Posted on 03/02/2005 7:25:08 AM PST by franky
No conciliar decree has had more influence, while apparently remaining unread, than Lumen Gentium. Two generations of Catholics have now been educated to believe that in effect it abolished the hierarchical conception of the Church, substituting in its place the idea of “the people of God,” which is then understood as essentially a democracy.
The document obviously remains unread because its professed devotees appear unaware that it contains the strongest possible reaffirmations of hierarchical authority, including statements about papal authority as strong as anything in the decrees of the First Vatican Council, which Vatican II allegedly “corrected.” (The late Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick once published an essay on the ecclesiology of Vatican II without even mentioning Lumen Gentium.
Presumably, having read it, he found it an impassible stumbling block to the kind of ecclesiology he was advancing.) The disorders which have plagued the Church since the Council all stem from the fact that the conciliar decrees, very general in nature, were set forth without much regard for the cultural context of the times, ironic in view of the earnest desire of so many people precisely to “read the signs of the times.” The decrees were issued with no suspicion that the entire Western world was about to be engulfed in a major cultural crisis, assaulting its most fundamental beliefs, and that in such a situation the conciliar decrees, perfectly orthodox in themselves, perfectly in harmony with Tradition, would be given contentious interpretations.
“People of God” was one such example. The priest-sociologist Andrew Greeley, when criticized, makes the standard reply that he is simply the messenger bringing the bad news — he merely measures the ways in which Catholics have abandoned official Church teaching. But he and others take a constant hectoring tone towards the hierarchy, strongly implying that failure to bring Church teaching into conformity with opinion polls threatens the very existence of the institution. Although no liberal has actually said that doctrine should be determined by majority opinion, they act as though it were true.
Lumen Gentium also referred to “the pilgrim Church,” an image soon seized upon without regard for what religious pilgrimage means. Rather than understanding the Church as moving towards a fixed supernatural goal, traveling by routes well marked by those who have gone before, liberals have made pilgrims into mere wanderers (ironic again, in terms of the newspaper of that name), who are without reliable compasses and must simply band together to pool their fallible personal experiences. The true nature of the Church is determined by the Incarnation itself, so that the Church is both a spiritual and a material entity, its outer form manifesting its unseen inner reality. Many “reformers” have been embarrassed by the materiality of the Church. They posit an entirely “invisible Church” and see the outer ecclesiastical forms as hindrances to its true nature. The hope for a Church completely “pure” of worldly influence is a recurring dream which usually ends in heresy.
But while often compulsively railing at what they regard as the corruption of the Church by wealth and power, many contemporary liberals have also rejected the spiritual nature of the Church entirely, their ritualistic denunciation of the alleged power-seeking of the hierarchy a projection of their own obsession with power. For them the nature of the Church can be adequately measured by sociological tools, because it is not in its essence any different from, for example, the United Nations or the Ethical Culture Society — organization purportedly moved by moral idealism and using worldly means to achieve their goals.
The phenomenon called The Sixties — the whirlwind in which the post-conciliar Church found itself caught —was relentlessly reductionistic, even to the point of cynicism, in that no institution was conceded to have any genuine transcendental purpose. Rather every such institution — government, university, family, church, corporation — was defined merely as a conspiracy of privileged people aiming to subjugate others, all claims of idealism a mere cloak for power.
This perception of reality has swept through the Church and is especially strong among feminists, the people in whom the spirit of The Sixties is most alive, who continuously direct corrosive sneers at even the most venerable teachings of the Church when those teachings interfere with the modernist agenda. As Paul Goodman, a non-believing sociologist, once observed, many liberal Christians are engaged in a power struggle for control of the Church, which they regard as merely a valuable piece of real estate which no longer serves its traditional purpose but can be used for other, quite different, purposes.
There is not the slightest doubt as to how the Church, in Lumen Gentium, understands itself, but here as elsewhere that understanding is every day subverted in thousands of little ways.
Do we really know what LUMEN GENTIUM means?
Is this an objective view?
