Vatican II

[marymonde]

Well, the first quote is not a direct quote from the Holy Father. The second and third and fourth quotes are something we all know: No new doctrine was proclaimed. Nobody is debating that.

So now, Dave has kindly just posted these on another thread but they are applicable to your comments. Here’s what the then Cardinal Ratzinger has said regarding the council and its infallibility:

Is there any quotes from Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI who were the head of the councils that proclaimed it infallible? When the bishops asked Paul VI what the weight of the council was he said NO dogmatic definitions were defined. I believe him to be correct.

 

[marymonde]

As we well know, even before Vatican II we were taught things by teachers who may have accurately taught what the Church taught or may not have gotten it quite right.We have Popes and Bishops, but there are often lots of in-betweeners who do not always reiterate what the Pope and Bishops are teaching.
Since Vatican II the reliability of our direct teachers has continued to decline. Why else do we see such gorp being taught to RCIA Candidates or RFP students by incompetents. It drives me to almost to despair when I read comments and questions in these forums about RCIA, Catechesis, and Liturgical events. The engine and tender may still be on track, but many of the cars and the caboose are off the rails and it is not the fault of the 21st Ecumenical Council…

Why do the priests not remove them from teaching the faithful incorrectly? Complaints abound in every parish that the cathchesis stinks, no learning, it’s all about “feelings”. You know why? They get the info to teach all this junk from the diocese. And guess where the diocese claims it comes from, Rome. Don’t tell me they don’t because I use to teach RCIA classes many years ago. I had to stop because there was nothing Catholic about it. I got in trouble for speaking about the Blessed Mother. You know, she might scare away protestants that are potential Catholics.

 

[bear06]

Is there any quotes from Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI who were the head of the councils that proclaimed it infallible? When the bishops asked Paul VI what the weight of the council was he said NO dogmatic definitions were defined. I believe him to be correct.

And yet he didn’t say that it wasn’t infallible. He said no new dogmas. Again, I think we all agree upon the latter and I don’t see how we can’t agree upon the former since nobody has yet to show that the council was not considered infallible.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… It seems the weight of the council was non-binding

Seems to who? Paul VI? No. John Paul I? No. John Paul II? No. Benedict XVI? No.

I believe you have a terribly flawed understanding of Catholic dogmatic, doctrine, and what is and is not binding upon all Catholcis.

Which POPE ever declared that the Vatican II decrees, constitutions and declarations were not in accord with Scripture and the immutable definitive Tradition of the Catholic Church? What POPE ever declared that the Vatican II decrees, constitutions and declarations were not binding? Canon law declares they are binding!

The only reason one may dissent with Vatican II is if Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI were not not valid popes, which would necessarily mean that all the bishops throughout the world for the past frew decades since Vatican II were not really in union with the Roman Pontiff, as they too were promulgating the teachings of a “robber council” which was never ratified by a valid pope. That’s it. That’s the only way Vatican II could NOT be binding upon all Catholics. Any honest student of Catholic teaching could draw no other conclusion. Ain’t that right, gorman64?

What do you think “pastoral” means? You seem to think it means, “just a suggestion…not binding.” It doesn’t, not according to Paul VI who made Vatican II BINDING although it was pastoral. Not according to all the popes since Vatican II.

For example, the Ecumenical Council of Florence in the 15th cent. declared the following, but did not declare it definitively, which means it was taught pastorally…yet it was indeed binding…

"Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that … one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy … the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; … Apocalypse of John."

Thus, as every canonist would tell you, the canon of Scripture was universally binding by virtue of this non-definitive (ie. pastoral) declaration. Every ecumenical council is marked by pastoral teachings. They never meant that they were to be discared at will. They are authentic exercises of magisterium once they have been ratified by the Roman Pontiff. So, by virture of true obedience and subordination to the Roman Pontiff, which is necessary for salvation (cf. Unam Sanctum), what is taught even pastorally by the Roman Pontiff as sententia certa is binding, to include submission to the disciplinary norms and governing instructions of the Roman Pontiff.

