Can we have a polite discussion on the authority of vatican ii?

[CradleCath]

Yves Congar quote (also from Creative Fidelity, pp. 166-167) on this issue, emphasis added:
The only passage of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church that could be considered a truly dogmatic declaration is the one that concerns the sacramentality of the episcopate (LG III, n. 21): in fact, it settles a question that until now had been freely disputed by theologians. At the same time it is proposed as a teaching on the same level as the others, without the use of the emphatic, repeated and solemn formulas that normally introduce a “definition.” … The manner of expressing it is not that of a dogmatic definition, but the matter is so important, the place it occupies in the doctrine of the episcopate so decisive, that one can hardly see how on this point the council has not issued a definitive judgment. But this is without doubt the only case of this kind. On so many other points…one might dare to say that by a unanimous act of the extraordinary maisterium the council has proposed the common doctrine of the ordinary, universal magisterium. This is not the same as a “definition,” but it does suffice for the doctrine thus proposed to be binding as teaching on which the Catholic magisterium is in unanimous agreement.
I’m not aware of a single Catholic theologian who discounts this important teaching from Vatican II on the grounds that it is somehow not “new”.

AHHH. I’m beginning to understand your posts:newidea: To quote Yves Congar, who so opposed the “Primacy of Peter” & worked tirelessly to eradicate the DOGMA of Papal Infallibility…to quote him on the Traditional Forum …shows, if not wisdom, courage.

Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Hans Kung et al. are the ones who whined & complained for years before the council. All were censured before Vatican II. I firmly believe that Pope John XXIII called the council partly to appease these “theologians” from the countries that border the Rhine river. With his perpetual enthusiasm & positivity, he thought that he & the hierarchy could actually “sit down & talk reasonably” with von Balthasar, The Belgian Dominican priest Edward Schillebeeckx, etc. ETC. All of these men worked (unsuccessfully) to persuade the assembled bishops of the Second Vatican Council to downgrade the authority of the pope.

All of these men were anti-papal authority, yet I do believe that each of them would have given their all to BE the pope. Sadly, Pope John underestimated their power & they hijacked the council.

Now, 50 years after Vatican II concluded in 1965, most of those “bright lights of dissident Catholicism”—from the theologian Hans Küng of the University of Tübingen to Charles Curran, the priest dismissed from the Catholic University of America’s theology faculty in 1987 for his advocacy of contraception and acceptance of homosexual relationships—seem dimmed with advanced age, if not extinguished. They have left no coherent second generation of dissident Catholic intellectuals to follow them.

These white-haired hippies of the 60’s left no truly lasting positive legacy. Instead they triggered a time in Catholicism of low Mass attendance, very short confession lines, destroyed religious societies, a total blending of the laity & the ordained priesthood. I could go on & on, but I won’t. I see such hope in the future of the Church right now. Catholics are **once again **accessing the works of Aquinas, Fulton Sheen & John Henry Newman, the theology of the dissidents of the 60’s doesn’t seem to interest the young Catholics of today.

 

[Layman]

I would say no.

Do you disagree?

AFAIK, no.

But it was used just to justify a watering-down of our worship and beliefs and a massive emphasis on populism. I challenge any priest in a liberal diocese to preach regularly about mortal sin, Hell and damnation. i.e. some the basics of our faith. Just out of interest to see what the reaction would be

Thinking about it, the New Mass, as said today, might, historically, be a last, desperate attempt to chase after the laity instead of leading them to holiness.

 

[Shin]

1. Did Vatican II teach anything contrary to traditional doctrine. If so, what?
2. I think the problem is:

a. The imprecise nature of the language used.
b. Liberal clergy using this imprecision to push their agendas.

**If the documents are vague then you can read what you want into them, and then do it. **That’s what this guy says here.

I think key sticking points are, from memory, arguments about** religious freedom and ecumenism.**

Whatever Vat. II was supposed to do, I don’t think it’s worked. I’d like the option to revert to pre-1940’s style sacraments and devotions; the occasional sermon on Hell and stories of the lives of the saints.

I found the populism boring and banal as a youth and now, with my grey hairs, I think we’re into the realms of scandal, if anyone in a liberal parish can be scandalised any more:** if you don’t know your faith you can’t be scandalised by what the creative types do, in Christ’s name.**

Thanks for the link to that article.

 

[Layman]

You’re welcome. I suggest you save the page on your PC. The internet is an impermanent medium.

 

[Shin]

You’re welcome. I suggest you save the page on your PC. The internet is an impermanent medium.

A good suggestion. I collect articles of all kinds.

