That shows you the confusion. Some of the Popes have believed the Council was implemented correctly and at least one denies this. Amazingly all three were at the same Council.
You’re going to have to point to something specific and show me my error from the text.
Yes it is. Trent said that anyone who says that Baptism with water is not necessary is to be anathema. Necessary means necessary not contingent. Both of those terms were known at Trent.
“some way” “whatever reason” “If” “can” “may” those are all speculations. There is no evidence that, that is the truth of something. “tied to the Church” is not inside the Church. You are either inside or outside. Those outside are lost. Those inside and in the state of grace at the end will be saved. The attitude is one of diminishing God’s capacity to intervene miraculously either through Angels, Saints or directly. Also with this attitude is one of reducing the dogmas of the Church to meaningless formulas as Pius XII warned. What you are describing are redefintions and undefinitions. To define something means means to cut off certain interpretations and narrow the understanding of something.
Quote:
Like or disliking what the Church teaches is not the point. I submit to the Church’s teaching. But the spin on interpreting those teachings by many in the heirarchy or the laity is the problem that is leading to a denial of the plain meaning.
Can you point to one? The language of Vatican I is very specific. Beyond the loosenings and permissions given to local bishops I see nothing as clear much less clearer in the documents of Vatican II compared to Vatican I.
Who are you talking about? Can you give some specifics?
There was clarity in previous Councils that there is not in Vatican II. You were shown the door like the Old Catholics at Vatican I by the documents themselves. Now, the policy of unity over truth compared to the previous policy of truth over unity has led to confusion of truth and error.
Vatican I was very clear on infallibility. The problem came with the bad teaching after Vatican I that lead to the current problem of papal impeccability.
All it takes is for the documents to be misinterpreted by the Popes or the catechists or the people reading their language that is not written in the language of modern man as John XXIII aimed for and you have error. The CCC has some whoppers in it when it comes to logical conclusions and ambiguities. Look at the EENS section and the section on homosexuality and you’ll see examples of this.
Hmmm…maybe you could provide some quotes that show JPII saying that the council was implemented correctly. I’m not saying that they’re not there. None come to mind at the moment. JPI didn’t really say much of anything.
I kind of hate to even respond to this as it is still off topic and may cause Jean to close the thread, though I’m not even sure that is a bad thing at this point.
but then turn around a couple paragraphs later, as you imply above, and accuse the Popes of misinterpreting them.
I’m sorry, but you either accept the teaching of the Popes on infallible doctrinal issues or you don’t. It’s pretty clear from this, and other statements you’ve made, especially as regards the Feeney heresy, that in fact you don’t submit to the post-Vatican II Church’s teaching on this subject.
“The vast majority of the pastors and the Christian people have accepted the liturgical reform in a spirit of obedience and indeed joyful fervor. For this we should give thanks to God for that movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church which the liturgical renewal represents; and for the fact that the table of the word of God is now abundantly furnished for all; for the immense effort undertaken throughout the world to provide the Christian people with translations of the Bible, the Missal and other liturgical books; for the increased participation of the faithful by prayer and song, gesture and silence, in the Eucharist and the other Sacraments; for the ministries exercised by lay people and the responsibilities that they have assumed in virtue of the common priesthood into which they have been initiated through Baptism and Confirmation; for the radiant vitality of so many Christian communities, a vitality drawn from the well-spring of the Liturgy. These are all reasons for holding fast to the teaching of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and to the reforms which it has made possible: “The liturgical reform is the most visible fruit of the whole work of the Council.” For many people the message of the Second Vatican Council has been experienced principally through the liturgical reform.”–Pope John Paul II Vicesimus Quintus Annus, December 4, 1988Hmmm…maybe you could provide some quotes that show JPII saying that the council was implemented correctly. I’m not saying that they’re not there. None come to mind at the moment. JPI didn’t really say much of anything.
From the same document:
And, again, as late as 1998, he was calling for the “full implementation”. Obviously if it wasn’t fully implemented, he could hardly say “Yeah, it’s been done right!” We all know what Benedict has said regarding the implementation and we also know that JPII called for the correct interpretation and to put aside the erroneous interpretations of the council.
It’s not really off topic because we seem to have a fundamental disagreement on what the meaning of dogma is.
I haven’t seen any instances of actual clarification on them. Tangential speculations are not clarifications. We are not talking about St. Augustine describing the Eucharist as a “latent mystery” and that developing into St. Thomas’ teaching on Transubstantiation.
When the Church defines something it has to be specific.
Agreed. But it’s not contradictions I see. Rather it is speculations that avoid dealing with the dogmatic essences.
Popes have disagree with their predecessors on occasions when they weren’t bound by the magisterium of the Church.
I do. But their prudential speculations do not rise to that level.
