It needs reiterating: The Second Vatican Council was pastoral, not dogmatic! (With a note concerning the SSPX)

[DustinsDad]

No, it doesn’t. Mortalium Animos condmens the pan-Christian movements–watering down doctrine until all can agree–as does both the Second Vatican Council and John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint.

With all due respect to the late Holy Father, it seems that lip service was paid to “not watering down doctrine” but in much of the rest of the document and in practice since Vatican II that was exactly what was done. For what is “watering down” if in talking with those outside the church we gush over and over about those “elements of truth” not rejected while ignoring those necessary elements of truth that have been rejected?

For example, in Ut unum sintPope John Paul II states: “Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today.” (18)

Great! So one would think that the canons, say, from the would be “safe”. Such as:
*CANON I.- *If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.

*CANON IV.- *If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
One would also think safe, the teaching of Pope Pius XII as recently as 1943:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. … And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

1. Let every one then abhor sin, which defiles the mystical members of our Redeemer; but if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, it is better "to be cured within the Church’s community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members. “As long as a member still forms part of the body there is no reason to despair of its cure; once it has been cut off, it can be neither cured nor healed.” [22]
   (Mystici Corporis Christi ).

(Continued below…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(Continued from above…)

But not so fast…we go on to read in Ut Unum Sint that:
Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion - linked to the baptismal character - which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”…This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. I have personally been able many times to observe this during the ecumenical celebrations which are an important part of my Apostolic Visits to various parts of the world, and also in the meetings and ecumenical celebrations which have taken place in Rome. The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past…"
And also…
The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium links its teaching on the Catholic Church to an acknowledgment of the saving elements found in other Churches and Ecclesial Communities. It is not a matter of becoming aware of static elements passively present in those Churches and Communities. Insofar as they are elements of the Church of Christ, these are by their nature a force for the re-establishment of unity. Consequently, the quest for Christian unity is not a matter of choice or expediency, but a duty which springs from the very nature of the Christian community.

In a similar way, the bilateral theological dialogues carried on with the major Christian Communities start from a recognition of the degree of communion already present, in order to go on to discuss specific areas of disagreement. The Lord has made it possible for Christians in our day to reduce the number of matters traditionally in dispute.

That’s just two examples of contradictions that has arisen pre and post Vatican II that desparately needs to be resolved and addressed. Some of us can’t just pretend they don’t exist. Saying a circle is a square doesn’t cut it…no matter how many times it is repeated. Frustrating!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[stmaria]

Pax et Caritas and DustinsDad, excellent!!!

That is why Cardinal Ottaviani said at the Council “ a very serious matter to assert that every kind of religion has the freedom to propagate itself.” That is why Cardinal Palacios said on the floor of the Council that the text was full of ambiguities and he charged, “new doctrine being favored at the expense of traditional doctrine”.
That is why Cardinal Monreal said the entire text was, “ pervaded by a twofold ambiguity. Only the Catholic Church had received the mandate to teach all nations. Objectively speaking, no other religious doctrine had the right to propagate itself.”

That is why Archbishop Parente of the Roman Curia said, “ The rights of God were subordinated in the text to the rights of man.”-Dialogue from the Vatican II Council debate on Religious Freedom from the book The Rhine Flows into the TIber.

 

[lentang2]

As a Catholic, you are free to reject anything from Vatican II that doesn’t agree with all previous councils and the doctrines of the Faith.

This is not correct. Yes, Vatican ll was “un-doctrinal” meaning doctrine was not directly defined, as was during Vatican I. The council was designed to provide “pastoral guidance” not define doctrine. However, according to Catholic Doctrine, as Catholics, ‘assent of the faith’ regarding ALL Vatican II council documents IS REQUIRED (NOT optional). I remind all the readers that the Council was promulgated by the Pope. THAT is what binds us. Right after the council this error in thinking began. I also inform the readers that there was as much dissention and bitterness after Vatican I defined Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope, as there is about Vatican II. I also invite all readers to personally READ the 16 Documents of the council - for themselves. DO NOT let anyone tell you what to think about what the council did or did not say. I invite all readers to keep an open mind as they approach the documents - do your own research. One may be surprised to see that the ‘horrors’ you hear of are not in the documents themselves. Incidentally, I do not know ANY anti-Vatican II layperson who has actually read for themselves the 16 documents (I am sure you are out there, just have not met anyone myself) - yet they distrust them, and also believe they do not have to accept its teachings. The sincere reader may also wish to research the Church’s doctrines regarding the REQUIREMENT of Assent of the Faith - this is the key issue. Otherwise, in your attempt to become holy, you just became a ‘cafeteria catholic’…

 

[lentang2]

The SSPX is not in schism or heresy, which is why the are still in the Church. If they were in schism or heresy they would cease to be.

