Stella wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 12:43 amI would invite others to really embrace the social doctrine of the Church as per the vision of Vatican II and let that evangelise you. I suspect that’s an aching chasm in the faith of many Catholics fearing/hating the world around them.
Can I ask what your reasoning is for this request/invitation? I know you offered an opinion ("I suspect..."). But where does this really come from? Why would you suggest this instead of, say, the vision of Trent or any other council?
Vatican II is the Church's vision/guidance for the contemporary world. Why would a Catholic not embrace that Council?
Embrace it how? I embrace it by treating it as an ecumenical council focused on pastoral matters. As an ecumenical council, it has zero special status--it is one of many, and has to be interpreted in the light of all that have come before, along with all other dogmatic matters that have previously been established. It doesn't stand alone, and it doesn't stand higher than any other council. It's not a super-council, and its documents can't be properly understood or applied by those without a proper formation in the teaching of the Church.
As far as the swipe about fear and hate--my PhD is from a secular university, and I teach at one. I ain't skeered, lady.
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:14 am
May I ask what the "social teaching" of Vatican II is? I don't recall the Council touching heavily upon what we'd now regard as social teaching. There is the Universal Call to Holiness in the Church, and there are calls to work for the betterment of the world in Gaudium et Spes (neither being new with the Council, BTW). But I'm not coming up with much else.
Pope St John XXIII's very first encyclical Pacem in terris (April 1963), set the parameters of the Council and the Church's relationship with the world in our day. It emphasises human dignity and equality, religious freedom, women's rights, engagement with the United Nations, the rights of immigrants, economic rights, political rights and duties, the "common good", the arms race, global responsibility etc etc All very much the seeds of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:14 am
May I ask what the "social teaching" of Vatican II is? I don't recall the Council touching heavily upon what we'd now regard as social teaching. There is the Universal Call to Holiness in the Church, and there are calls to work for the betterment of the world in Gaudium et Spes (neither being new with the Council, BTW). But I'm not coming up with much else.
Pope St John XXIII's very first encyclical Pacem in terris (April 1963), set the parameters of the Council and the Church's relationship with the world in our day. It emphasises human dignity and equality, religious freedom, women's rights, engagement with the United Nations, the rights of immigrants, economic rights, political rights and duties, the "common good", the arms race, global responsibility etc etc All very much the seeds of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
Hmm, no, I would say that these are fruits of the Church's social doctrine, the seeds of which were sown long before the Council. And not to pick nits but Pacem in terris was St. John XXIII's last encyclical - he died soon after its publication.
peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:34 amHmm, no, I would say that these are fruits of the Church's social doctrine, the seeds of which were sown long before the Council.
Right. A lot of people point to Rerum Novarum (1891) as the beginnings of modern CST, but of course Leo XIII was a Thomist and the theoretical material in his encyclicals (along with the later works like Pius XI's Quadragesima Anno) is squarely based on Thomistic social teaching.
I'm not sure about all those things Stella listed being "fruits," as much as applications of traditional teaching (whether well or poorly applied is a different question) to contemporary issues.
Well, anyhow, the Church's social teaching really, truly isn't a product of VII. It may well be that it came to more prominence after VII, but that's not the same thing.
One could also quite plausibly suggest that the "our times" of the early Sixties are not the "our times" of today, even if we set aside the question of how adequate VII was as a response to its times.
Bear in mind that I am not a VII h8er; I strive to see it in perspective.
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:53 am
One could also quite plausibly suggest that the "our times" of the early Sixties are not the "our times" of today, even if we set aside the question of how adequate VII was as a response to its times.
Bear in mind that I am not a VII h8er; I strive to see it in perspective.
Right, it's not necessary to be a hater to see, for example, that Gaudium et Spes is hilariously dated.
I am inclined to the opinion that Vatican II was an (woefully inadequate) response to a brewing crisis rather than the cause of the current crisis as some hold. And I think that this crisis has its roots in the 1940s and that Pius XII was aware of it as the last years (roughly 1950-1958) of his pontificate, in which he abandoned the optimism of his early years and adopted a doom and gloom "the sky is falling" tone to his public pronouncements, and began an aggressive crackdown on what he saw as a threat within the Church, such as the "New Theology", makes clear.
