Article on Vatican II, Pastoral Council

[Sirach2]

As late as yesterday, I saw again the misunderstanding being circulated on this forum that Vatican II was merely pastoral. The error keeps circulating, and unfortunately, it has become de jure in the minds of innocent people who read these threads. This teaching refutes the error and is well worth saving to one’s file for future reference.
Proponents of extreme Traditionalism will often take refuge behind the claim that Vatican II was “merely a pastoral council,” therefore it cannot be recognized as an infallible council. “Didn’t the Second Vatican Council, as a merely pastoral council,” they demand, “break with Tradition? Furthermore, what infallible statement did Vatican II promulgate?” These are good questions that deserve good answers. The pastoral nature of the Second Vatican Council is the source of much controversy among many traditionalists. In fact, many traditional Catholics who reconcile with the Church continue to wrestle with this question long after their return to the Church.

“What John XXIII designated by ‘pastoral’ was doctrine,” Cardinal Congar writes, “but expressing itself in history, in the time of the actual world . . . It is doctrinal, but pastoral doctrine, that is to say doctrine that asks to be applied historically”. What Congar means is that, as a pastoral council, the Second Vatican Council sought to apply the Church’s teaching within the context of current history – to make the Church’s doctrine relevant to today’s world.

As we read in Pastor Aeternus, the First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule, and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons . . . Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity . . . are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

In short, Catholic Tradition maintains we must submit to the Roman Pontiff in matters of discipline and governance, which encompass the pastoral application of doctrine, and not merely in faith and morals. As Catholics, we cannot become like Martin Luther, who, at the Diet of Worms, allegedly stated, “I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

Perhaps you should listen to this,

the battle for the ancient Mass.

fssp.com/press/2010/05/audio-the-battle-for-the-ancient-mass/

and also read this

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/09/filipino-archbishop-denounces-terrorist.html

 

[The_Reginator]

Perhaps you should listen to this,

the battle for the ancient Mass.

fssp.com/press/2010/05/audio-the-battle-for-the-ancient-mass/

and also read this

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/09/filipino-archbishop-denounces-terrorist.html

Hey -]wiseguy/-] wisdomseeker,
Thanks for those two links.
They’re great! I may even send one to my parish priest. (It may not be appropriate right now though. )

(Sorry about the ‘wiseguy’ crack – it’s just shorter than your screen name. )

 

[scylla]

What is meant by saying this, what Doctrine did Vatican II promulgate?

I am pretty sure that Vatican II did not pronounce anything new but just merely reiterated the faith that we have always believed. Unless I am mistaken it did reword some statements to see how we can better present the faith in a more pastoral way. This in no way means that anything we believe has changed as truth cannot change, yet we can present it in different ways to help people better understand truth.

There are several misunderstandings of Vatican II which I think some people are trying to fight against and they might employ the method you described of stating that Vatican II was merely a Pastoral Council to illustrate that Vatican II did not change truth of the Faith.
This might not be helpful as it does seem to reject the statements of Vatican II.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Sirach2]

Scilla:

There are several misunderstandings of Vatican II which I think some people are trying to fight against and they might employ the method you described of stating that Vatican II was merely a Pastoral Council to illustrate that Vatican II did not change truth of the Faith.

Hello, Scilla,

Oh how I wish this underlined part was generally true! What prompted me to post this link was the truth that many people promote the idea of “pastoral Council” to oppose authentic documents without any qualms of conscience, in their belief that these need not be given religious assent. Worse yet, these statements may occasion other readers of these posts to believe the error. They even provide excerpts from prior Councils, including Vatican I, as proof they do not have to submit in obedience, but in their haste to be selective and quoting out of context, somehow they overlook this important statement on the Church (also in the link).

As we read in Pastor Aeternus, the First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule, and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons . . . Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity . . . are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

What is very puzzling to me is why does this only occur with traditionalists? What is the mental block that prevented them from rejoicing in the spiritual guidance of the Lord from the hundreds of bishops/Cardinals who voted for and promulgated the V-II documents? I’m just thinking aloud as I have done so often as I scratch my head in disbelief that the Body of Christ is so utterly fractioned between “these” and “those.”

