Vatican II, a pastoral council. And what does that mean??

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 23, 2003

Answers

So whould it be safe to say that Trent uses dogmatic theology and V II uses pastoral theology?

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 23, 2003.

Hi, Steven.
The word "pastoral" comes from the Latin "pastor," which means shepherd. The Catholic bishops (and by deputation, parish priests) are the pastors/shepherds of their flocks, the Christian faithful.

It follows then, that if something (e.g., a Council) is referred to as "pastoral," that means that its main purpose is to help the shephers/pastors to do their work more effectively.

Pastoral advice (or a pastoral Council) could be expected to explain the truths of the faith better than they have ever been explained before -- and in up-to-date language.
Pastoral advice (or a pastoral Council) could be expected to require or advise shepherds on how better to Govern their sheep [clergy/lay/religious], through better and clearer disciplines.
Pastoral advice (or a pastoral Council) could be expected to help pastors lead their flocks into more fruitful prayer, worship, and celebration of the sacraments.

If one carefully and objectively reads the documents of Vatican II (plus key post-conciliar documents resulting from the Council [the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the 1992 Catechism], one finds that the Council fulfilled all of the things I mentioned above -- and a lot more. In fact, one cannot avoid the fact that, while it was primarily pastoral, it was strongly doctrinal (including the formal expression of many "developments" of prior doctrines), and it was even "dogmatic" (in the extended sense of re-articulating some of the Church's dogmas in two "Dogmatic Constitutions").

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 23, 2003.

By all means, do the homework.

The footnotes will explain what sense in which they infer dogmatic:

A question has arisen regarding the precise theological note which should be attached to the doctrine that is set forth in the Schema de Ecclesia and is being put to a vote.

The Theological Commission has given the following response regarding the Modi that have to do with Chapter III of the de Ecclesia Schema: "As is self-evident, the Council's text must always be interpreted in accordance with the general rules that are known to all."

On this occasion the Theological Commission makes reference to its Declaration of March 6, 1964, the text of which we transcribe here:

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation."

This is a good lesson in ambiguity.

Now a real dogmatic definition is not put to a vote and is quite different in form. Here's an example of a real dogmatic definition, an infallible pronouncement:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

That was a dogmatic statement. Notice that it's a pontiff using the official "We". He nails it down: declares, defines, pronounces. This one is by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 from the Bull Unam Sanctam.

It wasn't voted on. It was clear. It was precise.

Nobody had any questions.

One of these is not like the other.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 23, 2003.

Emerald; How much aspirin are you using, debating with Frank Paul, Eugene, etc?

-- Soapy (9999@444.com), October 23, 2003.

Emerald,

Actually as you well know, the question isn't whether it's a pastoral or dogmatic council, that's just a red herring. The REAL question is whether or not the decrees of this valid ecumenical council MUST be obeyed by all Catholics. The answer which you flatly refuse to give a yes or no answer to, is "yes". If you refuse to, you are on your way out the door of the church.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 24, 2003.

[Topping, for wider readership and later replies.]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 24, 2003.

Ok frank,

With this newer council what do we do with the teachings that came from the previous dogmatic councils? Ditch them? And what about the former Popes and their teachings do we ditch them to? I am not trying to side with any one here but when I go to Mass my hart tells me that so much of what is happening around me is wrong. I know that a lot of what I am seeing is not in the teachings of Vatican II but I do know that Vatican II did open the window for what I am seeing.

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 24, 2003.

"Actually as you well know, the question isn't whether it's a pastoral or dogmatic council, that's just a red herring."

Actually Frank, to be dead honest, that's actually at the heart of the whole question for me. I want to know exactly what the Faith teaches, and it's not a red herring at all to make a valid distinction. Intellectual and theological honesty requires it, really.

I do think that the failure to make the distinction>/i> is a red herring for those who don'twant to know what the Church really teaches. Imho, they really don't want to know because, probably, there's something about knowing that would cause them to have to either do something on the order of the spiritual or give up something that's of the world. It's some kind of attachment that keeps them from going broke in the pursuit of God and salvation. Face it: the road to salvation is narrow and tough, and requires us to die on the Cross with Christ. Everybody does this in varying degrees and ways, but we all must do it somehow.

Now don't get me wrong here; I don't think that just because I volley back and forth with you that you, Frank, are of the minions committed to evil and drunk in the ways of the world. Nor do I pretend to have access to something others don't and that I will perservere in the Faith to the end. Either thought would be damnable in it's on right on my part if I were to think it.

I'm just trying to express to you that I'm not pulling a red herring here: it does have to do with pastoral vs. dogmatic, and about what I am hold close, to believe and do, and what I am obliged to avoid.

There's a beauty in precision, even if you would like to call it a red herring, and that is that preciseness is something of the truth and not falsity. It's also something not just of the head but also of the heart. See it here:

"The REAL question is whether or not the decrees of this valid ecumenical council MUST be obeyed by all Catholics."

