Talk:Second Vatican Council/Archive 1

2343:

Council. The way this was written, however, was not objective, instead giving the reader the direct impression that what Michael Novak was stating as his opinion of these types of people/theologians was the factual reality of their belief system, listing Hans Kung as an example of people who believe what Novak states and whose works have been censured by the Vatican. I've changed this to reflect the fact that the Church believes that people like Kung are have a radical and misguided interpretation of the spirit of the Council and have thus had their works censured. This better reflects the reality of the opinion of the Church on these matters rather than giving the reader the idea that Michael Novak's interpretation is the literal and objective truth of the matter. One may of course object to my particular composition of this correction, but to keep this entry objective and factual we cannot revert to the old way the section stood, as it did not reflect Knowledge (XXG)'s objectivity and accuracy standards. It is a fact that Hans Kung's writings have been censured

1751:, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.” (Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58)" After the Council, he also said: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that 2666:

is bound to accept its dogmas, teachings and law.) They are, for all their grudge, certainly prepared to accept the Council as one of the occasions where the Church's episcopate assembled in Council. They might add that this obliges them to nothing, for the Council did not choose to teach infallibly. But that is something very different than breaking away from the Church over a Council. They might think that the Council documents are imprudent and in some cases actually erroneous, and they might dispense themselves from believing something the Council taught and implementing something the Council set forth, but all this not claiming that the Council as such was not binding (which would be rejecting a Council), but that they have a case of conscience (which, as long as no infallibility is involved, remains something the Catholic, though he may reject it in this case, must acknowledge as actually possible).

1351:"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding." In the latter Pope Paul VI said, "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility." 1368:, they are still teachings of what is called the ordinary universal magisterium, which involves the acceptance of these teachings by the whole college of bishops united with the pope. (It appears that one of the dates this paragraph cites is the date of the approval of Lumen Gentium itself, which discusses just this point.) Teachings of the ordinary universal magisterium, while not solemnly defined, are still considerd infallible. The comment does not refer to the authority of the documents, but the form used to present them. It is difficult, after all, to argue that Vatican II was not a "dogmatic council" when one of its central documents, 1209:"The Catholic Church maintains that, through the graces Jesus won for humanity by sacrificing himself on the cross, salvation is possible even for those outside the visible boundaries of the Church, whether non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians, if in life they respond positively to the grace and truth that God reveals to them. This may sometimes include awareness of an obligation to become part of the Catholic Church. In such cases, "they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it" (Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution 707:, a society once devoutly catholic that was mass-secularized in the 1960s. I don't have the figures handy, but they certainly are much more dire than in the US. However, such figures don't belong in an article. Vatican II probably made some catholics angry / lose faith (the fact that people are linking the council with the decline in Catholicism here is proof enough). But there are other possible causes: the growth of New Age religions, conversions to forms of protestantism (esp. in the US), rise of Atheism, materialism, rock and roll & satanic values, etc. 619:

of said priests. Also a statistic like Catholics who don't believe in Transubstantiation means, in theory at least, that those people are heretics and no longer Catholics. In fact a paralell like this doesn't really occour in protestantism, as any one issue of belief differing from the group can be dismissed by "private interpretation". Besides the overall numerical decline in practicing Catholics, there is a far far steeper decline in clergy, which leads to a problem similar to

31: 1767:: “In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98) I think this all establishes pretty clearly that the Council is not, nor was ever intented to be, dogmatically binding or infallible, since nothing in it was defined as 594:

that is hardly a fair comparison: any of the thousands of flavors of protestant denominations can form a parochial school, easily outnumbering the "One Flavor" of Catholic school in any particular US community 10-to-1! So while the one Catholic elementary school in a small American town closes, the 10 protestant Christian schools continue, often in new clothes/denominations.

2004:*I don't interpret, I just quote directly. Here it is again... #891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. 1712:'s quote of the catechism, with its mention of Peter's successor, raised an interesting question in my mind. Presumably Peter's successor issued some sort of act which promulgated the council's constitutions and decrees. What is this document called? It should be mentioned by title and date and with a link. Did the document issue any 1557:. 891 clearly states that Vatican II is infallible. #891. "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. 1302:

2)Criticism of the Council within the Catholic Church; 3}Criticism by other Christians; 4)Criticism from wider afield- this would cover other religions;politicians,sociologists and economists;secular viewpoints. A moot point might be whether to include Judaism in 3}. Criticism is not necessarily hostile----Clive Sweeting

1254:

better, including pictures, cleaning things up, and keeping an eye on it to keep it on topic. I have always been glad that some people found it helpful, and I'm still surprised that it is still one of the few general survey articles on the Council as a historical event and apparently gets a bit of traffic.

2655:

I took the SSPX again out of the info box. This has previously been reinserted by an editor claiming that this amounted to "lies and wishful thinking", and "Bp Fellay has repeated again and again that we do not accept the council under any terms". I may differ, though, and I do so and try to give the

2596:

the "questioned validity", seems to convey the image that the Second Vatican Council was in any way chaotic and generally disordered, which is wasn't. Some radical right groups (SSPX, SSPV etc.) actually question it, and the paragraph could be somewhere in the article, but having it in the lede gives

2367:

I'll have a look, as something about the diff read the wrong way to me. In general you are right to attribute as such, although it seems to me a better solution would be just to attribute the previous language to Novak (or better yet, a spokesman of the Church, if available). Otherwise it jsut gets

2268:

I have been doing some copyediting, and I then decided to take on the task of unifying the citations styles for the references here. I used the citation templates already present in the previous references section, adding page numbers as appropriate. I then removed those templates from that generic

1958:

Believe me, you have expressed your "I don't need no stinkin' scholars, the Catechism is enough for me" attitude very clearly. (This is what is sometimes referred to as "raising ignorance to an art form.") But that is not the issue here. Even if you were interpreting the Catechism correctly (which

618:

Also, the statistics in Europe are ten times more dire then these. Even these statistics don't tell the whole story, "priestless parishes" doesn't inform of how many smaller parishes were consolidated under one priest, nor how many priests were previously assigned to that one parish, nor the workload

361:

The expansion of this article will be a continuing effort - I have deleted all the content that referred to the outline that has been moved into the main Second Vatican Council page. The major issue remaining is the decent material at the bottom, which belongs somwhere else, in its proper context.

1973:

The 2500+ members of the Magisterium are all scholars unfied in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which they published in unity as one voice. To say they are not scholars, all 2500+, and should be surperceeded by an alternative publication of your own personal choice is simply not the position of

1775:

25 and which is reiterated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law: “Can. 752. While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon

1625:

instead of disrupting Knowledge (XXG)? I have quoted the relevant Knowledge (XXG) policy that you continue to violate, and you have not addressed this violation in your response. I have no interest in pointing out all the massive flaws in your original research; the point is that it doesn't belong

1467:

which states in #891. "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. The

863:

This makes no sense. I assume that this statistic is from the present day (or whenever Jones's index was compiled), but whether it's from today or from the time of the Council, it's not a comparison, and therefore can't be one of the most important comparisons in Jones's index. Only including both

772:

Indeed, the whole article has got a negative point of view about the council, doesn't it? "Henri de Lubac" ignored the warnings of the past... "John XXIII ignored the warnings..." and then lots of statistics about how bad it was. It is a legitimate opinion, certainly, but far from a neutral point of

756:

Paul had done the exact opposite of what the council recommended when it came to birth control even during marriage. Then John Paul II effectively shut down any further debate during his lifetime on priestly celibacy, or on ordaining women to the priesthood. It will be up to future Popes to decide

731:

o vote from me: Many scholars and researchers have drawn a connection between VII and the decline, many have identified many aspects in which the reforms were defective and problematic, in design and imposition. It is a subject that naturally occurs here. Moving it is probably a disguised attempt at

635:

