Why be Catholic? I miss my church!

[Contarini]

: I do not give a flip if you say singing by the laity is reguarded as Catholic. I do not believe you.:

Well, as a Catholic, you need to care about Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, even if there are parts of it that don’t appeal to your personal taste. There’s abundant evidence that congregational singing is part of the Tradition. If you don’t care a flip about that, then you are just as individualistic and rebellious as any Protestant.

We should distinguish two issues here–the singing of hymns and other music that aren’t integrally part of the liturgy, and congregational singing of the people’s part of the liturgy. I think there are legitimate criticisms of the former, although question of course is what counts as part of the liturgy and what doesn’t. But if you want to have nothing but Gregorian chant, that’s certainly legitimate. What is clearly not compatible with the historic Tradition of the Church is your antipathy to any lay singing at all. That just won’t fly, if you really claim that your faith is in continuity with the ancient Church.

I would be very sorry never to hear a Charles Wesley hymn again in worship. But if I were part of a congregation where the people sang the responses to the liturgy, it would almost be worth it. (Actually, in NC I was part of an Episcopal parish where I had both, and that was one of the things that kept me from becoming Catholic.)

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Exporter]

Ah Contarini,
I appreciate your patience and your gentle “corrections”. It is obvious you have some deep feelings with reguard songs and singing while in Church.
Did you ignore my mention of the moments before the Consecration? I now think I know why you side-steped this topic.

The fact is , you are not a Roman Catholic! This makes a difference.

I made it clear that I went to Mass for 14 years. This was to pre-Vatican II Masses, with zero singing by the laity. We could participate in the Mass, word by word, thought by thought! Then later someone picked out a number of songs to be sung, and this disrupted the Mass! I told you that I am NOT prehuduced because I was there before and after. I had the knowledge before and after.

You has almost said that if I do not sing then I am not Catholic.

Where in the Catechism do you find that? I just paid $248 for a 48 CD disc series on The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. I have heard all of it. I have a Catechism (Book) also. There is no place in the book or on the Series of Cds where it says the laity has to sing during Mass! I think you are in error in telling me that I am not Catholic if I do not sing. You are the first I ever heard say that. What paragraph in the Catechism does it tell us that we are not Catholic if we dont sing?

 

[Contarini]

Exporter,

I’m overreacting because you are speaking as if singing in the Mass is somehow un-Catholic. It would be far truer to put things the other way round. Traditionally the Liturgy was supposed to be sung–the whole idea of a Low Mass is a rather odd Western innovation. The 1950s do not constitute Catholic Tradition all by themselves. I’m not saying it’s dogma–I’m saying that it’s the traditional way to do Liturgy. If you’re really serious about being a traditional Catholic then you should pay attention not just to the 1950s or whatever the period was when you converted, but also to the Fathers and the Middle Ages and the entire sweep of Tradition. Read Pliny’s description of Christian worship in the 2nd century–shucks, if it isn’t too Protestant a suggestion, read the letters of Paul, and tell me there’s no congregational singing there. The idea that all singing should be done by a choir–that’s a real innovation for you.

Vatian II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy–an official text of an Ecumenical Council of your Church–explicitly calls for lay singing, as you can see from the extracts below.
30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.

1. Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when the divine offices are celebrated solemnly in song, with the assistance of sacred ministers and the active participation of the people. . . .
2. The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care. Choirs must be diligently promoted, especially in cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors of souls must be at pains to ensure that, whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightly theirs, as laid down in Art. 28 and 30.
3. Religious singing by the people is to be intelligently fostered so that in devotions and sacred exercises, as also during liturgical services, the voices of the faithful may ring out according to the norms and requirements of the rubrics.

Notice that the Council doesn’t see a contradiction between lay singing and the reverent silence that you rightly commend. Of course there are places where silence is appropriate–as at the Consecration. And I agree with you that far too many post-Vatican-II liturgists don’t seem to understand the importance of silence. But that’s no excuse for flaunting the constant witness of Sacred Tradition and the explicit words of the Council by downplaying the importance of active lay participation through congregational singing. (What texts should be sung–that’s a different matter. I think there are good reasons for hymns, even hymns written by Protestants, to be used by Catholics. But the Council explicitly calls for Gregorian chant to have pride of place, and clearly that should be the first priority in any true liturgical reform within the Roman Communion.)

