Are Catholics Bound to Assent to Vatican II?

[TMC]

It’s not so simple.

Nonsense. Some have looked for reasons to dissent without being labeled as in dissent. Those that disagree with the Church should have the simple courage of their convictions to admit that they disagree. Some of those same people like to portray themselves as brave defenders of the faith, which is ironic. Pretending that the Church does not “really” teach what it clearly teaches is not bravery, it is the opposite, and it is deeply disingenuous.

 

[pnewton]

. I get quite irritated by posts on CAF which dismiss opinions on the grounds that they appeared on such-and-such a site.

The operative word here is “opinion”. The problem with posting op-eds is that there can be no dialogue with the author. And yes, I most definitely dismiss anything from sites that have constantly wasted time and oxygen while proving themselves incapable of reason and journalism. Feel free to be irritated by my reasoning.

His opinion surely is a valid one, but the title is not what the author addresses. He argues not that we do not assent to Vatican II, but that we set it aside with a new council - a Trent to Lateran V. The title is more click-bait-ish, but not accurate. The faithful also were bound to assent to Lateran V. Catholics do not chose which councils to assent to, and which they can disregard as other Christians chose doctrines. The author is only giving his opinion on the effectiveness and prudence of Vatican II.

“[Buddhism] teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination .”

That is, in fact, the teaching of Buddhism. It seems accurately represented.

It would probably help clarify your confusion if you read the rest of the paragraph:

Thank you. When some switches from quotes to paraphrasing other parts, it is a good indicator that something misleading is going on. The operative word in that section is “may.”

I do think we should be slow to judge those on both the right and the left, the traditional and the progressive, that pick and choose what they want to believe from Church teaching, and what they reject. We all do this to some extent. It is a hard thing to assent to something with which you do not agree. We are quite clever at justifying dissent from various levels of Church doctrine. I have one area that took me years to work through, just to get to 99% agreement. However, even that would not have been possible without the willingness to a kind of assent of the will, if not the mind.

 

[Crusader13]

Feel free to be irritated by my reasoning.

Irritated, no. We just apply your reasoning of

“The operative word here is “opinion”.

It’s your opinion. Can’t get irritated every time someone has incorrect point of view. These discussions are meant to be fruitful and done in charity.

Pretending that the Church does not “really” teach what it clearly teaches is not bravery, it is the opposite, and it is deeply disingenuous.

Exactly! Like pretending that Vatican II says there are privileged and non privileged ways to Heaven and other religions can be salvific and hell is empty.

Not implying that you think that, but I’m glad that we agree that a person shouldn’t pretend that the Church teaches something that it never did before and certainly doesn’t now.

We should start by coming together on what the Church actually teaches, rather than starting on opposite ends of the spectrum and trying to work our way towards the middle.

 

[Genesis315]

The Council itself describes how it is to be received in the preliminary note to Lumen Gentium:

“Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.”

Vatican II deserves the special respect given to the divinely appointed teaching authority. None of its acts are definitively binding, so none can be said to require the absolute assent of faith that, say, certain canons of Trent receive. Likewise, many of its decisions are specifically tied to particular circumstances, many of which radically changed almost immediately thereafter. One could certainly in good faith hold such decisions to be out of date or no longer expedient (or even a bad idea at the time).

Gaudium et Spes, for example, says of itself:

Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind—especially in part two—the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves.

Along those same lines, in the context of explaining Dignitatis Humanae to the voting Fathers, the relator, Bishop de Smedt, said the following of that text:

Our decree, since it is pastoral, tries to treat the present matter especially from the practical point of view and, after the manner of John XXIII…The question is put therefore regarding real man in his real dealings with other men, in contemporary human and civil societies.
…
But I beseech you, Venerable Fathers, not to force the text to speak outside of its historical and doctrinal context, not, in other words, to make the fish swim out of water.

Let our document be studied as it stands. It is not a dogmatic treatise, but a pastoral decree directed to men of our time.

One can certainly argue that much of Vatican II is out of date and new (or older, more proven) pastoral approaches and formulations of doctrine (the substance and meaning remaining the same) should be adopted instead. Methods of ecumenism or interrelegious dialogue, changes to the liturgy, etc. are all reformable and therefore reform can be advocated (with due respect to the divinely constituted hierarchical nature of the Church).

