The interior of St. Peter's Basilica, suffused with light...-
Hello po! I am a Catholic po and I believe that there were things that went wrong with Vatican II, at least in its interpretation, as Pope Benedict XVI himself affirmed (and affirms) many times. The real spirit and letter of Vatican II was interpreted in a rather mistaken way (hermeneutics of rapture). That is why, now, Pope Benedict is exerting efforts to salvage the true spirit and letter of Vatican II (hermeneutics of continuity); especially in the realm of the Liturgy of the Church. I do believe that there are ambiguities in the Vatican II documents which sometimes contradict the Church's traditional stance in various matters: religious liberty, the Church of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church, extreme ecumenism,etc. In interpretation there were abuses: the total loss of Latin (which Vatican II did not decree; on the contrary, Vatican II affirms the Church's continued use of Latin, in some parts, in the Liturgy), the "de facto" permission (or at least toleration) of liturgical abuses,etc. But, I admit (and I'm happy about them), there are many good things that came out from Vatican II: the "limited" permission of the vernacular in the Liturgy, the spiritual aspects of the Church in contrast to the rather "hierarchical" view of it (although its an integral part of the doctrine on the Church), the expanded use of the Word of God in and out of the Liturgy, etc. But I regret that Vatican II was tainted with some modernist viewpoints and ambiguities in the documents. As Pope John XXIII said the "teachings (dogmatic) of the Church remain the same" and will never be changed, so I prefer to use/adhere to pre-Vatican II teachings (or formulations), these were not "abrogated". Thanks!
- Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[Hello po!]
HELLO DIN!
[I am a Catholic po and I believe that there were things that went wrong with Vatican II,]
AS YOU HAVE STATED THERE WERE THINGS THAT WENT WRONG WITH VATICAN II. IT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT THE VATICAN II ITSELF THAT WAS WRONG. THESE THINGS THAT WENT WRONG ARE DISTINCT FROM THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL ITSELF.
THE HOLY SPIRIT PROMISED TO PRESERVE THE CHURCH AND TO PROVIDE INSPIRATION IN COUNCILS BUT THERE IS NO PROMISE THAT EVERYTHING WILL GO SMOOTHLY AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEMS.
ALL COUNCILS ARE ACCOMPANIED BY DIFFICULTIES, TRIALS AND TENSIONS. THAT IS BUT NORMAL SINCE WE ARE DEALING WITH A VERY LARGE INSTITUTION AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
[at least in its interpretation, as Pope Benedict XVI himself affirmed (and affirms) many times.]
THE POPE IS HONEST AND VIRTUOUS AND ALSO REALISTIC. HIS STATEMENT ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH IS ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CATHOLIC FAMILY. BUT THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN COMMUNION WITH HIM HAS NO RIGHT TO USE THAT AS A WEAPON TO PROVIDE AMMUNITION FOR THEIR SILLY REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO PAPAL AUTHORITY.
EVERY DOCUMENT, THE BIBLE NOT EXCLUDED, ARE SUBJECT TO VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS AND SOME OF THEM ARE ERRONEOUS AND HERETICAL. THAT IS WHY THERE ARE PROTESTANTS, HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT BLAME THE SCRIPTURES FOR THE SINS OF THESE PEOPLE. SO, IT IS UNFAIR TO BLAME THE VATICAN II FOR THE ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF OTHERS ESPECIALLY ON THE FAILURE OF LEFEBVRE TO INTERPRET VATICAN II CORRECTLY.
OBVIOUSLY LEFEBVRE AND SSPX INTERPRETED THE COUNCIL DOCUMENTS ERRONEOUSLY.
-
[The real spirit and letter of Vatican II was interpreted in a rather mistaken way (hermeneutics of rapture).]
THAT IS THE ERROR OF LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX. THEY ARE INSISTING ON A RAPTURE THAT IS NOT EXISTING. THEY HAVE CREATED HYDRAS IN THEIR MINDS. BESIDES, THE SSPX IS PART OF THE RAPTURE. WHEN LEFEBVRE COMMITTED THOSE EXCOMMUNICABLE ACTS HE BECAME THE SOURCE OF A RAPTURE TOGETHER WITH ARIUS, NESTORIUS, LUTHER, HENRY VIII, CALVIN AND OTHERS.
