Vatican II.

VII Essay:

Notes:

I am not a learned. I am not anyone of substance. My sole defence for this critique is the love in my heart placed there by the Holy Ghost. For I know the authority that the Holy Ghost has given to me. I am as Catholic as they come. A very strong Trad Cat. I love my faith. It's why I write this. It is not my intention to criticise a beautiful organisation - one which I have grown exceptionally to love - but rather to, through a direct and sober analysis of its direction and course, guide it gently back on track. It is not my intent to criticise. Rather, there are many beautiful aspects of this document. I'm sure there are many beautiful aspects of every text of religion in the world. My intention is to provide for a basis of discussion the intent and practicality of the texts here. And, of course, if I am nobody, if I am crazy above that, what should it matter what I write or say? BUT... there is in fact, very much, which is beautiful and good in this council.

These are a number of my notes on the first three sections of Vatican 2. I invite you to read and think about all of this. Again, I want to emphasise that it is not my intention to criticise. God knows. God sees. I trust Him.

Dei Verbum: 

Notes:

Even the Apostle Paul alludes to spiritual experiences he had, which he chose not to include in His letters out of humility. Is it not the same humility with which we approach Scripture? With the understanding that we know all we need know for our salvation? But, what I argue here is that to censor and hinder new revelation, which is blatant and persistent, may not be conducive to healthy faith. If God were trying to make something new known to His people, who can prevent it? Fullness of all Revelation in Christ. "we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ" This is pretty limiting. What of the one third of prophecies in the Word and given to seers every day in the Church? Worthy of investigation. At least an open mind. What of Fatima? Medjugorje? Malachi?

Very beautiful. But it doesn't really contain much substance. Almost as though a council was convened just to convene a council!

I like the sacred scripture\sacred tradition connection.

"But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." 

Again, a good thing to have shepherds watching over us. Teaching us. What happens when these shepherds have become corrupted? Their teaching corrupted? Seems like a reach for control. Would you follow the teaching office if it taught that we are to kill our enemies? Murder? Lie? Steal? The Word is always paramount. This will be the grounding upon which our faith is built. And yes, for the past two millennium, the teaching office has safeguarded the faith very well. 

"Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching 

solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation."

"However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."

"literary forms."

This opens the door for Scripture to be interpreted as allegory. When Scripture is interpreted as allegory, genesis and revelation are the first to be questioned. If we allow ourselves to question the foundation of the world, we can question anything in the faith. If Genesis got it wrong, what makes you think that any other book of the Bible is true? I prefer to have faith in my God. I take Him at His Word. I don't think that He is deceitful with His words. Do you?

Yes, the Hebrew Testament was pointing to Jesus as the Messiah. This was its purpose and mission. But, it was not its only purpose and mission. This ignores a wide history and original plan in the first Elect of God. The purpose of whom will remain in tact, until the end, when they receive as one family unit, the Lord Jesus. Maybe I am being too critical of the text. But it seems like, Dei Verbum is rejecting the fullness of Life prior to Jesus. I'll keep reading!

Also, from a personal opinion, yes, the New Testament is the most important. Because it is about Jesus. But, it is a unit! I have always wondered how certain Gospels and epistles and books were excluded from the Canon of Sacred Scripture. 'In the end, one will come who will make popular this Book of Enoch again.' (From Enoch) Certainly, many were not as reliable. But certainly they were essential to even the Apostles. The apostles would have been very familiar with the Book of Enoch and other texts. Still, the four Gospels and letters are sufficient to know the truth as Church has instructed. It's a good thing.

Feelings are not the Spirit.*

So, it is mentioned that teaching office has the responsibility to guide faithful in matters of Truth and according to the Laws laid out in Sacred Scripture. How much more so the case now? 

If there are more elements to Truth than found in Sacred Scripture, careful effort should be taken in assessing truths. Truths like Garabandal, Fatima, Medjugorje. As the Bride of Christ, we should always be eager to continually progress with the Spirit of God. In the ways He is guiding us. But, we need to stay rooted in Christ. The Word of God is the root. And let us test all new revelation by the Word of God. But, let us have a diverse census of assessors. So that their decision in this matter will not be tainted by envy, greed or political censorship.

Lumen Gentium: 

Notes:

It's interesting how quickly we have abandoned the mission to bring Christ to all men. And instead have adopted a universal view of salvation, where everyone can be saved. Not a critique of the text but of the direction of the church.

I'm sure i will have much chance to examine this thought later. But i just wanted to point out that the 

mission of the Church should not be too concerned with material and social well-being of faithful that they neglect their spiritual well being.

