Vatican 2 a Pastoral Council

[bear06]

Would you post the question that was settled?

Well, if you had read a line down from the one you highlighted you would have seen:

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.

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

I’m not sure you really know what the traditional teaching is if you think that DH didn’t reaffirm it. Here’s a really good article on the topic which even radical traditionalist publications picked up.
speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=3129&t=Separation+of+Church+and+State

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

This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

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.

Several, including JPII, have referenced this to mean the Inquisition.
catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1058
catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0007.html
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011fea3.asp

Also, please note the highlighted portion.

 

[stmaria]

bear06;2991154

I’m not sure you really know what the traditional teaching is if you think that DH didn’t reaffirm it. Here’s a really good article on the topic which even radical traditionalist publications picked up.
speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=3129&t=Separation+of+Church+and+State

I know what the traditional teaching is but DO YOU? Why didn’t DH simply qoute from* Libertas* if it was truly restating traditional doctrine?
*LIBERTAS *papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm
ON THE NATURE OF HUMAN LIBERTY
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII JUNE 20, 1888
18. There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest
21. This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith… Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. justice therefore forbids, **and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – **namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. "

Why wasn’t that quote used at Vatican II???
And why was this Pope ignored?
Pope Pius IX “Quanta Cura”
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."

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

Your link said Vatican II apoligized. But for what???

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/worl
“The Inquisition has long been the bete noir of practically everyone who is hostile to the Church, such as Continental European anti-clericals. But its mythology has been especially strong in the English-speaking lands, including America”.

Truth about the Spanish Inquisition
catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=5236
“ This image of the Spanish Inquisition is a useful one for those who have little love for the Catholic Church. Anyone wishing to beat the Church about the head and shoulders will not tarry long before grabbing two favorite clubs: the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.”

 

[TMC]

I know what the traditional teaching is but DO YOU? Why didn’t DH simply qoute from* Libertas* if it was truly restating traditional doctrine?
*LIBERTAS *papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm
ON THE NATURE OF HUMAN LIBERTY
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII JUNE 20, 1888
18. There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest
21. This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith… Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. justice therefore forbids, **and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – **namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. "

Why wasn’t that quote used at Vatican II???
And why was this Pope ignored?
Pope Pius IX “Quanta Cura”
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."

Your link said Vatican II apoligized. But for what???

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/worl
“The Inquisition has long been the bete noir of practically everyone who is hostile to the Church, such as Continental European anti-clericals. But its mythology has been especially strong in the English-speaking lands, including America”.

Truth about the Spanish Inquisition
catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=5236
“ This image of the Spanish Inquisition is a useful one for those who have little love for the Catholic Church. Anyone wishing to beat the Church about the head and shoulders will not tarry long before grabbing two favorite clubs: the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.”

What makes you think that the Council ignored any of the Popes? It appears that your opinion is that maintaining the Traditions is no more than an exercise in accurately quoting past Popes and councils. If that were true we wouldn’t need any more Popes, we would just need reasonably competent scribes.

The latest Council built on the teachings of the previous Councils and Popes, just as the 20 councils before it did. After each council some of the faithful rejected the teachings. Everything old is new again.

 

[havemercy]

It didn’t have to. The Pope who started the Council, and the Pope who finished the Council said so. Since they are the authority in interpreting the Council, and they say it’s pastoral, that’s good enough for me.

That and many council fathers kept that in mind when they were drafting or discarding schemas. You would often hear “That isn’t in the spirit of this Council which is pastoral in nature”, etc. from the fathers.

There was incredible tension among council fathers due to this.

 

[St_Isidore]

What makes you think that the Council ignored any of the Popes? It appears that your opinion is that maintaining the Traditions is no more than an exercise in accurately quoting past Popes and councils.

And it also appears that you may need to read the thread. That question has already been addressed son.

The latest Council built on the teachings of the previous Councils and Popes, just as the 20 councils before it did. After each council some of the faithful rejected the teachings. Everything old is new again.

Guess what V2 was a Pastoral Council. Deal with it, unless of course you are posting from the Holy See and know different than what is already in the history books.

 

[TMC]

And it also appears that you may need to read the thread. That question has already been addressed son.

