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

[WanderAimlessly]

Both ends of the spectrum have problems with separating disciplines from dogmas

Radical Traditionalists (RadTrads) elevate disciplines to the level of dogma, while Radical Modernists (Mod Squad) lower dogmas to the level of disciplines.:banghead:

PF

 

[bear06]

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

Look at your categories. You’ve essentially said that VII is not the Church not to mention you’ve put your own spin on the teachings. So where’d you get the authority again?

 

[bear06]

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.

Let’s narrow it down, T. What exactly do you feel you are free to reject without danger to your salvation?

 

[bear06]

WanderAimlessly:

Both ends of the spectrum have problems with separating disciplines from dogmas

Radical Traditionalists (RadTrads) elevate disciplines to the level of dogma, while Radical Modernists (Mod Squad) lower dogmas to the level of disciplines.:banghead:

PF

Ooooooh! Very well said!

 

[bear06]

BulldogCath:

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???

So, you don’t believe in the infallible ordinary and universal Magesterium? I haven’t thought this question through because I’m dead tired right now but I’ll take a chance and go ahead and throw it out anyway. Are you saying that since the Council was only declared pastoral that the interpretations the Church set forth in this Council weren’t infallible? Yes, yes, no new doctrine was set forth but the Church did shed here slendid light on the doctrine already defined. So, you’re saying that these universal teachings of the Church are not infallible or binding?

 

[TNT]

bear06:

Let’s narrow it down, T. What exactly do you feel you are free to reject without danger to your salvation?

Is that a slip, or is that the word you want to use?
I said IGNORE, right?
I said unless one shows me what part I must believe in the recited
texts for my salvation…I can ignore the text.
IGNORE is passive, reject is active.
You are welcome to quote any parts of the text recited which I must believe for my salvation.
Then ask me if I believe that part unto my salvation. THAT would be “narrowing it down”.
Try it and see how it works. There just might be something I overlooked or did not think thru.

 

[BulldogCath]

Again-Did the teachings of Vatican II define new Dogma or make it more confusing. By definition:

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.

---

If I am not mistaken-Vatican II is now saying that yes-salvation is possible outside of the church. I am not in a position to call something heretical-but this was a pastoral Council-and the liberal theologians, Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes are trying to push that it is infallible and we must adhere to these teachings and it is , from what I read and have been taught not true. For St Pius X to be excommunicated-now that I am reading my not have the merit that I thought it once had and possibly my Uncles are correct as they have always stated that Vatican II was not an infallible council if it is decreed as such and Both Popes seem to have done that.

bear06:

So, you don’t believe in the infallible ordinary and universal Magesterium? I haven’t thought this question through because I’m dead tired right now but I’ll take a chance and go ahead and throw it out anyway. Are you saying that since the Council was only declared pastoral that the interpretations the Church set forth in this Council weren’t infallible? Yes, yes, no new doctrine was set forth but the Church did shed here slendid light on the doctrine already defined. So, you’re saying that these universal teachings of the Church are not infallible or binding?

 

[olegraymere]

This teaching did not change; it was clarified, although there are some who still prefer to obfuscate. There still is no salvation outside the Church. However, being within the Church does not in all cases mean being physically baptized in the Catholic Church. Just as there are plenty of baptized Catholics who are kidding themselves thinking they are “in” the Church when they have rejected much of the Church’s teachings, so there are non-Catholics who are “in” the Church by virtue of their love of Christ (even in some cases if they don’t know Him by name) and adherence to His teachings. We are all imperfect in our faith. The only way to heaven is through Christ and His Church, but it is not for man to establish the rules for God to follow. My mother used to recite to me a poem called Abou Ben Adam, that I have since found in Catholic textbooks that predate Vatican II by many years. It tells of a nonchristian who name is recorded in the Book of Life because of his love for his fellow-man. (And yes, I realize this is not a papal pronouncement; however, it reflects the popular understanding of this teaching back when you seem to think it was something different.) If you think Vatican II rewrote the “rules” then you don’t understand what the Church taught prior.

