L
latinmasslover
Guest
I’m just curious, what are the infallible teachings of Vatican II that must be obeyed? In order to avoid a lot of ugliness, let’s all keep Christian charity in mind before we click “submit.”
- Status
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Hmmm…your question would seem to indicate a mistaken notion of what we must obey. The First Vatican Council teaches: “Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.” (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 3, #8, April 24, 1870)
Therefore the answer is “everything.” Even though the Second Vatican Council did not teach anything infallibly, it still taught with magisterial authority.
Deacon Ed
Therefore the answer is “everything.” Even though the Second Vatican Council did not teach anything infallibly, it still taught with magisterial authority.
Deacon Ed
S
scylla
Guest
Vatican II did not pronounce doctrine or teach anything infallibly, but it did give us suggestions and taught us ways to express the faith.
So since the faith does not change we need to look at Vatican II as Catholics, so to understand that we look at Trent, Vatican I and everything together. Vatican II must be understood not from a vacuum or a modern secular viewpoint but from a Catholic viewpoint.
When someone says something like pre-Vatican II or post Vatican II they are looking at Vatican II wrong as if the faith changes. We should look at how we can use Vatican II to promote the faith and bring others to Christ.
In Christ
Scylla
So since the faith does not change we need to look at Vatican II as Catholics, so to understand that we look at Trent, Vatican I and everything together. Vatican II must be understood not from a vacuum or a modern secular viewpoint but from a Catholic viewpoint.
When someone says something like pre-Vatican II or post Vatican II they are looking at Vatican II wrong as if the faith changes. We should look at how we can use Vatican II to promote the faith and bring others to Christ.
In Christ
Scylla
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I have a further suggestion. If a poster has not actually read the V2 document, do not comment. there is not a choice of what to believe. V2 documents did not invent new doctrine, they restate existing doctrine, and are required of belief by all Catholics.I’m just curious, what are the infallible teachings of Vatican II that must be obeyed? In order to avoid a lot of ugliness, let’s all keep Christian charity in mind before we click “submit.”
L
latinmasslover
Guest
A “charitable” bash? (If I misread your tone, I apologize…I’m a bit hyped right now over a few other things so I’m stating now that this response is not to be read as argumentative…I apologize -again- if it sounds that way.) I have read the documents, but many have read, apparently, only the commentary that goes with it. People (some also on this site) have said “Vatican II is what we go by, Vatican II updated the Church and therefore we obey Vatican II…by the way, it doesn’t contradict the past in any way…” My question would’ve been more appropriate on the actual threads that this was being said, as they arise, but I haven’t been on and don’t want to search only to hear the same lame retorts. My only question is: what are the infallible teachings of Vatican II that must be obeyed? There seems to be a lot of “shoulds” in the documents -some of which *appear *to be in contradiction of constant Church practice- but not many absolutes (except for what previous Councils have already clarified).
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Again, Vatican II taught nothing infallibly (except, of course, that which was already infallibly taught). However, Catholics are not expected to obey only infallible teachings! We are bound by all that the Church teaches or proposes to teach. This includes non-infallible teachings.
Deacon Ed
V
VivatJesus
Guest
Answer: there are no infallible teachings of Vatican II. And, since Vatican II teaches outright errors contrary to the perpetual Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church up to Vatican II, there are several ideas proposed by Vatican II which we as Catholics must disobey.I’m just curious, what are the infallible teachings of Vatican II that must be obeyed? In order to avoid a lot of ugliness, let’s all keep Christian charity in mind before we click “submit.”
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Hmmm…since all teachings are interpreted in light of previous teachings it follows that there are no teachings from Vatican II that contradict prior teachings (but some disciplines are changed). Since the second highest form of teaching in the Church is the Ecumenical Council it seems strange to suggest that an individual (or group of individuals) can judge the Church and find her in error.Answer: there are no infallible teachings of Vatican II. And, since Vatican II teaches outright errors contrary to the perpetual Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church up to Vatican II, there are several ideas proposed by Vatican II which we as Catholics must disobey.
Deacon Ed
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Deacon Ed is right. As Catholics, we are required to believe all that the Church teaches, not just the infallible dogmas. Therefore, it is wrong for a Catholic to say he does not accept Vatican II on the basis that it was merely a a pastoral council.
The problem with Vatican II is not that it was pastoral. This is the problem. 1.) It is worded in such a way that no one - not even the Bishops who voted on the documents - know what in the world it is saying. This is something that no one denies. In fact, what we are always told is that Vatican II is being misinterpreted.
The second problem is that things are taking place exactly contrary to what Vatican II called for. Fore example, Vatican II said that the Latin language was to be preserved in the sacraments for the Latin Rite, and that Gregorian chant was to be retained. In direct contradiction to this, Pope Paul XI, less than 5 years later, said the Church was abandoning both Latin and Gregorian Chant.
