True and false obedience

[Abu]

Layman
The key thing about Vat. II is that it didn’t propose anything radical, AFAIK….Result: banality.

Such naïveté, and the implication of not having studied the Council, leads to the false and banal conclusion given.

In his book, *Sources of Renewal *Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) wrote: “Vatican II, which, while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment." (p 39).

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28). Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[excubitor]

Originally Posted by JosephdeMaistre
It’s too bad this forum doesn’t have a Reputation System - I would’ve given this post an immense amount of Rep!
Much thanks for enlightening all of us.

You might have found something new, but you can only speak for yourself. I saw not one new idea in the post.

Nor I. It came across like a mutual back-slapping exercise. It just goes to show why there is no rep system.

When I was on fisheaters you could give members fish votes. Fresh fish was a good vote and stinky fish for a bad vote. The sedevacantists and SSPX used to gang up on the modernists and NOtards hammering them with stinky fish votes and giving each other fresh fish votes.

In the end they had to get rid of their fishy rep system.

Besides, truth is never arrived at by popular vote or by backslapping.

Therefore I am glad that there is no Rep system here.

 

[Layman]

Right then: What were the radical proposals of Vat. II? Give us a list.

 

[SBroxson]

In “The Public Square,” Richard John Neuhaus, First Things (August/September 2004):

“[T]he Holy Spirit who guided the Council did not expunge in the bishops a human capacity for misreading the signs of the times.' This is notably evident in *Gaudium et Spes*, the constitution on the Church in the modern world. What was new in the constitution, and therefore what caught attention, was the very hopeful (optimistic?) depiction of the modern world. I once asked a bishop who had played a major part in drafting the constitution whether the document was not marked by a certain naïveté about the modern world. After a moment’s thought, he said, Perhaps.’ He then quickly added, But, if so, it as an evangelical naïveté.'…Yet Caldwell makes an important point. *t is true that at the Council the Church did expose its faithful to the siren song of democracy, capitalism, and sex.’”

Prudential errors are not gifts of the Holy Spirit.

“True and False Reform,” Avery Cardinal Dulles, First Things (August/September 2003):

"The Conciliar movement in the fifteenth century brought forth some good fruits but came to a bad end at the Council of Basel [convoked by Pope Martin V in 1431]. Attempting to convert the Church into a kind of constitutional monarchy, it ran afoul of the Catholic doctrine of papal primacy.
"…By the beginning of the sixteenth century the necessity of a thoroughgoing reform was generally recognized. After the failure of the Fifth Lateran Council to achieve this objective…
“…Some of the alienation between different groups may result from mechanisms introduced in the wake of Vatican II. The Council exalted the episcopacy to an unprecedented peak of power and responsibility [which he argues almost no human could ever meet]…”

The point: Cardinal Dulles stated that Lateran V failed, and there is at least one area of Vatican II containing prudential error.

There are many more such quotes from such people (i.e., non-traditionalists who are supporters of Vatican II).

(BTW, excubitor, could you do me a huge favor? READ my posts before responding and grossly mischaracterizing them.)*

 

[SBroxson]

Based on some of the quotes that I’ve presented in my posts, and much else, I would propose the following:

1. Most fundamentally, the Church is reformed by saints, not councils. History shows that councils are not very suited to that task. Councils perform effectively and perfectly when there is an “anathema sit” at the end of the sentence.

(That is not to deny that we may have some obligations arising from a council which are reforming…just that even when that is so, we are not obligated to give internal assent as to their prudence. And, a statement which does not contain an “anathema sit” of some sort, and/or is prudential in nature, certainly COULD be a precious gift of the Holy Spirit–it’s just not automatically the case.)

1. The teaching of the Church is that a council is fundamentally different than Scripture (which is a God-breathed love letter from God with the Holy Spirit as the primary author).

The protections of the Holy Spirit in a council is negative: a guarantee that no unambiguous, binding error will be taught concerning faith and morals.