Be prudent about trying to create a heaven on Earth. We should always remember that this world is broken and ill. It is fading away. It is not, nor can ever be, a utopia. The concept that earth can be a heaven is a communist propaganda. 

Again, be prudent in labeling any of the Word of God as metaphor. If we can call one part of the Word metaphor, what is to stop us from saying the whole thing is metaphor. Slippery slope and lack of faith.

I don't understand the Church's position on suffering. Certainly, it is meant to foster faith. Especially in times of darkness. But God wants our love and happiness and joy.

"Allow the visible social structure of the Mystical Body of Christ to shine forth the light of Christ."

"Just as Christ carried out the work of redemption in poverty and persecution, so the Church is called to follow the same route that it might communicate the fruits of salvation to men."

"is not set up to seek earthly glory, but to proclaim, even by its own example, humility and self-sacrifice."

Just because one is suffering does not mean that they are suffering in Christ. Suffering itself does not make one holy.

The unity of people, that God does not save people individually, erodes individualism. Individuality is a virtue to God. 

I am not a learned. But, I have a hunch that most councils were written and drafted in response to changing world dynamics. Please, this is unnecessary! The Church never changes. Even with the world.

I just want to say: sometimes it is not the will of God for the faithful to subject themselves to abuse for the sake of testimony. God wants us to use our voice and speak up when we are enduring chronic treatment.

Can the discernment even of the Body of Christ, whether it be a hierachical leader or a lay man, be influenced by outside morality? If the conscience of the world changes around the Church, can the Church be led to a state where its own conscience has been compromised?

There is a fine line between extinguishing the Spirit in creatures of God and discerning the validity of extraordinary gifts. I remember hearing a story from a brother Carthusian who told me that a Carthusian monastery unearthed their cemetery after some years and finding a number of bodies incorrupt, they simply reburied them. There is a difference between humility and hiding light. Mark my words, it is not God who desires to hide the light of men. Let your light shine, all the earth! Let your light shine! Let not our attempts to discern validity of miracles do away with the fact that miracles are actually being done.

I agree that other religions have access to God but we should do everything we can to draw them to Christ and true religion.

The Savior wills that all men be saved. But not without the Messiah of Love. Christ. This is the reason we must preach the Gospel to all ends of the earth.

Surely, apostolic succession is fruitful and real. We must be wary to guard and safeguard the integrity of the body that chooses the successor as well as the successor himself. There must be options when the successor or the choosing body are compromised. How will we know if the Church has been compromised? If it begins to advocate adoption of sin into morality. If it should propagate heresy or apostasy. Etc. Let us be discerning of every decision. What is the reason for this decision? Is it rooted in love? Or in envy/fear? I ask the question again, would you, the lay person, follow the Roman Pontiff into sin? It is a hypothetical question of course. But one that needs to be asked. I follow Christ first. Not the pope first. 

An innocent question about this though. Christ says leaders among you are to serve. That we are not to rule over the flock as the world leaders rule over the gentiles. This element of hierarchecal division causes envy and competition. Prudence!

Universal church's unity is found in Catholicism. Not individual cultures. This is what separates the Church from the world. I admit, it is kind of beautiful to have churches who are solely Ghanian, or churches that are solely Jamaican. but this is not our religion. This is culture. The Latin Mass, language and liturgy unites the entire body of Christ under Catholicism. If we introduce culture, at the expense of Catholicism, where is the end? Slippery slope. Soon the Eucharist will be replaced by pita bread or maise bread.

"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.

and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock."

The Church has little business in economic, civic and social issues. MLK Jr. once said that when a religion teaches faith and love but neglects that man's body and needs it is no longer religion. It's true, isn't it? And it's appealing isn't it? Almost too appealing. It works on our empathy and compassion. We need to remember that to help a person - to truly and actually help them, we need to give them the tools to help themselves. Yes, of course, seeing a man starving on the street, who wouldn't be drawn to give him a meal? But, what I say is that charity cannot stop there. We have a responsibility to train our flock to be able to lift themselves up.

For the laity, the idea that we are to live up to holiness, the expectation for holiness in life is an impossible expectation. Yes, sanctity, to aspire to be saints is a lifelong journey. But this idea rejects the notion that we are all, in fact, sinners. Every single one of us, broken from the fall. It creates in us unrealistic expectations and impossible qualifications for people to live up to sanctity. It is a good and sacred thing to aspire for holiness. But we must never forget that we are broken sinners. Even with confession, we must never abandon the fact that we are always, in this life, on the path toward perfection. We have not achieved it yet.

