Is there a conflict between being spiritual and being political?

[St_Francis]

This persistent confusion in some quarters must be refuted.

In The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, by James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead:
"The term ‘pastoral council’ as applied to Vatican II is merely a popular description and does not refer to any specific type of council recognized by the authority of the Catholic Church (the teachings and decisions of which would presumably somehow not be as binding upon members of the Church as those of a ‘dogmatic’ council). In the Church there are traditionally councils, or synods, which are styled ‘national councils,’ ‘provincial councils,’ or ‘general (ecumenical) councils,’ but none styled specifically a ‘pastoral council.’ ”(p 33).

“Pope John XXIII, in calling the Council, stated that the reasons he was doing so were of a character that could be broadly termed ‘pastoral,’ although Pope John himself, in using the word, merely spoke of the need today of a Church Magisterium ‘which is predominantly pastoral in character.’ Pope Paul VI similarly spoke of the ‘pastoral nature of the Council’ in his Weekly General Audience of January 12, 1966, but he didn’t call it a ‘pastoral council’ as if this were some new species of Church gathering which the faithful might go along with or not, as they chose” (p. 33).

“Pope Pius IX taught on this subject in a letter to the Abbot of Solesmes: " '…the Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Spirit…it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what must be believed…’ Not only what the Council ‘defines’ – it should be noted – but what it ‘proposes.’ " (Op cit. P 38-39).

“In his book, *Sources of Renewal *Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) wrote: ‘It may be said that every Council in the Church’s history has been a pastoral one, if only because the assembled bishops, under the Pope’s guidance, are pastors of the Church. At the same time every Council is an act of the supreme Magisterium of the Church. Magisterium signifies teaching based on authority, a teaching which is the mission of the Apostles and their successors, it is part of their function and an essential task.’ The Cardinal goes on: ‘All this has been signally confirmed by Vatican II, which, while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment.’ ” (Ibid, p 38-39).

Would you say that they are using the word pastoral more in reference to the bishops, the “pastors”, than to refer to what the word usually means in English, which is more relating to a sort of mentoring/counseling/advising kind of thing? For example, it was said that some bishops did not want to discipline certain people in their diocese, because they were trying a more pastoral approach.

This would make a lot of sense, language-wise.

My understanding is that V2 primarily wanted to cast the teachings of the Church in a way more understandable to non-Catholics. There were areas in which language had changed; for example, when the Church started teaching that forced conversion was wrong, we did not have the philosophical background of individual rights that we have now, nor did we consider that the idea of not forcing conversions had something to do with the other person, per se, but more that *we *{Catholics} do not force the Faith on people who do not believe.

So the overall idea was not so much to teach new things as to teach old things in a new way, a way which fitted in better with developments outside the Church.

 

[Abu]

St Francis #21
My understanding is that V2 primarily wanted to cast the teachings of the Church in a way more understandable to non-Catholics.
So the overall idea was not so much to teach new things as to teach old things in a new way, a way which fitted in better with developments outside the Church.

That Vatican II “wanted to cast the teachings of the Church in a way more understandable to non-Catholics” is correct.

But as Bl John Paul II emphasised as a Cardinal at Vatican II, the Council “while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment.”

Pope John XXIII in opening the Council stated: “the greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council” was that “this certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which the obedience of Faith must be given, be studied thoroughly and explained in the way for which our times are calling…but nevertheless with the same meaning and the same sense.” Vatican II is using the very words of both Vatican I and of St Vincent of Lerins, speaking for the Church of the Fathers.

In a new doctrinal development, this Council declared what may be summarized as "Non-Catholics have a right to immunity from coercion in propagating their religion publicly” (to the extent that it does not violate public order). Dignitatis Humanae, # 2-3, 10].

So pastorally inclined like all Councils, Vatican II also developed doctrine profoundly, as Fr John a Hardon, S.J., affirms. Vatican II confirmed that even non infallible doctrine must be received with assent: “This 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”…when doctrine is proposed or formulated. *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), 25].

“….collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See The *Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.”

The Dogmatic Constitution On The Church #8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].

“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 that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).

Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).

 

[St_Francis]

That Vatican II “wanted to cast the teachings of the Church in a way more understandable to non-Catholics” is correct.

But as Bl John Paul II emphasised as a Cardinal at Vatican II, the Council “while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment.”

Pope John XXIII in opening the Council stated: “the greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council” was that “this certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which the obedience of Faith must be given, be studied thoroughly and explained in the way for which our times are calling…but nevertheless with the same meaning and the same sense.” Vatican II is using the very words of both Vatican I and of St Vincent of Lerins, speaking for the Church of the Fathers.

In a new doctrinal development, this Council declared what may be summarized as "Non-Catholics have a right to immunity from coercion in propagating their religion publicly” (to the extent that it does not violate public order). Dignitatis Humanae, # 2-3, 10].

And this is the new wording for the perennial teaching against forced conversions. If Catholics can not force someone to convert, that person has a reciprocal physical right to choose his own religion (“insofar as that does not violate public order”).

