How do I prove that Vatican 2 did not cancel doctrines/dogmas?

[Pete_Holter]

Well then that’s what the OP should do instead of making unfounded assertions. He still has not responded to other posters’ requests to state what dogmas/doctrines were changed by Vatican II. Of course he can’t because Vatican II did not make any changes.

By the way I don’t take offence at your comment about me. It lightens up the thread!

Ha, ha. Aww, I’m glad. I like you, and your short, snippy comments make me laugh.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thank you all! I’m so glad I asked! If anyone wants to add anything don’t hesitate to post even if this thread is very old. It’s great to have many many examples!

Hey Loyal J!

Here are a couple of additional thoughts for you that I thought you might appreciate since you were looking for more (you can never be over-equipped, right? )…

Pope Paul VI:

“This council hands over to posterity not only the image of the Church but also the patrimony of her doctrine and of her commandments, the ‘deposit’ received from Christ and meditated upon through centuries, lived and expressed now and clarified in so many of its parts, settled and arranged in its integrity. …]John XXIII …] had this to say: ‘The greatest concern of the ecumenical council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be guarded and taught more effectively’ …(Discorsi, 1962, p. 583).

“…the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity…” (Address During the Last General Meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965).

“You have to be careful, for the teachings of the Council do not constitute a complete, organic system of Catholic doctrine. Doctrine is much more extensive, as everyone knows, and it wasn’t called into question by the Council nor substantially modified. Instead, the Council confirms, illustrates, defends, and develops it with a most authoritative apologia full of wisdom, vigor and confidence. …] We mustn’t separate the teachings of the Council from the doctrinal heritage of the Church. Instead we must take a good look at where they fit into it and at how they are consistent with it and supply it with added testimony, growth, explanation, and application. Then even the ‘novelties’ in doctrine or regulation coming from the Council will be seen in their proper proportions and will not give rise to objections about the Church’s fidelity to its teaching function, but will acquire that true meaning which makes it shine with a higher light. …] This was the first idea that motivated Pope John XXIII to convoke the Council, as he said so well at its opening: ‘ut iterum magisterium ecclesiasticum … affirmaretur.’ ‘Our first aim,’ he said, ‘in convoking this vast assembly was to reassert the magisterium of the Church’ (AAS 54, 1962, 786).

“Thus a person wouldn’t be correct in thinking that the Council represents a cutting loose, a break, or, as some think, a liberation from the traditional teaching of the [p. 154] Church; nor would he be correct in thinking that it authorizes and fosters a ready conformity to the mentality of our time in its negative and ephemeral elements rather than those which are scientific and secure; nor in thinking that it grants anyone whatsoever the right to give any value and any expression he pleases to the truths of the faith.

“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents” (, Volumes 11-12, pp. 152-154: General Audience of Paul VI, January 12, 1966The Pope Speaks; only the Italian is currently available on the Vatican website).

Cardinal Ratzinger:

“It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

“All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith” (Cardinal Ratzinger to the Bishops of Chile, 7/13/1988).

I’m not aware at this time of any other pertinent statements. It’s fun to be Catholic!

With the love of Christ our LORD,
Pete

 

[1AugustSon7]

Current Prefect of the CDF:

“Yes, we need an authentic interpretation of the magisterium of the Council. The Pope offered a good and faithful interpretation of the Council when he said it did not create a new Church. Like every other ecumenical council, Vatican II must be interpreted according to the Tradition, based on Revelation and on Scripture. …] Furthermore, the Church cannot, on the doctrinal level, contradict herself — that is impossible. Any perceived contradiction is caused by false interpretation. …] What [the SSPX is] proposing is, in essence, a tension arising from the use of terminology, but the Church never contradicted herself. If you study the texts of different centuries, of different contexts, of different languages, you must do so on the basis of established Catholic doctrine. …] The problem that many people have is that they are linking statements of doctrine from different centuries and different contexts — and this cannot be done rationally without a hermeneutic of interpretation. We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation, but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching. …] Vatican II is an official ecumenical council, and all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels. We have dogmatic constitutions, and you are certainly obliged to accept them if you are Catholic. …] Some practical elements contained in the various documents could be changed, but the body of the doctrine of the Council is binding for everyone. …] t is important to remember that at no time in the history of the Church has a group or a movement in one country ever been successful when it has taken an attitude against Rome, when it has been ‘anti-Rome.’ Setting oneself up against ‘Rome’ has never brought authentic reform or renewal to the Church. Only through a renewed commitment to the full teaching of Christ and his Church, and through a renewed spirit of collaboration with the Holy Father and the bishops in communion with him, will there be renewal and new life in the Catholic Church and a new evangelization of our society. Preaching the Gospel of Christ to a weary world so desperately in need of its liberating truth — this must be our priority” (Interview with Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, September 2012).