I apologize for daring to express an opinion with regard to a communion not my own. My only excuse is that your communion is not just any denomination but at the very least has a particularly eminent position among Christian bodies. You claim indeed to be the true Church and any reunion of the Church that doesn’t include Rome would be an empty mockery. So we Protestants must necessarily pay a lot of attention to what your communion actually teaches.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[tkdnick]

RomanRiteTeen:

I concur, though I find your post fairly aggressive. I simply stated what attracted me to the Church, not what I now believe it holds. My reasons for joining are far from “only superficial”.

I just have nostalgia sometimes, these forums are a good place to vent.

(I’d also like to clarify I was speaking of Liturgical Law)

Maybe you should search for another parish that more suits your needs. There are a plethora of different parishes and parish types.

 

[Katholikos]

Contarini wrote: Please provide evidence that the C of E regards Charles and Camilla’s relationship as “wonderful.” And note that they are not allowed to get remarried in church. That contradicts your claims.

They are not being “remarried” at all since she has a living husband. They are going through the motions. They are now – and will be after the pseudo “wedding” – committing adultery, with the blessing of the C of E. This “marriage” is civil only.

I wrote in a previous post to which Contarini was replying: “The Prince of Wales has a live-in girl friend in the palace in London. The Anglican church thinks that’s just wunnerful. The Archbishop of Canterbury says the upcoming civil “marriage” of Charles and Camilla is just wunnerful. The English support this sinful relationship (they pay for it). That is a precis of Anglicanism/Episcopalianism.”

I said the Archbishop of Canterbury thought the wedding was “wunnerful,” which is an idiom, not “wonderful.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury is conducting a prayer service in St. George’s Chapel for the happy couple following their wedding in the palace. He’ll be sure to give them his blessing, of course.

nettyroyal.nl/newsjune04.html June, 2004:
Quote: In The [BBC] Times George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, has said that it would be “the natural thing” for the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles to marry. He and his wife met Camilla at their son’s house after her relationship with the Prince of Wales went public. He adds that they met several times but that he had ‘no idea’ if Camilla wished to marry the Prince of Wales. He says: “He is the heir to the throne and he loves her. The natural thing is that they should get married. The Christian faith is all about forgiveness. We all make mistakes. Failure is part of the human condition and there is no doubt that there has been a strong loving relationship, probably since they were very young, that has endured over the years.” He calls Camilla a very nice person, very bright, able, astute, tough and very pleasant company. END QUOTE

The face of the current Archbishop of Canterbury stared out at me from the telly when the announcement of the wedding was made public saying how pleased he was.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4252795.stm

The Archbishop of Canterbury said: “I am pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles have decided to take this important step.”

He added that he hoped the marriage would be “a source of comfort and strength” to the couple and those close to them. cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/10/charles.camilla/

msnbc.msn.com/id/6945019/
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said the wedding service plans “have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage.”

Can you explain how the Archdiocese of Boston’s granting of an annulment to Joseph Kennedy was any less scandalous than the C of E’s conduct in this case? Frankly, I’d take the C of E any day on this one.

Not being privy to all the evidence in the Kennedy case, I cannot comment. The Charles/Camilla affair is another matter altogether. The whole world knows the facts. She and Charles have had a long-term affair and are cohabiting in the palace; she has a living husband.

But, historically speaking, it’s what we’d expect from the Church of England, since it came into existence over the famous divorce of Henry VIII and then lost all similarity to the Mother Church – except in externals – under his son, Edward VI.

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

Contarini wrote:
The Episcopal Church is another story. Surely you know better than to use “Episcopalianism” and “Anglicanism” synonymously. Yet you do just this. You need to pay more attention to the truth if you want to defend the Truth.

The English Church (Anglican) and the American Church (Episcopalian) were cut out of the same cloth and suffer from the same errors.

