From the blog Southern Orders with comments
DID VATICAN II CHANGED THE DOCTRINE OF ECCLESIOLOGY? OF COURSE NOT BUT IT DID ADJUST ITS PRACTICE by
Some with an ideological agenda believe that Vatican II
changed the doctrine of the nature of the Church and
used new language to describe the Church unheard
changed the doctrine of the nature of the Church and
used new language to describe the Church unheard
of prior to Vatican II. FALSE!
Lionel:
The Council can be interpreted in agreement with
the strict interpretation of the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus.This would mean interpreting
LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as referring to hypothetical
and not objectively known cases.Then Vatican
Council II would have no change in ecclesiology.
______________________the strict interpretation of the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus.This would mean interpreting
LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as referring to hypothetical
and not objectively known cases.Then Vatican
Council II would have no change in ecclesiology.
While I prefer the Church to be described as the "Mystical Body
of Christ" one could have used prior to Vatican II the description
of the Church as the "People of God" or the "Pilgrim Church"
traversing time and space for her true home, heaven. Did
Vatican II indicate who those are who are NOT the People of God?
Lionel: Vatican Council II has said all need faith
and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14). So
those people who do not have faith
and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14). So
those people who do not have faith
and baptism in the Catholic Church are on
the way to Hell.
the way to Hell.
This was also the old ecclesiology.Vatican
Council II also says the Church is the
new people of God(NA 4). So Jews are no
Council II also says the Church is the
new people of God(NA 4). So Jews are no
more the Chosen People.
Vatican Council II here (AG 7, LG 14, NA 4)
is saying outside the Church there is no
salvation.It is in agreement with the
thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus, which tells us specifically who are
on the way to the fires of Hell if they do
enter the Mystical Body of Christ.This is
is saying outside the Church there is no
salvation.It is in agreement with the
thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus, which tells us specifically who are
on the way to the fires of Hell if they do
enter the Mystical Body of Christ.This is
the old ecclesiology of the Church too.
It is also post Vatican Council II teaching.
I do not know if this is the ecclesiology
at the blog Southern Orders.
It is also post Vatican Council II teaching.
I do not know if this is the ecclesiology
at the blog Southern Orders.
___________________________
Has the Church never used the term
pilgrimage as a sign of traveling,
pilgrimage as a sign of traveling,
walking, making pilgrimages to shrines,
holy doors, lands, as ultimately
holy doors, lands, as ultimately
one's pilgrimage to heaven?
Lionel: Only those people are making
a pilgrimage to Heaven who
a pilgrimage to Heaven who
are formal members of the Catholic
Church with faith and baptism
Church with faith and baptism
and who die without mortal sin on
their soul.In Heaven there are
their soul.In Heaven there are
only Catholics according to Vatican
Council II.(AG 7,LG 14)
Council II.(AG 7,LG 14)
___________________________
Now, in the pastoral theology of the Council,
the ecclesiology of the Church as a
hierarchical institution that is comprised
of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Religious
and laity, gave voice to concretely
enlist the aid of the laity in the life of the
Church.
the ecclesiology of the Church as a
hierarchical institution that is comprised
of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Religious
and laity, gave voice to concretely
enlist the aid of the laity in the life of the
Church.
But here is the rub, so many with an ideology
of a somehow changed doctrine or new
dogma (and of course Vatican II declared no
new doctrines let alone dogmas, believe that
specifically speaking of the role of the laity in
the Church was somehow revolutionary.
of a somehow changed doctrine or new
dogma (and of course Vatican II declared no
new doctrines let alone dogmas, believe that
specifically speaking of the role of the laity in
the Church was somehow revolutionary.
Perhaps from a pastoral point of view, yes, but
certainly there is no new dogma or doctrine in a
shift of pastoral sensitivities to describe how the
laity is an integral part of the Church.
certainly there is no new dogma or doctrine in a
shift of pastoral sensitivities to describe how the
laity is an integral part of the Church.
Lionel: When Lumen Gentium 14 suggests
only those who know ( and who are not in
invincible ignorance) need to enter the Church
only those who know ( and who are not in
invincible ignorance) need to enter the Church
to avoid Hell, it is a new doctrine. It has
emerged from the objective error in the Letter
of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter inferred
that we know persons saved in invincible
ignorance or the baptism of desire, who
were in Heaven without the baptism of
water.
The Letter assumed we
emerged from the objective error in the Letter
of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter inferred
that we know persons saved in invincible
ignorance or the baptism of desire, who
were in Heaven without the baptism of
water.
The Letter assumed we
know explicit cases of people saved in
invincible ignorance and also without the
baptism of water.So the Letter wrongly
assumed that these cases being visible and
known were exceptions to the traditional
interpretation of EENS. This was factually
incorrect.
invincible ignorance and also without the
baptism of water.So the Letter wrongly
assumed that these cases being visible and
known were exceptions to the traditional
interpretation of EENS. This was factually
incorrect.