"Do we really know what LUMEN GENTIUM means?"
Sure, its simple Latin:
Lumen = light
Gentium = peoples/nations/humanity
ergo Lumen gentium = Light of humanity.
"Is this an objective view"
Only if one starts with the premise that it is a coherent text in conformity with Catholic Tradition and free from ambiguity, false philosophical presuppositions and inherent contradictions.
If one tends to the view that this latter state of affairs is not the case, then one could agree that LG has indeed been subverted, but one might propose that the seeds of its subversion are to be found in the text itself.
The inexorable working out of that subversion is the inevitable consequence of the modernist paradigm in which much of the document is framed.
IMO, all misunderstanding of Lumen Gentium results from seizing upon one particular image -- such as People of God -- to the exclusion of the others and without reference to the divine radical unity of the images.
Brilliant.
Yes. The problem is one of studied ambiguity and taking the terminology of out any coherent context and playing around with all sorts of bizarre liberal and leftist interpretations of metaphorical language. The "people of God" quickly becomes "the people's assembly" and "the People's Church" with even Marxist overtones. Then any group of liberal lunatics can claim they are the "People of God" who know best what the "new Church" should look like.
A similar phenomenon happens with the language of "The Church in the Modern World." The term "modern" gets injected with all sorts of silly meanings including the idea that ridiculous "modern" architecture should become the norm for church buildings. It's an anything goes mentality.
If you listen to the way some dissidents speak, they talk as if everything "Catholic" must be replaced with some new "modern" version - modern music, modern theology, modern architecture. It's quite silly.
Indeed. And they are in collegiality or in union with the pope to the precise degree they interpret, teach, and preach Catholic doctrine correctly. The collegiality clause does not give the bishop the right to make things up as he is going along. He is expected to know and understand Catholic teachings, canon law, and practices, in their correct form and order. The jurisdictional and constitutional structures of a bishop in ecclesiology do not carry with them a license to invent a new religion.
[T]hey are in collegiality or in union with the pope to the precise degree they interpret, teach, and preach Catholic doctrine correctly.There’s also a relationship between the phrase 'People of God' and another conciliar phrase, 'Sense of the Faithful' (sensus fidelium). Taken out of context, both terms can lend themselves to the utterly false notion of internal polls defining magisterial teaching. In the sense that the Council used them, both terms presuppose 'thinking with the Church.'
In turn, these two phrases are related to the concept of collegiality in the very sense you suggest; that is, in order for the bishops in union with the pope to correctly interpret, teach, and preach Catholic doctrine, they, too, must think with the Church.
IOW, all three expressions -- People of God, Sense of the Faithful, Collegiality -- presume thinking with the Church, and it is only in the absence of that presumption that these expressions are so popularly misconstrued.
What was it John Kerry said? Something like "Pope Pius XXIII" had given him a "liberty of conscience" in Vatican II to dissent from church teachings. Perhaps he was just confused. Or maybe he really did not know there has never been a "Pope Pius XXIII." The guy appears never to have been educated to an adult Catholic level of understanding. Yet, with some smugness and bold condescension, he invoked sophisticated-sounding liberal arguments for a weird style of modernist heresy. Sad. At one point, apparently, "Father" Robert Drinan was giving him advice. And Cardinal McCarrick appears to have condoned Kerry's public disobedience.
It is just this kind of morbid silliness that goes back to goofy and ambiguous confusions surrounding the meaning of conciliar documents and language. Church documents were never intended to be interpreted through the lense of DNC spin or talking points. Or liberal psychobabble.
By the very nature of the Church as the Body of Christ ensouled by the Holy Spirit and guided infallibly by the teaching authority of the Pope and the universal Magesterium, the text of Lumen Gentium MUST be a coherent extension and illumination of Tradition. To reject that is to reject the very Tradition of the Church that one seeks to uphold by rejecting the validity of Lumen Gentium. It's a little ironic, but such is schism and heresy.
"the text of Lumen Gentium MUST be a coherent extension and illumination of Tradition."
Why? Have you read it?