So pastorally inclined like all Councils, Vatican II also developed doctrine profoundly, as Fr John a Hardon, S.J., affirms. Vatican II confirmed that even non infallible doctrine must be received with assent: “This 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”…when doctrine is proposed or formulated. *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), 25].

This may be more definite that what we had previously, but the Church excommunicated heretics from Her beginning.

“….collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See The *Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.”
Again, the same as what we had before, possibly more definitively expressed.

The Dogmatic Constitution On The Church

#8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].
One of the reasons most of the previous councils were called was some sort of dispute. This seems clearly to be a statement regarding the branch theory proposed by the Anglicans, but it is most certainly in line with the teaching of the Church all along.

“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 that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).

Again, the same as previously.

Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).

And yet again…

I am not exactly sure why you are posting these things, it may be that you are trying to show that “new teachings” came out of V2?

 

[Abu]

St Francis #23
I am not exactly sure why you are posting these things, it may be that you are trying to show that “new teachings” came out of V2?

As Vatican II “profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment.” (Bl John Paul II as a cardinal at Vatican II). The reality needs to be seen and assented to.

Does any real Catholic think that Bl John Paul II and Fr John A Hardon took the trouble to explain these developments of doctrine as “profound”, “unequivocal” and “for the first time in conciliar history”, for them to be dismissed as of little consequence? .

Additionally, the *Declaration on Religious Liberty *is a “development of doctrine (which) constitutes a change of emphasis; makes explicit what was explicit, and clarifies former obscurity or ambiguity.” (Fr Brian Harrison, OS).
[In *Religious Liberty And Contraception, Chap 10, Dignitatis Humanae: A Non-Contradictory Development of Doctrine, John XXIII Fellowship Co-op, 1988, p 123].

Fr William Most took the trouble to “read carefully every one of the 16 documents of Vatican II, comparing each statement with previous teaching on the same point….I did precisely that….challenging audiences in public lectures All changes consisted of giving answers to previously debated points.” *Catholic Apologetics Today *(Answers To Modern Critics), TAN, 1986, p 198-199].

So what was legitimately “debatable” was made certain. Too many try to degrade Vatican II; too many others try to claim that Vatican II degraded previous doctrine.

 

[St_Francis]

As Vatican II “profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment.” (Bl John Paul II as a cardinal at Vatican II). The reality needs to be seen and assented to.

Does any real Catholic think that Bl John Paul II and Fr John A Hardon took the trouble to explain these developments of doctrine as “profound”, “unequivocal” and “for the first time in conciliar history”, for them to be dismissed as of little consequence? .

Additionally, the *Declaration on Religious Liberty *is a “development of doctrine (which) constitutes a change of emphasis; makes explicit what was explicit, and clarifies former obscurity or ambiguity.” (Fr Brian Harrison, OS).
[In *Religious Liberty And Contraception

, Chap 10, Dignitatis Humanae: A Non-Contradictory Development of Doctrine, John XXIII Fellowship Co-op, 1988, p 123].

Fr William Most took the trouble to “read carefully every one of the 16 documents of Vatican II, comparing each statement with previous teaching on the same point….I did precisely that….challenging audiences in public lectures All changes consisted of giving answers to previously debated points.” *Catholic Apologetics Today *(Answers To Modern Critics), TAN, 1986, p 198-199].

So what was legitimately “debatable” was made certain. Too many try to degrade Vatican II; too many others try to claim that Vatican II degraded previous doctrine.
I see what you are saying. V2 did develop doctrine in that previously debatable points were clarified and defined. So it’s not that teachings *changed, *as in became different altogether, more that Rome Spoke–Roma locuta causa finita, which is precisely what is supposed to happen.

Bartolomelo was saying that some of the errors in the Syllabus of Errors were taught as true after V2 and I was debating *that *point, that there were changes *that *profound.

See the point I turned pink? I am not really sure what that means, possibly because it is out of context, but surely the 24 councils previous to V2 had some clarifications going on, so I don’t understand why they said it was the first time in conciliar history?

 

[Abu]

St Francis #25
“for the first time in conciliar history” I am not really sure what that means, possibly because it is out of context, but surely the 24 councils previous to V2 had some clarifications going on, so I don’t understand why they said it was the first time in conciliar history?

An Ecumenical Council for the first time defines the Catholic Church specifically as the sole Church established by Christ, not one of many branches.

In post #22:
The *Dogmatic Constitution On The Church *#8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= **clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” **[See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].

Doctrine is never contradictory when developed.

 

[St_Francis]

An Ecumenical Council for the first time defines the Catholic Church specifically as the sole Church established by Christ, not one of many branches.

In post #22:
The *Dogmatic Constitution On The Church *#8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= **clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” **[See *The Catholic Catechism

, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].]/quote]
Oh, I see; I just missed what that phrase was referring to and was confused

Doctrine is never contradictory when developed.

I don’t have a problem with the development of doctrine

 

[sedonaman]

Why didn’t you just say, “Conservative, bad; liberal good”?