JMJ Jay

 

[4_marks]

Katholikos:

If your reasons for becoming a Catholic are only superficial, don’t do it. We’ve have enough dissident, malcontent Catholics as it is – plenty, plenty.

JMJ Jay

I couldn’t agree more with this statement. Don’t join the Catholic Church for superficial reasons. I returned to the Catholic faith for superficial reasons at age 20 and wound up leaving again at age 27 even after enduring 5 intense years of Catholic theology in the seminary. I hadn’t quite worked out the “evangelical fundamentalist Protestant” stuff that I really held down deep.

Come back when you are good and ready. You need to work some things out first. We’ll leave a candle in the window for you.

 

[Katholikos]

RomanRiteTeen wrote: I’ve been having the same feelings-- as an Anglican I also believed in True Presence (an optional belief though). So, I also have to convince myself that was a sham.

Hmmm. As an Anglican you were given the option of believing in the True Presence – or not believing it. Which is another way of saying that it’s true for those who think it is and vice versa. And you don’t see that as a sham?

The Truth IS – whether anyone believes it or not!

JMJ Jay

 

[Contarini]

Katholikos:

The English Church (Anglican) and the American Church (Episcopalian) were cut out of the same cloth and suffer from the same errors.

JMJ Jay

That remains to be proven. You can’t play games with the facts based on your assumption. The C of E and ECUSA are quite different in a lot of ways. The C of E is much more genuinely diverse, which means that it has a lot more conservatives. Thus, while it’s fatally prone to shilly-shallying, it has not gone as far as ECUSA in a number of respects. In ECUSA, a divorced man living in a gay relationship (not, as you claimed, a man who left his wife to live with his gay lover) has been elected bishop. In the C of E, a single man living in what had been a sexual relationship but (according to him) is now a celibate one was pressured into refusing an appointment as bishop. That is a significant difference, which you deny by attributing to the C of E the policy peculiar to ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada.

And, of course, many other Anglican churches throughout the world are far more orthodox than either the C of E or ECUSA. In other words, you cannot take the more outrageous actions of ECUSA and attribute them to Anglicanism as a whole. That is downright dishonest, and if someone did this sort of thing to Catholicism you would be quick to cry foul. Lying in the name of truth is a despicable thing to do, and you only increase your condemnation by making sophistical defenses of your erroneous claims. If Catholicism is the true Church, why do you need to twist the facts in order to defend it? If Anglicanism is as bad as you say, why can’t you show this by accurate information?

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Katholikos:

They are not being “remarried” at all since she has a living husband. They are going through the motions. They are now – and will be after the pseudo “wedding” – committing adultery, with the blessing of the C of E. This “marriage” is civil only.

Right. And from the Anglican point of view, this is an exercise of what the Orthodox would call “economia.” It is not a claim that Charles and Camilla are behaving morally–indeed, I’ve heard that the service will refer to their past sins. It is, however, a recognition that Camilla is not going to get back with her husband and that as things are, for them to enter a legal union with one another is a lesser evil than for them to continue to live in a relationship governed only by their own passions.

I’m not defending this–I really don’t know what is the best way for the Church to deal with situations like this. I do know, however, that the approach of your Communion also leaves much to be desired, and has the further flaw of being rather dishonest–the Kennedy case being a particularly good example.

I said the Archbishop of Canterbury thought the wedding was “wunnerful,” which is an idiom, not “wonderful.”

I admit that I’m not familiar with this idiom, if it doesn’t mean that something is seen as thoroughly good. I interpret ++Williams as meaning (though he’s putting it very diplomatically) that the wedding is a relative good in the circumstances. That is not what you appeared to be attributing to him.

Not being privy to all the evidence in the Kennedy case, I cannot comment.

And of course you are not interested in being informed on the subject, because it’s a scandal in your own Communion and hence none of your business.

