documents of Vat IIgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
the impressions i received while reading some of the documents, promulgated by vat ii, gives me the sense that the are revisionary at best and appearently breaks the continuity establish for the better part of 1900 years. these documents include, but are not limited to: inaestimabile donum, ( instruction concerning worship of the eucharist mystery, the constitution on the sacred liturgy, the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation andthge the decree on priestly training. does any-one have another take? juan.
-- juan (declined@aol.com), November 04, 2000
Oh, Juan, Juan! You cannot be moremistaken!
The documents of Vatican II -- "reactionary?"
My heavens!
I was in grade school and high school during Vatican II (1962 - 1965), and I can tell you without hesitation that the event and its documents were welcomed with open arms by so-called "progressive" people -- and were embraced greatly by many non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians (especially Jews). Blessed Pope John XXIII, who convoked the Council was treated as heroic by liberal politicians and the press.
Juan, from your reaction to the documents, I can only conclude that you were raised in an environment of dissent from true Catholic Church teaching. If you are a cradle Catholic, then all your life, you should have been exposed to the genuine teachings of the Vatican II documents. Instead, perhaps you were raised to believe things that are contrary to Catholicism, and this causes you to react negatively to the documents. What a shame! I hope that we, through prayer, persuasion, etc., can help you to overcome this stumbling block. Someone [priests, teachers, family?] seems to have done you a great disservice.
You must not be aware of the fact that there are some small schismatic groups (former Catholics) who have broken away from the Church since Vatican II, referring to some of the teachings in the documents as contrary to our Church's Tradition [i.e., too "liberal" or Protestant]. These are the folks who have sometimes been called "reactionaries," though I would prefer not to label anyone at all.
God bless you.
John
PS: The document, "Inaestimabile Donum," is not from Vatican II, but was promulgated by Pope John Paul II around 1980. It too is a very helpful document, as it concerns proper reverence for the Holy Eucharist, proper celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.. If you would like to see all the documents of Vatican II on-line, please go to this list of links.
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), November 04, 2000.
OUCH! I am so embarrassed, Juan!
These old eyes of mine did not read your message carefully enough.
You did not refer to the documents of Vatican II as "reactionary."
Instead you wrote, that they are "revisionary at best and appearently breaks the continuity establish for the better part of 1900 years."
That is almost the direct opposite of calling them "reactionary."
I am so sorry to have implied that you received improper training from extreme dissenters who sometimes call genuine Catholic teaching "reactionary."
However, now I have to re-focus and turn in the other direction.
I'm afraid that I end up repeating a few words I used before:
"If you are a cradle Catholic, then all your life, you should have been exposed to the genuine teachings of the Vatican II documents."
The Popes since 1960, and the documents themselves, declare that they proclaim no new doctrine, but only present all the old, traditional doctrines. Yes, they are presented in a new light -- placing them in up-to-date terminology and settings ("aggiornamento," as Pope John called it). We can be sure that we are being presented with no new or revised or incomplete teachings, simply by consulting the many footnotes/endnotes, which constantly refer to scripture, the works of the saints and early Church Fathers, and the documents of other Councils of the prior 1900 years.
Thus, Vatican II was not "revisionary" in the sense of adding, subtracting, or deleting doctrine. It would be good if you could obtain a copy of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, the 1992 document, prepared by the world's bishops, to clearly explain what we believe. It has been called the "Catechism of Vatican II." Again, if you consult its huge indexes or many footnotes, you will see how everything is rooted in the traditional teachings of the previous 1960 years -- as so much is drawn from the Bible, the saints, the Fathers, and past Councils. You can search the Cathechism by topic or paragraph number on-line at this site.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), November 04, 2000.
dear john, thank you for your interesting reply to my observations. i see from your personal sketch from where your catholic education comes. let me restate, the aforementioned documents, as well as the ideas proposed, from what i have read are indeed, revisionist. i guess in some respects you may say, i have been catholic since dirt, having been taught by diocesan priests of the jesuit extraction, sisters of mercy not to mention christian brothers. i do not take lightly those impositions upon the faithfull that were so to speak, shoved down our throat. i hardly think i am alone in this. i am not a sedavacantist but a devout traditionalist (this description given us by others) your observation of the inaestimabile donum is correct in that it was approved by pope john paul ii in 1980. this is 15 years after vat ii and twenty years prior to today. please take note of paragraph 4 of the foreword wherein it states "but these encouraging and positive aspects cannot suppress concern at the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the cathoic world". should this dialogue continue anything promulgated after the adoption of the documents promulgated by vat ii, is strictly ex post facto. thanking you for your interest. juan.
