Vatican 2 "defined NO dogma at all" ?!

[Malcolm]

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a
part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an
end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this
> particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately
chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral
council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself
into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance
of all the rest.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Address to the Bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988

“The doctrines which are proper [unique] to it, …absolutely
cannot be considered as dogmatic because they are deprived of
the requisite form for defining and hence of the related
voluntas definiendi [intention to define]. … [N]one of
its doctrines, unless ascribable to previous conciliar
definitions, are infallible or unchangeable, nor are they
even binding: he who denies them cannot, for this reason,
be called a formal heretic. He, then, who imposes them as
infallible and unchangeable would be going contrary to the
council itself.”

Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, Professor of Ecclesiology at the Pontifical Lateran University

Are we not obliged then to consider the merely “pastoral” non-dogmatic ruminations of the modernists in the light of the REAL Magisterium which has always been and can ONLY ever be what the Church has ALWAYS taught about homosexuality , divorce , priestesses , etc etc

 

[TMC]

I think the standard response to this question is that Vatican II defined no new dogmas, but its documents clearly restated or explained existing dogmas. After all, one of the major documents from VII is titled “Dogmatic Constitution.”

The quote you point to is sometimes used to argue that Vatican II was not a real ecumenical council, or that its documents do not have teaching authority. To the extent that is your point, that is incorrect. Vatican II was an ecumenical council with the same authority as any other ecumenical council, including providing teaching that is binding on the faithful.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

My takeaway from that statement is they didn’t introduce any new doctrines or dogma, but reaffirmed what we already knew?

It did, however, change some practices and pastoral approaches…

 

[Malcolm]

… if anything in V2 or afterwards is contrary to previous dogma then it SHOULD be anathema, right ?

no proper council or even Pope can create new dogma or abrogate existing dogma , is that correct ?

 

[Crusader13]

I think the aim of VII was to share the truth and beauty of the Catholic Faith in a way that fit with the changing ideologies of the time. I think there was a great emphasis on the pastoral nature of the council that looked to soften the often rigid and uncompromising nature that some believed the Church to possess.

By emphasizing mercy and ecumenism, I think there was a hope that more Catholics and more non-Catholics would gravitate to the new message and then eventually come to embrace all of the Church’s teachings and traditions.

Unfortunately, the often ambiguous language of some of the documents, allowed for too many different interpretations to prevail at once. So what we got were clergy and factions within the Church trying to reimagine and reinterpret many of the traditional teachings and practices in light of these new documents.

 

[Malcolm]

So what we got were clergy and factions within the Church trying to reimagine and reinterpret many of the traditional teachings and practices in light of these new documents.

As far as I’m concerned clarity regarding the truth should always take precedence over everything else. Even if the whole world were to turn away , at least those IN the church wouldn’t be confused

 

[commenter]

… if anything in V2 or afterwards is contrary to previous dogma then it SHOULD be anathema, right ?

no proper council or even Pope can create new dogma or abrogate existing dogma , is that correct ?

You said “V2 and afterwards”, but this would apply to V1, Trent, and earlier councils, and popes too.

Luther declared that certain earlier Council or papal teachings were anathema. Did he have that authority? Many websites on the Left and Right reject many council or papal teachings today as inconsistent with Catholicism. (Actually, they do this whenever donations are dropping. It usually works).

 

[Vico]

… if anything in V2 or afterwards is contrary to previous dogma then it SHOULD be anathema, right ?

no proper council or even Pope can create new dogma or abrogate existing dogma , is that correct ?

No abrogation of dogma, yet doctrinal questions may remain undefined for years without the need to define formally since there has not yet been a particular need to do so, such as a heresy.

 

[goout]

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a
part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an
end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this
> particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately
chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral
council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself
into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance
of all the rest.”

What? What is your question?
There is only one Magisterium.

 

[goout]

Crusader13:

So what we got were clergy and factions within the Church trying to reimagine and reinterpret many of the traditional teachings and practices in light of these new documents.

As far as I’m concerned clarity regarding the truth should always take precedence over everything else. Even if the whole world were to turn away , at least those IN the church wouldn’t be confused

Human beings get confused. We are both human beings, as were the Apostles. The first apostles were confused, eh? And they had the benefit of seeing the Master firsthand.
Why should you and I not be confused? We are not perfected in intellect or virtue.

When you are confused, look in the mirror, take stock of yourself, take responsibility, be docile to Mother Church, and stop looking for reasons to rebel.
You will find that your confusion melts away to the degree that you approach Mother Church with good will.

 

[fhansen]

I agree. Although I don’t think there was as much ambiguity as some might imagine, or that couldn’t be further clarified easily enough. The other driving force at large was a society-driven mentality that wanted change, and thought it had answers for real or imagined human problems and that then proceeded to abuse or exploit concilliar statements and concepts to support agendas that weren’t necessarily at all consistent with the intentions of the authors.

 

[Malcolm]

What? What is your question?
There is only one Magisterium.

