Vatican Council I dogmatically defined the teaching on the infallibility of the Pope. Do you believe the teaching of Vatican Council I?
Therefore, based on the teaching of Vatican Council I, who has final authority to decide on matters of faith and morals?
Are issues relating to the Mass issues of faith?
Do the guys/gals who claim Vatican II and the Norvus Ordo are wrong have more authority than the Pope to decide on matters of faith and morals?
Why, then, should I listen to what these people say over what the Pope says regarding the Mass?
I’m not a traditionalist, but I’d like to make a clarification regarding disciplinary infallibility.
In virtue of negative and indirect infallibility, a pope cannot approve disciplines contrary to Divine Law. There are two aspects to an ecclesiastical law: the doctrinal aspect and the practical aspect. In regards to the doctrinal aspect, a pope is infallible; in regards to the practical aspect, it is possible for him to have made in imprudent decision.
We are permitted to disagree with the practical aspect of a discipline, but not with the doctrinal aspect. And despite disagreement with the practical aspect, we are obliged to show respect and submission to the Holy Father in regards to said discipline.
Yes, I agree with the dogmatic teachings of Vatican I. What I can’t see is how to resolve those teachings with the collegiality teachings of Vatican II, which essentially takes a lot of the Papal powers and distributes them among the bishops. Perhaps you can explain it to me?
Correct me if I’m wrong…but I don’t think the Pope defined any teachings on faith or morals in Vatican II. Therefore, he was not speaking infallibly.
The Popes before Vatican II warned about changing the liturgy and things relating to the sacraments.
I’m not debating validity of Vatican II or the Novus Ordo (the Council was certainly valid, and the Novus Ordo is a true Mass), but an Ecumenical Council is only as infallible (in the Extraordinary Magisterium) as the Dogmas defined by it. Vatican II issued no new Dogmas. The Council contained no infallible declarations. In fact, even Pope John XXIII called Vatican II a pastoral council- an Ecumenical Council, but pastoral rather then dogmatic.
Also, I have to mention that there are few traditionalists on these forums who would challenge the validity of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Even the SSPX does not go that far.
The second Vatican Council issued two dogmatic constitutions, Lumen Gentium, on the Church and Dei Verbum, on divine revelation.
If they are called dogmatic it beats me why they would not be so, and needless to say the pope ratified both.
And I might add that I believe that the second Vatican council is a true and valid council, to do otherwise would mean to me to cease to be Catholic.
But didn’t the Pope promulgate the Novus Ordo and thus the new order of the Mass free from error? Doesn’t that mean that such things as receiving the Blessed Eucharist in the hand proper?
Basically, I boil it down to this: Who do you listen to on matters of faith and morals? The successor of Peter, or some guys who write a book or run a website? Let’s say, for example, that you die and go to Heaven, and God says, “Why did you go to the invalid Novus Ordo Mass?” And you answer, “Because the guy You told me to listen to in the Church You established said it was okay,” what do you think God would say? However, if you die and go to Heaven, and God says: “Why did you believe that My Novus Ordo Mass was invalid?” And you answer, “Because some guy at this website said so,” what do you think God would say?
That doesnt make it free from error.
Many Catholics today tend to go to two extremes when it comes to the Papcy- either the Pope is an outdated old man and we shouldnt care what he says, or His Holiness is always correct. The thing is, the Papacy has been wrong in the past on some issues (for example Pope John XXII’s denial of immediate personal judgement), but of course has never declared any heresies to be dogma (the Holy Ghost protects the Church from such a thing).
But I dont believe the Novus Ordo is invalid, and whoever does believe such a thing is in schism. The bulk of traditionalists accept the validity of the Novus Ordo, even those in the SSPX. Validity aside though, the Novus Ordo is extremely problematic in many areas.
The pope can make mistakes in prudential judgments. We need to obey anyway.
The NO is valid and good but perhaps not the best possible and pehaps not better than the TLM.
Just for the record, sedevacantistism is new to me. I didn’t know there was such a thing until today. I am just trying to understand my faith better. Thank you all for your valued input on this matter. Very helpful!