What are the decrees, to be precise? So that I may answer your question...

All that's happening right now is allowed so that we can choose whether to serve God or not.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 24, 2003.

Dang it I hate it when that happens

-- (emerald1@cox.net), October 24, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Steven.
You wrote: "... when I go to Mass my heart tells me that so much of what is happening around me is wrong."

I don't know what you mean by "what is happening around" you. If you mean "liturgical improprieties," then, yes, they are wrong -- but that is totally irrelevant to the subject of Vatican II.

But if, by "what is happening around" you are referring to anything spoken or approved by the pope, then you can be sure that what your "heart" is telling us is nothing but a temptation from the devil.

You also wrote: "I know that a lot of what I am seeing is not in the teachings of Vatican II but I do know that Vatican II did open the window for what I am seeing."

You need to put that kind of devilish idea out of your mind. Vatican II did not "open the window" for any wrong-doing. It rejected all wrong-doing. (Please read the documents.) If someone blames Vatican II for "opening the window," then they have to blame Jesus for "opening the window" to every form of disobedience to his teachings. Please, Steven, don't blame the Council for the sins of men who choose to go against God's will -- because the Council never encouraged, justified, or invited any sin whatsoever.

You need to get your mind and heart straightened out now, without delay -- or else you will gradually become a heretic like Emerald and the rest of "Regina's Raiders."

[Moderator, the evil-doer Emerald has already drawn one good young man, "Robert P," into heresy. Please ban him today, so that he does not draw Steven S into heresy too. I would hate to have to see you on Judgment Day trying to explain to God why you allowed Emerald and his allies remain at this forum, poisoning all our lives.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 25, 2003.

Emerald,

Actually as you well know, the question isn't whether it's a pastoral or dogmatic council, that's just a red herring."

Actually Frank, to be dead honest, that's actually at the heart of the whole question for me. I want to know exactly what the Faith teaches, and it's not a red herring at all to make a valid distinction

Sorry Emerald, but it doesn't work like that. Vatican II was an ECUMENICAL council done under divine inspiration, and therefore it's decrees are BINDING on all Catholics. You don't need to worry about whether it was pastoral or dogmatic, it's irrelevant. You need to worry about how to obey, since you must. It's the "ecumenical" and "divine inspiration" that are important, not the "pastoral or dogmatic".

What are the decrees, to be precise? So that I may answer your question...

Emerald, you never will even give a yes or no answer to whether you think you MUST obey every decree in the council or not. WHY would I want to go over every decree in Vatican II with someone who isn't going to obey anyway? Why not just read them yourself at the Vatican website? Why are you so afraid of it Emerald? Just say "yes, I accept all decrees of Vatican II as binding" or "NO, I do NOT accept all decrees of Vatican II as binding". Get it off your chest, and quit wasting your and my time dancing around this simple issue on thread after thread. If you DO accept them all as binding on you, then we can start the laborious process of going through them.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 25, 2003.

John,

What I see as wrong is the lack of respect to the presence of Christ in wile in the presence of the Tabernacle the useless dancing the draws attention away from God (I go to Mass to Praise and rejoice God and I to the concert hall to be entertained) I think moving the Tabernacle to the back of the church is not right I see that as moving God to the back of the church and to the back of our lives. As far as Emerald goes the person a Mass that is approved by the local bishop and he/she has the rite to attend the Tridentine Mass.

Emerald, Tell me of all the documents listed below do you except all of them? these are listed form the Vatican’s web site.

If you do not agree that you/we should follow any of these texts tell us why.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index. htm.

• Constitutions Dei Verbum Lumen Gentium Sacrosanctum Concilium Gaudium et Spes • Declarations Gravissimum Educationis Nostra Aetate Dignitatis Humanae • Decrees Ad Gentes Presbyterorum Ordinis Apostolicam Actuositatem Optatam Totius Perfectae Caritatis Christus Dominus Unitatis Redintegratio Orientalium Ecclesiarum Inter Mirifica

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index. htm.

-- Steven S (Steven@Schneider.net), October 25, 2003.

Sorry my list did not turn out.

• Constitutions ; o Dei Verbum , o Lumen Gentium , o Sacrosanctum Concilium , o Gaudium et Spes , • Declarations ; o Gravissimum Educationis , o Nostra Aetate , o Dignitatis Humanae , • Decrees; o Ad Gentes , o Presbyterorum Ordinis , o Apostolicam Actuositatem , o Optatam Totius , o Perfectae Caritatis , o Christus Dominus , o Unitatis Redintegratio , o Orientalium Ecclesiarum , o Inter Mirifica

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), October 25, 2003.

