Author Topic: Dogmatic and Pastoral (Read 8559 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #15 on:** October 23, 2012, 09:11:26 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

I just want to know if I am in error as to whether or not this difference (i.e., between a "pastoral council" and a "dogmatic council") has ever been truly defined by the magisterium in a formal way. I don't think it was, but I may just just have missed the paragraph in a Vatican II docuмents that say, "A Pastoral Council is..."

The title of Pastoral Council has not been defined. I recall learning long ago that a pastoral council was something normally held only locally or perhaps for particular dioceses - but it is not what a General Council of 1000s of bishops and cardinals - and which a pope presides over while being held in Rome was ever known as.

Welcome to the NO.

Quote from: TKGS

Then why is Vatican II constantly cited by Conciliar authorities as the justification for new and improved doctrines? Where did Paul 6 say this? Was it in an official docuмent or a Sunday sermon or a Wednesday audience? In any event, both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 clearly disagree with this assessment of the "pastoral nature of the Council".

V2 is constantly cited by NOers for different reasons but always keep in mind that, per Pope St. Pius X, audacity is the chief characteristic of modernists. . . . . and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. . . . and IMO, whether one adheres to SV or not, all can agree that the conciliar popes and hierarchy have been and remain modernists.

Like all things NO, a "Pastoral Council" was something new, it's title is new and makes no sense. It [the title] is part of the new vocabulary used since V2 as is the language of "Pauline speak" - which no one ever heard prior to V2, which on account of it's ambiguity no one really understands, but many pretend like they understand it because they can make it mean pretty much whatever they want- that's modernism, that's audacity for you.

Nishant · « **Reply #16 on:** October 23, 2012, 09:29:19 AM »

Quote

I fully understand what you are saying. And I agree that your working definition of the difference between "dogmatic" and "pastoral" is a good one. I also agree that it appears that most legitimate theologians seem to generally grasp the same meaning of these two words.

Ok, TKGS.

I agree the enemies of the Church have tried, and to a great degree, succeeded, in manipulating doctrine and confusing Catholics who wish to remain faithful. The question is to what extent, and also, what can be done about it.

Personally, I think the best thing for Catholics who know their faith to do is simply for practical purposes to ignore the Council, and to believe all the dogmas the Church has ever defined. That's the approach of the FSSP and other Indult groups, I know sedes have a different point of view.

I don't think there has been any formal definition as to what "pastoral" means.

Regarding what you asked, Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, with Pope John Paul II's agreement said,

Quote from: Pope Benedict XVI

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest"

SJB, while I agree with Archbishop Lefebvre's concerns, yet the necessity of the Church, the fact that hell exists and souls go there, are explicitly reaffirmed in the Council.

Quote from: Lumen Gentium

"In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

...

But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention."

I agree with Archbishop Lefebvre, but even a near-complete apostasy or confusion of faith among clerics and prelates, if you'll excuse the expression, poses no "dogmatic" problem, only a "pastoral" one. What I mean is, there's no guarantee something like that can't take place, but I do think there is a guarantee the universal episcopate assembled in Council even without a Pope, as you believe, cannot teach formal heresy.

Also, such a loss of faith happened once before during the Arian crisis, the majority of Bishops became heretics. Heretics will always find something to appeal to. If after Nicaea, Arianism could still pretend itself feasible, then heretics can always find an excuse. I don't deny they pretended the Council did away with hell, with missions, with morality, with the need for conversion from false religions etc, so the Council gave them a pretense, at least, so it has in that sense a "pastoral" failure.

SJB · « **Reply #17 on:** October 23, 2012, 10:15:36 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

I agree with Archbishop Lefebvre, but even a near-complete apostasy or confusion of faith among clerics and prelates, if you'll excuse the expression, poses no "dogmatic" problem, only a "pastoral" one. What I mean is, there's no guarantee something like that can't take place, but I do think there is a guarantee the universal episcopate assembled in Council even without a Pope, as you believe, cannot teach formal heresy.

Yet today, we see those who will simply not allow any such thought to enter their minds. The point isn't a technical one concerning the council, but the reality of what these clerics and prelates actually did after the council.

It seems you're willing to admit in a general way the majority of the episcopate could very well be heretical, yet the men you call popes have no real issue with them as evidenced by the fact that almost none have been excommunicated or even disciplined in any other way. The problem cannot be confined to some unnamed Catholics misinterpreting the council.

Nishant · « **Reply #18 on:** October 23, 2012, 12:19:20 PM »

SJB, can you answer me one question, what is your understanding/opinion of what Catholic faith teaches about the authority of an imperfect general council, a council of the world's Bishops when there is no Pope? I ask because my response would depend on this.

SJB · « **Reply #19 on:** October 23, 2012, 03:38:27 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

SJB, can you answer me one question, what is your understanding/opinion of what Catholic faith teaches about the authority of an imperfect general council, a council of the world's Bishops when there is no Pope? I ask because my response would depend on this.

