Is Vatican II a Dogmatic Fact?
#11
So if I understand correctly:

1. It is a dogmatic fact that Vatican II was a valid ecumenical council.  Therefore:

A) Anyone who disputes this fact is in error.
B) Any dogmas proclaimed or defined in the Council must be accepted by all.

2. As a pastoral council, Vatican II did not proclaim or define any dogmas. Therefore:
C) There is no dogmatic content in VII that must be accepted by all. Only the fact that it was an ecumenical council has to be accepted.

3. Nevertheless, we are obliged to accept the teaching authority of the Magisterium as expressed in a valid ecumenical council, which VII was. But the teaching authority of the Magisterium expressed no more than that we should adapt our evangelizing expressions to the "signs of the times". The "signs of the times" suggest that:
D) Evangelization, conversions, expansion of Catholic families, and priestly and religious vocations are occuring at the fastest rate among traditional and traditionalist groups in the Church.

4. Conclusions: 
E) Vatican II can oblige no one to change his religious beliefs from pre-VII times, since it was a pastoral council.
F) A docile acceptance of Vatican II should lead the People of God to adopt more and more traditional and traditionalist practices.
Reply
#12
(01-14-2013, 11:15 AM)maldon Wrote: So if I understand correctly:

1. It is a dogmatic fact that Vatican II was a valid ecumenical council.  Therefore:

A) Anyone who disputes this fact is in error.
B) Any dogmas proclaimed or defined in the Council must be accepted by all.

2. As a pastoral council, Vatican II did not proclaim or define any dogmas. Therefore:
C) There is no dogmatic content in VII that must be accepted by all. Only the fact that it was an ecumenical council has to be accepted.

3. Nevertheless, we are obliged to accept the teaching authority of the Magisterium as expressed in a valid ecumenical council, which VII was. But the teaching authority of the Magisterium expressed no more than that we should adapt our evangelizing expressions to the "signs of the times". The "signs of the times" suggest that:
D) Evangelization, conversions, expansion of Catholic families, and priestly and religious vocations are occuring at the fastest rate among traditional and traditionalist groups in the Church.

4. Conclusions: 
E) Vatican II can oblige no one to change his religious beliefs from pre-VII times, since it was a pastoral council.
F) A docile acceptance of Vatican II should lead the People of God to adopt more and more traditional and traditionalist practices.

This has been my de facto attitude towards the council for some time. It's why although I respect the council I don't have much interest in readings its documents: clearly they were intended to re-state earlier teachings in ways easier for moderns to understand. What actually happened is that they are less easy to understand than the earlier documents: ergo, I normally stick to reading the earlier documents for clarity and assume (as the Church encourages me to) that they are in agreement.
Reply
#13
(01-14-2013, 09:43 AM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(01-14-2013, 12:38 AM)DrBombay Wrote: But it was not a dogmatic council in that it refused to define any dogma.  It was just a pastoral council, as even Pope Paul VI admitted.  Ergo, it can be ignored.  Q.E.D.

Now that that's been solved, what shall we discuss next?

What about the documents that contain the word "Dogmatic" in their titles?

Dunno.  I'm not the one that convened a council, declared upfront that said council would not issue any dogmatic definitions and then said council proceeded to issue several documents with the title "Dogmatic" in them. That decision was made far above my pay grade and eons before I was even a babe.  This is a conundrum wrapped in an enigma, or a diabolical disorientation if one wants to be more quaint.  Perhaps if I had spent more time in seminary I would have achieved resolution of this dilemma by way of cognitive dissonance.  Thankfully I escaped with most of my faculties intact and only slight scarring.
Reply
#14
Dogmatic fact or not, I live my Catholicism as though that Council never occurred.
Reply
#15
(01-14-2013, 12:53 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: This thread is about whether Vatican II is a dogmatic fact. Not, what it was about or its importance. 

May I sig that ?


"This thread is about whether Vatican II is a dogmatic fact. Not, what it was about or its importance. "
The Derailer


:LOL:

Reply
#16
Not cool, Whitey.
Reply
#17
I thought it was cool.  And LOL worthy as well.  But I'm just a heckler who needs to grow up, so what do I know?  :shrug:
Reply
#18
Well then, you guys must be very cool, that's all there is to it.
Reply
#19
(01-14-2013, 10:51 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I thought it was cool.  And LOL worthy as well.  But I'm just a heckler who needs to grow up, so what do I know?  :shrug:

I loled too. 

I derail other people's threads.

It's the duty of the OP to police his own thread. Not my fault most people don't!
Reply
#20
(01-14-2013, 11:31 PM)maldon Wrote: Well then, you guys must be very cool, that's all there is to it.
(01-14-2013, 11:39 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(01-14-2013, 10:51 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I thought it was cool.  And LOL worthy as well.  But I'm just a heckler who needs to grow up, so what do I know?  :shrug:

I loled too. 

I derail other people's threads.

It's the duty of the OP to police his own thread. Not my fault most people don't!

See maldon ? You are outnumbered you neo-crunchy trad !



jk ... as I was with the sig thing  :LOL:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)