Thanks, Steven S, for telling me this. I will add numbers, to help me refer to each item later:

"What I see as wrong is
1. the lack of respect to the presence of Christ while in the presence of the Tabernacle
2. the useless dancing that draws attention away from God
3. (I go to Mass to Praise and rejoice God and I to the concert hall to be entertained)
4. I think moving the Tabernacle to the back of the church is not right I see that as moving God to the back of the church and to the back of our lives.
5. As far as Emerald goes the person a Mass that is approved by the local bishop and he/she has the rite to attend the Tridentine Mass.

OK, my friend. I hope that my responses will pleasantly surprise you. It sounds to me that you have the misfortune to be in a diocese (or at least a parish) that has been messed up by people who do things wrongly. I wish that you could live in my diocese (or at least visit here), because it would be such an uplifting experience for you. Your whole attitude would change if you could see what a parish is supposed to be like.

1. Vatican II did not cause or recommend the "lack of respect" for the Eucharistic Jesus. Keep in mind that there have been hundreds of post-Vatican-II documents that have helped the Church implement or clarify the conciliar decrees, etc.. There are several such documents that strongly promote Eucharistic devotion and respect. It is terrible if these are being ignored in your diocese or parish. But that would be no reason to reject Vatican II.

2. Are you serious? Dancing? That is explicitly and TOTALLY FORBIDDEN in the "Western" Church -- as written up in a post-Vatican-II document. Vatican II said nothing at all about dancing, because it never even occurred to anyone that such a thing would happen in the Americas and Europe. That was an innovation that some jerks tried to insert into Masses in some dioceses long after Vatican II.

3. Amen! Your attitude is fully supported by Vatican II.

4. I agree with you about the tabernacle. And Vatican II did NOT tell anyone to move it to the back of the Church. Instead, the Council and post-conciliar documents make it clear that the tabernacle must be beautifully decorated and in a prominent, visible place in a Church -- except in very special cases (such as large catedrals visited by many tourists) in which it would be more fitting to have a Eucharistic chapel alongside the main church.

5. Yes, Emerald is within his rights to attend Latin Mass (older rite) in a parish in which it is licitly celebrated by permission of his bishop. But, as I hope you will gradually realize, Emerald is what I call a "termite." He pretends to be a true Catholic by saying that he remains in a real parish and attends a licitly celebrated Mass. But, like a termite, he works to undermine the Church from within. He tries to convince people not to believe certain teachings of the Church. He believes that there are errors in (a) the Catechism, (b) in Vatican II documents, and even (c) in the teachings of Pope John Paul II. He is so far off that I believe (especially on salvation -- who may be saved) that he is a heretic.

He thinks that the newer rite of the Mass is inferior to the older rite. As you may know, this forum is being plagued also by some ex-Catholics who are attending Latin Masses that are being celebrated illicitly (illegally, without bishop's permission) in a phony parish (not erected by the bishop). I mention these people to let you know that Emerald the Termite is a great and good friend of them. He NEVER criticizes their schismatic actions. He NEVER has the guts to tell them that they are sinning by going to Mass where it is not permitted. Why not? Because he thinks that they are justified in being disobedient. This poor loser is completely messed up in his soul and mind, a real heretical termite.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 25, 2003.

John,

You say that my concerns with what I see at Mass are “totally irrelevant to the subject of Vatican II” but I am told that all that is happening is happening in the sprit of Vatican II. So how is this “totally irrelevant to the subject of Vatican II”. When people see these things and they are told that these things are what V II is asking to be done then the people turn against V II.

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), October 25, 2003.

Perhaps so, but most people do not see such things at Mass because such deviations from the teaching of Vatican II do not occur in most parishes. Did I ever tell you about the Latin Mass I attended some years ago, where a Wonder Bread banner was draped across the front of the altar? Yes, I said Latin. Anything can be abused. But such abuse should not reflect negatively on what is being abused, but only on the abusers.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 26, 2003.

Stephen,

The current rite of mass is the first major change in nearly 500 years. You can't expect there not to be SOME abuses in SOME parishes. Give it a few more decades and it'll straighten out. In the 1500's the church wasn't fixed overnight, it'll take a few years now too.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 26, 2003.

Give it a few more decades and it'll straighten out.

Given the number & median age of priests (plus abyssmal seminary enrollment) in the U.S., this is indeed a possibility. A "straightening out" may in fact occur, but not as the people in this forum understand it.

Stay tuned. I think it's going to happen on our lifetime.

-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), October 26, 2003.

In my opinion, the "straightening out" is occurring right now as per Magesterium -slowly...

As more 'tainted' Bishops retire the "straightening out" should hasten...

Additionally, Magesterial obedience from the 'collegiate' Bishops will occur eventually irregardless of thier protestations...

