on Lumen Gentium

Nov. 21, 1964
On the Church
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**

We started this meeting off by talking about Cardinal Gharardini. He is a Canon in St. Peter's who wrote a book that came out this year called Vatican II: A much needed discussion. This is what he said in a nut shell. The Church didn't start with Vatican II, the council was not infallible, and that Vatican II was basically the destruction of Papal authority. He reiterates what all the Popes have said since the council (and is blatantly ignored) that Vatican II was not dogmatic, and nothing new is to be believed. Therefore if you deny of the new things, you are not a heretic.
De Fide means "from faith." It is when something is judged or condemned by Faith. Not only can Vatican II err, it has erred. Statements need to be made on weight, and it needs to address the parts that are not congruent with tradition.
It defines the Church as being the kingdom of Heaven founded in mystery-means of salvation (sacrament.) Establishes unity. The visible establishment Christ founded with a hierarchy. A political order also establishes unity in the natural order. (Remember, the document is written in Latin.) Key parts of this definition are written in the subjunctive case: what you use when it is not a statement of certainty. Indicative is the case that should have been used, but they chose to use subjunctive. Why?
This is the traditional definition of the Church. The visible, supernatural, perfect (not lacking anything to accomplish its goal) society which is united by a union in faith, subjection to (legitimate hierarchy) to the Pope, and which shares the same sacraments for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. (I think founded by Christ is implied, or maybe I didn't write it down.)
Leo XIII and Pius XII did say the Church was the mystical body (material) of Christ, and bodies are seen. Therefore the Church cannot be invisible, nor solely spiritual. It has five marks... the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church. (St?) Mary of Agreta, a Franciscan missionary said the Holy Ghost vivifies the Church, moves, makes holy, is the soul.
What about non-Catholic churches? Vatican II's concept of society is about
1) the Church is a mystery and cannot be seen by all... unlike the old definition: a visible society. It is unknowable in its essence...well, thats not totally untrue, as finite beings, we cant see the entire universe as God sees it, and the beatific vision is witheld from us. But the non-Catholics mean it more along the lines of "don't try to figure out the soul, its too complicated." The church "discovers" its nature. That's weird, what does that mean.
2) Holy effects which others have. So the Holy Ghost doesn't hesitate to use members of heretics?
3) Subsists in the Catholic Church? No! The truth is the Church, it doesn't subside in it. This is problematic. If the true society only subsists in the Church, it is not efficacious.
4) Communion (not membership basis of unity) not the traditional way. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Totally new-Baptism is, not communion. If you lack Faith, you don't have anything.
It talks about the "people of God." This doesn't sound heretical, but it is written not as the Catholic understanding. First comes Christ, he brings the twelve. First comes Moses, then Aaron, then the tribes. Then you understand the "people of God." But in the modern terms, "people of God" is now like "we the people." Nowhere does it talk about the Church Militant. Supreme authority resides in the Pope and the college of Bishops, led by the pope. Nowhere is the Vicar of Christ/Successor of Peter mentioned.
Consecration comes from the apostolic succession. The Power of Orders and the Power of Jurisdiction are two different powers. One comes first, then the other can be granted. But all of the sudden, now apparently you get both at the same time. Just like the Orthodox. They have validly consecrated bishops and orders. But consecration gives you the power to receive jurisdiction. (I don't know where we were going with this.)
Against the Council Fathers, Pope Paul VI exercised powers without them. It was called "Black Tuesday." The Catholic church does not hesitate to call the Blessed Mother our Mediatrix. But he did not condemn, and did not affirm. There were Protestants and Orthodox at the Council, and they talked with the council Fathers.

Okay, so I have no idea what half these notes mean. I remember it all making sense when I took them, but this was like 6 months ago. I am half tempted to not post this, but I know how few people read it. soo....for the two of you out there.... let me try to sum the differences. Tradition says that the True Church must be seen, you must be able to put your finger on it, and outside of it, God does not use other religions to save souls. Now, the Church is actually a mystery, that we can't quite figure out. But Vatican II is pretty sure that the fullness of Truth exists in the Roman Church. It uses a lot of vague flowery words to get around saying that there is an apostolic line that only can claim Truth for its own.
Also, a bishop can consecrate a priest and it be valid, but the new bishop is only then able to receive jurisdiction from the Pope. Also, Paul VI actually acted without the Council, and that is totally within his limits.