The US Jesuit Conference says "as of January 1, 2003, there are 3,382 Jesuits in the U.S. That includes 2,481 priests, 200 brothers, 250 scholastics and 91 novices." I would say that I'm sure this number is much closer than the 389 cited on the page. If there are only 389 Jesuit priests in the US,

593:

equivalent in the protestant world. Seminarians? Yes, protestants have seminarians, but they are not preparing themselves for the priesthood. Marriages? Hm, maybe. Annulments? Nope. Only category that has a fairly direct equivalent in the protestant world is that of parochial schools, but even

557:

Seriously, I put the stats back, noted your "corellation means causation" argument, and provided a response to the latter. No, VII was not about the United States (thought the Potomac flowed into the Tiber in the early 60s, big time), but Dr. Lothian's stats for Great Britain say the same thing, and

2665:

the Council was canonically erected, was later disbanded though lives on if not in canon law then at least in all but canon law, have, certainly entertained a certain grudge against the Council according to the principle that a Catholic is not bound to praise a Council just because it happened. (He

2658:

The info box is there to give a short summary of after-Council breakaways, or even more specific, those who do not accept the Council as canonical. The latter is true about the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the sedevacantists, though even about the sedevacantists, I might wonder whether they should

829:

One thing I changed this evening was the line "Many view the Second Vatican Council as an event..." to "Some of the more conservative Catholics view the Second Vatican Council as an event..." I did this because I am not convinced that to say "Many view" is not an accurate description. Many what?

1963:

violation remains. The magisterium of the Catholic Church is not a privileged entity here at Knowledge (XXG). If there is notable disagreement with a teaching of the magisterium, then that teaching is an opinion as Knowledge (XXG) defines opinions, and it is subject to the same rules here as all

1721:

The CCC says that infallibility is present in an ecumenical council when it exercises the "supreme magisterium". How and to what extent has this council exercised supreme magisterium? Does every document of the council exercise it? Does every paragraph? Vatican II did not (AFAIK) issue any canons,

1359:

that was appended to the text of the Constitution by the Theological Commission without submission to the Council Fathers. This preliminary note of explanation is concerned with the nature of collegiality as presented and states that papal primacy has not been affected by the third chapter of the

1257:

Well, Knowledge (XXG) has moved on and developed, and I think this article has to follow. It's time to take care of a few things which will make this an even better article. The main one is to add references, which I am working up now for most of this. And we need to work on the linked articles

1224:

Daniel, the original intention of this article was to be an overview of Vatican II as a historical event which does invovle some discussion of the various documents and their contents. But the range of topics covered over the four years is enormous and you really should hit the discussions of the

739:

I see your point & agree. What I think now is that the subhead "Effects of the council in the United States" should be a subsection of "Effects of the council". In the original version, it was used to exemplify the effects of the council. But in its own subsection, it looks like the council is

576:

I'll strengthen the correlation/causation argument in the article. These statistics shout out "I am advocating a position" and in fact I'd prefer to summarize them, and move the details to a separate article. Without more statistics and analysis, they are meaningless. Did the trend begin before

2342:

Please see the edit I've made at the bottom of the "Spirit of Vatican II" section. The previous form of the section had an interpretation by Michael Novak linked with the Church's rejection of theologians like Hans Kung for their reliance on a too broad interpretation of the reform aspect of the

1253:

Four years ago, in an early era of Knowledge (XXG), I found that the only content for this topic was somebody's disagreement with a much more recent document. It took me a while, but I got the article basically as it is today, but there has been a lot of great work done by others to make it much

1301:

Wthin wider ongoing revision of this article I would suggest that the section 'Criticicism within the Catholic Church' should be expanded and entitled 'Reception of Vatican II'. It should include at least 4 subsections,i.e: 1)Varying approaches to implementation of the Council's recommendations;

680:

I commented out the Jesuits statistics data, and the new sentence wondering about the accuracy of the statistics in connection with those listed for the Jesuits, because it is likely that there is a mis-reading of a chart somewhere: someone with access to the Jones book (or other sources) should

565:

Well, no, it's not MY correllation/causation argument, it was in the article before you removed it. MY point was that assessing the impact of the Second Vatican Council by its effect in the USA is like assessing the impact of a tidal wave from its effect in Iowa: possibly germane, but hardly the

1746:

be infallible, not that everything in every council is infallible. In fact, there are a few indications by high ranking members of the hierarchy that indicate the Council was not infallible, and did not wish to define any doctrines. For example, Pope Paul VI, at the close of the council said:

1568:

As I suspected Cat and Rbreen reject the infallibility of the Magisterium in order to deny the teachings of the Church. Clearly your position here on wikipedia is to push for a rejection of the Pope's infallability that Jesus gave him and the Magisterium because a few popular Church leaders got

1318:

is essentally an exoneration of some/most Jews from the crime of deicide, while the passage quoted from the Catechism of the Council of Trent is a reminder about the sinfulness of man and an exhortation to Christians not to feel superior to the Jews. This is obvious from simply reading the two

2144:

I am removing the statement concerning the issue of Russian Orthodox observers attending the Council. There has been speculation that the Vatican somehow assured them that Communism and the Soviet State were topics that would not be raised at the Council. However, in chapter IV, The External

2020:

Given that you start off with a correct statement from the Catechism, and you end up with the exact opposite of what the magisterium actually teaches, there is obviously some (necessarily erroneous) interpretation taking place. But this is not the point. The point is that your edits violated

1350:

This Council has been blamed for much confusion in the Church, and is set apart from other Councils for not backing its teachings with infallibility. This can be seen from the Nota Previa of Lumen Gentium, and Pope Paul VI's weekly general audience of January 12, 1966. The first of these said,

1663:

To say that the Second Vatican Council is entirely infallible is absurd, since the Secretary General of the Council explicitly said otherwise. In an official note released on November 16th, 1964, he said: "Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present

1588:

clearly states that opinions cannot be asserted as fact. What part of that don't you understand? If you are under the impression that there is an exception in this fundamental Knowledge (XXG) policy for editors who claim to be speaking for the magisterium, then please provide a link to this

1420:

council, and may conclude from this that Dei Verbum is not dogmatic. I think that the distinction is frequently over-emphasized, and serves the agenda of traditionalist Catholics who bemoan many of the changes and the confusion that came in the wake of the Council. I'm not a big fan of the

2689:

Oh gloryhole! We will never accept the Second Vatican Council. You can remove Cardinal Burke from his post and we don't care. The Tridentine mass will flourish slowly but surely and you can keep hanging onto your heretics and apostates until Christ comes again and takes you back into Hell.

1926:

be asserted as facts. This is the case even if the opinion being asserted is the majority opinion. So even if hell did freeze over and you were actually correct about what the magisterium states, it still wouldn't matter as far as this Knowledge (XXG) policy violation is concerned. --

1018:

It's not just that - the first paragraph of 'Background' is horrible. I'm still not sure what the first sentence of that paragraph means because I got lost after the fourth preposition. I'll have a crack at rewriting the first paragraph once I know a bit more about the council itself. -

1664:

Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding." Therefore, not the entire council is binding. This note can be found in the appendix to Lumen Gentium on the Vatican's website.

1184:

I have seen several references to that the second vatican council came to the conclusion that one does not have to be a Catholic to receive access to God’s grace. I think it is an important point, so I tried to find it in this article but unfortunately must have missed it. Is it in

558:

measurable indices such as these are all I'm aware of that would be relevant to the topic of "Vatican II Aftermath". May providing stats for non-Western nations, using Protestantism as a control as Dr. Lothian does, might be the thing to do. Do you know where we can get some?

2547:

Hi guys. I was wondering if someone could please elaborate on the pastoral care which some claim to possess Vatican II? I do not want to write as of yet because I do not fully understand the subject matter. Perhaps someone can elaborate on this further detail. Grazie mille.

79:

There should be a section that clearly explains the changes in the mass. This is the change that is experienced by the faithful at the level of their local parish. There should also be mentioned organizations like Society St. Pius X that continue to celebrate a latin mass.

