Author Topic: Dogmatic and Pastoral (Read 4229 times)

TKGS · « **on:** October 20, 2012, 03:58:19 PM »

By now, I would think everyone on this forum knows that Benedict 16 has, in honor of "The Year of Faith", granted a plenary indulgence to any person who studies the "Cathechism of the Catholic Church" or "Vatican II". Of course, there are other criteria, but those aren't really pertinent to this discussion.

We are often told that Vatican II was a "pastoral council" and most definitely not a "dogmatic council".

Most people have a good idea what the difference is, or at least, most people think they have a good idea what the difference is and what these specific terms mean. But I wonder if anyone really does know.

The Conciliar church refers to docuмents of Vatican II often when discussing faith. If, by "pastoral", Vatican II was merely a new way of presenting the faith, why would Vatican II docuмents be helpful in explaining the doctrines of the Church from time immemorial? The Conciliar church isn't explaining old doctrines in new way, it completely re-invents and re-works doctrines in ways formulated at Vatican II and, frankly, goes way beyond those doctrines. Although not discussed at Vatican II, the so-called "Haulocaust" seems to be dogma today. Discussion of women's ordinations are being seriously entertained. One cardinal is on record calling for the his church to bless ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions.

I've been searching the internet trying to find an authoritative definition from church docuмents or officials of what, precisely, "pastoral council" and "dogmatic council" means. It seems to me that they have no official definition and are simply used because all can assign whatever meaning to the terms they wish for any given situation. In this way one can use Vatican II as an authority for what ever shenanigans one wants to wield by minimizing what it means to be "pastoral" while others can reject anything from Vatican II by simply declaring that, as "pastoral", it has no real authority.

The ultimate practical use of ambiguity was the use of terms that have no real definition as the very premise of what the Vatican II council was.

Am I wrong? Or were the terms as it relates to an ecuмenical council actually and authoritatively defined but I am too much of a Luddite to find it?

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 on:** October 21, 2012, 06:50:45 AM »

3 hour interview with Bishop Sanborn: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2012/10/20/restoration-radio from yesterday, Oct. 20th.

I've only listened to the first few minutes so far but seems like a good interview that talks about the title of this thread.

Some Catholics believe that the answer to all our present ills lies in the "problem of the Pope." They will even host entire so-called conferences on such a topic, thinking that the answer to the question of the Pope is the answer to everything. This is only partly true. The event that hatched an entire line of questionable claimants to the Papacy was the Second Vatican Council.

This Council has many troublesome docuмents, which, even more troublingly, many Catholics, even those purporting to be "Traditional," denounce but have never even read.

During a special 3-hour show with His Excellency, Bishop Donald Sanborn, we will discuss 6 docuмents from the Council, problems with those docuмents, and the implications for Catholics today. Those docuмents include: Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae, Unitatis Redintegratio, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Gaudium et Spes, and Lumen Gentium.

For those unfamiliar with Bishop Sanborn, he is currently Rector of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, and was the first seminary rector for the SSPX in the early 1980s. We will not be taking calls during this show but we will be taking questions via twitter (@truerestoration). We hope that you will join us.

Today's show sponsor is Novus Ordo Watch, which you can visit at www.novusordowatch.org.

Stubborn · « **Reply #2 on:** October 21, 2012, 12:31:34 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

3 hour interview with Bishop Sanborn: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2012/10/20/restoration-radio from yesterday, Oct. 20th.

Excellent interview.

I always thought that Bishop Sanborn was an excellent speaker and for whoever wants to hear someone knowledgeable who finally itemizes what is wrong with the docuмents of V2, this is a must listen.

Marlelar · « **Reply #3 on:** October 21, 2012, 09:46:43 PM »

This is wonderful ! He explains so much and so well that even my little pea brain is beginning to understand. Definitely worth downloading and listening to several times. I will certainly be going back and taking notes.

Marsha

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** October 22, 2012, 05:57:45 AM »

I'm with you on that Marsha!
It's taken a long time but thankfully someone *finally* - *FINALLY* comes right out and in plain english explains the heresies of the V2 docuмents!

Definitely worth listening to over again!

Nishant · « **Reply #5 on:** October 22, 2012, 03:41:20 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

It seems to me that they have no official definition

I listened to a bit of Bishop Sanborn's interview, about 30 minutes, may listen to more later, and like he said, the distinction between pastoral and dogmatic is not new and has been used in former Councils. I suppose in the case of Trent, say, the fathers pronouncing on the true doctrine concerning indulgences and attaching anathemas to its denial would have been the dogmatic part, whereas their directions to bishops and priests on what to do about about it would have been the pastoral part.

