Vatican II Has the Same Authority as Trent (if one goes, both go)

[kleary]

Vatican II did not define anything new we Catholics need to believe.

There is nothing “Vatican II” to reject for it failed to define something we all must believe.

Ken

 

[stmaria]

Vatican II did not define anything new we Catholics need to believe.

There is nothing “Vatican II” to reject for it failed to define something we all must believe.

Ken

So what do you make of the SSPX claim that Vatican II Religious Liberty is new and it is false?

One of the authors of On Religious Liberty, John Courtney Murray, said, " the conciliar Fathers in general took the view that… a development of doctrine has taken place and that its term is to be accepted and affirmed as valid"

Archbishop Lefebvre said “On religious liberty, non placet…because it is based on false principles solemnly condemned by the sovereign pontiffs, for example, by Pius IX, who called this error “a delirium.”… The goal of this Council is to preach Christ to all men and to reaffirm that the Catholic Church alone can authentically preach Christ, Christ the salvation and life of individuals, families, professional societies, and other civil organizations…The schema on religious liberty does not preach Christ, therefore it is false.”

 

[bear06]

Vatican Council II was a pastoral council, Pope Paul VI himself declared:
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

You can and should read up a bit more on it here:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm

The Council of Trent was a dogmatic Council. Of the documents and statements there came seventeen dogmatic decrees, covering all aspects of Catholic religion.

Worth your while to read:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent#List_of_dogmatic_decrees

Maybe you should read what I said. Nobody said it declared *new *dogma. That said, it certainly did touch on dogma already declared and the development of it and it is certainly binding.

 

[bear06]

The statement posed to start the thread. Thanks for the document. With that answer, could you tell me what is new doctrine in V2? What do I have to do or believe specifically as a result of V2. This is part of the “vagueness” of V2. Dogma does not change, so what is there new again? Thanks.

Why in heaven’s name would I post something that doesn’t exist. There is no new doctrine, there is only a binding explanation of existing doctrine. Dr. Sippo gives an example of this in the article.

In fact, it is much more complicated than any of these options. While many of the documents were Pastoral Constitutions, there were 2 Dogmatic Constitutions: Lumen Gentium (On the Church in the Modern World) and Dei Verbum (On Divine Revelation) which were completions of the original work of Vatican I which had been interrupted by the Italian Revolution in 1870. If you look at the end of Lumen Gentium in the VCII document collection by Fr. Flannery, you will see that the CDF clearly stated that part of the document did represent authentic new teaching that was binding on the Church. Dei Verbum definitively settled a serious question on the proper way of interpreting the teaching of the Council of Trent on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Trent had not clarified whether we were dealing with two separate sources or one source in two forms. DV definitively settled the question in favor of the latter solution.

Some seem under the impression that because a council is pastoral that it precludes teaching on doctrine. The Holy Father said what he meant. There was no new doctrine given at VII. He didn’t say that there would be no binding teachings on existing doctrine nor that these teachings didn’t involve Ordinary Magisterium did he?

 

[bear06]

Vatican II did not define anything new we Catholics need to believe.

There is nothing “Vatican II” to reject for it failed to define something we all must believe.

Ken

Wrong. Dr. Sippo gave two examples we are bound to. And, btw, the part in Dei Verbum he is referring to is this:

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)
2. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

I think so many people actualy skip the documents for peoples’ commentaries on them. In doing so they miss important little quote like:

Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love. (1)

Note that it doesn’t say new doctrine, define doctrine, etc. It says it’s giving authentic doctrine already set forth in Trent and VI.
Again, the use of the word pastoral doesn’t mean excluding doctrine.

 

[SFD]

Maybe you should read what I said. Nobody said it declared *new *dogma. That said, it certainly did touch on dogma already declared and the development of it and it is certainly binding.

What in the world does this mean anyway?

What do you mean by “declared” dogma? Do you mean defined?

How can there be a “development” in Dogma? What developments? Can you name one for us?

SFD

 

[SFD]

Wrong. Dr. Sippo gave two examples we are bound to. And, btw, the part in Dei Verbum he is referring to is this:

Bear06,

Dr. Sippo wrote this to me a few years ago:

“…Popes can unilaterally contradict long held positions of Catholic theologians which had never been confirmed previously by Magisterial authority.”

He never would define for me what “confirmed by Magisterial authority” meant…can you tell me?

He seemed to be saying that a non-defined theological truth can be unilaterally contradicted by a Pope. Sippo thinks that all non-defined theological truths are merely probable opinions…that there is no truth other than defined truths.

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.

SFD

 

[bear06]

What in the world does this mean anyway?

What do you mean by “declared” dogma? Do you mean defined?