Thank you for your comments.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hello, Scilla,

Oh how I wish this underlined part was generally true! What prompted me to post this link was the truth that many people promote the idea of “pastoral Council” to oppose authentic documents without any qualms of conscience, in their belief that these need not be given religious assent. Worse yet, these statements may occasion other readers of these posts to believe the error. They even provide excerpts from prior Councils, including Vatican I, as proof they do not have to submit in obedience, but in their haste to be selective and quoting out of context, somehow they overlook this important statement on the Church (also in the link).

What is very puzzling to me is why does this only occur with traditionalists? What is the mental block that prevented them from rejoicing in the spiritual guidance of the Lord from the hundreds of bishops/Cardinals who voted for and promulgated the V-II documents? I’m just thinking aloud as I have done so often as I scratch my head in disbelief that the Body of Christ is so utterly fractioned between “these” and “those.”

Thank you for your comments.

what is it that you want the Traditionalist to do? do you want them to join the others and celebrate a modern Mass, with guitar and drums? do you want them to join the groups and teach liberalism? do you want them to join the group and have women walking all over the Sanctuary? do want them to celebrate the Mass in the modern buildings without any beauty whatsoever? do you want them to teach a waterdown Faith? what is it that you want from them? do you want them to also abandon latin and Gregorian Chant like the others?

 

[giuseppeTO]

Hello, Scilla,

Oh how I wish this underlined part was generally true! What prompted me to post this link was the truth that many people promote the idea of “pastoral Council” to oppose authentic documents without any qualms of conscience, in their belief that these need not be given religious assent. Worse yet, these statements may occasion other readers of these posts to believe the error. They even provide excerpts from prior Councils, including Vatican I, as proof they do not have to submit in obedience, but in their haste to be selective and quoting out of context, somehow they overlook this important statement on the Church (also in the link).

What is very puzzling to me is why does this only occur with traditionalists? What is the mental block that prevented them from rejoicing in the spiritual guidance of the Lord from the hundreds of bishops/Cardinals who voted for and promulgated the V-II documents? I’m just thinking aloud as I have done so often as I scratch my head in disbelief that the Body of Christ is so utterly fractioned between “these” and “those.”

Thank you for your comments.

Sirach,

Just a couple of thoughts on your post. I believe the understanding among Traditionalists (and hopefully the entire church) is that The Second Vatican Council defined no new dogma that was previously undefined. Councils typically were called to proclaim a teaching as dogmatic or to address a prevalent heresy. V2 gave us no new beliefs but rather attempted to expound on previously held beliefs in a way befitting a more modern world. So, it was indeed guidance as opposed to new dogma. The failing of the Council documents, where in my opinion they failed, was to take a teaching that specifically had a precise definition as previously recognized in the church, and provide a more diffuse explanation which left the previous understanding either in conflict with the new popular understanding or at least left it open to multiple interpretations by bishops, universities, etc, some consistent with previous teachings and others in seeming conflict. And, after the Council, there was little or no official attempt to officially clarify the ambiguities. Perhaps the weakness of the Council was the fact that its final documents were so constructed as to allow for or require a clarification of its intentions.

The simplest and perhaps most well known example is probably in LG. The church has always taught that the Catholic Church is the only true church and that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. Lumen Gentium proclaims that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. It would have been easier, simpler, and readily understood to use “is” as opposed to “subsists in”. It appears that the document originally used “is” and it was changed to “subsists in”, perhaps leaving room for other faiths comprising the church. At least, that is the argument that progressive elements in the Catholic Church contend.

Your point is well taken that we cannot pick and choose which Councils we follow and which we don’t. We are obliged to accept the teachings of Popes and Councils alike. However, when the popular (Unsanctioned) interpretation of a council document conflicts with what Popes and Councils previously taught, then we must object, discuss, and expect clarification.

 

[Sirach2]

Wisdomseeker,

The questions you raise pertain to liturgy, and not to the topic of this thread, which addresses the error of believing the Vatican II Council was pastoral, and therefore, not subject to one’s obedience and submission.
In viewing occasional posts of yours, I realize you have a lot of deep objections to the liturgy, but it is not the place to discuss or air them in this particular thread.

Incidentally, telling me to view two links without a shred of information as to why I should do so, or what was contained in the link that pertained to this topic, left me rather cold. I did not view them. If I had merely posted a link telling folks to read it, would you have done so? That is not a courtesy that should characterize anyone’s posting, do you agree? It would be helpful if you shared at least a tidbit of what the link pertained to. But in light of your last post, I suspect it was another liturgical example of “us” versus “them,” which I prefer to avoid.

