What Did Vatican II Dogmatically Define?

[GerardP]

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?

I think this is where the big misunderstanding is. God isn’t limited by the sacraments. But neither is he a liar and he is not limited by the physical world either.

I personally find the idea offensive that because people don’t see people converting to the Catholic Church that God has not given them sufficient grace to enter the Church.

If St. Thomas has taught that “God will send an Angel if necessary to instruct someone” and that the Church has always taught that infused knowledge is another of God’s modes of working and that conversions can happen in the blink of an eye.

We’ve had miracle after miracle of Padre Pio for all the world to see and we still seem to think God can’t get to someone before death.

I see no reason to diminish belief in the miraculous to satisfy our desire to get someone in the door to Heaven by our standards because we didn’t see and don’t believe that God operates beyond our senses in the world.

God is the perfect judge. He gives everyone sufficient grace. He’s got Angels and saints and miracles a plenty to use. He’s also got His laws.

If someone dies and they are not in the Catholic Church as far as the register goes, that doesn’t mean that they were not in the Church mystically before death. I’m not privvy to what happens in the last second before death. I don’t have to see the water or hear the voice of the Angel who baptizes for the baptism to work.

I do know that God is infinitely fair and that God requires no effort to make what is necessary happen.

I’m just saying that to be consistent God will supply the waters of Baptism to those that need it.

But to say that someone “never heard about Christ” or didn’t know says that God failed to give sufficient grace and I can’t accept that.

Our Lord says that not many will be saved in Luke chapter 8. God will take care of the extraordinary cases. But the Church has the obligation to teach and Baptize as much as humanly possible and not assume that God is limited by time and space because he couldn’t provide for our hypothetical “good” pagan.

 

[Sure]

I think this is where the big misunderstanding is. God isn’t limited by the sacraments. But neither is he a liar and he is not limited by the physical world either.

I personally find the idea offensive that because people don’t see people converting to the Catholic Church that God has not given them sufficient grace to enter the Church.

If St. Thomas has taught that “God will send an Angel if necessary to instruct someone” and that the Church has always taught that infused knowledge is another of God’s modes of working and that conversions can happen in the blink of an eye.

We’ve had miracle after miracle of Padre Pio for all the world to see and we still seem to think God can’t get to someone before death.

I see no reason to diminish belief in the miraculous to satisfy our desire to get someone in the door to Heaven by our standards because we didn’t see and don’t believe that God operates beyond our senses in the world.

God is the perfect judge. He gives everyone sufficient grace. He’s got Angels and saints and miracles a plenty to use. He’s also got His laws.

If someone dies and they are not in the Catholic Church as far as the register goes, that doesn’t mean that they were not in the Church mystically before death. I’m not privvy to what happens in the last second before death. I don’t have to see the water or hear the voice of the Angel who baptizes for the baptism to work.

I do know that God is infinitely fair and that God requires no effort to make what is necessary happen.

I’m just saying that to be consistent God will supply the waters of Baptism to those that need it.

But to say that someone “never heard about Christ” or didn’t know says that God failed to give sufficient grace and I can’t accept that.

Our Lord says that not many will be saved in Luke chapter 8. God will take care of the extraordinary cases. But the Church has the obligation to teach and Baptize as much as humanly possible and not assume that God is limited by time and space because he couldn’t provide for our hypothetical “good” pagan.

Of course a person must choose God to be with Him in eternity. Whether those that are invincibly ignorant are given that moment before death or immediately after, we will never know. But we must admit the possibility that our infinitely merciful Creator wants us to be with Him and will give us even miraculous opportunities to choose Him.

 

[Miles_Christi]

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, even though the entire ecumenical council is meant, able, and kind of obliged to do that

I don’t know about the rest of you, but even after more explanations of this issue, I’m still sticking to what I’ve said above. I’m not as learned as some of you, but this still works for me, and unless I’m a really bad theologian (which I hope I’m not considering I’m getting my BA in it! ), this position is not heretical, contradictory to the Magisterium, or demeaning to Vatican II in any way…Thank you, I’ll take it!

and a word to the wise (or perhaps wiser…), I would be careful with where you all take this thread. We’ve been warned by the moderator several times not to stray from topic, although I recognize that this debate is complicated with many “branches” to use the tree analogy. I think this debate is VERY (very) productive and I’ve personally gotten a better perspective out of this than any other books on the subject, which is why I don’t want to have the thread shut down!!! So please try to stay on topic and make as few branches as possible!

 

[Conciliar]

This is what I believe happened at Vatican II but worse. Some of the old words were thrown out as well.

“The new theologians often say that the old creeds need re-statement; but though they say it, they do not mean it. They mean exactly the opposite. They do not mean that we should find new words to express the exact meaning of the old doctrines. They mean that we should say the old words, but agree that they mean something entirely different.” (Illustrated London News, July 3, 1920)

Mornin Gerard!

As you pointed out in Blessed John XXIII’s opening speech, the exact mission of the Counicl Fathers was to “find new words to express the exact meaning of the old doctrines.” I simply cannot agree with you that they did the opposite or worse.

Chesterton is talking about the postulations of theologians. In that regard, he speaks of this very day for sure. But you’re talking about an exercise of the supreme Magisterium; a totally different allegation. I can’t agree with you. And sine we both love the Church, you bettter hope I’m the one who’s correct.

Thanks for the dialogue. I’ve enjoyd your thoughts and I appreciate your insights and your passion. God bless.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.