Worse than deja vu all over again: Vatican caves

“Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.”

--Pope John Paul, while still Bishop of Krakow, as quoted in Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla. P. 220

When last we left the saga of the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope John Paul II promised Catholics worldwide that a new set of instructions to correct liturgical abuses would be drawn up and issued by the Holy See as a follow up to his Ecclesia de Eucharistica encyclical letter. This caused many well-meaning Catholics in the Novus Ordo community to jump up and down for joy, believing that the long awaited crackdown from Rome was forthcoming. Some commentators said at the time that the Pope’s encyclical letter was just the word “we needed” to have during the Easter season. Others of us said that the Holy Father’s encyclical letter made many of the same points as his 1980 Holy Thursday letter to priests, Dominicae Cenae, which promised a set of instructions to correct liturgical abuses.

Well, if a news report from Catholic World News’s website is to be believed, the forthcoming document from Rome about the liturgy is worse than deja vu all over again. The 1980 instruction, Inaestimabile Donum, issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, did list the major abuses in the new Mass and called for them to be corrected. This gave much hope to those of us who did not then have the grace of tradition. Indeed, I waved copies of Inaestimabile Donum in the faces of offending priests for a year or two before I realized that Rome wasn’t going to enforce anything, including the reaffirmation of the ban on girl altar boys. Many of us did not realize at the time that the abuses were simply manifestations of the false presuppositions of a synthetic liturgy that sought to empty the Mass of its authentic tradition while claiming positivistically that tradition had been maintained as it was “updated.” There was no correcting the Novus Ordo then. There is no correcting it now. There will never be any correction of abuses in the Novus Ordo.

According to the CWN.com news story, the new document from Rome dealing with the liturgy will not mandate any disciplinary measures against liturgical abuses. It will merely call for an adherence to existing norms by “proper training” in the liturgy. If true, this is actually worse than Inaestimabile Donum. All of the thunder made by Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in the immediate aftermath of the Pope’s encyclical last year was merely rhetoric, which yielded in the final instance to the desires of the ideological descendants of the late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini to keep exploding the liturgical time bombs that Michael Davies has noted with great precision were placed into the Novus Ordo as it was being created synthetically by the Consilium. Although this was entirely predictable, the fact that the new document will not represent the salvation of the Novus Ordo, which admits of so many legitimate adaptations and exceptions as to make any discussion of a liturgical “rite” an absolute oxymoron, should give traditionally minded priests who remain in the diocesan structure a wake up call. Rin Tin Tin and the Cavalry are not coming from Fort Apache.

All discussion of a “universal indult” for priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass evidently has disappeared from the final text of the soon to be released liturgical document. Of course, Quo Primum is the only universal and perpetually binding indult any priest has ever needed to offer the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. The powers that be in Rome, however, do not want to admit that on behalf of the Holy Father, who must give his approval to the new document. Thus, those traditionally minded priests who thought that they were going to get a golden parachute from the Holy See so as to be able to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in the daylight rather than in the underground have been deceived. As good sons of the Church, many of these priests wanted to wait and see, although the outcome was predictable. Now that the outcome is clear, it is time for these priests to respond to this wake up call. They will receive no help from this pope.

Indeed, Pope John Paul II is wedded to the liturgical revolution, and has been since the Second Vatican Council. He is not going to be leading the cavalry over the hill. The late Father Vincent Miceli gave me a very important insight into the mind of the Holy Father back in January of 1983. As a self-deceived Catholic conservative who held out high hopes for the pontificate of the former Karol Cardinal Wojtyla when he was elevated to the Throne of Saint Peter on October 16, 1978, I was flabbergasted that the Pope had appointed the then Archbishop of Cincinnati, Joseph Bernardin, to succeed the late John Cardinal Cody as Archbishop of Chicago. Bernardin? Chicago? That was the stuff of Father Andrew Greeley. I had written a priest-friend in Canada in 1979 at around the time Greeley began to push Bernardin for Chicago, that “this will never happen in the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Father Miceli took a few bites out of his meal at a diner in Massapequa Park, Long Island, New York, looked at me and said, “The Pope’s a liberal. Bernardin is a friend of his from the Second Vatican Council. They are fellow progressives. Don’t kid yourself.” He continued eating his meal in perfect peace. Well, although I filed Father Miceli’s wise counsel away, I didn’t want to believe it at the time. He was, of course, quite right.