The Holy Spirit is indeed at any valid council (and everywhere else for that matter), but the Holy Spirit is not the primary author of council documents and does not prevent ambiguity, inadequate analysis, or prudential error–that is up to the attendees as to whether they will listen to the Holy Spirit or not. History shows that sometimes they do not, and that Satan is also in attendance.

Thus the observation that Vatican II is guaranteed by the same Authority as (say) Trent is very true! But totally irrelevant concerning pastoral, disciplinary, or prudential matters–which is precisely the area of disagreement in most cases.

1. Scripture and the writings and lives of the saints were written for every culture in every period of history–as are binding dogmatic determinations. The Sacraments and prayer are effectatious in every age and culture.

It is simply not possible that there is such a lack in all of these these, that ANY age would have to turn to a particular council for the only possible source of the way forward during that particular period of history.

True, there may be disciplinary determinations which are binding even if imprudent, and there may be some fine tuning which is helpful. But no one council is EVER the Alpha and the Omega…not even for that particular age.

1. We were told that it takes a great council 30 years to bear fruit. Maybe 40. EVERYBODY that I know said that. Did you notice that the goal post has now been moved since we passed the 40 year mark?

Now, all of a sudden, I hear some say that it takes a generation…or maybe two… Where did that come from, other than from the trade mark wishful thinking of our time? Was there new research?

Well, we shall know for sure in eternity.

Unfortunately, we have to make decisions here and now: who do we donate to? Should we use our time to attend the ecumenical service next weekend? How much of our time do we devote to what approach? What mass do we attend, and what books to we read?

Some of us make these decisions in a way that pays no particular attention to Vatican II over other authoritative sources: i.e., does not give Vatican II any particular pride of place. In a way that does not view other councils, Scripture, and the writings of the Saints as mere interpretive tools to understand the One True Council.

Of course, no orthodox Catholic views Vatican II as the One True Council: but some TALK as though they did. For example, citing as the the authority for every teaching of the Church a Vatican II document–even when the issue was authoritatively settled centuries earlier.

Anyway, folks like us are often accused of being “disobedient” at best. I do not believe that is so.

 

[Robert_Burns]

“If he is found…” If the Church makes such a finding, I understand. However, if that is a matter of individual understanding, then Martin Luther was justified in his actions, as he found the Catholic pontiffs over the last centuries had deviated from the faith.

For me, when I here the phrase “false obedience” I think it is an oxymoron that can not exist. Obedience is an act. One obeys, or one does not obey. I will stand by this statement from Vatican I.
ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm

I would rather obey the authority God has established and be found in error, than to disobey, trusting my own judgment and think my way into Hell.

I also disagree with your conclusion that the Catholic Faith is being destroyed, or even that this will ever happen.

<<< Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.

“If he is found…” If the Church makes such a finding, I understand. However, if that is a matter of individual understanding, then Martin Luther was justified in his actions, as he found the Catholic pontiffs over the last centuries had deviated from the faith.

For me, when I here the phrase “false obedience” I think it is an oxymoron that can not exist. Obedience is an act. One obeys, or one does not obey >>>>>>

The only problem with this line of thought is in the existance of Anti POPES which has existed over thirty documented times in the annals of Church History. This assumes the Pope is a legitimate Pope. Now I am not saying this to cast aspersions on the Pope - but rather - to say that Obedience is tied to legitimate holders of the powers of the Chair. During the Western Schism , the Church had Two and then three Claimants to the Chair of St Peter with all three being elected by factions of Cardinals. It took an Ecumenical Church Council to sort through and correct the mess (Two if you consider the fact that Vatican I had to correct the last few sessions of Constance)

The point being that Laity , in the time of the Western Schism could not rely entirely on the Magisterium for obedience. Laity can however , Rely on the Precepts of the Church in the Deposit of Faith and wherever any percieved ambiguity exists , revert to Divine Tradition in obedience to the Church Triumphant , knowing that the Saints acheived Sainthood by living in the same world we do , sometimes with greater obstacles in their lives than many of us have , and believing in GOD as each prescribes we do in our own lives.

