Can someone help me with these seeming contradictions?

[savienu]

Between Vatican II documents and prior statements from the Church? I’ve always been told the problem has been with the implementation of Vatican II, not Vatican II itself, but I have a hard time reconciling Dignitas Humane with statements contained in Quanta Cura from Pope Pius IX, for example. This website sums up some of these alleged contradictions nicely.

Please note, I am not trying to say that the documents ARE irreconcilable, I am asking HOW they are reconcilable with Tradition and the teachings of prior Popes and Councils.

intheruinsofrome.googlepages.com/comparisons

 

[banjo]

Between Vatican II documents and prior statements from the Church? I’ve always been told the problem has been with the implementation of Vatican II, not Vatican II itself, but I have a hard time reconciling Dignitas Humane with statements contained in Quanta Cura from Pope Pius IX, for example. This website sums up some of these alleged contradictions nicely.

Please note, I am not trying to say that the documents ARE irreconcilable, I am asking HOW they are reconcilable with Tradition and the teachings of prior Popes and Councils.

intheruinsofrome.googlepages.com/comparisons

I hope this will be helpful.
"…the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office noted that ‘the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach. . . that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.’ The protocol goes on to say, however, that (T)his dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Saviour gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church (Suprema haec sacra, in The American Ecclesiastical Review, 1952, vol. 127, pp. 308-15)."This quote is from an article by: Michael J. Mazza is director of catechetics for the Diocese of Sioux Falls, South Dakota and a frequent contributor to Fidelity.
© Fidelity, 206 Marquette Avenue, South Bend, IN 46617.

Underlining not part of the original document.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Though I applaude your well thought response to this question, I must disagree not on a fundamental level per se but certainly on an incidental level.

1. I believe you make the context of Pope Pius IX and Gregory XVI too small, and not sufficiently permitting the documents to speak for themselves.
2. Where did this “right to worship” exist prior to Vatican II? I was under the impression that error had no rights. Since the Catholic religion is the one true one, how can people have the right to worship error?
3. While I think you a putting Vatican II in its proper understanding (i.e. not as bad as some may think) I think there is also a minimizing of its areas of departure from the previous magisterium.
4. A practical comparison of papal policy prior to the Council and after will show the signifigance of the change in attitude that resulted from the Council documents, and how it changed both Church and foreign policy. Franco’s Spain is case in point. The contrast in approach between operations of the old concordat under Franco and the new one under HM King Juan Carlos shows the huge change that was affected. If the change was not so significant, why did papal policy not reflect that in real terms?

 

[savienu]

Though I applaude your well thought response to this question, I must disagree not on a fundamental level per se but certainly on an incidental level.

1. I believe you make the context of Pope Pius IX and Gregory XVI too small, and not sufficiently permitting the documents to speak for themselves.
2. Where did this “right to worship” exist prior to Vatican II? I was under the impression that error had no rights. Since the Catholic religion is the one true one, how can people have the right to worship error?
3. While I think you a putting Vatican II in its proper understanding (i.e. not as bad as some may think) I think there is also a minimizing of its areas of departure from the previous magisterium.
4. A practical comparison of papal policy prior to the Council and after will show the signifigance of the change in attitude that resulted from the Council documents, and how it changed both Church and foreign policy. Franco’s Spain is case in point. The contrast in approach between operations of the old concordat under Franco and the new one under HM King Juan Carlos shows the huge change that was affected. If the change was not so significant, why did papal policy not reflect that in real terms?

Thanks EnchantedEve. It WAS a good article, but I was still left with that one nagging question of “How can religious freedom be a civil right?” The article didn’t address how it can go from being WRONG to worship in error to a civil RIGHT. That’s what’s really nagging me still.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Between Vatican II documents and prior statements from the Church? I’ve always been told the problem has been with the implementation of Vatican II, not Vatican II itself, but I have a hard time reconciling Dignitas Humane with statements contained in Quanta Cura from Pope Pius IX, for example. This website sums up some of these alleged contradictions nicely.

