Unitatis Redintegratio - V2 Decree on Ecumenism

[J0eisCath0lic]

Oh really?–so you then believe that it’s possible for an ecumenical council of the Church established by Jesus Christ to universally teach error to the faithful???

Keep in mind again what Vatican ONE taught:

"3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema… "

The irony of the texts you quoted is found in the fact that, true enough, Vatican II did not infallibly teach any NEW dogmas.

Rather, it just infallibly taught a bunch of OLD dogmas.

Anything Vatican II taught the universal Church in the area of faith and morals is of necessity true.

Or do you want to disagree with that?

DJim

Amen, DJim. My point exactly. Stmaria has fallen into the error that many extreme traditionalists fall into-- reading modernist twistings of VCII and assuming the modernists are correct in their interpretation. Let’s offer prayers for stmaria today, especially since it’s the feast day of the Assumption.

 

[DJim]

Prayers for all seeking to understand the truth on this Holy Day…

God bless!

DJim

 

[Genesis315]

This has everything to do with Ecumenism.
If you read the history of Vatican II you will find that *Nostra Aetate *was to be Chapter 4 in the Decree on Ecumenism. So therefore it has everything to do with Ecumenism. It was decided after much discussion to give it its own document.

I don’t see the purpose of stating that the Church rejects nothing that is, “** holy** in these religions and She regards with sincere reverence.” What is holy in a false religion? Reincarnation? 300,000 deities? Why have reverence for a religion that is not praying to God.

First off, the reason it was not in the decree one ecumenism is because ecumenism has to do with Christians, where as the other is properly classified under “inter-religious dialogue” which is geared towards evangelization.

As for affirming what is true in false religions, this is the most praiseworthy missionary practice of the Church–affirming what is good and perfecting it in Christ. Here is what Pope Pius XII says on the matter (notice he calls us to study these religions so we can best figure out what is good and what is not:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12EVANG.HTM

1. Another end remains to be achieved; and We desire that all should fully understand it. The Church from the beginning down to our own time has always followed this wise practice: let not the Gospel on being introduced into any new land destroy or extinguish whatever its people possess that is naturally good, just or beautiful. For the Church, when she calls people to a higher culture and a better way of life, under the inspiration of the Christian religion, does not act like one who recklessly cuts down and uproots a thriving forest. No, she grafts a good scion upon the wild stock that it may bear a crop of more delicious fruit.
2. Although owing to Adam’s fall, human nature is tainted with original sin, yet it has in itself something that is naturally Christian[43]; and this, if illumined by divine delight and nourished by God’s grace, can eventually be changed into true and supernatural virtue.
3. This is the reason why the Catholic Church has neither scorned nor rejected the pagan philosophies. Instead, after freeing them from error and all contamination she has perfected and completed them by Christian revelation. So likewise the Church has graciously made her own the native art and culture which in some countries is so highly developed. She has carefully encouraged them and has brought them to a point of aesthetic perfection that of themselves they probably would never have attained. By no means has she repressed native customs and traditions but has given them a certain religious significance; she has even transformed their feast days and made them serve to commemorate the martyrs and to celebrate mysteries of the faith. In this connection, St. Basil says very well: “Just as dyers prepare the material to be dyed by certain processes beforehand and only when this has been done do they color it with purple or some other color: likewise if the unfading glory of the just is to be ours for all time we shall first be prepared by these external rites and then we shall master the teachings and mysteries of Faith. When we become accustomed to looking at the reflection of the sun in the water, we shall turn to gaze upon the sun itself. . . Certainly the essential function of a tree is to produce fruit in season; still the foliage that its branches also bear serves to adorn it. In the same way the primary fruit of the soul is truth itself; but the garb of natural culture is a welcome addition, just as leaves provide shade for the fruit and add to its beauty. Thus Moses, a man of the greatest renown for his wisdom, is said to have come to the contemplation of Him, Who is, only after being trained in Egyptian lore. So later the wise Daniel is said to have been first schooled in Babylon in the wisdom of the Chaldeans, and only then to have come to know Divine Revelation.”[44]
4. We ourselves made the following statement in the first Encyclical Letter We wrote, Summi Pontificatus: “Persevering research carried out with laborious study, on the part of her missionaries of every age, has been undertaken in order to facilitate the deeper appreciative insight into the various civilizations and to utilize their good qualities to facilitate and render more fruitful the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. Whatever there is in the native customs that is not inseparably bound up with superstition and error will always receive kindly consideration and, when possible, will be preserved intact.”[45]

