What Did Vatican II Dogmatically Define?

[Miles_Christi]

Hey Guys,

Now I’m not someone who thinks that VII is not ecumenical and Dogmatic and all that, but the time has come for me to get down to the nitty-gritty and answer those friends of mine who are more traditional than I am (some sede’s) who object to VII on a multitude of levels and I need to have something more than “well the Church says it’s dogmatic, so it just is”. Now obviously that answer does work in a certain sense as the end of Revelation tells us that Christ will not allow any erroneous doctrine into His Church, which is why most theologians down through the centuries would agree that the Church cannot teach heresy (formally-which I believe includes ecumenically). Therefore, it comes down to pin-pointing what can be said to have been promulgated as “dogmatic” within the 16 documents of VII. Now the what I’ve gotten from my opponent in the debate is the following from the "ADDRESS OF POPE PAUL VI DURING THE LAST GENERAL MEETING OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL 7 December 1965. (vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio_en.html)

The quote I’m getting is this:

But one thing must be noted here, namely, that 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 activity, 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.

The point my opponent is trying to make here is that VII did NOT define anything dogmatic and that it is merely a pastoral council (although still ecumenical). Now I’m a firm believer in having filial trust in the Church and what it pronounces, although I share much confusion with others over the pronouncements and purposes of VII. Not I believe as I understand the Church has taught that VII IS dogmatic…however my opponent says he has quotes from Paul VI and Benedict XVI that VII did NOT define anything dogmatic, which I question with great scrutiny.

Simply put…I could use a little help here…

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Miles_Christi

 

[robert_ambrose]

the last dogmatic action taken by a pope was in 1950 when the pope declared that the mother of Jesus was taken up body and soul to heaven. i stand to be corrected.

 

[Resurrexit]

Papal Infallibility is invoked firstly under the extraordinary magisterium. Vatican 2 definitely did not use this.

The ordinary magisterium is only infallible insofar as what is being taught is in keeping or elaborating on CONSTANT previous teaching.

Another thing to remember is that infallibility only means that what is said is not technically wrong. It is not a guarantee that what is said will not be confusing or lead perhaps a considerable number of people to confusion.

Papal infalliblity was invoked, under the ordinary magisterium with Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II’s document in 94 or 95 condeming the ordination of women.

But the issue with Vatican 2 is: were the present understanding of ecumenism and religious liberty in the church before Vatican 2? If not, it’s not infallibile.

 

[buffalo]

nothing

 

[FightingFat]

I think that you’re right- Councils tend to respond to herecy don’t they, that’s why you get “anathema sit”. Vatican II was different, it was about discussing the Church and how it interacts with the modern world, when you read the Council documents, there’s no “anathema sit”.

 

[ncjohn]

While it did not declare anything new infallibly in and of itself, there are many doctrinal teachings in Vatican II that were clarified.

Most often, those saying that Vatican II didn’t declare anything dogmatic are attempting to declare it as essentially irrelvant and able to be ignored. That is unquestionably not the case. To the extent that teachings concerning doctrinal matters come out of an Ecumenical Council, they are binding and cannot be ignored.

There are many who express opinions that some statements of Vatican II “contradict” previous doctrine and therefore are invalid. The Church claims otherwise however, and many of those making those claims are knowingly outside of communion with the post-conciliar Church. In our less perfect understanding we may see “apparent” contradictions, but since the Church cannot teach error in these matters we are bound to accept their teaching and seek greater understanding of those things we see as contradictions. To do otherwise it put one’s self in a position of thinking they know more than the Church and thus out of communion with Her. And further, to potentially be a source of leading others into error, a position of great gravity.

Peace,

 

[Miles_Christi]

So then the answer is no, that none of the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council, under the normal or extraordinary magisterial powers of the Holy Father…defined ANYTHING dogmatic. OK, then that prompts me to ask the next question: Can a council be an ecumenical council if it does not define something dogmatically?

According to newadvent.org:

Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.

Newadvent says that the “decrees” of an ecumenical council bind all Christians, so is a decree not dogmatic? What constitutes a decree under Canon Law? If a decree is canonically dogmatic, then are we concluding that VII decreed nothing? Well I’m pretty sure it did, didn’t it? Then it follows that if VII did not dogmatically decree something, then it should not be considered an ecumenical council of the church…which leads me to my next query. On the newadvent.org website, which unless I’m mistaken is the official Catholic encyclopedia may NOT be listing VII as an ecumenical council of the Church. On one page entitled “General Councils”, Vatican II is NOT listed as an ecumenical council (VI is listed as the last ecumenical council of the Church). However, on another page entitled “The 21 Ecumenical Councils”, VII IS listed as an ecumenical council, BUT there is no summary given as to what is dogmatically defined, like the previous 20 ecumenical councils have. What’s going on here? So according to Newadvent, VII is an ecumenical council with no need of a summary of what it defined or decreed.