However LG 14 can still be interpreted
as referring to a hypothetical case. So it
does not contradict the strict interpretation
as referring to a hypothetical case. So it
does not contradict the strict interpretation
of EENS and the old ecclesiology.
_____________________________
First and foremost the role of the laity is not
described by Vatican II as churchy stuff, although
this isn't excluded of course. First and foremost
the laity's role is at home as they form the
"domestic Church" and in the home father
act in the person of Christ to pastor his wife
and children. Husbands and wives have a
co-equal responsibility to make the home
a place of faith, worship, catechesis and
service, in other words, faith and good
works put into practice.
described by Vatican II as churchy stuff, although
this isn't excluded of course. First and foremost
the laity's role is at home as they form the
"domestic Church" and in the home father
act in the person of Christ to pastor his wife
and children. Husbands and wives have a
co-equal responsibility to make the home
a place of faith, worship, catechesis and
service, in other words, faith and good
works put into practice.
The laity have a role in the public square
to represent the institutional Church and
her teachings as a priest or religious might
do and with the same authority when they
actually represent the Church and her
teachings and pastoral priorities.
Lionel: Do the laity have to interpret Vatican
Council II with Feeneyism or Cushingism?
With Cushingism, with the use of the
irrational premise, ecclesiology changes.
________________________________
________________________________
I would say that it is here that so many public
Catholics in politics have failed. But also
there is a failure on the parochial level
when rank and file Catholic laity do not
defend the Catholic Faith and her
institutions, but rather denigrate,
carp and otherwise undermine Holy
Mother Church.
Lionel: Rank and file Catholics have to
defend Vatican Council II interpreted
with Feeneyism ( there are no known
exceptions past or present to the strict
interpretation of the dogma EENS) ?
Or do they have to defend Vatican
Council II interpreted with Cushingism
( there are known exceptions to the
dogma EENS. They include the
baptism of desire )?.
The USCCB interprets Vatican
Council II with Cushingism. This is a
rupture with the Catholic Faith of
rupture with the Catholic Faith of
pre-Council of Trent- times.This is the
hermeneutic of rupture.It creates a new
ecclesiology based on an irrationality.
___________________
On the institutional level, be it the parish
and its institutions, the diocese and its institutions
or Rome and its institutions, the laity have
a role. What would a modern Catholic parish
do without the laity today?
Lionel: The modern Catholic parish expects
the laity to interpret Vatican Council II
with a new ecclesiology, with the new
theology, based on irrational Cushingism.
_________________________
In my parish laity have authority in their
given paid roles although I set the agenda
with them and supervise their work.
Lionel: You also interpret Vatican Council II
with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.
So this creates a new doctrine and a
new ecclesiology.
__________________________
Thus most parishes have lay men or women
as principals, teachers, catechists, DRE's Music
Directors, pastoral assistants, youth directors
and on and on. And most parishes have women
in these roles. Men are a minority. On the
administrative level there are administrative
assistants, secretaries, bookkeepers, and
a whole host of other paid supports, most women.
In the liturgy prior to Vatican II the laity, men
and women served in choirs and as cantors.
They were ushers and commentators.
They were altar boys and adult servers.
and women served in choirs and as cantors.
They were ushers and commentators.
They were altar boys and adult servers.
Today there is only a minor change to what
Pre-Vatican II allowed.
Lionel: There is a change in the Catholic Faith at the
level of the Nicene Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam
nulla salus and Vatican Council II. The change in
doctrine is reflected in the Catechism of the
Catholic Church. It also depends on which
theology used to interpret magisterial documents.
theology used to interpret magisterial documents.
Do we use the innovation with Cushingism or do
with use Feeneyism as a theology?
____________________________
Men and women, boys and girls can serve
the altar as servers, readers and adults
a extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion
but only when there is a legitimate need,
not contrived uses for these.
The problem with post Vatican II liturgical
participation in the institutional way is that
it creates an elite clericalized group of laity
whose roles as readers, cantors, choir members
and EMHCs is seen as more important than
what the majority of the laity do at their pews.
To make things worse, the move of choirs and
cantors to the sanctuary or in a visible position
elevates these laity over those in the regular
pews, a new form of authentic clericalism.
participation in the institutional way is that
it creates an elite clericalized group of laity
whose roles as readers, cantors, choir members
and EMHCs is seen as more important than
what the majority of the laity do at their pews.
To make things worse, the move of choirs and
cantors to the sanctuary or in a visible position
elevates these laity over those in the regular
pews, a new form of authentic clericalism.
Yes, Vatican II's documents describe the role
or the laity in a powerful way, first for what their
role is in the world outside the churchiness of the
parish facilities and secondly where their expertise
can be used on instituional level. Liturgically the laity
are called to a more informed participation in the
liturgies of the Church based upon actual participation
of mind and heart, body and soul.
or the laity in a powerful way, first for what their
role is in the world outside the churchiness of the
parish facilities and secondly where their expertise
can be used on instituional level. Liturgically the laity
are called to a more informed participation in the
liturgies of the Church based upon actual participation
of mind and heart, body and soul.
But is this a new ecclesiology?
