Pope Benedict attacked by Catholic Church’s most senior theologians (Jesus Christ, priest)

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Scott1

It's true that a doctrine, when proposed by the Church "for belief as being divinely revealed," it is considered infallible... but NEVER superior to the Pope.

Right. So if the Council's documents are accepted and approved by the Pope, they are the dogma of the Church, or else the Pope is fallible. The Pope accepted the documents of Vatican II at the close of the Council in 1965.

As Paul VI reiterated the next year:

'Whatever were our opinions about the Council’s various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be wholehearted and without reserve;….
'…The council was something very new; not all were prepared to understand and accept it. But now the conciliar doctrines must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit.’ Address to the Roman Curia, April 23 1966

And John Paul II:

‘What a treasure there is, dear brothers and sisters, in the guidelines offered to us by the Second Vatican Council… I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century’ there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.’ Novo Millenio Ineunte 2001.

[doppelgänger]

Looking that up, BTW, reminded me of just how profound the previous Pope's understanding was of the role of the Church:

Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte

The Church therefore cannot forgo her missionary activity among the peoples of the world. It is the primary task of the missio ad gentes to announce that it is in Christ, "the Way, and the Truth, and the Life" (Jn 14:6), that people find salvation. Interreligious dialogue "cannot simply replace proclamation, but remains oriented towards proclamation".40 This missionary duty, moreover, does not prevent us from approaching dialogue with an attitude of profound willingness to listen. We know in fact that, in the presence of the mystery of grace, infinitely full of possibilities and implications for human life and history, the Church herself will never cease putting questions, trusting in the help of the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth (cf. Jn 14:17), whose task it is to guide her "into all the truth" (Jn 16:13).

This is a fundamental principle not only for the endless theological investigation of Christian truth, but also for Christian dialogue with other philosophies, cultures and religions. In the common experience of humanity, for all its contradictions, the Spirit of God, who "blows where he wills" (Jn 3:8), not infrequently reveals signs of his presence which help Christ's followers to understand more deeply the message which they bear. Was it not with this humble and trust-filled openness that the Second Vatican Council sought to read "the signs of the times"?41 Even as she engages in an active and watchful discernment aimed at understanding the "genuine signs of the presence or the purpose of God",4243 This attitude of openness, combined with careful discernment, was adopted by the Council also in relation to other religions. It is our task to follow with great fidelity the Council's teaching and the path which it has traced. the Church acknowledges that she has not only given, but has also "received from the history and from the development of the human race".

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Right. So if the Council's documents are accepted and approved by the Pope, they are the dogma of the Church, or else the Pope is fallible. The Pope accepted the documents of Vatican II at the close of the Council in 1965.

Correct.. they are only infallible because of the Papal approval.

What's your point?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Correct.. they are only infallible because of the Papal approval.

What's your point?

There are many Roman Catholic "traditionalists" who really dislike Vatican II and want to turn back the clock. And some among those consider Vatican II to be an invalid Council (as I noted in my first post). Malleability . . . that's my point.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

There are many Roman Catholic "traditionalists" who really dislike Vatican II and want to turn back the clock. Malleability . . . that's my point.

Church teachings are "malleable" because some want to change it... even though they have no possible way to do so.

**runs to get dictionary**

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Church teachings are "malleable" because some want to change it... even though they have no possible way to do so.

Of course they have a way to change it . . . help bring in a new Pope that doesn't agree with it (of course it wouldn't be a "change" it would be a "refinement" or something else seemingly innocuous). "Reality" is only as concrete as the weakest logical premise supporting it, and one's willingness to accede to it.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Of course they have a way to change it . . . help bring in a new Pope that doesn't agree with it (of course it wouldn't be a "change" it would be a "refinement" or something else seemingly innocuous). "Reality" is only as concrete as the weakest logical premise supporting it, and one's willingness to accede to it.

Yes, of course.... they'll "bring in" a new fella and change everything... possibly preach heresy.... blasphemy.... disco.... all the bad stuff.

Thanks for the chat.

[Random]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

"Reality" is only as concrete as the weakest logical premise supporting it, and one's willingness to accede to it.

Wunderbar.

As for the Church, even though I remain nominally Catholic, it seems to go by the rule of the old say, that the more things change the more they stay the same. Vatican II has been shown by the dissent of theologians and others only to have been used to shore up the RCC's hardline element, which is in control; nothing to do with embracing modernity or any notion of progression. They really do believe their doctrines are eternal, perfect, God-given and permanent...sadly.