Although, they Bishops will retain thier Diocesan authority I feel they will be forced to relenquish assumed authority that is rightly that of the Magesterium (e.g. interpretation)

-In a universal sense I feel that some 'collegiate' Bishops groups have been operating with results that suggest 'delusion of grandeur' thinking -thought and action that suggests 'they' feel they are as authoritative as Rome and can do whatever they want unless corrected... -I feel that the actions rooted in this 'thinking' will be made impotent as the College of Cardinals takes over the 'territory' the Bishops have wrongly and in some cases destructively been operating in under the guise of Vatican II...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 26, 2003.

The Almighty says this must be a fashionable fight. It's drawn the finest people.

Frank, I've read the documents in question, but I could swear more often than not that the people I talk to who are so zealous about upholding this, this... new thing... haven't. I don't think they've actually read the documents of Vatican II.

Be honest. Have you actually read them?

Steven, do you want to start with Gaudium Et Spes? Read the whole thing carefully and when you're done let me know, and I'll try to actually explain what I'm on about so to speak, since that's what you wanted to know. I'll do my level best to explain exactly what I mean and answer your questions.

As for the other comments on the thread which either misunderstand the nature of the inquiry or distract altogether from the pursuit of the truths of our Holy Mother Church, all I have to say is this:

Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam. Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me. Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea: quare me repulisti, et quare tristis incedo, dum affligit me inimicus? Emitte lucem tuam et veritatem tuam: ipsa me deduxerunt et adduxerunt in montem sanctum tuum, et in tabernacula tua.

Google it; it's the opening of the Mass of Trent, which I'm going to go to today, where I'm going to receive the Holy Communion whether anybody likes it or not, because I'm a member of the Mystical Body of Christ whether anybody likes it or not, or denies it or not.

Because Christ invited me to receive Him. Because I'm a sinner in need of salvation.

It'll take some time, but let's do it. It will be an opportunity for post-conciliar modern Catholics to do something they probably haven't even done before...

Which is to actually read the documents of Vatican II.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 26, 2003.

In fact, if you've got a couple months, and as long as I'm still alive and have access to the internet, I'd be willing to go through it line by line to see if I am in denial of any binding article of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

Surely this would satisfy Frank's burning desire for some sort of admission out of me that he feels should be so forthcoming. =)

Here's the document.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 26, 2003.

Daniel,

As more 'tainted' Bishops retire the "straightening out" should hasten

I tend to agree, remembering that these same Bishops were ordained in the Tridentine rite. There's nothing "magical" about the greek rite over the Latin, or the Latin over the current rite. They just ARE.

Emerald,

See, you did it AGAIN! You'll post for PAGES, and are apparently willing to spend months going through Vatican II all to get out of answering a simple, straightforward, yes or no question. Do you:

""yes, I accept all decrees of Vatican II as binding on all Catholics (including myself)" or "NO, I do NOT accept all decrees of Vatican II as binding on all Catholics (including myself)".

There's a reason I keep harping on this Emerald, and that is that neither God nor the Devil will be fooled by your evasions. If your inability to face things head and honestly is putting your soul in peril, you need to work on that, because we will be judged by our "thoughts, words, and deeds" (in the old penetential rite) or even better "Through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do. " (from the new rite)

See this is the part where I can't tell how responsible you are for your actions here, only you can tell me, and you won't. Are you UNABLE to answer this even to yourself (suggesting decreased accountability secondary to personal defect), or can you answer it quite easily but refuse to post it? If the latter, you will be held accountable, and (if the answer is "no") are indeed IMO a heretic or shismatic, and Pope Eugene has clearly pronounced for you the fate of heretics and schismatics.

The MAIN point though Emerald, is that if the latter, while you can dodge the question here, God is judging you on the TRUTH, not your evasions. Don't end up in hot water because of a desire for sophistry.

Frank

P.S. I really am worried about you Emerald, I don't know if that comes across or not, but I am.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 26, 2003.

"See, you did it AGAIN! You'll post for PAGES, and are apparently willing to spend months going through Vatican II all to get out of answering a simple, straightforward, yes or no question."

Stretch your mind a little bit Frank and look at it your own angle from where I sit here. It looks like this:

"See, you did it AGAIN Frank! You'll post the same accusations for PAGES, and are apparently willing to spend months WITHOUT going through Vatican II all to get a simple, straightforward, yes or no to an unanswerable trick question posed to a person presumed guilty before innocent."

You keep loading question with terms that are invalid. I'm trying to get across that there's nothing in those documents that is a new teaching requiring assent that is unique to the Council; I'm willing to pick through it line by line to uncover that there is no failing on my part, as far as I can tell, to tow the line intellectually or spritually in a spirit of humble submission. If I'm supposed to tow the line, I can't see where to hook up the trailor, so to speak. I'm fully willing to be towed by the truth.

