Vatican II-Did it Stray from the Dogmas of the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BulldogCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BulldogCath

Guest
The following are definitions of words that I have some knowledge of from my limited theology background and have looked up their definitions:

A ***doctrine *or a dogma of the Church, then, is a truth which has been revealed by God, and must be believed by all Catholics. To deny a dogma whose belief is necessary for salvation is to be incapable of salvation, whether the denial is willful or not. A truth essential to salvation is not believed in, and that is the end of the matter.

A definition of a dogma is the more precise expression of the dogma. A definition is made by the Pope, or by an ecumenical or general council, acting with the Pope, and it is infallible. A definition is the last word on the subject. It never can make a doctrine more obscure, since its very purpose is to clarify. Each word in a definition is significant. There is always an economy of words in a definition, because truth is simple. An example of this in the doctrine: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: Outside the (Catholic) Church there is No Salvation.

An Ecumenical or General Council is a council summoned by the Pope, or by a ruler in the name of the Pope. It is made up of bishops of the whole world - and other high ranking prelates with a right to vote, such as abbots, etc. Its decrees are not binding until approved by the Pope. **The council is subject to the Pope, but the Pope is not subject to it. Its decrees, when they are confirmed by the Holy See, **are infallible. There have been no more than twenty such councils in the history of the Church, from 325 AD. The origin of councils is derived from the Council of the Apostles, in the year 52, when all the Apostles came together, at Jerusalem, under St. Peter, to talk over the affairs of the Church.

**Revelation **- that is, the body of truth divinely proclaimed by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through His Apostles for our belief - was complete at the death of the last Apostle. We have no choice about believing or not believing the truths of Revelation. We must believe them, in order to be saved.The truths of Revelation, given to us by Our Lord, Jesus Christ, through His Apostles, are contained in what is called the "Deposit of Faith." The revealed truths in the Deposit of Faith have been gathered from two sources: the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition. And these truths make up the Catholic Faith.

They were given by Our Lord to His Apostles to be zealously preserved and guarded by them and their successors, with the guarantee of infallibility, for the guidance of the Church, that all generations - in holding them - would possess the One true Faith and the key to salvation. **There has been no new Revelation, since the death of the last Apostle, St. John, who died in the year 99 A.D. **The truths, the dogmas, which we must believe in order to be Catholics were all given to us by that time.

So- the questions asks-Were the teachings of Vatican II a “defection” , as it does not clarify the existing dogmas but changes them-and if so then does it enjoy infallibility (Pope John XXIII did call it a pastoral council-which may answer this question, but I am not sure)?
 
A council is a council, the idea of a “pastoral” council is put forward by those who wish to ignore the decrees of the council.

If you are a Catholic, and by that I mean someone who believes in all the Catholic Church Teaches, then you will know that councils are protected by the Holy Spirit and can not teach error.
 
The gates of hell won’t prevail. The Church won’t change the deposit of faith, don’t worry. Have faith in the Holy Spirit.🙂
 
What dogmas were changed in Vatican II?

A doctrine is not the same thing as a dogma. Doctrines may be understood differently (deepened) over time; dogmas may become more explicity understood over time (Immaculate Conception). This doesn’t involve any change in the doctrine or dogma, but a change in our understanding which allows us to more fully understand what God has said to us or shown us. The understanding of the Immaculate Conception in the 21st century is deeper than the understanding was in the 5th century, but the dogma is not new now, was not new then, and the dogma did not change from then to now.

So, I ask, exactly what dogma (s) changed in Vatican II?

Regarding EENS, the doctrine is understood differently than in the 16th century, but it has not changed. Outside the Church there is no salvation. However, a person who is not perceived to be a member of the Catholic Church can be saved. . .but only, somehow, some way,* through* the Catholic church. If a non-Catholic winds up saved, some way, some how, that person was Catholic. . .baptism of blood, baptism of desire. . .somehow. Even if we didn’t know it, even if they didn’t understand it.

