The fall of the Church after Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter hamburglar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
diggerdomer said:
I’ve heard people use that, but never have come across anything the Church says that distinguishes ecumenical councils into “pastoral” and “doctrinal.” Can you help with any Church reference that clarifies this?
Click to expand...
www.google.com Try it you might like it.

PASTORAL CONSTITUTION
ON THE CHURCH IN THE
MODERN WORLD
GAUDIUM ET SPES
PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS, POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
 
Ockham said:
www.google.com Try it you might like it.

PASTORAL CONSTITUTION
ON THE CHURCH IN THE
MODERN WORLD
GAUDIUM ET SPES
PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS, POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
Click to expand...
What?

That was the pastoral constitution in my message that I referred to. As I said in that post (did you read the whole thing?) I recognize VII issued one “pastoral constitution”–but it also issued three “dogmatic constitutions.” All of which does not mean that the Church calls the Council itself either “dogmatic” or “pastoral” exclusively. The reference you shared above reiterated what I already mentioned in my previous post so really didn’t add anything substantive–the Church used the terms “pastoral” and “dogmatic” to describe the Constitutions issued by the Council.

What are you saying? Sorry if I’m missing your point. Thanks for any help.
 
RyanML said:
This article from EWTN may be clearer:

“The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.”

ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

I think it’s important to note that the practice of not calling protestants heretics is pastoral in nature not doctrinal and so it is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to refer to protestants as heretics, even if not politically correct. The only real problem I see in generalizing all protestants as heretics is that we might fall into the error of implying they are all guilty of heresy. As the article points out, being a heretic and being guilty of heresy are two different things. God bless!
Click to expand...
Thanks that is very helpful. I was looking at the Canon referenced in the footnote to the CCC paragraph you cited. I checked a Commentary and for Canon 751 it said that
“…the terms heresy, apostasy, and schism are no longer used of those born and baptized outside the visible communion of the Catholic Church. The offenses can be ascribed only to Catholics, those baptized into the Catholic Church or later received into it (UR 3; ED 19-20).”
Click to expand...
Your post and that gave me a lot to think about. I would probably tend to use the terms as that excerpt suggests, rather than the one advocated by the author of the article you refer to, though both usages are likely acceptable. I’m just hesitant to use the terms more broadly than needed (particularly as I have Protestant in-laws who are not heretics).

Too bad, imho, that most people throw these terms around without care for this kind of understanding and precision. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration on this thread, and your taking the time to talk things through and understand different points of view and references. Thanks again.
 
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.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
July 13, 1988, Santiago, Chile

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.

Pope Paul VI
General Audience, 12 January 1966
 
I see that some nice discussion is going on here; however, I really do wish to return to the original topic on how Vatican II affected the American Church and Catholics in America.
 
I was there for the transition from the Latin Mass to the changes brought about by Vatican II. As it was explained in my Catholic school, the priest would now face us, and a new, smaller altar was placed in front of the original altar. The Mass would now be in English so we could understand it better. Nothing else had changed. We were to observe everything as we always did.

If the Church fell at all after Vatican II, it was not because of Vatican II. It was because of Humanae Vitae in 1968. I suggest everyone read it. The introduction of the Birth Control Pill in 1960 was later, in 1968, being marketed by anarchists, radicals and Hippies who demanded freedom. If Catholics had listened to the Pope then, there would have been no “sexual revolution.” That is why the Church fell: the proper relationship between men and women was condemned by those outside the Church in the name of freedom. But this was not a desire for true freedom but a desire to commit sexual sin. Some inside the Church also spoke against Humanae Vitae. Some priests and nuns became confused. In the 1970s, Catholic seminarians received the wrong message and passed it on to their congregations: contraception was a matter of your own conscience. Of course, too many, under pressure by those in outside society, took it to mean it was OK.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I was there for the transition from the Latin Mass to the changes brought about by Vatican II. As it was explained in my Catholic school, the priest would now face us, and a new, smaller altar was placed in front of the original altar. The Mass would now be in English so we could understand it better. Nothing else had changed. We were to observe everything as we always did.
Click to expand...
Was this explanation presented right after the Council, or some years later?
 