Guess what V2 was a Pastoral Council. Deal with it, unless of course you are posting from the Holy See and know different than what is already in the history books.

I am not sure why my comments drew both condescension and hostility. I am also not sure what you mean by “deal with it”? What is there to “deal” with? And where did I deny that Vatican II was pastoral in nature?

Vatican II was an ecumenical counsel. That it is described as a “pastoral” council does not make it any less valid. It has been said on this thread that it announced no new dogmas. OK. But it did publish two dogmatic constitutions - Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum. Whether the dogmas expressed in those constitutions are new or not, they remain dogmas of the Church.

In opening the Council Pope John said:

In calling this vast assembly of bishops, the latest and humble successor to the Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you intended to assert once again the magisterium (teaching authority), which is unfailing and endures until the end of time, in order that this magisterium, taking into account the errors, the requirements, and the opportunities of our time, might be presented in exceptional form to all men throughout the world.

On Dei Verbum says:

The entire text and all the individual elements which have been set forth in this Constitution have pleased the Fathers. And by the Apostolic power conferred on us by Christ, we, together with the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and enact them; and we order that what has been thus enacted in Council be promulgated, to the glory of God.

So pastoral or not, the teachings of VII are the teachings of the Church. It may be entertaining to have a “angels onthe head of pin” discussion on what is dogma, and what is doctrine, or what may be a ‘new’ or ‘old’ interpretation of some point of theology. But its still the teaching of the Church. Perhaps the real issue that so many have with this Council can be summed up best by another quote from John XXIII:

In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.

We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.

In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfilment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.

 

[cam100]

I’m not sure you really know what the traditional teaching is if you think that DH didn’t reaffirm it. Here’s a really good article on the topic which even radical traditionalist publications picked up.
speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=3129&t=Separation+of+Church+and+State

Here’s another great explanation of Dignitatis Humanae which illustrates how the explanation of religious liberty in that document ties in with traditional teaching. It’s a book that I found used on Amazon:

Religious Liberty and Contraception by Brian W. Harrison (ISBN 0959005935)

 

[stmaria]

TMC;2993477]What makes you think that the Council ignored any of the Popes? It appears that your opinion is that maintaining the Traditions is no more than an exercise in accurately quoting past Popes and councils

.

Duh! To maintain Tradition and for doctrine to evolve it MUST evolve from already defined doctrine.
Look at the footnotes on* Religious Liberty*. Pope John XXXIII is quoted 9 times yet where is a quote that directly deals with Religious Liberty. Where are the footnotes from the Syllabus of Errors? There is one token footnote from Libertas that doesn’t even deal with Religious Liberty. There should be 20 footnotes from Libertas, Qunta Cura and Mirari Vos. They are not there.** So where did this doctrine evolve from**?
Here is what the document on Religious Liberty says.
“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”

 

[stmaria]

I
Vatican II was an ecumenical counsel. That it is described as a “pastoral” council does not make it any less valid. It has been said on this thread that it announced no new dogmas. OK.

But it did publish** two dogmatic constitutions **

 

[St_Isidore]

Vatican II was an ecumenical counsel. That it is described as a “pastoral” council does not make it any less valid.

Sorry if I was abrupt. Something can be valid yet not licit.
Here is some info in another thread: POSTS#139-140
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=198610&page=10

 

[bear06]

Having the word"dogmatic" in front of it doesn’t mean that that particular document is “dogmatic” It simply means that it is restating existing dogma, which it did.
Here is a quote from *Dei Verbum *that is from the Council of Trent and The First Vatican Council and is restated by Vatican II
See the footnotes

It did a little more than that. If you look at the article I gave it shows this:

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.

 

[stmaria]

It did a little more than that. If you look at the article I gave it shows this:

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

I read the article and I have no idea what he is talking about. Post the paragraph that settled the question if you can

 

[bear06]

I read the article and I have no idea what he is talking about. Post the paragraph that settled the question if you can

In regards to his reference that

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.

I believe he is referring to this:

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“Pastoral” does not exclude “doctrinal.” As an ecumenical council, it will always be simultaneously pastoral, doctrinal, and disciplinary.