Lionel: No. However they all probably interpret
Vatican Council II with Cushingism. This can
be checked out by asking them two simple
questions.
questions.
__________________________
No and anyone who
tells you that it is, is simply bloviating.
Lionel: I assume you do not affirm the strict
interpretation of the dogma EENS.I also
assume you interpret Vatican Council II
(LG 16) as referring to an exception to
the dogma EENS. This would mean that
in your case ecclesiology has changed.There is the
hermeneutic of rupture with the past. A rupture
with Tradition, the dogma EENS, the Syllabus
of Errors etc.There would be a rupture
with the traditional ecclesiology on
ecumenism and non Christian
religions and salvation.
in your case ecclesiology has changed.There is the
hermeneutic of rupture with the past. A rupture
with Tradition, the dogma EENS, the Syllabus
of Errors etc.There would be a rupture
with the traditional ecclesiology on
ecumenism and non Christian
religions and salvation.
________________________________
Issues of centralization and decentralization have
always been a tension in the Church. The pastoral
position of subsidiarity is a good thing that what can
be accomplished on a lower level should be but
always in union with one's bishop and the Bishop
of Rome. Canon Law assists in this.
always been a tension in the Church. The pastoral
position of subsidiarity is a good thing that what can
be accomplished on a lower level should be but
always in union with one's bishop and the Bishop
of Rome. Canon Law assists in this.
Subsidiarity based upon doing one's own thing
independent of the bishop or the Bishop of Rome
is called schism. It is never a good thing.
Lionel: The USCCB bishops are interpreting
magisterial documents with an irrational premise
and so there is a new ecclesiology.This is
heresy.It is magisterial heresy.
It is a rejection of the traditional interpretation
of the Nicene Creed and the thrice defined
dogma EENS. It is interpreting Vatican Council
II with an irrationality as a break with the
dogma EENS. It is interpreting Vatican Council
II with an irrationality as a break with the
Nicene Creed and EENS, by using an irrational
inference.This is a new ecclesiology. It is heresy. It is
inference.This is a new ecclesiology. It is heresy. It is
a break with the magisterium of the past
and those who oppose it may wrongly be
considered schismatic.
and those who oppose it may wrongly be
considered schismatic.
__________________________
Terms such as "empowering the laity" or taking
away power from the ordained is not what
Vatican II taught about ecclesiology.
Lionel: Vatican Council II did not change
the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma
EENS unless there is a mix up between
what is explicit and implicit, objective
and subjective, visible and invisible.
_____________________________
The laity are advisors to the hierarchy and to parish priests.
They assist but they don't control.
Lionel: A layman in the diocese of Savannah,USA
cannot officially, in public, interpret Vatican Council
II with the theology of Feneeyism since the
bishop would not permit it.So
a layman has to use an irrational inference to
interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the
old ecclesiology. This is acceptable to the political
Left, the USCCB and the clergy in Savannah.
______________________________
But the greatest tension in the Church has been
centered on the laity wanting to be clericalized for
clerical power, thus the push for women to be
ordained, and the laity to run parishes and
a new trusteeism that sees the laity trying
to control the institutions of
the Church rather than the clergy.
away power from the ordained is not what
Vatican II taught about ecclesiology.
Lionel: Vatican Council II did not change
the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma
EENS unless there is a mix up between
what is explicit and implicit, objective
and subjective, visible and invisible.
_____________________________
The laity are advisors to the hierarchy and to parish priests.
They assist but they don't control.
Lionel: A layman in the diocese of Savannah,USA
cannot officially, in public, interpret Vatican Council
II with the theology of Feneeyism since the
bishop would not permit it.So
a layman has to use an irrational inference to
interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the
old ecclesiology. This is acceptable to the political
Left, the USCCB and the clergy in Savannah.
______________________________
But the greatest tension in the Church has been
centered on the laity wanting to be clericalized for
clerical power, thus the push for women to be
ordained, and the laity to run parishes and
a new trusteeism that sees the laity trying
to control the institutions of
the Church rather than the clergy.
We had this perverted understanding of
ecclesiology develop in two small parish
in south Georgia and it got so bad that
the bishop had to closed the parishes
until those who were creating the problems
understood just where the power and
authority rests in the Catholic Church.
Lionel: Even though the power and authority
to interpret Vatican Council II with a LIE
exists with the bishop and priests the laity
is free to affirm the old ecclesiology and
interpret Vatican Council II without an
irrational inference.So there is no
change in ecclesiology, in this sense,
in post and pre-Vatican Council II times.
However I do not expect this no change
in ecclesiology to be accepted
by Fr. Alan J. McDonald or his bishop.
-Lionel AndradesLionel: Even though the power and authority
to interpret Vatican Council II with a LIE
exists with the bishop and priests the laity
is free to affirm the old ecclesiology and
interpret Vatican Council II without an
irrational inference.So there is no
change in ecclesiology, in this sense,
in post and pre-Vatican Council II times.
However I do not expect this no change
in ecclesiology to be accepted
by Fr. Alan J. McDonald or his bishop.