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

1. And in the discourse which We gave in 1944 to the directors of the Pontifical Missionary Society, We said: “The herald of the Gospel and messenger of Christ is an apostle. His office does not demand that he transplant European civilization and culture, and no other, to foreign soil, there to take root and propagate itself. His task in dealing with these peoples, who sometimes boast of a very old and highly developed culture of their own, is to teach and form them so that they are ready to accept willingly and in a practical manner the principles of Christian life and morality; principles, I might add, that fit into any culture, provided it be good and sound, and which give that culture greater force in safeguarding human dignity and in gaining human happiness. Catholic inhabitants of missionary countries, although they are first of all citizens of the Kingdom of God and members of His great family,[46] do not for all that cease to be citizens of their earthly fatherland.”[47]

 

[Genesis315]

Here are a couple traditional principles for reaading magisterial texts worth remembering from Pius XII (and the Holy Office under him, in terms of the last quote):

“47. Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected.” (Divino Afflante)

“21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.” (Humani Generis)

“For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority’ of the Church.” (letter concerning Father Feeney’s mistinterpretation of Magisterial texts)

It is beyond me why some individuals abandon that principle by which we defend the teaching of the living Teaching Authority and instead seek to show how it is not consonant with the past. This is not a traditional approach, but rather the approach of men like Dollinger. It was very easy for him to twist the definition concerning papal infallibility, give it a heterodox meaning ("a kind of spirit of Vatican I held by many ultra-ultramontanists who tried to further their agenda at the Council), and then pile up text upon text showing it was a betrayal of Tradition. It was the faithful Catholics who defended the orthodox interpretation and truth of the teaching.

 

[stmaria]

On pagan religions from* Nostra Aetate*

“Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust”
Hindus believe in the following divinities: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer. Hindus worship many animals as gods. Cows are the most sacred, but they also worship monkeys, snakes and other animals.

How can Hindus make a “a flight to God with love and trust” when they worship false gods? When they worship the devil?

“Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths

Pope Leo XIII AD Extremas #1
“ Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundred of thousands of Hindus from the myths and vile superstitions of the Brahmans to the true religion…many are still deprived of the truth, miserably imprisoned in the darkness of superstitution:

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions

What is holy in a pagan religion?

Definition of Gentile: anyone not a Jew or Christian. A pagan. A heathen.
Psalm 95:5 “For all the gods of the gentiles are devils”

1 Cor.10 20 “the pagans sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to become sharers with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and likewise the table of demons”

First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist”

 

[stmaria]

Could any of you please tell me the fruits of this Ecumenism which all of you hold so dear? Inter-faith communion? Ecumenical Religious services, allowing President Bill Clinton, a protestant, communion?
How many Catholics have left the Church because they now believe that one religion is as good as another since the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using Protestantism as a means of salvation.

Decree on Ecumensm
“It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such,
though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”

Pope Leo XIII‘Satis Cognitum” 5.2 “Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived: separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic-the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member”

Decree on Ecumenism
“The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Leo XIII Satis Cognitum
“ So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body”

]MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI Pius XII
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican

MORTALIUM ANIMOS
ON RELIGIOUS UNITY
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI JANUARY 6, 1928
Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it… But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians…This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ

 

[stmaria]

It seems to me that, JoeisCatholic and Djim, you believe that dogma evolves, that as the world changes, religion should also change, that doctrine is better understood today because we now have a deeper meaning. The documents on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism are new teachings. They do not reflect what has always been taught by the Church.

