Are you required to accept the Second Vatican Council?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Askmea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
On religious liberty, my understanding is Vatican II says each person solely determines their “conscience” and that one is bound to follow their “conscience” in religious matters.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...t-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

What if my “conscience” tell me its ok to reject Christ? That’s the issue.

From this it leads to ambiguity for things like Amazon Synod where pagan idol worship of pachamama is tolerated, even celebrated. They’re following their “conscience” on religious matters!
 
Last edited:
The Amazon synod is relevant how? Do you accept Pope Francis as Pope or not?
 
Wow. There is supposedly great freaking out across the land because of an alleged incident which I looked into thoroughly. I 100% believe Pope Francis when he says no idolotry was involved.
 
gama232 said:
Wow. There is supposedly great freaking out across the land because of an alleged incident which I looked into thoroughly.
Click to expand...
Well I didn’t realize you’d looked into it thoroughly. Withdrawn.
 
Could you give a specific quote from DH to support your understanding?
 
On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3) The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.
Click to expand...
 
I encourage you to read Benedict XVI’s 2005 Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia. He describes two hermeneutics, of discontinuity and of reform:
On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform”, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.
Click to expand...
He does not mention a hermeneutic of continuity until a later document, and then only to support what is now called the Ordinary Form. Both hermeneutics, of discontinuity and of reform, include ruptures. This should answer your questions about Murray et al. who helpfully offer a vision of reform, while others offer only rupture. He even offers a brilliant example that explains religious liberty, and incidentally rebuts your complaint about no explanation of these hermeneutics.

If the things you have written are really your complaints, you should be pleased by the clarity of what he said. It is very different from what is often said by people following the “spirit of continuity.”
 
Last edited:
This quote is grossly taken out of context.

When speaking of defining and declaring, the Church is always very specific in it’s meaning. Solemn definition and declaration specifically refers to dogma and doctrine. Vatican II was not a dogmatic council. It never solemnly defined and declared any doctrine or dogma. This is what Abp. Pozzo was speaking of, not general terms of the binding nature of the Council’s declaration. He is saying that the Council never added to the deposit of dogma. This has nothing to do with regulations with no theological note. He explicitly states this in the article you posted.
The secretary for the Unity of Christians said on 18 November 1964 in the Council Hall about Nostra Aetate : “As to the character of the declaration, the secretariat does not want to write a dogmatic declaration on non-Christian religions, but, rather, practical and pastoral norms.” Nostrae Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority, and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognize this declaration as being dogmatic. This declaration can only be understood in the light of tradition and of the continuous Magisterium.
Click to expand...
In the context of your quote, he specifically speaking of theological notes, not regulation and instructions. He specifically addressed the authority of the documents of Vatican II:
This is certainly not a [later] conclusion on our part, but it was already clear at the time of the Council. The General Secretary of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici, declared on 16 November 1964: “This holy synod defines only that as being binding for the Church what it declares explicitly to be such with regard to Faith and Morals.” Only those texts assessed by the Council Fathers as being binding are to be accepted as such. That has not been [later] invented by “the Vatican,” but it is written in the official files themselves.
Click to expand...
Those documents which he speaks of are the 16 officially promulgated documents of Vatican II. They were officially promulgated as Constitutions, Decrees, and Declarations. They hold the weight of authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium. These are the documents which you claim that SSPX only believes 95% of. When a council proclaims a document, it proclaims it in it’s entirety, not in the sense that, “well, this part is authoritative, but this part isn’t”. The contents may have different dogmatic weight, but they are bound in their entirety in the extraordinary magisterium.
 
Yes, I wholeheartedly acknowledge the legitimacy of that statement.

I think our differing opinions stem from a common misconception regarding the realms of infallibility and authority.

I totally agree with you that a healthy approach to the documents are:

There was no infallible statements in Vatican II. There were no dogmatic or doctrinal declarations which must be believed to be Catholic. Thus it is perfectly fine to ask questions and seek understanding in an open dialogue. This, however, doesn’t mean that there are parts of the Council that we don’t need to obey. Infallibility is always regarding faith and morals. It requires a positive assent of faith. Infallibility, however, always flows from a higher source. The teachings themselves are only infallible because they have been solemnly defined and declared using the authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium.

This exercise of authority is done through an ecumenical council approved by the Pope, the head of the college of Bishops in union with his brother bishops (technically this can be done by someone other than the Pope if he delegates someone as the proxy head of the college or if the camerlengo and prefect of the college of cardinals enact the power during the interregnum), or the Pope as the Vicar of Christ in ex cathedra statements.

While not infallible, the Council still promulgated the documents of the Council as tradition and pastoral directives with the same extraordinary magisterial authority that make infallible declarations of dogma infallible.