 

[Sirach2]

GuiseppeTO:

And, after the Council, there was little or no official attempt to officially clarify the ambiguities. Perhaps the weakness of the Council was the fact that its final documents were so constructed as to allow for or require a clarification of its intentions.

The Magisterium does not issue additional encyclicals for greater understanding or benefit of the laity. Any clarifications that were necessary have been transmitted to the bishops in official communications, and then passed on to the priests of their dioceses. The only thing we have access to is the wording in the original document posted on an internet link to the Vatican or elsewhere.
This is why we give our submission to the bishops/priests who lead us, as Jesus instructed us (1), for we are not privy to these communications or understanding of how the Church interprets them. That is granted only to those who are ordained for that office of leading the faithful.

However, when the popular (Unsanctioned) interpretation of a council document conflicts with what Popes and Councils previously taught, then we must object, discuss, and expect clarification.

Do you propose we act as Luther did with a formal protest or rebellion? Never did Jesus demonstrate this by either his words or his example. We are told that the Divine Son of God, was subject to finite creatures (Mary and Joseph) and *obeyed *them. Never have I seen in any examples or writings of the saints that they promoted disobedience to the Church based on one’s own interpretation. A classic example is that of St. Teresa of Avila, to whom Our Lord appeared and directed her to found a convent in a certain city. Despite her command from the Almighty, her spiritual director told her to found in another location. When she asked Our Lord what to do, He told her to obey, but He would hold the priest accountable for the results. I could cite many such incidences.

Perhaps your indoctrination with the SSPX misled you into believing this is your right and duty, as the Society has already done, so it is not a prudent idea to present their belief system in this thread.

(1) He who hears you, hears Me.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Do you propose we act as Luther did with a formal protest or rebellion?

Not at all. Where the church formally taught a truth which appears to have changed as a result of the council, I seek an explanation since truth cannot contradict itself.

Perhaps your indoctrination with the SSPX misled you into believing this is your right and duty, as the Society has already done, …

Sirach, perhaps you need a lesson in charity. Nobody has indoctrinated me. I posted a very charitable personal opinion on the situation. If you feel you cannot discuss in the same charitable vein without accusations of indoctrination and condescending lessons on how the church issues documents, perhaps you should desist from contributing to this board.

 

[Sirach2]

Guiseppe,

I’m really sorry you took offense at my post, for in truth, I never meant it to be. As I read over it, I could not see why it bothered you.

Did I lie about the SSPX whose main FAQ page is full of these types of instructions for its members? I can only respond in truth to what I have been shown by this Society’s leadership. And I sincerely believe many of you have been misled. Is that a lack of charity to say so? What exactly was my accusation?

Truth be told, doesn’t your post imply that V-II’s documents are to be objected to, whenever they seem wrong to the one doing private interpretation? Did I take offense at that? Pot, meet kettle. Maybe you are overly sensitive since you belong to SSPX. I have seen a lot of angry threads directed to you folks. And I really do believe that any comments from your members on this particular topic will have a heavy SSPX bias, which mainstream Catholics will no doubt resist.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Guiseppe,

I’m really sorry you took offense at my post, for in truth, I never meant it to be. As I read over it, I could not see why it bothered you.

Did I lie about the SSPX whose main FAQ page is full of these types of instructions for its members? I can only respond in truth to what I have been shown by this Society’s leadership. And I sincerely believe many of you have been misled. Is that a lack of charity to say so? What exactly was my accusation?

Truth be told, doesn’t your post imply that V-II’s documents are to be objected to, whenever they seem wrong to the one doing private interpretation? Did I take offense at that? Pot, meet kettle. Maybe you are overly sensitive since you belong to SSPX. I have seen a lot of angry threads directed to you folks. And I really do believe that any comments from your members on this particular topic will have a heavy SSPX bias, which mainstream Catholics will no doubt resist.

Sirach,

What I objected to was the inference that I was somehow indoctrinated by the SSPX. That presumes that I came to them and was somehow formed into a way of thinking. I was rather formed (catechised) in the church prior to the council and was troubled by the changes after the council in (Catholic) high school and college. Particularly responses from faculty along the lines of “we don’t believe that anymore … or the church no longer teaches that.”

So my opinions are based on very comprehensive reading of the documents, of church history, and of the multitude of accounts on the council, its preparation, its conduct, and its aftermath. This is long before I knew the SSPX existed or was even available in the U.S. to any degree in America.

