What good has come out of Vatican II?

[Jacafamala]

But what if one could detect changes, whether these changes be explicit or implicit, which even though could be read and interpreted Traditionally, in practice are implemented differently?

For example, the Traditional definition of the Church is “The Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.” In other words, there is only one ark of Salvation.

Does not the new catechism describe the “Church of Jesus Christ” as “subsisting in the Catholic Church?”

One can read the Traditional understanding into this new definition, certainly and rightly so.

However, in practice isn’t this new definition sometimes used to dissuade those who seek formal entrance into the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ, as not necessary by well-meaning but misguided Priests who counsel some such as these that God uses even protestant communities as vehicles of Salvation?

Do not the Faithful have the ‘sensum fidei’ to recognize such errors?

This is a problem inherent in the vague definitions of the documents of the Second Vatican Counsel. One just need to attend, although I would not recommend it, the ‘average’ Catholic Church to see how even the Liturgy is held hostage by such vague definitions.

Yes, I ran into this very issue last night at my son’s Confirmation prep session. The YM so much as said ‘the Catholic Church isn’t the only way’–paraphrasing. When the teachers are so confused, it’s a real problem.

 

[maurin]

Yes, I ran into this very issue last night at my son’s Confirmation prep session. The YM so much as said ‘the Catholic Church isn’t the only way’–paraphrasing. When the teachers are so confused, it’s a real problem.

And what does a good and faithful mother/parent do in the face of such error?

Does she risk causing an uproar by correcting the (what’s a YM?), does she incur even the greater risk of allowing her child–and the children of others-- to become infected by error?

What can the Faithful who are accosted by such teachings do?

 

[Jacafamala]

And what does a good and faithful mother/parent do in the face of such error?

Does she risk causing an uproar by correcting the (what’s a YM?), does she incur even the greater risk of allowing her child–and the children of others-- to become infected by error?

What can the Faithful who are accosted by such teachings do?

Honestly, If it weren’t for my husband, I’d be out of there and do the forty minute drive (traffic permitting) to the FSSP Chapel.

On the way home my son asked me what I thought of her presentation, so I told him where I thought she’d gone wrong and he said knew I was thinking that.

 

[maurin]

It appears you have taught your son very well!

Prayers for your edification and perseverence, Jacafamala!

 

[Jacafamala]

It appears you have taught your son very well!

Prayers for your edification and perseverence, Jacafamala!

Thanks, and thanks–I need it.

 

[japhy]

For example, the Traditional definition of the Church is “The Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.” In other words, there is only one ark of Salvation.

Does not the new catechism describe the “Church of Jesus Christ” as “subsisting in the Catholic Church?”

One can read the Traditional understanding into this new definition, certainly and rightly so.

However, in practice isn’t this new definition sometimes used to dissuade those who seek formal entrance into the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ, as not necessary by well-meaning but misguided Priests who counsel some such as these that God uses even protestant communities as vehicles of Salvation?

Just as a point of reference, the Church came out and said that subsistit in and est are not opposed to one another in the 2007 document Responsa ad quaestiones, Q. 3:
Why was the expression subsists in adopted instead of the simple word is?

The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.
The CDF’s commentary note on this document says, for this particular question and answer:It is precisely this change of terminology in the description of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church which has given rise to the most varied interpretations, above all in the field of ecumenism. In reality, the Council Fathers simply intended to recognise the presence of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ in the non-Catholic Christian communities. It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a “churchless void”. What it does mean is that if the expression “subsistit in” is considered in its true context, namely in reference to the Church of Christ “constituted and organised in this world as a society… governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, then the change from est to subsistit in takes on no particular theological significance of discontinuity with previously held Catholic doctrine.

In fact, precisely because the Church willed by Christ actually continues to exist (subsistit in) in the Catholic Church, this continuity of subsistence implies an essential identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. The Council wished to teach that we encounter the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete historical subject in the Catholic Church. The idea, therefore, that subsistence can somehow be multiplied does not express what was intended by the choice of the term “subsistit”. In choosing the word “subsistit” the Council intended to express the singularity and non “multipliability” of the Church of Christ: the Church exists as a unique historical reality.

Contrary to many unfounded interpretations, therefore, the change from “est” to “subsistit” does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ. Rather it simply signifies a greater openness to the ecumenical desire to recognise truly ecclesial characteristics and dimensions in the Christian communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the “plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis” present in them. Consequently, although there is only one Church which “subsists” in one unique historical subject there are true ecclesial realities which exist beyond its visible boundaries.
See also Pope Paul VI’s Ecclesiam Suam (his first encyclical, during Vatican II, before the promulgation of Lumen Gentium); and the CDF’s Mysterium Ecclesiae of 1973.

 

[pnewton]

But what if one could detect changes, whether these changes be explicit or implicit, which even though could be read and interpreted Traditionally, in practice are implemented differently?

The sense of the faithful has also been used to justify birth control. One must be very careful when thinking one understands better than the Holy Father, than the Cardinals and bishops and the rest of the Church heirarchy. Often traditionalist complain about a lack of distinction between the laity and the clergy, and I agree. Yet on this issue the laity are often all too eager to usurp the role of the Church heirarchy and second guess what conflicts with tradition and what is a development.