And since we ourselves do not know with certainty the fate of any non-Catholic, (and only rarely with certainty know the fate of a Catholic, such as a saint), I don’t see how we could feel that the doctrine of EENS has “changed”. It still says that outside the Church there is no salvation. And it still leaves God free to work out the pesky details of our, and everyone’s, salvation. . .with us. IMO.
 
The Catholic Church taught:
  • The church is the only way to salvation, and only the Catholic reilgion has rights in society
  • The Catholic church is not of this world
  • The Catholic church is a monarchy
  • The Catholic church is the source of all truth
  • The Catholic religion venerates the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God
Vatican II teaches:
  • There are many ways to salvation and that all religions should have equal rights
  • The church should embrace the Modern world
  • The church is a democracy
  • Christians much search with others to find the truth
  • Vatican II has compromised the BVM as the Mother of God for the sake of ecumenism
Tantum ergo:
What dogmas were changed in Vatican II?

A doctrine is not the same thing as a dogma. Doctrines may be understood differently (deepened) over time; dogmas may become more explicity understood over time (Immaculate Conception). This doesn’t involve any change in the doctrine or dogma, but a change in our understanding which allows us to more fully understand what God has said to us or shown us. The understanding of the Immaculate Conception in the 21st century is deeper than the understanding was in the 5th century, but the dogma is not new now, was not new then, and the dogma did not change from then to now.

So, I ask, exactly what dogma (s) changed in Vatican II?

Regarding EENS, the doctrine is understood differently than in the 16th century, but it has not changed. Outside the Church there is no salvation. However, a person who is not perceived to be a member of the Catholic Church can be saved. . .but only, somehow, some way,* through* the Catholic church. If a non-Catholic winds up saved, some way, some how, that person was Catholic. . .baptism of blood, baptism of desire. . .somehow. Even if we didn’t know it, even if they didn’t understand it.

And since we ourselves do not know with certainty the fate of any non-Catholic, (and only rarely with certainty know the fate of a Catholic, such as a saint), I don’t see how we could feel that the doctrine of EENS has “changed”. It still says that outside the Church there is no salvation. And it still leaves God free to work out the pesky details of our, and everyone’s, salvation. . .with us. IMO.
Click to expand...
 
BulldogCath said:
The Catholic Church taught:
  • The church is the only way to salvation, and only the Catholic reilgion has rights in society
  • The Catholic church is not of this world
  • The Catholic church is a monarchy
  • The Catholic church is the source of all truth
  • The Catholic religion venerates the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God
Vatican II teaches:
  • There are many ways to salvation and that all religions should have equal rights
  • The church should embrace the Modern world
  • The church is a democracy
  • Christians much search with others to find the truth
  • Vatican II has compromised the BVM as the Mother of God for the sake of ecumenism
Click to expand...

You are wrong. What you list as teachings from Vatican II are not true.

I do not even know how to respond to such a lie.

Please read the documents of Vatican II and provide proof of what you are saying here.

Again, the Church Teaches that the Holy Spirit protects the councils. If you truely believe what you say then now can you list your religion as Catholic?

Just one more attempt as smearing the Catholic Church.
 
Vatican II I don’t think changed anything. However, the supposed “spirit” following this council is something out of hell.
 
You gotta watch out, liberals try and hijack Vatican II and make it seem like it’s saying something else. Then the traditionalists go nuts over the liberally-spinned version of Vatican II. You gotta read the stuff for yourself. That really helped clear things up for me!
 
BulldogCath said:
The Catholic Church taught:
  • The church is the only way to salvation, and only the Catholic reilgion has rights in society
  • The Catholic church is not of this world
  • The Catholic church is a monarchy
  • The Catholic church is the source of all truth
  • The Catholic religion venerates the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God
Vatican II teaches:
  • There are many ways to salvation and that all religions should have equal rights
  • The church should embrace the Modern world
  • The church is a democracy
  • Christians much search with others to find the truth
  • Vatican II has compromised the BVM as the Mother of God for the sake of ecumenism
Click to expand...