So I bristle when someone insinuates that I was either indoctrinated by anyone except the Roman Catholic Church or somehow take my marching orders or my faith from someone’s website.

Regarding the V2 documents, I believe that in cases they are ambiguous. I would not say that they even necessarily need to be changed. However, where the popular interpretation of any one document conflicts with what I was taught prior to the council, I feel that I must object and ask for it to be clarified. Mind you, these are not what the Pope(s) have necessarily elaborated regarding the documents, but what is being taught at Catholic universities and by extension to the bishops in whose diocese these institutions reside under the guise of the council. If you haven’t examined what is being taught at the likes of Georgetown and Fordham as articles of faith resulting from the council, you might be amazed.

 

[Sirach2]

So I bristle when someone insinuates that I was either indoctrinated by anyone except the Roman Catholic Church or somehow take my marching orders or my faith from someone’s website.

I do apologize for my own insensitivity, believing that to be the case. I know another wonderful guy who was so meek and personable, until he became an SSPX. He is now full of animosity, insults, defensiveness, and demonstrates a complete lack of the peace and joy I knew in him beforehand. With that frame of referenced thinking, I presumed that was true of many of your members. Please forgive me.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I do apologize for my own insensitivity, believing that to be the case. I know another wonderful guy who was so meek and personable, until he became an SSPX. He is now full of animosity, insults, defensiveness, and demonstrates a complete lack of the peace and joy I knew in him beforehand. With that frame of referenced thinking, I presumed that was true of many of your members. Please forgive me.

Sirach,

You were forgiven 5 seconds after you posted. Think no more about it.

GTO

 

[edwest2]

Folks,

We are on the internetwebs.

Opening statement by Pope John XXIII:

catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0261i.htm

The fruit of Vatican II:

harvestingthefruit.com/

God bless,
Ed

 

[SouthpawLink]

Why did the CDF have to once again clarify the dogmatic constitution on the Church almost 43 years after its promulgation? Why couldn’t the document have been unambiguously clear in the first place? And Dignitatis Humanae n. 2 is simply a mess. How many articles and books have been written to explain how it doesn’t contradict previous Church teaching?

The reason for all of this ambiguity, in my opinion, is that the Church practically abandoned Thomism and its accompanying Scholastic terminology (in her attempt to communicate with modern man, and possibly due to the growing influence of neo-modernism), much to her disadvantage.

 

[Ockham]

As late as yesterday, I saw again the misunderstanding being circulated on this forum that Vatican II was merely pastoral. The error keeps circulating, and unfortunately, it has become de jure in the minds of innocent people who read these threads. This teaching refutes the error and is well worth saving to one’s file for future reference.

It’s not clear what bone you are trying to pick with this thread. Are you accusing people in this forum of ‘extreme Traditionalism’? Do you have specific examples you wish to discuss? What dogma or matters of faith do you believe some people are opposed to? I’m not sure if it is proper to call ‘teaching’ an article by two members of the laity posted on a blog.

In the Comments section of the blog we find the quote: “Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral. --Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General Audience”. Without any defining doctrine, V2 left us a series of ambiguous documents which were used by modernists to change the Church without requesting or receiving a mandate from the Magisterium. Our current pontiff has told us the Council has been misinterpreted and is leading a corrective reform of the reform.

It’s interesting a traditional Catholic would consider Yves Congar an authorative source to support their premise. Congar was one of the more progressive ecumenical activists in the Church during V2. For a time Pope Pius XII had him suspended and under close scrutiny afterwards. Congar thought we could ignore the past fifteen centuries and redefine the Church to modern interpretations.

My understanding of Councils is they are called for specific reasons. Vatican II had none other than the vision Pope John XXIII had of opening a window to let some fresh air in. The popes in between Vatican I and II all thought the idea of a general council was dangerous and unnecessary. Two years of prepartory work went into setting the agenda for V2 all of which suddenly and illegally tossed out in the first meetings by people like Congar. Translations of the documents were inaccurate to the point of causing suspicion and hints of a hidden agenda.

There isn’t anything about V2 that one needs to be opposed to itself. With such ambiguity one person’s vision can be much different than another under the guise of ‘spirit of V2’. Not all Councils are of the same merit, we’ve had good ones and bad. We do know that in the years following V2 we’ve seen changes and decline in the Church like no other time in history. The Church herself acknowledges no all popes are considered equal in their results. The post V2 popes were not strict in upholding teachings and disciplines so given ambiguous Council documents modernists were virtually free to run amuck and do almost whatever they pleased.