THE SSPX HAVE NO RIGHTS TO SPEAK TO US OF RAPTURE BECAUSE THEY ARE THE INSTIGATORS OF THAT RAPTURE. THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES WHO SPOKE AND DEBATED DURING THE COUNCIL SUCH AS CARDINAL OTTAVIANI, CARDINAL SANTOS OF MANILA OR CARDINAL SIRI LIVED AND DIED FAITHFUL TO THE MAGISTERIUM AND DIDN'T JOIN LEFEBVRE IN HIS FOOLISHNESS.
[That is why, now, Pope Benedict is exerting efforts to salvage the true spirit and letter of Vatican II (hermeneutics of continuity);]
THE POPES FROM PAUL VI, OF BLESSED MEMORY, TO BENEDICT XVI HAVE CORRECTLY INTERPRETED AND IMPLEMENTED THE VATICAN II. AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS NOT SALVAGING BUT SIMPLY CONFRONTING THE COMMON PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH.
ALMOST ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS ARE NOT CAUSED BY VATICAN II BUT DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF SECULARISTIC MEDIA, THE RISE OF SEXUAL REVOLUTION BROUGHT BY THE HIPPIES IN THE 70's, THE SECULARIZATION IN THE SOCIETY... PROBLEMS THAT WERE NOT SO STRONG IN THE PREVIOUS CENTURIES.
[especially in the realm of the Liturgy of the Church.]
THE LITURGY OF THE CHURCH HAS UNDERGONE A REVISION AND PROCESS OF SIMPLIFICATION. IT IS BUT NATURAL THAT THERE WILL BE PROBLEMS THAT WILL ARISE. BUT, THE PROBLEM IS MINIMAL BECAUSE THE CATHOLICS BY MILLIONS SHOWED LOVE AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEW MASS. ONLY A HANDFUL FEW LIKE THE SSPX REJECTED THE MASS OF PAUL VI.
[I do believe that there are ambiguities in the Vatican II documents]
O NO, THE VATICAN II DOCUMENTS ARE NOT AMBIGUOUS. THEY ARE CLEAR. HOWEVER, IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO REFUSE TO OBEY EVEN CLEAR THINGS ARE DARK FOR THEIR REBELLIOUS HEARTS. JUST LIKE THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. THEY ARE CLEAR BUT THOSE WHO ARE READING THEM CAN COMMIT ERRORS IN INTERPRETATION UNLESS THEY INTERPRET THEM IN COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH.
THE SSPX CAN'T INTERPRET VATICAN II CORRECTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE OUT OF COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH.
-
[which sometimes contradict the Church's traditional stance in various matters:]
IT IS THE SSPX THAT CONTRADICTS THE CHURCH TEACHING AND TRADITION. THE COUNCIL WAS FAITHFUL TO CATHOLIC TRADITION.
[religious liberty,]
IF THEY DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT RELIGIOUS LIBERTY THEN THE SSPX IS PROMOTING RELIGIOUS SLAVERY.
THE CHURCH NEVER FORCES ANYONE TO ACCEPT HER TEACHINGS. THE PEOPLE ARE FREE TO CHOOSE AND DECIDE. EVEN GOD RESPECTS THE FREE WILL OF MAN.
IF THE SSPX REJECTS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY THEN THEY ARE VIOLATING THE FREE WILL OF MAN. THAT IS DEMONIC.
THE VATICAN II SIMPLY RECOGNIZES THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF EVERY PERSON TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN RELIGION BUT IT NEVER TEACHES THAT ALL RELIGION ARE EQUAL.
[the Church of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church,]
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST SUBSISTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? IT MEANS THAT THE CHURCH OF JESUS IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE COUNCIL NEVER STATED THAT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ONLY ONE OF THE CHURCHES COMPRISING THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. NONE OF THESE THINGS. IT IN FACT, PROCLAIMS THAT IT IS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
HOW ABOUT TRANSUBSTANTATION, THEOTOKOS, CONSUBSTANTIAL, ETC. ARE THEY NOT SUBJECT TO ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS AS WELL? WHY DID THE EARLIER COUNCIL USED TRANSUBSTANTATION WHEN THEY COULD JUST SAY PLAINLY: "THE BREAD BECOMES THE BODY OF CHRIST"?
YOU ARE SPEAKING AS IF THE PREVIOUS COUNCILS HAVEN'T USE VERY DIFFICULT TERMS THAT ONLY THOSE WHO STUDIED CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY COULD CLEARLY UNDERSTAND.
[extreme ecumenism,]
VATICAN II ONLY TEACHES 'ECUMENISM' AND NOT 'EXTREME ECUMENISM'. WHO TAUGHT YOU THAT 'EXTREME ECUMENISM'?