There's a reason I keep harping on this too, Frank, and similiar to your own words, the reason is that neither God nor the Devil will be fooled by the entire flock's evasions of the truths and responsibilities of the Catholicism that always was and always will be; the one of denial of the things of this life in favor of the next; the attachment to acceptable prayer, the Cross, penance and humility, and charity. These things are largely lost, Frank. There's no denying it; people absolutely are NOT getting these virtues and admonitions from their local parish and from the New Way.

I saw it again at a conference last night, this certain get-together; I could see the various elements of the Church in one room subtly warring over the hearts and minds of the flock. The enemy is within in the hand to hand combat in the very hallways of the House of God over what it means to be combantants in the Church Militant for the salvation of souls.

"If your inability to face things head and honestly is putting your soul in peril, you need to work on that, because we will be judged by our "thoughts, words, and deeds" (in the old penetential rite) or even better "Through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do. " (from the new rite)"

It only looks to you like a non head-on approach. From my perspective, it's about as head on as one can possibly ask for. I'm willing to go through the documents line by line. Obviously that's a tall order and a bit too much to ask and a beyond what's necessary, but I'm willing to go to whatever length necessary if it would do somebody somewhere some good in understanding the Faith. From your perspective, shouldn't it be the same in effect... getting people to really, really read the documents of the Second Vatican Council? In your eyes, how could this go badly for your camp?

"We will be judged by our "thoughts, words, and deeds"..." I absolutely agree with what's adequately expressed above by both liturgies, and thank God that's the case, huh? That it won't be you or me or BSD doing the judging. The Being that will be doing it, however, has a voice so powerful he will drop each of us to the floor in submission on our last day. We will see that day and we must be ready for it.

"P.S. I really am worried about you Emerald, I don't know if that comes across or not, but I am."

Believe it or not, I do not doubt your sincerity and in fact I thank you for it. It's our job to pray and for and desire the salvation of our families, friends and enemies as primary to our existence; do this for me; I'll do the same for you. It'll be a fine day in Paradise to hear for the first time what really happened in the epoc of the Church Militant.

I say let's do this if Steven is up to it; let's just go through the document.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 26, 2003.

...maybe not today though. It's raining ashes here... lol! There's a big wildfire coming down the hill; it's bizarre because I woke up this morning to red sky full of smoke and it was literally raining ashes; the cars and street are covered.

Pray for people; two died already so keep people in your prayers.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 26, 2003.

Why do we need to go thru them? How would that answer a YES or NO question? If I get a good enough reason I will do it but I do not see the point.

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), October 26, 2003.

Well it is cold and nasty out and we might be getting snow so I am home bound for the rest of the day.

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), October 26, 2003.

The point is this, Steven, that something is being foisted upon the faithful under the guise of a supposed binding nature and under penalty of separation and damnation of extra ecclesiam...

...and nobody can clearly state what IT is.

If IT can be identified and stated clearly, and if IT is Catholic, then I'll publically declare assent to IT here in this forum.

But so far, no one can even even adequately state what IT is.

Maybe IT doesn't exist.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 26, 2003.

so you whould like up to find IT?

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), October 26, 2003.

so you whould like us to find IT?

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), October 26, 2003.

I would like to pursue together, in a true ecumenical endeavor (lol!), exactly what

IT

is that I'm so damnably misaligned with.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 26, 2003.

Thanks again, Steven S, for your reply to me, which was the following [with my emphasis added]:
"You say that my concerns with what I see at Mass are 'totally irrelevant to the subject of Vatican II,' but I am told that all that is happening is happening in the sprit of Vatican II. So how is this 'totally irrelevant to the subject of Vatican II.' When people see these things and they are told that these things are what V II is asking to be done then the people turn against V II."

Please notice that you admit that people are reacting ("turn[ing] against V II") based on what "they are told." What I know for a fact -- and would like to communicate to you -- is that what decent people like you "are told" in some parishes and dioceses IS COMPLETELY FALSE and a grave disservice to God and the Church.

Whenever you hear or read someone saying that something is being done "in the spirit of Vatican II," please realize that the chances are at least 99 to 1 that you are being lied to (or that the person talking to you is honest but very ignorant).

Subsequent to the end of the Council, some person or persons unknown totally misinterpreted the Council documents to further a sort of "protestant" agenda that we can call the "false spirit of Vatican II." Steven, when you hear/read that something is being done "in the spirit of Vatican II," there is an almost complete guarantee that the "false spirit" is involved. I am saddened to say that among the promoters of the "false spirit" of Vatican II are numerous men and women religious (brothers and sisters), priests, and even several bishops. Fortunately, the worst of these are getting older and older and dying off, while the only seminaries and religious houses that are full are the ones that are promoting the "letter" and TRUE spirit of Vatican II. Slowly but surely -- with a major boost from God's grace and the works of Pope John Paul II -- the Church is righting herself after being hit by a tidal wave of dissent (mainly from 1965 to 1985).