-- juan (declined@aol.com), November 04, 2000.
Jmj
Thanks for your reply, Juan. I would like to comment on most of the things you wrote.
-- "i see from your personal sketch from where your catholic education comes. ... i guess in some respects you may say, i have been catholic since dirt, having been taught by diocesan priests of the jesuit extraction, sisters of mercy not to mention christian brothers."
Be careful not jump to incorrect conclusions! I was educated by Sisters of Notre Dame and Benedictine Fathers and Brothers, after which I spent five years at a Jesuit university. (Jesuits are members of a religious "society" and are thus not "diocesan priests.") I have been exposed, by life's experiences and education, to all points of view. I was born in 1951 and was an altar boy for the old Latin Mass, which I loved. I understand the situation we are discussing very well.
-- "let me restate, the aforementioned documents, as well as the ideas proposed, from what i have read are indeed, revisionist."
Since we disagree -- and since I have pointed out the ways in which you can determine that the documents (and the Catechism) are not revisionist -- I think that you have a responsibility of explaining specifically what Catholic doctrines have been "revised."
But if you are speaking merely about "revision" of disciplines (e.g., the celebration of Mass and the Sacraments), then I would say, "Of course, these have been revised, and the popes and bishops had a perfect right to revise them." They have been revised repeatedly in past ages. The rite of Mass celebrated by Pope Pius XII was itself a revised rite. For a traditionalist to be truly logical (in being "anti-revisionist") he would have to want the Mass to be celebrated only as it was in the first century, since everything else, including the so-called Tridentine rite, is a "revision."
-- "i do not take lightly those impositions upon the faithfull that were so to speak, shoved down our throat. i hardly think i am alone in this. i am not a sedavacantist but a devout traditionalist (this description given us by others)
Those who are truly "devout traditionalists" are the folks who support the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (PFSP), rather than the Societies of St. Pius X. (The PFSP is in full communion with the Catholic Church, and is obedient to the Pope.) One cannot be a "devout" Catholic without being submissive to the authority of the successor of St. Peter. One cannot be a "devout" Catholic while referring to decisions made by the successors of the Apostles as "shoving things down our throat." One cannot be a "devout" Catholic if one comes to a public forum (like this one) and criticizes the Church. If a devout Catholic disagrees with a disciplinary decision of his pastor, bishop, or pope, he must either accept it silently (as many saints did) or he can pursue it through private, silent, correspondence with the clergyman who made the decision. To make public attacks is scandalous, easily becoming a serious sin of bad example.
-- "please take note of paragraph 4 of the foreword [of "Inaestimabile Donum"] wherein it states 'but these encouraging and positive aspects cannot suppress concern at the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the cathoic world.' should this dialogue continue anything promulgated after the adoption of the documents promulgated by vat ii, is strictly ex post facto.
I'm sorry, Juan, but I don't understand the points you were trying to make in these statements. Feel free to clarify this, if you wish, though it is not necessary.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), November 05, 2000.
thank you for your reply. i am glad to see your extensive background. much of this discussion i will be forced to leave to the theologians and other educational and/or historic persons to deciper. the main peramiter of this dialogue is that anything after 1965 is ex post facto. this includes but is not limited to society of pius x, fraternal order of st. peter or any other rubrics, girms, canons, etc. promulgated after. bringing these into discussion only clouds the real issue. with regards to the differences brought up, for the time, will be noted and i will endeavor to make a connection with the thinking you exemplify to today's current thought. i acknowledge that your education eclipses mine but this will give you a hedge. now, let me take a moment to call your attention to paragraph 1 in the introduction to the constitution on the sacred liturgy, dated 4 december 1963 wherein it states "the sacred council has set out to impart an ever-increasing vigor to the christian life of the faithful; to adapt more closely to the needs of our age those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call all mankind into the church's fold. accordingly it sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of liturgy." i have been led to believe by the aforementioned religious that the church does not change. this paragraph appear to indicate the opposite is true. the observation on my part especially with the benefit of hindsight is rather compelling, do you not agree? pax domini juan.
