Are Catholics Bound to Assent to Vatican II?

[commenter]

commenter:

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.

I wonder if the documents of Trent are inherently clearer. Have you read any of them? I have been meaning to, but…
My hunch is that 99 percent of practicing 1950s Catholics could not have named the titles of any of those documents, let alone interpretations of the wording this or that document.

I’ve read a fair number of pre V2 books designed for informed laity and Religious. I don’t recall quoting or analysis of the specific Trent docs.

The V2 documents have been analyzed and interpreted in the public forum, for a mass audience, 200 times as much as Trent ever was. If lots of kids stir up muddy water in puddle B, and nobody touches puddle A, some traditionalist will sell books proving how puddle B is inherently murky and unclear compared with pristine, clear, organic puddle A.

 

[stpurl]

I don’t think the term ‘non denominational’ is correct. I think you might say it is not affiliated with an official Catholic organization, but ‘non denominational sounds like it’s run by evangelical Christians or something.

After all, sites like “The Catholic Thing’ (run by Robert Royal, who is a Catholic author) with contributions by other Catholic authors, is very similar to “One Peter Five’. And both often have excellent articles.

 

[commenter]

I don’t think the term ‘non denominational’ is correct. I think you might say it is not affiliated with an official Catholic organization, but ‘non denominational sounds like it’s run by evangelical Christians or something.

Your Diocesan newspaper is directly sponsored by the Church. EWTN is independent but in union with their local bishop. This is the two kinds of Catholic media.

1p5 is not in union with the Catholic Church, nor with any denomination. It could have good articles, that’s a matter of opinion. (Focus on the Family has good articles too). But it is not an independent ministry in union with the Church, like Catholic Answers, for instance.
If 1p5 is not a Catholic ministry, non denominational seems fair.

 

[MarkRome]

Are Catholics Bound to Assent to Vatican II?

Yes, of course. Don’t be a cafeteria Catholic.
And stay away from OnePeterFive.

 

[Crusader13]

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.

That’s what I was trying to say. The point I was making in using that example was that Bp. Barron stated, when asked by Ben Shapiro about being Jewish and whether or not he was screwed in regards to entering Heaven, he replied, “The Catholic view, go back to the second Vatican council, it says it very clearly. Christ is the privileged route to Salvation…”

I don’t find that stated very clearly in any VII documents.

 

[stpurl]

With respect again, non denominational is most often understood as a Protestant term. Would you call “The Catholic Thing” non denominational?

 

[Crusader13]

I wonder if the documents of Trent are inherently clearer. Have you read any of them? I have been meaning to, but…
My hunch is that 99 percent of practicing 1950s Catholics could not have named the titles of any of those documents, let alone interpretations of the wording this or that document.

I’ve read a fair number of pre V2 books designed for informed laity and Religious. I don’t recall quoting or analysis of the specific Trent docs.

The V2 documents have been analyzed and interpreted in the public forum, for a mass audience, 200 times as much as Trent ever was. If lots of kids stir up muddy water in puddle B, and nobody touches puddle A, some traditionalist will sell books proving how puddle B is inherently murky and unclear compared with pristine, clear, organic puddle A.

Like you I’ve only read a few, but mostly through commentaries and other books about Trent.

I don’t mean to imply disdain in your words, but your description seems too nonchalant and dismissive of the real issues.

There are numerous stories of Catholics being given incorrect teachings with regards to proper Church catechesis.

In Dr. Scott Hahn’s own conversion story, he mentions an exchange he had with a priest at the time he was considering converting.

In his story the priest, he called Father Mike, says in reply “No, ever since Vatican II we discourage that sort of thing. The best thing you can do is to remain a Presbyterian minister.”

I find it highly unlikely that this one example is unique only to one man. There are probably countless stories from numerous Catholics, who shared similar experiences.

And it wasn’t merely to muddy the waters.

 

[commenter]

I’m not too familiar with the Catholic Thing. Just because other sites are unaffiliated doesn’t mean they are.

If non denominational doesn’t appeal to you, I won’t use it to refer to 1p5.

 

[pnewton]

They don’t. Just look at the example above, where the quote about what Buddhism is was spun into some sort of endorsement. Of course, “paraphrasing” was needed because the documents themselves do not endorse Buddhism.

 

[ioannes_pius]

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.

Do you assent to Christ’s words, “Whoever listens to you [the Disciples] listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)?

 

[Crusader13]

They don’t. Just look at the example above, where the quote about what Buddhism is was spun into some sort of endorsement. Of course, “paraphrasing” was needed because the documents themselves do not endorse Buddhism.

Perhaps you don’t endorse Buddhism but others misunderstand that passage and believe that it is an endorsement.