Steven, the TRUE spirit of Vatican II can and should be found by you yourself -- by reading the actual documents and the post-conciliar documents issued by the Vatican to implement the Council's teachings and disciplines. Foremost among the post-conciliar documents that you should read is the new Catechism (final 1997 edition).

Whenever you read a conciliar or post-conciliar document, you are sure to come across some things that will make you sit up with a jerk and say, "What the hey?! That's the opposite of, or contrary to, what so-and-so in my parish/diocese said is the 'spirit of Vatican II'! I've been lied to. From now on, I will trust only the pope, Vatican documents, and my own local sources who support them (including such things as EWTN and the orthodox Catholics at the Greenspun forum)."

It would not be a judicious use of time, Frank, for you and Emerald to go through the documents of Vatican II one line at a time here. As you and Steven and I have said, a simple profession of faith -- "I give my assent to all the teachings of Vatican II" -- is what is required. Emerald's failure to give that means that he REJECTS some of the teachings, as I have stated numerous times before.

Emerald has just now written the following [with my emphasis added]: "I'd be willing to go through it line by line to see if I am in denial of any binding article of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith."

(I will ignore his elitist "hot-dogging" in the last five words, which a normal person would have rendered as "Catholic Faith.")
Do you notice where he is going wrong now? He is trying to draw a distinction that he thinks would give him permission to reject some teachings in the Vatican II documents. He is trying to say that he will assent only to any "binding article ... of the ... Faith" that he finds in the documents, but he will feel free to reject anything else, whether it be a teaching or opinion/prudential judgment. As I hope you realize, what he therefore proposes is something that no Catholic is permitted to do. Although Emerald is permitted to disagree with mere opinions or "prudential judgments" that are found in magisterial documents, he must assent (give religious submission of mind and will) to each and every TEACHING found in such documents -- regardless of whether or not it is presented as a "binding article ... of the ... Faith." That kind of assent is part of what being an orthodox Catholic entails.

Therefore, if Emerald refuses to express blanket consent to all that Vatican II teaches, one of two things is true:
(1) He is a heretic, or ...
(2) He is an orthodox believer who is rejecting mere opinions/prudential judgments that he is misinterpreting as "false teachings."

It stands to reason, then, that the intelligent thing is for him to go through the documents privately, making note (by copy-and-paste) of each and every statement that he rejects. When finished reading and taking these notes, he can bring his "rejects" here for discussion, one at a time. Then, for each quoted statement, we can either (1) point out to him that he is free to reject it because it is an opinion/prudential judgment, or (2) point out to him that he is required to assent to it because it is a teaching (a doctrine of the Magisterium).

God bless you.
John


-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 26, 2003.

Starting to sweat, huh?

I say let's do it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 26, 2003.

Emerald, you said,

or no to an unanswerable trick question

Where's the trick? HOW is it a "trick" to ask you if you feel the decrees of Vatican II are binding on you or not? I guess you just can't get there yet.

"We will be judged by our "thoughts, words, and deeds"..." I absolutely agree with what's adequately expressed above by both liturgies, and thank God that's the case, huh? That it won't be you or me or BSD doing the judging

Yep, and yep.

Believe it or not, I do not doubt your sincerity and in fact I thank you for it. It's our job to pray and for and desire the salvation of our families, friends and enemies as primary to our existence; do this for me; I'll do the same for you. It'll be a fine day in Paradise to hear for the first time what really happened in the epoc of the Church Militant

Thank you. We'll say a prayer for your family and all those in the way of the fire today. Scary thing, a forest fire. Glad I'm not there.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 26, 2003.

Say this for me because they just came around my neighborhood for a voluntary equation. To be honest, I'm pretty sure everything will be just fine, but you never know so I'm having the kids pack up and I'm... actually going to get offline. Unbelievable... lol!

Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, Sovereign Queen of Angels, Refuge of Sinners, and Comfortress of the Afflicted, you who were conceived without sin, we choose you this day as Lady and Protectoress of this house. We beseech you through your Immaculate Conception to preserve us from pestilence, fire, and flood; from lightening, tempests, cyclones and earthquakes; from thieves and enemies; from schism and heresy; and from a sudden and unprovided death. Bless and protest us, O Immaculate Virgin! Obtain for us the grace to avoid sin, and preserve us from every other misfortune and accident. Amen.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 26, 2003.

equation = evacuation

-- (emerald1@cox.net), October 26, 2003.

Hi Emerald hope you and your family are doing ok. There is your usual standard pleas for I>selflessness charity etc etc surrounded by the an utter and total absorbtion in the self, it just strikes me as a real contrdiction, but then who isnt.