My question is probably similar to the question(s) Cardinal Burke et. al. put to Pope Francis in their dubia

It’s BECAUSE there’s only one Magisterium that I am disturbed by recent talk about divorced adulterers receiving communion , gay sex and transgenderism aren’t so bad , women priests might be a good idea, God wills other religions , etc etc etc

I want to follow what Catholicism was for the majority of it’s existence. People say V2 was ambiguous… people say Francis was misunderstood… well let’s CLARIFY all these issues and remove ANYTHING that contradicts or even confuses the previous constant teaching and practice of the church.

Who would NOT want to keep as close as possible to the original “deposit of faith” entrusted by God to His church? umm… the DEVIL ?

 

[PetraG]

I don’t know why we’d want a Church council to define a new dogma when there wasn’t one to declare.
Better to clarify which of things being treated as dogmas really are dogmas and which ones aren’t.

In our times, however, that is an ongoing work, as the questions just keep coming…

It’s BECAUSE there’s only one Magisterium that I am disturbed by recent talk about divorced adulterers receiving communion , gay sex and transgenderism aren’t so bad , women priests might be a good idea, God wills other religions , etc etc etc

I don’t know what that has to do with Vatican II. Besides, it isn’t as if no one in Eastern Orthodoxy has raised questions about gender that are being raised within the Roman Rite.

 

[Malcolm]

I don’t know why we’d want a Church council to define a new dogma when there wasn’t one to declare. Better to clarify which of things being treated as dogmas really are dogmas and which ones aren’t.

I’m not sure what you mean by the first sentence but I definitely agree with the second. Whether by accident or design (God forbid) there is now significant confusion about what the catholic church actually does believe (or so it seems to me).

I don’t know what that has to do with Vatican II. Besides, it isn’t as if no one in Eastern Orthodoxy has raised questions about gender that are being raised within the Roman Rite.

You are right , recent talk about adulterers receiving communion etc have nothing to do with either Vatican II or ANYTHING else in previous church teaching as far as I can tell. Whether Orthodox or protestant churches normalize sexual disorders or homosexual sin is irrelevant to me - we should not.

To what extent Vatican II is responsible for creating a conducive atmosphere for such things isn’t really the issue either. My point was the need to maintain all the definitions and distinctions that seem to have been blurred in the minds of many by Vatican II and people elaborating from it’s “spirit” .

 

[PetraG]

What I was saying was that this constant questioning of traditions is not just happening to the Roman Catholic Church, let alone just to the Protestants. All of Christendom is getting it. As nearly as I can tell, all religion everywhere is getting it. The world is very confused about the role of individual conscience in the moral life, and it is causing all sorts of chaos.

 

[TMC]

What I was saying was that this constant questioning of traditions is not just happening to the Roman Catholic Church, let alone just to the Protestants. All of Christendom is getting it. As nearly as I can tell, all religion everywhere is getting it. The world is very confused about the role of individual conscience in the moral life, and it is causing all sorts of chaos.

Are you sure that is a new or different condition? Or are we just all more aware of the doubts and questions of the faithful because of modern technology? I would not say that the history of Christendom is a history of blissful and peaceful agreement on all things.

 

[Malcolm]

Questioning tradition is a problem individuals have . They can resign themselves to tradition or remove themselves from it.

The real problem with the church (in my opinion) is having allowed it’s own self definitions to have become blurred in a foolish attempt to become more acceptable to the world. This damages ALL members of the church and actually helps no one.

 

[PetraG]

Are you sure that is a new or different condition? Or are we just all more aware of the doubts and questions of the faithful because of modern technology? I would not say that the history of Christendom is a history of blissful and peaceful agreement on all things.

Yes, even though I cannot say I’ve polled the private thoughts of all Christians throughout history, I would say that far more people now publicly question authority than any time in history and that more is in question than at any time in Christian history.

As an example: name a time in history when there was a question whether parents could know the gender of their child. Wouldn’t you say that this was something most people would say is obvious the vast majority of the time? When in history was there any widespread questioning of whether Christian marriage was open to two people of the same sex? Then there are the things that weren’t moral questions because they weren’t even possible, such as surrogacy and IVF.

 

[Beryllos]

In our times, however, that is an ongoing work, as the questions just keep coming…

Well said. It brings this to mind:

Growth in understanding the faith

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

• “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”; it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.
• “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”, the sacred Scriptures “grow with the one who reads them.”
• “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.

95 “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

 

[TMC]

Yes, even though I cannot say I’ve polled the private thoughts of all Christians throughout history, I would say that far more people now publicly question authority than any time in history and that more is in question than at any time in Christian history.

As an example: name a time in history when there was a question whether parents could know the gender of their child. Wouldn’t you say that this was something most people would say is obvious the vast majority of the time? When in history was there any widespread questioning of whether Christian marriage was open to two people of the same sex? Then there are the things that weren’t moral questions because they weren’t even possible, such as surrogacy and IVF.

It seems that you are talking about the kinds of things that people are questioning, which are in some ways different today than they were long ago. But I think that there have always been serious questions, and many disputes. The need for the ecumenical councils demonstrates that, I think. In times past the questions included very basic tenants of the faith, like the nature of Christ and the Trinity, for example.

You may be right, its hard to say. I am generally skeptical, however, whenever people believe that the time they live in is unique or extreme. Every time seems unique and extreme to those living it, every problem is odd and unprecedented when it first arises. I doubt that our time is really unique or unusual, as there is truly nothing new under the sun.