Pope Paul VI: "It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant". 64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:GpcoMImUJuUJ:www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM+Paul+VI+November+19,+1969&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
The other problem is that, in some places, Vatican II is almost impossible to reconcile with what the Church previously taught. In other words, Vatican II appears to teach what had been explicitly condemned prior to the council. Here’s an example…
Yet, in spit of that clear (and probably infallible) condemnation, Vatican II taught the following…
The first quote says it is an “insanity” to claim the religious liberty and liberty of conscience is each man’s personal right, while Vatican II teaches the exact contrary.
The problem with Vatican II is not that it was merely a pastoral council, but that 1.) no one can interpret it, and 2.) It teaches what the Church does not.
Since it was not infallible, **it is within the realm of possibility **that it does teach error. That is common sense. But regardless of whether or not it teaches error, or only appears to do so, Catholics should realize that, at best, Vatican II is worded so poorly that it should be avoided at all costs. If the Bishops who drafted and voted on the documents don’t know what they mean, how can laymen?
Instead, the ambiguous council of Vatican II - which appears to teach contrary to what the Church has always taught, and which no one can interpret - is treated by those who can’t interpret it as a “superdogma” that takes away the importance of all that preceded it.
Cardinal Ratzinger: “The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”
In case you are wondering, this was no accident. It was a well orchestrated plan. An old Liberal Priest once said to me “We liberals had a great victory at Vatican II”, and he was 100% correct.
G
Genesis315
Guest
(I posted this in a similar thread):
It is a General Council whose constitutions, decrees, and declaratiosn were promulgated by the Pope. As such, they are an exercise of the supreme authority within the Church. Most ecumenical Councils have a mix of “pastoral” decrees and “dogmatic” decrees–but there are some exceptions. Vatican I, for example, only contains dogmatic judgments (because it got cut short, they never got to other things). On the other hand, no dogmatic judgments were promulgated by the Lyons I–so it may be called pastoral.
In that sense, Vatican II seeks primarily not to definitvely settle any particular doctrinal matters, but to explain and apply Church doctrine to particualr circumstances. In that, some of its decrees are of a similar nature to papal encyclicals without any definitive doctrinal judgments.
However, this means it probably has a greater impact on us as Catholics. Catholics of every state of life are given commands by the Council and we should obey. For example, as laity we must pay special attention to the commands given to all Catholics and those given to the laity specifically.
For every legitimate problem or error we may see Catholics embracing, there is almost always a command from the Council to do the opposite (the right thing). If all Catholics did what those in their state of life were to do, Catholic truth would be ever present in society and we would be converting the world–unfortunately, many Catholics of all states have become apathetic, spiritually lazy, or turned in on themselves. We may be more “active” within the church walls on Sunday, but we are not being active leaven in the world as the Council commands.
In regards to the issue of religious liberty, PeC, you are givign a meaning to the decree from Vatican II one expressly ruled out by the relatio, Paul VI, and Benedict XVI.
See these two posts of mine from another forum (it is one “essay” that took two posts):
christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=40437782&postcount=10
christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=40437811&postcount=11
It is a General Council whose constitutions, decrees, and declaratiosn were promulgated by the Pope. As such, they are an exercise of the supreme authority within the Church. Most ecumenical Councils have a mix of “pastoral” decrees and “dogmatic” decrees–but there are some exceptions. Vatican I, for example, only contains dogmatic judgments (because it got cut short, they never got to other things). On the other hand, no dogmatic judgments were promulgated by the Lyons I–so it may be called pastoral.
In that sense, Vatican II seeks primarily not to definitvely settle any particular doctrinal matters, but to explain and apply Church doctrine to particualr circumstances. In that, some of its decrees are of a similar nature to papal encyclicals without any definitive doctrinal judgments.
However, this means it probably has a greater impact on us as Catholics. Catholics of every state of life are given commands by the Council and we should obey. For example, as laity we must pay special attention to the commands given to all Catholics and those given to the laity specifically.
For every legitimate problem or error we may see Catholics embracing, there is almost always a command from the Council to do the opposite (the right thing). If all Catholics did what those in their state of life were to do, Catholic truth would be ever present in society and we would be converting the world–unfortunately, many Catholics of all states have become apathetic, spiritually lazy, or turned in on themselves. We may be more “active” within the church walls on Sunday, but we are not being active leaven in the world as the Council commands.
In regards to the issue of religious liberty, PeC, you are givign a meaning to the decree from Vatican II one expressly ruled out by the relatio, Paul VI, and Benedict XVI.
See these two posts of mine from another forum (it is one “essay” that took two posts):
christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=40437782&postcount=10
christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=40437811&postcount=11
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Please specifically document the “errors” you are referring to?Answer: there are no infallible teachings of Vatican II. And, since Vatican II teaches outright errors contrary to the perpetual Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church up to Vatican II, there are several ideas proposed by Vatican II which we as Catholics must disobey.
G
Genesis315
Guest
It bears pointing out that apparent contradictions do not mean actual contradictions. One can take divinely inspiried Bible verses and place them next to each other to show apparent contradictions. The proper meaning must given to each. Protestants, for example, do this to show the invalidity of certain books of the OT or to compare Scripture to Catholic teaching to “prove” it wrong. Of course, they always give one or both things the wrong meaning.
