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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loyal_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Loyal_J

Guest
How do I prove that Vatican 2 did not cancel out all other doctrines/dogmas held by the Catholic Church in preconcilar times from things like papal speeches and other historical documents/things?

For example that we still believe the dogmas of previous councils, that we still believe the Catholic Church is the one founded by God, etc.

What documents can I use to show the people who reject pre-Vatican II that they’re wrong?
 
How do I prove that Vatican 2 did not cancel out all other doctrines/dogmas held by the Catholic Church in preconcilar times from things like papal speeches and other historical documents/things?
Why would you need to?
For example that we still believe the dogmas of previous councils, that we still believe the Catholic Church is the one founded by God, etc.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
 
Because people who didn’t believe in what the church teaches before vatican II usually do not go to confession once they have committed a mortal sin because they don’t believe the priest has the ability to absolve them. They don’t even know of the need. Because of this they can go to hell.
 
Dude…that’s not a pre-VII / post-VII thing. That’s just willful stupidity. Just show them the Catechism, but honestly I’ll bet they’re too far gone to submit to that.
 
How do I prove that Vatican 2 did not cancel out all other doctrines/dogmas held by the Catholic Church in preconcilar times from things like papal speeches and other historical documents/things?

For example that we still believe the dogmas of previous councils, that we still believe the Catholic Church is the one founded by God, etc.

What documents can I use to show the people who reject pre-Vatican II that they’re wrong?
Two kind of people make these claims. I’ve only heard them from one of the two, namely schismatics or sedevacantists, and I see no points in arguing with them. Now this is very, very delicate ground. It takes a strong faith and strong obedience to Holy Church to dwell into this topic. This is a new kind of heresy that is subtle and terrible.

As for people in the second group, who reject pre-Vatican II, remind them that what the Church has proclaimed in these councils is infallible, and to reject what has been there taught is heresy, and that obstinate heresy brings to automatic excommunication. Usually these people simply are ignorant of Vatican II and of the Catechism. By reading the Vatican II documents you can prove that Vatican II did not cancel out anything of the sort.
 
From Vatican II itself:
Pax Christi
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM

SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
**POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
**
CHAPTER I
THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
  1. Christ is the Light of nations. Because this is so, this Sacred Synod gathered together in the Holy Spirit eagerly desires, by proclaiming the Gospel to every creature,(1) to bring the light of Christ to all men, a light brightly visible on the countenance of the Church. Since the Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race,**** it desires now to unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner nature and universal mission.**** **This it intends to do following faithfully the teaching of previous councils. **The present-day conditions of the world add greater urgency to this work of the Church so that all men, joined more closely today by various social, technical and cultural ties, might also attain fuller unity in Christ.
 
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
VATICAN II—THE MYTHS
A curious myth has arisen that the Vatican Council overturned many doctrines that the Catholic Church had previously taught.
So far reaching is this revolution supposed to have been that it would almost be pointless, some think, to consult theological books of, say, 30 years ago if one wanted to know whether a particular claim is part of the Church’s official doctrinal teaching.
New Church
**Since Vatican II, it appears, we are in a new Church. Yet the people who have this outlook are also ready to stress that Vatican II, unlike other General Councils, was **pastoral, ****not dogmatic. Which presents us with an intriguing problem.
How did a Council which wasn’t dogmatic manage to change so many teachings? The truth is that Vatican II didn’t contradict any official position on doctrine or morals. All that the Church taught when Vatican II began is still Catholic teaching. The changes whether made by the Council or decided upon since, are in practical matters such as the liturgy or discipline, but always leaving doctrine unchanged.
When people say otherwise, they are often at a loss if asked for examples: or if they do offer alleged examples, these turn out to be spurious.
The illusion of change has been promoted by people who have lost their belief in many Catholic positions.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/VAT-2.htm
 
Here are some quotes on this topic for you…

The CDF document, (1973)Mysterium Ecclesiae, quotes…

“Pope John’s assertion regarding Christian doctrine at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: ‘This certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is due, has to be explored and presented in a way that is demanded by our times. One thing is the deposit of faith, which consists of the truths contained in sacred doctrine, another thing is the manner of presentation, always however with the same meaning and signification.’ ”

Synod of Bishops on the New Evangelization:

“The Synod Fathers… wish to manifest their adherence to the thought of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, who has indicated the hermeneutical principle of reform within continuity so as to be able to discover in those texts the authentic spirit of the Council” (Proposition 12 of the Synod of Bishops on The New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith, October 27, 2012).
 
