Obedience to Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter arieh0310
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae
VOL. I De ReveIatione Christiana — De Ecclesia Christi ; De Fontibus Revelationis
EDITIO DECIMA OCTAVA, PARISIIS, APUD BERCHE ET PAGIS, EDITORES 69,via dicta de Rennes, 69
(Omnia jura vindicabuntur)
p.515, 516
OBJECTUM INDIRECTUM INFALLIBILITATIS
  1. Ex praxi Ecclesiae. — Ecclesia suam in rebus disciplinaribus infallibilitatem nonnunquam diserte aut impticite affirmavit (Act. xv, 28; Denzinger, 626, 856, 1578.). Quinimo doctrinam, ipsa Ecclesiae praxi universali consecratam et confirmatam, semper ut veram habuerunt non solum Patres et theologi, sed Pontifices et Concilia (S. Steph, I, ep. ad Cypr.; Conc. Nic. II, act. 7; Denzinger, 46, 302; S. Aug., serm. 294, 2, 2; S. Leo I M., ep. 114, 2, 119, 3; Journel, 1525, 2185, 2186.). Ergo.
Translation for the bolded section above:

The Church has on occasion expressly or implicitly affirmed her own infallibility in disciplinary matters. Indeed it is a doctrine consecrated and confirmed by the universal practice of the Church herself, which not only the Fathers and theologians but also the Popes and Councils have always held to be true.
 
That is very true. The Catholic Church claims less authority than any Protestant church. The Protestant churches claim the authority to edit God’s mail, the Catholic Church only claims to be the mail carrier.
So you’re claiming that every discipline was not merely permitted by God but actually prescribed? Our pastors have no free will in the implementation of discipline at all? Sounds quasi-Calvinistic to me. It would also mean that Vatican II is a letter from God, which makes this entire discussion moot.
 
More ignorance of liturgical history is running amok here.

Saturday night IS Sunday. The Church has ALWAYS acknowledged that…hence the existence of special Vesper texts for First Vespers of Sundays. Lengthy vigils were celebrated with Vespers, Matins, Lauds, and then Mass to celebrate Saturday-into-Sunday. Relics of this abound in the Tridentine liturgy.

Saturday night is Sunday.

The Church didn’t change anything in 1967. They just extended already existing permissions for evening Mass…since at one point, centuries ago, evening Mass fell into disuse.
Sunday begins at dusk on Saturday. However, the Church allows Mass to begin at 4:30 p.m. on Saturday, well before sundown (except at the extremes of the globe, certainly not in either Jerusalem or Rome). Please reign in your accusations of ignorance before they collide with your argument.
Could a pope suddenly decree Thursday is the new day of precept?

Nope.

And that’s crucial to acknowledge. A pope can’t change the Sunday precept, which commemorates the Resurrection.
I don’t accept you as authority, so please provide references, thank you.
 
Dear Loy (and others),

I truly do not seek to impose anything of my own ideas here at all, but only to say “Here are the theologians, learn from them.” Actually, to be frank with you, I find myself offended by the crass dismissal by some of these holy men who were approved by the Church. It does seem rather arrogant to dismiss the teaching of the manuals in favour of our own personal observations of fact. Can you see my point of view on this?

I wonder if the real reason some do not answer these arguments is that they see a conclusion they don’t like and refuse to discuss the points properly. I am merely a sincere Catholic who has been trying to assist others, and myself, by airing the doctrines of the theologians here. If there are alternative (approved) doctrines I could learn, I am more than willing to hear them. Instead, my experience is that proper and careful scientific argument is really not permitted. Or so it seems.

It is truly frustrating.

Gorman
 
Sorry to invade your bubble, but the Church doesn’t have little index cards with decrees saying “We can’t change Sunday.”

Why?

Sunday is of DIVINE PRECEPT. Sunday is the Christian Sabbath.

As for Saturdays…Vespers are traditionally associated with sunset, but western Catholicism, however regrettably, has always had a habit of anticipation.

4:30 is a crazy hour for Vigil Masses, but None is at 3, so anything after that is hitting the Vespers hour and is considered SUNDAY, not Saturday.

So my argument stands, and I am right.

Popes can’t change Sunday because it’s of divine precept. It commemorates the Resurrection, and this has been Christian tradition since antiquity.

Only by some perversion of papal authority ideas could someone imagine a divine precept could be revoked in favor of…Thursday obligation.

