Vatican II is policy, not doctrine: Catholicism and Americanism

A conservative blog for peace ^ | 11-26-2015 | The Young Fogey

[NRx]

Vatican II is policy, not doctrine: Catholicism and Americanism

America can work for us: by the '50s the Northeast was almost a Catholic country.

Francis is bad but this was one of our worst Popes, the vacillating one who let the Sixties in.

Paul VI: Vatican II is not binding on Catholics.

Vatican II didn't define doctrine and nothing can change doctrine. The vernacular in worship, religious liberty American style, and ecumenical and interfaith studies and talks are fine, rightly understood, but we're better off ignoring this council.

Thomas Case in 1992: "A contention between American patriots and European fascists is ripping the Society [of St. Pius X] apart."

That is a difference between American and European Catholic traditionalisms but it doesn't have to split Catholics. The church doesn't define doctrine about politics or economics; the political means to the end of saving souls and human flourishing are up to us, as long as we don't buy the end justifying the means.

Religious liberty is fine?

Sure! The generosity of some American colonies and of America's founding fathers made the country a great home for Catholics.

Religious liberty American style is heresy.

So Catholics before Vatican II who were proud American citizens were in mortal sin?

Catholics before Vatican 2 who support the idea of separation of Church and State as per the secularist understanding of the liberals were and are heretics. Heresy existed long before your country was created.

It's a razor-fine distinction but on one hand there's religious freedom as a relative good for the church to flourish, or how Catholics could be Americans, and then there's indifferentism, the fashionable modern belief that all religions are really the same, like denominationalism in modern liberal American Protestantism; your choice and strictly a private matter, like what brand of motor oil you buy. John Courtney Murray went too far, being Americanized (the Americanist heresy Leo XIII condemned?): seeing Catholicism as just another denomination. That doesn't mean Catholics can't be good Americans. Pre-Vatican II American Catholics were! (Are, as arguably we are pre-Vatican II Catholics.) Vatican II rightly interpreted says the American way can work for the church, a policy change from favoring a state church (which as Catholics we still can do), not a change in our doctrine, which is impossible. I know it sounds close to what the Syllabus Errorum condemns but again it's a fine distinction. In other words we accept religious freedom as an option but without the secularist understanding of it that the church condemns (insisting that freedom's the only way: the Americanist heresy).

There can be no policy change from favouring the true religion to having the State treat religion and falsehood equally. That idea of change is condemned by Vatican I.

Policy can and does change. Doctrine doesn't. We still teach we are the church, even with the council's subsistit in (which I have no problem with; we've always recognized the Orthodox' bishops and Masses and Protestant baptisms).

It is doctrine that States have the moral obligation to support and promote only the true religion (Social Kingship of Christ). The negation thereof is absurdity and heresy.

But there are different ways of promoting and supporting the true religion. We can have a state church like Franco Spain (and I like El Caudillo) but we don't have to.

[metmom]

Paul VI: Vatican II is not binding on Catholics.

Vatican II didn't define doctrine and nothing can change doctrine.

So would some Catholic somewhere be able to tell us then just what DOES define doctrine and what IS binding on Catholics to believe and why?

Otherwise, I guess it's every man his own pope time.

[daniel1212]

Religious liberty is fine? Sure! The generosity of some American colonies and of America's founding fathers made the country a great home for Catholics.... We can have a state church like Franco Spain

Meaning that you accept America graciousness but need not expect RCs to return the favor, as under a RC state church Prots would be censored.

78. “[It is error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors), Issued in 1864, Section X (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm)

"....Constitutions can be changed, and non-Catholic sects may decline to such a point that the political proscription [ban] of them may become feasible and expedient. What protection would they have against a Catholic state? What protection would they then have against a Catholic State? The latter could logically tolerate only such religious activities as were confined to the members of the dissenting group. It could not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formerly been extended to all religious corporations, for example, exemption from taxation. [But] the danger of religious intolerance toward non-Catholics in the United States is so improbable and so far in the future that it should not occupy their time or attention." — The State and the Church (1922), pp.38,39, by Monsignor (and professor) John Augustine Ryan (1869–1945), imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes (http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/sac002.htm).

[daniel1212]

Some RCs say only what is infallibly defined is binding (wrong, and would eliminate most of what Rome teaches), while others add such teachings as encyclicals and the Catechism, but exclude such encyclicals as the latest (wrong).

In reality, there is no complete official indisputable list of all official teachings that en toto are binding upon RCs, and just what are, or the parts thereof, and the meaning of such, can be subject to interpretation.

Thus we see the anti-V2 sects versus the pro--V2 RC sects, but while RCs may dismiss papal teaching that is not judged to be infallible, their believed JP2 states as regards V2:

You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." ( Epistle Cum te to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 11 Oct, 1976, published in Notitiae, No. 12, 1976.)

All the post-Conciliar "popes" have stated that the Council was guided by the Holy Spirit. Paul VI, in closing the Council stated that "the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching." Still later he stated that the Council "avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility" but that it conferred on its teachings "the value of the supreme ordinary Magisterium" (Speech of Jan 12, 1966), and that "it has as much authority and far greater importance than the Council of Nicea". Elsewhere he has called it "the greatest of Councils", and "even greater than the Council of Trent."[10]. - http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html#_ftn11

To such some trad. RCs add:

when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed . No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biased. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope's word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience . - Life of Cardinal Newman, Vol. 2; Chapter 26. The Deadlock in Higher Education (1867); http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html

Which applies to bishops as well.

to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors , and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor....