 

[TMC]

We should start by coming together on what the Church actually teaches, rather than starting on opposite ends of the spectrum and trying to work our way towards the middle.

The Church has already done this. The Church actually teaches what Vatican II and the Catechism says the Church teaches. This isn’t hard.

 

[Crusader13]

The Church has already done this. The Church actually teaches what Vatican II and the Catechism says the Church teaches. This isn’t hard.

I realize that. I was talking about us as individuals. And if we’re being honest about this, it has proven difficult, because it’s been over 50 years and we’re still trying to understand VII and how to correctly apply it.

I know you believe it isn’t hard, but even our most brilliant theologians and clergy differ as to what VII teaches.

Let’s take the hermetic of continuity approach that Pope Benedict spoke of. He says we should interpret VII in light of past Church teachings and Traditions. Well, the Church has always and forever taught the importance and necessity of a belief in Jesus Christ for salvation. Hence the continuing need to evangelize and share this truth with other nations and religions.

However, there are those, clergy and laity alike, that believe VII teaches this no longer necessary in every case. Some believe that there are other paths to salvation. And no, I’m not referring to invincible ignorance, which many people like to use as a sort of trump card and they apply it too broadly.

It’s these misunderstandings that need to be corrected.

 

[stpurl]

The problem is that a lot of people will say that Vatican II taught or said things it did not.

Vatican II never said Mass should be all vernacular.
Vatican II never said women should not wear head coverings.
Vatican II never said CITH or to abolish altar rails or to take down statues.
Vatican II never said priests must celebrate facing the people.
Vatican II never said there is no more Friday penance.
Vatican II never said that we are an ‘Easter people’ (once saved, always saved).
Vatican II never said that the TLM was abrogated.
Vatican II never said that the Church in the past 1900 plus years prior was full of error and that all its old teachings should be modernized.
There was no “Spirit of Vatican II”.

So when you say “The Church actually teaches what Vatican II and the catechism say” . . You need to be sure that Vatican II actually said what you think it said. Because Vatican II was pastoral. So in fact, it did continue to teach some of what the Church taught. It didn’t teach ALL of what the Church has taught, but it wasn’t brought for that purpose (the Church already teaches ‘all’ through Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium). And what it did teach may, in the cases where there appeared to be a clarification and deeper understanding of previous teaching, can at ANY TIME itself be more deeply understood. IOW, what was understood at the time of Vatican II is not the ‘be-all and end-all’ understanding. Further, as it was a pastoral council (and specifically stated as such), even if there were definitive pronouncements on matters of faith and morals, they would not fall under the provenance of infallibility and IF some of them were a good faith but not correct interpretation and are later corrected, it doesn’t mean that the Church ‘taught wrongly’ but rather that at a certain historical time there were errors which were not ‘official’. Kind of like the Arian situation about 1600 years ago when that incorrect position took hold of virtually all the Eastern and much of the Western Church’s HIERARCHY but was corrected by the efforts of the laity under St. Athanasius and St. Augustine.

So if there were any errors in Vatican II, and even if most of the hierarchy agreed, and even most of the laity, if there ARE errors they will in due course be corrected, again without the Church ever OFFICIALLY teaching error.

 

[27lw]

To over-simplify the blog post, after reading it, my impression is that it said, “some councils are ineffective, like Lateran V”.
So probably we need a version of Trent to fix the deficiencies of Vatican II?

 

[TMC]

It’s these misunderstandings that need to be corrected.

I disagree with your summation of the issue. There are, of course, nuances and difficulties in the Church’s teaching. That was true 2,000 years ago, and 100 years ago, and will be true in the future. But most of what I see said online about VII and the supposed “confusion” is over issues that are not truly confusing. The real issue is that those who claim to be confused are merely disagreeing, but not willing to simply say, “look, I disagree with this particular Church teaching.” That is what I mean when I say it is disingenuous (at best) to try to cloak dissent as confusion. Those that dissent from the Church’s teaching should just say so and get on with it. Pretending that VII is confusing, or not binding, or has been somehow misapplied are all just deflections so that those that dissent from the Church’s teachings can say they are the only ones not “really” in dissent because they know what the Church “really” teaches while the Church itself, and its leaders, do not “really” know the Church’s own teachings.

In short, those that disagree should just own their own beliefs and say so, instead of trying to confuse and mislead others into thinking the Church teaches other than it does, just so they can hold themselves out as not in dissent (when they clearly are).