Frankly, it is beyond my puny skills. One can scarcely be an expert in all areas of theology. I will let the patristics experts and the thomists and the mariologists, etc. teach me. On the other hand, the only area I have of expert teaching is scripture. If I go anywhere, it will be back to the only field I know well.

 

[maurin]

Hello Japhy,

thank you for taking the time to add your perspective.

My point was and remains to be that one can absolutely and rightly have a Traditionally Catholic read of the documents.

The problem is in the vagueness of wording, and how this vagueness is used by the liberal and modernist elements in the Church to pervert the Faith and the Liturgy–lex orandi lex credendi-- as is evidenced especially by the experience of one Mother attending the Catechesis of her son above.

 

[maurin]

The sense of the faithful has also been used to justify birth control. One must be very careful when thinking one understands better than the Holy Father, than the Cardinals and bishops and the rest of the Church heirarchy. Often traditionalist complain about a lack of distinction between the laity and the clergy, and I agree. Yet on this issue the laity are often all too eager to usurp the role of the Church heirarchy and second guess what conflicts with tradition and what is a development.

Frankly, it is beyond my puny skills. One can scarcely be an expert in all areas of theology. I will let the patristics experts and the thomists and the mariologists, etc. teach me. On the other hand, the only area I have of expert teaching is scripture. If I go anywhere, it will be back to the only field I know well.

I agree that my skills are also puny. Archbishop Chaput has been quoted in the signature line of a member over at Catholic Community Forum as having said that if you disagree with the Church, then you must change your understanding.

However, my point remains that when those in the hierarchy act in ways absolutely contrary to the Traditional Teachings of hierarchies passed, and appeal to new Documents themselves as proof of their not acting in contradiction, then there likely exists a problem with the Documents.

Jacafamala brought up a good point above.

But of course, you also do, and I appreciate the conversation.

 

[japhy]

My point was and remains to be that one can absolutely and rightly have a Traditionally Catholic read of the documents. The problem is in the vagueness of wording, and how this vagueness is used by the liberal and modernist elements in the Church to pervert the Faith and the Liturgy…

Right, and I agree.

The fact that it took the Church until 2007 to come out and say, authoritatively, that Vatican II continued to express the truth that the Church of Christ is identical to the Catholic Church is… well… embarrassing.

 

[ncjohn]

The problem is in the vagueness of wording, and how this vagueness is used by the liberal and modernist elements in the Church to pervert the Faith and the Liturgy–lex orandi lex credendi-- as is evidenced especially by the experience of one Mother attending the Catechesis of her son above.

I can totally agree with you, Maurin, that this does in fact happen.

To be fair however, there is just as much use by some (certainly not all) on the “traditionalist” side, in its many versions, to pervert what the Church says the documents mean. This is especially prevalent in the attempts to find contradictions where the Church, including those who were present when the documents were written, says there is not a contradiction.

There is indeed a certain amount of vagueness in some documents, but that vagueness does not necessarily translate to ambiguity. When one reads the documents as a whole, rather than as a series of independent pieces, much if not most of the “vagueness” disappears and the intent is clear. Many of the documents cross-reference each other, as well as the previous documents they were based on, in ways that make it quite clear what is meant and why there is no conflict with previous doctrine.

What we unfortunately see an awful lot of–from both “sides”–is the kind of proof-texting that people do with scripture when trying to “prove” some specific point. The overall context is ignored and specific words or passages are taken out of context and compared to each other. This is not a proper way to consider scripture or Church documents. Trying to take a sentence or two from a document several hundred years old, written with different styles and different formulaic conventions, and then trying to contrast it with a sentence or two from a current document, is really nothing more than the amateurish type of cherry-picking of passages that is so often seen by door-to-door proseletyzers.

I guess on the good side of things though, look at the tremendous amount of interest pouring forth from “ordinary Catholics” all over the world in forums like this. And think of the ripple effect that occurs as we take what we learn out to those with whom we have influence.

If we can ever get past this “sibling rivalry” stuff and focus on bringing the gospel to this weary world, the whole idea of “they’ll know they are Christians by the love they show one another” might once again become a reality. When we reach the point where we do as St Francis recommended–Preach the gospel always; use words where necessary–rather than sniping at each other over “preference” issues, we might actually be able to show people the joy that comes from this “good news” that Jesus died to show us.

I look forward to that day.

 

[maurin]

I can totally agree with you, Maurin, that this does in fact happen.

To be fair however, there is just as much use by some (certainly not all) on the “traditionalist” side, in its many versions, to pervert what the Church says the documents mean. This is especially prevalent in the attempts to find contradictions where the Church, including those who were present when the documents were written, says there is not a contradiction.

There is indeed a certain amount of vagueness in some documents, but that vagueness does not necessarily translate to ambiguity. When one reads the documents as a whole, rather than as a series of independent pieces, much if not most of the “vagueness” disappears and the intent is clear. Many of the documents cross-reference each other, as well as the previous documents they were based on, in ways that make it quite clear what is meant and why there is no conflict with previous doctrine.

