Vatican II Happened for a reason

[diggerdomer]

So if the new contradicts the old, we should automatically rule in favor of the new?

I don’t see the Church contradicting itself, so that’s not a choice for me…but if I were to accept that premise, I’d say yes. We should obey and adhere to the Church today, the only one in existence. We can’t pick and choose what teachings from history we want to follow. The actual Church, today, is the only one we have.

Unless what you’re really saying by claiming “contradictions” is that the Church is wrong?

Doctrine can be clarified and developed

Yes. My point exactly. Like the doctrine of religious liberty.

No, but what is suspect is that the new teachings in many cases contradicted the old (see above).

 

[pnewton]

So if the new contradicts the old, we should automatically rule in favor of the new?

The first choice, for us lay people is to consider that we might be wrong about about the exitence of a contradiction.

 

[Extempore]

We should obey and adhere to the Church today, the only one in existence. We can’t pick and choose what teachings from history we want to follow. The actual Church, today, is the only one we have.

What a bleak outlook for a Church that has thousands of years of tradition behind it! If the Catholic Faith was little more than the faith “of the moment”, it would have died out long ago. Christ is eternal and so is His bride the Church.

Unless what you’re really saying by claiming “contradictions” is that the Church is wrong?

The only thing that is wrong is those who claim that the deposit of faith has/should/will change.

Yes. My point exactly. Like the doctrine of religious liberty.

Correct me if I misunderstood, but you see the shift from religious liberty being condemned in the past to being accepted by the Church today as being nothing more than a development of doctrine rather than a change in doctrine?

The first choice, for us lay people is to consider that we might be wrong about about the exitence of a contradiction.

Hence my generous use of the word “if”.

 

[diggerdomer]

What a bleak outlook for a Church that has thousands of years of tradition behind it! If the Catholic Faith was little more than the faith “of the moment”, it would have died out long ago.

I agree. I didn’t say anything to the contrary, I certainly didn’t say or imply that the Catholic Faith is (or is little more than) the faith “of the moment.”

Correct me if I misunderstood, but you see the shift from religious liberty being condemned in the past to being accepted by the Church today as being nothing more than a development of doctrine rather than a change in doctrine?

I’m fine with either word. Change, development, are both ok with me.

 

[Extempore]

I agree. I didn’t say anything to the contrary, I certainly didn’t say or imply that the Catholic Faith is (or is little more than) the faith “of the moment.”

Ah, good.

I’m fine with either word. Change, development, are both ok with me.

I probably should have been clearer. Change would indicate that the doctrine is something other than what it used to be. Development or clarification indicates that the doctrine remains the same but that it is further defined as time progresses.

I hope we can all agree that Catholic doctrine should not change. Clarification/development/definition is all fine so long as the underlying belief itself remains the same (good example: Catholic understanding of transubstantiation).

The reason I used religious liberty as an example is because it would seem that the Church has changed (rather than developed or further defined) the teaching on this matter. Again, pre-Vatican II, the idea that religious liberty is a right was explicitly condemned and after Vatican II it was stated that religious liberty is a right. Since these two positions appear to be at least facially contradictory, I am just interested in hearing some reasons from why someone might believe this is an organic development of doctrine rather than an outright change/contradiction in doctrine.

 

[pnewton]

Correct me if I misunderstood, but you see the shift from religious liberty being condemned in the past to being accepted by the Church today as being nothing more than a development of doctrine rather than a change in doctrine?

The point is that I don’t know why the way I see it matters at all. I am not a Pope, a Cardinal or a Church theologian. I try to always put this in the front of my mind. I think it sufficient that the Church when it met in Council did not see it as a change in doctrine.

If my opinion was the one that did matter, I see the two separate issues. One is the doctrine of religious indiffentism. The other is the prudential opinion of what is best. Since this issue is not a dogma, one can view the doctrine as developing. New things that happen in the world can really shed new light on things. I agree with all that has been said here that we need to have that which is best for the freedom to practice the Catholic faith.

I will agree with St. Thomas that the Church needs independence from the State (I call this a separation). I agree with St. Pius that on can not separate the two (at least entirely). I think this leads to an amoral legal system. I agree with the Catholic Church on the need for religious freedom.

 

[diggerdomer]

Ah, good.

I probably should have been clearer. Change would indicate that the doctrine is something other than what it used to be. Development or clarification indicates that the doctrine remains the same but that it is further defined as time progresses.

I hope we can all agree that Catholic doctrine should not change. Clarification/development/definition is all fine so long as the underlying belief itself remains the same (good example: Catholic understanding of transubstantiation).

The reason I used religious liberty as an example is because it would seem that the Church has changed (rather than developed or further defined) the teaching on this matter. Again, pre-Vatican II, the idea that religious liberty is a right was explicitly condemned and after Vatican II it was stated that religious liberty is a right. Since these two positions appear to be at least facially contradictory, I am just interested in hearing some reasons from why someone might believe this is an organic development of doctrine rather than an outright change/contradiction in doctrine.

Maybe we’re each using different understandings of the terms.

But…if I understand the way you’re thinking about things, I would say that the example of religious liberty is not a change when you take into account the entire body of Church teaching. Maybe that’s why I see it as development.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.