Hi STeven if I may add to Johns very good reply to you, pastoral theology embraces the liturgy, homilitics and catechetics. In effect it begins where the other theological sciences leave off, it combines the results of all branches of theology and makes these results effective for the salvation of souls. Due to the close relationship patoral theology has with moral theology its dependance on dogmatic theology needs no further proof … a "pastoral council" would be "indirectly dogmatic" and presupposing the foundation of dogmatic theology in its pronouncements. The fact that most of the earlier ecumenical councils were "predominantly dogmatic" does not detract from the fact that most of them also issued canons of disciplinary import as well. Like wise a Pastoral Council is of course not precluded from any active dogmatic elements at all and (as a consequence) any formal infallibility.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

I must be getting close to the bone here; usually at this point your side of the conversation resorts to a strategy of distraction. Nice wave with the right hand there, but let's keep a focus on what's in the left hand.

In other words, let's just out with it on those nebulous decrees which demand binding assent. We've got big claims here about traditionalists not lending assent to certain things.

Well, come on man, let's have a list of these things. No? o.k., how about just one? Pretty please?

See, that's why John wants to back off the conversation at this point:

"It would not be a judicious use of time, Frank, for you and Emerald to go through the documents of Vatican II one line at a time here."

That's a beauty right there. He knows where this is going, which is an demonstration that he ain't got no list. That there isn't one, and that nobody can make one, because there's nothing new in those documents which calls out to us for an assent of any particular kind, let alone to anything new. Heck, nothing is even demanded in those documents; they just meander on.

Like I said, provide either one of them or a list of them, or I'm going to go looking for them myself.

Can you just get over it and provide something, anything concrete to put before me so that I can give my assent to it? I know my self absorption can be distracting. It is a real fault you know. In fact, it's one of the reasons I try to rid myself of modernist Catholic varieties of thought at every possible turn. NeoCatholicism tends to... rather re-inforce or exasperate my problem. Why make my complete and utter self-absorption worse by thinking like a modernist Catholic, thereby codifying it and giving it legitimacy?

So far what you all have is an attitude. No specifics though.

Here's an example of a specific:

Kiwi/John/Frank: "Emerald, do you assent the doctrine that Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament?"

Emerald or any traditional Catholic: "Yes"

You see that? Now do something like that from the documents of Vatican II. Geez, how hard can this be, people?

What part of specific don't you all understand? You guys can't list anything specific out of Vatican II to which I need to lend my assent because you can't even formulate clearly what IT is that demands this assent you're looking for.

Come on man, give me the list.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 28, 2003.

Frank:

"Where's the trick? HOW is it a "trick" to ask you if you feel the decrees of Vatican II are binding on you or not? I guess you just can't get there yet."

The trick is that you can't name one of these decrees. You're alluding to something but can't identify it. I wish you guys would put some real effort into this at least once in a while.

Here's what we've got: traditional Catholics are supposed to lend our assent to something you are alluding to.

Do you have any idea how lame this is? lol! I guess you just can't get there yet.

Btw where, exactly where is there? We could always dust off that old question of exactly where the Church is going, or what this direction is principled by. Or how about the specific destination? It's that dang hampster wheel again.

Thanks for the prayers, though; our neighborhood did well, but others are obviously are reduced to a wasteland. It's been a real adventure around here; we have some pretty scarry pics.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 28, 2003.

Emerald, can I email you @ the address listed? I think I whant to do this thing.

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), October 28, 2003.

Keep in mind that there have been hundreds of post-Vatican-II documents that have helped the Church implement or clarify the conciliar decrees, etc..

Here it is. John said this upthread, and this is just what needed to be said.

Now, if the conciliar documents were so clear as to what they were trying to say and teach, if they are 'not at all ambiguous', then why do we need literally hundreds of postconciliar documents to 'implement and/or clarify the conciliar decrees.' Where are the days when the Church says what it means and means what it says? No clarification needed? Straightforward, unambiguous documents, teachings, doctrines do not need hundreds of follow-up documents to explain what they really meant.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 28, 2003.

Sure Steven; anytime.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 28, 2003.

Yeah "LOL" Emerald, if only, however the "joke" wore thin a long time ago. Emeralds its hard to know if your really a genuinely anguished person or merely a blowhard who interpets for themselves (Lady P) Im much more sympathetic to you because you seem to have at least not lost all of your humility when dealing with that most complex of things the sacred sciences. But for all those considering the hertics on this forum as worthy contributors Pope St. Pius (1909) has a message

"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)."

Perhaps Im naive but Ill do my home work before taking up your challenge and Im abusy lad these days so give me a few days to put it all together

One thought before we begin

"Heck, nothing is even demanded in those documents; they just meander on."

Intresting to you they just "meander on", yet to "others" theyre rather more invigorating. .. later SIr

Pope John Paul II:

"The best preparation for the new millennium, therefore, can only be expressed in a renewed commitment to apply, as faithfully as possible, the teachings of Vatican II to the life of every individual and of the whole Church."

Again, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger:

"...to defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. . . . [the] today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them." (The Ratzinger Report, 1985).