Vatican II contained no dogmatic definition, therefore it appears it was entirely pastoral. There were 16 docuмents in all, 4 constitutions (On the Word of God, On the Church, On the Liturgy, On the Modern World), 3 declarations (Christian education, non-Christian religions, religious freedom), 7 decrees (On missionary activity, On the priestly life, On the apostolate of the laity, On priestly training, On the religious life, On the pastoral office of Bishops, On ecuмenism, On Catholic Eastern rite Churches, On media and communications).

Whatever one thinks of the Council, and while some docuмents remain quite problematic, there's no doubt that some people took it for a pretext to deny everything the Church had ever believed, because they did this even with things which everyone agrees was expressly reaffirmed in the actual docuмents.

The Council didn't say everyone was saved, there is no hell, don't evangelize, do whatever you like, forget morality, Adam and Eve didn't exist etc but it was taken for all this and more.

Marlelar · « **Reply #6 on:** October 22, 2012, 08:43:19 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: TKGS
It seems to me that they have no official definition

Vatican II contained no dogmatic definition, therefore it appears it was entirely pastoral.

Keep listening, he goes on to explain why they did actually address dogma.

Marsha

Marlelar · « **Reply #7 on:** October 22, 2012, 08:57:49 PM »

I'm listening to the Bishop Sanborn talk and he pointed out where V2
actually recommends a "nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr"

It is in Gaudium Et Spes, section 81, paragraph 4, second sentence. The context is avoidance of war but sounds like a global government to me. So much for Christ the King...

"This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority (aka NWO, emphasis mine) acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power (emphasis mine) to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights."

Knock me over with a feather... this was '65!

I think it was a year or two ago that B16 said something similar regarding economics.

Marsha

Marlelar · « **Reply #8 on:** October 22, 2012, 08:58:56 PM »

Quote from: Marlelar

Quote from: Nishant
Quote from: TKGS
It seems to me that they have no official definition

Vatican II contained no dogmatic definition, therefore it appears it was entirely pastoral.

Keep listening, he goes on to explain why they did actually address dogma.

Marsha

oops! should have said HOW they addressed dogma, not why.

m

TKGS · « **Reply #9 on:** October 22, 2012, 09:58:25 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: TKGS
It seems to me that they have no official definition

...the distinction between pastoral and dogmatic is not new and has been used in former Councils. I suppose in the case of Trent, say, the fathers pronouncing on the true doctrine concerning indulgences and attaching anathemas to its denial would have been the dogmatic part, whereas their directions to bishops and priests on what to do about about it would have been the pastoral part.

I think you miss my point. You're saying that this "distinction" has been used in other councils and you specifically mention Trent.

I believe you think you understand the distinction, but I've read parts of an English translation of docuмents of Trent, but never did the council fathers stop and say, "OK, now this part is only pastoral." Further, and this is my main question, did Trent specifically define what it meant to have a "Dogmatic Council" or a "Pastoral Council"? I don't think so.

You, and virtually all of humanity, are claiming to know the difference when it comes to Conciliar docuмents. The problem seems to me to be that the Church that conducted and approved that council (i.e., Vatican II) doesn't seem to agree with anyone who says that the council did not actually define dogmas. It seems to me that the Conciliar church of Paul 6, John Paul 2, and Benedict 16 believes Vatican II most definitely did define new and exciting dogmas, albeit in a pastoral way.

These terms, pastoral and dogmatic, when used as adjectives describing an ecuмenical council mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. At least, it seems to me that these two terms have no absolute definition--no static definition--that all agree upon and they certainly have no definition that has been definitively established by the magisterium (whether that be Catholic or Conciliar). The terms are simply ambiguous.

So far, this topic has convinced me that there is no one definition. What sounds dogmatic to one person might just be pastoral to another and vice-versa. This gives the revolutionaries a free hand to do anything.

And this seems to be by design.

songbird · « **Reply #10 on:** October 22, 2012, 10:52:14 PM »

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.

Nishant · « **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2012, 01:52:33 AM »

Thanks Marsha, I intended to continue listening later, maybe I'll do it tomorrow.

Quote from: TKGS

You're saying that this "distinction" has been used in other councils and you specifically mention Trent.

Well, TKGS, you're right that there seems to be much confusion and disagreement about this point. But I think you might yourself agree with what Bishop Sanborn said. Did you watch the interview?

Quote

I believe you think you understand the distinction, but I've read parts of an English translation of docuмents of Trent

What of the example I gave earlier? If we take a look at Trent's sessions here, in most of the sessions, we'll see after the dogmatic part, and usually immediately following the canons with anathemas attached, there is a portion entitled "decree on reformation" where the fathers get to work implementing what they prudently judge to be in the best interests of the flock committed to their pastoral care.

How's this for a working definition? What is dogmatic concerns mostly what is revealed and must be believed by faith whereas what is pastoral concerns mostly those prudential decisions that would best help the cause of the faith.

