What Did Vatican II Dogmatically Define?

[Miles_Christi]

from one aspiring theologian to others, this is quite a good conversation if you ask me.

Even I’m a little confused now. Are we now questioning the “ecumenicity” of VII (if that’s even a word)? It is an established bedrock principle that VII is an ecumenical council, and it seems that we’ve all agreed that it did not define new dogma, but made dogmatic statements. That’s what we have for sure at this point. Are now trying to argue that VII did not even do that? This is soooo confusing…

The contradiction I see is the following: The Church has established in Canon Law (Can. 341) that ALL decrees of an ecumenical council are binding (given the approval of the Roman Pontiff), but then we seem to have Paul VI saying that not everything in this ECUMENICAL council is meant to be binding… It seems as though Paul VI went out of his way to explain to the faithful that the documents of VII are not meant to binding under the normal pretenses of Papal Infallibility via faith and morals, but that they are meant to be binding in the sense that they are reiterating and repeating established dogmas of the Church. And although I’ve been combating the use of the term “pastoral council” mainly because I understood it being used to degrade the ecumenical nature of the council, I think I’m beginning to come to a better understanding of the relationship between the two.

The sense I see is the following: Vatican II is a ecumenical council which did not normally decree anything dogmatic due to it’s largely pastoral nature, but did bind the faithful to adhere to its teachings which display dogmatic content.

Etiam? I hope so…

I feel like I’m about ready to throw in the towel…this is over my head theologically.:ehh: I think I’ll have to wait about 2 years until I get my BA in theology and philosophy at AMU.

lol…I’m going to call up Fr. Fessio and tell him to call Pope Benedict and ask His Holiness cuz I’m loosing it…:whacky:

 

[Aramis]

In the intellectual hierarchy of church teachings, there is a step that many are forgetting

Dogma: Must be believed and obeyed. Permanent part of the deposit of faith.
Doctrine: Must be obeyed, and while not of need believed, not publicly challenged. Part of the deposit of faith, but not always permanent.
lesser teachings: Should be obeyed, but can be openly questioned.

Some of V II is doctrinal but not dogmatic. As in, “Ok, this must be obeyed. You don’t have to like it, just obey it.” Most especially the post-conciliar documents relating to de-Latinizing the Eastern Rites.

Other parts, well they are pastoral and or instructional, but not doctrinal. As in “Obey these, but feel free to discuss appropriately”

 

[bear06]

from one aspiring theologian to others, this is quite a good conversation if you ask me.

Even I’m a little confused now. Are we now questioning the “ecumenicity” of VII (if that’s even a word)? It is an established bedrock principle that VII is an ecumenical council, and it seems that we’ve all agreed that it did not define new dogma, but made dogmatic statements. That’s what we have for sure at this point. Are now trying to argue that VII did not even do that? This is soooo confusing…

The contradiction I see is the following: The Church has established in Canon Law (Can. 341) that ALL decrees of an ecumenical council are binding (given the approval of the Roman Pontiff), but then we seem to have Paul VI saying that not everything in this ECUMENICAL council is meant to be binding… It seems as though Paul VI went out of his way to explain to the faithful that the documents of VII are not meant to binding under the normal pretenses of Papal Infallibility via faith and morals, but that they are meant to be binding in the sense that they are reiterating and repeating established dogmas of the Church. And although I’ve been combating the use of the term “pastoral council” mainly because I understood it being used to degrade the ecumenical nature of the council, I think I’m beginning to come to a better understanding of the relationship between the two.

The sense I see is the following: Vatican II is a ecumenical council which did not normally decree anything dogmatic due to it’s largely pastoral nature, but did bind the faithful to adhere to its teachings which display dogmatic content.

You seem to be grasping the situation just fine. I wish Fr. Fessio would join the forums. That would be very fun to watch!

 

[stmaria]

We know that the first two, the *Assumption *and Immaculate Conception, are infallible dogmas and they contain punishment. The third on Infallibility Pastor aeternus
is also dogma and only one section of it contains a punishment The fourth Quo Primum contains punishment and *Lumen Gentium *contains no punishment.

  DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION

*Munificentissimus Deus *
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII issued November 1, 1950
47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

*Ineffabilis Deus *Immaculate Conception

Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854. 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.

Vatican Council I:* Pastor aeternus*
First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ

Chapter 3: On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
2. 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
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation
Chapter 4: On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

There is nothing after this to indicate any king of punishment fot those that refuse this teaching

*QUO PRIMUM *
Pope St. Pius V - July 14, 1570
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us…this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and
Paul.