Please note, I am not trying to say that the documents ARE irreconcilable, I am asking HOW they are reconcilable with Tradition and the teachings of prior Popes and Councils.

intheruinsofrome.googlepages.com/comparisons

This is why I’m cynical about the “infallibility” teaching, or the business that what the church teaches is always right. Here we have some prime examples of the church contradicting itself, yet the traditionalists tell us we have to blindly follow church teaching at all times.

For example it was church teaching in 1962 that “Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his” but three years later in 1965 " … the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using (separated churches) as means of salvation" Unitatis Redintegratio control." Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem,

So if I’d been Catholic in 1962, I was supposed to deny Protestants any salvific value, but in 1965 I’m supposed to turn around and say it’s all OK now, and I hope nobody was offended by my rock-sure belief 3 years earlier that it wasn’t all OK now.

One of the things I find about some Protestants is their dishonesty and hatred of the Catholic Church. But I’m rapidly starting to realise that there are Catholics who are just as stubborn and legalistic.

 

[savienu]

This is why I’m cynical about the “infallibility” teaching, or the business that what the church teaches is always right. Here we have some prime examples of the church contradicting itself, yet the traditionalists tell us we have to blindly follow church teaching at all times.

For example it was church teaching in 1962 that “Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his” but three years later in 1965 " … the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using (separated churches) as means of salvation" Unitatis Redintegratio control." Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem,

So if I’d been Catholic in 1962, I was supposed to deny Protestants any salvific value, but in 1965 I’m supposed to turn around and say it’s all OK now, and I hope nobody was offended by my rock-sure belief 3 years earlier that it wasn’t all OK now.

One of the things I find about some Protestants is their dishonesty and hatred of the Catholic Church. But I’m rapidly starting to realise that there are Catholics who are just as stubborn and legalistic.

Take heart. According to John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Ratzinger, Vatican II made no infallible pronouncements, and was merely pastoral in nature. In fact, its scope was specifically limited in nature. I do have a hard time, even knowing this, with the idea that the council could have taught direct error, though.

seattlecatholic.com/article_20030103_Differing_from_Other_Councils.html

 

[banjo]

This is why I’m cynical about the “infallibility” teaching, or the business that what the church teaches is always right. Here we have some prime examples of the church contradicting itself, yet the traditionalists tell us we have to blindly follow church teaching at all times.

For example it was church teaching in 1962 that “Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his” but three years later in 1965 " … the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using (separated churches) as means of salvation" Unitatis Redintegratio control." Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem,

So if I’d been Catholic in 1962, I was supposed to deny Protestants any salvific value, but in 1965 I’m supposed to turn around and say it’s all OK now, and I hope nobody was offended by my rock-sure belief 3 years earlier that it wasn’t all OK now.

One of the things I find about some Protestants is their dishonesty and hatred of the Catholic Church. But I’m rapidly starting to realise that there are Catholics who are just as stubborn and legalistic.

Perhaps the following article will be of use to you.

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT

 

[EnchantedEve]

This is why I’m cynical about the “infallibility” teaching, or the business that what the church teaches is always right. Here we have some prime examples of the church contradicting itself, yet the traditionalists tell us we have to blindly follow church teaching at all times.

For example it was church teaching in 1962 that “Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his” but three years later in 1965 " … the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using (separated churches) as means of salvation" Unitatis Redintegratio control." Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem,

So if I’d been Catholic in 1962, I was supposed to deny Protestants any salvific value, but in 1965 I’m supposed to turn around and say it’s all OK now, and I hope nobody was offended by my rock-sure belief 3 years earlier that it wasn’t all OK now.

One of the things I find about some Protestants is their dishonesty and hatred of the Catholic Church. But I’m rapidly starting to realise that there are Catholics who are just as stubborn and legalistic.

I agree, I will point out though that in my studies of Church history, no error was ever proclaimed infallibly, and all fallible errors that were proclaimed by the Pope (as his opinion, not the Church’s) or a council were later rectified or repudiated. I know of few protestant groups that ever look back, or even feel the need to look back and say, “You, know, that may have been wrong.” No error withstood the test of time, and there were always those who objected at the time of its proclamation, so the Holy Ghost is well at work in the Church, even since Vatican II (although now I think He has to work a little harder than before!).

