FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
The Second Vatican Council - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Sacred Scripture & Church Documents (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: The Second Vatican Council (/showthread.php?tid=84904)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-21-2019

(07-21-2019, 04:08 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: To be clear, I would happily engage on any point of controversy as regards the Second Vatican Council, but it has become clear to me given Ginny method here that it is a pointless discussion.

Cool; maybe we can get something productive out of this thread.

Exactly what weight do you think LG holds, considering it is a dogmatic constitution? Again, I'm not a theology guy, so this question is in earnest, it's not baiting. Smile


RE: The Second Vatican Council - yablabo - 07-21-2019

(07-21-2019, 04:12 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-21-2019, 04:08 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: To be clear, I would happily engage on any point of controversy as regards the Second Vatican Council, but it has become clear to me given Ginny method here that it is a pointless discussion.

Cool; maybe we can get something productive out of this thread.

Exactly what weight do you think LG holds, considering it is a dogmatic constitution? Again, I'm not a theology guy, so this question is in earnest, it's not baiting. Smile

It binds the intellect and the will by virtue of religion.  Hence, why it can and does contain error.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-21-2019

That makes no sense. If "it binds intellect and will by virtue of religion", the faithful are morally bound to assent to it. "Hence, why it can and does contain error" does not follow; it's a conclusion with no premises. What exactly are you trying to say?


RE: The Second Vatican Council - yablabo - 07-21-2019

(07-21-2019, 04:35 PM)Filiolus Wrote: That makes no sense. If "it binds intellect and will by virtue of religion", the faithful are morally bound to assent to it. "Hence, why it can and does contain error" does not follow; it's a conclusion with no premises. What exactly are you trying to say?

When the Church proposes matters of divine revelation to us whether in her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, we are bound to believe these by divine and catholic faith due to God's authority.  We therefore give these the assent of faith and believe these by the supernatural virtue of faith.  These matters cannot be revoked, revised and/or in error.  These are protected by the Holy Spirit.

When we find matters contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, we are bound to believe these by divine and catholic faith due to God's authority.  We therefore give these the assent of faith and believe these by the supernatural virtue of faith.  These matters cannot be revoked, revised and/or in error.  These are protected by the Holy Spirit.

When we find matters of a pastoral or ordinary nature proposed by our bishop, or by the Roman Pontiff, we're bound to believe these by a natural faith due to the authority of the bishop or Roman Pontiff.  We therefore give these assent on a natural level, and believe these by the virtue of religion.  These matters can be revoked, revised and/or in error.  These are not protected by the Holy Spirit.  This is where the Second Vatican Council, obviously including Lumen Gentium, is categorized.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - BC - 07-22-2019

(07-20-2019, 08:35 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: Okie dokie.  BC choosing to name drop, has introduced a newer variety of baloney called SPAM into this dialog regarding the document of the Second Vatican Council titled Dignitatis Humanae promulgated by the then reigning Pope, now known as St. Paul Vi, but he has placed too much mustard on the SPAM sandwich. Here are all the names dropped: Fr. De Lubac, Cardinal Père Congar, Jesuit Fr. Peter Henrici, Philippe Levillain, Hans Küng, Beauchesne with no known first name, Philippe Levillain, Jesuit Fr. Peter Henrici, Bishop Aloysius Wycislo, Father T. M. Schoof, Jean Guitton, Cardinal Liènart, Franco Bellegrandi, Robert Laffont, and last but not least, Jean Puyo.  A Baker's Dozen! I might add the only Saint is the Pope, St. Paul VI, not any of the men listed.  Why is that?  Just something you may want to think about BC.
However, I asked you, for your thoughts, not theirs.  None of them make your point for you either.  Please answer my question if you will.  You stated that Dignitatis Humanae indicts the Church herself.  That is not a nice thing to say about my Mother.  I love her.  She is the spotless Bride of the Unblemished Lamb, Holy, One, Catholic and Apostolic, United with God and passing down thru all generations her blessings in the same purity of Doctrines as she received them from her Bridegroom.  
The word you lack the understanding of is emphasis.  Here is a little something about the word - 
emphasis (n.)


1570s, "intensity of expression," from Latin emphasis, from Greek emphasis "an appearing in, outward appearance;" in rhetoric, "significance, indirect meaning," from emphainein "to present, exhibit, display, let (a thing) be seen; be reflected (in a mirror), become visible," from assimilated form of en "in" (see en- (2)) + phainein "to show" (from PIE root *bha- (1) "to shine").

