Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you
(07-31-2009, 08:45 AM)Zakhur Wrote:
(07-30-2009, 11:42 PM)iggyting Wrote: You misunderstood me Zakhur. No matter. Ok, I could have been less circumspect from the start.

It is my impression that some saw Vatican II as a 'betrayal' of the Church without discerning Vatican II was the 'Church in proceeding'. Those who reacted too far in self-righteous anger caused a schism already. Their action was not unlike that of the Protestant-reformers of the past who thought that they were 'saving' Christ's church where in fact they , like Pilate, were judging Christ. One can debate whether Vatican II 'gave more to Caesar than to God' but one should never believe that it was 'all Caesar and no God'. The Church Militant has been 'giving back to Caesar' throughout its history, that is, it is a pilgrim Church on its way to perfection.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but you should expect to be misunderstood when you posts are unclear.

Heck man, I don't even think the whole council contains nearly false teachings!  It doesn't!  That's not how it damaged the Faith on earth.  The council damages the Faith of people in a much more subtle way.  It is thus far more dangerous than explicit heresy.

The difference between the Protestants and those who challenge Vatican II is that the Protestants actually challenged, then denied,  long-held teachings of the Church while those who challenge Vatican II, do so because, as Cardinal Ratzinger once said, what is new in Vatican II has offended the sensus fidelium.  The ONLY way for that kind of a situation to happen is that the sensus fidelium would have to have been formed incorrectly by a slightly aberrant pre-conciliar Magisterium.  Either the pre-conciliar Magisterium was wrong to condemn the errors of the modern world with which Vatican II sought compromise, or Vatican II was wrong to compromise and could very well have been an unholy council.

The traditionalist critique, and disobedience to, the council and its aftermath is very different from the Protestant revolution.  This has been acknowledged by a large number of well-informed people in the Church, including the man who is now pope.  It is not intellectually honest to compare the two, once you know certain facts.

The Pope's condemnation of error is an infallible judgment. So the idea that the "pre-conciliar Magisterium was wrong to condemn the errors" is absolutely false.

"Scheeben" Wrote:III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the document. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical documents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.

4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.

A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben's “Dogmatik”
Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D.
With A Preface By Cardinal Manning

Vol. 1. The Sources Of Theological Knowledge, God, Creation And The Supernatural Order
Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lt.
New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benziger Bros. 1906

Messages In This Thread
Re: Thoughts on Vatican II and a question for you - by lamentabili sane - 07-31-2009, 10:34 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)