 

[Shin]

I agree, I will point out though that in my studies of Church history, no error was ever proclaimed infallibly, and all fallible errors that were proclaimed by the Pope (as his opinion, not the Church’s) or a council were later rectified or repudiated. I know of few protestant groups that ever look back, or even feel the need to look back and say, “You, know, that may have been wrong.” No error withstood the test of time, and there were always those who objected at the time of its proclamation, so the Holy Ghost is well at work in the Church, even since Vatican II (although now I think He has to work a little harder than before!).

It is always darkest before the dawn.

We always want the Church to be more than it is. But, we have to look back at the Israelites and their relationship with God too, and see that we are not immune to often similar circumstances.

There is One Church. There is One God.

There are many fallible people, who at times, when they are in union with God, are infallible by participation with His infallibility.

If we are looking for impeccability, we will only find the closest examples to it in the saints, and not as often no, not as often in our leaders though we would wish it.

 

[Lisa44]

This is why I’m cynical about the “infallibility” teaching, or the business that what the church teaches is always right. Here we have some prime examples of the church contradicting itself, yet the traditionalists tell us we have to blindly follow church teaching at all times.

For example it was church teaching in 1962 that “Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his” but three years later in 1965 " … the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using (separated churches) as means of salvation" Unitatis Redintegratio control." Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem,

So if I’d been Catholic in 1962, I was supposed to deny Protestants any salvific value, but in 1965 I’m supposed to turn around and say it’s all OK now, and I hope nobody was offended by my rock-sure belief 3 years earlier that it wasn’t all OK now.

One of the things I find about some Protestants is their dishonesty and hatred of the Catholic Church. But I’m rapidly starting to realise that there are Catholics who are just as stubborn and legalistic.

Hi,
I agree with you that the Church cannot be right 100% of the time. No human can.

 

[Lisa44]

It is always darkest before the dawn.

We always want the Church to be more than it is. But, we have to look back at the Israelites and their relationship with God too, and see that we are not immune to often similar circumstances.

Hi Shin
Precisely. As humans we are always grasping at the truth and as soon as we have a hold of it its moved. Look at Abraham, he was all ready to sacrifice his son, and then, BAM, God says- you don’t have to. We can never really HAVE the truth like that. We are mortals. Mere mortals. Striving and falling and striving and falling and like that…on and on…
That is why we need to be saved, if we were perfect then we wouldn’t need God. We have to always NEED God. Nothing can be accomplished without God.

 

[Lisa44]

Please note, I am not trying to say that the documents ARE irreconcilable, …

intheruinsofrome.googlepages.com/comparisons

Hi
Yeah, heaven forbid.

 

[Rawb]

Hi Shin
Precisely. As humans we are always grasping at the truth and as soon as we have a hold of it its moved. Look at Abraham, he was all ready to sacrifice his son, and then, BAM, God says- you don’t have to. We can never really HAVE the truth like that. We are mortals. Mere mortals. Striving and falling and striving and falling and like that…on and on…
That is why we need to be saved, if we were perfect then we wouldn’t need God. We have to always NEED God. Nothing can be accomplished without God.

Truth moves? If something is true yesterday it is true tomorrow and forever. I disagree very strongly with your statements here. Not only does it sound as if you are implying that The Church is not infallible, but also that we cannot receive definitive, solid teachings, that we cannot find complete Truth here on Earth through natural and Supernatural revelation.

We do not need to be saved in order to find Truth; natural reasoning can lead us to quite a few truths; There is a God. There is something wrong with the world. These are truths you can discover by taking a walk. We need to be saved in order to be forgiven our sins and to be in Heaven with God, not to discover unchanging truths. None of this will ever change, because it’s true. By definition Truth cannot change.

It also sounds as if your suggesting God changes things in order to continue to make us need Him, that he keeps everything shifting so we rely on Him.

 

[Lisa44]

Truth moves? If something is true yesterday it is true tomorrow and forever. I disagree very strongly with your statements here. Not only does it sound as if you are implying that The Church is not infallible, but also that we cannot receive definitive, solid teachings, that we cannot find complete Truth here on Earth through natural and Supernatural revelation.