Lumen Gentium
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.

This appears to me to have nothing to do with Lumen Gentium. “what has thus been decided in the Council ”
I still must agree with Cardinal Ratzinger “**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}

And with Pope Paul
“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)

 

[bear06]

We know that the first two, the *Assumption *

and Immaculate Conception, are infallible dogmas and they contain punishment. The third on Infallibility Pastor aeternus
is also dogma and only one section of it contains a punishment The fourth Quo Primum contains punishment and *Lumen Gentium *contains no punishment.

You are right when you say “are infallible dogmas and they contain punishment”. That said, they aren’t infallible dogmas BECAUSE they contain punishment.

And with Pope Paul
“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. **

 

[stmaria]

You are right when you say “are infallible dogmas and they contain punishment”. That said, they aren’t infallible dogmas BECAUSE they contain punishment.

 

[Conciliar]

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . **The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. **When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Did the Council proclaim doctrine via “solemn definitions” or by defining dogma in an “extraordinary manner?” As Pope Paul VI said in a general audience, no. But such is not necessary for the assurance that such exercises of the Magisterium cannot err. The simple fact that Vatican II is, without debate, an ecumenical council (the bishops of the world under the headship of the pope) any doctrine they proposed that was confirmed by the Holy Father is an exercise of the supreme Magisterium and is infallible.

Way too much is made of the phrase “pastoral council.” The word “pastoral” here describes the purpose of the council, and the conditions under which it was convened, not the nature of it. Vatican Council II is an ecumenical council, and as such enjoys the same protection from error as Trent, Vatican I, and every other ecumenical council. Those who point to other EC’s to discredit VII are fooling themselves. If one’s authority is in question, all of them are.

John Paul II made a good point about “pastoral” vs. “dogmatic” in his book, “Sources of Renewal” written as the Card. Archbishop of Krakow. He points out that every dogmatic act, because it guides souls to the Truth, is naturally pastoral. Likewise, every authentically pastoral act is by its very nature dogmatic since it is rooted in Truth. There is no such thing as an exclusively pastoral or exclusively dogmatic act. So, although VII, an ecumenical council, is rightly considered a pastoral council because of its overall purpose, it is also naturally dogmatic.

 

[GerardP]

Did the Council proclaim doctrine via “solemn definitions” or by defining dogma in an “extraordinary manner?” As Pope Paul VI said in a general audience, no. But such is not necessary for the assurance that such exercises of the Magisterium cannot err. The simple fact that Vatican II is, without debate, an ecumenical council (the bishops of the world under the headship of the pope) any doctrine they proposed that was confirmed by the Holy Father is an exercise of the supreme Magisterium and is infallible.

Way too much is made of the phrase “pastoral council.” The word “pastoral” here describes the purpose of the council, and the conditions under which it was convened, not the nature of it. Vatican Council II is an ecumenical council, and as such enjoys the same protection from error as Trent, Vatican I, and every other ecumenical council. Those who point to other EC’s to discredit VII are fooling themselves. If one’s authority is in question, all of them are.

John Paul II made a good point about “pastoral” vs. “dogmatic” in his book, “Sources of Renewal” written as the Card. Archbishop of Krakow. He points out that every dogmatic act, because it guides souls to the Truth, is naturally pastoral. Likewise, every authentically pastoral act is by its very nature dogmatic since it is rooted in Truth. There is no such thing as an exclusively pastoral or exclusively dogmatic act. So, although VII, an ecumenical council, is rightly considered a pastoral council because of its overall purpose, it is also naturally dogmatic.

Unfortunately, JPII as Card. Wojtyla is not correct. Or rather, he doesn’t give you the whole picture.

He says nothing which designates the difference between an “authentically” pastoral act and a policy that is guided by human weakness from the desk of a Churchman.

During and after the council there is this slithery language that tries to stamp out all legitimate resistance to the policies that were ham-handedly implemented by the enemies of the Church from within the Church.

It consistently amazes me how many people who are more than likely politically conservative see right through this type of language when it comes from someone like Bill Clinton but love it and accept it when it comes from a Vatican official.

One other point is through all of the pages of this discussion and what seems like a thousand others. No one ever points out one particular “teaching” of Vatican II that is “binding.”

