Vatican II changes things?

[una_fides]

I’d say before all things it is necessary for him or her to hold to God/Christ.

I’d say it’s absolutely necessary for every human creature to be subject to the authority of God. It’s necessary for Catholics to be subject to the authority of the Pope.

I’d say, as the Catholic Church says, that “Christ himself is the mystery of salvation”–see Catechism para 772 ff. and 813 ff. Where do your thoughts come from?

Then you disagree not with me but with Pope Boniface’s authoritative–and infallible–definition. That’s where “my thoughts” come from. However, they are only my thoughts or even my words to the extent that I copied them verbatim from the vicar of Christ:
Pope Boniface VIII. Unam Sanctam
“Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2] … Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

Notice he did not say for “every Catholic.”

 

[una_fides]

I am not at all clear that you’ve been quoting from infallible declarations…Given that “infallibility” was not defined until Vatican I in the late 19th century, what quotations have you cited that you claim have indisputably been taught infallibly and understood by the Church as such (again, given that the doctrine of infallibility was only begun to be explicitly clarified at Vatican I)?

Yes of course to the first (I’m still confused on how you can claim Vatican I infallibly proclaimed something, since Vatican I only defined how the Pope teaches infallibly, not how an ecumenical council teaches infallibly).

I am not clear on how you are reading Vatican I. That Council did not invent infallibility. It simply told us how to spot it. You act as if anything taught prior to Vatican I was not infallible. Btw, Vatican I does mention General Councils as well. And fyi, General Councils only teach infallilbly when they are promulgated by the pope. A General Council not in union with the pope is not a General Council and does not have the safeguard of infallibility. There have been several Councils in which most of the bishops of the world met and declared heresies, such as Arianism and Semi-Arianism. These councils were not in union with the pope. I mean no disrespect by this statement, but I do encourage you to please read more pre-Vatican II teachings of the Church and hopefully you will become more clear on the matter that revelation is not progressive. (Actually if you even read Vatican II, Lumen Gentium #25 you should have a better understanding of infallibility as well.)

 

[diggerdomer]

Then you disagree not with me but with Pope Boniface’s authoritative–and infallible–definition. That’s where “my thoughts” come from. However, they are only my thoughts or even my words to the extent that I copied them verbatim from the vicar of Christ:

I agree with the teaching of the Church. Today and always, not just from many centuries ago taken out of context without the benefit of what the Church has taught since (which is of course not rejecting anything authoritatively taught in previous centuries).

 

[diggerdomer]

I am not clear on how you are reading Vatican I. That Council did not invent infallibility. It simply told us how to spot it. You act as if anything taught prior to Vatican I was not infallible. Btw, Vatican I does mention General Councils as well. And fyi, General Councils only teach infallilbly when they are promulgated by the pope. A General Council not in union with the pope is not a General Council and does not have the safeguard of infallibility. There have been several Councils in which most of the bishops of the world met and declared heresies, such as Arianism and Semi-Arianism. These councils were not in union with the pope. I mean no disrespect by this statement, but I do encourage you to please read more pre-Vatican II teachings of the Church and hopefully you will become more clear on the matter that revelation is not progressive. (Actually if you even read Vatican II, Lumen Gentium #25 you should have a better understanding of infallibility as well.)

The Councils that (as you put it) “declared heresies, such as Arianism and Semi-Arianism” are authoritative exercises of the Magisterium. But, let me clarify, are you referring to the Councils of Nicea I and Constantinople I? Or others?

If the former, there is absolutely no doubt in Christianity that they are authoritative. If you’re not referring to those then please clarify what exactly you’re referring to.

Of course Vatican I did not invent infallibility. What gave you that idea??

Vatican I was the first authoritative definition of infallibility though, i.e. how it’s exercised and recognized, and it was incomplete as it only addressed the Papal exercise of this gift. As you refer to (though I wonder if you’ve read it) Vatican II completed the work of Vatican I, at least partly, and provided much more clarification and a fuller definition of the charism of infallibility. The paragraph you note is of course essential (though I would encourage anyone interested to read the whole document, or at least para 18-25 and not just the isolated paragraph you refer to).

 

[una_fides]

**diggerdomer, **

Here is the text from Vatican I. I will highlight the parts that demonstrate it is not talking about future invocations of infallibility but is dealing with how to recognize those made in the past.

1. • That apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.
   • **This holy see has always maintained this, **
   • the constant custom of the church demonstrates it, and
   • the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
   • So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:
   • The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. … Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .
   What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
   • “The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]
     
     Then there is the definition of the council of Florence:
   • “The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.” [58]
   • To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.
   • It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .
   • The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
   • sometimes by
   • summoning ecumenical councils …
   • defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with
   • sacred scripture and
   • the apostolic traditions.
   • For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
   • **not so that 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.
     
     Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
   • embraced by all the venerable fathers and
   • reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
   for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .
   • This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
   …

 

[una_fides]

…

1. • But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative **which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office. **
   • Therefore, …
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
     2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
     3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
     4. he possesses,
     5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
     6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
     [Please note the constant use of the past tense in the quotes above from Vatican I in dealing with this authority to teach infallibly that was conferred on Peter and his successors by Christ himself! (Not at Vatican I !!!) Popes have been invoking infallibility whenever they have in the past acted in such a capacity as Vatican I declared. Councils do not create dogmas. They simply define and recognize officially what the Church has always believed and what has always been true. There has been no new divinely revealed dogmas since the death of the last apostle. To claim otherwise is heresy.]

 

[una_fides]

The Councils that (as you put it) “declared heresies, such as Arianism and Semi-Arianism” are authoritative exercises of the Magisterium. But, let me clarify, are you referring to the Councils of Nicea I and Constantinople I? Or others?

I was referring to other councils. The Councils you referenced were infallible. I’m referring to the ones NOT in union with the pope. I suggest reading the following book: History of Heresies by St. Alphonsus Ligouri.

 

[diggerdomer]

T

Notice he did not say for “every Catholic.”

No kidding.

Notice, at the time, this was long before the Reformation and Council of Trent.

 

[una_fides]

I’ll thank you now for making it easy, though I expect my thanks are not what you expect. This link you provided is of course not from the Magisterium, and is a series of quotations taken out of context and strung together and ALL from pre-Vatican II sources, and so are deficient if one is seriously interested in exploring the totality of the Catholic faith. Any such pretended synthesis that ignores an ecumenical Council like Vatican II, or the revised Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II (1983) or the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church (also John Paul II, 1992) is …well…severely lacking.

Thank you.

I’m sorry to hear that you think the faith of the Church for 2000 years was lacking. Too bad all those good popes were missing out on the fullness of truth. Do you seriously believe that??

Those quotes are absolutely not taken out of the contexts in which they wrote by any sense or stretch of your imagination. Please show me where any of them were taken out of a context that would show that they meant anything different than what they said. I cite the reference to the full documents for each of them. I also cite the quotes referring to invincible ignorance after the ones on no salvation outside the Church. If you want to understand Vatican II, you cannot conjure up a false notion that it is teaching something new. You must understand its teachings in the same sense as the Church has always–in the past–understood them. You cannot begin figuring out what the Church has always taught in the past on this matter by reading new modern writings and modern theological teachings. If you want to know what the Church has taught, read what she has taught. Then come to the new writings and try to reconcile them. You should also start with the most authoritative declarations and then work your way from there. You cannot start with non-infallible modern teachings and then try to start your theology from there. Begin with infallible teachings themselves. Read the context of the documents in which they were written and then read the other past Magisterial documents on the issue and do the same. The question on this thread is whether Vatican II changed things. The way to understand that is to first understand what the Church taught prior to Vatican II and then compare with what she is teaching now.

 

[una_fides]

No kidding.

Notice, at the time, this was long before the Reformation and Council of Trent.

Interesting point. So you are saying that the Reformation and the Council of Trent changed the Church’s teaching on this matter? (that it is “absolutely necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”)

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m sorry to hear that you think the faith of the Church for 2000 years was lacking.

I never said nor implied such a thing. What gave you that wacky idea?

Those quotes are absolutely not taken out of the contexts in which they wrote by any sense or stretch of your imagination. Please show me where any of them were taken out of a context that would show that they meant anything different than what they said. I cite the reference to the full documents for each of them. I also cite the quotes referring to invincible ignorance after the ones on no salvation outside the Church. If you want to understand Vatican II, you cannot conjure up a false notion that it is teaching something new. You must understand its teachings in the same sense as the Church has always–in the past–understood them. You cannot begin figuring out what the Church has always taught in the past on this matter by reading new modern writings and modern theological teachings. If you want to know what the Church has taught, read what she has taught. Then come to the new writings and try to reconcile them. You should also start with the most authoritative declarations and then work your way from there. You cannot start with non-infallible modern teachings and then try to start your theology from there. Begin with infallible teachings themselves. Read the context of the documents in which they were written and then read the other past Magisterial documents on the issue and do the same. The question on this thread is whether Vatican II changed things. The way to understand that is to first understand what the Church taught prior to Vatican II and then compare with what she is teaching now.

Hey, I’m just wondering why you’re relying on ONLY pre-Vatican II quotes, rather than the entire tradition of the Church which is what I rely on.

 

[diggerdomer]

Interesting point. So you are saying that the Reformation and the Council of Trent changed the Church’s teaching on this matter? (that it is “absolutely necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”)

You made a point of emphasizing that Pope Boniface didn’t mention “Catholics” (emphasis yours).