We do not need to be saved in order to find Truth; natural reasoning can lead us to quite a few truths; There is a God. There is something wrong with the world. These are truths you can discover by taking a walk. We need to be saved in order to be forgiven our sins and to be in Heaven with God, not to discover unchanging truths. None of this will ever change, because it’s true. By definition Truth cannot change.

It also sounds as if your suggesting God changes things in order to continue to make us need Him, that he keeps everything shifting so we rely on Him.

Hi there,

In the example I gave, I said that at one time Abraham believed he must sacrifice his son for God, then in the next instant he was shown that he didn’t have to sacrifice his son.

Our understanding of the way to follow Jesus as is laid out in the Ecumenical councils sometimes changes. Its not to say that - OH MY GOODNESS, there is a contradiction, throw out the whole Catholic church its ALL WRONG.
That is what I was trying to say was there are contradictions and its ok that we just admit that the voice was not always 100% in unison throughout the 2,000 years.

I’m just TRYING to not get emotional over ecumenical councils ok - because it can make one panic when they see that the councils differ. some say that they CANNOT differ, and therefore try and explain away obvious differences. Others say the CHURCH is corrupt because the modern voice doesn’t echo perfectly the ancient voice. I’m saying that its a result of people trying to make the truth conform to the world as they know it in their time.

God might be the same always and everywhere but on earth we have cars one century and horses and buggies another century. We, humans, are constantly trying to fit the teachings of Christ into our lives.

Therefore, the way we articulate the truth will change a little bit over time. And that is what causes the apparent “changes” or “differences” in doctrine.

Thats my guess

Are you saying we don’t rely on God?

 

[maurin]

Truth moves? If something is true yesterday it is true tomorrow and forever. I disagree very strongly with your statements here. Not only does it sound as if you are implying that The Church is not infallible, but also that we cannot receive definitive, solid teachings, that we cannot find complete Truth here on Earth through natural and Supernatural revelation.

We do not need to be saved in order to find Truth; natural reasoning can lead us to quite a few truths; There is a God. There is something wrong with the world. These are truths you can discover by taking a walk. We need to be saved in order to be forgiven our sins and to be in Heaven with God, not to discover unchanging truths. None of this will ever change, because it’s true. By definition Truth cannot change.

It also sounds as if your suggesting God changes things in order to continue to make us need Him, that he keeps everything shifting so we rely on Him.

Rawb, I can’t speak for Shin, but I don’t think that’s quite what he meant, that Truth changes. I think you should ask him to clarify what he means.

What I think Shin meant was that Abraham, acting with certainty that he was following God’s Will, was surprised–and pleased, and relieved–that God haulted him from sacrificing his son. He was, I believe–but we’ll ask him, that he was using this example of Abraham and Isaac as an analogy of our human inability to really discern God’s intentions. When we think we got it, we realize that just maybe we didn’t.

Is that correct Shin? (Is it at least a reasonable facsimile thereof?)

 

[diggerdomer]

Take heart. According to John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Ratzinger, Vatican II made no infallible pronouncements, and was merely pastoral in nature. In fact, its scope was specifically limited in nature. I do have a hard time, even knowing this, with the idea that the council could have taught direct error, though.

seattlecatholic.com/article_20030103_Differing_from_Other_Councils.html

Vatican II being pastoral in nature in no way determines whether or not it teaches dogma. Two of the Constitutions it promulgated (the highest form of teaching authority in the Church) are explicitly titled “dogmatic” constitutions.

I see no basis for claiming that this or any ecumenical council is “limited in nature.” That kind of contradicts the very meaning of ecumenical council imho.

I agree that I see no reason to think Vatican II (or any ecumenical council) taught direct error.

 

[savienu]

Vatican II being pastoral in nature in no way determines whether or not it teaches dogma. Two of the Constitutions it promulgated (the highest form of teaching authority in the Church) are explicitly titled “dogmatic” constitutions.

I see no basis for claiming that this or any ecumenical council is “limited in nature.” That kind of contradicts the very meaning of ecumenical council imho.