“Pastoral” means “by virtue of the authority of the Magisterium” which although differs in kind from teachings promulgated definitively by virue of the authority of the Solemn Magisterium, it is still authentic teachings of the magisterium which requires what pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II described as RELIGIOSUM OBSEQUIUM. No honest study of religiosum obsequium could conclude that it is compatible with dissent.

Catholics have always been bound to submit to their pastors, even when thought they were not teaching infallibly with solemn definitions (cf. Heb 13:17). When they teach with the authority of their Ordinary Magisterium, we owe our religious assent. Pre-Vatican II popes such as Pius XII make this quite clear.

Consequently, your interpretation of Paul VI’s quotes are absurd.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I am just curious if someone agrees with what the past Holy Father’s said about the councils as stated above, if you thought it was wrong? It seems the weight of the council was non-binding, so it really had no bearing on what a Catholic had to retain or not. If it was merely pastoral, and no dogmatic definitions were pronounced, there is nothing as Catholics binding us to accept all that came from it. So there actually isn’t much of a point defending something we are not obligated to incorporate into the Catholic faith. Why would I follow teachings that His Holiness Paul VI claimed:

" We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties."

What would make me want to abide to anything that a pope considered darkness and uncertainty? Please show me, please, where a Holy Father ever made a statement in the history of Holy Mother Church like this, from another dogmatic council. On the contrary other councils clarified and made clear the intent of what the faithful were to follow.

You are attempting to assert that Paul VI was actually talking about the RESULT of the council when he spoke of “clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties” and of “the smoke of Satan.” We have NO hint in the context of those addresses that he was refering to the Council. Dave clearly reiterated what our current pope had to say about it. If one were to persist in this line, one would be guilty at least of deliberately misleading people as to what the Church’s position on the council is (YOUR position on it, however regretable, not withstanding).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Is there any quotes from Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI who were the head of the councils that proclaimed it infallible? When the bishops asked Paul VI what the weight of the council was he said NO dogmatic definitions were defined. I believe him to be correct.

Why do you insist that only INFALLIBLE teachings are binding? What pre-Vatican II pope EVER taught such a thing?

Here are some pre-Vatican II popes who taught explicitly against this erroneous view…

Blessed Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4 (18 July 1870), teaching about binding nature of the submission to Ordinary power of the pope, not simply limited to the Solemn or Extraordinary power…

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

St. Pius X, allocution against dissent with his pastoral ordinary authority. He is chastizing clergy who would presume to dissent based upon the “domain” with which the pope conveys his teachings:

"If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. " (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Paul VI (1964), speaking about the BINDING nature of PASTORAL teachings…

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (*Lumen Gentium, *25)

Paul VI, exhortation against dissent…

Since therefore whoever hears them or rejects them hears or rejects Christ and him who sent him (cf. Lk 10: 16), the duty of the faithful to obey the authority of the Pastors is an essential requirement of the very nature of Christianity. Paterna cum benevolentia (1974), no. 6]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“Pastoral” means a fusion of doctrine with practice, with the practical application of truth in our lives. That’s what it means to describe magisterial teachings as “pastoral” in nature.

See more about what “pastoral” means, here… What is Pastoral Theology?

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

“This Council is pastoral in its fusion of truth and love, `doctrine’ and pastoral solicitude; it wished to reach beyond the dichotomy between pragmatism and doctrinalism, back to the biblical unity in which practice and doctrine are one, a unity grounded in Christ.” What is Pastoral Theology?]

 

[marymonde]

You are attempting to assert that Paul VI was actually talking about the RESULT of the council when he spoke of “clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties” and of “the smoke of Satan.” We have NO hint in the context of those addresses that he was refering to the Council. Dave clearly reiterated what our current pope had to say about it. If one were to persist in this line, one would be guilty at least of deliberately misleading people as to what the Church’s position on the council is (YOUR position on it, however regretable, not withstanding).

