T
thinkandmull
Guest
They should be. Why is there lawyer style ambivalence here?
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
V
Vico
Guest
Just two dogmatic decisions per year adds up to thousands and thousands.
It is a living Church guided by the Bishops in communion with one another and we have the Catechism and Liturgy and Homilies and Papal guidance to use.
The Dogmatic definitions that were previously made were restated at Vatican II, but were amplified.
- Dei Verbum Preface:
“Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love.” - Lumen Gentium:
“Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.” - APPENDIX From the Acts of the Council, (attached to Lumen Gentium) - important clarifications about Chapter III of the de Ecclesia Schema: “As is self-evident, the Council’s text must always be interpreted in accordance with the general rules that are known to all.”
- Sacrosanctum Concillium
“55. … The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact [40], communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, …” - ITC - THE INTERPRETATION OF DOGMA (1989)
“2. The Doctrine of Vatican Council II The Second Vatican Council presented the Church’s traditional doctrine on a much greater canvas, and, in doing so, it has accepted that dogma has an historical dimension.”
T
thinkandmull
Guest
So you are saying that the Dogmatic Constitution was about dogma but not dogma? You are probably right, but this is not “good style”, it’s disgusting. Why would the Church suddenly speak this way? As you quoted Lumen Gentium:
“Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.”
Further, it was not the bishops spread through the world but in Council. And still it wasn’t dogma, wasn’t like Trent. Ambiguous muddling of words is what this was
“Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.”
Further, it was not the bishops spread through the world but in Council. And still it wasn’t dogma, wasn’t like Trent. Ambiguous muddling of words is what this was
V
Vico
Guest
It was dogma, but not new. Vatican I had 767 bishops and Vatican II had over 2600 bishops.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
There was a preparatory document at Vatican I on collegiality but it was not included. Vatican II revised it into a Dogmatic Constitution, but Paul VI said that there was no dogma at Vatican II. Isn’t collegiality in Matthew 18:18? Was the Council purposely trying to teach in a lower form still? Why are there higher and lower forms of teaching infallibly, apart from the issue of connection to Revelation? Are the canons of Trent alone formally infallible, or the decrees alone? Or was Vatican II not infallible at all? There are too many loopholes. This is Jesus’s Church and yet it’s legal language is like language in California legislations
V
Vico
Guest
The Church will develops dogma over time. Per Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp. 6-7:
From the material side of dogma, that is, in the communication of the Truths of Revelation to humanity, a substantial growth took place in human history until Revelation reached its apogee and conclusion in Christ (cf.Hebr. I, I).
St. Gregory the Great says: “With the progress of the times the knowledge of the spiritual Fathers increased; for, in the Science of God, Moses was more instructed than Abraham, the Prophets more than Moses, the Apostles more than the Prophets” (in Ezechielem lib. 2, hom. 4, 12).
…
The clear teaching of Holy Writ and Tradition is that after Christ, and the Apostles who proclaimed the message of Christ, no further Revelation will be made.
…
b) As to the Formal side of dogma, that is, in the knowledge and in the ecclesiastical proposal of Revealed Truth, and consequently also in the public faith of the Church, there is a progress (accidental development of dogmas) which occurs in the following fashion :
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Things were pretty clear before Vatican II confused everyone. Let’s look over history. We Catholics accept Matthew 16:18 as the core text for the Papacy. All the Councils before the Eastern Schism were approved by the Pope, but the East doesn’t believe they were approved by necessity but for ceremonial reasons. Then the East broke off and didn’t recognize any Councils after that because the West stood to the East on the ground of papal primacy. Vatican I stood on the same belief about Councils, but defined from the Pope and the bishops that a Pope can define infallibly by himself, although this was believed from the beginning. Now perhaps Vatican II didn’t want to define in this way because it was using collegiality to define collegiality. Vatican I was collegiality defining on the papacy.
