Teachings of VII

[UKcatholicGuy]

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.

That’s exactly the problem with so much of Vatican II-- it requires papers, articles, books, and explanations to understand just what it means to say! Here we are, more than 40 years after the close of the council, and people are still utterly confused over what Vatican II said or didn’t say.

Why waste one’s time pouring over article after article on what “subsistit” actually means, when one has the perfectly clear definitions from countless popes and councils prior to Vatican II? The argument that many NeoCatholics put forth that “subsistit” was actually used in order to clarify the Church’s teaching is laughable. What could be clearer than the teaching of Pius XII and all previous pontiffs that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church? What more definition is needed?

NeoCatholics are interesting people-- they’re the extremely small portion of the Church that actually tries to make thr argument that Vatican II didn’t change anything! On one side you have the liberals who shout for joy at the liberal innovations of the council. On the other side, you have the traditionalists who weap with sadness over the dismantling of Catholic faith and tradition; and then you have the NeoCatholics who actually convince themselves that nothing has changed! There are only two words to describe the NeoCatholic position: Intellectually Dishonest.

 

[VivatJesus]

That’s exactly the problem with so much of Vatican II-- it requires papers, articles, books, and explanations to understand just what it means to say! Here we are, more than 40 years after the close of the council, and people are still utterly confused over what Vatican II said or didn’t say.

Why waste one’s time pouring over article after article on what “subsistit” actually means, when one has the perfectly clear definitions from countless popes and councils prior to Vatican II? The argument that many NeoCatholics put forth that “subsistit” was actually used in order to clarify the Church’s teaching is laughable. What could be clearer than the teaching of Pius XII and all previous pontiffs that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church? What more definition is needed?

NeoCatholics are interesting people-- they’re the extremely small portion of the Church that actually tries to make thr argument that Vatican II didn’t change anything! On one side you have the liberals who shout for joy at the liberal innovations of the council. On the other side, you have the traditionalists who weap with sadness over the dismantling of Catholic faith and tradition; and then you have the NeoCatholics who actually convince themselves that nothing has changed! There are only two words to describe the NeoCatholic position: Intellectually Dishonest.

So true!..I know…I’m a recovering NeoCatholic myself! Thank you for your wonderful insight, UKCatholicGuy!

 

[Just_Lurking]

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.”

How about Vatican II’s doctrinal teaching that episcopal ordination is part of the sacrament of Holy Orders?

 

[japhy]

That’s exactly the problem with so much of Vatican II-- it requires papers, articles, books, and explanations to understand just what it means to say!

I won’t disagree. It seems that Vatican II’s documents, more than any others I’ve seen, a) are in dire need of better footnotes, and b) need to be read in a very explicit context. They don’t stand alone, because otherwise, we’d be in a terrible mess. There’s more background necessary to understand Vatican II properly.

Why waste one’s time pouring over article after article on what “subsistit” actually means, when one has the perfectly clear definitions from countless popes and councils prior to Vatican II? The argument that many NeoCatholics put forth that “subsistit” was actually used in order to clarify the Church’s teaching is laughable. What could be clearer than the teaching of Pius XII and all previous pontiffs that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church? What more definition is needed?

I think it’s a matter of substance; at least, that’s what one of the essays I’ve read argues. For example, to say “George Bush is the President” is a temporal statement that could very well change (and be false) tomorrow. But to say “the Presidency subsists in George Bush” makes the fact that George Bush is President a consequence of the very nature (substance) of George Bush.

NeoCatholics are interesting people-- they’re the extremely small portion of the Church that actually tries to make thr argument that Vatican II didn’t change anything! There are only two words to describe the NeoCatholic position: Intellectually Dishonest.

I hope you’re not branding me a “NeoCatholic” and thereby “Intellectually Dishonest”, because that grieves me so. I think some Bishops attempted to get Vatican II to change things, but the Holy Spirit kept them from doing so utterly. I believe this standpoint will be vindicated.

