Worse than deja vu all over again: Vatican caves

The Remnant ^ | March 31, 2004 | Thomas Drolesky

[pascendi]

"Therefore Lumen Gentium §21 contains an infallible definition."

No it doesn't.

[GirlShortstop]

**Therefore Lumen Gentium §21 contains an infallible definition.**

    No it doesn't.

Is there more to follow pascendi, or can I laugh at your statement as it stands?

[pascendi]

"Is there more to follow pascendi, or can I laugh at your statement as it stands?"

My suggestion is to laugh at it.

That way we could let it go. If not, then we pursue it. If we pursue it, you'll find out that the statement I made is correct.

[GirlShortstop]

My suggestion is to laugh at it. That way we could let it go. If not, then we pursue it...

I think that'd be alright, but only if you laugh with me.   :-)

[pascendi]

That would be fair, imho. You did say that you would laugh at my statement and not at me; so it seems fair enough. I render full submission of will and intellect to the proposal of laughing with you as opposed to at you.

Let's start here: why is my statement laughable? This should be interesting.

[ultima ratio]

You are obviously woefully out of your depth and hope that by setting up a smoke screen of verbal gobbledegook, I will tire of the discussion.

1. First you cite me, then you cite John XXIII, then you cite yourself, then myself, then yourself, then myself. You make no logical connections among these citations, but you write as if expecting me to miraculously intuit your point. You hint at some connection, for instance, between my argument that Vatican II was not infallible and the statement by John XXXIII about the bishops' need to guard the deposit of faith--but you don't make clear what the connection is between my point and the Pontiff's. And since you won't do this, neither will I.

2. Then you present this incredibly obscure and syntactically involuted statement: "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." Say again? This makes absolutely no sense as good English, let alone good theology. But I hope you don't mean that nobody in the Church had ever bothered to look into the truths of faith before Vatican II came along.

3. In any case, I'm still waiting for this list of doctrines Vatican II SPECIFICALLY DECLARED BINDING. Don't give me vague nonsense about "the substance of ancient doctrines," etc. etc. Just type out the new teaching that is binding. Just one new doctrine will do. One little teentsy-weentsy doctrine. I'm still waiting very very patiently. It shouldn't be so hard for you to do. Tell us clearly and unambiguously what great truths were infallibly defined by Vatican II.

Cat got your tongue?

[GirlShortstop]

Let's start here: why is my statement laughable?

Best summary:  because the absence of depth was glaring; as a contribution to a substantial topic, it was out of place.  It required no further thought, and I considered that to be humorous.  I didn't (and don't) want to laugh at you, so I asked the questions.
I'm pleased to make your acquaintance pascendi.  Sorry that time's up so to speak for FReeping this evening.  Adios and Happy Easter!

[ultima ratio]

The first passage is from a speech by Paul VI asking the Council to settle long disputed issues regarding the role of bishops. It is speculative at best. In fact, when the Council in Lumen Gentium ended up exalting the role of the bishops and diminishing that of the papacy, Paul VI issued his famous Nota Praevia in which he reversed himself, saying nothing was to be made binding on the Church unless it was openly so stated. Nothing ever was.

The second passage is simply stating the obvious--that the bishops and the pope govern the Church. Nothing new here, nothing that hadn't been said before in a million different venues. The same goes for the following statement on Sacred Orders. This is old hat--issues settled in the earliest stages of the Church's history. And again, the statement regarding the infallibility of councils was also long-held Church doctrine.

The issue of how dogmatic statements are defined was interesting--because I have been saying this all along. (See some of my former posts on this thread.) The faithful must have certainty as to what was intended as a binding decree made by a pope or council. Ambiguity or lack of clarity cannot bind the intellect of anybody. This is so obvious it hardly needs mentioning. This is why it is incumbent upon pope or council to make its definitions with great clarity.

[pascendi]

"Best summary: because the absence of depth was glaring; as a contribution to a substantial topic, it was out of place."

