Vatican II

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

If a Council is pastoral but not dogmatic, can it have solemnly define anything that a Catholic must accept as an article of Faith lest he put himself outside of the Faith?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 10:16 AM']If a Council is pastoral but not dogmatic, can it have solemnly define anything that a Catholic must accept as an article of Faith lest he put himself outside of the Faith?
[right][snapback]833735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well the decrees of the council are based on doctrine/dogma and so while it may not have solemly defined anything and declared no Anethema's, you put yourself in serious danger of violating Church dogma/doctrine when opposing the decrees of the council. That something is not infallibly declared does not make it fallible and cate blanch let's tear it apart and disobey it as many trads have. Further I would be very careful in calling any decree of a council in error. You put yourself above the wisdom of Christ's duly appointed shepherds. Vatican II quotes liberally other councils, Father's, and Popes. You are making the same error that those make who decide they do not have to go by a papal decree because does not fit the formula of infallibility, i.e. for the whole Church, on faith and morals, with the authority of St. Peter.

Edited December 22, 2005 by thessalonian

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

MOst Trads just say that the documents are ambigiously worded, not nessecarly having any error.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 10:25 AM']MOst Trads just say that the documents are ambigiously worded, not nessecarly having any error.
[right][snapback]833745[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not the ones I run in to. Further, if there is ambiguity it is not for the individual to resolve that ambiguity. Nor is it for priests. But is left primarily to the Pope. Most trads have taken it upon themselves to resolve it or have accepted some priest's interpruation of the council. Actually many liberals have done the same.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

all trads are doing is comparing it to past church teaching and seeing if it matches up.

Can you name a single dogma that traditional Catholics deny? Is there anything taught by Vatican II that must be believed but which traditional Catholics don't believe?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 10:30 AM']all trads are doing is comparing it to past church teaching and seeing if it matches up.

Can you name a single dogma that traditional Catholics deny? Is there anything taught by Vatican II that must be believed but which traditional Catholics don't believe?
[right][snapback]833750[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Which trads are you talking about. Lefebre denied papal primacy by his actions as do those trads who say the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. Papal Primacy is Vatican I dogma. If they do not submit to the authority of the Church they are in a heap of do do. They may give lip service to the dogma but they have denied it in action.

[thessalonian]

This covers it pretty well.

Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation.

From a very good article that says it much more eloquently than I could.

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4748"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4748[/url]

If one is excommunicated by a Pope they are under solemn obligation to resolve the problem with him. The SSPX and others have not done this and so they are under the condemnation of the above declaration of V I.

Blessings

Edited December 22, 2005 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

This I think says it all, from the above linked article.

Pope St. Gregory the Great laid down the principle that "Divine justice provides shepherds according to the just deserts of the faithful." If a man becomes convinced that a reigning Pope is doing some dreadful things (and there certainly have been those who did such things), then he is under two obligations: to look in a mirror and try to understand why God might find it necessary to chastise the faithful (or not-so-faithful), and to pray with increased fervor and charity for the Pope and the whole Church. We may be assured that if we are firmly established in this, the spirit of the saints, then any activities, which we might undertake in love and defense of the Church will not lead us into the excesses of heresy or schism.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 11:16 AM']If a Council is pastoral but not dogmatic, can it have solemnly define anything that a Catholic must accept as an article of Faith lest he put himself outside of the Faith?
[right][snapback]833735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I've read all of the documents by now, and I can understand sentiments of ambiguity, yet, for good cause when they are open-ended about some statements it is because Bishops still retain some responsibility in decision making for their territories.

The council was concerned with the salvaiton of souls, and the Church has acted as the Lord acted towards Israel - making concessionary laws because of the hardness of the hearts of Catholics. You can see the annoyance because Latin, and Gregorian Chant, Polyphony, the organ are all to have places of pride in the Church, so says Church documents, yet for the sake of souls, concessions have been made in many areas, such as using more of the venacular. Perhaps sometimes they have made an error in judgment about how far to concede, but this is all in practice, and is no reason to severe ourselves from the Church, lest we put our own souls in danger.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

no. the SSPX says the NO mass is valid.

It also does not deny the Primacy of the Pope.

lets pretend Vatican II either taught heresy or was ambigious would you resist it?

[Brother Adam]

[quote]no. the SSPX says the NO mass is valid.

It also does not deny the Primacy of the Pope. [/quote]

I don't see any reason to debate you on these points, I did research on it for college and am fully aware how they try to justify their position. I don't see us getting anywhere debating it.

[quote]lets pretend Vatican II either taught heresy or was ambigious would you resist it?[/quote]

This is impossible. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church does not teach heresy.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Vatican II is a pastoral council where no dogma was defined. isn't it possible?

im not really sure.

[Dave]

Vatican II couldn't teach heresy, since it was an ecumenical council.

And btw, councils are not either dogmatic or pastoral. They're either local or ecumenical.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:05 PM']Vatican II is a pastoral council where no dogma was defined. isn't it possible?

im not really sure.
[right][snapback]833784[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Have you ever heard of something called the 'heirarchy of truths'?

[Brother Adam]

btw, i was under the impression that you decided to reject the sspx?