Some theologians distinguish between an assent of faith and an assent of prudence.

I understand there will be some necessary overlap between the two here and there, as in what we think of the necessity of the Church will affect how we regard the importance of the missionary endeavor, yet different Catholics who fully accept the faith on this point, may yet disagree as to the prudential decision of how best to go about this.

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

It would be an error to expect the same exactness that we would expect from a dogmatic pronouncement in a purely pastoral docuмent.

As for the next point you brought up, here is Pope Paul VI,

Quote

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

God bless.

TKGS · « **Reply #12 on:** October 23, 2012, 06:32:12 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: TKGS
I believe you think you understand the distinction, but I've read parts of an English translation of docuмents of Trent

What of the example I gave earlier? If we take a look at Trent's sessions here, in most of the sessions, we'll see after the dogmatic part, and usually immediately following the canons with anathemas attached, there is a portion entitled "decree on reformation" where the fathers get to work implementing what they prudently judge to be in the best interests of the flock committed to their pastoral care.

How's this for a working definition? ...

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.

But, before Vatican II, no one had ever suggested that a whole council could be "dogmatic" or "pastoral". One simply read the approved docuмents and, being a sentient being, saw that the statements concerning dogma and usually being summed up with canons were dogmatic while those statements explaining the dogmas or disciplines or background, etc., were more pastoral in nature.

All of this, however, is not relevant to my question. Since the term "pastoral" is generally applied to the whole council by Conciliar apologists, I want to know if the Church (or Conciliar church) herself has ever specifically defined the difference. Personally, I'm not aware of any such definition and I believe this ambiguity has been used by the revolutionaries (i.e., the heretics and apostates who now exercise control over the properties and name of the Catholic Church) as the excuse to do whatever they wanted.

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..."

Quote from: Nishant

As for the next point you brought up, here is Pope Paul VI,

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

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".

As for Bishop Sanborn's conference on Restoration Radio, I could not download it at home (being on dial-up internet). I had to wait until I could get to the library to use the high-speed connection. I just obtained it yesterday evening and plan to listen to it as I have time.

Marlelar · « **Reply #13 on:** October 23, 2012, 08:35:06 AM »

Quote from: Marlelar

I'm listening to the Bishop Sanborn talk and he pointed out where V2
actually recommends a "nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr"

It is in Gaudium Et Spes, section 81, paragraph 4, second sentence. The context is avoidance of war but sounds like a global government to me. So much for Christ the King...

"This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority (aka NWO, emphasis mine) acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power (emphasis mine) to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights."

Knock me over with a feather... this was '65!

I think it was a year or two ago that B16 said something similar regarding economics.

Marsha

re: the "global public authority" as suggested by V2 In Quas Primas (1925, just 40 years apart) Pope Pius XI said in paragraph one:

"...that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations."

My how quickly things change...

Marsha

SJB · « **Reply #14 on:** October 23, 2012, 08:56:42 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Vatican II contained no dogmatic definition, therefore it appears it was entirely pastoral. There were 16 docuмents in all, 4 constitutions (On the Word of God, On the Church, On the Liturgy, On the Modern World), 3 declarations (Christian education, non-Christian religions, religious freedom), 7 decrees (On missionary activity, On the priestly life, On the apostolate of the laity, On priestly training, On the religious life, On the pastoral office of Bishops, On ecuмenism, On Catholic Eastern rite Churches, On media and communications).

Whatever one thinks of the Council, and while some docuмents remain quite problematic, there's no doubt that some people took it for a pretext to deny everything the Church had ever believed, because they did this even with things which everyone agrees was expressly reaffirmed in the actual docuмents.

The Council didn't say everyone was saved, there is no hell, don't evangelize, do whatever you like, forget morality, Adam and Eve didn't exist etc but it was taken for all this and more.

Except "some people" includes prelates of all sorts, and the facts dictate the council did do something, and it was very bad. Here is ABL, one year after the council:

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre, 1966

Whereas the Council was preparing itself to be a shining light in today's world (if those pre-conciliar docuмents in which we find a solemn profession of safe doctrine with regard to today's problems, had been accepted), we can and we must unfortunately state that:

In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.

[...]

Doubts on the necessity of the Church, the sole source of salvation, on the Catholic Church as the only true religion, emanating from the declarations on ecuмenism and religious liberty are destroying the authority of the Church's Magisterium. In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis.

Thus, driven to this by the facts, we are forced to conclude that the Council has encouraged, in an inconceivable manner, the spreading of Liberal errors. Faith, morals and ecclesiastical discipline are shaken to their foundations, fulfilling the predictions of all the Popes.

The destruction of the Church is advancing at a rapid pace. By giving an exaggerated authority to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself powerless. What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church.