To wit, I received a letter from a reader of Christ or Chaos (which is going to become an online publication by the end of February) that contained a nugget from a 1980 book, Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla, written by a fellow named Malinski and published in France:

"In 1965—when Pope John Paul II was still the Bishop of Krakow, he discussed the phenomenon referred to as inculturation with a friend, saying: 'Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.'" (page 220)

The reader, Mr. A. E. Newman, had a pithy comment or two of his own in his letter to me: “Tell me, what hope is there from a man who thinks like this–what hope for a stable liturgy, for upholding of age long traditions? What hope from a man who flies in the face of his predecessors? Now that his reign is drawing to a close I can answer that [there is] no hope! My own view is that in the eyes of history the last three popes will bear a heavy responsibility for our present shambles and [the loss] among the faithful of millions. Just at the moment when Islam is strong. We can credit him for one thing: he followed through! God will deal with him, but we [will deal] with the deformation of our Faith.”

Although the fodder for an entire series of articles, the comments of the then Archbishop of Krakow are quite instructive. They should serve as a sobering reminder to good priests and laity who believed that the Novus Ordo can be reformed that the problem rests in the new Mass itself. Not much time needs to be wasted on this as the proverbial handwriting is really on the wall. Those traditionally minded priests who have remained in the Novus Ordo structure should stop believing that their words or even their presence can counteract entirely the harm to the Faith contained within the new Mass, admitting that there are priests within the diocesan structure who are zealous for the salvation of souls and who spend themselves tirelessly for the flock entrusted to their pastoral care. They should, as painful as it may be for them to consider, simply follow the courageous examples of Father Stephen P. Zigrang and Father Lawrence Smith. They should assert their rights under Quo Primum no matter what unjust ecclesiastical consequences might befall them. Many of their sheep will follow them, and those sheep will provide for their temporal needs, as is happening at Our Lady Help of Christians Chapel in Garden Grove, California, where hundreds upon hundreds of fed-up Catholics have found their way to the Catholic underground simply by word of mouth. It is simply time to force the Novus Ordo structure, built on quicksand, to collapse of its own intellectual dishonesty and liturgical incompleteness. It is time for good priests to say goodbye to a synthetic concoction and to bravely embrace the glory of Tradition.

Each priest must make his own decision in this regard. It is, though, a grave disservice to the faithful to try to pretend that the Novus Ordo itself is not the problem and/or that the problems will get better over the course of time. They will not. The Novus Ordo remains the prisoner of its own false presuppositions and of the devolution of liturgical decision making to local level, as was envisioned in Paragraph 22 of Sacrosanctum Concilium itself on December 1, 1963.

What applies to priests applies as well to the long-suffering laity who have waited for such a long time to see the abuses that have their origin in the Novus Ordo itself come to an end. So many good people, who dearly love God and want to save their souls, have fought valiant but ever failing efforts in most instances to keep the liturgical time bombs from exploding in their own local parishes and dioceses. Some of these people have tried to equip themselves with the latest “information” from Rome about what is licit and illicit in the context of Holy Mass. What these good people need to realize, though, is that the Novus Ordo is impermanent and unstable of its very nature. The new Mass is entirely predicated upon the idiosyncratic predilections of a bishop or a priest or diocesan and/or parish liturgical committees.

The Mass of Tradition has always been beyond even the realm of a bishop to change for reasons of “inculturation” or the “genius of the peoples.” The Immemorial Mass of Tradition gives God the fitting and solemn worship that is His due, communicates clearly and unequivocally the nature of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice for human sins, and provides a permanence and stability that are reflective of the nature of God Himself and of man’s need for Him and His unchanging truths. It is time for good lay people themselves to say goodbye to the angst and confusion and anger generated by all of the problems associated with the Novus Ordo Missae.