I hold what the Church has always held. I posted the statement of the local ordinary’s office and their contacts from the CDF on the Feeney issue. It’s not heresy.
What about the objective teaching of the Church? Do you believe it’s possible to know something or is everything an interpretation?
That’s very admirable and I don’t doubt your intentions as being good. But the teachings of the Church under the current Pope are supposed to be the teachings of the Church under any Pope. And if you could point to a real statement from Vatican II that clarfies a doctrine, I would be appreciative of it.
He was using the same logic in argumentation that the fetal stem cell advocates use today. “It just has to be done correctly and it’ll be so good.” But at the time of the 25th anniversary of the document on the liturgy JPII was claiming victory for the document. Unfortunately he was Pope for 25 years and the current Pope in 2004 was describing it as “liturgical ruins”
Let’s say that you’re exactly right. You’re critique of the Council rests in alleged “ambiguous texts.” Ambiguous or not, however, given that our faith assures us that there is no eror to be found in said text, even if the true intent is buried within poorly written documents, it *is *discernable when read by the light of Tradition. Such would not literally prevent condemnation of teaching to the contrary, though it may make it more difficult.
That’s the great gift of Christ that will protect the Church against “the gates of hell”, that a pope will not say something that is “technically wrong”, although it might lead a considerable number of people to confusion??? Joe
I type fast.
But the problem is, now we have an argument going over what the light of Tradition actually is. There is a quote by JPII where he flips the whole thing around and believes all previous Councils and dogmatic statements have to read in the light of Vatican II. That is truly putting the cart before the horse and has no assurence of right and wrong.
Of course you are correct. But one of the criticisms of Vatican II was that there was no condemnation of any errors.
There are other issues of course. There are no references to Hell in Vatican II and if I recall the word transubstantiation does not occur with regard to the Eucharist. Now we have people believing that those are no longer Catholic beliefs because Vatican II did not address them. A Maronite priest once told me, “Transubstantiation no longer works.” He later denied belief in the Devil, Hell, Angels, The filioque and a plethora of other teachings. I asked him where I could learn more and he suggested that I read Karl Rahner.
Vatican II never intended to allow for a “deeper understanding” of doctrine. Read John XXIII’s opening speech.
I maintain neither. Vatican II contains no heresy but also it contains no “deeper understanding” since that is forbidden and revelation is closed and Vatican II merely tangentially restates Catholic doctrine. The policies and permissions granted by Vatican II are not heresy, neither are they fruitful or wise of necessarily the work of the Holy Ghost.
You are missing the point here entirely. It is never permissable “to depart from this” be it in the name of deeper understanding or anything else. The point here is to prohibit departing from revelation This is NOT a condemnation of achieving a deeper understanding of it. That notion would fly directly in the face of a pilgrim Church being perfected in Her earthly journey.
This being the case, that there is indeed a growth in understanding of revelation. it is entirely reasonable to, as JPII said, use VII as a lens through which to view previous councils.
Not exactly true. Off the top of my head:
It’s not necessary to use the word “Hell” to make the point. But even if the word transubstantiation or others do not occur at VII, so what? There was never any expectation that VII would address every single solitary aspect of faith. And that, in a sense points to the crux of the matter. VII was not a point of departure WRT sacred Tradition. It wasn’t supposed to be a critical juncture in the Church such that there are two Churches - pre-conciliar and post-conciliar. VII is a point in the continuim of Tradition’s development. It presupposed the entire sacred deposit of faith as defined by councils past.
Thanks.
Agreed but isn’t that very phrase in condemnation evidence that there was and still is an attempt to depart from the truths of the faith in the name of deeper understanding?
You are using the language of Vatican II to justify Vatican II. You are describing Mobilism. The Church is a Pilgrim Church
Not entirely. I was being a bit lazy.
I have a Denzinger and can look for the reference to Vatican I given in Dei Verbum. I am curious to see it really. Nt that this is the only way to support the idea of the deepening of the Church’s understanding of revelation.How does your understanding of EENS then match with this statement authorized by Pope Pius XII:
My idea of the development of Doctrine agrees with this description of Chesterton.Not entirely. I was being a bit lazy.
I’m not sure I fully understand your opposition to it, to be honest. I may be missing something. It almost seems as though you would maintain that the second century Church had the very same level of understanding of revelation as the Church in any other age. i.e. From the second century to the 19th century, our understanding has not grown at all. Are you?
That’s the letter that was never entered into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. So, it doesn’t have any binding power. It’s just the opinions of one bishop to another. Even so, I don’t see where the document omits the possibility of a miraculous Baptism or incorporation into the Church before death.
So, perhaps it was not officially filed at the Vatican. Does it contain errors? Isn’t declaring that God’s mercy is limited by the sacraments problematic?