In some cases when things disappear the Way Back Machine has it, I’ll also note. I’ve founds some good Catholic stuff that disappeared in the past that way.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Hans Kung et al. are the ones who whined & complained for years before the council.

I had no idea that quoting a Cardinal of the Catholic Church on a Catholic forum would be so problematic. Live and learn.

If I recall correctly, a younger Joseph Ratzinger was also on the list of troublesome Vatican II agitating theologians.

 

[stevusmagnus]

If the Pope promulgates a document titled “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” then it is a dogma.

Absolutely not true. Show me where this document defines any Dogma.

 

[pnewton]

Absolutely not true.

That is your opinion, something frequently misunderstood here. It is far from absolute. For most Catholics, dogmatic means pertaining to dogma. If you want to believe something else, like it pertains to canines, that is your perogative. As a Catholic, I will stick to believing what the Catholic Church teaches. If the Catholic Church at an ecumenical council says it is dogmatic, then it is dogmatic, at least for me.

 

[stevusmagnus]

That is your opinion, something frequently misunderstood here. It is far from absolute. For most Catholics, dogmatic means pertaining to dogma. If you want to believe something else, like it pertains to canines, that is your perogative. As a Catholic, I will stick to believing what the Catholic Church teaches. If the Catholic Church at an ecumenical council says it is dogmatic, then it is dogmatic, at least for me.

Show me where the document defines any Dogma.

 

[malphono]

stevusmagnus;7306725:

Absolutely not true. Show me where this document defines any Dogma.

That is your opinion, something frequently misunderstood here. It is far from absolute. For most Catholics, dogmatic means pertaining to dogma. If you want to believe something else, like it pertains to canines, that is your perogative. As a Catholic, I will stick to believing what the Catholic Church teaches. If the Catholic Church at an ecumenical council says it is dogmatic, then it is dogmatic, at least for me.

Not my argument, but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The “Dogmatic Constitution” does not, in fact, define any dogma, but it does contain dogma insofar as it reiterate existing dogmatic teachings. One thing that must always be kept in mind is that Bl PP John XXIII did not call Vatican II as a Doctrinal Council, but rather as a “Pastoral Council” with its express purpose being to clarify and explain existing teaching. (Whether it actually “clarified” some things while making other things murkier is another question entirely.)

Just my unsolicited :twocents:

 

[pnewton]

Show me where the document defines any Dogma.

No. I have no need or desire to argue this title. Believe what you want. I will accept the Church on this in simple Faith. I would encourage all Catholics to do the same.

 

[StTommyMore]

If there are no objections, I would like to quote our current Holy Father when he was Cardinal Prefect for the CDF:

Over and against both tendencies, before all else, it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictist continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…It is impossible for a Catholic to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I…It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation.

But wait! There is more!

I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it in an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X, stll more fundamentally, Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?

These statements seem pretty strong. You cannot reject Vatican II and remain truly faithful to the Church.

 

[CradleCath]

That is your opinion, something frequently misunderstood here. It is far from absolute. For most Catholics, dogmatic means pertaining to dogma. If you want to believe something else, like it pertains to canines, that is your perogative. As a Catholic, I will stick to believing what the Catholic Church teaches. If the Catholic Church at an ecumenical council says it is dogmatic, then it is dogmatic, at least for me.

True, however any dogma included in the documents from Vatican II, had already been promulgated. Therefore, we have the question…what NEW dogma was proclaimed that we **must **believe. I have searched the documents from Vatican II, & there’s absolutely NOTHING original in them. Old doctrine has been reworded & perhaps made more “palatable for modern man”, but there is nothing new in any of them.

This leads back to the question of the authority of the Second Vatican Council. A pastoral council was unheard of in the history of the Church. All previous councils were held to refute the heresies of the time…the Arianism, Docetism, Nestorianism, etc. You’ll find a complete list of the heresies that the Church has condemned here:
cantuar.blogspot.com/2008/04/checklist-of-heresies-condemned-by.html

The council of Trent was called to address both the heresies of the new
the new Protestant Churches of the time, claiming that faith without works was enough, that the consecrated host simply REPRESENTED the Body of Christ & to right those wrongs that had been perpetuated by some of our clergy, etc.etc.
Vatican I promulgated the Dogma of Papal infallibility & the perpetual virginty of Mary.

If we continue to equate Vatican II…a pastoral council…with the 21
previous councils, called to discount error & heresy, we’ll never get anywhere in our understanding of the Catholic world of today.

