Can we have a polite discussion on the authority of vatican ii?

[malphono]

I don’t believe that there ever was a Church DOGMA, in the Latin rite that declared that the Episcopacy is not ontologically a Sacred office that is part of the three levels of the priesthood.

Correct, there is not, and never was. It wasn’t even a matter of formal doctrine. As I alluded to in an earlier post, and as was pointed out more directly by another poster, the “other position” (which was never considered doctrine, as such, but was merely a theological opinion) was the product of Scholasticism. All that Vatican II did in this regard was to clarify the matter and, in doing so, discard the later (i.e Scholastic) misinterpretation.

 

[Just_Lurking]

This is not really an issue. As far as anyone now knows, these abbots may have been bishops.

If the abbots had already been bishops, then there would not have been a need for the special papal permission in the first place. Your suggestion doesn’t make any sense to me, and I have not seen it made anywhere by theologians who study this.

And this is an important issue for theologians. There are two possibilities:

(1) The Pope can give permission to allow priests who are not bishops to perform ordinations, or

(2) The three medieval popes that gave such permission were mistaken in their doctrine, and in fact did not have the authority to give such permission, and any such ordinations performed by the abbots were invalid.

To date, the Catholic Church has not given an official statement as to whether (1) or (2) is the true statement. Vatican II sidestepped this issue by saying that bishops are the ordinary ministers of ordination, without any discussion as to the extraordinary ministers of ordination.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I don’t believe that there ever was a Church DOGMA, in the Latin rite that declared that the Episcopacy is not ontologically a Sacred office that is part of the three levels of the priesthood.

I agree with you–there wasn’t. Just as before Vatican I, there was no Church DOGMA that the pope was not infallible.

It all goes back to the definition of “new”. If you are defining “new doctrine” to mean an idea that was never before discussed by theologians, and was completely made up by an ecumenical council out of whole cloth, then Vatican II defined no new doctrine, but neither did Vatican I or any other ecumenical council.

If you define “new doctrine” to mean promulgating a teaching that faithful Catholics must now adhere to, even though before the council it was licit to hold the contrary position, then Vatican II did define new doctrine, as did Vatican I.

 

[malphono]

If you define “new doctrine” to mean promulgating a teaching that faithful Catholics must now adhere to, even though before the council it was licit to hold the contrary position, then Vatican II did define new doctrine, as did Vatican I.

It is not a definition of “new” but rather the clarification, yea, the restoration of the pre-Scholastic teaching. Which was the exact same teaching held continuously by the East and Orient. Again, it wasn’t “new” doctrine.

 

[Just_Lurking]

It is not a definition of “new” but rather the clarification, yea, the restoration of the pre-Scholastic teaching. Which was the exact same teaching held continuously by the East and Orient. Again, it wasn’t “new” doctrine.

Here is my definition of an ecumenical council making a “new” teaching:

Suppose there are two positions on a theological issue, A and B. Some theologians hold position A, others hold position B. Both positions are well discussed and debated. It is licit for faithful Catholics to hold either position A or position B. Then an ecumenical council promulgates a teaching that A is true, and thus B is wrong. After the council, all faithful Catholics must hold position A. Any Catholic now holding position B is in dissent.

This happened for Vatican I, with A = the pope is infallible, and B = the pope is not infallible.

This also happened for Vatican II, with A = the episcopacy is sacramental, and B = the episcopacy is not sacramental.

All I can understand from your objection is that with the Vatican II example, there is a correlation between holding A versus holding B and various places and time periods in the Catholic Church. That is, the early Church held A, the medieval Western Church held B, the Eastern Church held very strongly to A. However, at no point prior to Vatican II was there an official Church teaching that would prevent faithful Catholics from holding either position A or position B.

But the same kind of correlation is also true for the Vatican I example–Brian Tierney has studied the belief of A and B throughout the history of the Catholic Church, and has come to certain conclusions as to what the first millennium Church held, and what the early medieval Church held, and so on. There is also a noticeable correlation between the positions held by the East versus the West. But the important point is that at no point prior to Vatican I was illicit to hold either position A or position B.

The key difference between Vatican I and Vatican II, as pointed out by Pope Paul VI and others, is that the “new” official teaching of Vatican I is infallible, whereas the “new” official teaching of Vatican II is not infallible, but nonetheless still binding.

 

[malphono]

Here is my definition of an ecumenical council making a “new” teaching:

Suppose there are two positions on a theological issue, A and B. Some theologians hold position A, others hold position B. Both positions are well discussed and debated. It is licit for faithful Catholics to hold either position A or position B. Then an ecumenical council promulgates a teaching that A is true, and thus B is wrong. After the council, all faithful Catholics must hold position A. Any Catholic now holding position B is in dissent.