However, what teachings of Vatican II are not infallible? It was one of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church for pete’s sake. So why the confusion? Were not traditionalists allowed to come back into the Church even with reservations about the decree on religious liberty? That decree said “this holy synod declares”. If that is not infallible, it shakes the foundation of Trent, which is divided between decrees and canons, the relationship not stated between them. Paul VI messed everything up by speaking of the Council as universal ordinary magisterium, which before only meant that they were not united in a Council. It did not refer to the issue of “explicitly in revelation vs only connected”
However, what teachings of Vatican II are not infallible? It was one of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church for pete’s sake. So why the confusion? Were not traditionalists allowed to come back into the Church even with reservations about the decree on religious liberty? That decree said “this holy synod declares”. If that is not infallible, it shakes the foundation of Trent, which is divided between decrees and canons, the relationship not stated between them. Paul VI messed everything up by speaking of the Council as universal ordinary magisterium, which before only meant that they were not united in a Council. It did not refer to the issue of “explicitly in revelation vs only connected”
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I frequently type to get ideas out but the questions I have been raising are important. Before Vatican II everything a Council said was considered infallible. Then John XXIII began the 21st ecumenical council of the Church. However, look at the language of Paul VI
'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 engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (General Audience, Jan 12, 1966)
Now it’s possible he meant “we are not using infallibility in a solemn dogmatic way”. But that is not how it reads to one who first sees this. It’s not a natural way of speaking that way. Furthermore, a bishop who voted at the Council said in an interview that the new teachings of the Council must “be taken with reservation”. The SSPX often quote this.
So we have for the first time in history a Council after which the faithful do not know if they can read it with the belief that it is all infallible. It’s truly a terrible situation.
'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 engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (General Audience, Jan 12, 1966)
Now it’s possible he meant “we are not using infallibility in a solemn dogmatic way”. But that is not how it reads to one who first sees this. It’s not a natural way of speaking that way. Furthermore, a bishop who voted at the Council said in an interview that the new teachings of the Council must “be taken with reservation”. The SSPX often quote this.
So we have for the first time in history a Council after which the faithful do not know if they can read it with the belief that it is all infallible. It’s truly a terrible situation.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
My basic point is how can Vatican II used a Dogmatic Constitution, just as Vatican I had, while Paul VI would say “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 engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium.” (General Audience, Jan 12, 1966) There seems to be a direct contradiction in language here, which is why I was troubled with other statements like on canonizations being a dogmatic fact. All those questions might just be quibble, but the question in this post is very pertinent and it’s bothered me for some time
V
Vico
Guest
It is not clear what you think is a contradiction.
The postfix of Lumen Gentium states that all was promulgated (to set forth or teach publicly) for the glory of God:
“Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God. - Given in Rome at St. Peter’s on November 21, 1964.”
Modern Catholic Dictionary shows three definitions: doctrine, dogma, and dogmatic fact.
Vatican I proclaims items of all three kinds, even if only to reiterate what was given before, in a different format.
**DOCTRINE. **Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. (Etym. Latin doctrina, teaching.)
DOGMA. Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. They are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. (Etym. Latin dogma; from Greek dogma, declaration, decree.)
DOGMATIC FACT. A truth that, though not revealed by God, nevertheless comes under the infallible teaching authority of the Church. The reason for the Church’s competence over dogmatic facts is their close connection with revealed truths. If the Church did not have authority to teach such facts infallibly, the doctrines of revelation would be jeopardized. Examples of dogmatic facts are the valid election of a pope, the validity of an ecumenical council, and the actuality of a canonized saint’s presence in heaven.
Also there is something on the Most Holy Trinity (topic of this thread) there also:
For all of us, who are sons of God and constitute one family in Christ,(279) as long as we remain in communion with one another in mutual charity and in one praise of the most holy Trinity, are corresponding with the intimate vocation of the Church and partaking in foretaste the liturgy of consummate glory.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
“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 engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium.” (Paul VI in General Audience, Jan 12, 1966)
He didn’t say "engaging the infallibility in a solemn way. Notice how he phrased it. Yet Vatican II had two Dogmatic Constitution just like Vatican I did
He didn’t say "engaging the infallibility in a solemn way. Notice how he phrased it. Yet Vatican II had two Dogmatic Constitution just like Vatican I did
V
Vico
Guest
The sentence after that is the answer:
The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.