I also hold that given how radically different 2024 is from 1964, what was "current' 60 years ago is irrelevant today. I mean, everything else has changed since 1964, but our response to "the modern world" is to be set in stone for all time from that era onward? Do you really think that is what "aggiormento" means, that everything gets updated exactly once and then it stays exactly the same forever? Does that make sense? If aggiormento is a valid principle then this is something that needs to be done on a regular basis, not "once and for all".
What I am getting at is, there is no contradiction in saying "I believe in the Council, but I also believe its decrees are largely irrelevant today". Indeed, isn't that what we think about MOST ecumenical councils, which made decrees which concern things that are no longer important? What are we make of the decrees of I Lateran, which are about the Holy Roman Emperor, an office which no longer exists? Or the First Council of Lyon, which deposed an emperor who has been dead for over 700 years, and made regulations concerning government of the Crusader Kingdom in the Holy Land, which ceased to exist within 50 years of that Council? And probably the least consequential Council of them all V Lateran which did pretty much nothing and then ended on the eve of the Reformation when it was most needed.
It is possible to accept a Council and believe it is largely irrelevant today.
If you ever feel like Captain Picard yelling about how many lights there are, it is probably time to leave the thread.
Stella wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 12:44 amNo I wasn't asking about the theological virtue. I was asking about the natural charity present in philanthropy and non Christian acts in general. Scripture makes much of the acts of the Good Samaritan and even presents him as an example for Christians.
Stella, look at the title of this thread. It is about the Virtue of Charity. The virtue of charity, in Catholic thought, is an infused theological virtue.
I was always referring to a naturally acquired virtue.
Who told you that we didn't recognize God's image in everyone in the past? It's completely bogus. There's literally no truth in it.
At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable.
That's not actually relevant. First, it doesn't say that we didn't recognize God's image in everyone in the past.
I didn't say that "we didn't recognise God's image in everyone in the past."
Can I ask what your reasoning is for this request/invitation? I know you offered an opinion ("I suspect..."). But where does this really come from? Why would you suggest this instead of, say, the vision of Trent or any other council?
Vatican II is the Church's vision/guidance for the contemporary world. Why would a Catholic not embrace that Council?
Embrace it how? I embrace it by treating it as an ecumenical council focused on pastoral matters. As an ecumenical council, it has zero special status--it is one of many, and has to be interpreted in the light of all that have come before, along with all other dogmatic matters that have previously been established. It doesn't stand alone, and it doesn't stand higher than any other council. It's not a super-council, and its documents can't be properly understood or applied by those without a proper formation in the teaching of the Church.
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:14 am
May I ask what the "social teaching" of Vatican II is? I don't recall the Council touching heavily upon what we'd now regard as social teaching. There is the Universal Call to Holiness in the Church, and there are calls to work for the betterment of the world in Gaudium et Spes (neither being new with the Council, BTW). But I'm not coming up with much else.
Pope St John XXIII's very first encyclical Pacem in terris (April 1963), set the parameters of the Council and the Church's relationship with the world in our day. It emphasises human dignity and equality, religious freedom, women's rights, engagement with the United Nations, the rights of immigrants, economic rights, political rights and duties, the "common good", the arms race, global responsibility etc etc All very much the seeds of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
Hmm, no, I would say that these are fruits of the Church's social doctrine, the seeds of which were sown long before the Council. And not to pick nits but Pacem in terris was St. John XXIII's last encyclical - he died soon after its publication.
The seeds of human justice are present in the Gospels, but the social doctrine of the Church has continued to evolve for 2000 years. The issues the Council addressed were responses to a very fast developing conditions leading up to the 20th century. The Church's Social Doctrine as articulated by the current Compendium of Social Doctrine (2004) which offers "a complete overview of the fundamental framework of the doctrinal corpus of Catholic social teaching" is by it's very nature, meant to be 'set in stone'.
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 11:47 am
I agree with ... with ...
Well, anyhow, the Church's social teaching really, truly isn't a product of VII. It may well be that it came to more prominence after VII, but that's not the same thing.
Nobody is saying that though. The documents of the Council are replete with referenced going as far back as Christ and even before.
Doom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:58 pm
It is possible to accept a Council and believe it is largely irrelevant today.