John Paul II – Apostolic Letter “Ecclesia Dei Afflicta
5 b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment **to deeper study **in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

Yes teachings of the Vatican II council are *new *and a *deeper study *is needed to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition.

First Vatican Council
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Oath against Modernism
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

Declaration on Religious Freedom
Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

 

[DJim]

stmaria–

Will you please reply to my post #40 above. Thank you.

DJim

PS–I see you have just now posted a reply mentioning me, but I’m hoping you will respond to my questions in #40…

 

[J0eisCath0lic]

Stmaria, I will have to say the same as DJim. I am sorry, but you are rehashing the same basic arguments that we’ve all been refuting, and you are not responding to any of our refutations. There is no point right now in responding to your latest posts, since all the arguments are the same and have been responded to in the last couple days. Please respond to some of what I’ve written or DJim. It seems you have not taken the time to really go over the answers to your criticisms.

 

[DJim]

How can Hindus make a “a flight to God with love and trust” when they worship false gods? When they worship the devil?

Who has said Hinduism is “worship” of the “devil” as you put it?

The first Gentile Christians ALSO were formerly worshippers of false gods. Yet they became Christian because of the response they made to the grace God gave them…

What is holy in a pagan religion?

The potential converts, created in the image and likeness of God Himself…

Definition of Gentile: anyone not a Jew or Christian. A pagan. A heathen.
Psalm 95:5 “For all the gods of the gentiles are devils”

Where did you get your definition of “Gentile”??? Never seen it defined that way before. I’m a “Gentile” and a Christian…

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

From post 40…

Oh really?–so you then believe that it’s possible for an ecumenical council of the Church established by Jesus Christ to universally teach error to the faithful???

Ah, the million dollar question - Can a council err if it is not intending to define doctrine? Can the deeper insights proposed in an ecumenical and pastoral approach that actually contradict - or at least give the very strong impression that they contradict - what has always been taught?

The questions raised by stmaria, espcially those demonstrated in posts 46, 47 & 48, are valid. Many Catholics have left the Church over them, and many non-Catholics won’t come in because of them.

The sad thing is, us lay-folk can discuss, debate, argue over them all we want and nothing will happen because we have not the authority. The higher-ups need to address these questions specifically and honestly. Some have said that this won’t happen until all those who were present at VII have passed away - too much of their lives are wrapped up in the Council to examine the Council objectively. I tend to agree with this, though it seems Pope Benedict is at least giving it a try to some extent .

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

Could any of you please tell me the fruits of this Ecumenism which all of you hold so dear?

Deeper expression and understanding of the truths of the faith, in pursuit of the prayer of Jesus Christ that “they may all be one.” Countless numbers of souls converted to the Catholic faith. What more could you ask for?

Inter-faith communion?

A contradiction of terms. No such thing…

Ecumenical Religious services

,

Do you have a problem with the concept of shared prayer with those who have at least something in common with the Catholic faith? Especially if they are our separated brothers and sisters in the faith?

allowing President Bill Clinton, a protestant, communion?

Communion at an ecumenical religious service? I don’t think so.

How many Catholics have left the Church because they now believe that one religion is as good as another since the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using Protestantism as a means of salvation.

Many Catholics misunderstand the Catholic faith. Some leave the Church, sadly. Sadly, some remain in the Church but without proper submission to the living Magisterium of the Church. Both are equally sad, as I see it…

Decree on Ecumensm

Yes, the quote you cited is infallibly true. I’m glad you cited it.

Pope Leo XIII‘Satis Cognitum” 5.2 “Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived: separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic-the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member”

Amen. Pope Leo speaks the truth. Of course, not all Protestants are “cut off” from the body. Only those who deliberately cut themselves off are “amputated”…

Decree on Ecumenism
“The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Another infallibly taught statement from Vatican II. Exactly right–since the Council of Florence made clear in the 1400s that it is Baptism that makes one a member of the Church. Period.

]MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI Pius XII

Another great Papal quote, teaching consistently the dogmas of the Council of Florence.