Ultimately our salvation depends less on who is Pope and more on how well we live our lives in emulating the virtues of the Saints and by incorporating those virtueees into every aspect of our daily lives.

Pax

 

[pnewton]

The only problem with this line of thought is in the existance of Anti POPES which has existed over thirty documented times in the annals of Church History. This assumes the Pope is a legitimate Pope.

Yes, there was a time when that might have been an issue. I do not think it will ever again be and issue. In today’s society, the conclave can be broadcast worldwide. All can watch with their own eyes as the white smoke appears. The last one of these antipopes was six hundred years ago. Never in history, even when no form of mass communication existed was any antipope ever to hold the title for even half as long as the series of pontiffs claimed by sedevacantist to be antipopes today.

Yes, I do believe that Pope Benedict the XVI is the legitimate successor to the Venerable John Paul II, and so one. I find this as sure of knowledge as that of Washington being our first president and that list being trustworthy. Yet no one denies this part of history. That is because there is not motivation to do so.

You are right about true sanctity. Fortunately most Catholics attend Mass, receive the Sacraments and do not concern themselves with the wild fancies of the fringe elements of Catholicism. Such groups exist everywhere.

 

[Abu]

Layman
What were the radical proposals of Vat. II?

Dissenters of all persuasions make claims and counter-claims about Vatican II.
The use of the self-chosen term “radical” implies “extremist” in the eyes of the originator who seems to regard the results of Vatican II as “banal”.

This is the usual confusion of equating doctrine and the development of doctrine with the effects of the dissenting theological developments occurring within and without the Church at and after the Council and, by playing at Magisterium, picturing the Council as the individual chooses to so do – with no facts to back it up.

A development in the dogma of infallibility given to us by Vatican II in The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12 gives the central link that enables the faithful to absorb the truth from the teaching Church – the link which some appear not to understand.

Vatican II gives us the link in developing the infallibility of the faithful: “The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief.” This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”

“……the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” [My underlining].

Here we have the letter and the spirit of Vatican II. This aspect of infallibility has nothing to do with our opinions or insights – it is totally directed to that obedience of faith of which St Paul speaks.

This is thinking with the Church.

 

[Layman]

A development in the dogma of infallibility given to us by Vatican II in The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12 gives the central link that enables the faithful to absorb the truth from the teaching Church – the link which some appear not to understand.

Vatican II gives us the link in developing the infallibility of the faithful: “The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief.” This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”

“……the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” [My underlining].

Here we have the letter and the spirit of Vatican II. This aspect of infallibility has nothing to do with our opinions or insights – it is totally directed to that obedience of faith of which St Paul speaks.
**
This is thinking with the Church.**

[My emphasis, above.]

I don’t understand this. Are you saying the Faithful are now, as a collective, infallible, and that one should follow along with this?

 

[Abu]

Layman
I don’t understand this. Are you saying the Faithful are now, as a collective, infallible, and that one should follow along with this?

When we assent to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on faith and morals and obey it we think with the mind of the Church, as one community or universality, and cannot err in that assent. Those who don’t, become dissenters who have ruptured their ties with the Church.

 

[Layman]

When we assent to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on faith and morals and obey it we think with the mind of the Church, as one community or universality, and cannot err in that assent. Those who don’t, become dissenters who have ruptured their ties with the Church.

[My emphasis, above]

(cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) “As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him.”

This seems to say that we don’t need anyone to teach us.

1. Your assertion contradicts my previous understanding of infallibility; that it only applies when the Pope, speaking ex-cathedra, on a matter of doctrine, says that the following utterance is infallible. You are saying that whatever is the current fashion in the Church, is infallible.
2. What did Vat. II propose that was different or new in matters of faith and morals?