They are in schism, and are not in the True Church.

 

[lentang2]

Were Lefebvre and Ottaviani and the Roman Curia heretics or conservative Catholics that wanted to hold on to the traditional teachings of the church.?

Yes, because they LEFT the Church.

The* Rhine flows into the Tiber *is considered the most accurate and unbiased book about Vatican II.

Considered by who? Why would you believe that?!!??

 

[lentang2]

…I reject the contrary even if it is taught by a Pope.

Cutting to the quick about your verbosity and cleverness…this quote by you basically says it all.

YOU will decide what doctrine is, and you will even disobey the POPE. Do you realize what your position has degraded to?

You are apparently intelligent, and I do not doubt your sincerity…BUT, you must already know this is EXACTLY the slippery slope that lead to Protestantism - personal interpretation to the exclusion of the guidance of the Pope and the Magisterium.

IT IS DANGEROUS THINKING.

 

[BobP123]

Yes, because they LEFT the Church.

The Roman Curia and Ottaviani left the Church?

This I didn’t know.

Could you give us a reference for this?

YOU will decide what doctrine is, and you will even disobey the POPE. Do you realize what your position has degraded to?

Have you ever read Progressio Populorum written by Paul VI? Well, there are many who did obey that and now practice ABC to their heart’s content. So what’s your point again?

 

[lentang2]

…I reject the contrary even if it is taught by a Pope.

Cutting to the quick about your verbosity and cleverness…this quote by you basically says it all.

YOU will decide what doctrine is, and you will even disobey the POPE. Do you realize what your position has degraded to?

You are apparently intelligent, and I do not doubt your sincerity…BUT, you must already know this is EXACTLY the slippery slope that lead to Protestantism - personal interpretation to the exclusion of the guidance of the Pope and the Hagstrom.

IT IS DANGEROUS THINKING.

 

[lentang2]

The Roman Curia and Ottaviani left the Church?

This I didn’t know.

Could you give us a reference for this?

Have you ever read Progressio Populorum written by Paul VI? Well, there are many who did obey that and now practice ABC to their heart’s content. So what’s your point again?

My point is, Bob, that you are going to interpret the Faith the way YOU see it. Period. Right? I suppose you can dig out and quote all the clever evidence you want about support for dissention, however, as a Catholic, you MUST submit to Vatican II, and Vatican 1000 for that matter. There is really no discussion after promulgation…I will pray for you.

 

[porthos11]

My whole take on this is simple:

For the disobedient and disloyal, Vatican II was a pastoral council, with emphasis on pastoral.

For those who are loyal to the Magisterium and the Pope, the Second Vatican Council was an Ecumencial Council of the Church that gets assent of faith.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Cutting to the quick about your verbosity and cleverness…this quote by you basically says it all.

YOU will decide what doctrine is, and you will even disobey the POPE. Do you realize what your position has degraded to?

If the Pope said “we used to think that Jesus was God, but now based on our new theology, we realize that he only possess a divine nature (state of grace), like the rest of Christians. Therefore, we no longer say that Jesus is truly God, but only that he was divine”. If the Pope said that, would you say “Ah, thank you Holy Father for clarifing that for me”.

Or would you say “no, Holy Father, I reject that error, and still maintain that Jesus is true God and true man, consubstantial with the Father”.

The point is, Catholics can know the faith. That’s right, we can actually know what to believe. We don’t have to wait for the latest statement from Rome to know what we are to believe when the teachings have been clearly explained by the Church for 2000 years.

I don’t need a the Pope to tell me that Jesus is God. That has already been settled by previous Popes. And since it has already been settled, if a liberal Pope attempts to convince me that Jesus is not God, I will either turn a deaf ear to his errors or else fight them with all my might (probably the later).

You are apparently intelligent, and I do not doubt your sincerity…BUT, you must already know this is EXACTLY the slippery slope that lead to Protestantism - personal interpretation to the exclusion of the guidance of the Pope and the Hagstrom.

IT IS DANGEROUS THINKING.

I am certain that your statement is sincere, and I thank you for your concern and honesty; but what you don’t realize yet is that the Church is in a very great crisis. The errors of liberalism and modernism which began many years ago (and which were condemned in great detail by the past Popes) have now become very mainstream in the Church. John Paul II himself was obviously highly influenced by this mind-set. If you are familiar with the errors of liberalism and modernism, and if you have read the encyclicals of the past Popes dealing with these errors, you will easily see how influenced John Paul II was by them. I am not judging him subjectively, but we must face the facts.

I will give you a few encyclicals to read if you are interested in seeing these errors dealt with.

1.) Mortalium Anomis, by Pope Pius XI (this encyclical condemned John Paul II’s version of ecumenism).