Why do you lie like this about the Catholic Church? I can only think of two reasons. First, you might be attempting to make a parody of the Catholic Christian faith. Second, it’s possible you are actually profoundly ignorant about the Catholic faith.

In either event, your are an example of why I reacted the thread about arrogance and hypocrisy…

In the end, do you think people will really buy your “arguments?” You do nothing but give aid to the “liberals/modernists…”
 
40.png
EddieArent:
Vatican II I don’t think changed anything. However, the supposed “spirit” following this council is something out of hell.
Click to expand...
You get the hitting the nail right on the head award!

I still can’t figure out what this “spirit of V2” really is, other than an excuse for those with private agendas to impose their will over that of the Vatican (and ultimately, of Christ Himself).
 
40.png
Genesis315:
You gotta watch out, liberals try and hijack Vatican II and make it seem like it’s saying something else. Then the traditionalists go nuts over the liberally-spinned version of Vatican II. You gotta read the stuff for yourself. That really helped clear things up for me!
Click to expand...
And unfortunately they add their own beliefs into the mix which are often at odds with what the Church actually instructs. By painting such a horrid picture of “traditionalism”, they do nothing but empower the “liberals/modernists.”
 
40.png
EddieArent:
Vatican II I don’t think changed anything. However, the supposed “spirit” following this council is something out of hell.
Click to expand...
The spirit of “Aggiornammento” as embraced by the papacy from John XXIII to John Paul II has changed the Church from "the old to the new and every evil that it brings with it.

“The former Papacy, the former priesthood, will gladly abdicate in favor of the Pontificate and priests of the future who will be those of the past converted and transfigured in view of the scientific organization of the Planet in the light of the Gospel. And this new Church, although she will retain nothing of scholastic discipline or the rudimentary shape of the former Church, will nevertheless receive her consecration and canon law from Rome. And again, The convert of the Vatican, like Christ, will not need to reveal a new doctrine to his brothers; he will not need to drive Christianity or the world outright into paths other than those followed by the people under the secret inspiration of the Spirit, but simply to confirm them in this modern civilization. The Pontiff will rest content with confirming and glorifying the work of the spirit of Christ or the Christ-Spirit in the public mind, and thanks to the privilege of his personal infallibility, he will declare canonically urbi et orbi that the present civilization is the legitimate daughter of the Gospel of social redemption.” (Roca: Glorieux Centenarie p111.)

Fogny
 
Please explain the following then…I do think you are uneducated on this subject:

**DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Code: 
                       DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
Proclaimed By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965.
**
  1. A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man… **To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church–the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.- Is the Pope here saying that the old is not correct-and new things need to brought forth???
    **
    … Thus He spoke to the Apostles: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon ou” (Matt. 28: 19-20). **On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.
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. -So the Pope is saying that the Church is not the Truth-and Men should search for the truth-against all past church teachings, a defection**

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons–that is, beings
endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear
personal responsibility–that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. So the Catholic Church is not the Truth-we shall “seek it out”-a defection???

The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government.[5] Therefore government is to assume the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other appropriate means. -Sounds like the Declaration of Independence-most of whom of our Founding Fathers were Masons…
  1. **Wherefore this Vatican Council urges everyone, especially those who are charged with the task of educating others, to do their utmost to form men who, on the one hand, will respect the moral order and be obedient to lawful authority, and, on the other hand, will be lovers of true freedom–men, in other words, who will come to decisions on their own judgment and in the light of truth, govern their activities with a sense of responsibility, and strive after what is true and right, willing always to join with others in cooperative effort. -Does this sound like something that the Church should be putting out-Is this not liberal and modernistic-leaving men to decide for themselves what is right and wrong and not by the Laws of Jesus Christ and his church???
    **
40.png
ByzCath:
You are wrong. What you list as teachings from Vatican II are not true.

I do not even know how to respond to such a lie.

Please read the documents of Vatican II and provide proof of what you are saying here.