 

[oat_soda]

many theologians believe that vatican II was written too optimistic and some even question John xxiii and JPII’s positive outlook on the modern world. i remember hearing cardinal dulles on ewtn’s the world over say this and that american cardinal close to the pope questions the tone of gaudium et spes.

while, i wouldn’t go so far to say VII taught heresy, some documents have been poorly written or imprudently assested the secular world.

 

[BulldogCath]

Now, the traditions of the Church were attacked with the introduction of the New Mass. With the full consultation of six Protestant ministers, a new rite was created. Msg. Bugnini, who was later discovered to be a Freemason, led this liturgical revolution. We have his own words in his book as well as the following from the Vatican’s official newspaper:

" We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants "

–L"Osservatore Romano 19 March 1965

 

[bear06]

TNT:

Is that a slip, or is that the word you want to use?
I said IGNORE, right?
I said unless one shows me what part I must believe in the recited
texts for my salvation…I can ignore the text.
IGNORE is passive, reject is active.
You are welcome to quote any parts of the text recited which I must believe for my salvation.
Then ask me if I believe that part unto my salvation. THAT would be “narrowing it down”.
Try it and see how it works. There just might be something I overlooked or did not think thru.

OK, insert ignore and answer the question if that makes you feel better. I suppose a better question would be which part of the VII documents do you feel you are free to remove your submission from?

 

[bear06]

that Vatican II was not an infallible council if it is decreed as such and Both Popes seem to have done that.

Where did a Pope say it was not infallible? And I repeat the above questions.

 

[bear06]

oat soda:

many theologians believe that vatican II was written too optimistic and some even question John xxiii and JPII’s positive outlook on the modern world. i remember hearing cardinal dulles on ewtn’s the world over say this and that american cardinal close to the pope questions the tone of gaudium et spes.

while, i wouldn’t go so far to say VII taught heresy, some documents have been poorly written or imprudently assested the secular world.

It would seem that most who suggest it is poorly written do so to advance their own agenda. You’ve got those who say this to advocate such things as women priests and those who advocate getting rid of the Pauline Mass. This has happened in the past. This is why the Church is the final interpreter of such things, not the Jansenists, Modernists or anyone else who’s come along in history to say that the Church has got it wrong.

 

[oat_soda]

It would seem that most who suggest it is poorly written do so to advance their own agenda.

not every document the church writes has to do with faith and morals. this is a pastoral document which:

the Grande message that Gaudium et Spes had invited “everyone, without distinguishing men” (GS, 2), as an announcement of life and hope. It is the message of the pastoral Constitution on the Church in the contemporary world

it is a message of how the church relates to a contemporary world. because it doesn’t strictly fall under “faith and morals”, it isn’t part of the offical teachings of the church and is therefore fallible. cardinal ratzinger is critical of it.

to bottom line is that the church is in a crisis. the seriousness of sin has not been well addressed by VII or most of the bishops of the church. this document is a result of this over optimistic view of modern society. the pope’s new book is more critical of the 20th century then his other works. for the most part, things have gotten a lot worse then they were in the optimistic early 60s for the church and the world.

 

[Jakub]

IMO,

I feel many were mislead due to very poor translations of the Latin texts, but if that is the case why did it take so long to figure it out and start corrections ?

The Church will experience what the Lord did on earth, it will be scorned, ridiculed, deceived, betrayed etc.

The strong in faith will help and strengthen the weak and drive out the darkness.

james

 

[Catholic_Dude]

BulldogCath:

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

Good Topic Bulldog,
I have had some questions about V2 too.
The above bullet points are things I have heard of, but I dont quite get.

There are many ways to salvation and that all religions should have equal rights

What did the Church teach before V2 about those who had never been exposed to the Gospel? I would think that slaves had some leeway, I accept slavery where it exists, but I wouldnt sat they were going to hell because they were born slaves.