-- juan (declined@aol.com), November 06, 2000.
Jmj
Hello, Juan.
Sorry to have taken so long to return to your thread.
I have re-read your previous statements and have come to the conclusion that you have gone astray in two ways, and these slips have led you to an incorrect idea that you have espoused -- that Vatican II was "revisionary at best and appearently breaks the continuity establish for the better part of 1900 years."
ITEM 1. You stated this: "I have been led to believe by the aforementioned religious [Jesuits, Sisters of Mercy, Christian Brothers] that the Church does not change."
Juan, it appears that you have taken this idea (the unchanging Church) in a very literal, "blanket" way -- as though nothing whatsoever can change in the Church. I feel quite certain that your religious teachers meant nothing of the sort. You must have misunderstood them.
MANY things are subject to change in the Church Jesus founded. The kinds of things that cannot change are clearly taught matters of doctrine (faith and morality) -- for example, teachings that can be found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent [aka, Roman Catechism] or the new Catechism of the Catholic Church [aka, Vatican II Catechism of 1992]. It is impossible for the Church to begin teaching something that contradicts Divine Revelation. What the Church has previously taught about matters of faith and morals was not contradicted by the documents of Vatican II nor in authoritative post-conciliar documents.
Here is a quotation concerning the Mass (and other liturgical rites) which can help you see the distinction between the fixed and the changeable:
"In the liturgy ... there is an immutable part, a part that is divinely instituted and of which the Church is the guardian, and parts that can be changed, which the Church has the power and on occasion also the duty to adapt to the cultures of recently evangelized peoples."
Juan, I feel 100% certain that your teachers would have agreed with the above quotation from the new Catechism.
ITEM 2. You have given us a good quotation from "Sacrosanctum Concilium," the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Unfortunately, it appears that, because of your misunderstanding about permissible change (which I explained above), you presented the quotation as if it were an error made by the Council Fathers. Having looked at the names of the documents you listed, I can see that you don't even mention the single most important and authoritative document of the Council -- "Lumen Gentium," the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. That should have been the very first conciliar document for you to read. Either you have not read LG at all, or you may have read it without due attention, or you may have read it after having already developed a prejudice against Vatican II. This is very unfortunate. A careful reading of LG reveals that Vatican II contradicted none of the Church's prior doctrine. Take, for example, the opening words of the document:
"1. Christ is the Light of nations. Because this is so, this Sacred Synod gathered together in the Holy Spirit eagerly desires, by proclaiming the Gospel to every creature, to bring the light of Christ to all men, a light brightly visible on the countenance of the Church. Since the Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race, it desires now to unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner nature and universal mission. This it intends to do, following faithfully the teaching of previous councils."
[You can read all of Lumen Gentium at http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2CHURCH.HTM]
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), November 11, 2000.
today at mass, i had you in my thoughts. the mass i attended used virtually the same texts, the same language, most of the similar prayers and followed virtually the same format as followed by our predecessors for the most part of 1,500 years. it is unfortunate john, you are unable to say the same thing. it would be beneficial, if you would go to your favorite search engine, type in either "constitution of the sacred liturby" and/or "sacrosanctum concilium", download the document and then we shall be on the same page. as i stated any documents post vat ii, which include the catechism have been made after the fact (ex post facto) and cannot be used in this discussion. however, critiques of the documents by members of the hierarchy can be used provided however, that they are germain to those documents and/or events directly related to them. an observation was asked of you regarding the idea espoused in paragraph one of the introduction to the constitution. do you have a reply? pax domini juan.
-- juan (declined@aol.com), November 13, 2000.
Hello, Juan.
Before continuing, I ask you kindly to re-read my latest message very carefully. From your reply, it seems that you did not do me the courtesy of reading what I painstakingly wrote.
---------------------------
If you want to ignore my references to the Catechism, please do so, though I reject your offensive premise that, on a Catholic forum, you can declare Catholic documents "off limits" because they are "ex post facto." They are not "ex post" anything to me.