Here is a link to a thorough refutation of the notion that Vatican II was not binding: Vatican II and its Authority
Here is an excerpt:

A truth is always taught infallibly by the ordinary magisterium before it is ever set forth in more solemn forms of exposition (if it ever is). However, this does not mean that a teaching of the ordinary magisterium is necessarily taught explicitly in words; it may be expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a Church practice which thereby receives the universal consent to qualify as definitive. What cannot be overlooked in this is that the Pope and the college of bishops at the Second Vatican Council gave a comprehensive presentation of the Catholic faith demonstrating in the process the doctrinal and moral unanimity of the united episcopate. This is sufficient to fulfill the criteria for an exercise of the ordinary and universal magisterium in matters that directly involve the teaching of doctrine. Indeed properly understood, the charism of infallibility is present whenever the episcopate in union with the Roman Pontiff teaches in concurrence on a point of doctrine whether they proclaim it by a recognizably definitive act or not. The Catholic Encyclopedia emphasizes this point in its article on General Councils:
All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the dogma it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church... The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ's co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body -- His own mystical body -- gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops. The same presence strengthens the action of the pope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility.
A General Council in short by its very nature is protected from error in doctrinal matters. What this means is that any dogma or doctrine proclaimed by the Pope and the Bishops in union with him is properly understood as being set forth infallibly. To doubt this is to doubt the validity of the other twenty ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church. Also, even decisions not infallibly declared are still to be given a religious submission of mind and will (Matt. 10:40, Luke 10:16, John 13:20; Canon 752). Catholics who refuse to do these things are not Catholics at all but instead are schismatics.

Yes, the devil is happy with disobedience and prideful usurpation of authority.

From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he
must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.
Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, "God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you."
He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."
Matt 16:21-23 notes

My thought about the seemingly willful denials:  we'll see the "blind obedience" label applied, we'll see SSPX legalese, but we won't see what can be understood with the slightest modicum of common sense.

Jesus' words are valid even when he does not begin with "Amen, Amen, I say to you...".  I repeat myself for sure, but I do not accept, nor understand, why VII can not, or will not be accepted in similar manner.

Thank you FRiends for your posts.  Pax et bonum.

Neither you--nor this unnamed site you indicate as a source--seem to be able to reason clearly. I say this because it was THE POPE HIMSELF, Paul VI, who ordered that his notice be read to the Council Fathers, prohibiting them from promulgating anything binding on the Church without prior notice. As it turned out, no such prior notice was ever given about anything. Therefore nothing was ever declared infallible. What part of this can't you understand? Here is what the Nota Praeva said once again:

"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."

Once again, nothing was openly declared binding by the Council. Therefore nothing was ever binding. Any talk of infallibility is consequently nonsense. But you can keep posting these non-sequiturs, if you wish--though they have no authority whatsoever except to present the opinions of those who oppose Catholic Tradition and who want everybody else to click heels and follow behind. We've seen where they've been leading the Church for forty years--over the cliff to disaster. No thanks.

Vatican II was unique in a number of ways from all other councils. None other was self-described as pastoral nor proscribed by the pope for this reason from declaring that anything was binding. Vatican II was also unique in the descriptive and metaphoric language it used, deliberately designed to inspire rather than to instruct. For this reason much of what it declared was ambiguous and subject to extremely diverse interpretations. Of their very nature, moreover, such declarations cannot bind intellectually. Only clearly presented doctrines can do that.

To say this is clearly threatening to some, which is why they frequently use invective, rather than reason, to argue their points. These are the same people who have constructed their vision of a renewed Church on the chimera of some "Vatican II Spirit"--which is turning out to be not so much a renewal as a calamity. So is talk of anything having been taught infallibly by the Council, or talk about a "New Advent" or a "New Pentacost." For true Catholics, the old Pentacost was sufficient; so was the first and only Advent. Anything over and beyond the traditional faith, expressed in such bogus terms, is obviously suspicious and probably should be rejected.

You might have had the courtesy of posting to me as well, since your comment affirms nika's ignorant slander about my "jumping ship." But as you and he should realize by now, people who attend Mass at SSPX chapels are Catholics in good standing who appreciate a truly Catholic Mass in a truly Catholic environment, which is said by a Catholic priest who hasn't compromised his principles by surrendering the faith for the sake of novel teachings. They also appreciate having their kids have the catechism taught to them without fanciful modernist interpolations undermining Catholic doctrines and turning them into Protestants. They have not "jumped ship"--as even Vatican bureaucrats have been forced to admit recently.