The current pope spoke as a Cardinal. He has also made statements contrary to what Dave posted, as I have shown. We can go around and around, I can pull up more quotes to make my position, you can pull up quotes to suit yours. It only proves the point all the more that confusion is still reigning in the Church after the Council, so much so popes seem to contradict their own statements ( I said seems because it does appear to be that way). I can say this is true by all of what is posted here after my previous post, by any member. These posts only display the true double speak that is coming from the hierarchy. No one knows WHAT to believe because the very prelates that promulgated the changes can’t make sense of what happened 40 years ago clear themselves. As for me, I am live my faith daily as best as I can, receiving the sacraments, praying the rosary, and observing the commandments. The Second Vatican Council doesn’t affect me, because I follow what my grandparents and parents handed down to me, the Catholic faith, without all the conflict.

The context of Paul VI’s statements are obvious. He thought the Council would provide good effects and the contrary happened. I believe it is self explanatory. You’re trying to pull something out of it that would make sense to state your position, but you can’t, so you make accusations against me that are totally untrue. Again, I am done with you on this topic as well.

 

[bear06]

The current pope spoke as a Cardinal.

The funny thing is that we agree with him Cardinal or Pope and you seem to agree with him when it suits your argument. you were just fine quoting him as Cardinal.

He has also made statements contrary to what Dave posted, as I have shown.

How is this contrary to what Dave has said?

seem to contradict their own statements

Hence lies the problem. It’s in your view. I do not see them that way.

These posts only display the true double speak that is coming from the hierarchy

.

Again, your opinion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Cardinal Ratzinger on what “pastoral” means…

The word “Pastoral”, [Ratzinger] says, “should not mean nebulous, without substance,” but rather,** “positive care for the man of today who is not helped by condemnations and who has been told for too long what is false and what he may not do.**” (Theological Highlights of Vatican II [New York, NY: Paulist Press Deus Books, 1966], p. 23).

…Further, the word “Pastoral”, according to Ratzinger, “should not mean something vague and imprecise, but rather something free from wrangling, and free also from entanglement in questions that concern scholars alone.” (p. 23) It ought to mean “speaking in the language of scripture, of the early Church Fathers, and of contemporary man,” for while “Technical theological language has its purpose and is indeed necessary,” still “it does not belong in the kerygma and in our confession of faith.” (p. 24) source]

 

[marymonde]

**It ought to mean **“speaking in the language of scripture, of the early Church Fathers, and of contemporary man,”

Ought to mean…?

 

[Didier_AVP]

Hi my name is Didier Alejandro Villarreal P., I am Catholic, from Mexico City, not sedevacantist, but eager to see a much more catholic Pope, for example, consecrating Russia to the Inmaculate Heart of Out Lady, in the way she wished.​

Refering to II Vatican Council (IIVC), I like to propose the next thinking:​

Suppose that nothing is wrong with IIVC. Why if the Novus Ordo just represent a translation of the Tridentine Mass (this is alledged too), the Saint Pius V Mass have to get a reprieve and special permission in order to be celebrated (rarely granted)?. Is not true that Rome with this behavior is the first to differentiate between Tridentine and Novus Ordo Mass?. About obedience: Is not true that Tridentine Mass is “permanent protected” by Trento Council?, so the teachings of the IIVC can not be interpreted in the way to ban or proscribe this Latin Mass. The facts are different, never has been a matter of translation, is just the excuse.​

IIVC is not so important as the way it has been interpreted, the facts of Rome. Where in the Bible or Tradition we are able to see the analogy with the speech of Paulus VI (i. e. saying not to condemn the error but recognize the holiness of the non catholic creeds) or the example of John Paul II (i. e. kissing the Koran, ecumenical reunions, etc.), on the contrary, I think there are a lot of examples of the contrary teaching.​

Obedience is very important, not to contradict God is more important.​

AMDG

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ought to mean…?

