rotary Club,” identity is still implied. But if that constitution reads, “This club subsists in the Rotary Club,” that means that “This club” is not the Rotary club, but some other club which has Rotarians as members. Such a club, distinct from the Rotary Club, need not be held bound to the rules of the Rotary Club. Where identity between “This club” and the Rotary Club necessarily implies that to be inside one is to be inside the other, and to be outside one is to be outside the other, a relationship of one club merely “subsisting in” the other implies no such connection, only that some persons would be members of both clubs.

Therefore, where identity implies that there are only two catagories of people, namely Rotarians (who are all members ot “This club”) and non-Rotarians (none of whom are members of “This club”), a relationship of “subsisting in” implies the possible existence of two more catagories, namely Rotarians who are not members of “This club” and non-Rotarians who are members of “This club.” The fact that this document was mandating that some Catholic priests and bishops could be recognized as truly Catholic (and therefore in union with Rome) while being outside the institution ruled by Paul VI and his successors is further clarified in that quote where it states that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its [the Catholic Church’s,” or rather, the Vatican institution’s] visible confines."

continuing

Tomster

 

[Anima_Christi]

Let’s take a look a good hard look at what that language means, precisely. Classically, and correctly, it had long been the case that the Church, so admirably described, simply IS the Roman Catholic Church. Saying “subsists in” instead of “is” conveys a different message. To subsist basically means to exist, or persist. It is the use of the word “in,” grammatically introduced by the word “subsists,” which carries with it an implicit denial of identity. To state that “a thing is (exists, or subsists) IN a thing,” is to imply that the first thing IS NOT the same thing as the second thing.

Tomster

I agree!

 

[Tomster]

That would contradict (if the Catholic Church were still identical to the Vatican institution) the De fide teaching that all Grace (including sanctification and truth) comes from Christ to mankind through the Roman Catholic Church, that is, by means of priests and bishops in union with the Successor of Peter. By saying that a part of the source of sanctification and truth is outside the Vatican institution, what they have really said is that part of the Roman Catholic Church is outside the Vatican institution.

That conciliar statement, from what is called a “Dogmatic Constitution” of the Church (not truly dogmatic since the entire council was purely disciplinary and juridical), states quite clearly and unequivocally that the Roman Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church of Christ, the visible and eternal Church headed by the pope, and against which the gates of Hell would not prevail, now only “subsists in” the Vatican institution. The two entitites are now made distinct, overlapping but no longer identical. As an interesting aside, the converse is also true, namely that the Vatican institution subsists in the Catholic Church. The symmetry is exact; each has a portion which is in the other and another portion which is outside the other.

There are Roman Catholics in communion with the Vatican institution and there are Roman Catholics who are not in communion with the Vatican institution. There are non-Catholics who are in communion with the Vatican institution and there are non-Catholics who are not in communion with the Vatican institution (Moslems, Buddhists, Animists, Atheists, Satanists, Hindus, Jews, Protestant Fundamentalists, etc.). As I have just shown, it is the Second Vatican Council itself which has decreed and “dogmatically constituted” such a state of affairs!

Tomster

 

[Tomster]

I agree!

My mistake. I meant to use the quote from post #30.

Tomster

 

[m134e5]

Does anyone here think that Vatican II should be forgotten as a Council of the Church?

I’m sure there are some who think that way, but I don’t think so…

Or any of these other options: Let’s see…

1. Vatican II reversed in a Vatican III Council.

No- you can’t simply ‘undo’ history.

1. Vatican II researched and implemented correctly among parishes.

Yes- as well as dioceses and religious orders- and in the hearts of individuals.

1. Vatican II kept but the “Spirit of Vatican II” reformed.

Yes

1. Vatican II kept but some products of it reformed and/or removed e.g the Pauline Mass, EMHC’s, female altar servers. etc.(if number 4 is chosen please specify)

Yes.

1.) I think the Pauline Mass should allow for more options from the Tridentine Mass- at least as options (like the prayers at the foot of the altar, the last Gospel, the leonine prayers, etc.).

2.) They should not transfer any feast days to Sunday, or let Ordinary Time supercede any feast days other than optional memorials.

3.) They should require the Ordinary of the Mass to be said or sung in Latin, but allow the propers (not necessarily require) to be done in the vernacular language.

4.) NO communion in the hand

5.) Unless physically inable, all should kneel at a communion rail to receive the Eucharist- the Host only.

6.) Male readers- preference given to instituted lectors. They should be properly vested.

7.) Altar BOYS (or instituted acolytes)

8.) Women at least strongly encouraged to wear veils.

9.) The Sequences for All Souls’ Day, Corpus Christi, Pentecost, Easter, Our Lady of Sorrows should be required.

10.) Some form of procession should be required on Corpus Christi.

11.) Mandatory cassocks for priests and bishops (traditional ones- with birettas and everything).

12.) Mandatory habits for religious.

13.) Change the rule for the Eucharistic fast back to the former requirement- to fast from midnight on.

14.) Pope St. Pius X (I think) made a requirement that all priests swear an oath against modernism. They should be required to do this again.

15.) Have high Masses (sprinkling rite, sung Gloria, Kyrie, Credo, etc., more standing), and low Masses (no sprinkling rite, spoken ordinaries- but still in Latin- and kneeling during more parts of the Mass).

 

[Atreyu]

The intent of those who used the phrase “subsists in” where the word “is” belonged was to have the “Catholic Church,” in fact the Vatican institution, affirm that other (rival) religious organizations are sources of Divine Grace. At the Council, many conservative fathers intervened to have that passage (and others like it) corrected, but they were simply outvoted. The question was officially raised in an intervention, and then simply ignored by a room full of people who simply wanted to get it over and done with so they could move on to other things and return home, rather than seriously consider opening the document for further wrangling yet one more time.

Excuses excuses. Let me quote again what I posted before:

The concept expressed by ‘is’ (to be) is far broader than that expressed by ‘to subsist’. ‘To subsist’ is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.

Take it up with the holy father if you disagree with him and with the entire history of the Church.