So OK, what I can precisely pin-point is the following:

1. Vatican II is an ecumenical council (obviously)
2. None of its 16 Documents made any type of dogmatic decree.
3. Whatever it decreed (as an ecumenical council) is binding on all Christians, but if it decreed anything, that was not dogmatic (but still binding )

This leads several who I know to say that VII is a “pastoral ecumenical council”, although there is no such distinction in Canon Law. So is this the correct way to look at Vatican II? If so, then that’s news to me…

 

[BobP123]

On one page entitled “General Councils”, **Vatican II is NOT listed as an ecumenical council **(VI is listed as the last ecumenical council of the Church). However, on another page entitled “The 21 Ecumenical Councils”, VII IS listed as an ecumenical council, BUT there is no summary given as to what is dogmatically defined, like the previous 20 ecumenical councils have. What’s going on here? So according to Newadvent, VII is an ecumenical council with no need of a summary of what it defined or decreed.

So OK, what I can precisely pin-point is the following:

1. Vatican II is an ecumenical council (obviously)
2. None of its 16 Documents made any type of dogmatic decree.
3. Whatever it decreed (as an ecumenical council) is binding on all Christians, but if it decreed anything, that was not dogmatic (but still binding )

Maybe not so obvious. Can you still call Vatican II a 100% ecumenical council since some of the documents only make reference to the Western rites?

While it did not declare anything new infallibly in and of itself, there are many doctrinal teachings in Vatican II that were clarified.

Such as?

 

[ncjohn]

Such as?

Read Lumen Gentium. The Decree on Ecumenism and those on other religions. Etc.

While I know that many especially like to take shots at the Decree on Ecumenism, it was meant as a clarification on the EENS statements which the Feeneyites had muddied. Those improper interpretations are still propounded here by many of those who wish to dismiss Vatican II and convince people that it is not binding, or worse, that it taught error. I will agree that some have taken the interpretations too far in the other direction also, to a point of relativism, but that does not make the documents themselves invalid, anymore than some abusing the liturgy–of either type–makes the liturgy invalid.

In the end, the Church says it was an Ecumenical Council and that it is binding. Others are free to disagree as much as they like, but then have to acknowledge that they are outside of communion with the Church on the subject. One just doesn’t get to decide to disregard an Ecumenical Council or proclaim it irrelevant or invalid if one wants to claim to be in communion.

Peace,

 

[bear06]

Hey Guys,

Now I’m not someone who thinks that VII is not ecumenical and Dogmatic and all that, but the time has come for me to get down to the nitty-gritty and answer those friends of mine who are more traditional than I am (some sede’s) who object to VII on a multitude of levels and I need to have something more than “well the Church says it’s dogmatic, so it just is”. Now obviously that answer does work in a certain sense as the end of Revelation tells us that Christ will not allow any erroneous doctrine into His Church, which is why most theologians down through the centuries would agree that the Church cannot teach heresy (formally-which I believe includes ecumenically). Therefore, it comes down to pin-pointing what can be said to have been promulgated as “dogmatic” within the 16 documents of VII. Now the what I’ve gotten from my opponent in the debate is the following from the "ADDRESS OF POPE PAUL VI DURING THE LAST GENERAL MEETING OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL 7 December 1965. (vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio_en.html)

The quote I’m getting is this:

The point my opponent is trying to make here is that VII did NOT define anything dogmatic and that it is merely a pastoral council (although still ecumenical). Now I’m a firm believer in having filial trust in the Church and what it pronounces, although I share much confusion with others over the pronouncements and purposes of VII. Not I believe as I understand the Church has taught that VII IS dogmatic…however my opponent says he has quotes from Paul VI and Benedict XVI that VII did NOT define anything dogmatic, which I question with great scrutiny.

Simply put…I could use a little help here…

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Miles_Christi

The answer here is that there were no NEW dogmas DEFINED but there were dogmatic statements made. The Church, the guardian of dogma and the official interpreter of dogma has said that these documents are consistent with the Tradition of our Church as we’ve just seen, yet again, on the word “subsists”.

