Vatican 2 a Pastoral Council

[SemperFidelis]

But it did expound. Thus the dogmatic constitutions. There was dogmatic teaching done in VII.

Can you explain to me, in explicit detail, what that Dogmatic teaching was?

 

[BobP123]

Some traditionalists have grabbed this term and emphasized it as if it was an official term for unique type of council, but it’s not.

Yet some modernists think whatever came out of V2 superceded all previous councils. What’s worse?

 

[bear06]

Can you explain to me, in explicit detail, what that Dogmatic teaching was?

Oh my? Are you really saying that there wasn’t a dogmatic consitution in Vatican II?

You’re fishing here. Nobody has said that there was any new doctrine revealed. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t 2 dogmatic consitutions in Vatican II. There are 2 documents expounding on already revealed doctrine.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Oh my? Are you really saying that there wasn’t a dogmatic consitution in Vatican II?

You’re fishing here. Nobody has said that there was any new doctrine revealed. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t 2 dogmatic consitutions in Vatican II. There are 2 documents expounding on already revealed doctrine.

I never said there weren’t Dogmatic Constitutions. I know very well there are four Dogmatic Constitutions from Vatican II. I would just like someone to show me the explicit teachings of those four Dogmatic Constitutions. What did the Church explicitly teach here? What am I required to believe? What was revealed as truth?

 

[bear06]

I never said there weren’t Dogmatic Constitutions. I know very well there are four Dogmatic Constitutions from Vatican II. I would just like someone to show me the explicit teachings of those four Dogmatic Constitutions. What did the Church explicitly teach here? What am I required to believe? What was revealed as truth?

Actually, there are only 2 Dogmatic Consitutions - Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. The other two are pastoral consitutions.

Your “revealed as truth” query is problematic since it did not reveal truth. It only expounded.

As far as “what did it teach?” and “what am I required to believe?”, it might be easier to list the specific (and I mean quotes from the VII docs) which you are questioning.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Actually, there are only 2 Dogmatic Consitutions - Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium.

I actually never realized this, and I’ve read all four constitutions, but thanks for pointing that out.

As far as “what did it teach?” and “what am I required to believe?”, it might be easier to list the specific (and I mean quotes from the VII docs) which you are questioning.

I’m not questioning anything, just trying to prove my point that Vatican II didn’t teach anything new, or infallible, or anything that I am required to believe, and that it actually has no new explicit teachings that anyone can actually point out.

 

[cam100]

Good point. Keep in mind that “patoral” is not a recognized category of councils that possess or lack any qualities to make it different from other general councils. It’s just a descriptive term. Some traditionalists have grabbed this term and emphasized it as if it was an official term for unique type of council, but it’s not.

Yet some modernists think whatever came out of V2 superceded all previous councils. What’s worse?

Both are bad. Vatican II can only be properly understood in light of 2000 years of tradition. We can’t dismiss everything that came before Vat II and claim to understand Vat II.

On the other hand, we can’t dismiss Vat II because it was described as mainly “pastoral” and think that we only have to acknowledge the previous councils, since all general councils have the authority of the Church.

 

[SemperFidelis]

We can’t dismiss everything that came before Vat II and claim to understand Vat II.

You actually can’t dismiss ANYTHING that came before Vatican II if you are going to understand Vatican II. If Vatican II wasn’t a break with the past and Tradition (which it wasn’t), then one can’t reject Vatican II, unless they are rejecting something that came prior to Vatican II.

 

[bear06]

I’m not questioning anything, just trying to prove my point that Vatican II didn’t teach anything new, or infallible, or anything that I am required to believe, and that it actually has no new explicit teachings that anyone can actually point out

.

Well, you had me until the highlighted point. Let me see if I can find a good article on this for you.

 

[bear06]

Here’s a short little piece on what I’m talking about:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixd.html

 

[latinmass]

Here’s a short little piece on what I’m talking about:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixd.html

This link still does not answer the question posed to you. What exactly has changed in V2 that is different from pre V2? Please cite the dogma specifically expounded on, and how or what I am to do, or think, or believe differently since the Council. Nobody seems to be able to specifically answer this question. Thank You.

 

[stmaria]

bear06;2985069]Oh my? Are you really saying that there wasn’t a dogmatic consitution in Vatican II?

You’re fishing here. Nobody has said that there was any new doctrine revealed. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t 2 dogmatic consitutions in Vatican II. There are 2 documents expounding on already revealed doctrine

.

Just because the word “Dogmatic” appears before Lumen Gentium (on the Church) and Dei Verbum (on Revelation) does not mean that they proclaimed dogmas or that they were infallible, but only that they treat of a matter bearing on dogma. Vatican II refused to define anything infallibly; Paul VI explicitly stated this on January 12, 1966, a few weeks after the Council’ “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.”