While there are many excellent passages in it, these are often hedged about by ambiguities, circiterisms and novel propositions which have no basis in either Scripture or Tradition. You don't have to read further than chapter 1, para 1 to find them.
I know that it is a coherent extension and illumination of tradition for the same reason that I know that the documents resulting from the Council of Trent and all ecumenical councils are coherent exstensions and illuminations of tradition. It's that simple. Some might call it simplistic, but I call it a radical faith in the power of the Holy Spirit acting in and through the Church. That being said, I respect the Catholics who disagree with my position as long as they exhibit a genuine piety and love for the Church.
"Since cause and effect cannot be seen with the naked eye, and there remains, therefore, conjecture on the matter of cause, I believe it legitimate for Catholics to be able to debate the nature of the cause(s), which have produced the effects in the Church of the present time--many of which are documented. If all aspects of a council are precluded from any such discussion, on the assumption that all aspects of all councils are somehow sacrosanct and divinely inspired, then we do a disservice to the pursuit of truth and a remedy, in my opinion. There are ambiguities and omissions in, and false translations of, documents of the recent council which have been used and misused by certain elements within the Church, with devastating results. Similarly, things never envisioned or commented upon by the council have been carried out, in the name of the council—the radical changes to the Sacred Liturgy, for instance. This has now gone on for four decades; one wonders if this will continue for centuries. It will, if we label those who raise the question as unfaithful, or those who object as dissenters.
That is a fantastic quotation. Thank you for that. But there is a tacit assumption made by many people that while Lumen Gentium may contain authentic teaching it is not authentic in-and-of itself as a magesterial document resulting from an ecumenical council. I am not certain that that is a good starting point from which to achieve a remedy either.
Ch.1. Paragraph 1
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,(1) 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. The present- day conditions of the world add greater urgency to this work of the Church so that all men, joined more closely today by various social, technical and cultural ties, might also attain fuller unity in Christ.
What is it about this paragraph that should give concern to the faithful Catholic?
"Some might call it simplistic, but I call it a radical faith in the power of the Holy Spirit acting in and through the Church."
I also believe that the Holy Spirit acts in and through the Church and that He truly does bestow the gift of infallibility on her. However, infallibility is a negative charism in that the Church will be prevented from formally defining doctrine which is false.
It does not mean that long and rambling conciliar documents which do not intend or even claim to make formal doctrinal definitions will be so preserved - especially where these have been deliberately subverted by enemies of the Church who have subsequently declared their intention of planting "time-bombs" within them.
"If all aspects of a council are precluded from any such discussion, on the assumption that all aspects of all councils are somehow sacrosanct and divinely inspired, then we do a disservice to the pursuit of truth and a remedy, in my opinion."
That is a very significant statement coming fom a clergyman associated with EWTN. Maybe some pennies are starting to drop!
"What is it about this paragraph that should give concern to the faithful Catholic?"
The first offending phrase is:
"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..."
Firstly we have the novel idea of the Church being referred to as being "like a sacrament". This is not necessarily problematic in itself, but it is a novel use of the word "sacrament" in Catholic theology - it is introduced without any citation or source from Scripture or Tradition to support it. The translation here is much toned down from Flannery's edition which states "the Church, in Christ, IS IN THE NATURE OF SACRAMENT.."
The expression introduces a new meaning for the word "sacrament" without any justification or explanation. It is ripe for future corruption, distortion and misinterpretatrion.
Also you have this ambiguous expression "is IN CHRIST like a sacrament" - can the Church not be in Christ? Does the Church extend its borders outside of Christ? Does she have an existence apart from Him?
But the novel use of the term "sacrament" serves to hide and distract one's attention from the most dangerous part of this sentence. This is where we see the theology of Karl Rahner infiltrating the document right at the outset and providing a "time-bomb" which the modernists will return to later. It is the clause:
"a sign and instrument.(..).of the unity of the whole human race".