 

[StudentMI]

Pope Benedict’s comments regarding the misapplication of Vatican II kind of disproves your thesis.

What’s more, I believe Brian Harrison has the best explanation of why Vatican II doesn’t conflict with past Church teaching on religious liberty. But look at a typical essay of his proving it. If you need that much space to explain, something’s off.

 

[TMC]

Pope Benedict’s comments regarding the misapplication of Vatican II kind of disproves your thesis.

What’s more, I believe Brian Harrison has the best explanation of why Vatican II doesn’t conflict with past Church teaching on religious liberty. But look at a typical essay of his proving it. If you need that much space to explain, something’s off.

No, it doesn’t. Pope Benedict never said that Vatican II is not binding, or that Catholics are free to disregard it. In fact, he said the opposite. ALL Church teachings have edges and nuances that can be noodled over and talked through. That is NOT what we are seeing from those that dissent from Vatican II.

 

[Crusader13]

In short, those that disagree should just own their own beliefs and say so, instead of trying to confuse and mislead others into thinking the Church teaches other than it does, just so they can hold themselves out as not in dissent (when they clearly are).

Agreed. But why is it that only those you disagree with are the ones who are dissenting?!

You’re just making broad generalizations about those who are primarily traditional, because it’s usually those on the traditional side that you view as dissenting from VII.

The problem is that there is a clear hermeneutic of continuity with regards to what the Church has always taught. That’s why we are constantly told to view VII in light of those teachings.

You want to make a case that those who are critical of the ambiguous language of VII are dissenters; then let’s compare which group is most in line with what the Church has consistently taught. That’s how we solve this issue.

Unfortunately, there are those who don’t see this as the real issue. Because to them it doesn’t matter what the Church used to teach, because in their eyes, VII teaches something new and the Church today is embracing that new understanding. Those whom you call dissenters, are only dissenting from that false belief.

 

[TMC]

Agreed. But why is it that only those you disagree with are the ones who are dissenting?!

Oh, I never said that. There are plenty of folks in dissent from the Church’s teaching. In fact, I have met very few people who actually agree with EVERYTHING the Church teaches. I disagree with some things the Church teaches, but I don’t respond to my disagreement by pretending the Church actually teaches what I wised it did, and worse, by trying to convince others of the same.

I do believe that the pheonomena of dealing with disagreements with the Church by merely pretending that the Church “really” teaches what one wishes it did is primarily (not solely, but primarily) an issue on the traditionalist side. You sometimes see it on the progressive side, but it has become part of the “traditionalist” identity to claim that only they “really” understand what the Church teaches.

 

[Dovekin]

Let’s take the hermetic of continuity approach that Pope Benedict spoke of. He says we should interpret VII in light of past Church teachings and Traditions.

The issues that arise when we look at the Church after Vatican II can be quite complicated. Following is what Pope Benedict said about a hermeneutic of continuity, that the postconciliar liturgical renewal was beneficial and valid, “whose riches are yet to be fully explored.” Do you think this is what 1Pt5 was trying to say with its talk about failed councils and outdated initiatives? Is it even what you mean, when you cite Pope Benedict’s words?

The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities.(6)
Footnote 6. I am referring here to the need for a hermeneutic of continuity also with regard to the correct interpretation of the liturgical development which followed the Second Vatican Council: cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Curia (22 December 2005): AAS 98 (2006), 44-45.
Benedict XVI. Sacramentum Caritatis 3

 

[Genesis315]

What’s more, I believe Brian Harrison has the best explanation of why Vatican II doesn’t conflict with past Church teaching on religious liberty. But look at a typical essay of his proving it. If you need that much space to explain, something’s off.

I like Fr. Harrison’s works and agree with the substance of his articles on this topic, but he makes it way too complicated and omits the very paragraph from the CCC that concisely sums up his entire argument (and makes it much stronger on the point of public order): CCC 2109 (in one of his essays, he actually quotes CCC 2108 and mislabels it 2109). His whole argument is summed up simply in the following CCC paragraph:

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3.
40 Dignitatis Humanae 7 # 3.

Granted, Dignitatis Humanae 7 is a bit vague on this point, which is where the issues arise, but the CCC provides the needed clarification (especially in light of the accompanying footnotes).