Now, it is quite contrary to the Tradition to say that only ex cathedra statements are infallible. One might just want to look at the Catholic Encyclopedia for starters. newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Here’s just one part. I’d suggest a compete read but it’s too long to cut and paste.

In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of fhe Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ’s teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church. This principle is expressly affrmed by the Vatican Council when it says that “the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching received the command to guard the deposit of faith, possesses also by Divine authority (divinitus) the right to condemn science falsely so called, lest anyone should be cheated by philosophy and vain conceit (cf. Colossians 2:8)” (Denz., 1798, old no. 1845).

This would be another helpful article for the OP.
newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,

I was just talking to my brother who does bible studies with some catholic friends and he said that they said Vatican II now says that missing church is not a mortal sin but a venial sin.Is this true or is it still taught as being a mortal sin?

Thanks

 

[Genesis315]

Now, it is quite contrary to the Tradition to say that only ex cathedra statements are infallible. One might just want to look at the Catholic Encyclopedia for starters. newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

The essence of what you are saying is correct, but I just wanted to provid a little clarification on terms . The broader scope of things are also considered ex cathedra–ex cathedra simply means he is teaching the whole Church. The confusion comes from the Vatican I’s use of the word “define” which we usually associate with only dogmatic definitions. But, if we read the relator’s instructions on this point, it is being used in the broader sense–simply to definitively proclaim. This is why Vatican II used this more clear phraseology instead (“definitively proclaims”). Both discuss doctrines that must simply be “held” rather than believed with a divine faith, as dogmas require. This is the essence of the Pope’s divinely instituted ministry of confirming the faith.

For example, this is why Pope John Paul II’s definitive proclamation concerning male-only priesthood that must be “held” by the whole Church is indeed and infallible act, but it does not define a dogma.

 

[Genesis315]

Hi,

I was just talking to my brother who does bible studies with some catholic friends and he said that they said Vatican II now says that missing church is not a mortal sin but a venial sin.Is this true or is it still taught as being a mortal sin?

Thanks

Vatican II never even spoke on this issue. It’s still a mortal sin.

Most people have no clue what the Council actually taught. They just make stuff up to further an agenda and then poor ignorant Catholics are led astray

 

[GerardP]

Many people confuse the binding matters of Vatican II to be “teachings” when they are not. Policies adopted are not “teachings” from the Church. That is the pastoral character of Vatican II.

What Catholics are bound to accept in Vatican II is that there were a series of policies that “loosened” many disciplines in the Church. These loosenings were legally done. Bishops were legally given more power to mess with the liturgy in their dioceses.

No one has to like it. The Church doesn’t teach that Councils are positively guided by the Holy Ghost. There is no guarantee that the fruit of a Council will be good fruit.

There is nothing policy-wise in Vatican II than can’t be reversed by a future Council or a Pope by himself.

Issues like “Outside the Church No Salvation” were not clarified, just speculated upon and rephrased. The consequence has been more confusion and less definition. Vatican II made no claim that anyone outside the Church had been saved.

Holding the “Feeney” position of EENS is perfectly valid in the Church. Feeney never was told to recant his position and his regularization in the Church consisted of his reciting the Athanasian Creed.

Another point probably for another topic would be to clarify exactly what Fr. Feeney championed as his position on the dogma of “no salvation outside the Church.”

 

[ncjohn]

From the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 341 ß1 The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council, confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his direction.

Since they were indeed approved, confirmed, and promulgated, they are binding.

If “policies” is meant to be “disciplines”, it is very true that any discipline can be changed. The doctrinal statements and clarifications cannot be “changed” however.

As to EENS not being clarified, there are many who continue to make this claim. The Church disagrees. The recent “subsists” statement was a restatement of how that clarification was meant to be read. Fr. Feeney’s interpretation was indeed condemned and is not consistent with the Church’s teaching, again despite those who wish to cling to that interpretation.

And again, the Church has claimed the Council and its teachings to be valid and binding. In the end, we just don’t get to disagree and be in communion.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic or I will have to close the thread. This discussion is not whether or not Vatican II is binding or legitimate, etc. Thank you.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Vatican II never even spoke on this issue. It’s still a mortal sin.

Most people have no clue what the Council actually taught. They just make stuff up to further an agenda and then poor ignorant Catholics are led astray

Thanks:thumbsup:

I asked my brother if this was really just what these people think of missing mass and not really what the church teaches. He said they sounded convinced that Vatican said missing mass was no longer a mortal sin. Wishful thinking on their part I guess:shrug:

 

[GerardP]

From the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 341 ß1 The decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff as well as by the Fathers of the Council, confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his direction.
Since they were indeed approved, confirmed, and promulgated, they are binding.