There are some nutbars out there who seem to think that the current Pope is invalid. Some sedevacantists will claim Pius XII was the last valid Pope, others will say John XXIII. Then there are the groups that say there is in fact a valid Pope, but it seems that they have elected an anti-Pope ( such as anti-Pope Michael, anti-Pope Pius XIII, anti-Pope Peter II, ect. ect.).
Good points. Reminds me of the period right after Vatican II when the question of the birth control pill was still an issue. Various people went to several priests to find out if it were sinful or not. When one said to use your conscience, then it was ok for them to go on the pill, and that was that. Many probably still do to this day, while claiming “obedience to the Pope.”
Seems like the documents of Vatican are in order. It is the “spirit of Vatican II” that was and will continue to be challenged, and like terrorism, how exactly do you define it or wage war on it?
Reminds me of the period right after Vatican II when the question of the birth control pill was still an issue.
Both artificial birth control and abortion were condemned in Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI, Dec 31, 1930. These condemnations are contained in Denzinger 2239 thru 2244. Denzinger is of course, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, 1954. This should be enough for any Catholic.
The following is the text from Casti Connubii, which comprises Denzinger 2239, 2240, and 2241, under the heading “The Abuse of Matrimony”:
- And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify* this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.
- But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
- Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”
- Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.
57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.
- As regards the evil use of matrimony, to pass over the arguments which are shameful, not infrequently others that are false and exaggerated are put forward. Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.
- Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
- We are deeply touched by the sufferings of those parents who, in extreme want, experience great difficulty in rearing their children.
- However, they should take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the occasion for a much more calamitous error. No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of Christian Faith is expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent. “Let no one be so rash as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely, that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you.”
- This same doctrine was again solemnly repeated and confirmed by the Church in the condemnation of the Jansenist heresy which dared to utter this blasphemy against the goodness of God: “Some precepts of God are, when one considers the powers which man possesses, impossible of fulfillment even to the just who wish to keep the law and strive to do so; grace is lacking whereby these laws could be fulfilled.”
- St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVlll, 8-10.
- Matth., XV, 14.
- Luke, Vl, 38.
- Conc. Trid., Sess. Vl, cap. 11.
- Const. Apost. Cum occasione, 31 May 1653, prop. 1
True but later on (?) the Church had approved the rhythm method as lawful. The pill, however, was a new concept in the 60’s and many were citing Pope Paul’s Progessio Populorum (see #37) as a prelude to its full acceptance as an approved method of birth control. This, of course, did not materialize, but, it seems for the longest time, they were debating the topic in Rome. The story is that Paul VI ended up overruling his advisors and out came Humanae Vitae, which stunned many at the time, including many parish priests.
But the point I was trying to make before that it seems as if you can always find someone in Rome or in your diocese to approve your lifestyle and keep you “in communion” with Rome these days. Not a good thing as it undermines Catholicism.
True but later on (?) the Church had approved the rhythm method as lawful.
Artifical birth control was condemned. The pill is ABC. Any form of ABC was condemned in principle in Castii Conubii.
The pill, however, was a new concept in the 60’s and many were citing Pope Paul’s Progessio Populorum (see #37) as a prelude to its full acceptance as an approved method of birth control. This, of course, did not materialize, but, it seems for the longest time, they were debating the topic in Rome.
So Paul VI didn’t know about Castii Conubii? He helped create all the confusion. Was he invincibily ignorant of the Church’s teaching up to that point?
The story is that Paul VI ended up overruling his advisors and out came Humanae Vitae, which stunned many at the time, including many parish priests.
Why should this stun anyone? Only a modernist could think that the Church would possibly “change it’s teaching”.
But the point I was trying to make before that it seems as if you can always find someone in Rome or in your diocese to approve your lifestyle and keep you “in communion” with Rome these days.
Yes, but you realise that you are saying that the Teaching Church…whose preaching is the proximate rule of faith for us Catholics…cannot be trusted. This contradicts the general infallibility of the Church…if these members truly have authority.
Not a good thing as it undermines Catholicism.
Yes, it does…but it is not the Church that undermines Catholicism…an enemy hath done this.
This question shows my limited knowledge of my Catholic faith, but would the Pope be allowed to overturn Vatican II? Or could the Pope at least abolish novus ordo and revert to the Tridentine Mass?