Below is another brief explanation, but first the context: There was a line in an early draft of DH that had some problematic language about no coercion being able to be exercised against an erring conscience. Cardinal Wojtyła (future Pope John Paul II) objected to this with the true doctrine. The draft was amended accordingly (as I mentioned, DH is not the clearest and uses less traditional terminology, but JPII ensured the catechism made the point better in CCC 2109).

Cardinal Wojtyla

No human being or human power has the right to use coercion on a person who has come to an erroneous conclusion, if this conclusion is not itself opposed either to the common good, or to another’s good, or to the good of the person in error. If it is, in fact, opposed to one or more of these, then certainly legitimate superiors, such as parents or those responsible for the common good, can exercise a kind of coercion on the one in error, lest by following his error he cause proportionately grave evil either to others or to himself (AS III/3, 768).

Of course, a key element is understanding what is meant by the common good. It cannot be the “naturalist” conception of the 19th century liberals, but must also include man’s supernatural good and end (see CCC 2244 and 1924-1925).

 

[pnewton]

Further, as it was a pastoral council (and specifically stated as such), even if there were definitive pronouncements on matters of faith and morals, they would not fall under the provenance of infallibility

Since when did pastoral and doctrinal, or even infallible doctrine, become mutually exclusive? I have heard this argument constantly from those looking for a reason to dissent from this or that. Doctrine, even infallibly defined doctrine can be quite pastoral. The Church meeting in ecumenical council is still the Church meeting in ecumenical council whether the purpose be practical or academic.

I think there must be an unstated and unsubstantiated premise that pastoral and doctrinal are exclusive. Otherwise, the argument that such and such is pastoral is meaningless.

 

[pnewton]

I do find it ironic, and maybe disingenuous the way the author uses Pope Benedict to lend credence to dissent. He took a harder line than Pope Francis against the SSPX over dissent from Vatican II.

 

[Crusader13]

You sometimes see it on the progressive side, but it has become part of the “traditionalist” identity to claim that only they “really” understand what the Church teaches.

Fair enough, I can see your point on that matter. And when there is such talk between two opposing parties/points of view, there is almost always an appeal to the Church’s teachings and Traditions to see who is correct.

For example, if Bp. Barron is correct in his comment about there being a privileged route to Heaven and a non privileged route, is this a teaching that has always been taught by the Church or is it something new? In all fairness to the Bishop he did in fact say, “Vatican II teaches…”. There wasn’t an appeal to anything beyond VII.

With that in mind, there were many on the traditional side who criticized the Bishop for his words. This created a firestorm of debate about who was correct.

On CAF alone, there were people attacking men like Dr. Marshall, who was very outspoken against Bp. Barron, but the question remained; are there two routes to Heaven and does VII actually teach that?

I don’t have an axe to grind against you @TMC, but I do believe that the language used in certain VII documents has lead to these types of issues and misunderstandings.

Other people will emphatically say “yes, that’s what VII teaches.” And others will piggyback on that sentiment by saying “it doesn’t matter if the Church never taught that, it teaches it now.”

But, is it truly the Church and Vatican II that teaches that or is it merely the views of some laity and some prominent clergy members?

 

[Crusader13]

Do you think this is what 1Pt5 was trying to say with its talk about failed councils and outdated initiatives? Is it even what you mean, when you cite Pope Benedict’s words?

With regards to the article, I think Timothy Flanders was trying to say that Lateran V didn’t fully address the issues that were prevailing at that time. Not that the council was invalid or necessarily in error, but merely inadequate. If that’s not too harsh a word.

In reference to VII, the issues become more complicated, as you said, because the schools of thought are vast and people have different ideas as to what they believe the council set out to do.

Some believe the council had good intentions but with negative outcomes. Other believe it had negative intentions with negative outcomes and still others believe it had positive intentions with positive outcomes.

I guess it depends on your point of view.

 

[StudentMI]

No, it doesn’t. Pope Benedict never said that Vatican II is not binding, or that Catholics are free to disregard it. In fact, he said the opposite. ALL Church teachings have edges and nuances that can be noodled over and talked through. That is NOT what we are seeing from those that dissent from Vatican II.

That doesn’t really address my point. You spoke of those who say the Council has been misapplied. Benedict XVI basically said it was. The hermeneutic of continuity and the main book espousing it (praised by Benedict and Francis) say it was. But you paint those who say so as being disingenuous and really just disagreeing with the Church. I’m confused.