[etc.]
ACTUALLY, IT IS THE SSPX WHO HAS INVENTED DOCTRINES THAT ARE NOT PART OF TRADITION. LOOK AT THE WAY THEY JUSTIFY DISOBEDIENCE TO THE POPE AND THE CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL BISHOP. THAT IS SATANIC. THEY ARE DESTROYING THE ESSENTIAL INTEGRITY OF THE CHURCH.
-
[In interpretation there were abuses:]
THE ABUSES ARE COMMITTED BY THOSE WHO ARE UNFAITHFUL TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH AND ONE OF THEM IS LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX. THE DISOBEDIENT LIBERAL AND THE DISOBEDIENT ULTRA TRADITIONAL ARE POSSESSED BY THE SAME DEMON OF DISOBEDIENCE. THEY HATE EACH OTHER WITHOUT REALIZING THAT THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME.
[the total loss of Latin (which Vatican II did not decree; on the contrary, Vatican II affirms the Church's continued use of Latin, in some parts, in the Liturgy),]
THE LOSS OF LATIN IS NOT A LOSS CAUSED BY THE COUNCIL. IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO NATURALLY LOST LATIN. ACTUALLY, LATIN BECAME THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE IT HAS REPLACED GREEK AS THE LINGUA FRANCA OF THE WORLD. NOW LATIN IS NO LONGER SPOKEN BY PEOPLE SO THE CHURCH WISELY DECIDED TO USE THE LIVING LANGUAGE IN COMMON USED.
THE PRESENCE OF LATIN IN THE LITURGY IS NOT A DOGMA BUT ONLY PASTORAL. IT CAN BE CHANGED AND BE REPLACED.
IF THE HOLY SPIRIT WANTED TO RETAIN LATIN AS THE ONLY LANGUAGE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HE SHOULD HAVE PRESERVED IT AS THE LINGUA FRANCA OF THE WORLD. ON THE CONTRARY, HE ALLOWED IT TO DISAPPEAR INTO ALMOST OBLIVION.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT LATIN WAS TOTALLY LOST BECAUSE THE MASSES OF THE POPE IN THE VATICAN ESPECIALLY DURING SOLEMNITIES ARE IN LATIN. AND IN MANY CHURCHES GREGORIAN CHANTS AND LATIN MASSES ARE CELEBRATED AS WE DID IN THE SEMINARY. WE USED TO CELEBRATE THE MASS IN LATIN EVERY SATURDAY EVENING AND DOING IT WITH BEAUTY AND GRACE.
SO, STOP SPREADING THAT LATIN WAS TOTALLY LOST. O NO, NO, NO... JUST LEARN OF WHAT IS HAPPENING INSIDE MANY SEMINARIES, MONASTERIES AND CHURCHES.
[the "de facto" permission (or at least toleration) of liturgical abuses,etc.]
THE PROBLEM WITH SSPX IS THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT TLM IS LITURGICAL ABUSE. THEY SEE ABUSES WHERE THERE IS NONE. LIKE THE PHARISEES THEY DO NOT SEE THE GOOD THINGS ON OTHERS EXCEPT THE ONE THEY PREFER.
LITURGICAL ABUSES MUST BE CONDEMNED BUT THOSE ABUSES ARE RARE. THE LOCAL CHURCHES ALSO WORK HARD TO CORRECT THE ABUSES ON THE GRASSROOTS. THE CHURCH NEVER GAVE A 'DE FACTO' PERMISSION FOR LITURGICAL ABUSES.
THE SSPX DO NOT SEE THEIR CANONICAL ABUSES, THEIR ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, THEIR PUTTING ASUNDER THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AND THEIR ABUSE OF THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE POPE AS DECREED IN VATICAN I... NO, THEY ONLY LOOK AT OTHERS MALICIOUSLY.
-
[But, I admit (and I'm happy about them), there are many good things that came out from Vatican II:]
PRAISE THE LORD. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
[the "limited" permission of the vernacular in the Liturgy,]
LATIN IS STILL THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH HOWEVER, AS A PRIEST LIVING IN A PROVINCE WHOSE FAITHFUL ARE MOSTLY NOT FLUENT EVEN IN ENGLISH I THINK IT IS FOOLISH TO IMPLEMENT LATIN ON A REGULAR BASIS. SOMETIMES IT CAN BE SO LIKE IN SOLEMNITIES OR INSERT SOME GREGORIAN CHANTS DURING THE MASS BUT IT IS NOT PRACTICAL, PASTORAL AND REASONABLE TO USE LATIN REGULARLY.