You can read about the Kennedy case here: cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=4697

I’m not claiming that the two cases are the same, only that both American Catholicism and the C of E (not to speak of the far more lax ECUSA) are guilty of turning a blind eye to the immoral behavior of the wealthy and powerful. Certainly Charles’s case is far better known and hence more obviously scandalous. But on the other hand, you have to give the C of E credit for at least refusing to marry them. Joe Kennedy and many other Catholics, on the other hand, are allowed to walk away from marriages that have lasted years and have produced children, and remarry in the Catholic Church with an allegedly good conscience. Something is very rotten there.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

Exporter:

Contarini,

---

You wrote,"Exporter, why do you hate singing so much? How is congregational singing contrary to Sacred Tradition? It’s found in Scripture, it’s found in the Fathers–shucks, it’s found in traditionally Catholic countries like Bavaria. Your prejudice against it is based on modern circumstances and is utterly un-Catholic in every meaningful way. As long as your attitude is regarded as Catholic within the Roman Communion, so long people like me will be unable to see the Roman Communion as truly Catholic. Hymns are part of Sacred Tradition (ask St. Ambrose), and they are a part that has been far better preserved among Protestants than among Catholics. That’s not an argument for Catholics to reject hymns–it’s an argument for Protestants to reject the claims of the Roman Communion to be the Catholic Church."
I DID NOT WRITE THAT! ME EXPORTER DIDNT WRITE THAT. Contarini did that.

---

Maybe on another thread you saw that I was a convert at age 23, that was in 1955. What was I before 1955? I was raised as a little kid in a Consolidated Methodist/Baptist Church…it was avery small town ( 200 people , couldnt support two churches.) They sang a lot, 8 to 9 songs, all four or five stanzas- I thot to avoid having to say anything meaningful. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now. After going in the Service I became a Pagan - a real live Pagan - like Father Corapi was.
I do not give a flip if you say singing by the laity is reguarded as Catholic. I do not believe you. Didn’t you read that I said from 1955 to 1972 it was ONLY the small choir that sang. The people DID NOT sing. I liked that. I’ll say it again, I liked that the people did not sing - thats the job af a choir. It made the priest more the center of attraction, not the people!
You said I was prejudiced - that’s wrong! Prae- judicae mean to Judge before you have the Facts! Praejucicae? No! Not true. I had the facts. I had the facts before I made a judgement. I knew I didn’t like to sing those silly songs. I am an adult. The songs more redily fits 10 year olds! I found the Roman Catholic Church didn’t sing! I liked that. So dont you call me prejudice!

---

The singing inturrupts prayer, the concentration before the consecration. Now I suppose you take on a glow ( while you sing)when you should be contemplating the miricle that is about to happen. That consecration is the highest act mancan witness, why dilute that supreme act with a silly song? Now we have made an exchange of ideas. Don’t we hear enough silly somgs during the week?## If you come across the 1967 edition - there is a 2002 edition as well - of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, there are plenty of detail about Catholic vernacular hymnody in there. **

---

**Luther’s hymns relied on existing German models. **

---

Singing is a way of praying - what do you think the Great Hallel (Psalms 113-118) is ? It unites praise with hymn-singing. In Hebrew, the book is called “Tehillim” - “Praises”. Hymnos = "Praise"

---

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued, ended]

---

**So the consecration is not diluted, it is enhanced, by having a hymn just before. Hymn are not an interruption, but a proper part of the action. Granted, it is not easy (or possible ?) to be recollected if others are singing; but the Mass is the public Prayer of the whole People of God: it is not the place and time for private devotion, and AFAIK, recollection should not be necessary - for it should come before and after the Mass; not during it. All the time we are not at Mass, should be, can be, recollection for it, and a drawing upon it. **
**Granted, a lot of hymns are very poor - but one consolation there, is that no prayer of any creature is really good enough. One can always do the best with what one has: and that is itself God’s gift. **

Besides, all worship in the Church, public and private, is primarily the work of Christ. Which puts our inadequacies into context.

If the angels do not rest by day or night, “evermore praising [God]” - why can’t we join our voices with theirs ? The Apocalypse has quite a lot of hymns - so we can use hymns too, surely ? The Divine Office/Liturgy of the Hours draws on many hymns in the Bible - why should we be excluded ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Katholikos:

Hmmm. As an Anglican you were given the option of believing in the True Presence – or not believing it. Which is another way of saying that it’s true for those who think it is and vice versa. And you don’t see that as a sham?