2.) Libertas, by Pope Leo XIII (this encyclical condemns the errors of liberalism, such as separation of Church and State and religious liberty).

3.) Mirari Vos, Gregory XIV, condemns liberalism and religious indifferentism.

4.) Pascendi, by Pope St. Pius X (condemns modernism)

I realize that it is difficult to believe that a Pope, and virtually all the Bishops in union with him fell into these subtle errors, but this is not contrary to the promise of the Lord. Our Lord promised that the gates of hell would not prevail and they haven’t. They didn’t prevail during the Arian crisis when it is said that up to 97% of the Bishops were either Arian or Semi-Arian, and they haven’t prevailed today when 99% are liberals.

In fact, we are already seeing signs of hope. Our new Pope has exposed the 38 year lie that the old Mass was abrogated. This in and of itself, I believe, will signal a turn in the Church since this will lead to a comeback of the Old Mass. Since “lex orandi, lex credendi” a return of the old Mass (lex orandi) will therefore restore belief (lex credendi). The liberals are well aware of this which is why they are in such an uproar.

In conclusion, I am not in the least offended by your post. I realize that you are sincere, and that your advise would be appropriate in normal times… but the days we live in are far from that. They have been predicted many times by the saints. The current crisis was predicted, but also the “great restoration” that is just ahead was also predicted.

 

[stmaria]

.

The book *The Rhine flows into the Tiber *is considered the most accurate and unbiased book on Vatican II

Considered by who? Why would you believe that?!!??

Read the book and you will find out why it is considered to be an accurate history of Vatican II.

The author Fr. Wiltgen was a priest-journalist. He personally convinced Pope Paul to invite non-Christians to the Council.

He was the only journalist to have complete access to all of the notes and documents of all the commissions formed during the Council.

 

[lentang2]

.

Read the book and you will find out why it is considered to be an accurate history of Vatican II.

.

Well, I appreciate your implied admission the this is only your opionion as a reader…I will read it, and you can read “Vatican II The crisis and the Promise” by A. Schreck (I assume you have not).

 

[lentang2]

If the Pope said “we used to think that Jesus was God, but now based on our new theology, we realize that he only possess a divine nature (state of grace), like the rest of Christians. Therefore, we no longer say that Jesus is truly God, but only that he was divine”. If the Pope said that, would you say “Ah, thank you Holy Father for clarifing that for me”.

Or would you say “no, Holy Father, I reject that error, and still maintain that Jesus is true God and true man, consubstantial with the Father”.

The point is, Catholics can know the faith. That’s right, we can actually know what to believe. We don’t have to wait for the latest statement from Rome to know what we are to believe when the teachings have been clearly explained by the Church for 2000 years.

I don’t need a the Pope to tell me that Jesus is God. That has already been settled by previous Popes. And since it has already been settled, if a liberal Pope attempts to convince me that Jesus is not God, I will either turn a deaf ear to his errors or else fight them with all my might (probably the later).

In fact, we are already seeing signs of hope. Our new Pope has exposed the 38 year lie that the old Mass was abrogated. This in and of itself, I believe, will signal a turn in the Church since this will lead to a comeback of the Old Mass. Since “lex orandi, lex credendi” a return of the old Mass (lex orandi) will therefore restore belief (lex credendi). The liberals are well aware of this which is why they are in such an uproar.

In conclusion, I am not in the least offended by your post. I realize that you are sincere, and that your advise would be appropriate in normal times… but the days we live in are far from that. They have been predicted many times by the saints. The current crisis was predicted, but also the “great restoration” that is just ahead was also predicted.

By mere definition of what a Catholic is, if the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, said “Pigs fly”, although I would not understand it, I would have to allow an “assent of the faith” to it and pray for understanding. Of course this can not logically happen, because pigs do not fly. But I get your “lemming” reference. However, as you know there can be no recorded papal teaching error, hence the doctrinal definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I (which caused a similar massive backlash, initially), so your question is purely illogical (as you already know).

You also said you do not need a Pope telling you what is right or wrong (because you already have a belief system). Well, what can I say to that? My protestant friends say the same thing. I said the same thing (as an atheist) before my conversion to the Faith. I was very wrong – full of pride – that was my basic sin. I knew it all, Brother!!!

I would think, if I followed your logic, I would not follow the Pope’s motu proprio . I do not think he would be thrilled at your comment the he is correcting anything that invalidates the Novus Ordo (you did not say this directly). Perhaps you are right; the Latin mass will dominate all masses. I am perfectly happy with that. If the mass system is presented by the pope, I accept it. And that is my point. I ACCEPT, even though I love the Ordinary Mass. And if the Ordinary Mass I love went away, as mandated by the Pope, I would love that too. Because I am Catholic.