 

[stmaria]

Did the Council proclaim doctrine via “solemn definitions” or by defining dogma in an “extraordinary manner?” As Pope Paul VI said in a general audience, no. But such is not necessary for the assurance that such exercises of the Magisterium cannot err. The simple fact that Vatican II is, without debate, an ecumenical council (the bishops of the world under the headship of the pope) **any doctrine they proposed that was confirmed by the Holy Father is an exercise of the supreme Magisterium and is infallible. **Way too much is made of the phrase “pastoral council.” The word “pastoral” here describes the purpose of the council, and the conditions under which it was convened, not the nature of it. Vatican Council II is an ecumenical council, and as such enjoys the same protection from error as Trent, Vatican I, and every other ecumenical council. Those who point to other EC’s to discredit VII are fooling themselves. If one’s authority is in question, all of them are.

John Paul II made a good point about “pastoral” vs. “dogmatic” in his book, “Sources of Renewal” written as the Card. Archbishop of Krakow. He points out that every dogmatic act, because it guides souls to the Truth, is naturally pastoral. Likewise, every authentically pastoral act is by its very nature dogmatic since it is rooted in Truth. There is no such thing as an exclusively pastoral or exclusively dogmatic act. So, although VII, an ecumenical council, is rightly considered a pastoral council because of its overall purpose, it is also naturally dogmatic.

Wasn’t Pope Paul aware of this when he made this statement:

“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)

 

[GerardP]

Semper Fidelis wrote:

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.

That is the point of ambiguity. It is designed to allow you more than one possible interpretation and opens itself up to error, not on the part of the document but on the part of the reader. That is why Tradition is so important. If you read it and understand it to be against Tradition then, that is the incorrect reading of it. And it requires a lot of work to dismantle it in order to understand it correctly. For an example: Look in the CCC under “No Salvation Outside of the Church” and you’ll numerous non-sequiturs in the commentary and the references listed make you bounce back and forth with two or three different Vatican II documents in order for them to cobble together a “definition” that is politically correct sounding, prone to misunderstanding and still according to the letter, not heresy.

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.

That’s why the Church is in a huge Crisis. Human weakness wants us to avoid the hard teachings of the Church. It could be that Pope Benedict believes the truth is a scandal to the modern world and doesn’t want to make it as plain as previous Popes. It might interfere with relations or socio-political agendas. Or, sadly, he might be in error as well. John 22nd held some strange beliefs. As long as they don’t try to bind something, it’s all possible. The term “means of salvation” can mean anything to a non-Catholic sensibility even “salvific.” But there is no clarification stating that “means of salvation” must mean “means of entering the Church to have access to salvation.”

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.

That’s because these “add ons” are just that. Two of the biggest errors today are

1. the Pope is impeccable and cannot err because they think everything he says as Pope is Magisterial. And…
2. People want to twist the Truth of the Church to conform to the feelings and the spin that is popular today.

St. Pius X pointed out that the root of this error is agnosticism. The insult to God is that he doesn’t give sufficient grace to know the truth. When you question priests who are considered very good, they tap dance around and it’s so obvious they don’t even like to consider these things. The idea that “an angel will be sent to instruct them” seems absolutely silly. Though it wasn’t silly to St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[GerardP]

**bear06 wrote: **

Quote:
*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.

An example of that is the ignoring of the teaching on “true obedience” in the Church vs. servile obedience. The problem is the words of the documents of Vatican II must be understood in the teaching of the Church in order to be orthodox. The majority of Churchmen behave as if Vatican II actually changed a teaching of the Church. Hence we have all of the hoopla about the clarification on the word “subsists.” Translational error leads to dogmatic error.

Quote:
*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:

I haven’t seen the full context but I’ll address them as you’ve posted them.

Quote:
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.”

Outside of the miraculous infusion of knowledge or Baptism and death before the age of reason or mortal sin, I see no way this can be accurate.

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.”

It’s speculation and without the “certain conditions” spelled out, we have no way to determine the actual orthodoxy of such a statement. Further we have no proof or revelation of its actual occurance.

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.)

How he can be in a “state of grace” with Original Sin on his soul is a contradiction. The Church has taught that God gives sufficient grace for salvation. If graces are given, they are actual graces given in order to draw them into the Church and obtain the sanctifying graces of the sacraments. If a “good” Hindu is dying without any humanly possible access to the Church or the sacraments, if he’s saved, it’s because somehow he’s able to obtain the necessary sacraments which bestow sanctifying grace and enter the Catholic Church through a miraculous intervention before death. Infused knowledge, assent, miraculous baptism are the only ways I can see the Church explaining salvation consistently.

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

As written, they strike me as incomplete statements or speculations that are in error in some of the inferences.

This whole issue needs to be clarified ultimately by the use of the extraordinary Magisterium, definitions and condemnations.

 

[ncjohn]

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.

