Opinions of Vatican II Poll

[otjm]

Dear otjm,

Both artificial birth control and abortion were condemned in Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI, Dec 31, 1930. These condemnations are contained in Denzinger 2239 thru 2244. Denzinger is of course, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, 1954

This should be enough for any Catholic.

I can provide the text from Casti Connubii, which comprises Denzinger 2239 thru 2244, under the heading “The Abuse of Matrimony”…
Gorman

However, the Pill was not condemned at that time becasue it had not been invented. The Pill was invented not for the purposes of birht control but rather for the purpose of treating women who had irregular cycles; as work progressed on the research it was found that in regulating the cycle, it also could be used as a contraceptive. It was not known early on that the Pill was also an abortificant. That came a good bit later.

Because the Pill was not understood to operate as a mechanical barrier or as a spermicide, many theologians thought it would be acceptible; they did not see it as anything different than a couple having intercourse during the woman’s unfertile time.

The Church did not have an official position on the issue because it was different. You and I can both go back to Denziger and Casti Conubii and agree now that it is convered by those documents. At the time, there was a great division of opinion. To say that it was “liberals” who felt it was ok is to slander many people who were not liberal; they were struggling with something that was not like anything they had dealt with before. If it was so clear, there would not have been two popes who put together and expanded a Commission to study it.

do you want to see it? Or do you only like your own opinions?

It is entirely possible I read them long before you did. Since I have not expressed my opinion on the matter, don’t presume. I hand out Janet Smith’s recording “Contraception - Why Not” whenever I can.

 

[gorman64]

that is so well established in the Church as to not even be arguable. Some individuals have argued otherwise; but then, Hans Kung ahs argued otherwise too.
gorman64;2356938:

Can you provide a source for this idea as well…where did you learn this?/QUOTE]any reliable history of the Church will show this. It isn’t something new.

And your point?

try any accepted manual of doctrinal theology written before Vatican 2, for starters; and any history of doctrine.

I am not the one who needed to define terms, as I was responding to another poster. They were the one who asked “should religion change”. I suggested that undless they defined the term “religion” it was answerable either way.

If they define religion as doctrinal information, then no, it should not change. If they define religion as practice, then a simple reading of Church history will show that it has changed. The practice of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation/Confession has changed over the years as an example. My suggestion was that they were asking a question that could not be answered the way it was asked.

Dear otjm,

The haphazard nature of your response speaks volumes…so you don’t really have any sources…just some vague reference to a “history of doctrine” or “accepted manual of doctrinal theology”.

otjm:

Pascendi is not Ex Cathedra. Ex Cathedra is a declaration of doctrine; and there have only been two times in the Church’s history that a pope has spoken Ex Cathedra - the declaration fot he dctrine of the Assumption, and the declaration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Do you still stand by the statement? Can you defend it with some authority?

Gorman

 

[otjm]

Dear otjm,

You just contradicted yourself…which doesn’t surprise me.

And I am not surprised - you don’t seem to read very carefully.

Faith and morals. Then you say as long as it’s not a matter of Faith. Have you ever read a dogmatic theology manual? They will explain all of this in very clear terms…why don’t you learn something before you start “teaching” others. You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about once again.

Gorman

As a matter of fact, I have read a manual. Denziger. I am not sure what you are trying to get at, but I happen to be at my computer, not a library. Since you seem to think that Pascendi was declared Ex Cathedra, you provide the source - and please, not some single theologian. The fact that only two things have been declared Ex Cathedra is so widely accepted that I don’t need to cite a source.

If you want to take pot shots at me, at least use some ammunition, instead of your statements that I don’t know what I am talking about.

Actually, I suspect that you simply are not reading what I say; and I reference your response to my comments about the Pill. If so, please read a little more carefully. You seem to have the impression we are on different sides, but I am not sure exactly what it is that got into your craw. Is it just the fact that I think, along with John Paul 2 and Benedict 16, that vatican 2 was the legitimate and needed work of the Church?