This happened for Vatican I, with A = the pope is infallible, and B = the pope is not infallible.

This also happened for Vatican II, with A = the episcopacy is sacramental, and B = the episcopacy is not sacramental.

All I can understand from your objection is that with the Vatican II example, there is a correlation between holding A versus holding B and various places and time periods in the Catholic Church. That is, the early Church held A, the medieval Western Church held B, the Eastern Church held very strongly to A. However, at no point prior to Vatican II was there an official Church teaching that would prevent faithful Catholics from holding either position A or position B.

But the same kind of correlation is also true for the Vatican I example–Brian Tierney has studied the belief of A and B throughout the history of the Catholic Church, and has come to certain conclusions as to what the first millennium Church held, and what the early medieval Church held, and so on. There is also a noticeable correlation between the positions held by the East versus the West. But the important point is that at no point prior to Vatican I was illicit to hold either position A or position B.

The key difference between Vatican I and Vatican II, as pointed out by Pope Paul VI and others, is that the “new” official teaching of Vatican I is infallible, whereas the “new” official teaching of Vatican II is not infallible, but nonetheless still binding.

Forget the Vatican I example: it’s off-topic to this thread and, anyway, I’m not discussing it.

For the other, (and for the last time – I’m tired of repeating myself), there was no new teaching on the sacramental nature of episcopal ordination from Vatican II. It merely clarified what had been muddied by Scholasticism (and/or its adherents). In other words, what was taught prior to the rise of Scholasticism (which agrees with what has been continuously taught by the East and Orient) was reiterated as being correct, and the differing Scholastic opinion was discarded. While this probably should have been done in the 14th century, it obviously wasn’t, but better late than never. But even despite that, the very fact that it was common parlance in pre-Vatican II days to refer to the episcopacy as “the fullness of the priesthood” speaks volumes. In this case, Scholasticism may have had a hold over some theologians, but not over the Church.

 

[CradleCath]

Just Lurking;7298515]If the abbots had already been bishops, then there would not have been a need for the special papal permission in the first place. Your suggestion doesn’t make any sense to me, and I have not seen it made anywhere by theologians who study this.

And this is an important issue for theologians. There are two possibilities:

It should not be an important issue for today’s theologians. I remember hearing when I was in my teens, that the theologians in Rome were debating the number of angels that could fit on the head of a pin…when Luther nailed his theses to the Church door. We truly do not need to concentrate on the trivial when there are so many important issues in all of today’s Christendom.

(1) The Pope can give permission to allow priests who are not bishops to perform ordinations, or

(2) The three medieval popes that gave such permission were mistaken in their doctrine, and in fact did not have the authority to give such permission, and any such ordinations performed by the abbots were invalid.

Could the “three medieval popes” that you mention be:
Innocent VIII, Martin V, Boniface IX? In the last century it came to light that the right to ordain was was granted by certain Popes as a privilege to certain abbots in England (the Augustinians I think), and the Cisterians in France and other abbeys in France. And NO, we don’t know whether these abbotts were Bishops or simply priests pressed into service when war/plaque/distance made it impossible for an Ordained/Consecrated Bishop to travel to the priest-to-be.

To date, the Catholic Church has not given an official statement as to whether (1) or (2) is the true statement. Vatican II sidestepped this issue by saying that bishops are the ordinary ministers of ordination, without any discussion as to the extraordinary ministers of ordination.

We are taking this thread, which is supposed to be a discussion on the authoriy of the Second Vatican Council, off topic, so I’ll just ask one more question…Your profile does not say whether you are Catholic or not & I’m wondering whether you are & why this issue is so important to you? You certainly don’t need to answer this if you aren’t comfortable doing so. And, once again, thank you for discussing this is a civil way.

 

[PJM]

=Edmundus1581;7287062]If the Pope promulgates a document titled “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” then it is a dogma.

From the head of the document…

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Popes don’t usually attach notes: “Yes, I really mean this, as Pope. I’m not just rubber stamping it”

Very Good! Enjoy!

Having read this document several times, it is well worth discussion.

Perhaps you’ll discover that is NOT what Vatican II said, but what some hoped [perhaps even wanted it to say] that in the end sems to be the foundaton for discussion?

ALL knowledge of our faith can be usefull in the saving of souls.

God Bless you!

 

[Just_Lurking]

It should not be an important issue for today’s theologians.

The understanding of the relationship between the power of sacramental ordination and the power of jurisdiction has many practical consequences, especially today in light of the SSPX’s valid sacramental ordination but lack of jurisdiction.