I was simply noting the anachronism somewhat present in such an observation, as Boniface was writing before the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, when there was not the same understanding of “Catholic” as there is now. Get it?

 

[una_fides]

You made a point of emphasizing that Pope Boniface didn’t mention “Catholics” (emphasis yours).

I was simply noting the anachronism somewhat present in such an observation, as Boniface was writing before the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, when there was not the same understanding of “Catholic” as there is now. Get it?

Sorry, I’m not following you here. Could you perhaps explain how he understood the word “Catholic” to mean something different?

You also said that only Catholics are bound to the authority of the pope and not “every human creature.” Are you saying that you either disagree with pope Boniface or are you trying to say that by “every human creature” he had some limited group in mind?

 

[diggerdomer]

Sorry, I’m not following you here. Could you perhaps explain how he understood the word “Catholic” to mean something different?

You also said that only Catholics are bound to the authority of the pope and not “every human creature.” Are you saying that you either disagree with pope Boniface or are you trying to say that by “every human creature” he had some limited group in mind?

I thought you pointed out that Boniface did not use the word “Catholic.” Is that right? Did I misunderstand you?

 

[una_fides]

I never said nor implied such a thing. What gave you that wacky idea?
diggerdomer;5190245:

This link you provided is of course not from the Magisterium, and is a series of quotations taken out of context and strung together and ALL from pre-Vatican II sources, and so are deficient if one is seriously interested in exploring the totality of the Catholic faith

. Any such pretended synthesis that ignores an ecumenical Council like Vatican II, or the revised Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II (1983) or the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church (also John Paul II, 1992) is …well…severely lacking.

You clearly stated that if someone relies only on pre-Vatican II sources, then his understanding of Catholic teaching is “deficient” and “seriously lacking.” Thus, anyone who lived before Vatican II and did not have access to such documents would have then in your opinion been “lacking” something.

Hey, I’m just wondering why you’re relying on ONLY pre-Vatican II quotes, rather than the entire tradition of the Church which is what I rely on.

You are missing the point big time. First, Vatican II is not a new Tradition of the Church nor did it teach any new dogmas, as Paul VI, JP2, and Benedict XVI have all clearly stated. The explicit stated purpose of that Council was to reiterate past teachings and it was a “pastoral”–not a doctrinal–Council in its purpose and intention.
Second, how could you possibly know if Vatican II changed anything if you are reading Vatican II outside of the past teachings of the Church and then are subsequently approaching those past teachings with such a mindset? How do you know you are not reading something into the past Magisterial documents that the previous popes did not say or intend? Protestants have the problem of reading things into Scripture as well. If Vatican II did not change things, then you should be able to read the pre-Vatican II teachings of the Magisterium in isolation from post Vatican II teachings and then approach the post-Vatican II teachings and not find a conflict in understanding.

Lastly, if one is going to understand a dogma in the same sense as it has alwasy–in the past–always been understood, he must logically start by reading those documents and trying to understand the clear sense they are intending to convey. If you encounter universal statements in them such as “every human creature,” then you can ask yourself, what did the pope intend to teach with this statment? Why say every human creature? Don’t you think he would have thought how people would have interpreted that statement? Don’t you think he knew what he was saying? If the statement is in fact infallible then that means it is safeguarded from error not by the pope himself, and not by Vatican I, and not by your or my opinion, but by the Holy Spirit himself–the Spirit of Truth. If you think that Vatican II is reconcilable with pre-Vatican II teachings on NSOC, then reconcile them. I’m still waiting on those answers from my previous posts. Notice that you are avoiding explaining how the teachings themselves can be possibly reconciled and instead are trying to argue that these pre-Vatican II declarations were not infallible and that the way to understand the sense in which previous dogmas were defined is with future teachings on the subject that seem to be in contrast. That just doesn’t make sense to me, and I hope you can see where I’m coming from in all this.

 

[una_fides]

I thought you pointed out that Boniface did not use the word “Catholic.” Is that right? Did I misunderstand you?

Please just answer my questions rather than by asking me new ones. I did point that out after you said the following:

I’d say it’s absolutely necessary for every human creature to be subject to the authority of God. It’s necessary for Catholics to be subject to the authority of the Pope.

I pointed out that he did not use the word “Catholics” but “every human creature.” Now that I’ve restated our discussion to clarify this for you, can you please answer my questions:

Sorry, I’m not following you here. Could you perhaps explain how Pope Boniface understood the word “Catholic” to mean something different?

You also said that only Catholics are bound to the authority of the pope and not “every human creature.” Are you saying that you either disagree with pope Boniface or are you trying to say that by “every human creature” he had some limited group in mind?