 

[otjm]

Kung is a manifest heretic and is outside the Church by the fact of his heresy. Strange bedfellows…but that doesn’t bother you progressives now does it?

It doesn’t seem be reflected in how the Pope relates to him. Is that your problem?

Kung isn’t my hero.

 

[gorman64]

However, the Pill was not condemned at that time becasue it had not been invented.

Artificial birth control was condemned as contrary to natural law. The “pill” was allowed to used for medical reasons…not for ABC…this was addressed by Pius XII.

The Pill was invented not for the purposes of birht control but rather for the purpose of treating women who had irregular cycles; as work progressed on the research it was found that in regulating the cycle, it also could be used as a contraceptive. It was not known early on that the Pill was also an abortificant. That came a good bit later.

It does not matter. It was taught as contrary to the natural law that the conjugal act could be frustrated in any way.

Because the Pill was not understood to operate as a mechanical barrier or as a spermicide, many theologians thought it would be acceptible; they did not see it as anything different than a couple having intercourse during the woman’s unfertile time.

Who are these many theologians?

The Church did not have an official position on the issue because it was different.

That is false.

You and I can both go back to Denziger and Casti Conubii and agree now that it is convered by those documents. At the time, there was a great division of opinion.

It is covered. Read it…it’s very clear.

To say that it was “liberals” who felt it was ok is to slander many people who were not liberal; they were struggling with something that was not like anything they had dealt with before. If it was so clear, there would not have been two popes who put together and expanded a Commission to study it.

Have you ever read the commission?

do you want to see it? Or do you only like your own opinions?

It is entirely possible I read them long before you did. Since I have not expressed my opinion on the matter, don’t presume. I hand out Janet Smith’s recording “Contraception - Why Not” whenever I can.

Well, read them again…and btw, Janet Smith is not a theologian either.

Gorman

 

[otjm]

Dear otjm,

Papal infallibility is a dogma…it is de fide…the censure for denial of a dogma is heresy and that places one outside the Church…you say theology is a hobby of yours…have you ever read a theology manual that classifies these censures?

Gorman

I guess you are just unfamiliar with how the Church reacts to theologins. You seem to like the word heresy - it really does have a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? Kind of just rolls off your tongue.

Since the dicastery of the Congregation of the Faith has not delcared him a heretic, I am not going to call him a heretic. If you want to be more Catholic than the Pope, that is certainly your privilege. If you are teaching that Kung is a heretic, then I would suggest that as the Church has not labeled him as such, you are not teaching what the Church has said about the matter. If you want to hold as a private opinion that Kung is a heretic, you are entitled to your opinion; if you want to hold yourself out as teaching what the Church believes and professes and says, then I would suggest that you restrict yourself to teaching what the Church actually says in a matter, not what you think it should say.

And please don’t bother to twist that around; I did not say I like Kung, or respect him, or agree with any particular thing or things he has said. As a matter of fact, I have chosen to not read him because of his censure - there is plenty to read that is in line with Magisterial teaching.

 

[gorman64]

As a matter of fact, I have read a manual. Denziger.

Denzinger is not a theology manual. Maybe Denziger is…I’m not familiar with that one.

Gorman

 

[otjm]

It does not matter. It was taught as contrary to the natural law that the conjugal act could be frustrated in any way.

And that is why so many theologians felt that it was acceptibel; they did not see it as frustrating the conjugal act.

Look, I have no problem accepting that it does; i am just relating historically how we got to HV.

Who are these many theologians?

Read a history of the issue. I don’t have my sources at hand.

That is false.

Are you dense? that is why the commission was set up - because there was no official position. If there had been, someone would have drawn John 23’s attention to it, don’t you think? I mean, not even the minority position said that the question was already decided.

Duh!

It is covered. Read it…it’s very clear.

Now, 40 years later it is clear. It wasn’t then; if it had been so clear in the early 60’s Pope John would not have formed the commission.

Have you ever read the commission?

Both majority and minority position. I read them first time when they came out.

Well, read them again…and btw, Janet Smith is not a theologian either.

Gorman

And your point is? Have you even listened to what she says?