757:

that issue. I had thought of the priesthood as a vocation, and had even contacted a vocation director who thought I had the potential to be a good priest, but I want a family much more that I want to be a priest. So that door has pretty much been slammed in my face.

789:

I take back what I say above. The article is actually pretty nicely balanced, once I read the whole thing. I did remove the "ignored the warnings" for John XXIII. I also caught a typo or two, cleaned up after Guanabot, and added two paragraphs about Lumen Gentium. --

1363:

The the key to understanding the second comment is the phrase "extraordinary manner" which appears to be a confusion in understanding that even though the documents were not presented at declarations of the extratordinary papal magisterium, in other words declared

1878:

Imagine that, I actually think that the opinion of scholars is important here at Knowledge (XXG)! I guess that's what I get for taking the time to read Knowledge (XXG) policy. By the way, despite all your attempts at misdirection, you are continuing to violate

586:

Traditional Catholics, citing research conducted by Fordham University's Dr. James Lothian which compared the above sorts of statistics with those relevant to Protestantism, argue that no such decline has occured in Protestant faith communities of the same time

2108:

It appears that the lead paragraph in "Sessions" was inadvertently dropped, when it was not replaced after some vandalism. The entire "Background" section was deleted by an anonymous user that has never made any other change. This has also been restored.

846:

Kenneth C. Jones's "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II" cites many statistics comparing measurable aspects of Catholic life in the United States before and after the Second Vatican Council. One of the most important is the

106:

The current page seems to be way to short for a, if not the, major event in the 20th century for the Catholic Church. At the same time, there is a detailed discussion of one issue dealt with at the concil, and a papal document issued 40 years after it.

1603:

cites the Catechism numerous times. Cat give us your reason why you reject the Catechism of the Catholic Church when it states that an Ecumenical Council is infallable. The CCC has stated a fact that the magesterium believes to be true through to the

2248:

and related marian doctrines. The Council has thus received the epithet of "council of Enoch" for its strong pluralism and marked spiritual emphasis. The theology of the Council could even be called "Enochian theology" or an "Enochian orthodoxy".

2145:

Climate (Albiergo, The History of Vatican II, Vol. 1, p.404), J.O. Beozzo states that the real issue was being invited directly, instead of through the Ecumenical Patriarch in Turkey. This should allow firm sourcing for the rest of this paragraph

2347:

to have the qualities Novak states, i.e. the criticism Novak states fits reasonably well with the criticism that the Church has of these types of writings. We cannot have it stated, however, that the writings have been censured because they

2128:

Over the next few weeks, I will be adding further references to this article, and some changes as well. In particular, a bit of detail may be added to the sections on each session, and under issues a section on religious liberty should be

2382:

Ick that section is ugly. Novak's quote should be summarized and condensed a lot, although I fail to see much of a problem if we source the entire statement about (say) Kung, rather than just the censuring, with the qualifier by Novak.

872:

Googling suggests it's a single New York Times/CBS poll from within the last five years, without a comparator. It's just an opportunity for handwringing - there's no hard evidence I can find that the figure is lower than fifty years ago.

2169:

capitalizing the word "spirit" in the phrase "spirit of Christ" as the original non-capitalization was in the authoritative English translation of the official Latin text, published (among other places) on the Vatican's own web site

744:

I'm not convinced though that the council can be blamed for all of the ills of the church today. The acts of church officals before, during and after the council helped contribute to some of the problems the church is having today.

1439:

of Bible exegesis. To my mind this means that the person is suggesting that one of the documents is heretical while the other is not because there has been a reversal. I think this is not the case. Maybe you would care to chime in.

1776:

a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.” I hope this helps.--

408:

Kenneth C. Jones's "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II" cites the following statistics comparing measurable aspects of Catholic life in the United States before and after the Second Vatican Council:

2243:

since he is mentioned in a large number of religions. Furthermore, many experts at the Council, including John XXIII and Paul VI, had a very Enochian spirituality when they talked about a new Pentecost, or when they disserted on

384:

Claude, I changed your comment to reflect the document you cite. Dominus Iesus was from the CDF and by Ratzinger, who at the time was the CDF Prefect. It was not an encyclical, which is a different type of document. DaveTroy

1004:

The current introduction reads: "The Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, or Vatican II, was an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI in 1965."

752:

before the Second Vatican Council) had been abusing children long before the first session of the council. Abuse was going on long before the council was opened, but some catholics blame the council for the abuse crisis.

601:? I think not. One is a worship meeting, the other is a sacrament. Apples and oranges. It's been years since I took Statistics 101, but Dr. Lothian's statistical analyses look rather contrived to me. More later... 1287:

This is a term used for the Dutch and German bishops seen as leaders of the so-called "liberal wing" at Vatican II, mostly in negative depictions of the work of the Council, and in conspiracy theories about it. It is

681:

fact-check the Jesuits statistics and verify the accuracy of the chart. It seems likely to me that there is an error in the page, and that the statistics will register some decline, when we know what the stats are.

1431:

I guess the easiest way of conveying this is by asking if document is true and not heretical. What I have uncovered on is that one of the editors claims the document is not Dogma. This same person is currently on

356:

Outline above inserted, and will be removed from here soon -- the section at the bottom will either be edited into the Aftermath section or turned into a separate article about that encyclical. -- ClaudeMuncey

1489:

That's actually Stephen Hand who is quoting the Catechism in your link, not Pope Benedict XVI as you incorrectly claim. This is one reason why Knowledge (XXG) doesn't allow original research such as yours. --

1271:

Baby steps -- I just added the references to the New Catholic Encyclopedia articles I worked from in putting together the history of the sessions. These will be revised and amended as this continiues.

830:

Many members of the church, many clergy, many tradtionalists? How would whoever wrote the term "Many view" define many? I think it is more accurate to say "Some of the more conservative Catholics..."

373:

The expansion of this article will be a continuing effort - I have moved former article end discussion to separate page on page for the instruction from the Congregation for the Protection of the Faith

1360:

Constiution. It does not argue against the authority of Council documents -- on the contrary, it argues just the opposite as they are expressions of the whole college of bishops acting with the pope.

648:

here may be some confusion over the statistics. I am not getting a clear picture of the facts, and I don't have the Jones book handy. Here is the Jesuit information user Ruy Lopez is referring to:

2691: 2006:

The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council.

980:

is excepted to deliver his Homily on the Vatican II council, and discuss the proper interpretation of it in light of Catholic Tradition. The homily is expected to continue a theme by Monsignor

1948:

is clearly telling Catholics to use that Catechism as the truth. Cat you can recommend other sources all you want but the sources given by the Magisterium are just fine thank you very much.(

1626:

here on Knowledge (XXG) at all. (Hint: There is a reason all the credentialed Catholic theologians disagree with your conclusions -- It is because you are utterly and completely wrong!) --

393:

would be greatly appreciated. For example (I'm taking this very slowly!), way too many "interpretations" in second paragraph, seems to me a shallowly disguised POVification in the works...

2269:

section, and moved the other ones to a "Further reading" section or to the External links section (the links to the documents, mostly). That's why I removed the citation style banner.

346:

Thanks, Michael, I will after I get a little sleep . . . And thanks with the case/style change as I had copied the names in but had not had the chance to complete changes -- ClaudeMuncey

1860:

which clearly states that the Catechism is the teaching of the Magisterium then Cat rejects this Apostolic Constitution from the Pope and instead opts for books from Cat's own approved

1170:

I merely wish to say thankyou to the editors of this article; it is clear, concise and well-written and has been a huge help in my schoolwork. Keep up the good work. :D --

655:

apparently quotes Jones, and states "For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 38 seminarians." The

721:

That article (it could be named otherwise) should then include the statistics, and the different causes (Vatican II and others, but not necessarily the ones I mentioned).

1506:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.