If “policies” is meant to be “disciplines”, it is very true that any discipline can be changed. The doctrinal statements and clarifications cannot be “changed” however.

“Policies” is a more accurate word since the word “disciplines” is rooted in instruction which can be misread as “teaching.”

The policies of Vatican II are simply loosenings of previous more strict policies. Options are given where none were given before. To avoid the options and continue with the old “disciplines” (eg. fasting from midnight Sunday till after Mass vs. an hour) can only be more meritorious if done out of devotion.

If you want to say the Church “teaches” that you no longer have to fast according to the pre-Vatican II rules because the bishop or Pope has opted to relax them, that’s a bit of a stretch as a formal teaching.

As to EENS not being clarified, there are many who continue to make this claim. The Church disagrees. The recent “subsists” statement was a restatement of how that clarification was meant to be read. Fr. Feeney’s interpretation was indeed condemned and is not consistent with the Church’s teaching, again despite those who wish to cling to that interpretation.

What was condemned was not Fr. Feeney’s actual teaching but a misrepresentation of it. The letter from the Holy Office was written in 1949 and Fr. Feeney’s book on EENS wasn’t published till 1951.

With regard to the use of the word subsists the comment, "“numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity.” That simply means what has always been taught: That Baptisms and other Sacraments such as the Orthodox give are valid sacraments. The “impel towards Catholic unity” is simply a soft restatement of the Church teaching that all graces given to non-Catholics are directed towards getting that person into the Catholic Church for salvation.

The statement in no way indicates that non-Catholic churches are salvific. It might mean that just the babies under the age of reason who are baptized and miraculous deathbed conversions will go to Heaven. But that’s only because a valid Baptism puts one in the Catholic Church. They leave when they deny the truths of the Church in their false confession.

EWTN and the commentators brought on were trying recently to spin this into some kind of agreement that non-Catholics are saved and that non-Catholic religions are salvific.

And again, the Church has claimed the Council and its teachings to be valid and binding. In the end, we just don’t get to disagree and be in communion.

I don’t disagree with the Church’s right to teach but it’s not going to bind someone to “unbinding” except in principle unless it “binds” the person against practicing the faith as it has always been practiced.

For example: Ecumenism is a policy, not a teaching of the Church. The Vatican has the right to adjust the policy of the Church’s relations with other Churches and “ecclesial communities” and I can be a loyal Catholic in communion and say it’s a mistake with severe consequences and even resist it and work against it if it will sway the Pope to change course if the faith is endangered.

 

[bear06]

For example: Ecumenism is a policy, not a teaching of the Church. The Vatican has the right to adjust the policy of the Church’s relations with other Churches and “ecclesial communities” and I can be a loyal Catholic in communion and say it’s a mistake with severe consequences and even resist it and work against it if it will sway the Pope to change course if the faith is endangered.

Actually, this is a more accurate portrayal of the Church’s teaching on ecumenism.

newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God

.

And as far as this goes:

resist it and work against it

Good luck with that.

 

[GerardP]

Actually, this is a more accurate portrayal of the Church’s teaching on ecumenism.

The problem are the ambiguous phrases like:

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

I know plenty of priests that think the phrase “means of salvation” is the equivalent of saying that other religions are “salvific”

The fact that some take a journey to get to the Church is and always has been self-evident. God gives them the grace where they are either as a Jew, pagan or Presbyterian for the sole purpose of dying in the Catholic Church if they so choose. One way or another, they are not getting to Heaven without being a Catholic. I don’t care if they have to be given infused knowledge at the last second by an appearance of an angel or saint, if someone is getting to Heaven they have to be a Catholic in the Catholic Church.

This was always the belief, this is what Vatican II ultimately means and unfortunately someone like Card. Kaspar or Karl Rahner are opposed to the supernatural and opposed to the dogma of the Church.

Pope Eugen said the same thing infallibly in Cantate Domino. People don’t like hearing it but it’s the truth.

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, **unless before death **they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church”

You can’t get more clear than that. You have to get into the Church and you have to stay in the Church to work out your salvation. If you are a jew, pagan or schismatic in the appearances at the end, you’ll wind up in Hell unless Divine Intervention somehow miraculously allows you in the Church at the last moment before death.

Unitatis Redintegratio dances around the issue and tries to soften it but in essence it says the same thing. It’s a document that misleads a lot of people.