May God Bless you!!

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You also said you do not need a Pope telling you what is right or wrong (because you already have a belief system).

I probably should have clarified that a bit. What I meant was, we do not have to wait for the next document from Rome to know the Catholic faith. We all know that there are seven sacraments, and as such we don’t need to wait for a document from Rome to believe in them. We all know that purgatory exists and we don’t need a document from Rome to confirm it. How do we know these truths and the other truths of the faith? We know them because they have either been defined de fide, or else they are part of the teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

What was condemned as an error 50 years ago, does not suddenly become part of the Catholic faith.

I would think, if I followed your logic, I would not follow the Pope’s motu proprio.

The primary duty of the Pope is to protect and guard the integrity of the faith. He is to condemn errors, teach the truth, and define doctrines.

I do not deny that we must follow the Pope. He is the visible head of the Church. However, if it should ever happen that a Pope fell into error, he is, according to the Church, not to be followed.

Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus: “In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing [the chaos resulting from the Protestant “reform”], We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind * is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.* Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.” strobertbellarmine.net/encyclicals/Paul04/cumex.html

This teaching of the magisterium presupposes two things: 1.) It is theoretically possible for a Pope to deviate from the faith when he is not exercising Papal Infallibility; 2.) It is possible for others to judge his teachings to be erroneous based on a knowledge of what is true.

If a Pope wavers in the faith, we still must remain firm in holding to what the Church has always taught.

I understand that it is very rare for a Pope to be in error and to teach it, but we must remember that this has indeed happened in the history of the Church. John XXII, for example, taught that those who die in the state of grace will not possess the beatific vision until after the final judgement. After being corrected by his Cardinals on this point many times, he finally renounced the error in writing on his death bed.

But how did the Cardinals know that the Pope was wrong? Were they guilty of not following the Pope? Answer: Yes, they were guilty of not following the Pope into error, which eventually led to the Pope renouncing the error on his death bed. Fortunately, the Cardinals did not just remain silent when the Pope erred, but instead corrected him.

If something has already been condemned by a Pope (such as religious liberty or false ecumenism) it would be wrong to hold to these teachings regardless of who taught them. Thus, if 99% of the Bishops begin to teach what has already been condemned (religious liberty, for example), it is our duty to hold fast to what the Church has taught, regardless of how many now reject it and teach the contrary.

 

[BobCatholic]

70 Fathers including Mgr. Lefebvre and Cardinal Ottaviani voted against the declaration. As Cardinal Ottaviani said, " a very serious matter to assert that every kind of religion has the freedom to propagate itself.” In others words errors have rights.

What about Cardinal Palacios who said “new doctrine being favored at the expense of traditional doctrine

They must be heretics for them to believe in their statements.

I didn’t call the council fathers heretics.

But they did successfully PREDICT what heretics would say.

Hence, you have quote after quote of their predictions.

We have modern day HERETICS that say that error has a right to exist- just as these prophetic council fathers predicted!

One more time:

I don’t call those council fathers heretics. I never did. I say they were prophetic in their predictions on how those passages of Vatican II would be misinterpreted!

How many times should I repeat this before people stop misinterpreting what I am saying?

 

[stmaria]

I didn’t call the council fathers heretics.

But they did successfully** PREDICT **what heretics would say.

Hence, you have quote after quote of their predictions.

We have modern day HERETICS that say that error has a right to exist- just as these prophetic council fathers** predicted!**
One more time:

I don’t call those council fathers heretics. I never did. I say they were prophetic in their** predictions **on how those passages of Vatican II would be misinterpreted!

How many times should I repeat this before people stop misinterpreting what I am saying?

This wasn’t their prediction, this was their belief. That is why they voted against the Declaration.

 

[BobCatholic]

This wasn’t their prediction, this was their belief. That is why they voted against the Declaration.

Are you accusing those council fathers who voted against the declaration that they believed that every kind of religion has the freedom to propagate itself?

I don’t believe those council fathers actually believed that.

It is obviously they saw how those texts would be misinterpreted, and railed against that.

I give those council fathers the benefit of the doubt and then some - I actually see them as prophetic.

 

[stmaria]

Are you accusing those council fathers who voted against the declaration that they believed that every kind of religion has the freedom to propagate itself?

I don’t believe those council fathers actually believed that.

It is obviously they saw how those texts would be misinterpreted, and railed against that.

I give those council fathers the benefit of the doubt and then some - I actually see them as prophetic.

Yes they believed that the Declaration on Religious Liberty states that every kind of religion has the right to proagate itself. That is why they voted against it. This is why, to this day, the SSPX still has a problem with the Declaration. They are still following the beliefs of their founder Archbishop Lefebvre .