How can there be a “development” in Dogma? What developments? Can you name one for us?

SFD

Declared, defined, taught, etc.

As far as development go, I already gave the two examples from Dr. Sippo. He carefully points to what is new in VII.

Maybe people are getting hung up on the word development? Do people like the word expound better? Let’s say I tell my children a truth like “Our last name is Smith”. Then later I come back and explain why our name is Smith. This doesn’t change the truth, does it? So on we go explaining that their dad’s last name is Smith and his dad’s last name was Smith. His paternal grandfather also had the name Smith. Great grandfather’s last name was Smithers but he shortened it. All of the women in the family and their children took the name Smith. Etc., etc. etc. The truth is that our last name is Smith and all of the other things connected to how our last name is Smith is also true. We gain a fuller understanding of the why with every new teaching on the history of our family name. None of these further teachings change the truth.

Now again, because people probably didn’t read the Sippo piece I posted (and thus why I get the same questions over and over) let me give you an example again what he said was answered in VII that was based on doctrine from Trent and VI:

Dei Verbum definitively settled a serious question on the proper way of interpreting the teaching of the Council of Trent on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Trent had not clarified whether we were dealing with two separate sources or one source in two forms. DV definitively settled the question in favor of the latter solution.

 

[bear06]

He never would define for me what “confirmed by Magisterial authority” meant…can you tell me?

Well, I can’t tell you what anyone other than me means. I can take a guess and I can also e-mail him if you like.

He seemed to be saying that a non-defined theological truth can be unilaterally contradicted by a Pope. Sippo thinks that all non-defined theological truths are merely probable opinions…that there is no truth other than defined truths.

It would be hard for me to comment on this without proper context. I doubt that he means that because truth is truth and nobody can contradict it. That said, there are many theological opinions that a pope can come out and say are wrong. For example, there were many theologians who held the opinion that artificial birthcontrol was just find and dandy. Pope Paul VI did com eout and unitlaterally say that this position was incorrect. I doubt that Dr. Sippo would say that all theological opinions are just opionions until validated by the Holy Father for certainly he’d agree that those who said that ABC went against natural law would have had the truth.

SFD

 

[SFD]

bear06:

That said, there are many theological opinions that a pope can come out and say are wrong.

We’re speaking of theological truths and conclusions…truths that carry a censure for opposition.

For example, there were many theologians who held the opinion that artificial birthcontrol was just find and dandy.

Name these theologians…I have asked many times for the source for this statement and no one has ever produced any of the names.

This is all ridiculous anyway as both artificial birth control and abortion were condemned in Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI, Dec 31, 1930. These condemnations from Casti Connubii are contained in Denzinger 2239 thru 2244.

1. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.

1. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

SFD

 

[bear06]

We’re speaking of theological truths and conclusions…truths that carry a censure for opposition.

Which ones exactly?

Name these theologians…I have asked many times for the source for this statement and no one has ever produced any

 

[stmaria]

How can there be a “development” in Dogma? What developments? Can you name one for us?

SFD

John Courtney Murray one of the authors of Religous Freedom said this about Dignitatis Humanae, “the conciliar Fathers in general took the view that a development of doctrine has taken place and that its term is to be accepted and affirmed as valid”

I know that you are aware that Cardinal Ottavani presented his schema on religious liberty and it was rejected and the one presented by Cardinal Bea was accepted. Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre said about Ottavaini’s schema:
." It comprised 9 pages of text along with 14 pages of footnotes referring to pontifical Magisterium going from Pius IX to Pius XII."

Here is what he said about Cardinal Bea’s schema which was accepted: “On the other hand, the second text prepared by the Secretariat for Christian Unity, chaired by Cardinal Bea, was entitled “On Religious Liberty.” It comprised 15 pages of text and 5 pages of footnotes, with no references at all to the Church’s perennial Magisterium. The first is Catholic Tradition, but as for the second, how should we label it? Liberalism, another French Revolution, a Declaration of the Rights of Man —this is what they are trying to impose on the Church. Just incredible!
And so it came to pass. Cardinal Ottaviani began his presentation by attacking the opposite schema. Said His Eminence: " In setting forth the doctrine of the relations between a Catholic state and other religions, I believe that the Council must follow the Church’s own doctrine, and not the doctrine that would please non-Catholics or accede to their demands. That is why I believe that it is necessary to eliminate discussion of the constitution proposed by the Secretariat for Christian Unity because it betrays the influence of contacts with non-Catholics.”