Here we have both a novel and erroneous idea of the purpose of the Church. It is quite nonsense to claim that the Church is an instrument of the "unity of the whole human race". Implicitly it introduces the heresy of universalism into the document, and it also implicitly denies the following Catholic doctrines:
a) Predestination - the Church is only an instrument of unity of the elect, not the whole human race. She is actually a sign and instrument of division between the elect and the reprobate.
b) The existence of hell and damnation - we know from Scripture that hell is already populated and that many more, maybe most, will go there. If the Church is an instrument of unity of the WHOLE human race, then we would have to deny that anyone is in hell.
c) The City of God and the city of satan - the opposition of the Church and "the world" are implicitly denied. Thus the ground is laid for the opening up of the Church to infiltration by the world and its prince. It flies in the face of the admonitions of Scripture and the attitude pervades most of the council's documents.
d) Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
It thus sets the scene for the whole subsequent syncretistic, "one world religion" theology of the modernists that has poured into the Church in the wake of the council.
The second offending phrase is:
"The present- day conditions of the world add greater urgency to this work of the Church so that all men, joined more closely today by various social, technical and cultural ties, might also attain fuller unity in Christ."
Here we see "unity in Christ" being treated as some kind of extension of a "unity" that results from "social, technical and cultural ties" - a naturalistic conception of unity which is primarily anthropocentric rather than theocentric. It is some kind of unity which man is building by his own power rather than a unity which comes as a result of communion with God. Unity in Christ is thus just an extension of this "natural unity".
Again, the groundwork is being laid for the naturalistic one-world-religionists. Quite apart from which, the analysis that "all men" are being "joined more closely today" is surely suspect when, in fact, social and cultural disintegration were/are the order of the day rather than social and cultural cohesion.
Taking the last part of your essay first, you're misreading the sentence on unity. You've given it a meaning that isn't there.
"The present- day conditions of the world add greater urgency to this work of the Church so that all men, joined more closely today by various social, technical and cultural ties, might also attain fuller unity in Christ."
In no way can this sentence be interpreted as meaning that unity in Christ is simply a result of, or an extension of unity resulting from technical or cultural ties. On the contrary. It means the opposite. The sentence states clearly that these pre-existing cultural and technological ties make the work of the Church- what?? Yes, that's right-more urgent.
Surely urgency would be less of a necessity for the Church if that technological and cultural unity already existing naturally gave rise to unity in Christ? The writer is saying "no". The work of the Church is now more urgent than ever.
I see no indication whatsoever that there is a sequential connection between the two things in terms of one leading naturally to the other. Rather, I see the writer saying that the social human unity places even more demands on the Church and its spreading of its message.
As for the word "sacrament", the strict definition is "an outward sign of inner grace." However, my Catholic Encyclopedia also tells me:
Taking the word "sacrament" in its broadest sense, as the sign of something sacred and hidden (the Greek word is "mystery"), we can say that the whole world is a vast sacramental system, in that material things are unto men the signs of things spiritual and sacred, even of the Divinity. "The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands" (Ps. xviii, 2). The invisible things of him [i.e. God], from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity" (Rom., i, 20).
One who defines "sacrament" only in its narrowest sense, will naturally take issue with the use of it in its broadest sense, which is what the Vatican document does-and let it be said rightly so. It is the preamble to a long document- preambles are when subject matter is introduced and terms and subject matter are generally defined in their broadest sense.
Finally, to claim that the Church is "a sign and instrument" of the "unity of the whole human race" does not deny Church teaching on any of the issues you list.
The unity spoken of in the passage is not a unity which results from all accepting Christ and obtaining salvation and none being damned. Rather it is a unity which results from the fact that:
Man is a creature of God in a created universe. All things that are, except Himself, exist in virtue of a unique creative act. Catholic Encyclpedia
The Church, being commissioned by Christ, to "make disciples of all nations", is indeed that sign and instrument.
That is precisely why I saved it when I saw it. Some Catholics will dismiss anything they hear from what they perceive to be a "Trad", but they usually respect the opinions offered on EWTN. If Fr. Echert says this publicly, it makes me wonder what he says privately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.