However, the Holy Spirit did not stop the “expert liturgists” from creating a liturgy by committee. We desperately need a reform of the 1962 Missal according to the actual document which will eventually take its place as the organic development of the Roman Rite and eliminate a need for two forms of the Roman Rite.

 

[latinmasslover]

How about Vatican II’s doctrinal teaching that episcopal ordination is part of the sacrament of Holy Orders?

This is a new, infallible teaching of VII?

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

You know, when non-Catholics and anti-Catholics read comments like this, it only gives them fodder for their anti-Catholic misconceptions. Any Catholic that is trying to build a case for the fact that the Church does not change her teaching on matters of faith and morals is immediately “disproven” by the anti-Catholic. All they have to do is cite your comment (or one like it) to “prove” that the Church can err, and thus is not who She says She is (which of course leads them to feel justified in questioning anything the Church teaches).

These kinds of attitudes wound the Church and deepen division. I don’t understand why any Catholic who loves the Church would want to do that.

 

[Joe_5859]

NeoCatholics are interesting people-- they’re the extremely small portion of the Church that actually tries to make thr argument that Vatican II didn’t change anything! On one side you have the liberals who shout for joy at the liberal innovations of the council. On the other side, you have the traditionalists who weap with sadness over the dismantling of Catholic faith and tradition; and then you have the NeoCatholics who actually convince themselves that nothing has changed! There are only two words to describe the NeoCatholic position: Intellectually Dishonest.

There is one word that describes the above argument: disingenuous. You are appealing to an argument based on numbers (which is logically flawed). The number of people who believe this or that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is true.

Wouldn’t you think that the position that attempts to reconcile the teaching of an ecumenical council with all prior councils and teachings be the preferred starting point? We should not approach the documents with our preconceived notions that they obviously depart from Church teaching. That, IMO, is where intellectual dishonesty enters in.

When someone can convincingly show me where the documents of Vatican II contradict prior teaching, and I still don’t admit it, then you can hurl around terms like “intellectually dishonest.” I have read the documents. And I have read many of the arguments of the radical “traditionalists” and the radical “liberals”. I haven’t come across any that are convincing enough to warrant the very hefty accusation that the Church has contradicted previous teachings.

 

[japhy]

How about Vatican II’s doctrinal teaching that episcopal ordination is part of the sacrament of Holy Orders?

Can you point it out for me? I’m not familiar with all the documents…

 

[latinmasslover]

You know, when non-Catholics and anti-Catholics read comments like this, it only gives them fodder for their anti-Catholic misconceptions. Any Catholic that is trying to build a case for the fact that the Church does not change her teaching on matters of faith and morals is immediately “disproven” by the anti-Catholic. All they have to do is cite your comment (or one like it) to “prove” that the Church can err, and thus is not who She says She is (which of course leads them to feel justified in questioning anything the Church teaches).

These kinds of attitudes wound the Church and deepen division. I don’t understand why any Catholic who loves the Church would want to do that.

VJ’s comment was a little extreme for me, however the fault rests with Rome for 1) allowing the ambiguous wording of the documents, and 2) not clarifying anything for the last 40+ years. The fact that many liberal bishops don’t get busted provides all the necessary “fodder for their anti-Catholic misconceptions.”

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

VJ’s comment was a little extreme for me, however the fault rests with Rome for 1) allowing the ambiguous wording of the documents, and 2) not clarifying anything for the last 40+ years. The fact that many liberal bishops don’t get busted provides all the necessary “fodder for their anti-Catholic misconceptions.”

Yes exactly. The fodder is already there thanks to the ambiguous and scandalous nature of the V2 texts (not all, but many of them). Traditionalists merely point this out, because we want the problem fixed! My (traditional) friend has spoken with many a fundamental protestant and they already see Vatican II for what it is-- a clear break from the past. Protestants are not dumb-- they can see that V2 has caused profound changes in the Church and has radically liberalized it in many ways. For instance, many good protestants who firmly hold to the DOGMA that Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation are rightly scandalized by the implications (and sometimes downright blatant admissions) by the previous pontiff and several documents from Vatican offices that the Jews need not convert because they are already in a saving covenant. What nonsense! Every creature must acknowledge Jesus Christ as Savior to have any hope of eternal salvation, the sole exception being invincible ignorance.