Thus, while you don’t necessarily need to understand or even believe every word written in the Council since it is not dogmatic or infallible, we still must accept and obey the documents in obedience to the Extraordinary Magisterial authority being exercised.

My point was that you don’t necessarily need to believe in it but we still need to follow it.

Up to this point, I have been understanding your 95% comment as: “We believe 95% of what the Council said. The other 5% we aren’t so sure on isn’t dogmatic and infallible so we don’t have to necessarily follow it.”

This is the concept I have been arguing against. I apologize if I have misunderstood something along the way.
 
Last edited:
The following are examples of what I called “complaints.” If you are fine with these things, hat is ok with me. They just read like complaints, requests for corrections, etc. As I said, Benedict XVI 2005 address to the curia addresses these issues clearly and concisely. Whether they are complaints or not, the issues you raised have been addressed.
 
Aquinas11 said:
On religious liberty, my understanding is Vatican II says each person solely determines their “conscience” and that one is bound to follow their “conscience” in religious matters.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...t-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

What if my “conscience” tell me its ok to reject Christ? That’s the issue.

From this it leads to ambiguity for things like Amazon Synod where pagan idol worship of pachamama is tolerated, even celebrated. They’re following their “conscience” on religious matters!
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that we’re supposed to follow our properly formed conscience. This means we need to be properly catechized and that would dismiss the possibility of claiming that, as a Catholic, it’s okay to reject Christ.
[1783] Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

[1784] The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

[1785] In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
 
gracepoole said:
This means we need to be properly catechized
Click to expand...
No see the Vatican II language above, one can’t be compelled to act contrary to ones “conscience“. Thus if ones “conscience“ tells them it’s ok to reject Christ, telling them they “need to be properly catechized” contradicts that mandate
 
Aquinas11 said:
40.png
gracepoole:
This means we need to be properly catechized
Click to expand...
No see the Vatican II language above, one can’t be compelled to act contrary to ones “conscience“. Thus if ones “conscience“ tells them it’s ok to reject Christ, telling them they “need to be properly catechized” contradicts that mandate
Click to expand...
Nor should one be compelled to act contrary to one’s conscience. But the CCC explains clearly that one’s conscience must be properly formed. And this teaching comes from Dignitatis Humanae, as well, so it is not contradicted but is simply another portion of the same magisterial document that you’re referencing:
In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...t-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

(**note the citation in DH which references a radio message from Pius XII who expressed this idea)
 
gracepoole said:
In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church
Click to expand...
“ought carefully to attend to” still means that in forming ones conscience they are free to not attend to it (ought is not a must) or reject the teaching after “carefully attending to” it.
To suggest otherwise (that ones conscience is compelled to accept the teaching) violates the mandate about compulsion.
At best the language is ambiguous and at worst contradictory.
 
Last edited:
So how do you know where you are going , Aquinas?
Where is the North?
Interesting tension…

Library : Pope Benedict XVI on Conscience

Pope Benedict XVI on Conscience In this essay Fr. Vincent Twomey, SVD, a former student of Joseph Ratzinger, examines the central role conscience has played in the life and writings of Pope Benedict XVI.
www.catholicculture.org www.catholicculture.org
 
Last edited:
Aquinas11 said:
What if my “conscience” tell me its ok to reject Christ? That’s the issue.
Click to expand...
Conscience is the only witness, since what takes place in the heart of the person is hidden from the eyes of everyone outside. Conscience makes its witness known only to the person himself. And, in turn, only the person himself knows what his own response is to the voice of conscience.
John Paul II. Veritatis Splendor 57
Click to expand...
Conscience is deeply personal, as this quote attests, but it is also where we meet God, so it is not purely individual. God is present, which makes the judgment an obligation. Conscience must be obeyed, even when it is wrong.

That is what creates the situation you are raising. It is a problem that can only be met by encouraging a deeper relationship with God with a more sure recognition of the Divine Will. Even if one has a book that specified the proper response to every situation, the decision to follow that book is a decision of conscience; such a decision would be a decision against God in your conscience and in favor of having someone else decide, which we call slavery.

If you have a more correct alternative, many would be glad to hear it.
 
Conscience must be obeyed even when it’s wrong? That makes no sense.
 
Aquinas11 said:
40.png
gracepoole:
In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church
Click to expand...
“ought carefully to attend to” still means that in forming ones conscience they are free to not attend to it (ought is not a must) or reject the teaching after “carefully attending to” it.
To suggest otherwise (that ones conscience is compelled to accept the teaching) violates the mandate about compulsion.
At best the language is ambiguous and at worst contradictory.
Click to expand...
I would caution that the word “ought” refers to one’s duty. It is a Catholic’s duty to properly form her conscience. DH does not posit, as you seem to claim, that an improperly formed conscience is acceptable to follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top