In Greek and Latin, originally a figure of expression implying more than would ordinarily be meant by the words, it developed a sense of "extra stress" given to a word or phrase in speech as a clue that it implies something more than literal meaning. In pure Latin, significatio.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/emphasis
Applying an emphasis on a particular feature found in the treasury of our Magisterium, along with Sacred Scriptures and Tradition, that being the dignity of man given him at his creation in God's own image and relating it to the many ways in which this dignity includes the necessity of religious freedoms and withing limits, helps man peaceful attain to the fullness of that image should he chose to use his freedom to reach towards his Creator.  The dignity of the human person, male and female He created them, for each other and for Himself.  This freedom must be protected by just governments.  That's the message in Dignitatis Humanae.  
You have yet to show me where in the document you find an indictment of the Church.  
I will leave you with what I offered to Augustinian early today:  "Thus the fantasy of absurdity impugning "the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings," of the 2 millennia you shake your finger at for violating the natural rights of men without anyone seeing it.  This itself is to impugn the Law of Christ itself as the natural law is upheld by the Law of God which is the depositum fidei we guard faithfully, semper habet, semper erit.  "Detract not one another, my brethren. He that detracteth his brother, or he that judgeth his brother, detracteth the law, and judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.  There is one lawgiver, and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver."  James 4:11-12.   So there ya go.  I hope you can see the points made.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
PS.  I apologize for going a bit snarky on you.  It is past my bedtime.  Vespers is done, but Penance awaits.  I'm grumpy when I need my sleep.

I cited the words from the men themselves who authored the documents and who admit they don't even know how their new position can be reconciled with Tradition. That speaks for itself, and certainly does make my point.

My thoughts are irrelevant compared to those of the clerics that were actually there.

That you cannot come to terms with their very clear words or you are deliberately being obtuse I know not.

What about Paul VI? 

Simply because God has given man dignity and does not mandate by coercion the true worship due to Him, it does not follow that man has a right given my God to publicly proclaim error and lead souls astray.

Indiscriminate Religious Liberty was repeatedly condemned by the Church . 

For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)

"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

"But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.

"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

"And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?" (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

The modernist authors knew this teaching well. They hated it, and subsequently dared to contradict previous popes teaching verbatim.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - BC - 07-22-2019

(07-21-2019, 04:08 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I agree she is probably well-intentioned, and that is why I say "fool" rather than something suggesting ignorance or malice. I assume the best about her motives.

To have no issue with the clear contradictions between the documents of Vatican II and previous magisterial documents and dismiss these without argument, then to condemn or dismiss those who point this out while trying to give a pass to Modernists who have clearly stated that they intended to destroy the Church through a change in theology as has been done above is foolish.

It may be a well-intentioned blindness that she's brought on herself, but it one emanating from naivety or foolishness.

She has come onto a Traditional Catholic board for the purpose of promoting a warped theology (which she refuses to see is so). It is not to engage in the constructive discussion which has been the hallmark of this forum for years, even if that discussion does become adversarial at times. To come in swinging (with charges of "schism" and "heresy") does not make for said constructive discussion.

To be clear, I would happily engage on any point of controversy as regards the Second Vatican Council, but it has become clear to me given Ginny method here that it is a pointless discussion.

I think you're right.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - MagisterMusicae - 07-22-2019

(07-21-2019, 04:12 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-21-2019, 04:08 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: To be clear, I would happily engage on any point of controversy as regards the Second Vatican Council, but it has become clear to me given Ginny method here that it is a pointless discussion.

Cool; maybe we can get something productive out of this thread.

Exactly what weight do you think LG holds, considering it is a dogmatic constitution? Again, I'm not a theology guy, so this question is in earnest, it's not baiting. Smile

I'd say yablabo is more-or-less on the right track, even if I'd not use the term : "binds under the virtue or religion". I'd say that the obligation of non-dogmatic statements binds more under the virtue of obedience rather than religion. Given that both religion and obedience are parts of Justice, and this virtue is a lower virtue than Faith, if there is an apparent contradiction between the duties owed by Faith and by Justice (or a part of it), the reflex principles would say that we follow what seems to bind us by Faith.

The title "Dogmatic Constitution" on Lumen Gentium does not make it a dogmatic statement. It is the content that does, and we know that the stated intention of both the Pope calling the Council and the Pope approving its documents was not to teach anything dogmatically. The value of the document then is that when it reiterates the previously defined or universal teaching of the Church, it must be followed (just as the original statement must be), when it states something which contradicts or seems to contradict previous teaching, it must be rejected or at least doubted (and so cannot bind anyone). When it states something outside of what was previously taught, then it must be reconciled with its effect on the Faith, but then is open to interpretation.

There is a parallel in law to this manner of acting as regards custom. Law or immemorial custom establish many practices. An action could be classified in looking at that customary or legal practice as (1) secundum legem — according to the law, (2) contra legem — against the law, or (3) præter legem — outside of or beyond the law.

To do something in accordance with the law is legal and good. New practices which accord with the law can also become customary or legal practices.

To do something against the law is not legal or good. Practices which are against the law can never become customary or legal practices without the authority changing the law or at least making an exception for that new practice.

To do something outside of or beyond the law is good or evil depending on what is done, but is legal because the law does not actually address this. Actions beyond the law could become laws or customs in their own right later.

The analogy breaks down a bit with the "against the law" portion, since we're talking dogma and doctrine, and these do not permit changes, so a teaching contrary to dogma or doctrine cannot be maintained and exceptions cannot be made for it. The closest analogy is that when it appears that such errors are being promoted, they need to be analyzed and compared with previous teaching and their continuity proven. When doubts come in here, the clearer previous teaching needs to be maintained.