Sheesh…learn your heritage! It’s highly disturbing that in this modern day and age some would be confused enough about their faith to think that the Sunday obligation could just be altered at a whim by a pope.

Scary, indeed, to think some people are that obsessed with the idea that the pope can do whatever he wants that isn’t objectively sinful…such is NOT the Catholic understanding of papal authority.
 
Actually, Alex, it could be changed but it won’t because Sunday is the right day and since disciplines are infallible and it’s right to have it on that day, it won’t change.😉
 
Dear Loy (and others),

I truly do not seek to impose anything of my own ideas here at all, but only to say “Here are the theologians, learn from them.”
A very good idea, actually.
Actually, to be frank with you, I find myself offended by the crass dismissal by some of these holy men who were approved by the Church.
You’re offended that some dismiss these holy men (theologians) who were approved by the Church. I understand your point. The Church has said that theologians are part of her magisterium. I can see honest and respectful questioning of theologians when they disagree among themselves. When they disagree with the solemn teaching of the Church, or with the episcopacy or with the pope I’m less respectful. But I try to reconcile theologians’ teachings with that of the Church unless there is a clear divergence.
It does seem rather arrogant to dismiss the teaching of the manuals in favour of our own personal observations of fact. Can you see my point of view on this?
I’m not sure. Am I doing this?
I wonder if the real reason some do not answer these arguments is that they see a conclusion they don’t like and refuse to discuss the points properly. I am merely a sincere Catholic who has been trying to assist others, and myself, by airing the doctrines of the theologians here. If there are alternative (approved) doctrines I could learn, I am more than willing to hear them. Instead, my experience is that proper and careful scientific argument is really not permitted. Or so it seems.

It is truly frustrating.

Gorman
I’m frustrated, too, but I’ll offer it up for the poor souls in purgatory. Thank you for your contributions. 👍
 
Sorry to invade your bubble, but the Church doesn’t have little index cards with decrees saying “We can’t change Sunday.”

Why?

Sunday is of DIVINE PRECEPT. Sunday is the Christian Sabbath.
You are overstepping your bounds. As a lay person, you can state your opinion, but you have no authority to declare what is doctrine and what is not. Provide me documentation and we can discuss it. Otherwise your bald assertions are just wind.
So my argument stands, and I am right.
I’m sorry, Alex, but the only person who has the right to say that to me without factual support is my wife (and she gets away with it). You, not so much.
Sheesh…learn your heritage!
If you knew your heritage better, you would understand that using that word is as objectively wrong as taking the Lord’s name in vain.
Scary, indeed, to think some people are that obsessed with the idea that the pope can do whatever he wants that isn’t objectively sinful…such is NOT the Catholic understanding of papal authority.
I was merely having a discussion. It kind of sounds like you’re the one who is more obsessed, but that’s just my opinion.
 
I would normally have just skipped over this thread. But, I just bought a copy of the documents of Vatican II and started reading Sacrosanctum Concilium (on the liturgy) which was one of the earliest documents issued by the council. And, I’m not done reading it, either.

but… Hey, it says the Mass is supposed to be in Latin and it says that priests aren’t to change anything in the Mass, either by addition or omission.

And, before either of those, it said that the priests are supposed to be well-trained in all aspects of the Mass, to understand and appreciate all its parts and their history. Further, the priests are supposed to make sure that the faithful “fully” understand and “fully” appreciate everything in the Mass.

It looks like the conventional interpretation was, they couldn’t do the latter without dumping the Latin. So, there you go.
That’s why catechizing the congregation is important. Simple participation alone cannot adequately educate them. It’s entirely possible for the clergy to make sure the people fully understand and fully appreciate evreything in the mass and not have the mass fully in the vernacular.

To have zero latin in the mass is obviously not the intent of the document. This is just a clear case of people being given an inch and takng a mile.
 
I can see honest and respectful questioning of theologians when they disagree among themselves. When they disagree with the solemn teaching of the Church, or with the episcopacy or with the pope I’m less respectful.
Dear Loy,

What about when they speak in moral unanimity? The proposition of disciplinary infallibility is given the theological “note” of “theologically certain”.

The “assent deserved” is one of the “assent of certitude”.

The denial of something theologically certain is given the censure of “error”. It is a mortal sin to knowingly deny this proposition.

Again, we are speaking of doctrine that is certain…it is not open to denial or even questioning. A doctrine theologically certain is defined as a conclusion strictly deduced from one revealed premise and one rational premise.

Gorman
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top