 

[StTommyMore]

True, however any dogma included in the documents from Vatican II, had already been promulgated. Therefore, we have the question…what NEW dogma was proclaimed that we **must **believe. I have searched the documents from Vatican II, & there’s absolutely NOTHING original in them. Old doctrine has been reworded & perhaps made more “palatable for modern man”, but there is nothing new in any of them.

This leads back to the question of the authority of the Second Vatican Council. A pastoral council was unheard of in the history of the Church. All previous councils were held to refute the heresies of the time…the Arianism, Docetism, Nestorianism, etc. You’ll find a complete list of the heresies that the Church has condemned here:
cantuar.blogspot.com/2008/04/checklist-of-heresies-condemned-by.html

The council of Trent was called to address both the heresies of the new
the new Protestant Churches of the time, claiming that faith without works was enough, that the consecrated host simply REPRESENTED the Body of Christ & to right those wrongs that had been perpetuated by some of our clergy, etc.etc.
Vatican I promulgated the Dogma of Papal infallibility & the perpetual virginty of Mary.

If we continue to equate Vatican II…a pastoral council…with the 21
previous councils, called to discount error & heresy, we’ll never get anywhere in our understanding of the Catholic world of today.

See post #68. You cannot accept Trent and reject Vatican II. If you reject Vatican II, you reject the foundation of Trent.

 

[malphono]

CradleCath;7307340:

If we continue to equate Vatican II…a pastoral council…with the 21 previous councils, called to discount error & heresy, we’ll never get anywhere in our understanding of the Catholic world of today.

See post #68. You cannot accept Trent and reject Vatican II. If you reject Vatican II, you reject the foundation of Trent.

Perhaps I’m just dense today, but how does the latter comment flow from the former? I see nothing at all in CradleCath’s comment about “rejecting” Vatican II.

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps I’m just dense today, but how does the latter comment flow from the former? I see nothing at all in CradleCath’s comment about “rejecting” Vatican II.

There was nothing in there that denied that it was dogmatic. However, if you go back to the OP, the problem is that some people do deny that the dogmatic documents are dogmatic. I have even seen some who deny that anything new in the two dogmatic constitutions, then argue that they are not dogmatic as a result of this, then argue that they contain novelties.

 

[CradleCath]

See post #68. You cannot accept Trent and reject Vatican II. If you reject Vatican II, you reject the foundation of Trent.

Please see post #69. I did not reject ANY council. I simply said that the Second Vatican Council was the only pastoral council ever held by the Church. Therefore it’s** unique **& cannot be judged by the same measure that we judge Trent & Vatican I, etc. etc.

 

[basinite]

If the Pope promulgates a document titled “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” then it is a dogma.

From the head of the document…

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Popes don’t usually attach notes: “Yes, I really mean this, as Pope. I’m not just rubber stamping it”

Not so fast. Church Documents are written in Latin not ENGLISH. Its true title is “Lumen Gentium,” which means “Light of the Gentiles.” Not the English “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, or the French…or the German…or the Spanish…or the Chinese… and etc. This is why the Church has Latin as it’s official language. The bishops approved this document as “Lumen Gentium”. Which came from the first sentence of the document, “Christ is the light to the gentiles”.

 

[StTommyMore]

Not so fast. Church Documents are written in Latin not ENGLISH. Its true title is “Lumen Gentium,” which means “Light of the Gentiles.” Not the English “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, or the French…or the German…or the Spanish…or the Chinese… and etc. This is why the Church has Latin as it’s official language. The bishops approved this document as “Lumen Gentium”. Which came from the first sentence of the document, “Christ is the light to the gentiles”.

You not so fast. The schema that was approved was not called Lumen Gentium the schemata bore titles that were descriptive, but the promulgated titles are simply the fitrst few words in the document.

 

[MarkThompson]

Not so fast. Church Documents are written in Latin not ENGLISH. Its true title is “Lumen Gentium,” which means “Light of the Gentiles.” Not the English “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”, or the French…or the German…or the Spanish…or the Chinese… and etc. This is why the Church has Latin as it’s official language. The bishops approved this document as “Lumen Gentium”. Which came from the first sentence of the document, “Christ is the light to the gentiles”.

Actually, some Vatican documents are issued in the vernacular with no authoritative Latin version (Tra le sollecitudini, Mit brennender Sorge), and most others today are drafted in the vernacular, translated into a Latin version which becomes normative, and then translated from that into other vernaculars. In any event, the Latin version of Lumen Gentium is indeed subtitled “Constitutio Dogmatica de Ecclesia,” which you probably don’t need help translating.