If you doubt my word on this, consult Msgr. Perle's letter of September 18, 2003 before you make or affirm such outlandish charges. In it he says the following:
_____________________________________________________
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism [sic] of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated [sic].

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:

1. "In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."

His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

2. "We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:

3. "It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."

_______________________________________________________

Notwithstanding the falsity of any claim that SSPX adheres to a schism (it actively prays for the pope and has always accepted his papal authority), it is nevertheless a useful letter since it makes clear that attendance at SSPX Masses is permissible for Catholics for reasons of devotion.

I also take issue with your naive assumption that if more Catholics were to attend diocese-sponsored Tridentine Masses, "those parishes would eventually be forced to expand." Hardly. What such attendance would do is just the opposite--diminish the effectiveness of the only force that actively is opposing those who wish to destroy the ancient Mass. Up till now only the SSPX and some independent chapels scattered across the globe have exerted any opposition. It does not exist in those traditional parishes where priests have been effectively muzzled and imprisoned by their Novus Ordo bishops. These ordinaries for the most part have tolerated the existence of the Tridentine only as a means of keeping their faithful from attending SSPX chapels. Do away with the SSPX, and the other Tridentine Masses would soon disappear as well, and with them, the ancient Mass--and with it the Catholic faith uncontaminated by modernist novelties.

So dream on.

"we'll see SSPX legalese, but we won't see what can be understood with the slightest modicum of common sense"

The exact opposite is true. It is common sensical to stick with Catholic Tradition at a time when all hell is breaking loose in the Church and the Holy See itself is rent with confusion and internal dissension. As for the SSPX speaking "legalese"--this is the claim of those who themselves have run out of rational arguments by which to confront traditionalist objections to what's currently going on. The reason you resort to such jargon is your own inability to discern the truth for yourself regarding what the Society has been saying. REAL common sense would see at once it neither teaches nor practices anything original or new--nothing but the Catholic faith unadulterated by novelties of recent vintage.

I'm just being logical, not dogmatic. Paul VI stated in the Nota Praeva, which was read aloud at the Council, that nothing the Council decided was to be considered binding unless openly declared as such. Since nothing the Council said was openly so declared, it taught nothing infallibly.

If I'm wrong, I would be happy to admit it. All you have to do is prove I am wrong by explaining which Vatican II doctrines were declared openly as binding on the Church. Actually a single binding declaration will do, no need to go on and on. If you believe you are right, that should be a cinch for you to specify. Simply name the doctrine which had been openly declared by Vatican II as binding on the Church according to the standard provided by Paul VI himself.

And please don't post more foolish articles and modernist propaganda instead of proving your point. It's unnecessary and proves nothing--especially when you lift articles from sites dedicated to bashing Catholic Tradition and intimidating unsuspecting Catholics with such nonsense. So simply name the doctrine or doctrines that were openly declared binding at Vatican II. I'm waiting--with bated breath.

I'm just being logical, not dogmatic. Paul VI stated in the Nota Praeva, which was read aloud at the Council, that nothing the Council decided was to be considered binding unless openly declared as such. Since nothing the Council said was openly so declared, it taught nothing infallibly.
--Pope Ultima Ratio I
The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. ... But from the renewed, serene and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in its entirety, transmitted with the precision and concepts which are especially the glory of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, the Christian, Catholic and Apostolic spirit of all hopes for a further step in the doctrinal penetration, in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine. ... The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.
--John XXIII in his opening address to Vatican II

John XXIII makes it clear that the Council was to reiterate the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith to the modern world, yet in perfect conformity to authentic doctrine. So, according to your narrow interpretation of Paul VI's remarks, Paul VI made the entire ancient and Apostolic faith non binding, because "... nothing the Council decided was to be considered binding unless openly declared as such. Since nothing the Council said was openly so declared, it taught nothing infallibly."