And NO, we don’t know whether these abbotts were Bishops or simply priests pressed into service when war/plaque/distance made it impossible for an Ordained/Consecrated Bishop to travel to the priest-to-be.

Do you have a reference for this? I have studied this issue extensively, but have never heard this theory before.

We are taking this thread, which is supposed to be a discussion on the authoriy of the Second Vatican Council, off topic, so I’ll just ask one more question…Your profile does not say whether you are Catholic or not & I’m wondering whether you are & why this issue is so important to you? You certainly don’t need to answer this if you aren’t comfortable doing so. And, once again, thank you for discussing this is a civil way.

I’m not Catholic, but I’m married to a Catholic with a big Catholic family.

As to the authority of Vatican II, we can either discuss its potential teaching authority (which is certainly infallible as it was an ecumenical council) or its actual teaching authority as exercised by its promulgated documents. And virtually all Catholic theologians agree that if Vatican II taught anything infallibly, then it taught the sacramentality of the episcopate infallibly.

From Creative Fidelity by Fr. Francis Sullivan, page 166:

Ratzinger raised this question at the end of his article, which dealt with the sections of Chapter 3 of Lumen gentium that treat of the episcopate. He first notes that while the teaching of the council on the sacramentality of the episcopate is the one that comes closest to being a dogmatic definition, it still falls short of what that requires. Hence there is no new dogma. On the other hand, the doctrine as a whole is the expression of the supreme magisterium of the church, and that implies a certain measure of obligation to accept it. Consideration of the nature of the doctrines taught, the intensive discussion that lead to the decisions, and the role of the pope in the whole conciliar process brought Ratzinger to the following conclusion:
The conciliar text by far surpasses the ordinary declarations of papal magisterium, including the encyclicals, regarding the nature of the theological obligation which it entails. It is a document produced by the most intense work over many years, and it expresses the sense of its faith at which the whole church assembled in council has arrived. It has formulated this document as a profession of its Credo… The conclusion is that it has an importance of the first rank among modern doctrinal texts, in the sense that it is a sort of central interpretation.

 

[malphono]

CradleCath;7298764:

Could the “three medieval popes” that you mention be:
Innocent VIII, Martin V, Boniface IX? In the last century it came to light that the right to ordain was was granted by certain Popes as a privilege to certain abbots in England (the Augustinians I think), and the Cisterians in France and other abbeys in France. And NO, we don’t know whether these abbotts were Bishops or simply priests pressed into service when war/plaque/distance made it impossible for an Ordained/Consecrated Bishop to travel to the priest-to-be.

Do you have a reference for this? I have studied this issue extensively, but have never heard this theory before.

As a matter of fact, this same issue came up in a [thread=468568]thread[/thread] this forum some 6 months ago. Do we really need to rehash it again? For my part, I didn’t buy into the non-episcopal ordination theory [post=6778101]then[/post], and I don’t buy into it now.

 

[PJM]

=puzzleannie;7291292]no we cannot if its intent is to question that authority

I DO NOT belive that to be the reason for the discussion.

Canon Law is very specific about the binding authority of Church Councils; most especially and specifically; Ecumenical Councils such as Vatican II.

 

[PJM]

=diggerdomer;7296619]Yes, and I think it’s not as easy as you seem to represent (please clarify if I misunderstand you).

The Catholic Church does not have two sets of teachings i.e. (1) teachings infallibly taught that must be obeyed and (2) teachings that have not been infallibly taught that are open to individual interpretation.

I am not aware of any Catholic teaching that would support such a view.

Yes, certain teachings are considered infallibly taught. Very few. And please note, it’s not the teachings themselves that the Catholic Church teaches are infallible, but rather the exercise of the teaching authority. In other words, “infallibility” as the Catholic Church teaches does not refer to (1) a person or group of people nor (2) a given set of doctrines, but rather the exercise (act) of teaching.

Again, most would agree that only a very few Catholic teachings have been taught infallibly. This does not mean that all the other teachings of the Catholic Church are optional, provisional, or open to individual preferences. Nowhere does the Catholic Church teach such.

The obligation to attend Mass on Sundays is not infallibly taught (to my knowledge) yet of course it’s considered essential to the Catholic faith.

“Infallibility must be specified” but all teachings of th Pope on Matters of Faith and Morals require assent and OBEDIENCE as is true as teaching from the Magiterium.

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI CODE OF CANON LAW:

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith,** he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.****

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively**; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

 

[Layman]

1. Did Vatican II teach anything contrary to traditional doctrine. If so, what?
2. I think the problem is:

a. The imprecise nature of the language used.
b. Liberal clergy using this imprecision to push their agendas.

**If the documents are vague then you can read what you want into them, and then do it. **That’s what this guy says here.