Again, the Church Teaches that the Holy Spirit protects the councils. If you truely believe what you say then now can you list your religion as Catholic?

Just one more attempt as smearing the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
 
PASTORAL CONSTITUTION: ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD

GAUDIUM ET SPES

Proclaimed By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965.

PREFACE
  1. Though mankind is stricken with wonder at its own discoveries and its power, it often raises anxious questions about the current trend of the world, about the place and role of man in the universe, about the meaning of its individual and collective strivings, and about the ultimate destiny of reality and of humanity. Hence, giving witness and voice to the faith of the whole people of God gathered together by Christ, this council can provide no more eloquent proof of its olidarity with, as well as its respect and love for the entire human family with which it is bound up, than by engaging with it in conversation about these various
    **problems. ****—**Is that the kind of statement you would expect from the Church-it is looking for the answer for the “Modern Man”???..
Therefore, this sacred synod, proclaiming the noble destiny of man and championing the godlike seed which has been sown in him, offers to mankind the honest assistance of the Church in fostering that brotherhood
of all men which corresponds to this destiny of theirs. Inspired by no earthly ambition, the Church seeks but a solitary goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth, to rescue and not to sit in judgment, to serve and not to be served.[2]–Is this not a defection-Jesus to rescue and not sit in judgement-What about the Nicene Creed “And ascended into heaven. He sitteth at the right hand of the Father. And he shall shall come again in Glory to Judge Both the living and the Dead.”
  1. A change in attitudes and in human structures frequently calls
    accepted values into question, especially among young people, who have grown impatient on more than one occasion, and indeed become rebels in their distress. Aware of their own influence in the life of society, they want a part in it sooner. This frequently causes parents and educators to experience greater difficulties day by day in discharging their tasks. The institutions, laws and modes of thinking and feeling as handed down from previous generations do not always seem to be well adapted to the contemporary state of affairs; hence arises an upheaval in the manner and even the norms of behavior. This is something you would expect your High School teacher to say to you-This is inferring that the church should be questioned and does not have the answers for the “modern world”. What the Pope is saying implicitly is that the “Old” church can no longer provide the answers for the Modern world-this is a defection???
Finally, these new conditions have their impact on religion. On the one hand a more critical ability to distinguish religion from a magical view of the world and from the superstitions which still circulate purifies it and exacts day by day a more personal and explicit adherence to faith.Magical and superstitious??? As a result many persons are achieving a more vivid sense of God. On the other hand, owing numbers of people are abandoning religion in practice. Unlike former days, the denial of God or of religion, or the
abandonment of them, are no longer unusual -Abandoning religion???Should the Pope even be addressing this??? The church was at it height at this point in the early 60’s.

CHAPTER I THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
  1. Though made of body and soul, man is one. Through his bodily composition he gathers to himself the elements of the material world; thus they reach their crown through him, and through him raise their voice in free praise of the Creator.[5] For this reason man is not allowed to despise his bodily life; rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and honorable since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. Nevertheless, wounded by sin, man experiences rebellious stirrings in his body. But the very dignity of man postulates that man glorify God in his body[6] and forbid it to serve the evil inclinations
    of his heart.So the church is teaching that by mans very dignity we are to avoid our sinful nature and the original sin we were born into-This is a total defection from past teachings!
  1. Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind. By relentlessly employing his talents through the ages he has indeed made progress in the practical sciences and in technology and the liberal arts. The liberal arts???The church is concerned about Modern man and the liberal arts???
IMO.
 
BULLDOG:
I am not arguing about what you are putting forth.
What I want to know from you or anyone else is:
**Of all that you have recited from the VatII, is there ANYTHING in it that I am required to believe for my Salvation, that has NOT been put forth by previous Councils or infallible Ex-cathedra pronouncements in a more concise explicate manner?
**
What I see in the VatII documents that you recited is a long and nebulous ESSAY on a proposed view of modern man and society.
But I did not see a single thing that I must believe for my Salvation that a previous infallible document or Sacred Tradition did not already put forth.