MORTALIUM ANIMOS
ON RELIGIOUS UNITY
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI JANUARY 6, 1928

There is a really interesting “ellipsis” in your quotation of this document. I intend to investigate it and report back to you…

But this is certainly a great work by a great pope, as well, teaching in continuity with the Council of Florence…

Thanks for citing the consistent and infallible teaching of the Church…

DJim

 

[DJim]

From post 40…
Ah, the million dollar question - Can a council err if it is not intending to define doctrine? Can the deeper insights proposed in an ecumenical and pastoral approach that actually contradict - or at least give the very strong impression that they contradict - what has always been taught?
DustinsDad

Um, the answer is NO–an ecumenical council can NOT teach error universally to the Church in the area of faith and morals. Period. Isn’t this clear from the 2000 year history and teaching of the Church?

It’s certainly clear in the teaching of the FIRST Vatican Council.

You see, that’s the irony–Vatican ONE infallibly teaches that this is NOT possible and anathematizes anyone who says it is. Yet people continually ask these questions of Vatican TWO!

Can I have my million dollars, please?

DJim

 

[DJim]

It seems to me that, JoeisCatholic and Djim, you believe that dogma evolves, that as the world changes, religion should also change, that doctrine is better understood today because we now have a deeper meaning.

It seems to me that you are wrong in regard to what I believe. And I guess I should know.

I actually believe what Vatican ONE taught–which is that it is not possible for Church teaching to exist in contradiction to itself. It can only exist in continuity. This is infallible teaching–and to say that Church teaching does exist in contradiction to itself is a violation of the clear teaching of Vatican ONE…

The documents on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism are new teachings. They do not reflect what has always been taught by the Church.

Well, see, there you have it–your argument is with Vatican ONE, since it infallibly teaches that this is NOT possible…If I were you, I would revise my assessment of Vatican Two such that you are in conformity to Vatican One…

Yes teachings of the Vatican II council are *new *and a *deeper study *is needed to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition.

But you only go HALF way–you say they are new and are NOT reflecting continuity. Pope John Paul the Great says they are new and need only “deeper study” to reveal the existing continuity with Tradition. The Pope is NOT saying further study needs to happen to determine whether there is continuity–not at all. He’s saying further study needs to better clarify the way the continuity exists. Big difference.

Declaration on Religious Freedom
Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

Another infallible teaching from Vatican II, in continuity with all that came before it…

DJim

 

[DJim]

stmaria quoted Pope Pius XI:

MORTALIUM ANIMOS
ON RELIGIOUS UNITY
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI JANUARY 6, 1928

Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it…

This chunk is from the middle of paragraph 2, in which Pius is decrying the practice of indiscriminate INTERRELIGIOUS (not ecumenical) gatherings that include “infidels of every kind” and Christians.

But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians…

This chunk is the complete “paragraph” 3, even though it’s just one sentence long.

Then there is a loooong section, from paragraph 4 through paragraph 7 inclusive, in which Pius starts out condemning the concept of “pan-Christianity”–a false unity that fails to unify because it is not accomplished through the true Church.

Paragraph 5 then cautions against this concept of “union in one body” which is being orchestrated outside the true Church.

Paragraph 6 is a loong statement contrasting this Christian “federation” concept with the true Church…

Paragraph 7 then is an equally long description of the various grave flaws in the approach taken by those seeking this federation of Churches…

ONLY THEN do we get to Paragraph 8, as quoted by stmaria:

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ

By omitting paragraphs 4 through 7, stmaria has created–either intentionally or unintentionally–the quite false impression that Pius is railing against ecumenism, when in fact what he is saying is that this effort to unite Christians into a federation that exists apart from the unity of the true Church is gravely wrong and can’t be supported.

Frankly, I find the result of this to be quite deceptive. A paragraph dealing with *interreligious groups is juxtaposed with one mentioning the concept of Christian unity, juxtaposed with one condemning the concept of a federation of Christian Churches existing apart from Rome…

stmaria, it would be really appropriate for you to acknowledge this mistake…

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

Um, the answer is NO–an ecumenical council can NOT teach error universally to the Church in the area of faith and morals. Period. Isn’t this clear from the 2000 year history and teaching of the Church?