The Truth IS – whether anyone believes it or not!

JMJ Jay

**##That being so - what is one to make of those converts from the TAC to Catholicism not being required to believe in Papal Infallibility ? **

---

That is every bit as silly as that may seem to non-Anglicans; arguably, even more so, given the claims the CC makes for itself. ##

 

[RomanRiteTeen]

Katholikos:

Hmmm. As an Anglican you were given the option of believing in the True Presence – or not believing it. Which is another way of saying that it’s true for those who think it is and vice versa. And you don’t see that as a sham?

The Truth IS – whether anyone believes it or not!

JMJ Jay

I thank you for your er… help? Katholikos, but I was sharing feelings about my paticular dilema. That -is- why I created this thread. All your posts have seemed fairly agressive.

I also feel like you’ve been putting words into my mouth. I said I’m having to convince myself that it was a sham, I was in no way defending it.

 

[Exporter]

I looked at your profile, GOTTLE OF GEER. It says you are Catholic, does that mean Roman Catholic? You may be some other brand of Catholic.

You said Mass is not a time for personal devotion. You didn’t read carefully. I said I was concentrating on the Consecration at that moment. I was not somewhere else mentally - I was following the Mass. I did say that if the layity starts singing at that time - I loose it. I might as well be sitting in the parking lot.

I have been a Roman Catholic for a long time, I go to Mass during the week, to miss that singing on Sunday. To sing on Sunday is just enulating the Protestants. Do you want to do a Protestant Practice at Mass? I don’t.

Now we get down to the most impoortant document. If you are a Roman Catholic you will agree that the Catechism ( from the Vatican) tells everyone what the Church teaches. Just look in the Catechism and see if it says that the laity is supposed to sing. IT DOESN’T! Does it say music is good at times, YES! But it doesn’t say the layity is supposed to sing. Look at Paragraph 1156. Nothing about the people singing! So after you see that come back at tell me where the Roman Catholic Church has written that the people are to sing. Sure choirs can sing but not layity.:yup:

 

[carol_marie]

Exporter,

I think God is pleased when everyone sings praises to His name. The OT is filled with verses that say just that. Here’s a few:

“Shout with joy to God ALL THE EARTH! Sing the glory of His name; make his praise glorious!”

“Sing joyfully to the Lord, you righteous; it is fitting for the upright to praise him. Praise the Lord with the harp; make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre. Sing to Him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy!”

“Rejoice in the Lord and be glad, you righteous; SING all you who are upright in heart!”

“I will sing praise to your name, O Most High”

See, it’s not a “Protestant” thing… it’s a “God thing.” Although it apparently bothers you, it doesn’t appear to bother God. I’d go so far as to say He likes it, so why don’t you come in from the parking lot and praise Him with us!

CM

 

[Kevin_Walker]

RomanRiteTeen:

Recently I made the choice to join the Catholic Church, I will be Confirmed this Easter and be welcomed in.
What attracted me was the outward appearance of the Church.
I thought of mystery, unity, latin, incense-- true and honest REVERENCE to CHRIST our KING.

Then, I went to Mass. Ack. Touchdown Jesus, corny sermons, felt tapestries, modern art. No altar rails, no beauty, no reverence. Where was my King?
Is this what has swept the Church? There is no unity in it! There are so many laws on Liturgy, and none are followed. I cannot praise my King while mentally trying not to note various abuses.

I miss my Church, the Church wherein I was baptized. I miss the Anglican Communion! How joyous, uplifting, and reverent was the Sacrifice of the Mass there!
Even in the worst, ugliest, modernist, dare I say the most liberal of churches, NO LAWS WERE BEING BROKEN! (Because there were none to break!)

I was simply kneeling before my Lord, singing the ancient hymns of my faith, and receiving him at the rail where countless others had knelt-- in silence before the altar.

