Pope Francis emphasizes that Second Vatican Council is the work of the Holy Spirit [CWN]

[opus101]

Sometimes even a document is not infallible, but a statement in the document is, as is the case with Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae.

This is great info. I’ve been in discussion before with those who insist that Humanae Vitae is not infallible. I guess the truth is that a statement in the document is, even if the entire document is not.

Can you help me here, briefly, as long as it doesn’t go too far away from the thread’s intent? I’m interested in the statements in Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae that are infallible. This would be very helpful to me and many others.
Thank you!

 

[godisgood77]

Eufrosnia…you live in Europe…??? I hear WWII damaged so many peoples’ faith.

Irregardless…the life of the Church requires each one of us to have faith with certitude. We are going through the Church, run by men, but animated and sustained by Jesus Christ, to enter union into Him and with Him, Alpha and Omega.

There is a book out, ‘Faith and Certitude’, by Fr. Thomas Dubay, SM. Faith always has certitude…this certitude reflected most perfectly in the Virgin, who responded with ‘Yes’, her fiat, to the Lord, to allow the Lord to begin His life within her.

Faith and certitude…not human reasoning…St.Thomas Aquinas said, to compare human intellect to the understanding of God is akin to the eye of an owl next to the sun.

Note the eye of the owl only works in darkness. We can never fully understand God…or His living Church as its essence is both faith/certitude and mystery.

It takes alot of courage to see beyond men, to step out into the water…so to speak…the water of baptism?..to then touch and hold on to the Lord, the Giver of Life.

Have certitude and courage.

It takes far more grace and courage to live in uncertainty than it does to live in certitude. It is close minded and ignorant to claim that there is a single objective truth in every nook and cranny of life. We are all obliged to use the gift of being created in the image and likeness of God, including our intellect, to its fullest.

The theological thought process of Scholasticism or the Thomastic school of thought that you reference was more fully developed in the 20th century. Pope Benedict XVI, then J. Ratzinger said it well:
***"In a certain sense, the theology of the first half of the [20th] century was more balanced, but also more closed within itself. Much of that theology lived inside the box of Neo-Scholasticism. It had greater certainty and logical lucidity than today’s theology, but it was far removed from the real world. The adventure that began in the Council took theology out of that box and exposed it to the fresh air of today’s life.

"Consequently this exposed it to the risk of new unbalances, since it was subject to divergent tendencies without the protection of a system. This caused theology to look for new balances in the context of an open and lively dialogue with today’s reality.

“This step seems to me not only justified, but also necessary, because theology should serve faith and evangelization, and, for this reason, must face reality as it is today … Therefore, it was a just and necessary step, although also a risky one … But risk is part of a necessary adventure.”

(30 Dias, April 1994, p. 62)***

 

[godisgood77]

As a Franciscan, I do not have the freedom that you do to ask questions about what the Church teaches, how she does things or how she thinks. I am bound by holy obedience to believe and to say only what the Church has taught me and only what my rule and constitutions allow me to say. You want to discuss that which is beyond those parameters. I cannot go there. .

Isn’t this kind of like “burying the talent” as in Matthew 25:14-30

 

[McCall1981]

As I said, in my defense there was no document presented as authoritative. So for me to accept it on hearsay would also make me a Protestant.

Why are you all ganging up on me?

Eufrosnia, you have a lot of hood points. Posts like these:

:tiphat: :clapping: It needed to be said, Brother.

Slam dunk Brother Jay.

are unecessary and inappropriate.

 

[SMHW]

Isn’t this kind of like “burying the talent” as in Matthew 25:14-30

Not really. The servants in the parable were entrusted with the talents. That means they had the authority to use and invest them.

Brother JR wants to stay within the bounds of the authority granted to him. I don’t think we should ask him to be disobedient.

 

[godisgood77]

Not really. The servants in the parable were entrusted with the talents. That means they had the authority to use and invest them.

Brother JR wants to stay within the bounds of the authority granted to him. I don’t think we should ask him to be disobedient.

You’re right… I was out of line. My apologies Brother JR.

 

[McCall1981]

@ Sirach2 and JustaServant,

Im sorry, I didnt mean to be harsh on you guys, im just trying to stick up for Eufrosnia a little

 

[JReducation]

This is great info. I’ve been in discussion before with those who insist that Humanae Vitae is not infallible. I guess the truth is that a statement in the document is, even if the entire document is not.

Can you help me here, briefly, as long as it doesn’t go too far away from the thread’s intent? I’m interested in the statements in Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae that are infallible. This would be very helpful to me and many others.
Thank you!

• the sanctity of human life
• the proper ends of marriage
• abortion can never be justified under any circumstances
• interference with the natural ends of the conjugal act is contrary to the will of God
• democracy is a means not and end
• human life is sacred from conception to natural death

Isn’t this kind of like “burying the talent” as in Matthew 25:14-30

Not if it’s under mandate from the Church. The Church alone has the authority to interpret scripture and to apply it to whom she believes, as she believes.