I would say that is the case with Lumen Gentium

Things like §8 where the "subsistit in" phrase is found are simply erroneous because documents like Mortalium Animos and Mystici corporis clearly reject this phraseology by identifying the Catholic Church uniquely with the Church of Christ and rejecting the idea that schismatics or heretics in any way are members of that Church (though they could be, if not personally guilty of schism or heresy, despite their membership in a sect, by Sanctifying Grace a member of the Communion of Saints). (Contra Magisterium)

Things like LG §22 when the Council asserts that "the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head" are in no way in conflict with the previous Magisterium (even if later in that section, things get a bit ambiguous and we can see the Collegiality that was being pushed). (Secundum Magisterium)

Some see §21 as a statement that the Episcopacy is a distinct Order in the Sacrament of Orders, and not merely a loosing of powers inherent in the Priesthood as was the common opinion before the 20th century. That is a something not before defined and certainly within the purview of the Church to define. Since no explicit statement binding the faithful is made in the document one cannot say this is now a dogmatic or defined teaching, but given it is a theological question which could be defined and here the Council seems to suggest a teaching, unless one has a solid theological foundation on which to argue against it, it should be accepted out of obedience. (Præter Magisterium)

That is not the only way of looking at these matters, and were I addressing it in a more rigorous theological way, probably would not present it this way, but I do think is a possible and good way of approaching the Conciliar documents and the problems of Vatican II.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-22-2019

(07-22-2019, 08:20 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The title "Dogmatic Constitution" on Lumen Gentium does not make it a dogmatic statement. It is the content that does, and we know that the stated intention of both the Pope calling the Council and the Pope approving its documents was not to teach anything dogmatically.

A counter-argument might be that when the popes made those statements about their intentions, those statements themselves carried little or no magisterial weight, whereas the document LG itself was promulgated by a body of bishops in union with the pope; and it calls itself dogmatic.

Is the word "Dogmatic" in the title a lie?

Quote:That is not the only way of looking at these matters, and were I addressing it in a more rigorous theological way, probably would not present it this way, but I do think is a possible and good way of approaching the Conciliar documents and the problems of Vatican II.

I'd like to hear the rigorous explanation. Smile


RE: The Second Vatican Council - MagisterMusicae - 07-22-2019

(07-22-2019, 09:12 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-22-2019, 08:20 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The title "Dogmatic Constitution" on Lumen Gentium does not make it a dogmatic statement. It is the content that does, and we know that the stated intention of both the Pope calling the Council and the Pope approving its documents was not to teach anything dogmatically.

A counter-argument might be that when the popes made those statements about their intentions, those statements themselves carried little or no magisterial weight, whereas the document LG itself was promulgated by a body of bishops in union with the pope; and it calls itself dogmatic.

Is the word "Dogmatic" in the title a lie?

The problem with the counter-argument is that along with definable matter, the formal aspect of defining dogma is the intention of the Pope and Council to bind the faithful to profess such things by Faith. When you have Popes who said quite clearly that they had no intention of doing this, it wars directly against the idea that they did.

That puts at least in doubt the doctrinal value of the statements. What is not clear and definitive cannot be the object of a definition. If it is not clear, but the matter being dogmatic treats of things which need to be believed at the risk of one's salvation, there will always be serious questions hovering around precisely what needs to be believed.

A lie is a statement at variance with what is is the mind, not merely a false statement. A title given by a council to a document cannot be a "lie" but could be false. Whether it is depends on what is meant by : "dogmatic".

Dogmatic can refer to infallible truths which must be believed by Faith, but a secondary meaning in Latin has always been the English term "didactic", thus intended to teach. The latter meaning seems the distinction intended by the Council which issued two main classes of documents : Pastoral and Dogmatic Constitutions and Decrees. The Pastoral aspect
(07-22-2019, 09:12 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-22-2019, 08:20 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: That is not the only way of looking at these matters, and were I addressing it in a more rigorous theological way, probably would not present it this way, but I do think is a possible and good way of approaching the Conciliar documents and the problems of Vatican II.

I'd like to hear the rigorous explanation. Smile

I appreciate that, but that's doctoral thesis kind of stuff. I'm not sure I'm up to that if there's no a PhD and lucrative teaching position in the future.

I know, the good of the Church and all, but I do still have to eat and take care of my own spiritual life.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Bluestreak - 07-25-2019

(07-16-2019, 11:50 AM)Bonaventure Wrote: Something is/was wrong with VCII? Huh?

News to me.

[Image: clown-mass.png]

[Image: 140414arc01.jpg]

[Image: 330_ClownMass.jpg]

[Image: main-qimg-a84d6474afc7c761f0b64b0084339b72]

[Image: Clown-Mass.jpg]

[Image: 2245034083_6fff5cf6c1.jpg?v=0]

[Image: 069_SwissMass_02.jpg]

[Image: com0601z.jpg]

[Image: 207_MagicMass02-450x280.jpg]

[Image: phoca_thumb_l_cb%206.jpg]

[Image: clown_mass_large+%25281%2529.jpg]

[Image: hawaii.jpg]

[Image: tablecandlemess.jpg]

[Image: c2sYn.jpg]