What Did Vatican II Dogmatically Define?

[KathleenElsie]

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:

Well lets see.
When going to confession at my home parish the priest says I do not commit a sin if I miss Mass for a “good” reason. Vacation, work, just toooo hard to get toooo.

When going to confession at the TLM near me I am told that under these situations I have commited a mortal sin.

In my case I’ll believe the TLM priest and parish. But I guess it is a personal situation for many priests now.

 

[SemperFidelis]

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.

This is what starts getting me all confused. To me it seems that Lumen Gentium contradicts this. This would mean the Church today is in error. From what it seems pretty much everybody in the Church today including Priests all the way up to Pope Benedict XVI believe that protestants, Orthodox, some even Jews and muslims, and even worse some even atheists can be saved. Apparently this can all be believed because of the add on of: if someone due to no fault of their own is ignorant about the Catholic Church being the One, True, Church they can be saved by living a good life. This includes everyone. This seems like universalism to me. To me this seems the Church is in error. Just when I think I’ve got a grasp on Vatican II, I see something that starts me thinking Vatican II does not conform with 1950 years of Church teaching. Its hard for me to believe that when Lateran IV put forth the dogma of EENS, it wasn’t a reaction to the Schism of 1054 with the Orthodox Church, meaning that Catholics at the time thoughts Orthodox were outside the Church. Somehow this has progressed to atheists can be saved.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I just found an insane amount of quotes about “Outside the Church there is no salvation” from Early Church Fathers, Councils, etc. here:

romancatholicism.org/jansenism/tradition-eens.htm

Here are the ones that stick out the most clearly:

Saint Augustine, Doctor, (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honour, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermon to the People of Caesaria)

Pope Pius XI, A.D. 1922-1939: “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers [the Protestants], obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful?” Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of Faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”” (Mortalium Animos. The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981)

*** INFALLIBLE ***: Ex cathedra: “We declare, we say, we define, and we pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter.” (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)

Pope Gregory XVI, A.D. 1831-1846 (D.1613): “Now we examine another prolific cause of evils by which, we lament, the Church is at present afflicted, namely indifferentism, or that base opinion which has become prevalent everywhere through the deceit of wicked men, that eternal salvation of the soul can be acquired by any profession of faith whatsoever, if morals are conformed to the standard of the just and the honest. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbour of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that those who are not with Christ are against Him, and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.” A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”” (Mirari Vos Arbitramur)

This could not more clearly state that if you are NOT a member of the Catholic Church you WILL NOT BE SAVED. If the Church today does not profess this (To me it does not seem like it does), then the Church of today is in error. I hope somebody can correct me, for the sake of Catholics everywhere.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Okay upon further review of the website above the guy who runs it is clearly a wacko. He is apparently a pre-destination believing, sede-vacantist, Nazi. Whether or not those quotes above posted are accurate or not I do not know. Just a warning about that site though.

 

[bear06]

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

Yeah? I know several people who twist Church documents to mean whatever they like. And the point is? The Church has clarified.

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.

Interesting. I’d actually agree with you but how do you feel about these statments:

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”​

Fr. Schmidberger, Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 10: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions, that is to say, if they are in invincible error.”​

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006:
Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

Are we to consider these statements at fault for people thinking it’s just fine not to be in the Catholic Church?

 

[Miles_Christi]

It seems as though we’ve slightly progressed into the EENS-Lumen Gentium debate which has inevitably led into the Vatican II teaching error debate. Although I’m sure there are many who would love to debate this, I fear we should not go there, lest one of the Moderators kindly intrudes again with a not-so idol warning…:tsktsk: …not that I don’t think it would be fruitful, but I’ve just been there so may times with other [edited by Moderator] that it gets exhausting. But if you all think that is the next logical step in the conversation, then I would have to quote Teddy Roosevelt: “Tred lightly, and carry a big stick”:yup:

Concerning my original post, it seems now the consensus is that although Vatican II defined no new dogma, it still made dogmatic statements, therefore the council is to be considered dogmatic under the proper understanding of powers of Papal infallibility. This actually makes perfect sense as not every Ecumenical council has declared new Dogma, but that they all reference it in one form or another. There seems to be a small advisory from Canon Law that the “decrees” of an ecumenical council are not binding unless approved and officially promulgated by the Roman Pontiff, which seems to me like a formality just to ensure that things are properly done.