2695: 1337:

non-NPOV and has serious problems with verifiability. I plan to pull it entirely within a couple of days, or flag it as violating NPOV, unless persuaded to hold off.

1038:. Opposition is discussed in the article, do we really need a link to every single group shouting "and another thing!" after the argument is over? To say nothing of 324:

The minor points should be a sentence or two - rarely a paragraph. I'm just going to leave this here a while and develop/edit it, before stubbing it onto the article.

1891:

instead of your continual regurgitation of your massively flawed original research, as though your ideas were so important that they trump Knowledge (XXG) policy? --

1771:. Rather, the kind of submission due to it is that of the next level down, namely, the "religious submission of mind and will" of which the Council itself speaks in 1755:. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, 1936:

The Catechism isn't my opinion, I didn't write it or publish it. The Magisterium published it. It is their official teachings, not mine. Anyone who decides to read

566:

whole picture, and rather distorting. And no, I don't know where you would get world-wide figures, though I agree with you that they, unlike these, belong here. -

1573:

get up too behind close doors. They deny that Vatican II is infallible. They deny because their own views have no voice in the Church. Your view is not Catholic.

1152: 2711: 1840: 2590:

Presently, the questioned validity of the Second Vatican Council continues to be a contending point for religious communities who are not in full communion

1718:

s? If not, what exactly is its juridical force? How solemn are its definitions? These questions are relevant to the issue of the council's infallibility.

1468:

infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,

1314:

with a section from the Catechism of the Council of Trent. The comparison is really bad since both documents had something totally different in mind.

1747:“Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though 2171: 2078:

I am restoring the adjective "ecumenical" to the article, as the ecumenical nature of Vatican II is a fact as defined by Knowledge (XXG) policy. --

958:

The Homily today has been touted as teaching about the real interpretations of Vatican II. I started a paragraph. The Criticism section needs work.

1261:

In addition, to get this talk page down to fighting weight, I propose archiving the discussion of criticism of VatII to its own sub talk page. --

2668:

Is this a position, colloquially called "rejecting the Council" which should be described where Council critizism, or the SSPX is described? Yes.

2008:" You cite an obscure book published by a priest as superceeding 2500+ scholars and then say that this is the position of the Catholic Church? ( 2483: 2193:

I'd like to see some more discussion on the influence of Vatican II on both the RC church and christianity generally. Any experts out there?

1421:

confusion, but the Council did teach, and did not merely repeat Trent and Vatican I verbatim. So I would ask, "What do you mean by dogma?"

1621:

Since you continue to insist that you speak for the magisterium, why don't you take your original research and just post it directly on the

1561:

promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,

2571: 2538: 1671: 703:

It is quite clear that the number of practicing catholics, priests, attendant to church et al. have sharply declined since 1965. I live in

608:"So Dr. Lothian compares just the statistics for "church attendance" - but, again, can "church attendance" be compared to participating in 597:

So Dr. Lothian compares just the statistics for "church attendance" - but, again, can "church attendance" be compared to participating in

2675: 2089: 636:

then I personally know over 10% of the Jesuit priests in the US! I am not sure what the 389 refers to but it seems way off base to me.

1759:.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966) The text that he refers to is this, from the 2659:

be mentioned. They are not Churches nor anything remotely resembling the "ecclesial community" in the Protestant style, for one thing.

87: 1993:

or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the

1817:

Some editors here are attempting to reject that the CCC is a reliable source and that quoting from it is considered a violation of

748:

Take for example the abuse crisis. It turned out that the man who was the celebrant at my grandparent's marriage in 1947 (almost

1832: 1643: 1464: 1008:

This does absolutely nothing to explain why it was called, or what it accomplished. It is most certainly lacking in information.

649: 627:

As an atheist/lapsed Protestant, I wanted to say that this was a really helpful, interesting and informative article. Good job.

2620:"...lengthier Niceno-Constantopolitan, or Nicene Creed. The Nicene creed is recited at each Mass, and both are listed and..." 2361: 2042:

I just quote the teachings of the Magisterium from the Catechism they publish. The Magisterium doesn't call itself fallible. (

937:

It does not put the figures into a context. Is the change in traditional religious views and dedication unique to Catholicism?

2505: 1401:

is that the Dogmatic Constitution is not Dogma. I am under the impression that it is Dogmatic. Anyone here care to comment? (

1143: 2712:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html

2639: 1422: 335:

I think this looks like a workable outline, Claude. I'd say paste it in and start writing. I changed the all caps to

1515:, there is scholarly opinion on both sides of the issue of whether Vatican II is infallible. (See Francis Sullivan's 1156: 52: 17: 2239:

which indicated all the interfaith experts who worked at Vatican II. The interfaith movement is often associated to

722: 2521: 2172:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

1436: 1050:

defensible if their criticisms are not covered in the (quite extensive) criticism section, but this lot looks like

809:

At times it appears to me that in some quarters Vatican II is blamed for everything from sunspots to bad hair days.

38: 1979: 401:

Statistical correlations pertaining to USA moved here. Oddly, the Second Vatican Council was not about the USA. -

2513: 2415: 1978:... NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a 1569:

censored by the same Magisterium for the exact same type of rejection. This is what some ultraconservatives like

589:), I have read the cited article by Dr. Lothian, and it strikes me that nearly all of the listed statistics have 2403:

Shouldn't a section on objectors be added? Objectors are (and were) no small voice -- certainly louder than the

2568: 2553: 2535: 715: 1675: 1635:

I don't have to post it on the Vatican website because the Vatican has posted it already themselves. See #891

926:

A chunk of this article consists of statistics on the decline of Catholic belief from a book on the church by

2679: 2093: 912: 91: 2627: 2213: 2085: 1667: 83: 2444: 2179: 2150: 2134: 2114: 1941: 1647: 1605: 1535: 1234: 864:

the percentage in 1963 & the percentage today can make it a comparison; until then, it's irrelevant.

691:

Here is an article that discusses Mass attendance statistics, addressing causation/correlation questions.

656: 210: 1132: 692: 2517: 2478: 2408: 2352:

these things, as that turns the opinion into a consensus that is not objectively present in the data. --

1600: 1554: 1402: 1203: 974: 130: 1190: 1063: 2635: 2597:

an image that the Second Vatican Council is not universally accepted as "formally valid" or whatever.

948: 2509: 2497: 1887:

dispute regarding this issue. Is there any chance of getting you to actually address this matter of

1799: 1731: 1723: 1320: 1137: 1777: 1046:

compuserve user homepage. It seems to me that authoritative commentaries by substantial groups are

390: 2565: 2549: 2532: 2388: 2373: 2281: 2194: 2043: 2009: 1949: 1905: 1865: 1843: 1781: 1753:

it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority

1709: 1654: 1612: 1574: 1476: 1441: 1171: 2166: 732:

marginalizing the subject. Information about effects in other countries can be provided as well.

2631: 2585:

Seems to me like giving undue weight to a small minority, more specifically, the full paragraph

2449: 2420: 2328: 2198: 2079: 2034: 1965: 1928: 1892: 1835:

is the official exposition of the teachings of the Catholic Church published by the authority of

1627: 1590: 1524: 1491: 1226: 1194: 1186: 992: 981: 962: 906: 2026: 1975: 1915: 1914:

Well, at least you are starting to quote Knowledge (XXG) policy now. That's a start. However,

1901: 714:) argue that Vatican II and the associated changes in the Catholic church are the cause for the 2699: 2683: 2643: 2610: 2574: 2557: 2541: 2525: 2392: 2377: 2332: 2285: 2258: 2225: 2202: 2183: 2154: 2138: 2118: 2097: 2046: 2037: 2012: 1968: 1952: 1931: 1908: 1895: 1868: 1846: 1803: 1785: 1757:

it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility

1735: 1679: 1657: 1630: 1615: 1593: 1577: 1527: 1494: 1479: 1444: 1425: 1405: 1383: 1341: 1323: 1296: 1276: 1265: 1243: 1219: 1197: 1174: 1160: 1023: 1012: 994: 964: 887: 877: 816: 698: 686: 675: 640: 567: 402: 95: 2357: 2323: 2175: 2146: 2130: 2110: 1945: 1836: 1380: 1338: 1293: 1273: 1262: 1240: 1127: 1112: 1073: 977: 884: 379: 367: 315: 2022: 1960: 1919: 1880: 1722:

creeds, nor anathemas. This makes it unique among ecumenical councils (excepting perhaps the

1585: 1500: 1122: 1107: 1051: 1035: 2602: 2458: 984:

that criticize the popular notion that Vatican II was a totally new beginning in the Church.