The church should embrace the Modern world

2)What did they mean? By introducing a sound system into churches so the priest’s voice could be heard is this embracing the modern world? I am in the middle on this one? What about using modern technology, the web, cars, etc? Or is it restricted to modern ideologies? How are they supposed to embrace the modern world? They have been sending missionaries all over since ever and that seems to always have worked?

The church is a democracy

3)This scares me. What do they mean? Monarchy all the way!

Christians much search with others to find the truth

4)What do they mean by others? Not non Catholics I hope.

Vatican II has compromised the BVM as the Mother of God for the sake of ecumenism

5)What are some examples? I was kind of uneasy when those new mysteries came out a few years back, but is that what you are talking about?

I have read the other posts as well as I could, but can someone provide the answers to theese?

 

[Jakub]

Believe it or not, my 1956 Sunday Missal has a catechism lesson at the end of the 2nd sunday of Lent, and is as follows;

“I believe that, nevertheless, all those outside the Church through no fault of their own, will be saved if they follow their conscience and do not die in mortal sin”.

So the idea was there back then.

james

 

[TNT]

bear06…This is why the Church is the final interpreter of such things, not theJansenists, Modernists or anyone else who’s come along in history to say that the Church has got it wrong.

Only 32 Posts…and the BIG J arrives.
Now, Give me a piece of text from VATII that you want me to submit to.
Ok, I’ll start from the recital on this thread
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

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.
   Me: Ignore Why. A philosophical meandoring followed by a genearl searching into the deposit of faith bringing nothing in particular forward.
   Next:
   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.
   Me: OLD News. submitted before it was ever written.
   Next:
   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.
   Me: Bull. The truth can impose itself not by virtue of it’s own truth, but via a superior source ie Divine Revelation, Church Fathers. Excathedra proclamations, or your Math teacher.
   Bull2: I grabbed a hot iron, and the truth of it’s temperature enterd my mind with GREAT violence. Saul was knocked down by Truth Himself, and BLINDED, with noise…VERY disquieting, indeed. Pharoh had a lot of truth enter his mind violently.
   Next:
   The right to religious freedom has its foundation… in his very nature.
   Me: DAHHH. It’s been six years since I drowned a heathen for not agreeing to baptism. I’ve submitted.
   **I only wish the Muslims would read this.
   Next:
   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,
   Me: As Bullodog said; it’s already in the US Declaration of I. which I adhere to anyway. Written long before VatII discovered it.
   ** I’ll mention this to Osama B. the next time we meet.
   Next:
2. 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.
   Me: Every time I meet someone who asks me to form them, I’ll mention the moral order just to be sure I’m submitting.
   This whole Paragraph could have come out of a Freemason handbook of virtues, and the Freemason would wholeheartedly agree. There is not a thing religious in it.
   “**will come to decisions on their own judgment” **I’m doing that about my Beliefs on VATII, the NOM, certain prelates… I like that part…**I submit!
   There, Happy now?
   (Honestly, the things I do to make you happy…)
   **

 

[katolik]

Jakub:

Believe it or not, my 1956 Sunday Missal has a catechism lesson at the end of the 2nd sunday of Lent, and is as follows;

“I believe that, nevertheless, all those outside the Church through no fault of their own, will be saved if they follow their conscience and do not die in mortal sin”.

So the idea was there back then.

james

Yes it was but postVatican II that definition was expanded falsely, by some, to include Orthodox,Protestants, and everyone else.

 

[HagiaSophia]

katolik:

Yes it was but postVatican II that definition was expanded falsely, by some, to include Orthodox,Protestants, and everyone else.

Well who would you then think the statement referred to?

“I believe that, nevertheless, all those outside the Church through no fault of their own, will be saved if they follow their conscience and do not die in mortal sin”.