Are Catholics Bound to Assent to Vatican II?

[TMC]

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.

I don’t have an axe either, and I believe its up to each person to believe as they think is correct - not my fight. My beef is with those that tell others, often folks seeking to learn the faith, that the Church teaches something it does not. That is why you will often see me chime in on threads on various topics with links to official Church documents - so that people can see for themselves. Its also why you don’t often see me say what I believe (which sometimes is at odds with the Church). I am not hear to sway people to my viewpoints (well, not usually).

As to VII, I don’t find the VII documents to be different in clarity or accessibility than other similar Church documents. I think that people are struggling to agree, or struggling to make the documents say something they do not, rather than struggling to understand. That may be my own prejudices, however.

 

[TMC]

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.

You are not confused, you are advocating a position, but we both know that.

I think that Benedict pointed out that there are some confusions on the margins about some parts of the councilar documents, which has been true of every council . Some have pounced on that to claim that VII is somehow not valid, or that the current Church teaching (which is captured in the Catechism) misapplied VII in someway. Anyone who actually followed what Pope Benedict actually said and did knows that is ridiculous. I mean, he wrote the Catechism. Are we to believe he did not understand or agree with what he wrote?

 

[StudentMI]

You are not confused, you are advocating a position, but we both know that.

Can you please not assume my intentions?

I did not mention the Catechism nor say the Council was illegitimate.

I’m curious, have you read the book Benedict and Francis praised?

 

[TMC]

So what is your point? If the teaching of Vatican II is valid, and the Catechism, which reflects and includes that teaching, is also valid, what from Vatican II do you find troubling or confusing?

 

[StudentMI]

I found your point confusing. You lumped in those who say the Council wasn’t applied correctly with those who say it was illegitimate.

 

[TMC]

I found your point confusing. You lumped in those who say the Council wasn’t applied correctly with those who say it was illegitimate.

I think that most of those that say the Council wasn’t “applied” correctly are using that as a rhetorical point to say that they disagree with the teaching of the Council, which is why I tend to lump them together. But let’s proceed as if those are separate things.

My point is that the Council was applied in the teachings of the Catechism, which you appear to accept (although you haven’t really said that, I guess). In what way was the Council “applied” that you find problematic or confusing?

 

[StudentMI]

In what way was the Council “applied” that you find problematic or confusing?

Applied by the Magisterium? None, nor the Church as a whole. However by local dioceses and figures of the Church? Absolutely.

I found it interesting reading Iota Unum that most of the criticisms were levelled at local arms of the Church as opposed to the Church as a whole.

 

[TMC]

Applied by the Magisterium? None, nor the Church as a whole. However by local dioceses and figures of the Church? Absolutely.

Well, sure. But this is not really a criticism of the Council. Parishes and Diocese go off the reservation sometimes, that is not the fault of the Council.

 

[StudentMI]

I would say it was the fruit of the Council indirectly by those who did not stick to the documents as they were written. The documents can be faulted however for at times being worded oddly (subsists in being explained by the CDF in the 80s for example).

Interestingly one prominent figure at the Council even admitted to slipping in avenues which could be exploited in the future.

 

[Crusader13]

My beef is with those that tell others, often folks seeking to learn the faith, that the Church teaches something it does not.

Yes I agree wholeheartedly! I think you and I and are at least agreeing in principle about this issue.

Because teaching incorrect truths happens on both sides of the aisle.

Like you, I try, to comment only on issues of Church teaching and doctrines. Not the character debates that usually pop up.

So when someone posts “my priest sat in on one of our RCIA classes and he says that a devout belief in God is all ones needs to attain Heaven.” And he said this because Pope Francis said that “God wills the plurality of religions. I know that’s seriously problematic and not at all what the Church teaches.

I think that people are struggling to agree, or struggling to make the documents say something they do not, rather than struggling to understand. That may be my own prejudices, however.

This goes right into the entire issue. Some people are trying to make the documents say things that they do not.

Which is why I used the example of Bp. Barron’s comments. Does VII actually say what he claims it says? If others say yes, then we have a problem, because I would suggest that they do not say that.

And if the documents are so vague and ambiguous that someone is lead to believe this error; then the documents need to be clarified and corrected.

 

[StudentMI]

The only thing Christians are " Bound to Assent " are Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Not laws that the Church Creates for its own self interests.

I find that offensive towards the Church. As Catholics we are to obey and assent where required to Church authority.

 

[stpurl]

Would you be surprised, Lucia, that Vatican II —which concluded in 1965 BTW, did not ever stop Mass in Latin, that it called for the use of Latin in every Latin rite Mass, including the OF, that it had nothing to do with chapel veils, that the priest’s back is not ‘turned to you’ NOR did Vatican II ever mandate the priest facing you, and it also had nothing to do with communion in the hand?

TMC and others, Lucia’s post is an excellent example of what people think Vatican II was all about —and proves that the majority of people do not in fact know much of anything that Vatican II actually taught.

 

[commenter]

'multiple voices were raised in warning about the effects of Vatican II and the gravity of the storm of sexual revolution, most of all Our Lady herself at Fatima, but these warnings were ignored or literally silenced and mocked by the majority faction at Vatican II"

Our Lady warned against the effects of V2?

One nonsense sentence like this can undo the good of a dozen faithful explanations about Fatima.

 

[commenter]

OnePeterFive is not affiliated with the Catholic Church. It’s a non denominational website.

 

[Crusader13]

The only thing Christians are " Bound to Assent " are Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Not laws that the Church Creates for its own self interests.

That point of view is problematic on numerous fronts. Without derailing this thread into numerous discussions, Protestantism and its numerous Denominations are the direct result of such a belief.

If you believe that Paul was correct when he said in Ephesians 4

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4:4-6

Then there can’t be several competing denominations and faiths, each expressing their own views on what Scripture and Jesus actually mean.

 

[pnewton]

, it should have been stated differently.

It was. You answered a twisted form of the question. You said:

, so nothing I said is going to send me to hell not matter how hard anyone tries to twist

Yet you answered:

The only thing Christians are " Bound to Assent " are Jesus Christ and the Trinity.

to the question:
Are Catholics Bound to Assent to Vatican II?

There is twisting going on, if by that you mean dishonest misrepresentation.

 

[commenter]

And if the documents are so vague and ambiguous

Are the documents themselves inherently vague and ambiguous? Or are they painted this way by a concerted effort?

 

[Crusader13]

Crusader13:

And if the documents are so vague and ambiguous

Are the documents themselves inherently vague and ambiguous? Or are they painted this way by a concerted effort?

I would say the documents themselves are vague. Do they really teach that there is a privileged and a non privileged route to Heaven, as Bp. Barron claimed?

I don’t think such a teaching is explicitly or even implicitly taught in the documents. But the arguments are usually phrased in a way that suggests, they could technically be interpreted that way, because the documents aren’t really that clear.

And therein lies the problem.

 

[TMC]

What do you claim is unclear? The documents do not say anything about a “non privileged route to heaven,” at least not that I can recall.

 

[Dovekin]

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.

@Genesis315 provided his quote from Lumen Gentium on how the document was to be received. It lays out two ways of responding to the Council: 1) as binding; and 2) by accepting and embracing. There is no option 3) by correcting its errors. Nor 3) dismissing it as outdated or insufficient.

The proper response to our question is “Catholics are not bound to accept Vatican II; they freely accept and embrace the Church’s teaching.”