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).

Pope Benedict:

“It is important to encourage in priests, especially in the young generations, a correct reception of the texts of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, interpreted in the light of the Church’s entire fund of doctrine” (Address to the Members of the Congregation for the Clergy, 3/16/09).

“[The] true meaning [of the spiritual movement which characterized Vatican II] was and remains faith in Christ, the apostolic faith, animated by the inner desire to communicate Christ to individuals and all people, in the Church’s pilgrimage along the pathways of history.

…]

“[D]uring the Council there was an emotional tension as we faced the common task of making the truth and beauty of the faith shine out in our time, without sacrificing it to the demands of the present or leaving it tied to the past: the eternal presence of God resounds in the faith, transcending time, yet it can only be welcomed by us in our own unrepeatable today. Therefore I believe that the most important thing, especially on such a significant occasion as this, is to revive in the whole Church that positive tension, that yearning to announce Christ again to contemporary man. But, so that this interior thrust towards the new evangelization neither remain just an idea nor be lost in confusion, it needs to be built on a concrete and precise basis, and this basis is the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the place where it found expression. This is why I have often insisted on the need to return, as it were, to the ‘letter’ of the Council — that is to its texts — also to draw from them its authentic spirit, and why I have repeated that the true legacy of Vatican II is to be found in them. Reference to the documents saves us from extremes of anachronistic nostalgia and running too far ahead, and allows what is new to be welcomed in a context of continuity. The Council did not formulate anything new in matters of faith, nor did it wish to replace what was ancient. Rather, it concerned itself with seeing that the same faith might continue to be lived in the present day, that it might remain a living faith in a world of change” (Homily of Pope Benedict, 10/11/12).

With love in Christ,
Pete*
 
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!
 
How do I prove that Vatican 2 did not cancel out all other doctrines/dogmas held by the Catholic Church in preconcilar times from things like papal speeches and other historical documents/things?

For example that we still believe the dogmas of previous councils, that we still believe the Catholic Church is the one founded by God, etc.

What documents can I use to show the people who reject pre-Vatican II that they’re wrong?
If you would read the Vatican II documents then you would know that no dogmas/doctrines were changed!
 
How do I prove that Vatican 2 did not cancel out all other doctrines/dogmas held by the Catholic Church in preconcilar times?
Just what doctrine is it supposed to have canceled? What is the citation from VII that says it is cancelling it?
 
How do I prove that Vatican 2 did not cancel out all other doctrines/dogmas held by the Catholic Church in preconcilar times from things like papal speeches and other historical documents/things?

For example that we still believe the dogmas of previous councils, that we still believe the Catholic Church is the one founded by God, etc.

What documents can I use to show the people who reject pre-Vatican II that they’re wrong?
I thought it was the opposite? I thought people were rejecting post-Vatican II stuff?

I don’t know of anyone who says that they reject everything before Vatican II and only accept things from Vatican II and after.

The internet is however, full of people who do the opposite - rejecting things from Vatican II onward. I know some of them personally.

I thought it was the opposite.

-Tim-
 
It’s in the spirit of vatican II not the words.
Vatican II did NOT change any dogma/doctrines. You have your answer.
Its not up to us to prove a negative. If you or anyone else claims changes were made then its up to you/them to provide proof of changes which we can then discuss.
 
Just what doctrine is it supposed to have canceled? What is the citation from VII that says it is cancelling it?
It’s in the spirit of vatican II not the words.
In other words, there are no citations from Vatican II that cancelled any doctrines!
 
It’s in the spirit of vatican II not the words.
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.
 
Loyal J!

By the way, welcome to the forums. If you haven’t noticed, Thistle is loved here. But he’s quite the cantankerous fellow! Ha ha.
If you would read the Vatican II documents then you would know that no dogmas/doctrines were changed!
You would actually need to read a vast corpus from the Fathers and Doctors, the 20 preceding ecumenical councils, and the hundreds of preceding papal documents to know if Vatican II contradicted what came before. How could you just read Vatican II and know whether anything was changed? 🙂

With love in Christ,
Pete
 
Loyal J!

By the way, welcome to the forums. If you haven’t noticed, Thistle is loved here. But he’s quite the cantankerous fellow! Ha ha.

You would actually need to read a vast corpus from the Fathers and Doctors, the 20 preceding ecumenical councils, and the hundreds of preceding papal documents to know if Vatican II contradicted what came before. How could you just read Vatican II and know whether anything was changed? 🙂

With love in Christ,
Pete
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!🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top