The council took a pastoral family-centered approach which reflects the inner life of the Trinity. Lumen Gentium has: “a people brought into unity from the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
T
thinkandmull
Guest
The second sentence doesn’t alter the meaning of the first, which you are trying to strain
T
thinkandmull
Guest
“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 engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.”
The normal use of language in reading this says that Vatican II was not infallible. I can understand if only collegiality was concerned, since the council was a function of collegiality and convolution should be avoided. However, Vatican II taught in a dogmatic constitution that episcopal ordination confers priestly powers, so that ordination is not needed first. If that was stated in a Vatican I dogmatic constitution than it would be accepted immediately as infallible. Paul VI was a very strange Pope, and his misuse of language left us with a Council who’s authority is ambivalent. But yes, we have strayed from the original topic here. I can’t remember what started the talk about Church technicalities
The normal use of language in reading this says that Vatican II was not infallible. I can understand if only collegiality was concerned, since the council was a function of collegiality and convolution should be avoided. However, Vatican II taught in a dogmatic constitution that episcopal ordination confers priestly powers, so that ordination is not needed first. If that was stated in a Vatican I dogmatic constitution than it would be accepted immediately as infallible. Paul VI was a very strange Pope, and his misuse of language left us with a Council who’s authority is ambivalent. But yes, we have strayed from the original topic here. I can’t remember what started the talk about Church technicalities
V
Vico
Guest
I prefer Pope John XXIII quote: “There will be no infallible definitions. All that was done by former Councils. That is enough.”“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 engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.”
The normal use of language in reading this says that Vatican II was not infallible. I can understand if only collegiality was concerned, since the council was a function of collegiality and convolution should be avoided. However, Vatican II taught in a dogmatic constitution that episcopal ordination confers priestly powers, so that ordination is not needed first. If that was stated in a Vatican I dogmatic constitution than it would be accepted immediately as infallible. Paul VI was a very strange Pope, and his misuse of language left us with a Council who’s authority is ambivalent. But yes, we have strayed from the original topic here. I can’t remember what started the talk about Church technicalities
And,
General Audience of Pope Paul VI (August 6, 1975): “Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.”
However, they did affirm through the dogmatic constitutions of Vatican II, what was infallibly defined by previous councils.
Note the use of “extraordinary manner” by Pope Paul VI. There are three ways to make an infallible definition: The Extraordinary Papal Magisterium, The Extraordinary Episcopal Magisterium, and the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Pope Paul VI refers to the second.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Pope John XXIII didn’t sign the documents. The Council did not just teach discipline. It taught doctrine, like when it said “loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra” (LG) That was never infallibly taught before. Pope Paul VI said it was not Extraordinary Episcopal Magisterium used, and that infallibility itself was not “engaged”. Yet we have two Dogmatic Constitutions, the same title that Vatican I had for documents. I write on topics here to try to work out my ideas, which is why often my posts are junk, but that is how I work out thoughts, in conversations. I do think this is an example of a Pope misapplying a title to a Council document and I surely will discuss with people I know on how this effects how to see that Council
V
Vico
Guest
That dogma in LG 25 is from Vatican I, Session 4 (18 July 1870) Chapter 3:
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
In between ex cathedra and disicpline-government is authentic teaching authority, which wasn’t taught at Vatican I
R
Richca
Guest
Thinkandmull, this statement of yours is nothing short of an absurdity. The authentic teaching authority of Vatican I concerning the faith of the Church is contained in Session 2 - The Profession of Faith; Session 3 - Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith; Session 4 - First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ.
- Status