 

[gorman64]

I guess you are just unfamiliar with how the Church reacts to theologins. You seem to like the word heresy - it really does have a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? Kind of just rolls off your tongue.

And you are unfamiliar with divine law…manifest heretics are ipso facto excommunicated. Here is St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Universal Church, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.:

"There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

Since the dicastery of the Congregation of the Faith has not delcared him a heretic, I am not going to call him a heretic. If you want to be more Catholic than the Pope, that is certainly your privilege. If you are teaching that Kung is a heretic, then I would suggest that as the Church has not labeled him as such, you are not teaching what the Church has said about the matter. If you want to hold as a private opinion that Kung is a heretic, you are entitled to your opinion; if you want to hold yourself out as teaching what the Church believes and professes and says, then I would suggest that you restrict yourself to teaching what the Church actually says in a matter, not what you think it should say.

I’ll side with St. Robert Bellarmine…and the CE…and the Dogmatic theology manualists…what is your source?

And please don’t bother to twist that around; I did not say I like Kung, or respect him, or agree with any particular thing or things he has said. As a matter of fact, I have chosen to not read him because of his censure - there is plenty to read that is in line with Magisterial teaching.

I don’t care about Kung…your issue with stmaria is not mine…I was merely pointing out what I knew a guy like you would say about the reference to Hans Kung.

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

Dear otjm,

Here’s an excerpt from a pre-V2 dogmatic theology manual:

A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben’s “Dogmatik” Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D. With A Preface By Cardinal Manning

Vol. 1. The Sources Of Theological Knowledge, God, Creation And The Supernatural Order Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lt. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benziger Bros. 1906

SECT. 31 — Papal Judgments and their Infallibility.

IIII. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the document. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical documents must be applied. **The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:— **

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.

4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.

 

[Like]

So perhaps the question is, waere the changes in the Mass the reason that many left, or were they they excuse that many used to leave, when the reasons were elsewhere? This was a time of tremendous changes within society - the whole century was one of upheaval; two world wars, the massive changes within some countries of the political sphere (the rise of Communism); massive changes within the family due to physical movement (taking jobs elsewhere, causing the breakdown of the extended family, and subsequently of the nuclear family); the sexual revolution starting after the Lambeth Conference in the 30’s, and driven wildly by the introduction of the Pill in the late 50’s; the breakdown of civil authority in the US starting with the war all have forgotten - the Korean war, the first one in how long that we “lost”, followed by the protracted war in Viet Nam which we provceeded to lose on TV; the change from written and oral information to visual information via the TV; the list goes on and on as to why people in the 60’s and 70’s were so adrift.

And how much of leaving the Church had to do not with the Mass, but the breakdown in sexual morality and the refusal to admit to self that one had a hard time sitting in Church while sleeping with someone not a spouse? Easy to blame the change in the Mass, when the true reasons are elsewhere.

I’m Sorry OTJM, I don’t think I worded my position the way I meant to. I was confessing that I was wrong in blaming the changes in the Mass & that what I bolded of yours above is what I intended to imply. Dose that make any sense?lol

 

[BobP123]

Easy to blame the change in the Mass, when the true reasons are elsewhere.

According to the press, many non-Catholics, and most of the CA posters, the changes in the Mass were a good thing. So begs the question, what’s there to so EASILY blame?

 

[laudamus_te]

… but it is also the positon of the Church that our understanding, and the nuances of the doctrine cna change if for no other reason than the Church has had more time to reflect on the matter, both from Scripture and Tradition, and our understanding can grow and be better defined.

This sounds downright heretical to me. At the least, it is just more modernist gobbledy-gook.

Whatever is going on in society gets mirrored in the Church if for no other reason than that the members of the Church live in that society, and come to Mass with whatever baggage most everyone else has. You may think that fi the Coucnil had not occured, the Church would look like what it looked like in the 50’s or the 40’s; but absolutely nothing else in the world does, and there is no reason to presume that the Church would not have been just as affected by these changes without the Council.