Vatican II was a general council convened by a pope and accepted by a pope.

Quote

ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, REV. S. B. SMITH, D.D., 1887

Vol. 1. ECCLESIASTICAL PERSONS, PP. 418-419

60. What are the essential conditions or requisites of an ecuмenical or general council?
We answer:

I. An Ecuмenical council must be convoked by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, or, at least, with his consent, and be presided over by him or his legates.

2. All the Catholic bishops of the world are to be called or invited, though it is not indispensable that they should all be present.

SJB · « **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2012, 03:59:34 PM »

Quote from: Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church

25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the docuмents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecuмenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

Nishant · « **Reply #21 on:** October 23, 2012, 06:09:39 PM »

Quote

Vatican II was a general council convened by a pope and accepted by a pope.

Not to sedevacantists. And what, are you speaking of Pope John XXIII, whom I think you accept? But you don't believe Pope Paul VI was Pope, if I recall right, so I can't really understand your statement above.

Regarding the authentic magisterium, here is the SSPX website

Quote

"Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:

Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592 ff);

Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645 ff);

Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659 ff)."

SJB · « **Reply #22 on:** October 23, 2012, 08:06:47 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote
Vatican II was a general council convened by a pope and accepted by a pope.

Not to sedevacantists. And what, are you speaking of Pope John XXIII, whom I think you accept? But you don't believe Pope Paul VI was Pope, if I recall right, so I can't really understand your statement above.

Well, nobody was a sedevacantist going into or during Vatican II, which was at the time assumed by all to be a general council, convoked by a pope and then confirmed by a pope. Here's Lumen Gentium once again:

Quote from: Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church

25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the docuмents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecuмenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

Nishant · « **Reply #23 on:** October 23, 2012, 08:33:44 PM »

Yes, but now that they are sedevacantists, they say that there was no Pope. But what of the world's Bishops come together for at least an imperfect Council, don't they also possess some divine guarantee?

This is why it's not a mere technicality, as you say. It makes all the difference from a doctrinal point of view, even though all the practical problems remain, the crisis of faith remains, the need for doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis remains, but the explanation at least is a little better since it takes into account the character and nature of the episcopate, the teaching authority or magisterium they exercise, and the divine promises granted to it according to Catholic teaching.

Quote from: SJB, quoting Lumen Gentium

... adhere to it with a religious assent ...

Indeed, that is the key phrase. Here is an explanation of the term, from some 30 years earlier.

Quote

The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church’s Magisterium. He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith.

In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one’s superior... Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question.

(Nicolas Jung, Le Magistere de l’Eglise, 1935, pp.153, 154)

Nishant · « **Reply #24 on:** October 23, 2012, 08:44:06 PM »

This is the quote I was thinking of, but couldn't remember who had written it. His Eminence Cardinal Franzelin says what I said so poorly above about the entire episcopate, much more eloquently and precisely here,

Quote from: Cardinal Franzelin

Certainly there remains in the Church (during the time of the vacancy of the Apostolic See) not only indefectibility *in believing* (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility *in proclaiming* the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church *for all days* even to the consummation of the world. The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy.

SJB · « **Reply #25 on:** October 24, 2012, 07:24:46 AM »

Did the whole episcopate (morally speaking) hand down anything specific? What did they teach in unanimity?

What made the council "imperfect" in your view?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #26 on:** October 24, 2012, 08:05:49 AM »

Quote from: songbird

TKGS I agree with you. Vatican 2 as no leg to stand on. It was good for nothing! Those who made suggestions, refused to define. Why? Because "they" would be found as heretics! I have a question? Did Bishop Sanborn, once state, that this anti-Pope, if he repented, could be Pope? And did not Bishop Pivurunus (sp), did he not think that as questionable? My opinion is, IF this anti-pope was to repent, he could not, because in my opinion, the election was invalid.

Right!

If they said, "We decree, define, declare that God is the Devil" they would not be able to fool anyone. They would not be able to drag anyone else to Hell with them that way.

An Ecuмenical Council, approved by the "Pope" is binding on the Church and we must accept it. It taught and bound heresy. Therefore the one who approved it was not a valid Pope.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #27 on:** October 24, 2012, 08:09:05 AM »

I think it's a very critical question you raise. Because the degree or nature of

Quote

the Magisterium invoked has a lot to do with what level of protection is guaranteed, since everyone grants at least that the universal episcopate was assembled there, and what level of accuracy is to be expected in the docuмents.

The universal episcopate is not infallible unless they are in union with a valid head. Anything they decreed needed to be approved by a valid Pope for validity.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #28 on:** October 24, 2012, 08:12:40 AM »

Quote

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.

It proclaimed heresy in an ordinary manner.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #29 on:** October 24, 2012, 08:17:55 AM »

http://www.friarsminor.org/xix4-17.html