Pope Benedict XVI is trying to calm the waters and get the Church back on track. Perhaps extreme Traditionalism exists to counter balance the changes extreme Progressives have inflicted using the V2 as their justification. That’s probably what you are referring to: not the Council itself but the modernist ‘spirit of Vatican II’ changes.

 

[Sirach2]

Ockham:

It’s interesting a traditional Catholic would consider Yves Congar an authorative source to support their premise. Congar was one of the more progressive ecumenical activists in the Church during V2. For a time Pope Pius XII had him suspended and under close scrutiny afterwards. Congar thought we could ignore the past fifteen centuries and redefine the Church to modern interpretations.

Translations of the documents were inaccurate to the point of causing suspicion and hints of a hidden agenda.

Let’s set the record straight immediately regarding this Cardinal’s dignity and reputation. You stopped short while smearing his name and failed to mention this:
Active in the ecumenical movement, Congar was once removed from teaching or publishing for a time by the Holy See, during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. However, his reputation was rehabilitated, as he was made a cardinal, in 1994, by Pope John Paul II.

That same day several documents on which Congar collaborated are approved with overwhelming majorities. As he leaves Saint Peter’s, a large number of bishops come up to him and congratulate and thank him. “It’s in good part your work,” they tell him. Well, yes, he writes later that day: “Looking at things objectively, I have done a lot to prepare for the council, to work out and to spread ideas which the council has consecrated. At the council itself, I did a lot of work . . . I have emerged from a long period of suspicion and difficulties.”

http://www.jknirp.com/congar4.htm

 

[wisdomseeker]

Let’s set the record straight immediately regarding this Cardinal’s dignity and reputation. You stopped short while smearing his name and failed to mention this:
Active in the ecumenical movement, Congar was once removed from teaching or publishing for a time by the Holy See, during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. However, his reputation was rehabilitated, as he was made a cardinal, in 1994, by Pope John Paul II.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot deny the obvious. do you deny that the Church is in a big mess today?

JPII was surrounded by liberals and that is why today, we have so many scandals, because many many bishops and cardinals are not Traditional enough to defend the faith.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Look, traditionalists who question the authority of the council fully agree that we are bound by the authority of the Church, and we also know - a fact which I highly doubt any Catholic could disagree with - that the documents of an ecumenical council only attain their extraordinary authority upon promulgation by the pope, the head through whom Christ’s body speaks. Thus if we want to determine the note of authority enjoyed by the council, we ought to turn to the head who fixed that authority in the first place. Here is what Pope Paul VI - whose authority you and I and all Catholics are bound to accept - had to say about Vatican II’s magisterium:
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the Authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document” (General Audience, 12 January 1966 - emphasis mine).

This is not inconsistent with the intent of the Council Fathers themselves.
"The extent to which the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council intended to propose the teaching contained in the Documents of Vatican II, is clearly manifested by the famous Nota Previa of November 16, 1964, which cited the conclusion of the Doctrinal Commission, taken on March 6, 1964:
Taking into account Conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such.

Whatever else it proposes as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church is to be acknowledge and accepted by each and every member of the faithful according to the mind of the Council, which is clear form the subject matter and its formulation, following the norms of theological interpretation. (Austin Flannery ed. translation from the official appendix of the Latin version of Lumen Gentium)."

The misunderstanding here does not lie in the understanding of traditionalists who attribute to it the authority of the ordinary magisterium (which is a fallible but nonetheless quite weighty authority). Rather, it instead lies with the OP and others who assume that this attribution of merely ordinary authority is based entirely upon remarks about the pastoral nature of the council. As if every person who pegs Vatican II as part of the ordinary magisterium had such a flaccid intellect as to conclude upon one hearing of the word “pastoral” that a case had both been made and won. The case is made upon the authority of Pope Paul VI. Does the OP dispute the teaching of Vatican II that the ordinary papal magisterium demands religious assent of mind and will? By claiming that Vatican II exercised an extraordinary magisterium the OP has dissented from the teaching of Paul VI on the subject, after all, and thus proven to be the true dissenter. Traditionalists who believe Vatican II to have exercised an ordinary magisterium, OTOH, are obedient to both the pope who promulgated the council and according to the level demanded by the same council.