It seems as though we’re all getting caught up in language. “teachings”, “policies”, “disciplines”, “decrees”. Now I don’t know which terms should be applied where, but based on what we can gleam from all this talk is that Vatican II did make dogmatic statements that are binding and because of that in light of Papal infallibility, there can be no reduction, revision, or change in the churches current understanding of those topics which VII addressed under the theological premise of development of doctrine…development of doctrine doesn’t work backwards…:tsktsk: Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Caveman]

MC,
You asked What Did Vatican II Dogmatically Define?

The answer… nothing.

The vast majority of V2 is Pastoral in nature (non-binding). The only portion of V2 that is dogmatic (binding upon pain of sin) is Lumen Gentium. Now here’s the rub, Lumen Gentium defined no NEW dogma. All it did was ro reinerate 2,000 years of Catholic teaching.

The vast majority of V2 is open for discussion, debate and even nullification. Bottom line: Vatican II is essentially telling us “let’s talk about this” vice “this is the way it’s going to be”.

Hope this helps.

 

[KathleenElsie]

It seems as though we’ve slightly progressed into the EENS-Lumen Gentium debate which has inevitably led into the Vatican II teaching error debate. Although I’m sure there are many who would love to debate this, I fear we should not go there, lest one of the Moderators kindly intrudes again with a not-so idol warning…:tsktsk: …not that I don’t think it would be fruitful, but I’ve just been there so may times with other traddies and sedes that it gets exhausting. But if you all think that is the next logical step in the conversation, then I would have to quote Teddy Roosevelt: “Tred lightly, and carry a big stick”:yup:

Concerning my original post, it seems now the consensus is that although Vatican II defined no new dogma, it still made dogmatic statements, therefore the council is to be considered dogmatic under the proper understanding of powers of Papal infallibility. This actually makes perfect sense as not every Ecumenical council has declared new Dogma, but that they all reference it in one form or another. There seems to be a small advisory from Canon Law that the “decrees” of an ecumenical council are not binding unless approved and officially promulgated by the Roman Pontiff, which seems to me like a formality just to ensure that things are properly done.

It seems as though we’re all getting caught up in language. “teachings”, “policies”, “disciplines”, “decrees”. Now I don’t know which terms should be applied where, but based on what we can gleam from all this talk is that Vatican II did make dogmatic statements that are binding and because of that in light of Papal infallibility, there can be no reduction, revision, or change in the churches current understanding of those topics which VII addressed under the theological premise of development of doctrine…development of doctrine doesn’t work backwards…:tsktsk: Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

I find this insulting. I am a Catholic not a traddie or sede and yet many that come onto the Traditional threads want to and get away with calling us names.

You seem to know much abaout our moderators. As you have only posted less then 20 times this seems strange to me. Do you have more then one screen name?

 

[BobP123]

Concerning my original post, it seems now the consensus is that although Vatican II defined no new dogma, it still made dogmatic statements, therefore the council is to be considered dogmatic under the proper understanding of powers of Papal infallibility.

What was done by the council could have just as easily been done by the Pope himself. We could have avoided the enormous cost of the council, its surrounding conspiracies, its scandals, its “smoke of Satan” statement, etc. Not to mention “Stop the council!” warning by Pope John XXIII.

Having said that, what was done was done, and hopefully the Church has learned and become better for it for the longer haul. And maybe thanks goes to the Holy Spirit to have protected Vatican II against defining any new dogmas, since Trent and Vatican I seem to be sufficient.