What we unfortunately see an awful lot of–from both “sides”–is the kind of proof-texting that people do with scripture when trying to “prove” some specific point. The overall context is ignored and specific words or passages are taken out of context and compared to each other. This is not a proper way to consider scripture or Church documents. Trying to take a sentence or two from a document several hundred years old, written with different styles and different formulaic conventions, and then trying to contrast it with a sentence or two from a current document, is really nothing more than the amateurish type of cherry-picking of passages that is so often seen by door-to-door proseletyzers.

I guess on the good side of things though, look at the tremendous amount of interest pouring forth from “ordinary Catholics” all over the world in forums like this. And think of the ripple effect that occurs as we take what we learn out to those with whom we have influence.

If we can ever get past this “sibling rivalry” stuff and focus on bringing the gospel to this weary world, the whole idea of “they’ll know they are Christians by the love they show one another” might once again become a reality. When we reach the point where we do as St Francis recommended–Preach the gospel always; use words where necessary–rather than sniping at each other over “preference” issues, we might actually be able to show people the joy that comes from this “good news” that Jesus died to show us.

I look forward to that day.

If what you say above is true, and ncjohn I am not saying it is or it is not, we are still left with an elephant sitting on the sofa which is being ignored:

why are the Popes (JPII and HH Benedict XVI) behaving as if they are powerless to stem the abuses? Why has Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos admitted publicly that the Holy See can only make recommendations and requests instead proclamations in these respects?

Has the power of the Bishops superceded the power of the Pope?

 

[pnewton]

The problem is in the vagueness of wording, and how this vagueness is used by the liberal and modernist elements in the Church to pervert the Faith and the Liturgy–lex orandi lex credendi-- as is evidenced especially by the experience of one Mother attending the Catechesis of her son above.

I played catch up and read Japhy and Jacafamala. No doubt much of the reason I do not relate to some of the problems expressed here has more to do with individuals like the YM above and some priests or bishops that leave us shaking our heads. I have been blessed with good leadership and haven’t had to deal with some of the silliness and wierdnes our there. Yes, such much of the church still hasn’t gone crazy.

If we go back to the time of Vatican II, I think it is unfair to blame the council on such people. It seems quite obvious the way some have said the council was hijacked that such people already existed, even pre-council. Goodness knows the same type of theologians were spreading the same problems among Protestants in this era. Therefore, it would be more fair to say that some of the looseness in wording of the documents reflect a presence of liberal theology rather that caused it.

What do we do if we are in a situation with a bishop that presses (or exceeds) the boundries of the permissible? We still can pray. I think often we consider prayer only our last resort instead of our first defense.

 

[Jacafamala]

why are the Popes (JPII and HH Benedict XVI) behaving as if they are powerless to stem the abuses? Why has Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos admitted publicly that the Holy See can only make recommendations and requests instead proclamations in these respects?

Has the power of the Bishops superceded the power of the Pope?

Just wait, because B16 has much more to do–by way of reforms, and I really believe he will. I just love this Papa.

A YM is a Youth Minister.

 

[Jacafamala]

I played catch up and read Japhy and Jacafamala. No doubt much of the reason I do not relate to some of the problems expressed here has more to do with individuals like the YM above and some priests or bishops that leave us shaking our heads. I have been blessed with good leadership and haven’t had to deal with some of the silliness and wierdnes our there. Yes, such much of the church still hasn’t gone crazy.

Ah, for the days of wine and roses. Yes, I had a sensible and holy Pastor once, too. And I was very happy… until he retired.

 

[maurin]

What do we do if we are in a situation with a bishop that presses (or exceeds) the boundries of the permissible? We still can pray. I think often we consider prayer only our last resort instead of our first defense.

Prayer is our first and continuous method of defense. Action, such as letter writing to the Pastor and to the Bishop with many signatures fell on deaf ears. The FSSP responded, but in the negative.

Prayer remains my only recourse. And the SSPX Chapel over in the next town.

 

[elts1956]

Yes, I ran into this very issue last night at my son’s Confirmation prep session. The YM so much as said ‘the Catholic Church isn’t the only way’–paraphrasing. When the teachers are so confused, it’s a real problem.

I hope you discussed this misinterpretaton with your son and also talk to your parish priest about it. It is dissembling such as this that eventually becomes an avalanche to the point no one know what to believe.

 

[SFD]

Never read it. I don’t need to since we have one very undated. I also haven’t read any from the middle ages. i am trying to stay on topic of the good that has come out of Vatican II, not the Council of Trent.

I didn’t ask you if you read it…I know you haven’t read it. I was asking if you were aware of it.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

I guess on the good side of things though, look at the tremendous amount of interest pouring forth from “ordinary Catholics” all over the world in forums like this. And think of the ripple effect that occurs as we take what we learn out to those with whom we have influence.

This reminds me of something else that was said on another thread that CAF would probably not exist without the opening of the laity and lay ministries that started with Vatican II. I don’t know how much was really from the council and how much was from the changes in civilization that prompted council response. I do not even think the two can be separated.

 

[Fran65]

Realised that my post was off topic.

God Bless