 

[edwest2]

Thus far I’ve not seen or heard the Holy Father say that any rite of the Church, EF, OF, or any of the Eastern or Oriental Rites need to be abolished. He has upheld the Traditional Moral and Dogmatic teachings of the Church. His liturgical praxis may be a bit more simple than I prefer, but what I’ve seen of it as minimalist as it would appear, is still quite Catholic.

I think that given the shell shock that many of us are still exposed to, from Clown Liturgies and Pro-Abortion “Nuns” etc, we can confuse the Pope’s call to renewal as being in accord with the “Spirit of Vatican II” crowd. However the Church has traditionally called for us to reform our lives, and grow spiritually. The Corporal works of mercy which Pope Francis is calling us to recall, although in “updated” terminology is fully consistant with the Traditional Catholic ethos.

I think when we (I speak of EF minded folk like myself) unite with the Holy Father, praying for him, and making ourselves both known and having our (name removed by moderator)ut and active participation in our Local parishes, be they OF or EF we will find a stronger voice to restore some of the practices we long for, and will encourage more younger parishoners to find out about more practices, which have falled to the wayside, which will encourage vocations, and a return to the former Glory we crave.

While I would never encourage the idea that the EF is superior to the OF, or the reverse, I lived through the time period in question and things did not fall by the wayside themselves. They were pushed. Honestly.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’m glad this link includes the this part:

"But after 50 years, have we done everything that the Holy Spirit said to us in the Council? In the continuity of the growth of the Church which was the Council? No."

The original link I saw from CNS was not the full text, it was broken up by commentary, and it didn’t include the bolded phrase. I think this one phrase is very important here, since it references not just Traditionalists who want to go “back”, but also the “spirit of Vatican II” crowd that has not properly implemented what the Council actually called for.

There is no such thing as the “spirit of Vatican II.” I was there, the late 1960s and 1970s were the golden age of the dissidents inside the Church. Popes John Paul II, Benedict and now, Francis, helped and continue to help right the ship. The dissidents threw impediments out there and helped cause confusion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Why is this whole Vatican II thing so perennially difficult in one way or another?

In some cases, here, dissenters use Vatican II as a scapegoat to explain changes in the culture starting in the late 1960s and 1970s. It’s the same Blame it on Bush/Vatican II mentality which is 100% false. But some want to cover up why things actually changed inside and outside the Church. As Pope Benedict was stepping down, he addressed the media smokescreen as being a primary cause for the confusion to this today. Now, why would he say those things since he was there for Vatican II? Why was it so important?

So here, the truth is still obscured, and there is confusion that is either purposeful or caused by things others have heard but have not looked into themselves. And without the whole story, this will continue. Thank God, Pope Benedict helped clear the air shortly before stepping down.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I think some of it has to do with the timing of the Council, being that it happened right before “the 60’s”. All the other “social change” going on at that time lead to the liberal side abusing the Council towards their own agenda, which then lead to the Traditionalist side rejecting it outright (I know its an oversimplification). I bet if the council had happened in the fifties or forties the results would have been somewhat different.

Nope. This was all carefully planned. The media culture did not change because the average person wanted it to, it changed because those who loved immorality wanted us to love it too. But it couldn’t happen too quickly. That’s why it took 40 years to cause the damage it’s caused. The bottom line: thanks to three Popes, it’s turning around. It is turning around because the truth is coming out.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JamesCaruso]

• the sanctity of human life
• the proper ends of marriage
• abortion can never be justified under any circumstances
• interference with the natural ends of the conjugal act is contrary to the will of God
• democracy is a means not and end
• human life is sacred from conception to natural death

Not if it’s under mandate from the Church. The Church alone has the authority to interpret scripture and to apply it to whom she believes, as she believes.

The stamp of infallibility is not necessary for an element of faith or morals to be worthy of belief.

The Holy Fathers and the Church are constantly speaking infallible truths even though they do not necessarily declare them as such. As a Catholic I am not looking to believe and obey only what I receive “ex cathedra” or formally declared as binding by a council of the Church, when I know that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church and as a general proposition, I can believe all of its teachings. I should probably refrain from calling all such teachings infallible, unless specifically designated so by the Church, but I still find them worthy of belief. Does this make sense?

 

[edwest2]

I’ve wondered that.

And I think this is explains a lot.

It has been my observation that, while there have always been complaints about the changes/abuses after Vatican II, those complaints did not have much of a public forum until the 1990s when internet access became common in peoples’ homes.

That’s not accurate.

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii/

I was there before and after Vatican II. There were Catholic newspapers and magazines and some think no one talked about it? We talked about it in religion class. We talked about it at home. And as far as changes, Vatican II did not even suggest them:

The internet is helping to spread lies and half-truths about Vatican II.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I think, and this is just my opinion, that there were within the Church as well as outside individuals and groups, all of whom had specific agendas to pursue, that used the documents of the Council in order to further their own agendas. Add to that the fact that shortly after Vatican II ended the encyclical Humanae Vitae was issued to what can best be described as thunderous disapproval by these same special interest groups and individuals. The faithful were told by religious of all ranks that they were free to disobey this encyclical as what it referred to was simply a matter of conscience. More than a few still believe that and it is still being spread.