I guess I’m just venting, but why leave paradise for the desert?
http://www.mncj.com/Messiah.jpg

I have had several experiences with Protestant churches, which led me running back to Catholic Churches.

My first impressions were that Protestants use their churches as social clubs.

I cannot get used to a ‘married’ man of the cloth. That’s as secular as can be.

I cannot get used to female ministers (priests?). Role reversal offends me.

I was invited to an Episcopalean service but respectfully declined because they had a female ‘Bishop’ performing the service, and I said I didn’t want to laugh out loud in the middle of the ‘Mass’(?).

I walked into a Methodist Church by accident, and thought it was a closed building (nothing much inside).

A female minister actually asked me out on a date, what a bizarre thing to happen to a conservative Catholic?

 

[Katholikos]

iridis.com/glivar/Martin_Luther

(Iridis Encyclopedia)

"Luther’s hymns sparked the development of congregational singing in Christianity."

Asking why Catholics don’t sing is like asking why Catholics aren’t Protestant. Christians did not sing at all in Church until the 16th century and the so-called Reformation, when Luther substituted singing for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

When VII called for congregational singing, they had Latin chant in mind – not Kumbaya.

Peace be to all who post at Catholic Answers.

JMJ Jay

 

[Exporter]

carol marie:

Exporter,

I think God is pleased when everyone sings praises to His name. The OT is filled with verses that say just that. Here’s a few:

“Shout with joy to God ALL THE EARTH! Sing the glory of His name; make his praise glorious!”

“Sing joyfully to the Lord, you righteous; it is fitting for the upright to praise him. Praise the Lord with the harp; make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre. Sing to Him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy!”

“Rejoice in the Lord and be glad, you righteous; SING all you who are upright in heart!”

“I will sing praise to your name, O Most High”

See, it’s not a “Protestant” thing… it’s a “God thing.” Although it apparently bothers you, it doesn’t appear to bother God. I’d go so far as to say He likes it, so why don’t you come in from the parking lot and praise Him with us!

CM

---

Carol Marie, Thanks for you gracious post. I know you tried to give some reasons for singing. But these very verses are given by Protestants, I know, I have asked them.

During those ten years when I woud not go to my Catholic Church I did occasionally go to a church servive at a Methodist and a Pentacostal church. I counted the songs thay sang. It was usually eight or nine. 70% of the time was spent singing songs. They seem to think singing songs is the central worship service. And yes I didn’t contenue to go to those churches. I remember on one Palm Sunday the “sermon” was about Job. I got up and left in the middle of it.

Go see post # 38 by Katholikos. Martin Luther wrote somgs in German. This was the first time in 1600 years that Christians sang in church! So it is a Protestant thing after all.

Show me in our Catechism of the Catholic Church that the laity is supposed to sing in church. It isn’t there! Sure there can be a choir, but not laity. Go look, try to find it. Thanks again for your nice post.

 

[Contarini]

Katholikos,

As you admit, VII called for congregational singing. It isn’t “Protestant.” The encyclopedia you cite is simply wrong. Tell the faithful of Milan in the time of Ambrose, chanting psalms to each other all night long in the cathedral waiting to be massacred by Arian soldiers, that they were doing something “Protestant” that wouldn’t be invented for another 1200 years! Tell the early Christians, who got up with the dawn to “sing hymns to Christ as a god,” that they were imitating a German monk who would live centuries later. This is sheer nonsense. And you are trying to evade the issue by a straw man, pointing out correctly that Vatican II had Gregorian chant, not “Kumbaya” in mind. I’ve made it very clear that I would like to see Catholic congregations chanting, as I’ve known some Episcopal congregations do. Vatican II does not say that only Gregorian chant is appropriate–in fact it says the opposite. but I agree with you that Vatican II’s recommendations for chant to have “pride of place” in the Latin Rite have been horribly ignored.

Exporter, you keep harping on the Catechism. Deal with the quotes I’ve given you from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Or don’t you recognize the authority of Vatican II? Why then do you recognize the authority of the Catechism, which consistently cites Vatican II?

In Christ,

Edwin