 

[Abu]

Layman
(cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) “As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him.”
This seems to say that we don’t need anyone to teach us.

Strange that a Catholic would offer the above against Jesus declaring that those who reject His teaching through His representatives are worse than the perverted Sodom and Gomorrah. (Mt 10:14-15).
BTW, the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

my previous understanding of infallibility; that it only applies when the Pope, speaking ex-cathedra, on a matter of doctrine, says that the following utterance is infallible. You are saying that whatever is the current fashion in the Church, is infallible.

Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus, Chap 4, #9, an infallible dogma) is the basis for understanding infallibility.

From Pastor Aeternus, for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.
No dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” or “infallible” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

Why should anyone feel (it is not thinking) that the Church teaches that any “current fashion in the Church is infallible”. Is Her purpose fashion? Why the sneering at Christ’s Church?

When you can assent to Vatican I and that dogma on infallibility, and Vatican II on the sensus fidei, we can go on to the further developments in doctrine in Vatican II.

 

[Layman]

A development in the dogma of infallibility given to us by Vatican II in The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12 gives the central link that enables the faithful to absorb the truth from the teaching Church – the link which some appear not to understand.

Vatican II gives us the link in developing the infallibility of the faithful: “The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief.” This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”

…

Here we have the letter and the spirit of Vatican II. This aspect of infallibility has nothing to do with our opinions or insights – it is totally directed to that obedience of faith of which St Paul speaks.

This is thinking with the Church.

[My emphasis, above.]

I looked up that quote from St. John’s Gospel (reference bolded above), and quoted it to you. Now you are saying that the Pope is the only one who can utter infallible statements.

Are you saying that that infallbility has been extended?

 

[Abu]

The dogma on papal infallibility in Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus) did not refer to the infallibility in Ecumenical Councils, that was left to Vatican II to develop.
Anyone can repeat an infallible dogma or doctrine – they don’t originate it – they merely offer the truth.

 

[Layman]

The dogma on papal infallibility in Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus) did not refer to the infallibility in Ecumenical Councils, that was left to Vatican II to develop.
Anyone can repeat an infallible dogma or doctrine – they don’t originate it – they merely offer the truth.

So Vat. II promulgated the infallibility of ecumenical councils? I think I must ask you for an authoritative link to a web page on that, preferably from the Council’s documents themselves. I’ve not heard that before. That’s dynamite, given the hoo-ha the first proclamation of Papal Infallibility caused.

 

[Abu]

Vatican II defined the exercise of collegial infallibility by bishops in an Ecumenical Council (LG 25), – “a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See Fr John Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233].

See the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium, 25) at:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41)”

40 1 Pt. 2:5.
41 Rev. 21:16.

 

[Layman]

Vatican II defined the exercise of collegial infallibility by bishops in an Ecumenical Council (LG 25), – “a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See Fr John Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism

, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233].

See the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium, 25) at:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41)”

40 1 Pt. 2:5.
41 Rev. 21:16.

Ohhh, that’s a beauty. Pure dynamite. Explains a few things. Thanks for posting that. So that’s where this idea of collegiality came from? Whatever the committee agrees, holds?

Poor Pope Benedict. What a mess.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Vatican II defined the exercise of collegial infallibility by bishops in an Ecumenical Council (LG 25), – “a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See Fr John Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism

, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233].

See the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium, 25) at:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41)”

40 1 Pt. 2:5.
41 Rev. 21:16.

Vatican II was Pastoral. There is not a single Canon with “Anathema”. It presents a viewpoint. The fact that some think the “Bishops in totality” are infallible is not Dogma. Jesus clearly stated - "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. " He never said - and failing that upon all the rest of you. The Deposit of Faith has already been defined on that point of Dogma at Vatican I Therefore it cannot subsequently be redefined. You forget - the Church is the caretaker of the Deposit of Faith , not the author. Only JESUS is the author. An Infallible Definition comes with the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to keep the Church Orthodox in Jesus Doctrine. The Holy Ghost doesnt contradict himself. To say the Bishops suddenly together are Infallible would be exactly that a contradiction.