Hmmm... Let's see ... Could there be a problem with your interpretation? According to your "logic," the prohibition against murder got thrown out at Vatican II, since "nothing ... was to be considered binding" and that prohibition was part of the "substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith" taught by Vatican II.

Before you give us the benefit of your lame response, answer me this: Who, according to you, is the current, legitimate successor of St. Peter?

First, not only are you wrong about the infallibility of Vatican II, but you are now being intellectually dishonest, playing a game of bait-and-switch, pretending to have been talking about something we were never talking about in the first place. Here are some direct quotes from two of my earlier posts:

"But if you think something the Council said IS infallible teaching--then it would be incumbent on you to tell the rest of us what you believe had suddenly been made binding on all Catholics. Name, if you will, the specific dogmatic teaching. REMEMBER, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DOGMAS ALREADY DECLARED BY PREVIOUS POPES OR COUNCILS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN MERELY REPEATED by the bishops in the documents. We're talking about a newly declared doctrine that is suddenly made binding on all the faithful. It would be very strange to claim the Council had made such a pronouncement yet not be able to come up with a specific teaching that qualifies. Yet nobody ever does. Nor will you be able to do so, since no dogma was ever specifically pronounced by Vatican II."

And later I repeat the word, "new", suspecting you might try to twist the argument to mean I meant doctrines which had been binding before Vatican II had even opened:

"I still repeat my challenge to you, however: If you believe Vatican II was sometimes dogmatically binding in its pronoucements--which teachings would these be, in your opinion? What NEW DOGMAS were presented which were binding? You can't name a single one, because none were ever so declared."

So you knew all along what I was talking about. But now that you can't meet the challenge, you are trying to squirm out of the intellectual hole you've dug for yourself by pretending I meant something else. That is intellectually dishonest.

Second, in answer to your question about the Pontiff, are you imagining I may, perhaps, be a sedevacantist to put me in another one of your mental boxes? If so, I will disappoint you: John Paul II is the legitimate Successor of Peter. What's more, if you had ever read any posts of mine before this thread--which go back over a year and a half or two years, you would know I have never denied his legitimacy--and neither does SSPX.

Now suppose you answer MY question instead of posting phony arguments: tell me, what NEW doctrine was OPENLY declared binding by Vatican II--and I am not talking about the deposit of faith nor any other dogmatic declaration repeated by Vatican II which had already been binding on the Church.

Paul VI stated in the Nota Praeva, which was read aloud at the Council, that nothing the Council decided was to be considered binding unless openly declared as such. Since nothing the Council said was openly so declared, it taught nothing infallibly.
--ultima ratio
The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. ... But from the renewed, serene and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in its entirety, transmitted with the precision and concepts which are especially the glory of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, the Christian, Catholic and Apostolic spirit of all hopes for a further step in the doctrinal penetration, in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine. ... The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.
--John XXIII in his opening address to Vatican II
John XXIII makes it clear that the Council was to reiterate the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith to the modern world, yet in perfect conformity to authentic doctrine. So, according to your narrow interpretation of Paul VI's remarks, Paul VI made the entire ancient and Apostolic faith non binding, because "... nothing the Council decided was to be considered binding unless openly declared as such. Since nothing the Council said was openly so declared, it taught nothing infallibly."
--nika
... later I repeat the word, "new", suspecting you might try to twist the argument to mean I meant doctrines which had been binding before Vatican II had even opened.
--ultima ratio

So, you have no problem with Vatican II in so far as it reiterated the "substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith" in terms the modern world could understand. Right? In other words, all that it taught, as long as that teaching wasn't a "new" dogmatic teaching, was infallible and binding. Right? That is what you believe. Correct?

Let me be sure I understand you before I respond to your challenge to list all the new dogmatic teachings of Vatican II.

John Paul II is the legitimate Successor of Peter.
--ultima ratio

You understood me all right. Here is what I said originally:

"But if you think something the Council said IS infallible teaching--then it would be incumbent on you to tell the rest of us what you believe had suddenly been made binding on all Catholics. Name, if you will, the specific dogmatic teaching. REMEMBER, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DOGMAS ALREADY DECLARED BY PREVIOUS POPES OR COUNCILS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN MERELY REPEATED by the bishops in the documents. We're talking about a newly declared doctrine that is suddenly made binding on all the faithful. It would be very strange to claim the Council had made such a pronouncement yet not be able to come up with a specific teaching that qualifies. Yet nobody ever does. Nor will you be able to do so, since no dogma was ever specifically pronounced by Vatican II."