Nevertheless, I repeat: please ignore what I have quoted from the Catechism, if you wish, but ...
I asked you to read "Lumen Gentium" -- the most important and authoritative document of the Second Vatican Council. I even provided a quotation from it, so that you can be reassured that you are mistaken in your thinking.
I also told you that you must have misunderstood what the three religious orders/congregations taught you. The Jesuits, the Christian Brothers, and the Sisters who taught you ALL embraced Vatican II. Please respond to these points I am making, instead of running away from them, if you wish to continue the conversation.
You have asked me to comment on the quotation you previously gave from "Sacrosanctum Concilium." I did comment on it indirectly last time, showing that there was nothing in it to fear. However, I will look at it again now:
"The sacred Council has set out to impart an ever-increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more closely to the needs of our age those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call all mankind into the Church's fold. Accordingly it sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of liturgy."
Please notice that I have added emphasis (bold type) to the most important phrase, the phrase that should put your mind at ease. Nothing has been changed except what was "subject to change." As a Catholic, you are required to believe this. If you would not believe it, you would insult the Holy Spirit, who vivified the Council.
Have you stopped to think about this: I was an altar boy and had even reached the age of 19 before the new rite of the Mass was used. You would be insulting my intelligence if you were to claim that I accepted something evil. You would be saying that the I and the pope and 99.99% of all other Catholics were too stupid to realize that something invalid was being foisted upon us. And you would also be saying that the 00.01% of Catholics who became schismatics (rejecting the new rite) were so brilliant that they knew better than me and the popes and bishops of the world. I totally reject this protestant way of thinking -- and I hope that you will reject it, beginning today.
Juan, the erroneous nature of your position is reflected in the self-contradictory words you just posted:
"the mass i attended [today] used virtually the same texts, the same language, most of the similar prayers and followed virtually the same format as followed by our predecessors for the most part of 1,500 years."
In your own words, you admit that the texts were only "virtually the same." The fact that they were not exactly the same means that you admit that they were revised/changed -- and so you should not dare to question the Vatican Council's right to revise/change. Furthermore, you refer to the rite you attended as being from the last "1,500 years." But the Church is almost 2,000 years old. You are therefore admitting that another rite or rites were used for almost 500 years before the one you attended today. Again, this proves that you attended a rite that was revised/changed from something older. And therefore, you can see that, if you were to object to liturgical revisions/changes coming out of Vatican II, your objection would stand for a moment on quicksand, but then silently sink from sight.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), November 13, 2000.
c'mon john, quit trying to be cute with words. please stay germain to the topic. the question. the documents of vat ii are under discussion. so far you have done everything but focus on the subject. they are readily available for all to peruse (read). in paragraph 4 of the introduction to the "constitution on the sacred liturgy" it is stated "the council also desires that where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs." does this or does this not use the them "revise"? does this statement or does it not suggest altering the church? pax domini, juan.
-- juan (declined@aol.com), November 13, 2000.
Yadda,Yadda,Yadda............Head Knowledge!!!!!! I think I'll read this again tonight..It'll put me right to sleep.
-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), November 13, 2000.
It's unfortunate that we were unable to have a reasonable conversation, Juan. Good luck in your schismatic community. You will always be welcome back when you begin to feel homesick.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), November 14, 2000.
in reply, let me make an observation. i made the statement to the affect that believed that documents of vat ii were revisionary at best. you issued a scaling diatribe telling me i was wrong. fine..when you were asked to rebut my allegations, you decided to evade the question and launch into an attack. you must be a clarevoyant in order to be able to determine what a person is or isn't. i asked for dialogue for the purpose of attempting to reduce and/or eliminate conflicts i have and you attack. i thank you for your charitable behavior. however, in doing what you did, you exposed yourself and shall reply in another thread at another time. i, on the otherhand will try to be what your were not. pax domini. juan
-- juan (declined@aol.com), November 16, 2000.
Guys, guys, take it easy. We Catholics shouldn't be arguing amoung ourselves, GOD knows there are enough other people out there that will attack us so guys we got to stick together, pre or post vat II supporters. Pat
-- Patrick (pjfinnuk@yahoo.co.uk), January 31, 2004.