 

[diggerdomer]

You clearly stated that if someone relies only on pre-Vatican II sources, then his understanding of Catholic teaching is “deficient” and “seriously lacking.”

Yes, anyone TODAY in 2009 A.D. (or C.E. for those who prefer it) who rely ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY on pre-Vatican II sources regarding the Cathlic faith…yes, I’d go out on a limb and say they are at least somewhat missing the boat. God (Jesus, Spirit) did not leave the Church during or since Vatican II, so anyone only considering Church teaching prior to then is, imho, missing out. I welcome corrections to my understanding.

Thus, anyone who lived before Vatican II and did not have access to such documents would have then in your opinion been “lacking” something.

Of course not. I never said nor implied such a thing, and your reading into anything I said is…well…careless at best and uncharitable at worst.

You are missing the point big time. First, Vatican II is not a new Tradition of the Church nor did it teach any new dogmas, as Paul VI, JP2, and Benedict XVI have all clearly stated. The explicit stated purpose of that Council was to reiterate past teachings and it was a “pastoral”–not a doctrinal–Council in its purpose and intention.

I have no problem with what you said in that. What makes you think otherwise? I would sincerely appreciate the chance to clarify anything I might have posted that led you to believe otherwise.

Second, how could you possibly know if Vatican II changed anything if you are reading Vatican II outside of the past teachings of the Church and then are subsequently approaching those past teachings with such a mindset?

Whoa. I admit I may not have as much knowledge as you regarding Church history, which of course is one of my interests in this forum i.e. the opportunity to learn. But where did I say something that indicates I’m reading Vatican II outside past teachings? I take that as a serious…and, admittedly, personally objectionable, accusation. I hope you didn’t intend it that way. Can you please clarify, and help me see how that’s not simply a personal attack?

If Vatican II did not change things, then you should be able to read the pre-Vatican II teachings of the Magisterium in isolation from post Vatican II teachings and then approach the post-Vatican II teachings and not find a conflict in understanding.

I don’t find any conflict in pre or post Vatican II (as YOU note) teachings. Do you?

Lastly, if one is going to understand a dogma in the same sense as it has alwasy–in the past–always been understood, he must logically start by reading those documents and trying to understand the clear sense they are intending to convey. If you encounter universal statements in them such as “every human creature,” then you can ask yourself, what did the pope intend to teach with this statment? Why say every human creature? Don’t you think he would have thought how people would have interpreted that statement? Don’t you think he knew what he was saying? If the statement is in fact infallible then that means it is safeguarded from error not by the pope himself, and not by Vatican I, and not by your or my opinion, but by the Holy Spirit himself–the Spirit of Truth. If you think that Vatican II is reconcilable with pre-Vatican II teachings on NSOC, then reconcile them. I’m still waiting on those answers from my previous posts. Notice that you are avoiding explaining how the teachings themselves can be possibly reconciled and instead are trying to argue that these pre-Vatican II declarations were not infallible and that the way to understand the sense in which previous dogmas were defined is with future teachings on the subject that seem to be in contrast. That just doesn’t make sense to me, and I hope you can see where I’m coming from in all this.

I am not trying to avoid anything, and not consciously doing so. I apologize if anything I’ve contributed to this thread as led you to believe otherwise.

A statement from a Pope in the Middle Ages may or may not be “infallible” as currently understood and taught by the Magisterium. How such a teaching is to be received and interpreted today is, of course, imho, determined by the Magisterium.

Do you agree or not?

IF not…why?

 

[diggerdomer]

Please just answer my questions rather than by asking me new ones. I did point that out after you said the following:

I pointed out that he did not use the word “Catholics” but “every human creature.” Now that I’ve restated our discussion to clarify this for you, can you please answer my questions:

Ok, then, I’ll suggest that the Catholic Church does not teach that every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I have not found anything in the Catechism, Canon Law, or Vatican II documents (the latest Ecumenical Council) to contradict that thought.

What do you say?

 

[diggerdomer]

First, Vatican II is not a new Tradition of the Church nor did it teach any new dogmas, as Paul VI, JP2, and Benedict XVI have all clearly stated. T.

Really??

Are you serious? Despite the two “Dogmatic Constitutions” promulgated by Vatican II?

And given the topic of this thread, I would think “infallibility” would be relevant, and Vatican II completely added something new to Church dogma regarding infallibility (see Lumen Gentium 18-25 and compare that to what Vatican I (incompletely) taught).

Remember…this (Lumen Gentium) is a DOGMATIC Constitution.

I’m not aware of any statement by a Pope that contradicts that, so please please share with us where any Pope contradicts that. Thanks for the help.

 

[ron77nyc]

I don’t find any conflict in pre or post Vatican II (as YOU note) teachings. Do you?

Jews and Muslims were out before Vatican II, now they’re in.