There is a lot of talk here about dogmatic, and not dogmatic. Where are the official declarations, (if any)

-- Carlos DeAngelo (Carlos@appleandeve.com), November 04, 2003

Answers

The official documents of Vatican II can be found at the Vatican website, http://www.vatican.va/

A direct link is: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index. htm

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 05, 2003.

For many years now the Vatican has tried to make froends with Protestants. It has not worked, and in the process, they have compromised themselves. It is a pity. Read Catholic revues on the movie "Luther". No friend of the church, are these heretics.

Thomas Colton, a teen-aged boy, who had endured terrible sufferings for his faith, refused to mitigate those sufferings by so much as setting foot inside a Protestant church:

If I should go inside your church, I should sin against God and the peace and unity of the whole Catholic Church, exclude myself from all the holy sacraments, and be in danger to die in my sins like a heathen. But although I am but a poor lad, I have a soul to save as well as any other Catholic.

Now let us travel forward 400 years into our own time. In the year of Our Lord 1980, a married Anglican layman by the name of Runcie vested himself in episcopal attire in Canterbury Cathedral, and went through a ceremony purporting to make him Archbishop of Canterbury. At the end of the service he remained what he was before it—a lay member of a heretical sect. Perhaps putting this so bluntly seems not simply uncharitable but even offensive—it is not intended to be so, and I have not the least intention of impugning Dr. Runcie's good faith. What scandalized me, and scandalized so many other faithful Catholics, was that Cardinal Hume not only attended this ceremony but took an active part in it by reading a lesson! The Tablet claimed jubilantly that this amounted to de facto recognition of Anglican Orders, and I am sure that The Tablet is right. Cardinal Hume has made no secret of the fact that he does not accept Pope Leo Kill's verdict on the invalidity of Anglican Orders as final—just as during the Synod in Rome this month he called into question the teaching of Humanae Vitae.

-- Eli (yaleboy@boolaloola.com), November 05, 2003.

Some have noted that the titles of two of the documents, Lumen Gentium (On the Church) and Dei Verbum (On divine revelation), are preceded by the word "dogmatic." Canonists have noted that the authority of a document is determined not by its mere title. Rather, the authority is determined by the intent of the pope who promulgated the document.

What conclusion, therefore, can be drawn about the authority of Vatican II? That, according to the two popes of the council, it was merely pastoral in nature and is not to be accorded the authority of the essential Magisterium of the Church. In holding that understanding, Catholics are simply obeying the words of the two popes themselves. Vatican II, therefore, as a pastoral council, has no dogmatic force and can be held to be imprudent or even in error, with no compromise to one's Catholic faith.

Here is something, hope it helps. Japhet

-- Japhet (Japhet@bluelane.com), November 05, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Carlos.

I want to start by asking you not to depend on "Eli" and "Japhet." They don't know what they are talking about.

"Eli" did a poor job of copying the following from somewhere:
"Cardinal [Basil] Hume [of Great Britain] has made no secret of the fact that he does not accept Pope Leo Kill's [sic (it was supposed to be XIII !)] verdict on the invalidity of Anglican Orders as final —- just as during the Synod in Rome this month he called into question the teaching of Humanae Vitae."

Not only can't little college boy "Eli" copy well, but he makes a fool of himself by speaking in the present tense about a man (Cardinal Hume) who died in 1999.

Turning to Japhet ...

He wrote (or more likely copied): "Some have noted that the titles of two of the documents, Lumen Gentium (On the Church) and Dei Verbum (On divine revelation), are preceded by the word 'dogmatic.'"

Japhet is referring to the fact that these two of the sixteen Vatican II documents are called "Dogmatic Constitutions."

He continues: "Canonists have noted that the authority of a document is determined not by its mere title."

Notice the sloppiness of Japhet's sentence. WHICH "canonists"? Those that dissent from the Church's teachings? Yeah, baby! The fact is that the two Dogmatic Constitutions contain DOGMAS. They are not newly proclaimed dogmas, but they are indeed dogmas.

Japhet continues:
"What conclusion, therefore, can be drawn about the authority of Vatican II? That, according to the two popes of the council, it was merely pastoral in nature and is not to be accorded the authority of the essential Magisterium of the Church."

Carlos, that is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. First, the popes did not use the phrase, "merely pastoral." Second, it is wrong to say that a "pastoral council" does not reflect the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. Vatican II both "pastored" the flock (the Body of Christ) and taught the flock many truths of the Catholic Faith. Whatsoever it taught is something to which we are required to give religious submission of mind and will.

Japhet again stumbled by saying, "Vatican II, therefore, as a pastoral council, has no dogmatic force and can be held to be imprudent or even in error, with no compromise to one's Catholic faith."

Japhet would know that he is wrong by reading the conciliar documents themselves, especially "Lumen gentium." Wherever the documents reiterate dogma, they are dogmatic. Wherever they provide teachings, those are to be assented to by us -- and can never be referred to as "in error." Wherever they give disciplinary rules, we are to obey (even if we question the prudential judgment being exercised by the bishops).

Carlos, in another recent discussion thread, someone asked, "Vatican II, a pastoral council. And what does that mean??"

Here is my reply to him:

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. [This pertains to each bishop's duty to teach.]
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. [This pertains to each bishop's duty to govern.]
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. [This peratins to each bishop's duty to sanctify.]

If one carefully and objectively reads the documents of Vatican II (plus key post-conciliar documents resulting from the Council [especially 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), November 06, 2003.

John, Your answer to Carlos is very scholarly, and legalistic. I hope that you are not a lawyer. I don't trust them. all the words aside however, "Does a good tree bring forth bad fruit". Where, Oh where is the good fruits of V2? Words do not change facts.

-- Soapy (9999@444.com), November 06, 2003.

Those wearing the blinders of prejudice are incapable of gazing happily upon the good fruit. They wouldn't even believe it exists if Jesus himself appeared and showed it to them.

(No attorney here, Lather-Man.)

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.

Pope John Paul II is personally responsible for many grave sins of omission – extreme failure to discipline and remove errant cardinals and bishops (most if not all of whom were appointed during his term in office) who have committed or promoted grave offenses against God and man. Due to his bad example even otherwise reasonably sound bishops fail to discipline errant priests and religious under their authority. It should be kept in mind that due to the external gravity of some sins there must be public admission of guilt followed by significant public penance.

-- Alistair (tralafast@pacbell.com), November 14, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Alistair.
It must be quite an experience for you to be privy to all the private communications of the pope. You know EVERYTHING he has ever said or written to EVERY bishop on this planet during his 25-year papacy, don't you? That's why you know that he has not privately "disciplined" any bishops and priests, right?

Not only that, but God has given you wisdom and graces far and above those he has given to the pope -- so that you know, better than the Vicar of Christ on Earth, how to govern a Church with over one billion members, over 3,000 dioceses, and over 400,000 priests -- right, Alistair?

NO. WRONG, ALISTAIR!!!

Take your uppity carcass to the confessional and humbly repent for publicly demeaning the Successor of Peter, whom you irresponsibly and without authority have condemned as "personally responsible for many grave sins of omission."

May God forgive you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.