THE USE OF A LANGUAGE UNDERSTANDABLE TO PEOPLE IS A PRIMARY DUTY OF THE CHURCH AS TEACHER, EVANGELIZER AND DISTRIBUTER OF THE HOLY THINGS OF GOD. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE CANON OF THE MASS THE PRIEST IS TALKING TO GOD BUT THE PEOPLE DESERVES TO KNOW WHAT THEIR LEADER TELLS THE LORD GOD BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THE NEW COVENANT. THAT IS WHY THE DIVINE MASTER CELEBRATED THE LAST SUPPER NOT IN LATIN BUT IN THE LIVING LANGUAGE OF HIS TIME.
[the spiritual aspects of the Church in contrast to the rather "hierarchical" view of it (although its an integral part of the doctrine on the Church),]
CORRECT. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. BOTH THE HIERARCHY AND THE 'COMMUNIO' MUST BE PRESERVED AND UPHELD. WE TEACHES THE SPIRITUAL ASPECTS TO REFLECT ON BUT THE CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH THAT THE HIERARCHY MUST BE REJECTED.
THAT IS WHY VATICAN II ENRICHES OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE FAITH.
[the expanded use of the Word of God in and out of the Liturgy, etc.]
YES. EVEN THE PROTESTANTS ARE SURPRISED NOWADAYS HOW OUR LAY PEOPLE COULD BE SO WELL-VERSED IN SCRIPTURES. ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE REGULAR CHURCH GOERS.
[But I regret that Vatican II was tainted with some modernist viewpoints and ambiguities in the documents.]
NOT ACTUALLY. THE DOCUMENTS DIDN'T SUCCUMB TO MODERNISM BECAUSE IT PRESERVES OUR BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, IN THE DIVINITY OF JESUS, THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURES AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH WITH THE POPE AS THE SUPREME PONTIFF. MODERNISM REJECTS ALL THESE.
THE COUNCIL SIMPLY GAVE US NEW PERSPECTIVE ON OUR FAITH THAT EMPOWERS US TO FACE THE CHALLENGE OF MODERNISM, ATHEISM, COMMUNISM AND OTHERS. THESE CAN'T JUST BE DEFEATED BY SIMPLE DECLARATIONS OF ANATHEMAS AND PUBLICATION OF PROHIBITED BOOKS. THOSE ARE SUPERFICIAL AND NOT ENOUGH. WHAT IS NEEDED IS TO FACE THESE ENEMIES IN ALL STRATAS OF LIFE AND CONFRONT THEM FAIRLY AND SQUARELY.
INDEED, THE LAY PEOPLE NOW ARE DEBATING AND DEFENDING THE FAITH IN ALMOST ALL FORA. JUST LOOK AT THE BLOG SPHERES HOW OUR LAY INTELLIGENTLY DEBATES THE ATHEISTS AND THE AGNOSTICS. THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT BECAME VERY STRONG AND HIGHLY ORGANIZED THEMSELVES LED BY THE LAY. JOHN XXIII THROUGH HIS PEACE EFFORTS HELPED IN AVOIDING WAR DURING THE COLD WAR. HE DIALOGUED WITH BOTH U.S. AND SOVIET GOVERNMENTS. THEN JOHN PAUL THE GREAT IS CONSIDERED AS ONE OF THE MAIN FORCES THAT BROUGHT THE FALL OF COMMUNISM IN EASTERN EUROPE, THE OTHERS ARE RONALD REAGAN OF US AND MARGARET THATCHER OF BRITAIN.
[As Pope John XXIII said the "teachings (dogmatic) of the Church remain the same" and will never be changed, so I prefer to use/adhere to pre-Vatican II teachings (or formulations), these were not "abrogated".]
CORRECT BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO REMAIN IN THE TEACHINGS OF PRE-VATICAN II THAT ARE NOT ABROGATED. BETTER UPHELD THE ENTIRE VATICAN II DOCUMENTS. THEREIN YOU WILL FIND THE PRE-VATICAN II TEACHINGS THAT ARE NOT ABROGATED BUT THEY ARE EXPLAINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF THE CHURCH.
- EVERY TIME THERE IS A COUNCIL, CATHOLIC TRADITION DICTATES THAT WE UPHELD THE COUNCIL IN FULL AND NOT JUST RELY EXCLUSIVELY ON THE PREVIOUS COUNCILS.
[Thanks!]
THANK YOU ALSO.
No comments:
Post a Comment