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en

Assent of mind and will (though one may internally disagree, public dissent is disallowed) is required even to encyclicals.

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent , since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

2. The authority of papal encyclicals is understood as being "undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Encyclicals: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

Which assent of mind and will is required to more than just formal doctrinal definitions on faith and morals, but to social teachings which are based on them.

The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states,

80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it. - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2037.

And it is evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy.

Yet most all subscribe to the erroneous beliefs that Catholics hold to.

[Tao Yin]

Wow, I've read quotes that are similar, but that is a damning list.

My favorite two terms are "sacred hierarchy" and "simple faithful". I've never found anything in scripture that supports these concepts.

Build on the prophets and the apostles with Christ as the chief cornerstone. These I will never questions. But to never question someone in a superior position, or even that someone is in a superior position, turns my stomach.

I love and cherish my pastor. I try not to be a burden and I try to help and support him. But I do not do this from a position of inferiority or a position of mindless obedience.

[metmom]

God is no respecter of persons.

It’s men who establish hierarchies.

[daniel1212]

I love and cherish my pastor. I try not to be a burden and I try to help and support him. But I do not do this from a position of inferiority or a position of mindless obedience.

But while RCs will preach that we need such, they will also manifest that they pick and choose what they will assent to, engaging in interpretation of what requires assent, and of the meaning of what they judged as doing.

Very few things are held as requiring assent, and which corresponds to core doctrines which members, and esp. ministers, in conservative evangelical churches contend for, and basically require assent to if one will remain in fellowship.

All without a pope, while it is Rome that liberals evidence they will more at home in.

[boatbums]

I wonder if those who reject VII also reject the current Catechism which refers frequently to it?

[boatbums]

Don’t answer the question but accuse the asker of lying?

[verga]

Don’t answer the question but accuse the asker of lying?

The Catholics have answered this question EVERY SINGLE TIME it has been asked. You (all don't like or understand the answer, but as I have said previously it has been answered.

You have also claimed to have been Catholic; here is your chance to prove it. Go ahead and answer the question. Should be a piece of cake anyone that was even a nominal pew warmer.

Not holding my breath

[daniel1212]

I wonder if those who reject VII also reject the current Catechism which refers frequently to it?

Selectively, some do, and some go as far as rejecting modern popes altogether, while even those who uphold the Catechism as a "sure norm" for RC beliefs can interpret which magisterial level each teaching belongs to, and thus what level of assent is required.

[daniel1212]

Wow, I've read quotes that are similar, but that is a damning list.

Such teaching is one reason many of the Founders were wary of Catholicism, as being contrary to their constitutional ideology.

George Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol.4, p.81: > Protestantism, in the sphere of politics, had hitherto been the representative of that increase of popular liberty which had grown out of free inquiry, while the Catholic church, under the early influence of Roman law and the temporal sovereignty of the Roman pontiff, had inclined to monarchical power

Joseph Story, founder of Harvard Law School and Supreme Court Justice: [If] men quarrel with the ecclesiastical establishment, the civil magistrate has nothing to do with it unless their tenets and practice are such as threaten ruin or disturbance to the state. He is bound, indeed, to protect . . . papists . . . . But while they acknowledge a foreign power superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hilliard, Gray & Co., 1833) vol. III, p.383 §400.

[W]e have . . . found ourselves obliged . . . to provide for the exclusion of these from offices who will not disclaim these principles of spiritual jurisdiction which Roman Catholics in some centuries have held and which are subversive of a free government established by the people. - John Adams and John Bowdoin, An Address of the Convention for Framing A New Constitution of Government for the State of Massachusetts-Bay to their Constituents (Boston: White and Adams, 1780), p. 17. - http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/catholics.htm

[metmom]

And you expected?????

[boatbums]

LOL! Double down and insinuate I am lying too? Pitiful way to defend your religion.

[boatbums]

Exactly what I expected! 😄

[metmom]

Problem is, every Catholic gives a different answer.

Every man his own pope.

I have noticed that we have failed to even be told something as basic as whether or not V2 is actually doctrine or policy, as the thread title states.

What a non-committal group.

[verga]

Attack the inquisitor, pitiful way to prove your heritage. Thank you for proving my theory.

[daniel1212]

So would some Catholic somewhere be able to tell us then just what DOES define doctrine and what IS binding on Catholics to believe and why?

Yeah, sure you were catholic. Not even with a lower case "c"

So do you hold that everything the Catechism teaches must be believed by Catholics? As well as all papal encyclicals and bulls? Or are infallible decrees the only RC teachings that require assent of faith? And where do you find these teachings as to what requires assent of faith (and what may not) taught, and why do you believe these also require belief?

[metmom]

Seems like we can’t get a straight answer out of any Catholic about what their doctrine is.

What the heck is even the point of the Catechism and V2 if it’s not binding? And if that’s not binding, then what is?

Which council? Which papal decrees?

They all get to decide which Catholic leader they want to follow. IWO, every man his own pope and hardly a one of them has enough intestinal fortitude to actually take a stand and commit to that. It’s evasion and innuendos the whole way, all the while implying that the person asking them questions is lying. Deflection is not an answer.

Seen that before.