 

[yosupman]

Vatican II was Pastoral. There is not a single Canon with “Anathema”. It presents a viewpoint. The fact that some think the “Bishops in totality” are infallible is not Dogma. Jesus clearly stated - "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. " He never said - and failing that upon all the rest of you. The Deposit of Faith has already been defined on that point of Dogma at Vatican I Therefore it cannot subsequently be redefined. You forget - the Church is the caretaker of the Deposit of Faith , not the author. Only JESUS is the author. An Infallible Definition comes with the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to keep the Church Orthodox in Jesus Doctrine. The Holy Ghost doesnt contradict himself. To say the Bishops suddenly together are Infallible would be exactly that a contradiction.

If the bishops are teaching together on a doctrine on faith or morals that is to be definitively held, that has been enunciated before by the Universal Magisterium, Solemnly defined, or has never been taught as definitive, there is no possibility of error.

The church cannot ever teach error in regards to doctrines part of the deposit of faith.

This is all part of the doctrine of indefectibility.

To say the bishops in union with the Holy Father taught error in regards to a doctrine part of the deposit of faith would absolutely be a contradiction.

 

[Abu]

Layman
Whatever the committee agrees, holds? Poor Pope Benedict. What a mess.
Robert Burns
Vatican II was Pastoral. There is not a single Canon with “Anathema”. It presents a viewpoint. To say the Bishops suddenly together are Infallible would be exactly that a contradiction.

1. Such naïveté, and the evidence of not having studied the Council, leads to the false and banal conclusions given.
   Continued playing at being a Magisterium and picturing the Council as the individual chooses to so do with no facts to back it up produces such error.

See post #81: In his book, *Sources of Renewal *Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) wrote: “Vatican II, which, while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment." (Ibid, p 39).

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28). Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI.

So it is “poor Layman” that is in a mess created by himself through dissent and playing Magisterium.

1. Another play at being Magisterium is pontificating that Vatican II was only “pastoral”. This is a common error.
   Pope John XXIII in opening the Council stated: “the greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council” was that “this certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which the obedience of Faith must be given, be studied thoroughly and explained in the way for which our times are calling…but nevertheless with the same meaning and the same sense.” Vatican II is using the very words of both Vatican I and of St Vincent of Lerins, speaking for the Church of the Fathers.

Pope John XXIII, in calling the Council, stated that the reasons he was doing so were of a character that could be broadly termed “pastoral,” although Pope John himself, in using the word, merely spoke of the need today of a Church Magisterium “which is predominantly pastoral in character.” Pope Paul VI similarly spoke of the “pastoral nature of the Council” in his Weekly General Audience of Jan. 12, 1966, but he didn’t call it a “pastoral council” as if this were some new species of Church gathering which the faithful might go along with or not, as they chose.

The following is an excerpt from The Pope, the Council and the Mass, by James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead.

The term “pastoral council” as applied to Vatican II is merely a popular description and does not refer to any specific type of council recognized by the authority of the Catholic Church…

To convene a general council with a pastoral purpose, in short, was not to convene a new kind of Church council not binding on the faithful. What Pope John XXIII really said with regard to his reasons for convoking the Council was that “a Council was not necessary…as a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly taught…and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all” (Opening Speech to the Council).

And this concern of Pope John that doctrine be, at least in a sense, the greatest concern of the Council is entirely in keeping with the real meaning of the word “pastoral.”

For the word “pastoral” refers to the work of a shepherd; and Jesus, the Good Shepherd, taught plainly that “for this I was born and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth” (Jn. 18:37).

The confusion of dogma with doctrine by Robert Burns has been refuted in Post # 71. Doctrine develops, and this means the understanding by the Church develops, without contradiction, as Pope John XXIII so clearly enunciated at Vatican II.