Are Catholics Bound to Assent to Vatican II?

[StudentMI]

Which is exactly what the article says.

 

[MarkRome]

Great! Right on!

 

[commenter]

I am a traditionalist just as Bishop Robert Barron is a traditionalist.

Unfortunately the word “Traditionalist” has taken on a specific meaning recently. Better to say Bishop Barron is an orthodox Catholic, and as such adheres to Scripture, Tradition, and current Magisterium.

 

[Dovekin]

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.

“by their own efforts OR through higher help”

Why do you neglect this “or”? Doesn’t the option “through higher help” negate the Pelagianism you see? “men may attain, through higher help, supreme illumination” is one of the 4 options suggested by the use of “or”.

I do not see “attempts to teach” as an adequate equivalent. As @pnewton said, this is a summary of what Buddhists teach. It is not what they attempt to teach. The actual statement uses “may be able” to achieve the qualification you want, or what I am guessing you want it to say.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Why do you neglect this “or”? Doesn’t the option “through higher help” negate the Pelagianism you see? “men may attain, through higher help, supreme illumination” is one of the 4 options suggested by the use of “or”.

Technically yes. But it says it is also possible to do it “by their own efforts”. It says that both are possible.

As @pnewton said, this is a summary of what Buddhists teach. It is not what they attempt to teach.

If they teach it, such way must exist. It does claim that Buddhism contains such way to, by our own efforts, achieve supreme illumination.

The actual statement uses “may be able” to achieve the qualification you want, or what I am guessing you want it to say.

Which again indicates possibility. Everything in that statement says that it is actually possible for someone, through what Buddhism teaches, to reach by their own efforts supreme illumination. That is literally the only problem I see with this.

 

[Dovekin]

Nostra Aetate has never been declared to be without error which is why there is no problem and perhaps subsequent Popes could revisit it and fix the confusion it breeds.

Indeed, and that is how Catholics accept and embrace the teaching, as something that may one day be clarified further. The urge to dismiss it as “confusing” is not in line with the Council’s note on how to interpret Lumen Gentium.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Indeed, and that is how Catholics accept and embrace the teaching, as something that may one day be clarified further. The urge to dismiss it as “confusing” is not in line with the Council’s note on how to interpret Lumen Gentium.

Well to be completely precise, Haec Sancta promulgated by Ecumenical Council of Constance is actually purely wrong. It has been denied by subsequent Popes. It basically says that Councils have authority over Popes and so on… so theoretically not only may it one day be clarified further, there is also precedent to document that wasn’t declared authoritative being simply declared false and as erroneous.

 

[MarkRome]

Better to say Bishop Barron is an orthodox Catholic

He called himself a traditionalist Catholic, saying that you can’t be a “traditionalist” and reject Vatican II. But I get what you are saying.

 

[Dovekin]

Technically yes. But it says it is also possible to do it “by their own efforts”. It says that both are possible.

Or means one or both are true, I think you just said. The “or” in by their own efforts or through higher help means one or both are possible. They may teach that both are possible, but they also teach that human effort may be insufficient.

If they teach it, such way must exist. It does claim that Buddhism contains such way to, by our own efforts, achieve supreme illumination.

This is completely outside my worldview, I cannot even understand it. If scientologists teach Dianetics is true, does that mean Dianetics must be true?

Which again indicates possibility. Everything in that statement says that it is actually possible for someone, through what Buddhism teaches, to reach by their own efforts supreme illumination. That is literally the only problem I see with this.

“May be able” indicates possibility. yes! Buddhists teach it may be possible. They could be wrong about that is what I hear from “may be able.” It does not mean the possibility can be realized, but that this is a conjecture about what is possible.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Yes, and by the way, it would be wise to avoid that site. Read Dave Armstrong’s response to them.

 

[Dovekin]

theoretically not only may it one day be clarified further, there is also precedent to document that wasn’t declared authoritative being simply declared false and as erroneous.

But the question is how people should have responded to Haec Sancta, as a teaching from a Council. It had to be accepted, even embraced, even though it had no intrinsic claim yo our obedience. It was false, after all.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t need to read OnePeterFive and I don’t read LifeSiteNews and I don’t need to listen to Taylor Marshall or the Remnant or the Fatima Center or you name it to answer this question.

I too do not like to click on sites I believe are toxic. I read this article, as I am not familiar with this site as being toxic. As stated above, the title has nothing to do with this article, nor did the author take the approach here of claiming any wrong wording. The point of the article is the lack of effectiveness of Vatican II, as we still have modernism, humanism, and secularism every where. Personally I think the opinion fails on two points. First, is the idea that the Catholic Church has gone downhill. Yes, it has done so in places that matter to people that write 1 Peter 5 and post on the internet. However, there are still places that the Church is thriving under Vatican II. Even in the United States, the Catholic Church is one of two Christian denominations that has done the best.