I like this Cardinal. He is very good at explaining things. I also note that everything he has said here is completely in keeping with the mind of the Church as manifested throughout all of the centuries. A lot of what he is talking about is sometimes difficult to formulate, but he does a good job of it in my humble opinion. May God continue to bless us with men like this in the service of our holy Mother the Church.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I would ask them to show you where it was in the spirit of Vatican II. If nothing is in words, then it does not exist. I have to agree with the above. This sounds like willful disobedience.

Actually, if there is one lesson to be learned from the history of the schisms or near-schisms after V2, it is that the issue isn’t actually obedience, but faith: i.e., there exists a doubt. Playing the obedience card when peopple began having concerns that lead into serious doubts or insecurities was in part incorrect: pastors and learned Catholics should have perhaps been more careful in their diagnosis sometimes and strove to remove the doubt rather than assuming in all cases you were dealing with someone who meant to be disobedient to the Church or was using V2 as an exuse to be. These people were mostly just concerned, and the failure to address these concerns with rational arguments resulted in concern becoming doubt, which is death to faith.

Moreover, in Catholicism, all obedience is aimed ultimately at the obedience of faith and flows from it and translates into genuine obedience (which flows from love or devotion in its perfection, as to, e.g., parents) to the shepherds Christ has placed over to guard and guide the children of his beloved spouse, the Church. The misapplication of obedience in the instances of an intellectual concern or doubt sounded an aweful lot like the sort of tyranny Protestant controvertists and propagandists hurled at the Catholic Church - I mean the ‘if your converting to Catholicism don’t forget to leave your brain at the door’ sort of calumny. This only aggravates the problem and can be interpreted as a proof or evidence to justify the doubt: people know when their intention is to be obedient or not. If it’s not my intention or desire to be disobedient, but I am being charged with disobedience, then I am not going to be happy and am not going to like the feeling, which inevitably will result in a profound confusion.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I like this Cardinal. He is very good at explaining things. I also note that everything he has said here is completely in keeping with the mind of the Church as manifested throughout all of the centuries. A lot of what he is talking about is sometimes difficult to formulate, but he does a good job of it in my humble opinion. May God continue to bless us with men like this in the service of our holy Mother the Church.

Yeah, what a great finish to his interview. He’s weak for my taste on EENS but I forgive him. Ha!

I like this Cardinal. He is very good at explaining things. I also note that everything he has said here is completely in keeping with the mind of the Church as manifested throughout all of the centuries. A lot of what he is talking about is sometimes difficult to formulate, but he does a good job of it in my humble opinion. May God continue to bless us with men like this in the service of our holy Mother the Church.

Did you see part 2? ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-on-the-sspx-and-his-controversial-writings/

The poor Cardinal had to defend himself with regard to “the perpetual virginity of Mary.” The pope complained about this very doctrine being denied—i.e., “the corporal virginity of Mary”—in that 1988 speech I included up above. Is he going to appoint someone who denies this article of our faith to the head of the CDF? He just reaffirmed it in Porta Fidei last year: “With joy and trepidation she gave birth to her only son, keeping her virginity intact (cf. Lk 2:6-7).” Again, is he going to appoint a fellow schprechen Sie Deutscher who denies it? Ha, ha. Absolutely ridonkulous.

I was happy to see Cardinal complain in part 1 about “a type of liberalism within the Church which has caused us to lose our direction a little. We must look to our own resources — the Scriptures, the Fathers, the dogmatic teachings of the Church — and, like a good captain, steer the way ahead.”

Amen!

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[edwest2]

From Vatican II itself:
Pax Christi

Thank you.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

First…link to my first post:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Another good answer from EWTN’s Q&A (with link).
Pax Christi

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/VAT-2.htm

Thanks. Much appreciated.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

It’s in the spirit of vatican II not the words.

The “spirit of Vatican II” is a falsehood.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Hey Loyal J!

Here are a couple of additional thoughts for you that I thought you might appreciate since you were looking for more (you can never be over-equipped, right? )…

Pope Paul VI:

“This council hands over to posterity not only the image of the Church but also the patrimony of her doctrine and of her commandments, the ‘deposit’ received from Christ and meditated upon through centuries, lived and expressed now and clarified in so many of its parts, settled and arranged in its integrity. …]John XXIII …] had this to say: ‘The greatest concern of the ecumenical council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be guarded and taught more effectively’ …(Discorsi, 1962, p. 583).

“…the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity…” (Address During the Last General Meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965).