You keep making this statement in different ways, and it’s still incorrect. It’s *your interpretation *that that is what the documents say, but they do not say that, nor does the Church say that they say that.

Your implication that one must physically become a Catholic is not the Church’s teaching. The Church’s teaching is that in some way a person’s salvation is tied to the Church and through the Church, and that those whom, for whatever reason are not capable of knowing the Church in her truth can still be bound to her through the desire to know and do God’s will. It will not *necessarily be the case *if they should have known better, but the Church still acknowledges that it can be the case.

As you yourself said

GerardP:

If you read it and understand it to be against Tradition then, that is the incorrect reading of it.

It’s not only everyone else who has the ability to misinterpret. You may not like the Church’s interpretation, and find a seeming contradiction, but that does not mean that there is one.

Just as Vatican I defined its clearer understanding of infallibility, Vatican II stated its clearer understanding of particular doctrines. Many “traditionalists” continue to make claims that it didn’t as there seems to be a thought that Vatican II deligitimizes their “tradition” and must therefore be discounted somehow. It’s such a fine line to walk though as trying to destroy the credibility of one Council by necessity opens the doors for others to discount other Councils. It is similar to the infallibility issue in that if one exception can be found then all teaching comes into question.

Since the Popes since Vatican II, and the catechism promulgated by them, concur with the wording of the documents, it is very hard to claim that the documents are being misinterpreted and that the clarifications made were not intended.

Peace,

 

[SemperFidelis]

Your implication that one must physically become a Catholic is not the Church’s teaching. The Church’s teaching is that in some way a person’s salvation is tied to the Church and through the Church, and that those whom, for whatever reason are not capable of knowing the Church in her truth can still be bound to her through the desire to know and do God’s will. It will not *necessarily be the case *if they should have known better, but the Church still acknowledges that it can be the case.

Since the Popes since Vatican II, and the catechism promulgated by them, concur with the wording of the documents, it is very hard to claim that the documents are being misinterpreted and that the clarifications made were not intended.

Peace,

If that’s the case, then the Church is in error, as neither of these conform to the teachings of Lateran IV, Council of Florence, Papal encyclicals, INFALLIBLE teachings, and writings of the early Church fathers. My point is that if Vatican II says what you say it does, the Church is in error, so for the sake of Catholics everywhere, I hope it doesn’t.

 

[Conciliar]

During and after the council there is this slithery language that tries to stamp out all legitimate resistance to the policies that were ham-handedly implemented by the enemies of the Church from within the Church.

Hi Gerard,

If you wish to believe that an ecumenical council can be commandered by the Church’s enemies to the point of teaching error, you should also have a big problem trusting anything any EC produced.

If you mean to say that those with an agenda shoved their misnterpretations down our throats through much of the past 42 years, I don’t think anyone can argue with that. I don’t believe for a moment that the legitimate intent of the Council Fathers isn’t discernable, even given whatever shortcomings one can find in their language. And once discerned, there is nothing presented at VII that is in error.

 

[ncjohn]

If that’s the case, then the Church is in error, as neither of these conform to the teachings of Lateran IV, Council of Florence, Papal encyclicals, INFALLIBLE teachings, and writings of the early Church fathers. My point is that if Vatican II says what you say it does, the Church is in error, so for the sake of Catholics everywhere, I hope it doesn’t.

No, the Church is not in error. And as I noted, the fact that one sees apparent contradictions does not in fact mean that they exist. There are many things that are beyond my understanding, but that does not mean they are not true or that they are not understandable.

Language changes and becomes more precise with time, or takes on different meanings and usages. Lay people in particular have to take great care in trying to interpret old documents, which is why we are called on the submit in faith to the wisdom of the Church. Knowledge becomes clearer through continued study and discovery. It doesn’t mean that the core of the doctrine changes, but a more nuanced understanding of it may, and often does occur, such as the previously noted issue of infallibility.

Christological issues went through great periods of development in understanding through the early years of the Church. A great deal of theology came to much greater understanding with Thomas Aquainas. To believe that our understanding does not continue to grow and develop is to, in essence, believe that we have come to perfect knowing, which of course cannot be the case.

There are many here who believe that the Church is, in fact, in error. While I can respect their beliefs, it is only right that they acknowledge that their beliefs are not in accordance with the Church. There are others who truly seem to believe that the documents don’t really say what the language says and what the Church says through the Popes and its teaching that they do in fact say, and thus must claim that either the documents or the Council was in error.