Ockham said:
Vatican II? Ecumenism? Has one schismatic church returned?
Click to expand...
If we we are to judge the need or success by this criteria, the Trent was a disaster. The worst splintering of Christianity ever occured in its wake.

But then there was no causality and the Church had to address the problem that would have happened anyway.

Just like Vatican II.

By the way. If we are to be fair and balanced, when mentioning** Pastoral** Constitutions and bolding it, you should also include the two **Dogmatic **Constitutions, Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium.
 
pnewton said:
If we we are to judge the need or success by this criteria, the Trent was a disaster. The worst splintering of Christianity ever occured in its wake.

But then there was no causality and the Church had to address the problem that would have happened anyway.

Just like Vatican II.

By the way. If we are to be fair and balanced, when mentioning** Pastoral** Constitutions and bolding it, you should also include the two **Dogmatic **Constitutions, Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium.
Click to expand...
Oops! Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Here I’ve been saying there were 3 “dogmatic” constitutions and of course only two had that specific adjective. The one on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) of course had neither “pastoral” nor “dogmatic” as part of its title. My point still stands, I think, but I apologize for the error.

Thanks pnewton for reminding me of this! Appreciate the good insights you offer.
 
Ockham said:
Perhaps your priests need to brush up on Scripture. How’s their Tradition?
Click to expand...
Obviously and conclusively, all the priests I’ve spoken with are ontologically deficient, regarding grace and knowledge of the Church, because they have not had the benefit that those of us on this forum have of your extensive, thorough, and God-given wisdom.

I will keep them (these deficient priests you identify) in my prayer, and of course share with them all the truth you have graced us with that is not available otherwise from the Church.
 
diggerdomer said:
Obviously and conclusively, all the priests I’ve spoken with are ontologically deficient, regarding grace and knowledge of the Church, because they have not had the benefit that those of us on this forum have of your extensive, thorough, and God-given wisdom.

I will keep them (these deficient priests you identify) in my prayer, and of course share with them all the truth you have graced us with that is not available otherwise from the Church.
Click to expand...
Would you care to explain what “ontologically deficient” means for those not versed philosophy. I think it will help you get your point across better.
 
diggerdomer said:
Obviously and conclusively, all the priests I’ve spoken with are ontologically deficient, regarding grace and knowledge of the Church, because they have not had the benefit that those of us on this forum have of your extensive, thorough, and God-given wisdom.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if Ockham was the user that quoted the relevant passages about material heresy, but it would seem that if these priests are telling you something contradictory to Church teaching (e.g. that all Protestants are NOT material heretics) that they do indeed need our prayers.
 
hamburglar said:
I see that some nice discussion is going on here; however, I really do wish to return to the original topic on how Vatican II affected the American Church and Catholics in America.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately you spiked the topic with the title:
**
The fall of the Church after Vatican II

**That’s quite an opener.
 
Ottaviani said:
Would you care to explain what “ontologically deficient” means for those not versed philosophy. I think it will help you get your point across better.
Click to expand...
I’m not being philosophically accurate, I apologize. I simply meant that Ockham has opinions that are impervious to reason and to considering others’ views. Those of us, including the priests I talked to, who do not agree 100% with him are at fault. Period. No two ways about it.
 
hamburglar said:
I think the Church has suffered much since Vatican II and want to present facts and ask him questions about this.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you start off by telling him to explain to you this heresy in Vatican II:

Dignitatis Humanae, #11:

“ln the end, when He completed on the cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men, He brought His revelation to completion.”

This is heretical, because it was specifically condemned that Revelation did not end with the last Apostle:

Decree of the Holy Office, “Lamentabili” July 3, 1907:
  1. Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles. -Condemned
 
Tselinoyarsk said:
Why don’t you start off by telling him to explain to you this heresy in Vatican II:

Dignitatis Humanae, #11:

“ln the end, when He completed on the cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men, He brought His revelation to completion.”

This is heretical, because it was specifically condemned that Revelation did not end with the last Apostle:

Decree of the Holy Office, “Lamentabili” July 3, 1907:
  1. Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles. -Condemned
Click to expand...
This is a perfect example of proof-texting being used to attack the Catholic Church. It is why the Church doesn’t let every individual interpret for themselves the Bible or Church documents. They obviously can be twisted.