“You have to be careful, for the teachings of the Council do not constitute a complete, organic system of Catholic doctrine. Doctrine is much more extensive, as everyone knows, and it wasn’t called into question by the Council nor substantially modified. Instead, the Council confirms, illustrates, defends, and develops it with a most authoritative apologia full of wisdom, vigor and confidence. …] We mustn’t separate the teachings of the Council from the doctrinal heritage of the Church. Instead we must take a good look at where they fit into it and at how they are consistent with it and supply it with added testimony, growth, explanation, and application. Then even the ‘novelties’ in doctrine or regulation coming from the Council will be seen in their proper proportions and will not give rise to objections about the Church’s fidelity to its teaching function, but will acquire that true meaning which makes it shine with a higher light. …] This was the first idea that motivated Pope John XXIII to convoke the Council, as he said so well at its opening: ‘ut iterum magisterium ecclesiasticum … affirmaretur.’ ‘Our first aim,’ he said, ‘in convoking this vast assembly was to reassert the magisterium of the Church’ (AAS 54, 1962, 786).

“Thus a person wouldn’t be correct in thinking that the Council represents a cutting loose, a break, or, as some think, a liberation from the traditional teaching of the [p. 154] Church; nor would he be correct in thinking that it authorizes and fosters a ready conformity to the mentality of our time in its negative and ephemeral elements rather than those which are scientific and secure; nor in thinking that it grants anyone whatsoever the right to give any value and any expression he pleases to the truths of the faith.

“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents” (The Pope Speaks, Volumes 11-12, pp. 152-154: General Audience of Paul VI, January 12, 1966; only the Italian is currently available on the Vatican website).

Cardinal Ratzinger:

“It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

“All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith” (Cardinal Ratzinger to the Bishops of Chile, 7/13/1988).

I’m not aware at this time of any other pertinent statements. It’s fun to be Catholic!

With the love of Christ our LORD,
Pete

Priceless.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Actually, if there is one lesson to be learned from the history of the schisms or near-schisms after V2, it is that the issue isn’t actually obedience, but faith: i.e., there exists a doubt. Playing the obedience card when peopple began having concerns that lead into serious doubts or insecurities was in part incorrect: pastors and learned Catholics should have perhaps been more careful in their diagnosis sometimes and strove to remove the doubt rather than assuming in all cases you were dealing with someone who meant to be disobedient to the Church or was using V2 as an exuse to be. These people were mostly just concerned, and the failure to address these concerns with rational arguments resulted in concern becoming doubt, which is death to faith.

Moreover, in Catholicism, all obedience is aimed ultimately at the obedience of faith and flows from it and translates into genuine obedience (which flows from love or devotion in its perfection, as to, e.g., parents) to the shepherds Christ has placed over to guard and guide the children of his beloved spouse, the Church. The misapplication of obedience in the instances of an intellectual concern or doubt sounded an aweful lot like the sort of tyranny Protestant controvertists and propagandists hurled at the Catholic Church - I mean the ‘if your converting to Catholicism don’t forget to leave your brain at the door’ sort of calumny. This only aggravates the problem and can be interpreted as a proof or evidence to justify the doubt: people know when their intention is to be obedient or not. If it’s not my intention or desire to be disobedient, but I am being charged with disobedience, then I am not going to be happy and am not going to like the feeling, which inevitably will result in a profound confusion.

I was there before and after Vatican II. After the Council, my goal was to be in full obedience. We were in religion class and had nuns and priests who could answer any question we had. Any doubts could and were immediately removed not by playing the obedience card but by the loving concern our nuns and priests had for us. At no time did I feel isolated or stifled, and I, along with others who had concerns, could get answers.

Our nuns were not just regular teachers, they were our guides in understanding our faith and Vatican II.

Peace,
Ed

 

[pnewton]

Actually, if there is one lesson to be learned from the history of the schisms or near-schisms after V2,…Moreover, in Catholicism, all obedience is aimed ultimately at the obedience of faith and flows from it and translates into genuine obedience (which flows from love or devotion in its perfection, as to, e.g., parents) to the …

You might want to read this thread. I think you have missed the whole point, unless you agree that not needing confession because of the spirit of Vatican II is part of the faith.

Schism has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I was there before and after Vatican II. After the Council, my goal was to be in full obedience. We were in religion class and had nuns and priests who could answer any question we had. Any doubts could and were immediately removed not by playing the obedience card but by the loving concern our nuns and priests had for us. At no time did I feel isolated or stifled, and I, along with others who had concerns, could get answers.

Our nuns were not just regular teachers, they were our guides in understanding our faith and Vatican II.

Peace,
Ed

Exactly. I made my assessment based on certain bios and (bad) memories people would share about how they came to, e.g., be in the SSPX or even Sedevacantism. Early on there was a combination of things in certain regions: a desire for the Latin Mass but also sometimes scandal (legitimate or not) or confusion in regards to the new/ordinary Form. Too often it seemed that people’s concerns were misdiagnosed as simple disobedience when clearly that wasn’t the case (their concerns manifested as questions- that not disobedience, but it’s possibly the beginnings of a real doubt). Had they been exposed to the same teachers you were, Ed, it is probable that they would not have flirted with schism or even left the Church completely. Of course, we usually only hear of the failures or break downs and not of those who succesfully assisted in keeping their faith.