In the end though, the Church says that it did in fact clarify those doctrines even if it did not proclaim new ones. The disciplines (or policies as GerardP describes them) of how to implement the visions based on those clarifications are certainly subject to change. And the definitions might be further clarified in the future, as the Pope just felt necessary to do based on questions about the “subsist” issue. But nothing has changed that doctrine as Vatican II clarified it, including the recent “subsists” clarification.

 

[GerardP]

Hi Gerard,

If you wish to believe that an ecumenical council can be commandered by the Church’s enemies to the point of teaching error, you should also have a big problem trusting anything any EC produced.

If you mean to say that those with an agenda shoved their misnterpretations down our throats through much of the past 42 years, I don’t think anyone can argue with that. I don’t believe for a moment that the legitimate intent of the Council Fathers isn’t discernable, even given whatever shortcomings one can find in their language. And once discerned, there is nothing presented at VII that is in error.

Take your premise just a single step back. An Ecumenical Council can be commandeered by the Church’s enemies to prevent condemnations of their teaching errors after the Council based on ambiguous texts in the Council and permissions and policies that allowed the crisis to develop.

What the intent of the Council Fathers was mixed. John XXIII had one vision, Paul VI had another. Malachi Martin related a story that during the Council Card. Bea was privy to a conversation consisting of Hans Kung and Edward Schillebeeckxs where they were completing the Protestant Reformation from within the Church. Fr. Martin said Bea was shocked and sweating. Bea was not the kind of “liberal” that Kung was.

Atila Sinke Guimareas published two books on the desire to destroy the Church from many of the participants at Vatican two (Animus Delendi vols 1 and 2)

Micheal Davies wrote an excellent book showing the problematic texts in Sacrosanctum Concilium in “Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II” Davies explores all of the loopholes that allow someone like Card. Mahoney to be true to the letter of the texts and true to the false “spirit of Vatican II” and undermine the Catholic faith in the process.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This theard has gone off topic. I will have to close it if the discussion does not return to it. Thank you.

(Remember, please start new threads to discuss related topics; don’t hijack threads.)

 

[MilesXpisti]

Hi Gerard,

If you wish to believe that an ecumenical council can be commandered by the Church’s enemies to the point of teaching error, you should also have a big problem trusting anything any EC produced.

If you mean to say that those with an agenda shoved their misnterpretations down our throats through much of the past 42 years, I don’t think anyone can argue with that. I don’t believe for a moment that the legitimate intent of the Council Fathers isn’t discernable, even given whatever shortcomings one can find in their language. And once discerned, there is nothing presented at VII that is in error.

Ah, but there’s the rub that so many Traditionalists encounter when approaching Vatican II; the only means that we have of addressing the cause and effect of the Council are those documents that the Council promulgated. The very fact that they have to be read in light of Tradition means that they were poorly written, else the entire problem of confusion in the post-conciliar period wouldn’t have happened. This is what happens when you called a pastoral council that whose purpose is not to define sacred truth in contrast to error, because immediately one has to ask themselves, “what was wrong before.” As it is not readily apparent what, if anything, was wrong then the question of the Council’s need and purpose is called into question.

 

[bear06]

Wasn’t Pope Paul aware of this when he made this statement:

“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 keep saying the same thing. Nobody is saying that any new dogma was put forth.

 

[bear06]

Ah, but there’s the rub that so many Traditionalists encounter when approaching Vatican II; the only means that we have of addressing the cause and effect of the Council are those documents that the Council promulgated. The very fact that they have to be read in light of Tradition means that they were poorly written, else the entire problem of confusion in the post-conciliar period wouldn’t have happened. This is what happens when you called a pastoral council that whose purpose is not to define sacred truth in contrast to error, because immediately one has to ask themselves, “what was wrong before.” As it is not readily apparent what, if anything, was wrong then the question of the Council’s need and purpose is called into question.

And yet, the person with the authority to set aside the council hasn’t done so. In fact, 3 of these “persons” haven’t done it. All of them have reaffirmed the council and some have rejected the implementation of it. Guimares, Davies, et. al., don’t have the authority to set aside the council. They don’t want the implementation called for in the council, they simply want the council to go away.

One of my friends made the comment the other day that no council for approximately 1500 years has accomplished what it set out to do (don’t nail me down on the last council that did because I can’t remember it). That really gave me something to think about. One has to ask themselves why. It certainly wouldn’t seem to be a lack of infallibility that was the problem. I believe it’s a little something called original sin. Regardless, it would seem that every generation thinks they are living in the worst time there has ever been. I think if we take ourselves away from the timeline, we’d see some pretty turbulent times in the Church.