It would seem that on a fundamental level, we agree that VII does not teach things contrary to Church teaching. Yet, some people, use VII to teach things contrary to Catholic teaching.

When these errors are mentioned, the argument shifts from the error in question, to an assessment on why we are even talking about said error.

In a sense, it’s no longer a discussion on why this an error, but what’s your true motive for calling this an error.

 

[StudentMI]

Yes, of course. Don’t be a cafeteria Catholic.
And stay away from OnePeterFive.

I was presenting an article, not asking. I don’t think you read it.

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps you don’t endorse Buddhism but…

I think this says everything that needs to be said.

 

[Crusader13]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Ummm. Yeah. I’m done. lol

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

However, it does not say that these religions are salvific. There is no truth of salvation in these other religions.

I agree. However, statement above asserts one can achieve supreme illumination or perfect liberation by their own efforts.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Of course, “paraphrasing” was needed because the documents themselves do not endorse Buddhism.

Full quote is this:

"Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it 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. "

I was not paraphrasing, I literally just removed unnecessary parts of the sentence. It does say that Buddhism teaches way by which one may attain, by their own efforts, supreme illumination or perfect liberation. From logical perspective this is it. Of course it is unlikely that Council Fathers meant to say this but language is unfortunate and even incorrect.

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.

During Council of Constance, document Haec Sancta was released. It basically said that Popes < Councils. It was later rejected by subsequent Popes. Council of Chalcedon had canon that put Constantinople over other Eastern Patriarchates- Popes have rejected that. Even Ecumenical Councils can contain errors but thanks to infallibility of the Church those errors never get declared to be True by Papacy. Nostra Aetate has never been declared to be without error which is why here is no problem and perhaps subsequent Popes could revisit it and fix the confusion it breeds.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

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

Point is Buddhism attempts to teach it. Does it truly teach it though? Very big difference. Every religion attempts to teach Truth. Does every religion truly teach Truth though?

It does not say that there is approach- in fact such language is used for example for Hinduism (“men contemplate the divine mystery” or “They seek freedom”), as in your quote ("Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. "). This everything is about their attempt that falls short of Truth that is found within Catholic Church.

However when it speaks about Buddhism it uses different language. It says “it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able …”. Perhaps it is just sad choice of words, but it does explicitly say that Buddhism not only attempts for those things but it actually teaches a way by which men may do them.

 

[pnewton]

That phrase not only does say that higher help may come out of Buddhistic practice- that in itself can be interpreted correct way where God can extraordinarily help those outside the Church. However it clearly asserts Pelagianism when it claims one can attain supreme illumination or perfect liberation by their own efforts.

This is the part that was paraphrased and is not in any document. Stating the premise of Buddhism is defining it, not asserting it. I see what you are reading, I just don’t agree. I believe you are reading into it. Obviously you don’t think you are. Oh, well.

Thankfully, this is above my pay grade as a lay Catholic. However, I will always look for the most charitable reading and understanding of all the Church teaches and says.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Quote with emphasis on important parts:

Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it 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.

It uses “either” and “or” meaning one or both statements are true. Language is clear.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I believe you are reading into it. Obviously you don’t think you are. Oh, well.

I do. I think I am reading what document actually says but I am also confident it is not what Vatican Fathers actually meant to teach. What is missing from that statement is solely part where it says that Buddhism claims to teach it or attempts to teach it. If that was in the document (such as it is with Hinduism), there would be no problem. Literally put word “attempts” into that sentence and problem is solved. It is an error in use of language.

Thankfully, this is above my pay grade as a lay Catholic. However, I will always look for the most charitable reading and understanding of all the Church teaches and says.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t claim this invalidates Vatican II or that Church is fallible or that we ought to dissent. As article says, I believe approach of Vatican II (as much as approach of Lateran Council) to be ineffective. Also even if indeed Vatican II would be imprecise or contain incorrect language as I assert it wouldn’t mean much because Vatican II is to be viewed in Light of Tradition. With that we can easily see what Vatican Fathers meant to say.

It is also not infallible as much as canon of Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which puts Constantinople right after Rome is not, as Haec Sancta promulgated by Ecumenical Council of Constance is not and so on… this is not first time document of Ecumenical Council is not infallible. If someone accepted Haec Sancta (again, promulgated by Ecumenical Council of Constance) today, they would be excommunicated.

Also you will find that ordination alone does not make one expert in Church history. Seminarians study it but not as comprehensively… they are not all expert theologians either. Average Priest is better than average layman but we ought to avoid clericalism. Individual layman can exceed Priest in some areas in some cases. I am not claiming to be such layman… far from it, but don’t dismiss something just because it did not come from Priest. Truth is Truth whether Priest or Layman says it and Lie is Lie whether Priest or Layman says it.