This is more gobbledy-gook. There is every reason to presume that the Church could have, and should have resisted the societal changes. Proof? It’s happening today. Every Traditional Latin Mass chapel I have visited looks just like the Church before the Council. They are little oases. The faithful live their lives as the Church teaches them to live them. The time of VII was a time when the Church, more than ever, needed to remain staunch in it’s battle against the evils of modernism, and not to cave in to the pressure as it did.

there were many good and holy priests, bishops and theologians who felt with the information they had that the Pill was acceptible because it appeared so different from the other means of contraception. and that was the same in 1963. To say that the people in the Church who felt that the Pill was acceptible were “liberals” is simply to tag people whom you disagree with. Acceptance was coming from across the board.

Who were these “many good and holy priests, bishops and theologians?” I’d like to see some names. You’re very good at making these kind of vague, unverified statements to back yourself up. Contraception has never been acceptable, in any form, by the Church.

Further, so what if the Council wasn’t infallible? The Council does not have to be infallible to deal with non-infallible issues in the Church, of which there are many. You keep coming back to this as if it were some mantra. The Church is infallible in issues of doctrine and morals; all else is by choice; come of the choices are wise and some not, but they are not matters of faith.

You said it. And because the “choices” of VII are not matters of faith, they do not have to be accepted. People like you keep chanting your mantra of “disobedience” regarding followers of the SSPX, who are holding fast to the Traditions (big T) of the Church. Yes, maybe it is a kind of “mantra” for me. One of the ploys of the Communists is that if you repeat something often enough, people will eventually believe it. I figure if you repeat the truth often enough, people will eventually believe it.

 

[gorman64]

laudamus te:

This sounds downright heretical to me. At the least, it is just more modernist gobbledy-gook.

This is more gobbledy-gook. There is every reason to presume that the Church could have, and should have resisted the societal changes. Proof? It’s happening today. Every Traditional Latin Mass chapel I have visited looks just like the Church before the Council. They are little oases. The faithful live their lives as the Church teaches them to live them. The time of VII was a time when the Church, more than ever, needed to remain staunch in it’s battle against the evils of modernism, and not to cave in to the pressure as it did.

Who were these “many good and holy priests, bishops and theologians?” I’d like to see some names. You’re very good at making these kind of vague, unverified statements to back yourself up. Contraception has never been acceptable, in any form, by the Church.

You said it. And because the “choices” of VII are not matters of faith, they do not have to be accepted. People like you keep chanting your mantra of “disobedience” regarding followers of the SSPX, who are holding fast to the Traditions (big T) of the Church. Yes, maybe it is a kind of “mantra” for me. One of the ploys of the Communists is that if you repeat something often enough, people will eventually believe it. I figure if you repeat the truth often enough, people will eventually believe it.

Dear laudamus te,

I agree with you up to this last point. otjm is wrong here and you at least appear to agree with him… Yes, we must hold fast to the traditions we have learned…I agree and that’s what I do. We also hold to the certain teachings of the moral unanimity of the Church’s theologians. That is what Pope Pius IX taught us to hold in addition to the defined dogmas of the Church. The Church is infallible in the doctrinal portion of Her disciplines and liturgies. The Church cannot issue a discipline or liturgy that contains doctrinal error. This is what all the pre-Vatican II dogmatic theology manuals teach as a theological certainty. You may not freely reject this theologically certain doctrine…it is at minimun a mortal sin.

Did you notice the contradiction in otjm’s quote…he says faith and morals…then faith. The Church is infallible in faith and morals…which includes the disciplines and worship of the Church.

We must hold fast to all the teachings of the Church…including Her teaching on the infallibility of the disciplines of the Church.

Taken from Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, Monsignor G. Van Noort S.T.D.:

Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.

By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Gorman

 

[stmaria]

Otjm you said-.

The “liberals” had nothing to do with that; **there were many good and holy priests, bishops and theologians **who felt with the information they had that the Pill was acceptible because it appeared so different from the other means of contraception. and that was the same in 1963. To say that the people in the Church who felt that the Pill was acceptible were “liberals” is simply to tag people whom you disagree with. Acceptance was coming from across the board.