I agree that I see no reason to think Vatican II (or any ecumenical council) taught direct error.

It wasn’t ME who said it was limited in nature, it was 3 different Popes, one of whom called the council, one of whom FINISHED the council, and one of whom was there at the Council, signed the documents, and is our current Holy Father. It did not define any dogma. That’s fact. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Pope Benedict. It was “modest and limited in nature” according to Pope John XXIII. Are you going to claim the man who called the council didn’t know what the council was about? So again, take it up with the Church.
If you think it contradicts the very meaning of an ecumenical council, that’s kind of the point, and why so many traditionalists have a problem with it in some way. Besides, it ALREADY differed from other ecumenical councils in that it wasn’t convened to address any specific heresy, as all other councils in the past did. So if they deliberately DIDN’T invoke the protection of the Holy Spirit, why is it not possible it taught some error, or explained things so vaguely that things were misinterpreted or misrepresented?

• “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”
  – Pope Paul VI
  General Audience, 12 January 1966*(Emphasis mine)

Therefore, we have to interpret it in light of Tradition, and it did have authority, but none of the statements are endowed with the note of infallibility.

catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/01/pope-paul-vi-on-vatican-ii.html

 

[Bob_Crowley]

It wasn’t ME who said it was limited in nature, it was 3 different Popes, one of whom called the council, one of whom FINISHED the council, and one of whom was there at the Council, signed the documents, and is our current Holy Father. It did not define any dogma. That’s fact. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Pope Benedict. It was “modest and limited in nature” according to Pope John XXIII. Are you going to claim the man who called the council didn’t know what the council was about? So again, take it up with the Church.
If you think it contradicts the very meaning of an ecumenical council, that’s kind of the point, and why so many traditionalists have a problem with it in some way. Besides, it ALREADY differed from other ecumenical councils in that it wasn’t convened to address any specific heresy, as all other councils in the past did. So if they deliberately DIDN’T invoke the protection of the Holy Spirit, why is it not possible it taught some error, or explained things so vaguely that things were misinterpreted or misrepresented?

• “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility*, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”
  – Pope Paul VI
  General Audience, 12 January 1966(Emphasis mine)

Therefore, we have to interpret it in light of Tradition, and it did have authority, but none of the statements are endowed with the note of infallibility.

catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/01/pope-paul-vi-on-vatican-ii.html

So by the time we backtrack, do a double flip, call in the lawyers, and toss a coin to decide the issue, I’m supposed to believe the infallible church called an ecumenical council (with the other churches as observers only), in order to …er,… determine the nature of the authority of the magisterium, but without insisting on any infallibility…

I hereby deny any responsibility for the above opinion. I insist on a lawyer.

 

[savienu]

So by the time we backtrack, do a double flip, call in the lawyers, and toss a coin to decide the issue, I’m supposed to believe the infallible church called an ecumenical council (with the other churches as observers only), in order to …er,… determine the nature of the authority of the magisterium, but without insisting on any infallibility…

I hereby deny any responsibility for the above opinion. I insist on a lawyer.

Nope, just trust what the Popes had to say about it. It was deliberately modest in nature, and didn’t invoke the charism of infallibility. John XIII wanted to “let a little air in through the windows.” Unfortunately, it backfired to a certain extent. Modernism had been a problem prior to the council being called, and these modernists have used the council as an excuse to make all sorts of changes that the council itself never even called for.

 

[Lisa44]

Rawb, I can’t speak for Shin, but I don’t think that’s quite what he meant, that Truth changes. I think you should ask him to clarify what he means.

What I think Shin meant was that Abraham, acting with certainty that he was following God’s Will, was surprised–and pleased, and relieved–that God haulted him from sacrificing his son. He was, I believe–but we’ll ask him, that he was using this example of Abraham and Isaac as an analogy of our human inability to really discern God’s intentions. When we think we got it, we realize that just maybe we didn’t.

Is that correct Shin? (Is it at least a reasonable facsimile thereof?)

Hi Maurin
Yes thank you. You said it well. (I used the example of Abraham).