You are right--I have no problem whatsoever with the Council's having REPEATED doctrines that formerly had been declared as binding by other councils or popes. But my challenge is fairly straight-forward. I ask you to show me exactly on what new doctrine the Council Fathers have bound the universal Church. And remember, no fair listing materials requiring "religious assent"--which is given to non-infallible doctrines--you've already tried that. We are talking about Vatican Council II's OPENLY BINDING US ALL INFALLIBLY. The operative word here is "openly"--publicly, specifically, directly, without ambiguity, with complete clarity--just as Pope Paul VI specified.

In this way the doctrine which the Ecumenical Council Vatican I had intended will be completed.... It is proper for this solemn Synod to settle certain laborious theological controversies about the shepherds of the Church, with the prerogatives which lawfully flow from the episcopate, and to pronounce a statement on them that is certain. We must declare what is the true notion of the hierarchical orders and to decide with authority and with a certainty which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt. (Paul VI, Opening speech to the Third Session)

This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council...Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.
And the Sacred Council teaches that by episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church's liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry. ( Lumen Gentium )

This was clearly infallible. Lumen Gentium §25 says concerning the infallibility of a Council:

This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical 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.

To understand what definition means, we can consult the meaning of the word defines from Pastor Aeternus:

Rather, the word 'defines' signifies that the Pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff . Such, therefore, is the meaning of the word defines. (James T. O'Connor, The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I pp. 73-74)

Therefore Lumen Gentium §21 contains an infallible definition.

Hello ultima ratio:

Paul VI stated in the Nota Praeva, which was read aloud at the Council, that nothing the Council decided was to be considered binding unless openly declared as such. Since nothing the Council said was openly so declared, it taught nothing infallibly.
--ultima ratio
The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. ... But from the renewed, serene and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in its entirety, transmitted with the precision and concepts which are especially the glory of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, the Christian, Catholic and Apostolic spirit of all hopes for a further step in the doctrinal penetration, in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine. ... The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.
--John XXIII in his opening address to Vatican II
John XXIII makes it clear that the Council was to reiterate the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith to the modern world, yet in perfect conformity to authentic doctrine. So, according to your narrow interpretation of Paul VI's remarks, Paul VI made the entire ancient and Apostolic faith non binding, because "... nothing the Council decided was to be considered binding unless openly declared as such. Since nothing the Council said was openly so declared, it taught nothing infallibly."
--nika
... later I repeat the word, "new", suspecting you might try to twist the argument to mean I meant doctrines which had been binding before Vatican II had even opened.
--ultima ratio
So, you have no problems with Vatican II in so far as it reiterated the "substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith" in terms the modern world could understand, right?
--nika
You are right--I have no problem whatsoever with the Council's having REPEATED doctrines that formerly had been declared as binding by other councils or popes.
--ultima ratio

No. No. No. That is not what we are talking about. John XXIII was talking about the "substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith," most of the individual items of which neither Church Councils nor Popes have ever held up for scrutiny and then formally declared the given item as binding on us. Most of the individual items that comprise the deposit of faith have never been the subject of a statement of the Pope speaking "Ex Cathedra" or expressed as a canon in an ecumenical church council document. Keep in mind the traditional (pre-Vatican II) belief in the infallibility of church councils:

All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope.
--GENERAL COUNCILS, Section VIII. INFALLIBILITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910

So, in so far as Vatican II reiterated the "substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith" in terms the modern world could understand (whether or not a particular item in the deposit of faith had ever been formally declared as binding by other councils or popes), you fully accept Vatican II according to the pre-conciliar understanding of its authority^* cited above from the Catholic Encyclopedia? Right?

*This is the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar belief for genuine Catholics.

"John Paul II is the legitimate Successor of Peter."
--ultima ratio

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.