S
scylla
Guest
It looks like Pax pointed one out. I never really knew about the error of religious liberty.
I will have to read it and see if I can somehow interpret that Vatican II statement to fit with the Catholic faith. Which is kinda sad for me to do as the wording of Vatican II should have been more clear and expressive of the Catholic faith, or we wouldn’t be having these type threads.
But, since it was a pastoral council and not infallible it can contain bad wording and poor statements so we must see how we can reconcile it with the faith.
God Bless
Scylla
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Religious liberty has been beaten to death in the last several days. Clearly, it is another one of those issues that the dissidents like to manipulate and run with.
S
scylla
Guest
Can you explain how it is manipulated as it seems pretty clear to me to be a problem that should be addressed.
I am far from a dissident as I am 100% in submission to the Pope, I serve at my parish and obey my superiors in the faith. Yet I am torn as it seems my diocese is rife with disobedience to the Holy Father. So I encourage discussion as the truth will always be able to prove itself against lies and distortions.
I have not seen this issue addressed and if it was then people wouldn’t bring it up, would they?..
God Bless
Scylla
J
japhy
Guest
This is Fr. William Most’s take on Quanta Cura (re: the “insanity” deplored by Pope Gregory and Pope Pius) vs. Dignitatis Humanae:
Quanta Cura: “As a result of the altogether false idea of the regime of society, they do not fear to promote that erroneous opinion. . . . called insanity by our Predecessor Gregory XVI, namely, ‘that liberty of conscience and of worship is a proper right of each man, which ought to be proclaimed by law and asserted in every rightly constituted society, and [it should be proclaimed] that the citizens have liberty of all sorts, which should be restrained by no authority, whether ecclesiastical or civil, in virtue of which they are able to privately and publicly manifest and declare all ideas whatsoever, orally or in print.’”
COMMENTS: As usual with condemned propositions, this one is made extremely strong, so [this proposition] can most obviously be seen as wrong:
Quanta Cura: “As a result of the altogether false idea of the regime of society, they do not fear to promote that erroneous opinion. . . . called insanity by our Predecessor Gregory XVI, namely, ‘that liberty of conscience and of worship is a proper right of each man, which ought to be proclaimed by law and asserted in every rightly constituted society, and [it should be proclaimed] that the citizens have liberty of all sorts, which should be restrained by no authority, whether ecclesiastical or civil, in virtue of which they are able to privately and publicly manifest and declare all ideas whatsoever, orally or in print.’”
COMMENTS: As usual with condemned propositions, this one is made extremely strong, so [this proposition] can most obviously be seen as wrong:
- *]One does not have a right to be wrong, as we said above. Vatican II merely asserted a right to freedom from coercion.
*]Note that the right includes “liberty of all sorts” - a sweeping thing, which would include even things contrary to public order and would go beyond the “due limits” of Vatican II Dignitatis Humanae §2. It would even let headhunters do as their god orders, i.e., cut off heads.
*]It allows propagation of all ideas whatsoever, no matter how foul, and not even ecclesiastical authority would have a right to stop them.
Fr. Most is not saying Quanta Cura is wrong, but is affirming that the proposition it contains (the one considered “an insanity”) is wrong, and is not refuted by Dignitatas Humanae.
C
Cranch
Guest
You say in your linked post above that “false liberty of conscience and indifferentism are ruled out” by Dignitatis Humanae. I’d wager there isn’t one Catholic in ten who reads Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom and thinks it applies only to the Catholic idea of a “properly formed” conscience in light of statements like the following from the same document:In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. (DH 3.4)
Consider CCC 2108:The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38
That’s pretty clear. Footnote 38 cites Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2. But the very important first part (footnote 37) references Leo XIII’s Libertas praestantissimum. I don’t believe this document was cited in Dignitatis Humanae. Perhaps for clarity’s sake it should have been.
V
VivatJesus
Guest
Well, for example, the part where Vatican II says the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church–meaning, the Church of Christ is found most completely in the Catholic Church, but also exists outside the Catholic Church. This is an error–the true Catholic teaching is that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same thing and the Church of Christ does not exist outside or apart from the Roman Catholic Church. Another example is where Vatican II says that other religions [that is, false religions] can be means of salvation–the true Catholic teaching is that outside the Church there is NO salvation, that false religions lead to damnation, and there is no other name under heaven other than Jesus Christ whereby we can be saved. It’s teachings of religious liberty and the organization of the Church (collegiality) are also erroneous and contradict prior Magisterial teaching.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
J
japhy
Guest
Except that’s not what it means. I can provide you a number of papers written that describe what the intent of subsist in was. YES, it can be seen as ambiguous (which is a shame), but in the context of the rest of Catholic teaching, it’s not ambiguous. The Catholic Church, by its very nature, is the Church of Christ. However, elements which are rightfully hers are found in other Christian communities, and because those elements are Catholic, they impel toward Catholic unity.
- Status