Actually, I thought it rather efficient. Clarity inside three words. =)

"I'm pleased to make your acquaintance pascendi. Sorry that time's up so to speak for FReeping this evening. Adios and Happy Easter!"

Same, and same to you.

"Just type out the new teaching that is binding. Just one new doctrine will do. One little teentsy-weentsy doctrine. I'm still waiting very very patiently. It shouldn't be so hard for you to do. Tell us clearly and unambiguously what great truths were infallibly defined by Vatican II."

I've found this same question to be the most powerful unmasking strategy possible. There's absolutely no answer to it, and no answers will be forthcoming, ever, because Vatican II neither defined nor declared anything in the proper sense of those words.

It helps to actually know what a dogmatic definition is. Heck, it helps to have actually read the documents of the council themselves. You've read all the documents of Vatican II, right Shortstop?

People hear what they want to hear. Give them an ambiguity and they'll run with it.

[nika]

I am sorry you don't get it. I will try again.

• You misinterpret statements by Paul VI as to the binding nature of Vatican II because you don't like the new liturgy.
• I responded with the fact that John XIII made it clear that Vatican II was to reiterate the ancient deposit of the faith in terms the modern world could understand and pointed out that according to your "logic" that ancient deposit of faith was then no longer binding.
• You said you had no problem whatsoever with the Council's having REPEATED doctrines that formerly had been declared as binding by other councils or popes.
• I pointed out that the deposit of faith consisted mostly of doctrines that had never been the subject of an "ex cathedra" statement or the canons of council documents.
• I pointed out that the traditional, pre-conciliar belief of Catholics was stated in the Catholic Encylopedia in 1910:

  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.

• You avoided this inconvenient truth because you are in the awkward position of claiming to be the "traditional" Catholic yet your beliefs are contrary to the traditional belief of the Church.
• You also ran like a scared rabbit from a discussion of the fact that in so far as Vatican II reiterated the ancient deposit of faith, which includes those truths that have never been the subject of "ex cathedra" papal statements or the canons of council documents, you have no good reason to deny it was infallible and binding according to the traditional, pre-conciliar beliefs of the Church. This because you aren't really a traditional Catholic. You are a heretic.

There. Do you get it now?

---

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

[nika]

I've found this same question to be the most powerful unmasking strategy possible. There's absolutely no answer to it, and no answers will be forthcoming, ever, because Vatican II neither defined nor declared anything in the proper sense of those words.
--pacendi

What do you think these words mean?

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

[pascendi]

"You misinterpret statements by Paul VI as to the binding nature of Vatican II because you don't like the new liturgy."

What did Vatican II bind? Good luck producing one item that is not something all Catholics already knew.

It might help to actually read all the documents of Vatican II. In fact, I would like that question answered: Nika, have you read all the documents of Vatican II, or have you simply read the what laymen have said about them? Be honest. A total of two questions to answer, if you would. One, have you read all the documents, and two, what did you find in them that is new and not a restatement of known doctrine?

"I responded with the fact that John XIII made it clear that Vatican II was to reiterate the ancient deposit of the faith in terms the modern world could understand and pointed out that according to your "logic" that ancient deposit of faith was then no longer binding."

Actually, what you did was state that Pope John XIII made it clear that Vatican II was to reiterate what is in the Deposit of Faith, insert the hidden premise that modern people are not as intellectually well-formed as their ancestors were (which is probably true), and leaped forward with a really lousy attempt at a 'reductio ad absurdem' argument which didn't work.

"You said you had no problem whatsoever with the Council's having REPEATED doctrines that formerly had been declared as binding by other councils or popes."

Wherever it restates known doctrine, it is binding.

"I pointed out that the deposit of faith consisted mostly of doctrines that had never been the subject of an "ex cathedra" statement or the canons of council documents."

Fine... and:

"I pointed out that the traditional, pre-conciliar belief of Catholics was stated in the Catholic Encylopedia in 1910:"

It's a great encyclopedia, but it's not where we get our doctrine from; sorry.

"...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."