The majority of the laity of the time period, raised to obey Church Officials, followed the lead of these special imterest groups and individuals, mostly professed religious, and pursued their own agendas as well, often having little or no understanding or even knowledge of what was actually in the documents.

Add to that the fact that experimentation was allowed, even encouraged in the Liturgy, and you can easily see the groundwork that led to what followed.

It became very easy to either blame Vatican II or praise it, depending on your own beliefs. Lets take for instance the use of Latin. Nowhere in the documents does it state that Latin was to be replaced by the vernacular. Nowhere. Yet because it did say that use of the vernacular may be of some use in** some **occasions,Latin was almost completely wiped out of liturgical functions.

Why? Answer, special interests. The anti Latin crowd. Nothing more and nothing less.

The same can be said pretty much of every abuse and perceived abuse that came about. Whichever group was promoting whatever new practice, would call upon the documents of Vatican II to back them up. And in a great many circumstances it worked.

And so, it became very easy for those not enamored with wholescale change to blame Vatican II itself for all of these things.

A very sad situation, which hopefully will improve as people become more knowedgeable about the Council itself and the documents that came out of it.

That is accurate. Humanae Vitae was the bomb that caused the dissenters to buy a full page ad in the New York Times which ran 24 hours after its release. Understand that people. That was 1968, and Pope Paul VI knew what was coming if his words weren’t heeded, and guess what? Here we are.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.” Source: Regnum Christi

Did everybody catch the “an event unprecedented in the history of the Church” part?

THAT, not Vatican II, was the problem. They had to sell birth control pills and could not allow people listening to the Pope!

Peace,
Ed

 

[JamesCaruso]

In some cases, here, dissenters use Vatican II as a scapegoat to explain changes in the culture starting in the late 1960s and 1970s. It’s the same Blame it on Bush/Vatican II mentality which is 100% false. But some want to cover up why things actually changed inside and outside the Church. As Pope Benedict was stepping down, he addressed the media smokescreen as being a primary cause for the confusion to this today. Now, why would he say those things since he was there for Vatican II? Why was it so important?

So here, the truth is still obscured, and there is confusion that is either purposeful or caused by things others have heard but have not looked into themselves. And without the whole story, this will continue. Thank God, Pope Benedict helped clear the air shortly before stepping down.

Peace,
Ed

It’s hard to follow exactly what changes in the 60’s and 70’s you are talking about. How did Pope Benedict clear the air? Are these things impossible to state with specifics without drawing too much fire, or is everyone but me on the same page? You can PM if that would make it easier to explain. I find the topic very interesting, but have only recently encountered self-described radical traditionalists, so I have an admittedly lopsided view of the aftermath of Vatican II.

PS-- Do you mean clear the air by the article you linked?

 

[ProVobis]

THAT, not Vatican II, was the problem.

What about the “conscience” clause expressed in Progressio Populorum, which was used unfortunately to apply to every moral issue?

 

[edwest2]

The Church is obsessed with Vatican II. Why? As far as I’m concerned, Vatican II brought nothing productive. The Church has been in crisis since Vatican II. Why can’t the hierarchy just admit that the implementation of Vatican II was a disaster?

The Church needs to be honest and admit that the springtime promised by Vatican II never happened. In fact, Vatican II brought a deep, dark winter.

This crisis in the Church will end only when we return to tradition.

Vatican II did not cause any “crisis.” Others did.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html

ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii/

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

And we are gradually turning back to Orthodox Tradition.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It all depends on what you expected Vatican 2 to accomplish.

My impression is that JP2 felt that everything was going just swimmingly.

Not so. Pope John Paul II took actions that caused anger in all the “right” circles. He was called to task for doing the right things in the process of clearing up certain problems in the Church. So, no, Pope John Paul II quietly acted. But the a dissident or two happened to notice.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

But that, by definition, IS forward, not backward.

The ‘backward’ movement of the Church are the Call to Actions, the Voice of the Faithful’s, all those who teach against the Church.

"Forward, by definition, is progress towards a goal. In the Church, that goal can only be God and the vision of the Church found in the Spirit.

So any movement away from that is, by definition, backward. THEY are the ones who seek to ‘roll back the clock’, roll it back to the 70’s.

Those who seek to enact that vision of Vatican II that is actually reflected in the documents, one that is in accord with the traditions of the Church, what that does not seek a break of continuity (in goal or in effect). Those are the true ‘progressives’, as that is the true progress that can be made. Everything else is regression…

Sadly, there are too many who have been taught to be, or want to promote, knee-jerk reactions. The term Progressive only applies to current liberal thinking outside the Church. Yes, Vatican II did it all right. Only others put in a lot of energy to ram through changes over the years it never even suggested.

So yes, three Popes have/are making progress that will benefit the Church in the West. The grand dissent of the late 1960s and 1970s is dying. The Truth is being highlighted.

Peace,
Ed