Yes. Contrast this to the view that “pastoral” means “not binding.” Only dissidents have taken such a view.

 

[bear06]

Hi my name is Didier Alejandro Villarreal P., I am Catholic, from Mexico City, not sedevacantist, but eager to see a much more catholic Pope, for example, consecrating Russia to the Inmaculate Heart of Out Lady, in the way she wished.​

Refering to II Vatican Council (IIVC), I like to propose the next thinking:​

Suppose that nothing is wrong with IIVC. Why if the Novus Ordo just represent a translation of the Tridentine Mass (this is alledged too), the Saint Pius V Mass have to get a reprieve and special permission in order to be celebrated (rarely granted)?. Is not true that Rome with this behavior is the first to differentiate between Tridentine and Novus Ordo Mass?. About obedience: Is not true that Tridentine Mass is “permanent protected” by Trento Council?, so the teachings of the IIVC can not be interpreted in the way to ban or proscribe this Latin Mass. The facts are different, never has been a matter of translation, is just the excuse.​

IIVC is not so important as the way it has been interpreted, the facts of Rome. Where in the Bible or Tradition we are able to see the analogy with the speech of Paulus VI (i. e. saying not to condemn the error but recognize the holiness of the non catholic creeds) or the example of John Paul II (i. e. kissing the Koran, ecumenical reunions, etc.), on the contrary, I think there are a lot of examples of the contrary teaching.​

Obedience is very important, not to contradict God is more important.​

AMDG

The Pope never told me to kiss the Koran. It was a personal act. An official teaching is a whole other ballgame. We can’t compare apples to oranges.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Obedience is very important, not to contradict God is more important.

So, do you agree or disagree with this holy saint and Doctor of Catholicism?

St. Catherine of Siena:

“Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.” (St. Catherine, Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).

Do you agree or disagree that “there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

Dissension from what the Pope formally teaches to the universal Church has never been compatible with traditional Catholicism.

 

[marymonde]

Pastoral is nonbinding. I have asked trad priests and NO priests, both said it is not binding. Dogma is binding. If you stray from dogma, your eternal soul is in danger. You must believe dogma.

In fact, it is canonically possible for a future pope to annul the
outcome of the council, as it was merely a pastoral council. The Council of Ephesus in 449, which was regularly called and attended by all the East and by legates from Pope St. Leo the Great, was annulled by that pope’s subsequent opposition to it and branded the “Robber’s Council” (Latrocinium).

“The Church united in councils, even general councils, has sometimes been mistaken” (Dictionaire de Theologie Catholique). The teaching of the Council of Florence on the matter and form for the Sacrament of Holy Orders (Sessio VIII, November 22, 1439) was set aside
by Pope Pius XII in his Apostolic Constitution “Sacramentum Ordinis”
(1947).

“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.” --Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General
Audience

EXPLANATORY NOTE OF THE THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL
ADDENDUM TO “LUMEN GENTIUM”

The Notificatio of March 6, 1964, of the Theological Commission of the Council concerning the authority of the Council was as follows: “In view of the conciliar practice and THE PASTORAL PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT COUNCIL, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so” [Ex Actis Ss. Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II, Notificationes Factae ab Exc.mo Secretario Generali Ss. Concilii in
Congregatione Generali CXXIII diei XVI Nov. MCMLXIV].

 

[marymonde]

Do you agree or disagree that “there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695]

You are being uncharitable to say the least. No name calling is on the top of this list in this forum. I don’t care how you try to disguise what you are implying. You ARE saying I am a dissident and Didier AVP as well.

 

[bear06]

Pastoral is nonbinding.

 

[bear06]

You are being uncharitable to say the least. No name calling is on the top of this list in this forum. I don’t care how you try to disguise what you are implying. You ARE saying I am a dissident and Didier AVP as well.

I believe he asked if you agreed or disagree with the quote by Saint Catherine.