Are you required to accept the Second Vatican Council?

[Dovekin]

Conscience must be obeyed even when it’s wrong? That makes no sense.

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.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
Catechism of the Catholic Church

I am just trying to explain what the Church teaches.

 

[gracepoole]

1798 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. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.

 

[Jen95]

What if my well-formed conscience tells me to reject modern liturgical style, whether or not it’s part of Vatican II reforms / documents?

 

[Dovekin]

You have to obey the certain judgment of your conscience, but you are also obliged to form your conscience properly, ie study why you disagree with the Church’s teaching on this.

 

[commenter]

What if my well-formed conscience tells me to reject modern liturgical style, whether or not it’s part of Vatican II reforms / documents?

Conscience isn’t a guide for your overall religious opinions and preferences. It has a specific meaning, and this isn’t it.

But anyway, how does a person know when their own conscience is “well formed”? Probably everyone thinks their conscience is well formed. For a Catholic, the Magisterium is a guide.

 

[Dovekin]

CCC 1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.

Conscience is concerned with particular decisions in particular circumstances. Church teaching cannot tell you what you should do on March 15th at 3 pm, except in the case of universal norms. It can guide you to choose to love your neighbor, not kill, not steal, but it cannot say whether killing Julius Caesar is right or wrong. Conscience alone can decide if the emperor is a tyrant who must be stopped, or a man who has a right to live. After the fact, we can examine if the choice made by the conscience was right, if Brutus should be condemned or lauded, but those are later judgments. At that particular moment, conscience is where God speaks to the individual deciding to act.

Conscience chooses whether to follow the Magisterium, so the Magisterium is a guide. It does not decide what choices are to be made in every circumstance. usually.

 

[ioannes_pius]

A conscience which is in invincible error must still be followed. A conscience which is in vincible error cannot be followed and must be corrected: “Everyone is obliged to follow his conscience whether it commands or forbids some action, not only when it is true but also when it is in invincible error.” (D. Prummer, O.P., Handbook of Moral Theology, TREATISE IV – Conscience – Sensus Fidelium, my emphasis)

 

[gama232]

Error should never be followed. Correction should be given. And ‘invincible error’ applies to rare situations. It is not common. Anyone reading this is aware of the truth. They can choose not to believe it and some do not believe it. But not because of ‘invincible error.’

 

[AlbMagno]

I am not going into the discussion, but I’ll just say that some of the overly-overly-legalistic approach of some of the posters to obedience seem completely un-christian…

 

[ioannes_pius]

I was not trying to make any judgements about how common or uncommon invincibly errant consciences are, not was I trying to excuse following vincibly errant consciences. I was simply trying to say that even if someone’s conscience is in invincible error, they have an obligation to follow it. Nothing more, nothing less. I agree that vincible error should never be followed.

And ‘invincible error’ applies to rare situations. It is not common. Anyone reading this is aware of the truth. They can choose not to believe it and some do not believe it. But not because of ‘invincible error.’

To make statements like this is to intrude on the internal forum, which we cannot do, so I would avoid making them.

 

[gama232]

Please clarify the meaning of “intrude on the internal forum.”

 

[ioannes_pius]

Admittedly I spoke imprecisely. Are you aware of what the internal forum is?

 

[gama232]

No, I missed that.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

For a Catholic, the Magisterium is a guide.

Is it a guide or authoritative and final?

My post pointed out that conscience isn’t really applicable to one’s opinion about V2, or Trent, etc.

 

[JanR]

ConcernedConvert:

This I agree is what most people have issue with. Ambiguity has been outwardly condemned by the Catholic Church due to the chaos it brings.

Then let us be unambiguous.

The Holy Spirit inspired John XXIII to call the Council.

It has been a gift to the Church, calling all people to a relationship with God and Jesus.

Any “mess” that followed the Council is a consequence of our sinful humanity. Some is from entrenched sinfulness that the Spirit is bringing out of the shadows. Some is from our rebellious spirit.

All should listen to the voice of the Council. Accepting its teaching with a religious submission, like that the Church asks of us, is the road to clarity.

I agree. It was the implementation that went awry in some cases, and not anything wrong with the Council, itself.