More Ratzinger:

"What I would like to stress . . . is this: The true inheritance of the Council lies in its texts. When one interprets them soundly and thoroughly, then one is preserved from extremism in both directions; and then there really is a path that still has a long future ahead." (Salt of the Earth, 1996).

John Paul II on the need to implement the Council's teachings:

"The best preparation for the new millennium, therefore, can only be expressed in a renewed commitment to apply, as faithfully as possible, the teachings of Vatican II to the life of every individual and of the whole Church. It was with the Second Vatican Council that, in the broadest sense of the term, the immediate preparations for the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 were really begun." (Tertio Millennio Adveniente, "Apostolic Letter on the Preparation for the Jubilee of the Year 2000", 20).

John Paul II on the continuity of Vatican II with the past:

"The Second Vatican Council is often considered as the beginning of a new era in the life of the Church. This is true, but at the same time it is difficult to overlook the fact that the Council drew much from the experiences and reflections of the immediate past, especially from the intellectual legacy left by Pius XII. In the history of the Church, the 'old' and the 'new' are always closely interwoven. The 'new' grows out of the 'old', and the 'old' finds a fuller expression in the 'new'. Thus it was for the Second Vatican Council and for the activity of the Popes connected with the Council, starting with John XXIII, continuing with Paul VI and John Paul I, up to the present Pope. (Tertio Millennio Adveniente, "Apostolic Letter on the Preparation for the Jubilee of the Year 2000", 18).

John Paul II challenges the Church to take up the task of truly living out the Council's teachings "An examination of conscience must also consider the reception given to the Council, this great gift of the Spirit to the Church at the end of the second millennium. To what extent has the word of God become more fully the soul of theology and the inspiration of the whole of Christian living, as Dei Verbum sought? Is the liturgy lived as the 'origin and summit' of ecclesial life, in accordance with the teaching of Sacrosanctum Concilium? In the universal Church and in the particular Churches, is the ecclesiology of communion described in Lumen Gentium being strengthened? Does it leave room for charisms, ministries, and different forms of participation by the People of God, without adopting notions borrowed from democracy and sociology which do not reflect the Catholic vision of the Church and the authentic spirit of Vatican II? Another serious question is raised by the nature of relations between the Church and the world. The Council’s guidelines—set forth in Gaudium et Spes and other documents— of open, respectful and cordial dialogue, yet accompanied by careful discernment and courageous witness to the truth, remain valid and call us to a greater commitment." (Tertio Millennio Adveniente,) Jubilee of the Year 2000", 36)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 29, 2003.

John Paul II on the need to implement the Council's teachings:

"The best preparation for the new millennium, therefore, can only be expressed in a renewed commitment to apply, as faithfully as possible, the teachings of Vatican II to the life of every individual and of the whole Church."

Well then, what are we waiting for?

Here I am asking that we go through the documents line by line, and John's hesitating, and you're getting all riled up. Very strange.

Pope St. Pius (1909) has a message (that's Pius X): "Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)."

He's talking about the modernists there. People like Karl Rahner and the like. How do I know? I read Pascendi Dominici Gregis and a couple other works of his. Have you?

So I don't see a problem pursuing this, according to Pope John Paul II's own words.

What seems to be the problem? At this point, I know I'm coming off as arrogant, but it seems the only language some people understand, so I'm trying it on myself in this situation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 29, 2003.

You see, what blows my mind that people don't see is the fact that the above quotes posted by Kiwi and the prelates that said them, always only refer to the documents of Vatican II. Never before has this happened. Never has a Pope only used one council as a source of teaching. They referred to all past teachings.

What could it be about Vatican II that they only recommend that as a source, while rarely, if ever, referring to previous councils as a wonderful source of Catholic teaching? Does Vatican II trump old Church teachings? Does Vatican II trump previous Church councils, even dogmatic councils?

The answers are simple. Because the teachings have changed. No. and No. But to push forth the ambiguous teachings, they must constantly refer to them, and refer to them as binding, while always using the key word "obedience."

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 29, 2003.

If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments...,

He wasn't JUST talking about modernists or he would have said so. This sentence applies very well to you schismatics.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 29, 2003.

He was talking about modernists, Frank.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 29, 2003.

Frank have you read the Pascendi?

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schneider.net), October 29, 2003.

"He wasn't JUST talking about modernists or he would have said so."

He did say so. This was a half century before Vatican II.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 29, 2003.

"This sentence applies very well to you schismatics."

They think that if they keeps calling us this, it'll be true.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 29, 2003.

I got my diploma. They said that could read. I could not, but they said so, so I guess it's so. " Hey pal, what's it say on that door. I don't want to be embarrassed". That diploma aint helping very much. Yup those professors, are like these bishops, but authority is authority. We got to believe ,and obey them, even if we know they are wrong.

-- Augie (bigroom@theball.com), November 05, 2003.