At any rate, as I was saying, my friend actually receives many “thank-yous” from protestants for being honest enough to admit that V2 is scandalous. This actually helps them on their journey to Catholicism because they realize that there are Catholics who actually believe that one SHOULD NOT pray with pagans and animists (like the late pope did).

 

[Just_Lurking]

Can you point it out for me? I’m not familiar with all the documents…

Lumen Gentium 21:

And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry.

 

[Just_Lurking]

This is a new, infallible teaching of VII?

See my previous post for it being a teaching of Vatican II.

As for it being a new teaching, in Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi by Karl Rahner, in the article Bishop, III. Theology, 2. Sacramentality of the Episcopate by Joseph Lecuyer, it says:

In the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum ordinis of 1947 (D 2301) it is assumed that episcopal consecration is a sacrament and not just a sacramental, though this is not formally decided.

I will try to find a reference for the argument that it is infallible tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Yves Conger is the theologian who argues that Lumen Gentium 21 is infallible, but I don’t have any references that are in English.

 

[japhy]

Yves Conger is the theologian who argues that Lumen Gentium 21 is infallible, but I don’t have any references that are in English.

Can something be accidentally infallible? If the Council had no intention of defining or declaring any dogma or doctrine, but simply supplying it with a contemporary explanation… could this possibly be considered an infallible definition on the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders?

It appears to be speaking matter-of-factly, taking what it’s saying almost for granted.

 

[Just_Lurking]

It appears to be speaking matter-of-factly, taking what it’s saying almost for granted.

When a Vatican II document uses the council itself as the grammatical subject of a verb like “declares” or “teaches”, that is an indication that what follows is very important and specifically intended by the council. So when Lumen Gentium 21 says “the Sacred Council teaches”, it means it.

I believe there is general agreement that this is a new, authoritative doctrinal teaching of Vatican II. The only open question is whether this binding teaching is fallible or infallible.

A recent curial document (see here) opens with:

The Second Vatican Council is itself interested in the priesthood, especially in regard to two debates: in these two principal fields, it is interesting to see which points of its discussion continue that of the early Church.

1. The first debate was about the nature of the priesthood. The Council has responded by beginning with the sacramentality of the episcopate, as the source of collegiality.

In other words, it hastens to recognize that the bishops were not just simple priests with superior power over other priests merely for the sake of making someone a delegate, either of the Pope or of the community. Rather, the consecration which they receive inserts them into the mystery of the apostolic succession and brings about in them a change in being. The Council designated this change as “ontological” at the precise level of the “munera”, the messianic works of Christ and his Church.

… The concrete exercise of these duties demands more of a bond of communion, or to state the principle clearly in canonical terms, ordination itself confers a “Sacred Power” distinctively all its own, a sacramental power to build up the Church ( in contrast to the power of post-enlightened society, where there is a sense of competition between various interest groups).

 

[Just_Lurking]

I found a translation of Yves Congar’s argument in Francis Sullivan’s Creative Fidelity:

The only passage of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church that could be considered a truly dogmatic declaration is the one that concerns the sacramentality of the episcopate (LG III, n. 21): in fact, it settles a question that until now had been freely disputed by theologians. At the same time it is proposed as a teaching on the same level as the others, without the use of the emphatic, repeated and solemn formulas that normally introduce a “definition.” … The manner of expressing it is not that of a dogmatic definition, but the matter is so important, the place it occupies in the doctrine of the episcopate so decisive, that one can hardly see how on this point the council has not issued a definitive judgment. But this is without doubt the only case of this kind.