1818: 905:. If you hit the "edit this page" link on that page, you'll see how the redirect is done. — 612:? I think not. One is a worship meeting, the other is a sacrament. Apples and oranges." 2438: 2427: 1937: 1883:

with your assertion, as a matter of fact, that Vatican II is infallible, whereas there is

1857: 1827: 1795: 1727: 1650: 1608: 1538: 1512: 216: 141: 1519:

chapter on Vatican II for details.) Thus, the infallibility of Vatican II is not a fact

1078: 113:

I'm going to try to flesh out a longer article about this from the NPOV -- ClaudeMuncey

2384: 2369: 2277: 1636: 1433: 1083: 865: 833: 813: 761: 637: 609: 598: 554:

Dang, you and I are "talking over each other" at the same time (Mom? Is that you? LOL)

1884: 897:

This thing needs a redirect from "Vatican II". I don't know how they things are done.

2672:

Is this a lie or a wishful thinking? Not the first; I very much guess not the second.

2489: 2462: 2432: 2404: 2304: 2254: 2236: 2221: 1499:

Your assertion, as a matter of fact, that Vatican II is infallible is a violation of

1230: 1102: 989: 959: 945: 584:

Hi La Minturnesa, back to the statistics discussion... Regarding the last statement (

375: 198: 2216:, it keeps coming back in press articles, so it should perhaps be further examined. 2504:

Shouldn't they be mentioned in a section? It possibly might merit its own article:

2353: 2310: 2245: 1714: 927: 652: 602: 394: 158: 2598: 1822: 1639: 1457: 1117: 1058: 1034:

The "Commentary" section appears to be little more than a collection of offsite

1020: 628: 577:

Vatican II? Did it accelerate halfway between Vatican II and today? Who knows?

51:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2493: 1998: 1398: 1394: 1089:

Vatican II through the eyes of the pre-eminent English-speaking Council Father

1009: 874: 791: 775: 204: 2670:

Should it lead to inclusion in the info box about not-accepting Churches? No.

1379:

This paragraph is mistaken, and in my opinion, non-NPOV. It will be deleted.

1216: 366:

moving end discussion to separate page on page for encyclical dominus iesus

1726:), and it raises the issue of how exactly its infallibility is practiced. ( 1523:, and cannot be asserted as such. Therefore, I am reverting your edit. -- 1118:

The Spirit of Vatican II, Jubilee Optimism, and the Oath against Modernism

1093: 1064:

Xavier Rynne, The New Yorker, 25 December 1965, "Letter from Vatican City"

2250: 2217: 1517:

Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium

1113:

By the Time We Got to Woodstock: Vatican II and "The Spirit of Woodstock"

733: 694: 682: 671: 620: 1068: 740:

the only reason for the decline of the numbers. 14:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

934:

It does not explain how or why Vatican II led to the changes mentioned.

1473: 1123:

The Neo-Modernist Rupture in the Council and in the New Rites, Part I

704: 2174:). The change was understandible and not illogical, but inaccurate. 1355:

There are two points here. The first comment seems to refer to the

1191:

http://www.reference.com/browse/History_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

1346:

Here is the paragraph I am pulling, with my explanation as to why:

2240: 2025:. So switching to a discussion of whether your edits comply with 1994: 1742:

The text that keeps being cited from the CCC means that a Council

546:

Catholics aged 18-44 who don't believe in transubstantiation: 70%

856:

Catholics aged 18–44 who don't believe in transubstantiation: 70%

389:

Any ideas on addressing the numerous recent anonymous changes by

2473: 1570: 2531:

I think that starting a section for objectors is a great idea.

2276:, that reused references link to the right one at the bottom. 2212:

There are a number of liberal theologians that have proposed a

1088: 25: 1456:

I have inserted the word infallible into the document as the

1412:

There are some who desire to emphasize that Vatican II was a

2623:

I don't believe that is true, someone tell me if I'm wrong

2272:

Keep an eye on whether the ref names now all work properly,

1821:. Clearly the CCC is the reliable teachings of faith by the 840:

Post-Conciliar Catholic Life in the United States of America

1989:

Articles that compare views should not give minority views

1463:

Pope Benedict XVI has declared this himself by quoting the

1094:

To Whose Competence Does It Belong to Interpret Vatican II?

215:

Pastoral Constitution: On the Church in the Modern World -

1749:

not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements

1435:

claiming that the Church has reversed its position on the

1225:

individual documents and the links there -- in particular

1831:

which is an Apostolic Constitution which states that the

1189:

04:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC) One such reference is in here

254:

Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church -

1622: 1128:

Part II: The Incommutability of Ecclesiastical Tradition

1099:

Traditional Catholic Practices, Pre-Vatican II and Today

1472:." The Popes quotation of the CCC #891 can be found on 902: 883:

Someone stuck these back in again. Once again deleted.

339:. Better form for foreign languages. --MichaelTinkler 2324:

Talk:Nota Praevia#RfC: Is "Nota Praevia" a good title?

2314:. There is a discussion about whether they should be 2033:

applicable Knowledge (XXG) policies, not just one. --

266:

Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite -

2508:, which could contain the objections of conservative 1812:

Catechism of the Catholic Church is a reliable source

1553:, is the official exposition of the teachings of the 2338:

edit on Michael Novak's interpretation of Vatican II

2302:

There are two separate Knowledge (XXG) articles for

2512:, and the objections of liberal groups such as the 1059:

Leo Darrach, The Development of the Mass since 1960

969:I appreciate Lima's reasons. Let me quote it here: 710:Therefore, I think the wording should be "Some (or 1101:(removed because the spam filter doesn't like it. 1133:Vatican II and the Correlation-Causation Fallacy 1069:Why was Vatican II needed? Why we need it today. 930:. I object to this section on the grounds that: 2322:If any editors have an opinion, please vote at 272:Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church - 233:Guidelines on Religious Relations with the Jews 1074:What did the Second Vatican Council do for us? 278:Decree on the Means of Social Communication - 2661:The SSPX, on the other hand, is a group that 2564:I don't quite follow what you're asking for. 1900:The notable dispute is a minority view. Read 203:Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - 8: 2337: 954:Homily on Feast of the Immaculate Conception 1397:is Dogma however discussion on the article 221:Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life - 2029:is not relevant. You have to comply with 1084:Open Windows: Why Vatican II Was Necessary 670:The facts aren't clear from this picture. 2318:and if not, whether the latter should be 2235:I was looking at a bibliography from the 973:In 2005 at the Mass for the Feast of the 418:Projection: by 2020: 31,000, half over 70 248:Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People - 177:The Church -- Clergy, Religious and Laity 1984:in proportion to the prominence of each. 2704: 2506:Criticism of the Second Vatican Council 1521:as Knowledge (XXG) policy defines facts 2692:2606:6000:80C1:6900:215D:B2E:F151:151D 2001:theory, a view of a distinct minority. 1794:Thank you very kindly for your reply! 1460:considers Vatican II to be infallible. 944:I feel the section should be omitted. 533:Lay religious teachers who agree with: 197:Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - 49:Do not edit the contents of this page. 236:Declaration on Christian Education - 209:Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy - 186:Ecumenism, Judiasm, Religious Freedom 7: 2469:And post-council objectors such as: 1959:are aren't, by any means), then the 1904:. The Magisterium is the majority. ( 1079:After the Council: Living Vatican II 2165:I have reversed the recent edit by 940:The source is hardly authoritative. 227:Declaration on Religious Freedom - 1563:above all in an Ecumenical Council 1470:above all in an Ecumenical Council 1138:Making the True Vatican II Our Own 508:Catholic Parochial Schools: -4,000 24: 2411:. Mid-council objectors such as: 2082:03:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC) x x x 901:There already is a redirect; see 1997:only very briefly refers to the 1833:Catechism of the Catholic Church 1644:Catechism of the Catholic Church 1544:Catechism of the Catholic Church 1465:Catechism of the Catholic Church 1310:I removed a reference comparing 183:Religious Education and Missions 29: 1987:Now an important qualification: 1393:I am under the impression that 486:Christian Brothers seminarians: 189:The Church and the Modern World 174:Scripture and Divine Revelation 242:Decree on Priestly Training - 157:Death of John and election of 1: 2644:04:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 2611:07:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 2333:21:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 1922:, which states that opinions 1736:16:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 1333:The second lead paragraph is 1258:for the conciliar documents. 1161:22:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 1108:What Hath Vatican II Wrought? 1013:23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 615:What are you inferring here? 163:Second, Third, Fourth Session 2700:09:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2345:for being seen by the Church 2098:11:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 2023:WP:NPOV#A simple formulation 1964:other opinions. Get it? -- 1804:17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 1786:21:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1501:WP:NPOV#A simple formulation 1376:Constitution on the Church. 1292:POV and has been removed. -- 1024:06:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC) 995:18:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 965:17:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 949:00:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 922:Excerpt from Buchanan's book 888:13:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC) 817:21:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 463:2002: 75,000, average age 68 117:Here's my basic outline -- 2542:03:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC) 2526:05:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC) 1646:as cleary indicated by the 1000:Better introduction needed! 736:| 11:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) 539:divorce and remarriage: 65% 504:Catholic High Schools: -50% 414:1930-1965 doubled to 58,000 362:Any ideas? -- ClaudeMuncey 96:03:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 18:Talk:Second Vatican Council 2730: 2286:15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 2155:05:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 2139:23:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2119:15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 1437:historical-critical method 1220:05:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 1198:04:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 1175:01:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC) 917:01:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC) 836:02:24, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC) 631:21:32, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC) 2514:Palmarian Catholic Church 2393:02:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2378:02:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 2362:16:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC) 2259:15:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 2047:21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 2038:20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 2013:17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 1969:14:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 1953:13:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 1932:11:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 1909:10:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 1896:01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 1869:07:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 1847:10:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 1680:21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 1658:20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 1631:19:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 1616:19:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 1594:18:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 1578:08:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 1528:03:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 1495:02:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC) 1480:15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 1445:18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 1426:13:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 1406:10:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 1384:06:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1297:13:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 1277:13:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 1266:17:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 1202:Extract from the article 1180:Not have to be a catholic 868:04:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) 716:decline in catholic faith 605:19:16, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC) 397:04:02, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC) 2684:15:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 2651:The SSPX and the Council 2575:16:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC) 2558:17:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC) 2428:Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini 2311:Nota explicativa praevia 2297:Nota explicativa praevia 2226:08:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 2203:10:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 2184:22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 1451:Vatican II is Infallible 1357:nota praevia explicativa 