 

[KathleenElsie]

What was done by the council could have just as easily been done by the Pope himself. We could have avoided the enormous cost of the council, its surrounding conspiracies, its scandals, its “smoke of Satan” statement, etc. Not to mention “Stop the council!” warning by Pope John XXIII.

Having said that, what was done was done, and hopefully the Church has learned and become better for it for the longer haul. And maybe thanks goes to the Holy Spirit to have protected Vatican II against defining any new dogmas, since Trent and Vatican I seem to be sufficient.

 

[Miles_Christi]

MC,
You asked What Did Vatican II Dogmatically Define?

The answer… nothing.

The vast majority of V2 is Pastoral in nature (non-binding). The only portion of V2 that is dogmatic (binding upon pain of sin) is Lumen Gentium. Now here’s the rub, Lumen Gentium defined no NEW dogma. All it did was ro reinerate 2,000 years of Catholic teaching.

Well because VII did make dogmatic statements, everything that it “decreed” is binding, depending on how you interpret the term “decreed”. It is true that VII did not “declare” any new dogma, but as we have stated, under the normal rules set forth in Canon Law concerning Papal Infallibility, any and all “statements” deriving from any of the 16 documents of VII that fall under the heading of faith and morals (which is actually quite big) are to be considered just as binding as the statements of any other ecumenical council or of any Papal statement invoking Papal Infallibility.

The vast majority of V2 is open for discussion, debate and even nullification. Bottom line: Vatican II is essentially telling us “let’s talk about this” vice “this is the way it’s going to be”.

Umm…I don’t think so. Debate is one thing, but nullification? The only way that could even be considered is if VII was a “robber council”, which only a small group of people would adhere to (whose group name I am certain is known). We all have the right to our opinion, and I know there are a lot of people who don’t like VII for a myriad of reasons, but the idea that VII has taught could later be taken back is just not possible in my book. If someone can find something in Canon Law that says this is theologically sound, then I will consider it. Otherwise, I don’t think that can be. God knows I’ve gotten confused and upset with VII on occasion, but I would never go as far as to say that it should be thrown out, which unless I am mistaken is theologically impossible..

I stand to be corrected.

What was done by the council could have just as easily been done by the Pope himself. We could have avoided the enormous cost of the council, its surrounding conspiracies, its scandals, its “smoke of Satan” statement, etc. Not to mention “Stop the council!” warning by Pope John XXIII.

True that what VII did within the confines of an ecumenical council could have done by a Motu Proprio of some type by Bl. JXXIII, but it wasn’t, and I trust the Pope, the Curia, and the Council Fathers has reasons for doing what they did they way they did it. Now you mention cost of the council? Are you honestly upset that the council cost the church too much money? I’ve never looked up the total cost of the council myself, but I wasn’t aware that is was so “enormous” as you stated. Are we talking like tens of millions or billions or something? When you say its surrounding conspiracies and scandals, I don’t know to what you are exactly pointing. Archbishop (and I use that term in the past tense) Bugnini? Now I know the infamous statement of Paul VI that the “smoke of Satan has entered the heart of the Catholic Church”. My understanding is that he made that statement in a moment of angst and was speaking about the widespread misunderstanding of what the council taught. I’ve never heard the quote from BL.JXXIII to “stop the council”. That seems a bit short and cut off…I would like to know the rest of that quote in proper context, with the original source document if you have it

Having said that, what was done was done, and hopefully the Church has learned and become better for it for the longer haul. And maybe thanks goes to the Holy Spirit to have protected Vatican II against defining any new dogmas, since Trent and Vatican I seem to be sufficient.

Umm, well that might be your opinion that the Holy Spirit protected the Church from defining any new doctrine at VII because you personally believe that Trent and VI were enough, that really isn’t how development of doctrine works. If it was God’s will for new doctrine to be promulgated at VII, then who cares? Fiat Voluntas Tua, Domine… That’s God’s prerogative, not ours…

 

[BobP123]

It’s easy to cut up what you don’t agree with. But you have not provided anything but denials.