 

[SemperFidelis]

Here’s a short little piece on what I’m talking about:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixd.html

Here’s a pertinent quote from the article:

“The quotation by Pope Paul is merely saying that there were no solemn dogmatic definitions at VCII by which opponents were anathematized and excommunication was threatened if one did not submit.”

Then what does one have to submit to, and why for that matter?

 

[bear06]

Holy cow! It’s like nobody actually read the short article I gave or Lumen Gentium.

Regarding things expounded upon in VII:

While many of the documents were Pastoral Constitutions, there were 2 Dogmatic Constitutions: Lumen Gentium (On the Church in the Modern World) and Dei Verbum (On Divine Revelation) which were completions of the original work of Vatican I which had been interrupted by the Italian Revolution in 1870. If you look at the end of Lumen Gentium in the VCII document collection by Fr. Flannery, you will see that the CDF clearly stated that part of the document did represent authentic new teaching that was binding on the Church. Dei Verbum definitively settled a serious question on the proper way of interpreting the teaching of the Council of Trent on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Trent had not clarified whether we were dealing with two separate sources or one source in two forms. DV definitively settled the question in favor of the latter solution.

As regards Dignitatits Humanae (Declaration on Religious Liberty), it was NOT a Pastoral Constitution, but a declaration of teaching. This is a different kind of document. It is not a solemn definition but it is at least as definitive as an encyclical. The document reaffirmed previous Catholic teaching on the relationship between Church and State but definitely broke new ground. It defined for the first time the meaning of the “Public Order” and established that the just order in a state is inseparable from the objective moral order. The facile separation of “Public Order” from the “Common Good” postulated by some Catholic scholars was thereby rejected. There was also a clear apology for the excesses of the Inquisition and a recognition that the moral order requires that States organize their laws recognizing the dignity of the human person. This was all new.

Some people have argued that DH was only a pastoral document and therefore not irreformable. I don’t agree. This was a General Council of the Church. It is clear that doctrine developed here and subsequent Popes have always referred to the documents as part of the Magisterium. While this was not a solemn declaration of a dogma, what was taught meets the criteria for infallible teaching as part of the Ordinary Magisterium. In the same way, Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF have made

Also, see LG #25

1. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

 

[bear06]

Here’s another good article:
ewtn.com/library/Theology/SIPVAT2.HTM

 

[bear06]

.

Just because the word “Dogmatic” appears before Lumen Gentium (on the Church) and Dei Verbum (on Revelation) does not mean that they proclaimed dogmas or that they were infallible, but only that they treat of a matter bearing on dogma. Vatican II refused to define anything infallibly; Paul VI explicitly stated this on January 12, 1966, a few weeks after the Council’ “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.”

Sigh! We’ve been over this. Read the whole thread.

 

[St_Isidore]

Sigh! We’ve been over this. Read the whole thread.

I think it is more for some that require reinforcement of the truth.

 

[St_Isidore]

.

Just because the word “Dogmatic” appears before Lumen Gentium (on the Church) and Dei Verbum (on Revelation) does not mean that they proclaimed dogmas or that they were infallible, but only that they treat of a matter bearing on dogma. Vatican II refused to define anything infallibly; Paul VI explicitly stated this on January 12, 1966, a few weeks after the Council’ “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.”

As per your usual, it is as simple and logical as stated.

 

[stmaria]

Sigh! We’ve been over this. Read the whole thread.

I have read the thread. What about it?

If you look at the end of Lumen Gentium in the VCII document collection by Fr. Flannery, you will see that the CDF clearly stated that part of the document did represent authentic new teaching that was binding on the Church

.
What part of the document represents authentic new teaching that is binding? Would you post it please.

Dei Verbum definitively settled a serious question on** the proper way of interpreting the teaching of the Council of Trent on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. **Trent had not clarified whether we were dealing with two separate sources or one source in two forms. DV definitively settled the question in favor of the latter solution.

Would you post the question that was settled?

As regards Dignitatits Humanae (Declaration on Religious Liberty), it was NOT a Pastoral Constitution, but a declaration of teaching. This is a different kind of document. It is not a solemn definition but it is at least as definitive as an encyclical. **The document reaffirmed previous Catholic teaching on the relationship between Church and State **

Where did it reaffirm traditional teaching on separation of Church and State?

It defined for the first time the meaning of the “Public Order” and established that the just order in a state is inseparable from the objective moral order. The facile separation of “Public Order” from the “Common Good” postulated by some Catholic scholars was thereby rejected.

Could you post that. I would like to read it.

There was also a clear apology for the excesses of the Inquisition and a recognition that the moral order requires that States organize their laws recognizing the dignity of the human person. This was all new.

An apology for the excesses of the inquistion? Could you post that please.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Holy cow! It’s like nobody actually read the short article I gave or Lumen Gentium.

I read the article, including the part I quoted. But it was you who didn’t answer the question that arose from the quote. Your article proved my point.

P.S. I’ve also read Lumen Gentium.