The Church doesn't view it in this way though. In 2022 Pope Em Benedict XVI wrote about the Councils legacy for a Steubenville conference. What needed to change and the happy consequences seen so far.
Stella wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:03 pm
I was always referring to a naturally acquired virtue.
I don't know what else could be said here. You asked about the virtue of charity, which is not a naturally acquired virtue, but rather a supernatural virtue, and yet you say you are asking about a naturally acquired virtue, which is of course the whole point I've been making here--you're confusing things. And yet you now cite your confusion as some kind of defense against the charge of confusion. This is very confusing.
I didn't say that "we didn't recognise God's image in everyone in the past."
Your earlier post implied it. If you didn't mean that, the rest of my response still applies, for you claimed that somehow the Church's recognition of the good in non-Christians is a new thing, and as I showed, it isn't.
Vatican II is the Church's vision/guidance for the contemporary world. Why would a Catholic not embrace that Council?
Embrace it how? I embrace it by treating it as an ecumenical council focused on pastoral matters. As an ecumenical council, it has zero special status--it is one of many, and has to be interpreted in the light of all that have come before, along with all other dogmatic matters that have previously been established. It doesn't stand alone, and it doesn't stand higher than any other council. It's not a super-council, and its documents can't be properly understood or applied by those without a proper formation in the teaching of the Church.
I didn't say any of that.
Sigh. My reply above, if you'll take about thirty seconds and read it, explains what it means to embrace the 2nd Vatican Council. The approach you consistently take is to try to run everything through the most recent proclamations (whether dogmatic or not, and most often not--like Pope Benedict's speech which you seem to attribute to "the Church" in a thoroughly inappropriate way, as I've already explained to you elsewhere) and think that these most recent proclamations are The Way, the Church's wisdom, the thing we need to attend to. But that's just to ignore what The Church is. You treat it, for practical purposes, like it sprang into being in the 60's.
Doom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:58 pm
It is possible to accept a Council and believe it is largely irrelevant today.
The Church doesn't view it in this way though. In 2022 Pope Em Benedict XVI wrote about the Councils legacy for a Steubenville conference. What needed to change and the happy consequences seen so far.
You seem to believe in infallibility creep that everything the Pope says is infallible. It doesn't matter, I don't have to agree with what he said on that issue. He wasn't even Pope at the time, so his opinion has no authority, he was part of the Council I would expect him to defend it. There have been few "happy consequences" of the Council.
If you ever feel like Captain Picard yelling about how many lights there are, it is probably time to leave the thread.
Stella wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:03 pm
I was always referring to a naturally acquired virtue.
I don't know what else could be said here. You asked about the virtue of charity, which is not a naturally acquired virtue, but rather a supernatural virtue, and yet you say you are asking about a naturally acquired virtue, which is of course the whole point I've been making here--you're confusing things. And yet you now cite your confusion as some kind of defense against the charge of confusion. This is very confusing.
From the first page I cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia to express my point...
"However, it is not necessary that acts of brotherly love should rest upon this high motive in order to deserve a place under the head of charity. It is enough that they be prompted by consideration of the individual's dignity, qualities, or needs. Even when motivated by some purely extrinsic end, as popular approval or the ultimate injury of the recipient, they are in essence acts of charity."
If you remember your response to that was that basically Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong.
I didn't say that "we didn't recognise God's image in everyone in the past."
Your earlier post implied it. If you didn't mean that, the rest of my response still applies, for you claimed that somehow the Church's recognition of the good in non-Christians is a new thing, and as I showed, it isn't.
Doom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:58 pm
It is possible to accept a Council and believe it is largely irrelevant today.
The Church doesn't view it in this way though. In 2022 Pope Em Benedict XVI wrote about the Councils legacy for a Steubenville conference. What needed to change and the happy consequences seen so far.
You seem to believe in infallibility creep that everything the Pope says is infallible. It doesn't matter, I don't have to agree with what he said on that issue. He wasn't even Pope at the time, so his opinion has no authority, he was part of the Council I would expect him to defend it. There have been few "happy consequences" of the Council.
I've always understood the Council to be a calling of the Holy Spirit and therefore to be heeded under the guidance of the Church. If all the post VII Saints embraced it then I will as well. How can that not be a good Catholic mindset?