"After illustrating this influence by several examples, he presented his schema, dominated by concern for the preservation and defense of the Catholic Faith, and for safeguarding the temporal common good based on the unity of all the citizens in the true religion.
Then Cardinal Bea stood up to present his own concept of religious liberty, valid for every circumstance and for every man, even “in error about the Faith.” Until this moment, the Church had only maintained the right of her own sons; now was she going to demand the same for those who follow cults? "
Archbishop Lefebvre also said, “On religious liberty, non placet…because it is based on false principles solemnly condemned by the sovereign pontiffs, for example, by Pius IX, who called this error “a delirium.” On the Church, chapters IX-X, placet. But the presentation of the basic principles could be done more in relation to Christ-King as in the encyclical Quas Primas. The goal of this Council is to preach Christ to all men and to reaffirm that the Catholic Church alone can authentically preach Christ, Christ the salvation and life of individuals, families, professional societies, and other civil organizations…The schema on religious liberty does not preach Christ, therefore it is false.”
sspx.org/miscellaneous/ab_lefebvre_preparing_the_council.htm

Isn’t this why the SSPX rejects Vatican II’s Religious Liberty?
Is this a developement of doctrine or new doctrine that goes against traditional teaching. Is the SSPX right or wrong?

 

[latinmass]

Hey Bear06, we are all still waiting for you to tell us some of the binding teachings we must abide by as a result of V2. Please don’t cite another document which does not answer this question. Very simply in your own words, what doctrine has developed which makes me bound to do something different now than before V2? All I want to know is what should I be doing differently now? Thanks.

 

[CradleCath]

Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger): Vatican II Has the Same Authority as Trent (if one goes, both go)

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

 

[bear06]

Hey Bear06, we are all still waiting for you to tell us some of the binding teachings we must abide by as a result of V2. Please don’t cite another document which does not answer this question. Very simply in your own words, what doctrine has developed which makes me bound to do something different now than before V2? All I want to know is what should I be doing differently now? Thanks.

Holy cow! Did you bother to read or are you playing the “if we say it enough it’ll become true game”? Let me type slower. Maybe it’ll help. You can even pretend that these are my own words and I’ll even leave out the quote box… I could go in and paraphrase but why would I?

Dei Verbum definitively settled a serious question on the proper way of interpreting the teaching of the Council of Trent on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Trent had not clarified whether we were dealing with two separate sources or one source in two forms. DV definitively settled the question in favor of the latter solution.

 

[bear06]

I e-mailed Dr. Sippo and copy and pasted SFD’s post. Here’s the response I got from Dr. Sippo.

this fellow has taken a comment out of context and misrepresented it.

First of all, the Catholic Church while it respects scholarship does not depend on it for its doctrines. We have received a body of revelations from God that have been preserved in both Scripture and Tradition. The teachings of the Church are preserved by the Bishops in union with the Pope who have the charism of guidance by the Holy Spirit. The Bishops as a body with the Pope as their head are under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit and they are the ones who determine what Catholics are to believe. Infallibility is a charism of the hierarchy as a whole but it is exercised preeminently by the Pope as the head of the Apostolic College. Vatican I made it clear that his was the supreme teaching office and that he can act unilaterally to decide disputed questions. In practice, though, the Pope does not act alone. He garners support from his brother bishops and from Catholic scholars. Usually there are movements within the Church where significant numbers of people align on both sides of a doctrinal issue and the Pope must provide leadership to discern the truth for the Church as a whole and to call the Church toward a common stance on that subject.

This charism of the Pope can be exercised in support of a minority opinion and in fact in the situation where the Pope is virtually alone in his opinion. This is a remote possibility and I cannot think of any instance where the Pope has stood alone against all other Bishops. But there have been cases such as Humanae Vitae where the Pope took a strong stand on an issue when popular opinion went the other way. In the case of the definition of the Immaculate Conception, the dominant Thomist theological view had opposed the doctrine but Pope Pius IX was compelled by the Holy Spirit to affirm that truth.

The point is that the Pope is not compelled either to follow public opinion nor is he restricted from opposing the opinions of mere theologians no matter how ancient or venerable those opinions might be. The Holy Spirit is the ultimate arbiter of truth and when the Pope is so moved by the Spirit to define a doctrinal position, it is God himself who is guiding him.

The passage that is quoted from Tuas Libenter is often misused by those who wish to disobey the modern Popes or to deny the authority of Vatican II. But such people are not thinking with the mind of the Catholic Church. There are many truths of the faith which have not been defined by decrees of a Church Council or an extraordinary Magisterial act of the Pope. The Virgin Birth is one of those. Instead, this doctrine is part of the common heritage of the Church and has been proclaimed by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium in such a way that it is considered to be true and undeniable. There are other positions that have been held for long periods of time but which are not irreformable. One example is the form of the liturgy.