 

[Andrea_Anderson]

There is no conflict between being spiritual and being political. In America we have a system of government “of the people, by the people and for the people” therefore it is incumbent upon us as citizens to inform ourselves about our how our government should work: to be conversant with the Declaration of Independence - not just the oft quoted portions - , with the Constitution, with the Federalist Papers, with Washington’s Farewell Address. We read the scriptures - we should read these documents as well. Then ask ourselves if our elected officials are following the Constitution they swore to uphold when they took office. America really is unique and it is why people all over the world have wanted to come here and live. There is definitely a trend to minimize our country, to apologize for it to other nations, when I believe we should be evangelizing them for freedom. As spiritual catholics (I use the small c advisedly) we need to pray that the light of truth shines. We need to recognize that religious persecution exists in much of the world. If the government infiltrates the church, we will no longer have freedom of religion, and I, for one, think that freedom of religion is precious and worth fighting for.

 

[uther]

The Vatican II Council overrules certain portions of the Syllabus of Errors. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) admitted that directly.

That same Cardinal Ratzinger is also on record as defending the Second Vatican Council as intended in a hermeneutic of continuity with everything that predates it, as opposed to the hermeneutic of rupture so favored by those who for many decades ran under the banner of “the Spirit of Vatican II.”

The Catholic Church REQUIRED Catholic States to revise their constitutions to allow full religious liberty for all non-Catholics mainstream religions. That is documented FACT.

If you think about the conditions experienced by Christians pre-Constantine, freedom of religion would have been welcome. It is only rational to realize exactly what Dignitatis Humanae teaches explicitly. That is because as you point out, faith cannot be coerced and be real faith.

All this was disturbing to me when I first discovered it. But, now later, I see it all as for the good. In any case, this IS what the Church now teachers. To resist it is to become a rebel or dissenter against the Magisterium.

Forcing or pressuring people to be Catholic does no good for anyone.

If you doubt what I’ve said, get a meeting with any bishop and they will confirm all of it.

I sense a retreat from some form of ultra-trad experience. People forget that trying to force everyone to convert, as Islam have done in the past to Catholics, throughout all of the mid-east is not the same as having a Catholic country.
The confusion comes about, in my opinion, when people forget that all laws are of two kinds; criminal law and contract law, and those laws are grounded on a moral baseline, be it the Natural Law, or some more advanced application of law such as Catholic moral teaching. Either way, laws are based on morality. So when someone says you cannot legislate morality, essentially they are asking for anarchy, whether they realize it or not. That is just a pop-phrase for most people to say “we don’t like your sexual moral code.”

I admit some apologists will not tell you all this. Some of them are in a kind of covert war against Ecumenism and Inter-faith Dialogue. They want to go back to pre-Vatican II theology, in my view.

Best wishes.

I’ve read Unitatis Redintegratio several times through and I think you are tilting in a direction that it explicitly warns against. Your quotes are lifted out of the context of the entire document, and imply on their face, without that context, something akin to an “open table” communion. This is not the case at all, and has never been taught at any time since the Reformation.

The idea, as well, that non-Catholic Christians are just fine where they are is not found in that document either. That is a form of indifferentism which the Church does condemn.

 

[uther]

To your original points, BARTOLOME CASAS, and the title of this thread;

I think the two choices you have given are overly simplistic and not the only choices. I will give you an example.

My position in politics is this. Because I know that whatever “system” that is put in place will always be corrupted eventually by people within it, the best system that could possibly happen would be the maximization of freedom, regardless if that state is secular in nature, atheist, agnostic, Protestant or Catholic. That is to say, the most limited government possible, while doing its proper job of enforcing that baseline morality of Natural Law on which all laws are based.

Essentially, that is what America was founded to be. The constitutional structures are all still in place but America has ignored them for about 100 years and is moving rapidly toward secular authoritarianism to be followed naturally by totalitarianism. History shows us this pattern. So even the great experiment can be, and has been corrupted. What is the political party today that most closely represents the political philosophy upon which America was founded? Probably the Libertarians.

Why the maximum of freedom? (I notice you list pursuit of freedom with pursuit of sex and money. Interesting.) Quite simply, the maximizing of freedom from government allows us the maximum opportunity to do just what you ascribe to the “Spiritual Catholics” without having to look over our shoulder to see if the government approves. We can do what the Church has always done, preach the gospel, take care of the poor and the sick and never worry about the government trying to coerce us into doing anything against our conscience.

Somewhere along the way, many Catholics have bought into the idea that the government is there to do what is properly the role of the Church, a role which we have handled quite well over the centuries on the whole.

If the government was doing only what it is supposed to be doing, I guarantee there would be a lot fewer “political Catholics” because there would be no point to it. The government would be so out of everyone’s life that it would be easy to forget that it was even there. Catholics of all kinds would have more time and money to get down to the real business of being Catholics, living and spreading the gospel.

Even if, by some miracle, America could be re-set to be a free nation once more, it would only be a matter of time before it was corrupted again. Still, for whatever time and space of freedom that would be afforded, it is worth political action and advocacy while the possibility still exists. In a few years on the current trajectory it will be too late. Some think it is already too late.

But in any case, politics or political action is, for me, only a means to an end, never an end in itself. And truth be told, it is a huge time waster, although necessary while there are those that seek to control our lives and our faith.