That’s not the million dollar question - you left out the part of the intentions of the council - this one clearly being pastoral, not doctrinal or dogmatic.

This is kind of like asking if a pope exercises infallibility when he doesn’t intend to. He may err when speaking of matters of faith, but if the very specific “formula” isn’t there, it’s not an ipso facto infallible statement.

You see, that’s the irony–Vatican ONE infallibly teaches that this is NOT possible and anathematizes anyone who says it is. Yet people continually ask these questions of Vatican TWO!

Well, that’s because of the ambiguous documents that came from Vatican II that (see earlier posts for numerous examples) that look like contradictions of earlier church teaching - especially when you hold them side by side. People figure that precisely because of Vatican I (not despite it), then Vatican II must not have - for some reason or another - been teaching infallibly. The only alternative is to reconcile VII with the previous teachings of the Church that it seems to contradict. I think that is possible, but extremely difficult…and it can seem at times like trying to reconcile a circle and a square and make 'em out to be the same darn geometric shape.

For another thing, the documents and declarations of Vatican I are clear, concise, forceful, and consistant with previous Church teachings - sadly, it Vatican II falls short on the first three, and yes, it seems to fall a little short on all last one as well.

Feel free to correct this misunderstanding - but just saying “they don’t contradict” without demonstrating it, well that won’t get you far with most folks.

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[Genesis315]

It seems to me that, JoeisCatholic and Djim, you believe that dogma evolves, that as the world changes, religion should also change, that doctrine is better understood today because we now have a deeper meaning. The documents on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism are new teachings. They do not reflect what has always been taught by the Church.

John Paul II – Apostolic Letter “Ecclesia Dei Afflicta
5 b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment **to deeper study **in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

Yes teachings of the Vatican II council are *new *and a *deeper study *is needed to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition.

First Vatican Council
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Oath against Modernism
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

Declaration on Religious Freedom
Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

I think you need to read about the difference between development of doctrine versus the modernist evolution of dogma. Doctrine develops over time as the old is applied to new situations. Thus, Leo XIII developed Catholic social doctrine. In a sense, such an application of Catholic principles to economics created a completely new doctrine–one might say it created a completely new class of doctrines. Pius XI developed this further and popes after him further still. This was not moderist evolution of dogma, but authentic development of doctrine–as old principles are applied to new social situations and the teaching Churches teaches on situations necessary for the flock. This is why we have a living teaching authority. Different errors or other concerns present themselves at different times and it is the teaching Church who has the duty to apply the old to these new situations and/or errors. This kind of thing is not bad, but good:

As Pius XII said: “Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity;** all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected.”**

And additionally, “There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church.”

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12DIVIN.HTM

 

[DustinsDad]

Deeper expression and understanding of the truths of the faith, in pursuit of the prayer of Jesus Christ that “they may all be one.”…

Intangible ideas here that are just a matter of opinion. One could just as easily say that after VII we got a less clear expression and understanding of the truths of the faith. We might actually look at the stats on Catholic understanding of, say, transubstanciation, and get an idea on who’s opinion is more accurate .

And I’d say the Church is *the result and answer *of the prayer of Jesus - that they may all be one - and have always called others to this unity. (See Pope Leo’s SATIS COGNITUMbelow).

Countless numbers of souls converted to the Catholic faith. …

Here’s one that can be measured - and the stats don’t bear you out. Statistically, conversions (like most other items that can actially be measured) are down - way down - since the Council. I mean, opinions and theoretical causes aside, facts is facts.