You need to read up on a few things. *Keepers of the Keys *by Wilton is a good start. Also do web searches on the Vatican Bank, Markinkus, BUAN, Siri, and traditio to get a glimpse of all the conspiracy theories surrounding the council and its aftermath. Whether they’re real or not is not the point, we could have discussions on them till doomsday. What is the point is that much of the confusion surrounding the council could have been avoided for those reasons I provided above.

 

[stmaria]

Just because something is titled “dogmatic” doesn’t mean that it is. It must be declared to be so.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Addendum On this occasion the Theological Commission makes reference to its Declaration of March 6, 1964, the text of which we transcribe here:

"Taking councilor custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought. to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.”

The council never did openly declare any of its teachings as binding on the Church.

^ “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium. This ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents” (Pope Paul VI, at General Audience of 12 January 1966

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)

The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council” {Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefest of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, El Mercurio, July 17,1988}

 

[bear06]

From LG:

Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

From Unitatis Redintegratio:

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.

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

These same phrases are attached to other documents of VII also but these are usually the hot two.

 

[stmaria]

From LG:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

From Unitatis Redintegratio:

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

These same phrases are attached to other documents of VII also but these are usually the hot two.

What is the difference between those and these?

Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.

we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter “Docentes” of the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.

 

[bear06]

What is the difference between those and these?

Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.

we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter “Docentes” of the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.

Off the top of my head, I’d have to say that they address different things. Got a link for these?

 

[stmaria]

Off the top of my head, I’d have to say that they address different things. Got a link for these?

MORTALIUM ANIMOS and Quanta Cura

The languare in these two are far more authorative than in Lumen Gentium.

What about this one?

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

 

[bear06]

They’re still binding.

BTW, I’m not sure what quote you were attributing to MORTALIUM ANIMOS. The two quotes you gave both came from Quanta Cura and the last one came from Ineffabilis Deus.

If you notice through the centuries, the language changes. Sometimes the Church shoots out anathemas and sometimes it doesn’t. My favorite document, Pastor Aeternus, is rather mild in comparison and yet dogmatic and binding none the less.

Also, different topics are going to get different words.

 

[stmaria]

They’re still binding.

BTW, I’m not sure what quote you were attributing to MORTALIUM ANIMOS. The two quotes you gave both came from Quanta Cura and the last one came from Ineffabilis Deus.

If you notice through the centuries, the language changes. Sometimes the Church shoots out anathemas and sometimes it doesn’t. My favorite document, Pastor Aeternus, is rather mild in comparison and yet dogmatic and binding none the less.

Also, different topics are going to get different words.

My fault. Got my dogma mixed up. The other one is from Pascendi. Its is my understanding that after Pope Pius X issued Pascendi He was told that it was being ignored by the modernists.So he then attached the excommunication to it as well as the rest of the language. It can be found here:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10prasc.htm

Back to Lumen Gentium. I still don’t believe that it was meant to be dogmatically binding.There is no threat of excommunication or "separated from the unity of the Church; " as is stated in Pascendi and Ineffabilis Deus. Here is another one called “dogmatic”

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION
(DEI VERBUM)
The entire text and all the individual elements which have been
set forth in this Constitution have pleased the Fathers. And by
the Apostolic power conferred on us by Christ, we, together with
the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and
enact them; and we order that what has been thus enacted in Council
be promulgated, to the glory of God.
Rome, at St. Peter’s 18 November, 1965.

Also if those are dogmatically binding, then why did Pope Paul say this **at the end **of the council?

Address by Pope Paul VI during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, Dec. 7, 1965.

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."

Why didn’t he say “not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements except for Lumen Gentium and Dei Vei Verbum”

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6tolast.htm

 

[bear06]

Well, you and I disagree. No excommunication doesn’t mean non-binding. If you read Pastor Aeternus, it doesn’t threaten excommunication. Also, if you read PA, it also show that we must

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.

ex cathedra, excommunications, stern words, etc. aren’t mentioned.