I we go to the document…
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

…we find that the introduction to this section (11) is:
.
God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion. God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom. **This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus, in whom God manifested Himself **and His ways with men.
Click to expand...
Then the rest of the chapter describes the revelation that Jesus brought to man while on the Earth.

So when we read, “He completed on the cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men, He brought His revelation to completion,” we can understand that “His revelation” is referring to His ministry as Man, as opposed to “all revelation”. This should be a no-brainer, as the Church accepts the New Testament as revelation, which was written after the death of Jesus.
 
Dear faithful friends:

Upon Peter as the rock, our Lord made His promise that the Holy Spirit will protect His Church, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Christ never fails on His promises, and He will never abandon His Church and His bribe. He wants souls to come to Him and the Father, and has accepted the intercessions of His mother, and all the angels and saints to brings souls to Him. This is our faith.

God created all of us with the gift of free will. In this gift, we can choose, or reject, Him. This gift is so important and precious for us that He does not temper with it. We have the privilege of this gift, and may each one of us uses it wisely and correctly. Within our faith, we are called to be the salt of the earth, and loving creatures to the world so that, when the world sees us, it sees Christ. In order to be true and faithful catholics, we must surrendered ourselves complelely and wholeheartedly to Christ. We must fully embrace the grace of obedience and humility. Remember the famous quote: “I believe so that I understand”. Vatican II is indeed the teaching of the Church. It is an inseparable part of the Magisterium. The Church declared it so. One can no more reject Vatican II than one can reject Vatican I, Trent, Nicea, etc… Remember it was Christ Himself who speciffically chose the Catholic Church (His bride) headed by Peter and his successors to be the vanguard of the faith, to evangelize the gospels, and to bring souls to Him.

The pains and the sorrows that the Church has suffered since Vatican II have been clearly apparent and well documented: the trememdous loss of souls, the decline in holiness in religious orders, seminaries, church hierachy and catholic institutions, the abuses in the Mass, abuses of all kinds, and so on and so on… But I beg you to exercise restraints and sensibility before making premature judgements. How many of us have actually read and studied the 16 documents of Vatican II? For those who found the documents objectionable, what specifically are they? Are they a matter of your opinions and/or your preferences? Are there contradictions in the documents to the Magisterium? Are your objections so enormous that your faith in the Church is severly injured and that your yearning for and intimacy with Christ are crippled? Or is this all about you?

Why Vatican II? The fathers of the Council forsaw and anticipated the challenges the Church must engage in the future. They provided the 16th documents as tools for the Church to engage these challenges. As Pope Benedict said in an interview, the treasure of the council “still lies in its text.” In the age of instant gratification, we often forget that the Church operates in God’s time. We are just begining to reap the fruits of the Council. Vatican II was not an end all and be all council for the Church. Vatican II is a blueprint for the Church engaging “modernism” for generations to come, and it is just begining to be appropriately implemented. JPII and Benedict have added clarifications to it. And the Church and future popes will continue to do so should they deem necessary. There will more papal encylicals and councils.

Oh yes, the “Pauline” Mass. Let’s face it. It is a Catholic Mass. The Church declared it so. Yes, there are tremendous abuses in this Mass. We must ask God for forgiveness for the abuses. We must also pray for the faithful observance and reverence of the Mass. It is not the Mass that is the problem. The Mass itself is fine. It is the unfaithfullness and the lack of respect from the all parties that is the source the problem. The Mass is not observed as an act of worship where God is adored, but rather a forum for self-expression. Priests acts as performers; laypeople force themselves into the celebration of the Mass; the choir tries out new touchly, feely music and lyrics; the role of the priest is reduced and taken over by laypeople; etc… It is the failure of the partipants, not the Mass itself. If the Pauline Mass is done appropriately according the rubrics, there is little or no room for abuses.

After Vatican II, there were a lot of confusions in the Church that caused a lot of turmoil. Many of the un-faithfuls in the Church used the documents to promote their evil agenda. A lot of souls have been lost through this. May God have mercy on them. My dear faithful friends I beg you to not lose hearts. Keep up with your faith in Christ and His Church. Vatican II is not just now, but for the church generations to come. We have yet understood the treasure of Vatican II. In the meantime, maintain your prayers and your responsibility as faithful catholics.

In Christ,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top