...which proves nothing for you, because you won't say what it is that Vatican II said that's new, that traditional Catholics didn't already know. You have not identified what is/are the teaching(s) of Vatican II which are unique to Vatican II, whereby you might differentiate your stance on Catholic truth & reality from ultima's. That there is a difference is clear; I would like to know exactly what that difference consists, between your Catholicism and ultima's, and what is the origin of that difference. We will then be well into the territory of what you think Vatican II said and what it didn't.

What you really, really want to say is that Vatican II says something that ultima doesn't accept, right? Well then... what is it? If there's nothing, then what the heck makes you a different kind of Catholic from ultima? There is a difference, isn't there? That's interesting.

Until you provide the proprietary doctrine(s) of Vatican II, the origins of which are found in Vatican II, you will be running in circles.

"You avoided this inconvenient truth because you are in the awkward position of claiming to be the "traditional" Catholic yet your beliefs are contrary to the traditional belief of the Church."

Which belief of ultima's is a denial of the truth?

"You also ran like a scared rabbit from a discussion of the fact that in so far as Vatican II reiterated the ancient deposit of faith, which includes those truths that have never been the subject of "ex cathedra" papal statements or the canons of council documents, you have no good reason to deny it was infallible and binding according to the traditional, pre-conciliar beliefs of the Church."

Which reiteration of which doctrine in the Deposit of the Faith is ultima in denial of?

"This because you aren't really a traditional Catholic. You are a heretic."

This is the conclusion that you are working towards, no doubt.

Better get started.

Btw, I like the introduction of the heresy charge. I know a couple whopper infallible declarations that would make your head spin trying to lend your assent to them without, well, really lending your assent to them. We could squeeze the heresy thing for all it's worth. Would you like to see a few?

[nika]

It's a great encyclopedia, but it's not where we get our doctrine from; sorry.
--pascendi

Believe me, I can tell it's not where you get your doctrine from. Official Church councils aren't where you get your doctrine from either. Neither is traditional Catholicism. You guys do your own thing. You refuse to submit to the authority of the Church, making your own private and incorrect opinions your ultimate authority. You make yourselves Pope.

Are you really denying the authority of Church Councils when they are in union with the Successor of St. Peter? Obviously, you are either intellectually dishonest and cowardly, or are all bluff and don't really know anything about Catholicism -- or both.

So keep blathering on and whatever the case may be will soon be evident to all.

[pascendi]

"Believe me, I can tell it's not where you get your doctrine from. Official Church councils aren't where you get your doctrine from either. Neither is traditional Catholicism. You guys do your own thing. You refuse to submit to the authority of the Church, making your own private and incorrect opinions your ultimate authority. You make yourselves Pope."

Uh huh.

Look, quit with the rhetoric and support your very serious accusations. Please.

[pascendi]

"So keep blathering on and whatever the case may be will soon be evident to all."

I would be more than happy to oblige.

What I'll be pressing for is what exactly, and I do mean exactly, makes you a different kind of Catholic from ultima.

If you do not believe ultima to even be a Catholic, I'm going to press you into an oblivion for the exact reason why ultima isn't a Catholic. Let's do it.

[nika]

You are hilarious. I am going to bed. I might find time to respond tomorrow.

[pascendi]

Eight ball, corner pocket.

[gbcdoj]

nika,
ultima does have a point. Fr. Most does say in his article that the Declaration on Religious Liberty is only at the teaching level of the Ordinary Magisterium and isn't infallible. LG 25 states that only the definitions of a Council are infallible. I think a case can be made that LG 21 contains a definition, and perhaps DV 9 as well, but there weren't very many. In theory, it would seem that any non-definitive part of the council documents could be erroneous.

[gbcdoj]

I know a couple whopper infallible declarations that would make your head spin trying to lend your assent to them without, well, really lending your assent to them. We could squeeze the heresy thing for all it's worth. Would you like to see a few?

What are these?

[pascendi]

"LG 25 states that only the definitions of a Council are infallible."

No it doesn't.