"In the first place, the shepherds of Christ's flock must holily and eagerly, humbly and courageously carry out their ministry, in imitation of the eternal high Priest"

"May the goods of this world be more equitably distributed among all men, and may they in their own way be conducive to universal progress in human and Christian freedom." 

This statement is communistic. It is not a bad thing to support the material well-being of people. But, the way to do it is not in redistribution. We need to encourage growth of the human being. Catholicism's intent is to nurture the spiritual well-being of the human being. What good is it to a poor and hungry person if they do not have the capacity to sustain their health, after giving them some food?

Again, holiness of life is unreasonable expectation for human beings. It is an admirable pursuit and the goal of all Christians but it is impossible. Only small children are qualified. We need to embrace our sinfulness and change. This is where repentence comes from. Let me say this in another way. Sin is the greatest illness in mankind. If we cannot, if we do not acknowledge our need for grace and repentence, the sacrifice of Christ is not in our grasp. Brothers, sisters, I say it out of deepest love for you. We need to recognise our own personal sinfulness. It's literally the first step of being a Christian. If you jumped ahead, no need to worry. It is never too late! Call upon Him. Jesus only. If we don't think we are sinners, we will adopt a righteous attitude and think we are not in need of our Savior. This is a dangerous position for a Christian to be in. "If you say I have no sin, you make God a liar." We forget that this call to sanctity is a process. And nobody is exempt from inclusion to sainthood. Have you forgotten so quickly that Paul was murderous against the believers?

Parents: They should embue their offspring, lovingly welcomed as God's gift, with Christian doctrine and the evangelical virtues.

And by saying that God is a god of love is generally misleading. God is a God of Love but we are to love ourselves as well. If we neglect love for ourselves, love can begin to look like submission. Submission is based in fear. Not love. Sometimes it is prudent to act in ways that may not on the surface seem like loving our neighbor but which we must do to secure our safety and their repentance.

I am confused by the term their own proper state in life? This seems limiting to the human spirit. Surely, as with other contrasting Scriptures, the Word encourages us to become as lighted candles on a hill.

Of course, Mother Church does and should maintain the deliberation regarding religious vocations. If I could speak to the individuals making the choices, I would encourage them to discern long and hard. Be more prepared to embrace and welcome than to reject and refuse. The discernment comes as important in weeding out goats from the sheep who seek to infiltrate. Like communists, freemasons, etc. But we should always view candidates with love first. Maybe not. Maybe it's just that I see the natural good in people. Be discerning. Cannot hurt. If a vocation is from God, it will persist. And I do suppose that a good and efficient way of weeding candidates is by fire.

"This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,(20*) the Council of Florence (21*) and the Council of Trent.(22*) And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God."

Sacrosanctum Concilium:

Notes:

In the introduction, (I cannot believe what I am reading) 

"This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times 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 the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

I am not a canon lawyer, priest or anyone of substance. Just a layman who practices his faith very seriously. I can honestly only point out how absurd it seems to alter the format of the liturgy for any means.

"Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."

This quote is interesting because of what is happening recently in terms of the restrictions being placed on Tradition.

Promotion of active participation in liturgy: 

I personally feel that what separates protestantism and catholicism is the Mass, the Liturgy and the Eucharist. There is no need for participation of the congregation in the Mass. As they are not as important as the reason for the Mass being offered. Another central point which separates protestantism from Catholicism is reverence. The Mass is not a worship event. It is literally the sacrifice of the calvary and cross.

The Liturgy never needed to change. Active participation by the faithful discourages reverence. In Liturgy, the priest presents the prayers to God in place of the faithful. In persona Christi.

You make it seem like the Latin Liturgy is beyond comprehension. When a love for the liturgy is fostered, which should arise naturally within the faithful, a growing comprehension will grow for the liturgy. This is where the Missal comes in use. I have been attending the Latin Liturgy only two or three years but I have the entire Mass memorised. It's not out of duty. It is out of love.

Ritual simplicity devalues its beauty.

"The sermon, moreover, should draw its content mainly from scriptural and liturgical sources, and its character should be that of a proclamation of God's wonderful works in the history of salvation, the mystery of Christ, ever made present and active within us, especially in the celebration of the liturgy."

No argument here.

"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."

No argument here.

Is one language divisive for the unity of the Church? On the contrary, a unifying language, Liturgy and celebration is incredibly unifying. The Church is made up of many nations, people and languages. It is this central unifying element which unites us. A liturgy in native tongue and tradition, like the Tower of Babel, is what divides. Think of it like this: if an African is visiting Canada one day, speaks no English but is Catholic, he can still participate in the Mass.