1342:19:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1324:06:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC) 794:15:16, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC) 778:20:42, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) 725:04:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) 699:14:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC) 687:04:37, 23 May 2004 (UTC) 676:03:07, 23 May 2004 (UTC) 641:01:59, 23 May 2004 (UTC) 512:Catholic marriages: -33% 250:Apostolicam Actuositatem 44:for the period 2002–2013 2616:Nicene Creed recitation 2416:Cardinal Michael Browne 2124:Revisions and additions 1642:has spoken through the 1423:The.helping.people.tick 1244:16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 878:18:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC) 764:04:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) 268:Orientalium Ecclesiarum 238:Gravissimum Educationis 2581:Objectors in the lede? 2445:Sacrosanctum Concilium 2291:Separate articles for 1942:Apostolic Constitution 1889:Knowledge (XXG) policy 1856:Since Cat has skipped 1648:Apostolic Constitution 1606:Apostolic Constitution 1536:Apostolic Constitution 1353: 1235:Unitatis_Redintegratio 986: 712:conservative catholics 657:Second Vatican Council 262:Unitatis Redintegratio 260:Decree on Ecumenism - 211:Sacrosanctum Concilium 2461:bishops (who opposed 2368:way too convoluted. 2214:Third Vatican Council 2208:Third Vatican Council 2161:Edit to Nostra Aetate 1974:Magisterium. I quote 1601:Roman Catholic Church 1389:Dei Verbum not dogma? 1348: 1204:Roman Catholic Church 975:Immaculate Conception 971: 718:observed since 1965. 659:entry states simply: 653:CatholicTradition.org 131:First Vatican Council 2231:Vatican II and Enoch 2104:Restoring Paragraphs 1724:Council of Jerusalem 1511:As I pointed out in 921: 423:Priestless parishes: 180:The Eastern Churches 42:of past discussions 1982:, and should do so 1944:will discover that 1249:Revision of Article 472:2002: 8,200 ( -94%) 445:2002: 4,700 ( -90%) 432:Ordinations in USA: 312:Liberation Theology 223:Perfectae Caritatis 2450:Dignitatis Humanae 2421:Dignitatis Humanae 2074:Ecumenical Council 1227:Dignitatis Humanae 982:Walter Brandmuller 774: 535:contraception: 90% 416:since 1965: 45,000 284:Apostolic Brief - 229:Dignitatis Humanae 2647: 2630:comment added by 2264:Unified citations 2100: 2088:comment added by 1946:Pope John Paul II 1837:Pope John Paul II 1670:comment added by 1559:The infallibility 1534:According to the 978:Pope Benedict XVI 771: 541:missing Mass: 77% 316:Pope John Paul II 286:In Spiritu Sancto 86:comment added by 72: 71: 59: 58: 53:current talk page 2721: 2714: 2709: 2646: 2624: 2607: 2518:ChristianHistory 2459:Eastern Catholic 2407:who objected to 2331: 2083: 1918:does not change 1682: 1503:, which states: 1329:Second Paragraph 1147: 915: 909: 529:2002: 1 out of 4 527:1958: 3 out of 4 525:Mass attendance: 256:Christus Dominus 98: 68: 61: 60: 33: 32: 26: 2729: 2728: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2710: 2706: 2653: 2625: 2618: 2603: 2583: 2572:(contributions) 2560:HeartyBowl1989 2539:(contributions) 2510:Traditionalists 2439:Gaudium et Spes 2401: 2340: 2327: 2300: 2266: 2233: 2210: 2191: 2163: 2126: 2106: 2076: 1980:reliable source 1938:Fidei depositum 1858:Fidei depositum 1828:Fidei depositum 1814: 1707: 1665: 1651:FIDEI DEPOSITUM 1623:Vatican website 1609:FIDEI DEPOSITUM 1555:Catholic Church 1539:FIDEI DEPOSITUM 1513:Talk:Dei Verbum 1453: 1416:council, not a 1391: 1331: 1308: 1285: 1283:"Rhine Bishops" 1251: 1182: 1168: 1154: 1145: 1032: 1002: 956: 924: 913: 907: 895: 842: 412:Priests in USA: 295:Winds of Change 217:Gaudium et Spes 142:Pope John XXIII 135:The Theologians 104: 81: 77: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2727: 2725: 2716: 2715: 2703: 2688: 2673: 2671: 2669: 2667: 2660: 2657: 2652: 2649: 2617: 2614: 2594: 2593: 2582: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2566:carl bunderson 2550:HeartyBowl1989 2545: 2544: 2533:carl bunderson 2502: 2501: 2498:Traditionalist 2486: 2481: 2476: 2467: 2466: 2455: 2425: 2400: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2380: 2339: 2336: 2299: 2289: 2265: 2262: 2232: 2229: 2209: 2206: 2190: 2187: 2162: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2125: 2122: 2105: 2102: 2075: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2044:Runwiththewind 2010:Runwiththewind 2002: 1950:Runwiththewind 1906:Runwiththewind 1873: 1872: 1866:Runwiththewind 1851: 1850: 1844:Runwiththewind 1813: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1789: 1788: 1710:Runwiththewind 1706: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1672:99.255.171.224 1655:Runwiththewind 1613:Runwiththewind 1589:exception. -- 1582: 1581: 1575:Runwiththewind 1566: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1484: 1483: 1477:Runwiththewind 1461: 1452: 1449: 1442:Runwiththewind 1429: 1428: 1390: 1387: 1330: 1327: 1307: 1304: 1284: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1250: 1247: 1181: 1178: 1172:Sarsaparilla39 1167: 1164: 1151: 1141: 1140: 1135: 1130: 1125: 1120: 1115: 1110: 1105: 1096: 1091: 1086: 1081: 1076: 1071: 1066: 1061: 1031: 1030:External links 1028: 1027: 1026: 1001: 998: 955: 952: 942: 941: 938: 935: 923: 920: 919: 918: 894: 891: 881: 880: 861: 860: 859: 858: 850: 849: 841: 838: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 811: 810: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 782: 781: 780: 779: 766: 765: 742: 667: 665: 663: 651:A web page at 633: 625: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 571: 570: 561: 552: 550: 547: 545: 542: 540: 538: 536: 534: 530: 528: 526: 524: 521: 519: 517: 513: 509: 505: 503: 500: 498: 496: 494: 491: 489: 487: 485: 482: 480: 478: 476: 473: 471: 469: 468:Teaching nuns: 467: 464: 462: 460: 458: 455: 453: 451: 449: 446: 444: 442: 440: 437: 435: 433: 431: 428: 426: 424: 421: 419: 417: 415: 413: 407: 399: 391:205.188.209.11 387: 371: 364: 359: 353: 351: 349: 344: 342: 333: 331: 327: 323: 321: 320: 319: 318: 313: 310: 305: 296: 290: 289: 288: 282: 280:Inter Mirifica 276: 270: 264: 258: 252: 246: 244:Optatam Totius 240: 234: 231: 225: 219: 213: 207: 201: 192: 191: 190: 187: 184: 181: 178: 175: 172: 166: 165: 164: 161: 155: 152: 146: 145: 144: 139: 136: 133: 125: 120: 115: 110: 103: 100: 76: 73: 70: 69: 57: 56: 47: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2726: 2713: 2708: 2705: 2702: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2686: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2676:93.135.42.249 2664: 2656:reasons here. 2650: 2648: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2621: 2615: 2613: 2612: 2608: 2606: 2600: 2591: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2580: 2576: 2573: 2570: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2543: 2540: 2537: 2534: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2490:Sedevacantist 2487: 2485: 2482: 2480: 2477: 2475: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2464: 2463:Nostra Aetate 2460: 2456: 2454: 2451: 2447: 2446: 2441: 2440: 2435: 2434: 2433:Nostra Aetate 2430:(who opposed 2429: 2426: 2423: 2422: 2418:(who opposed 2417: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2410: 2406: 2405:Old Catholics 2398: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2381: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2346: 2335: 2334: 2330: 2329:Lawrence King 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2312: 2307: 2306: 2305:Lumen Gentium 2298: 2294: 2293:Lumen Gentium 2290: 2288: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2270: 2263: 2261: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2247: 2242: 2238: 2237:Enoch seminar 2230: 2228: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2207: 2205: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2188: 2186: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2168: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2123: 2121: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2103: 2101: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2090:87.198.196.98 2087: 2081: 2080:Cat Whisperer 2073: 2048: 2045: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2036: 2035:Cat Whisperer 2032: 2028: 2024: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2014: 2011: 2007: 2003: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1967: 1966:Cat Whisperer 1962: 1957: 1956: 1954: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1930: 1929:Cat Whisperer 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1912: 1910: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1894: 1893:Cat