When disputes arise in the Church over matters of faith, morals, or devotion, the living Magisterium of the reigning Pope is a sure guide to the believing Catholic. Anyone who proposes to contradict the teaching of the reigning Pope on the basis of their own interpretation of ‘tradition’ or based on the opinions of some theologian – living or dead-- is not a faithful Catholic. The reigning Pope is to be obeyed in all things and his teaching is to receive a religious submission of mind and will from all the faithful (Lumen Gentium 25).

 

[latinmass]

Holy cow! Did you bother to read or are you playing the “if we say it enough it’ll become true game”? Let me type slower. Maybe it’ll help. You can even pretend that these are my own words and I’ll even leave out the quote box… I could go in and paraphrase but why would I?

Dei Verbum definitively settled a serious question on the proper way of interpreting the teaching of the Council of Trent on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Trent had not clarified whether we were dealing with two separate sources or one source in two forms. DV definitively settled the question in favor of the latter solution.

You have still not my question. The way you responded is also not charitable either. If you cannot keep your temper you should not bring yourself to sin on a web site like this. You have a problem with anger you need to pray about. Whatever cause you have, is lost with your last response by anyone who will read it. I say this in charity. God Bless You.

 

[SFD]

I e-mailed Dr. Sippo and copy and pasted SFD’s post. Here’s the response I got from Dr. Sippo.

I have the context…and it was clear what he was saying. What are Sippo’s sources for his ideas expressed in the quote you provided…he has no sources…these are his own thoughts and interpretations of the documents of Vatican II.

From the Relatio of Bp. Gasser, the relator of the Faith at Vatican I, explaining to the Fathers what they were about to vote on…what the Vatican I definition of Papal infallibility meant:
Bp. Gasser's relatio:

Therefore not only must it be said that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, when he defines doctrines about faith and morals, but that this infallibility is that infallibility which the Church enjoys. Therefore, someone who would simply assert that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines something about faith or morals has by no means comprehended the meaning of our definition. Nor is the meaning of our formula comprehended by someone who simply asserts that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines something which simply must be held by the Church. The two things must always be joined so that the meaning of our formula be correct and true. Moreover, this formula seems most suitable to express both things: “The Roman Pontiff, when he defines a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith or morals.”

Therefore, in this entire definition, the following three things are contained:

1. The Roman Pontiff, through the divine assistance promised to him, is infallible, when, by his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine which must be held by the Universal Church, or, as very many theologians say, when he definitively and conclusively proposes his judgment;
2. the object of these infallible definitions is doctrine about faith or morals;
3. in respect to the object of infallibility, generically proposed in this way, the infallibility of the Pope is neither more nor less extensive than is the infallibility of the Church in her definitions of doctrine of faith and morals.

Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith. However, in respect to those things about which it is theologically certain - but not as, yet certain “de fide” - that the Church is infallible, these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility. With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of the faith, fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so, with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.

Now, as to what concerns the method for treating this, matter in our voting, most eminent and reverend fathers, you can see for yourselves that everything in our formula is so interconnected that those things which are found in the following suggested corrections - touching upon the object of papal infallibility and on the relation which exists between papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Church – are not able to be joined to our formula, nor can anything be separated from our formula. Therefore there remains nothing to do except first submit to a vote of the most reverend fathers this formula of the Deputation. But if this formula is accepted - as, with the help of God, I hope it will be – then no further votes need be sought in respect to the following suggestions, to the extent that they concern the object of papal infallibility and the relation between papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Church. This is so because, as I have just said, the matter found in these suggestions cannot be taken into our formula while saving its meaning, nor is anything able to be omitted from our formula without ruining its tight connections. Therefore a vote will first be sought in respect to our formula, and, in case it is accepted by the general congregation, another further relatio about those suggestions concerning the object of infallibility and the relation between papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Church will no longer be necessary.

Therefore I think I can refrain from any further observations about these suggestions and only say something if a particular thing seems to be worthy of note.

SFD

 

[bear06]

You have still not my question. The way you responded is also not charitable either. If you cannot keep your temper you should not bring yourself to sin on a web site like this. You have a problem with anger you need to pray about. Whatever cause you have, is lost with your last response by anyone who will read it. I say this in charity. God Bless You.

Please let’s stop with the personal opinions about my “problems” and accusations of sin. You can say it over and over again all you like but you’d be wrong. I have answered the question but for some strange reason you want to persist with the fantasy that it hasn’t been answered - probably because you don’t like the answer.

 

[bear06]

I have the context…

How about providing it then. You gave partial quotes with no context. Until we see the context we pretty much have hearsay.

and it was clear what he was saying. What are Sippo’s sources for his ideas expressed in the quote you provided…he has no sources…these are his own thoughts and interpretations of the documents of Vatican II.