I think key sticking points are, from memory, arguments about** religious freedom and ecumenism.**

Whatever Vat. II was supposed to do, I don’t think it’s worked. I’d like the option to revert to pre-1940’s style sacraments and devotions; the occasional sermon on Hell and stories of the lives of the saints.

I found the populism boring and banal as a youth and now, with my grey hairs, I think we’re into the realms of scandal, if anyone in a liberal parish can be scandalised any more:** if you don’t know your faith you can’t be scandalised by what the creative types do, in Christ’s name.**

 

[PJM]

=Layman;7301847]1. Did Vatican II teach anything contrary to traditional doctrine. If so, what?
2. I think the problem is:

a. The imprecise nature of the language used.
b. Liberal clergy using this imprecision to push their agendas.

**If the documents are vague then you can read what you want into them, and then do it. **That’s what this guy says here.

I think key sticking points are, from memory, arguments about** religious freedom and ecumenism.**

Whatever Vat. II was supposed to do, I don’t think it’s worked. I’d like the option to revert to pre-1940’s style sacraments and devotions; the occasional sermon on Hell and stories of the lives of the saints.

I found the populism boring and banal as a youth and now, with my grey hairs, I think we’re into the realms of scandal, if anyone in a liberal parish can be scandalised any more:** if you don’t know your faith you can’t be scandalised by what the creative types do, in Christ’s name.**

I very much agree with your last statement. And it goes a long way in explaining todays apathy and ignorance.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Just_Lurking]

Yves Congar quote (also from Creative Fidelity, pp. 166-167) on this issue, emphasis added:
The only passage of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church that could be considered a truly dogmatic declaration is the one that concerns the sacramentality of the episcopate (LG III, n. 21): in fact, it settles a question that until now had been freely disputed by theologians. At the same time it is proposed as a teaching on the same level as the others, without the use of the emphatic, repeated and solemn formulas that normally introduce a “definition.” … The manner of expressing it is not that of a dogmatic definition, but the matter is so important, the place it occupies in the doctrine of the episcopate so decisive, that one can hardly see how on this point the council has not issued a definitive judgment. But this is without doubt the only case of this kind. On so many other points…one might dare to say that by a unanimous act of the extraordinary maisterium the council has proposed the common doctrine of the ordinary, universal magisterium. This is not the same as a “definition,” but it does suffice for the doctrine thus proposed to be binding as teaching on which the Catholic magisterium is in unanimous agreement.
I’m not aware of a single Catholic theologian who discounts this important teaching from Vatican II on the grounds that it is somehow not “new”.

 

[diggerdomer]

T

I don’t believe that there ever was a Church DOGMA, in the Latin rite that declared that the Episcopacy is not ontologically a Sacred office that is part of the three levels of the priesthood.

No, but for centuries prior to Vatican II, including what the Council of Trent taught, the episcopacy was not considered a sacrament as it is following Vatican II. This followed the teaching of Aquinas and others. The Council of Trent nowhere taught that becoming a Bishop was a sacramental rite. It was a “consecration” not a sacramental ordination.

 

[diggerdomer]

I agree with you–there wasn’t. Just as before Vatican I, there was no Church DOGMA that the pope was not infallible.

Similarly, there was no Church dogma that the pope was infallible.

 

[diggerdomer]

“Infallibility must be specified” but all teachings of th Pope on Matters of Faith and Morals require assent and OBEDIENCE as is true as teaching from the Magiterium.

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI CODE OF CANON LAW:

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith,** he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.****

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively**; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

THanks for quoting canon law. I’m familiar with it.

So your point is?

 

[diggerdomer]

1. Did Vatican II teach anything contrary to traditional doctrine. If so, what?

I would say no.

Do you disagree?

 

[The_Reginator]

1. Did Vatican II teach anything contrary to traditional doctrine. If so, what?
2. I think the problem is:

a. The imprecise nature of the language used.
b. Liberal clergy using this imprecision to push their agendas.

**If the documents are vague then you can read what you want into them, and then do it. **That’s what this guy says here.

I think key sticking points are, from memory, arguments about** religious freedom and ecumenism.**

Whatever Vat. II was supposed to do, I don’t think it’s worked. I’d like the option to revert to pre-1940’s style sacraments and devotions; the occasional sermon on Hell and stories of the lives of the saints.

I found the populism boring and banal as a youth and now, with my grey hairs, I think we’re into the realms of scandal, if anyone in a liberal parish can be scandalised any more:** if you don’t know your faith you can’t be scandalised by what the creative types do, in Christ’s name.**

Well thanks a lot.
That link got my blood boiling. That link is now bookmarked.

So the main problem coming out of VII would seem to be a result of ambiguous language and statements.