Whisperer 1890: 1886: 1882: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1845: 1841: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1774: 1773:Lumen Gentium 1770: 1766: 1765:Lumen gentium 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1745: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1719: 1717: 1716: 1711: 1704: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1662: 1661: 1659: 1656: 1652: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1629: 1628:Cat Whisperer 1624: 1620: 1619: 1617: 1614: 1610: 1607: 1602: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1592: 1591:Cat Whisperer 1587: 1584: 1583: 1579: 1576: 1572: 1567: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1551: 1546: 1545: 1540: 1537: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1526: 1525:Cat Whisperer 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1505: 1504: 1502: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1493: 1492:Cat Whisperer 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1481: 1478: 1474: 1471: 1466: 1462: 1459: 1455: 1454: 1450: 1448: 1446: 1443: 1438: 1434: 1427: 1424: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1407: 1404: 1403:89.102.17.188 1400: 1396: 1388: 1386: 1385: 1382: 1377: 1375: 1371: 1370:Lumen Gentium 1367: 1361: 1358: 1352: 1347: 1344: 1343: 1340: 1336: 1328: 1326: 1325: 1322: 1317: 1313: 1305: 1303: 1299: 1298: 1295: 1291: 1282: 1278: 1275: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1264: 1259: 1255: 1248: 1246: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1236: 1232: 1231:Lumen Gentium 1228: 1222: 1221: 1218: 1214: 1212: 1211:Lumen gentium 1207: 1205: 1200: 1199: 1196: 1195:DanielDemaret 1192: 1188: 1187:DanielDemaret 1179: 1177: 1176: 1173: 1165: 1163: 1162: 1159: 1158: 1153: 1149: 1139: 1136: 1134: 1131: 1129: 1126: 1124: 1121: 1119: 1116: 1114: 1111: 1109: 1106: 1104: 1100: 1097: 1095: 1092: 1090: 1087: 1085: 1082: 1080: 1077: 1075: 1072: 1070: 1067: 1065: 1062: 1060: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1053: 1052:vanispamcruft 1049: 1045: 1042:links to the 1041: 1037: 1029: 1025: 1022: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1011: 1006: 999: 997: 996: 993: 991: 985: 983: 979: 976: 970: 967: 966: 963: 961: 953: 951: 950: 947: 939: 936: 933: 932: 931: 929: 916: 910: 908:HorsePunchKid 904: 900: 899: 898: 892: 890: 889: 886: 879: 876: 871: 870: 869: 867: 857: 854: 853: 852: 851: 848: 844: 843: 839: 837: 835: 831: 818: 815: 812: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 793: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 777: 770: 769: 768: 767: 763: 760: 759: 758: 754: 751: 746: 741: 737: 735: 730: 726: 724: 719: 717: 713: 708: 706: 701: 700: 696: 693: 689: 688: 684: 678: 677: 673: 668: 660: 658: 654: 650: 647: 643: 642: 639: 632: 630: 624: 622: 616: 613: 611: 606: 604: 600: 595: 592: 588: 575: 574: 573: 572: 569: 564: 563: 562: 559: 555: 551: 548: 543: 537:abortion: 53% 531: 522: 514: 510: 506: 501: 492: 483: 474: 470:1965: 104,000 465: 461:1965: 180,000 456: 447: 438: 429: 420: 410: 405: 404: 398: 396: 392: 386: 382: 381: 377: 376:Dominus Iesus 370: 369: 363: 358: 354: 350: 347: 343: 340: 338: 332: 329: 328:ClaudeMuncey 325: 317: 314: 311: 309: 308:Humanae Vitae 306: 304: 303:Ressourcement 300: 299:Aggiornomento 297: 294: 293: 291: 287: 283: 281: 277: 275: 271: 269: 265: 263: 259: 257: 253: 251: 247: 245: 241: 239: 235: 232: 230: 226: 224: 220: 218: 214: 212: 208: 206: 202: 200: 199:Lumen Gentium 196: 195: 193: 188: 185: 182: 179: 176: 173: 170: 169: 167: 162: 160: 156: 154:First Session 153: 150: 149: 147: 143: 140: 137: 134: 132: 129: 128: 126: 123: 122: 121: 118: 114: 111: 108: 101: 99: 97: 93: 89: 85: 74: 67: 63: 62: 54: 50: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2707: 2687: 2662: 2654: 2626:— Preceding 2622: 2619: 2604: 2595: 2589: 2584: 2546: 2503: 2468: 2452: 2443: 2437: 2431: 2419: 2402: 2349: 2344: 2341: 2319: 2315: 2309: 2303: 2301: 2296: 2292: 2273: 2271: 2267: 2246:pneumatology 2234: 2211: 2192: 2176:ClaudeMuncey 2167:67.204.8.180 2164: 2147:ClaudeMuncey 2131:ClaudeMuncey 2127: 2111:ClaudeMuncey 2107: 2077: 2030: 2005: 1990: 1986: 1983: 1940:which is an 1923: 1888: 1861: 1826: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1743: 1720: 1715:anathema sit 1713: 1708: 1705:Promulgation 1562: 1558: 1549: 1548: 1543: 1542: 1520: 1516: 1469: 1430: 1417: 1413: 1392: 1381:ClaudeMuncey 1378: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1362: 1356: 1354: 1349: 1345: 1339:ClaudeMuncey 1334: 1332: 1316:Nostra Ætate 1315: 1312:Nostra Ætate 1311: 1309: 1306:Nostra Ætate 1300: 1294:ClaudeMuncey 1289: 1286: 1274:ClaudeMuncey 1263:ClaudeMuncey 1260: 1256: 1252: 1241:ClaudeMuncey 1239: 1223: 1215: 1210: 1208: 1201: 1183: 1169: 1155: 1142: 1098: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1033: 1007: 1003: 987: 972: 968: 957: 943: 928:Pat Buchanan 925: 896: 885:ClaudeMuncey 882: 862: 855: 845: 832: 828: 755: 749: 747: 743: 738: 728: 727: 720: 711: 709: 702: 690: 679: 669: 661: 645: 644: 634: 626: 617: 614: 607: 596: 590: 585: 583: 560: 556: 553: 549: 544: 532: 523: 520:2002: 50,000 515: 511: 507: 502: 495:Franciscans: 493: 484: 475: 466: 457: 448: 443:1965: 49,000 441:Seminarians: 439: 430: 422: 411: 406: 400: 388: 383: 380:ClaudeMuncey 372: 368:ClaudeMuncey 365: 360: 355: 352: 348: 345: 341: 336: 334: 330: 326: 322: 307: 302: 298: 285: 279: 273: 267: 261: 255: 249: 243: 237: 228: 222: 159:Pope Paul VI 151:Participants 119: 116: 112: 109: 105: 88:74.12.39.221 78: 65: 48: 43: 37: 2084:—Preceding 1823:Magisterium 1761:nota praeva 1666:—Preceding 1640:Magisterium 1458:Magisterium 1366:ex cathedra 664:1965: 3,559 516:Annulments: 497:1965: 3,379 479:1965: 3,559 450:Seminaries: 434:1965: 1,575 138:The Bishops 127:Background 82:—Preceding 36:This is an 2494:Conclavist 1999:Flat Earth 1796:Rwflammang 1728:Rwflammang 1399:Dei Verbum 1395:Dei Verbum 1335:profoundly 1319:passages. 1290:definitely 847:following: 723:Céçaquiéça 427:2002: 15% 292:Aftermath 205:Dei Verbum 194:Documents 102:Statistics 2409:Vatican I 2399:Objectors 2385:Baccyak4H 2370:Baccyak4H 2278:Baccyak4H 2189:Influence 1778:Pacochema 1148:you know? 1144:Just zis 866:Binabik80 666:2000: 389 638:Ruy Lopez 518:1968: 338 488:1965: 912 481:2000: 389 454:2002: 200 452:1965: 600 436:2002: 450 274:Ad Gentes 148:Sessions 66:Archive 1 2640:contribs 2628:unsigned 2601:dixit. ( 2592:... etc. 2457:Various 2320:renamed. 2308:and its 2295:and its 2195:Sidefall 2086:unsigned 2027:WP:UNDUE 1976:WP:UNDUE 1916:WP:UNDUE 1902:WP:UNDUE 1862:scholars 1668:unsigned 1418:dogmatic 1414:pastoral 1374:Dogmatic 1103:Gentgeen 1048:possibly 990:Dominick 960:Dominick 946:Mwalcoff 893:Redirect 750:15 years 621:peak oil 499:2000: 84 477:Jesuits: 459:Sisters: 425:1965: 1% 84:unsigned 75:Untitled 2354:Lrschum 2316:merged, 1991:as much 1961:WP:NPOV 1920:WP:NPOV 1885:notable 1881:WP:NPOV 1769:de fide 1586:WP:NPOV 1372:is the 1213:, 14). 988:Thanks 662:Jesuits 603:Harris7 587:period. 490:2000: 7 395:Harris7 171:Liturgy 168:Issues 39:archive 2632:Kisper 2599:Rursus 2569:(talk) 2536:(talk) 2500:groups 2496:, and 2488:Other 2448:, and 2129:added. 1924:cannot 1819:WP:NOR 1638:. The 1321:Miguel 1233:, and 1166:Thanks 1021:ddlamb 834:JesseG 814:JesseG 762:JesseG 705:Quebec 629:jengod 337:italic 2663:after 2241:Enoch 1995:Earth 1547:, or 1185:here? 1036:forks 1010:Surgo 875:Rd232 792:Mpolo 776:Mpolo 773:view. 124:Intro 16:< 2696:talk 2680:talk 2636:talk 2605:bork 2554:talk 2522:talk 2516:. -- 2484:CMRI 2479:SSPV 2474:SSPX 2389:Yak! 2374:Yak! 2358:talk 2282:Yak! 2274:i.e. 2255:talk 2222:talk 2199:talk 2180:talk 2151:talk 2135:talk 2115:talk 2094:talk 1800:talk 1782:talk 1732:talk 1676:talk 1571:SSPX 1541:the 1217:Lima 1157:AfD? 1146:Guy, 1044:same 903:here 610:Mass 599:Mass 568:Zotz 403:Zotz 92:talk 2609:!) 2350:are 2251:ADM 2218:ADM 2031:all 1864:. ( 1825:in 1763:to 1744:can 1653:. ( 1611:. ( 1550:CCC 1475:. ( 1237:. 1040:two 734:Trc 697:| 695:Trc 685:| 683:Trc 674:| 672:Trc 623:. 378:-- 301:vs 2698:) 2682:) 2674:-- 2642:) 2638:• 2556:) 2524:) 2492:, 2442:, 2436:, 2391:) 2376:) 2360:) 2326:— 2284:) 2257:) 2224:) 2201:) 2182:) 2153:) 2137:) 2117:) 2096:) 2015:) 1955:) 1911:) 1839:. 1802:) 1784:) 1738:) 1734:) 1678:) 1660:) 1618:) 1565:." 1447:) 1408:) 1272:-- 1229:, 1206:: 1054:. 591:no 94:) 2694:( 2678:( 2634:( 2552:( 2520:( 2465:) 2453:) 2424:) 2387:( 2372:( 2356:( 2280:( 2253:( 2220:( 2197:( 2178:( 2170:( 2149:( 2133:( 2113:( 2092:( 2049:) 1871:) 1849:) 1842:( 1798:( 1780:( 1730:( 1674:( 1580:) 1482:) 1440:( 1193:. 1150:/ 914:龜 911:→ 729:N 646:T 90:( 55:. 46:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.