Therefore, unless ANYONE can show me a specific proclamation in all that meandoring ESSAY, I can ignore it without any danger to my salvation.
 
TNT said:
BULLDOG:
I am not arguing about what you are putting forth.
What I want to know from you or anyone else is:
**Of all that you have recited from the VatII, is there ANYTHING in it that I am required to believe for my Salvation, that has NOT been put forth by previous Councils or infallible Ex-cathedra pronouncements in a more concise explicate manner?
**
What I see in the VatII documents that you recited is a long and nebulous ESSAY on a proposed view of modern man and society.
But I did not see a single thing that I must believe for my Salvation that a previous infallible document or Sacred Tradition did not already put forth.

Therefore, unless ANYONE can show me a specific proclamation in all that meandoring ESSAY, I can ignore it without any danger to my salvation.
Click to expand...

What I see from bulldog in all that stuff he posted above are sections of documents of Vatican II. Just some paragraphs with bulldog’s comments. His comments are a bit off. The parts he is complaining about do not really say what he is saying they do.

Not only that, he seems to ignore what the Church teaches about councils.
 
TNT

Agreed-Vatican II after reading much of the 16 documents, is the same verbiage over and over-how the Old church (this is all done implicitly) no longer has the answer for “Modern Man” and only New is good. It is clear that this has completely overwritten much of the deposit of faith that we have been handed down as well as tradition. Additionally-it is clear from Pope Paul VI and John XXIII that the council was to be PASTORAL only-and therefore not INFALLIBLE-hence we really dont have to obey it-as with a pastoral council-we are to take what helps us and reject that which does not.

The Present day Modernists who are running the Vatican (I dont think our Holy Father is in this group) are trying to play this point down and make this a council which must be adhered to.

Pastoral councils are neither true nor false and are expressed in a language which is vague and ambiguous.

It is a consequence of the Church infallibility that the doctine contained in any new teaching must not contradict doctrine that had previously been taught “always and everywhere” in the Church. If a new teaching does contradict what was taught before, then the new teaching is not infallible. Per Vatican I

"For the holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit if faith (tradition) and might faithfully set if forth"

There have been writings by liberal Theologians, including Father Greely who readily admit that Vatican II is in complete defiance of all that Vatican I proclaimed.

TNT said:
BULLDOG:
I am not arguing about what you are putting forth.
What I want to know from you or anyone else is:
Of all that you have recited from the VatII, is there ANYTHING in it that I am required to believe for my Salvation, that has NOT been put forth by previous Councils or infallible Ex-cathedra pronouncements in a more concise explicate manner?

What I see in the VatII documents that you recited is a long and nebulous ESSAY on a proposed view of modern man and society.
But I did not see a single thing that I must believe for my Salvation that a previous infallible document or Sacred Tradition did not already put forth.

Therefore, unless ANYONE can show me a specific proclamation in all that meandoring ESSAY, I can ignore it without any danger to my salvation.
Click to expand...
 
Bulldog, I have the 16 documents on Vatican II right here with me. The introduction is taken from the closing speech of Pope Paul VI:

"The teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activign, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.

Another point we must stress is this: all this rich teaching is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need. The Church has, so to say, declared herself the servant of humanity, at the very time when her teaching role and her pastoral government have, by reason of the council’s solemnity, assumed greater splendor and vigor; the idea of service has been central."
 
From the intro on the first document, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, number 4:

“Lastly, in faithful obeidence to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.”
 
So…I would then say that it is right in the council documents that it is a pastoral council -so then why do so many insist that the council is infallible and binding???
Tantum ergo:
Bulldog, I have the 16 documents on Vatican II right here with me. The introduction is taken from the closing speech of Pope Paul VI:

"The teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activign, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.

Another point we must stress is this: all this rich teaching is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need. The Church has, so to say, declared herself the servant of humanity, at the very time when her teaching role and her pastoral government have, by reason of the council’s solemnity, assumed greater splendor and vigor; the idea of service has been central."
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top