Amen. Pope Leo speaks the truth. Of course, not all Protestants are “cut off” from the body. Only those who deliberately cut themselves off are “amputated”…

Pope Leo makes no such distinction of “intentions” - To be separated from the body is death. Period.
And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. “There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts” (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 23). And to set forth more clearly the unity of the Church, he makes use of the illustration of a living body, the members of which cannot possibly live unless united to the head and drawing from it their vital force. Separated from the head they must of necessity die.
(SATIS COGNITUM, Pope Leo XIII, June 29, 1896)
And as for the above mention of the Church calling those outside of her to the unity desired by Christ and fulfilled in Holy Mother Church, here are the words from the same encyclical from Pope Leo XII:
And with the same yearning Our soul goes out to those whom the foul breath of irreligion has not entirely corrupted, and who at least seek to have the true God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, as their Father. Let such as these take counsel with themselves, and realize that they can in no wise be counted among the children of God, unless they take Christ Jesus as their Brother, and at the same time the Church as their mother.
Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

That’s not the million dollar question - you left out the part of the intentions of the council - this one clearly being pastoral, not doctrinal or dogmatic.

Actually, my response focuses on one specific issue that makes the million dollar question moot–whether error can be present in a council’s universal teaching on faith and morals. The answer to this question actually has nothing to do with whether a council has created a new dogmatic formula that is to be taught.

For example, if you try to tell me that there is no dogma or doctrine present in the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, merely because the Council is “pastoral” and that therefore there are no infallible teachings present in that Constitution, of course I will consider that a ludicrous position.

This is kind of like asking if a pope exercises infallibility when he doesn’t intend to. He may err when speaking of matters of faith, but if the very specific “formula” isn’t there, it’s not an ipso facto infallible statement.

The Church infallibly teaches that the faithful “cannot err in matters of belief”–whic is my point. This teaching is what underpins the concept that at no time can the Magisterium teach universal error in faith and morals. For, if it did, then it would be possible for the faithful to err universally, which can’t happen.

THAT’s my point–we’re not really talking about whether a Council has created new formulas for dogma, but rather we’re talking about whether a Council can ever under any circumstances teach universal error in faith and morals. The answer is that it CAN’T because of the protection of the Holy Spirit. This protection exists even if/when a Council is not intending to make any new dogmatic statments. By default, anything it teaches universally on faith and morals will be protected from error, whether it’s new or old…

Well, that’s because of the ambiguous documents that came from Vatican II that (see earlier posts for numerous examples) that look like contradictions of earlier church teaching - especially when you hold them side by side.

“Look like contradictions” to whom? Not to me. Not to the Church. Perhaps they look that way if you are looking for contradiction (or, as in a recent example, when one forces a document to say what the person desires it to say…)

People figure that precisely because of Vatican I (not despite it), then Vatican II must not have - for some reason or another - been teaching infallibly.

But that’s the point–an ecumenical council can NOT teach universal error in faith and morals. Period. Even if it doesn’t give us any new formulations of teaching…Such a council can’t say something is true if it is really false…

The only alternative is to reconcile VII with the previous teachings of the Church that it seems to contradict. I think that is possible, but extremely difficult…and it can seem at times like trying to reconcile a circle and a square and make 'em out to be the same darn geometric shape.

I have never found it extremely difficult to recognize the continuity of teaching…

For another thing, the documents and declarations of Vatican I are clear, concise, forceful, and consistant with previous Church teachings - sadly, it Vatican II falls short on the first three, and yes, it seems to fall a little short on all last one as well.

Again, you are falling to a major trap, as I see it. By saying–contrary to Vatican ONE–that a council like Vatican II might have taught without the necessary continuity in teaching, you negate not only Vatican II but also the infallible statement of Vatican ONE which says it’s not possible. If you say it is possible, in my view you are dissenting from Vatican ONE…

Feel free to correct this misunderstanding - but just saying “they don’t contradict” without demonstrating it, well that won’t get you far with most folks.

I can, have, and do demonstrate the absence of contradiction, as I did with Pope Pius XI’s 1928 document on Christian unity, badly misquoted by stmaria…

Meanwhile, I have asserted the fundamental principle of the Church–that it can’t err in teaching universally on faith and morals, period…

Can you argue against the principle I’m asserting, or not? Can you show me where the Magisterium says it is possible for it to teach universal error in faith/morals?

DJim