Second, is that it is a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy. Vatican II addresses what was known 60 years ago, mostly on a philosphical level. Twenty-first Century man is a different. Never before could we all discuss this issue together like this. Now, not only do we all have to have an opinion on everything, despite our expertise or ignorance, we also have to put it out to the world.

My only objection to Vatican II is that it did not anticipate the exponential acceleration of change in society. Church councils, especially spanning years, is not as effective as it was, or ever will be again.

 

[Dovekin]

My reaction to 1Pt5 is to think of 1 Peter 5:8:

Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for [someone] to devour.

 

[StudentMI]

Please see the link in this thread. Cardinal Brandmuller responded to Archbishop Schneider’s claim about that.

The “Fake News” of Viganò and Company. Unmasked by a Cardinal Traditional Catholicism

 

[commenter]

I have two K of C coffee mugs. One stays on the living room shelf, in mint condition. The other is in the kitchen, abused and used constantly. It shows signs of wear.

I bet the V2 docs are not more ambiguous, more open to misinterpretation, have any more loose ends than the Trent docs, which have been rarely abused or used in any way for a couple centuries.

Do you think any Council documents in constant use since the 1960s, even if rewritten by Archbishop Lefebvre, would be free of occasional misuse? Is the coffee mug on the shelf, in mint condition, inherently “better” than the one in use?

 

[Maximian]

The problem is that subsistit is a very slippery word. Yes it can mean “exists as a part of something “ and can also mean “exists at the most basic level”. But it can also mean “underlies” “underpins” and has many other shades of meaning. It was a really bad choice of words but it opens the door to the idea that the Catholic Church is somehow part of a wider movement.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

They may teach that both are possible, but they also teach that human effort may be insufficient.

Well while that is true, wording is much clearer there. It says Buddhism in it’s several forms teaches those things… if it did not really teach this “or” statement wouldn’t be needed and only one would be included.

This is completely outside my worldview, I cannot even understand it. If scientologists teach Dianetics is true, does that mean Dianetics must be true?

No, I am simply taken back by wording which says Buddhism actually teaches such way- it does not say Buddhism teaches such way exists (and hence it doesn’t need to) but that it teaches such way.

But the question is how people should have responded to Haec Sancta, as a teaching from a Council. It had to be accepted, even embraced, even though it had no intrinsic claim yo our obedience.

Which is similar with Vatican II.

It was a really bad choice of words but it opens the door to the idea that the Catholic Church is somehow part of a wider movement.

I agree.

Funnily enough, even fact we are having all those discussions clearly shows that ambiguity of those documents poses great problem.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Please see the link in this thread. Cardinal Brandmuller responded to Archbishop Schneider’s claim about that.

I see. Interesting read. However point there was supposed to be that Haec Sancta was never infallible and hence could be rejected later on (and was never accepted by that logic). We also know that even doctrinal pronouncements can be changed if they are not infallible (I remember one Pope teaching that ensoulment happens few weeks after embryo forms but it wasn’t infallible teaching).

Vatican II is not infallible either and it is to be viewed in Light of Tradition- such is the guideline for the Council. If one does not view Vatican II in Light of Tradition, such interpretation is invalid as according to the Council. By that logic if there is anything contrary to Light of Tradition there does not exist any correct interpretation for it making such statement obsolete because anyhow we understand it, it is wrong. It is also important that Council is, according to Paul VI, just re-stating what has been stated before… therefore anything that isn’t such re-statement is not really on the same level either.

When Popes accept the Council they don’t need to accept entire Council (such as with Council of Chalcedon). Pope Paul VI accepted Vatican II under conditions he specified. Therefore if something does not meet them, it isn’t even binding.

About the Florence, I don’t use that example because Church indeed has ability to regulate even validity of Sacraments. First marriages did not need Priests around- you would just need to say the vows and consummate the marriage. However because of abuses, Church regulated validity of Sacraments and now such marriage isn’t just illicit- it is purely invalid.

 

[commenter]

Misconceptions:

• The V2 docs have never been officially clarified.
• If they could be officially clarified now, someone like Bishop Schneider would do the writing and pope would sign.
• Most false teaching and practice would cease, as heretics obey the Clarification.
• No one would demand a new clarification next year that could undo the 2020 clarification.

Reality

The constant agitation for “clarification” is a cash cow for trad websites.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Most false teaching and practice would cease, as heretics obey the Clarification.

Nobody says this. However heresy wouldn’t be practiced under false name “Spirit of Vatican II” but would actually be seen for what it is.

No one would demand a new clarification next year that could undo the 2020 clarification.

Would mean clarification wasn’t good enough honestly.

The V2 docs have never been officially clarified.

Were they? Where?

• If they could be officially clarified now, someone like Bishop Schneider would do the writing and pope would sign.

Hopefully they would be clarified well. Who the author is doesn’t matter.

The constant agitation for “clarification” is a cash cow for trad websites.

That’s true… but also because it is actually needed.