One of those “good and holy” theologians was the heretic Hans Kung:beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14204_1.html

From his interview:
So you’re saying that in the space of just a few days, the question on birth control could have been decided in a way you approved of?

Well, that was always a process. If you had a discussion that would have been frank and unhindered, then this would have been discussed in the commission, and the commission would have made a proposal. And I am sure it would have been possible to resolve it. It’s a rather easy question, because the principles are already stated in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.

But the Curia was able to add, especially in the notes, the reactionary documents of Pius XI and Pius XII. So they based Humanae Vitae [the 1968 birth control document] on these reactionary documents.

Otjm you said:).

Having followed the ecumenical work that has been done over the last 40 years, in particular with the Anglican/Epsicopalian, Lutheran, and Orthodox dialogues, I most certainly see hope for ecumenism. I see further hope for ecumenism in the work that is done between the Catholic Church and the evangelical and funadamentalist churchs which have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Church in opposing abortion; and the ecumenical work that has been done with Islam in opposing the work of the United Nations to force abortion and contraception on third world countries. I follow the official ecumenical work of the Church, which doesn’t get much press, but is where the true ecumenical work will be done.

What you seem to support is the** false ecumenism **that today’s Church endorses. Has any Church authority told any non-catholic or non-christian to convert? True ecumenism is not, repeat is not, working with Islam to oppose the United Nations or working with evangelicals opposing abortion.

Otjm you said-

No, I don’t find that odd, and neither would anyone who really understood how the Church has treated theologians over the years. Most people don’t seem to understand that the Church simply doesn’t excommunicate anyone and everyone who disagrees wtih it, and to those who insist that it does, they are not following the mind of the Church.** Prior to Vatican 2, a number of theologians were silenced.** The current pope, and the previous one, knew the people who were, and knew that some of those silenced were faithful to the Church and the Magisterium, and were silenced not because their work was wrong, but because it displeased **someone in the Holy Office **(now known as the Congregation for the Faith).

These very theologians that were silenced by Pius XII were the very theologians that were brought back by Pope John XXXIII as periti to the Vatican II council to help write the VII documents. **They were silenced by Pius XII **not just “someone in the Holy Office”

 

[Holly3278]

I voted for the first answer.

 

[stmaria]

Otjm is this an “ex cathedra”declaration

we do by **our apostolic authority **repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, **adding the penalty of excommunication **against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter “Docentes” of the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents

 

[laudamus_te]

Dear laudamus te,

I agree with you up to this last point. otjm is wrong here and you at least appear to agree with him… Yes, we must hold fast to the traditions we have learned…I agree and that’s what I do. We also hold to the certain teachings of the moral unanimity of the Church’s theologians. That is what Pope Pius IX taught us to hold in addition to the defined dogmas of the Church. The Church is infallible in the doctrinal portion of Her disciplines and liturgies. The Church cannot issue a discipline or liturgy that contains doctrinal error. This is what all the pre-Vatican II dogmatic theology manuals teach as a theological certainty. You may not freely reject this theologically certain doctrine…it is at minimun a mortal sin.

Did you notice the contradiction in otjm’s quote…he says faith and morals…then faith. The Church is infallible in faith and morals…which includes the disciplines and worship of the Church.

We must hold fast to all the teachings of the Church…including Her teaching on the infallibility of the disciplines of the Church.

Gorman

I am sorry that I didn’t express myself clearly; I certainly wasn’t in agreement with otjm. I agree with what you have said above.

 

[gorman64]

That is false.

Are you dense? that is why the commission was set up - because there was no official position.

No official position on what…artifical birth control?

If there had been, someone would have drawn John 23’s attention to it, don’t you think?

I think they did…Pope Pius XI did and Pope Pius XII did as well.

I mean, not even the minority position said that the question was already decided.

Can you back this up? Or is this another thing that’s so obvious that everyone knows it?

Duh!

What are you, in Grammar school or something?

Gorman

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please refrain from making personal comments, folks. Thank you.