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

[The_Reginator]

I’ve been reading this article (and related ones) on Vatican II:
Catholics - Vatican II

TRADITIO is frequently asked whether Vatican II has any dogmatic
force. It is clear, as the following extracts confirm, that neither did
Pope John XXIII, who convoked the council, authorize the council to
treat dogma nor did Pope Paul VI, who promulgated the documents of the
council, intend them to be part of the essential Magisterium of the
Church. Both regarded the council to be pastoral, not dogmatic, in
nature, and therefore not part of the essential Magisterium of the
Church.

   Some have noted that the titles of two of the documents, Lumen

Gentium (On the Church) and Dei Verbum (On divine revelation), are
preceded by the word “dogmatic.” Canonists have noted that the
authority of a document is determined not by its mere title. Rather,
the authority is determined by the intent of the pope who promulgated
the document.

Our parish is currently studying Lumen Gentium on Sunday evenings.

I recall a thread (not too long ago) regarding the nature of VII – pastoral vs. dogmatic.
I invite people to share what they have learned. But please let us not turn this into an argumentative thread!
(Sometimes I think that Satin must love some of our discussions. I myself have almost been uncharitable, if you can believe that.)

 

[MarkThompson]

TRADITIO is frequently asked . . .

Unfortunately, that’s where you lost me. TRADITIO is a far-out radical sedevacantist outfit, full of contempt and hatred for the Church. I’m not sure very much polite, productive dialogue can be built on anything dredged out of that pit.

 

[Edmundus1581]

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”

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Unfortunately, that’s where you lost me. TRADITIO is a far-out radical sedevacantist outfit, full of contempt and hatred for the Church. I’m not sure very much polite, productive dialogue can be built on anything dredged out of that pit.

Of course statements such as this make it almost guarranteed that not much much polite or productive will come of it.

 

[At_Trent]

Of course statements such as this make it almost guarranteed that not much much polite or productive will come of it.

What ? This forum is the flower bed of Charity. Can’t you feel the love ooze from your monitor ?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

What ? This forum is the flower bed of Charity. Can’t you feel the love ooze from your monitor ?

Sometimes or than others.

 

[edwest2]

Here’s a good resource:

harvestingthefruit.com/about.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[TEPO]

Here’s a good resource:

harvestingthefruit.com/about.html

Peace,
Ed

I just ordered it… “Ten things every Catholic should know about vatican II”.

Thanks Ed.

 

[The_Reginator]

As a rather traditional Catholic struggling with the changes in the Church in the last 40 - 50 years I find the following troubling when trying to convince myself that Vatican II did not create a break with the past:

There are those who ask what authority, what theological
qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it
avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible
teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar
declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. ** In view of the
pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary
manner any dogmata carrying the mark of infallibility. --Pope Paul VI**,
General Audience of January 12, 1966

Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic,
but disciplinary and pastoral. --Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General
Audience

And:

Nevertheless, the pope who summoned the Council and the pope who
promulgated its decrees made it clear that Vatican II was a pastoral,
not a dogmatic Council. Catholics are, therefore, within their rights
to make reservations regarding any novelties emanating from Vatican II
that are out of step with Sacred Tradition and the previous continuous
Magisterium (official teaching) of the Church.

   In fact, it is canonically possible for a future pope to annul the

outcome of the council, as it was merely a pastoral council. The
Council of Ephesus in 449, which was regularly called and attended by
all the East and by legates from Pope St. Leo the Great, was annulled by
that pope’s subsequent opposition to it and branded the “Robber’s
Council” (Latrocinium).

Before I converted, the impression I had from many Catholics was that Vatican II virtually remade the Church and that anything that came before VII could be questioned and generally belonged to ‘dinosaurs’.

Now I’m wondering how much of VII might have broke with Tradition – no break, I hope. But I am still wondering.

 

[CradleCath]

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”

I cannot find any NEW dogma promulgated in Lumen Gentium. Perhaps you can help me?

 

[Just_Lurking]

I cannot find any NEW dogma promulgated in Lumen Gentium. Perhaps you can help me?

LG 21:

And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry.

 

[CradleCath]

LG 21:

And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry.

“This sacred synod, following in the steps of the First Vatican Council, teaches and declares with it that Jesus Christ, the eternal pastor, set up the holy Church by entrusting the apostles with their mission as he himself had been sent by the Father (cf. Jn. 20:21). He willed that their successors, the bishops namely, should be the shepherds in his Church until the end of the world.** In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided he put Peter at the head of the other apostles,** and in him he set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and of communion****.[1]** This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful,** and, proceeding undeviatingly with this same undertaking, it proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of the apostles, who together with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ[2] and the visible head of the whole Church, direct the house of the living God”.

Sorry, I can’t find anything in LG., Chapter 3, that is NEW dogma.
In fact, Vatican II proclaimed no new doctrine, nor was it supposed to. It was, as Pope John XXIII proclaimed, strictly pastoral. **The Bishops authority rests entirely on the fact that they are in Communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter. **

 

[diggerdomer]

I’ve been reading this article (and related ones) on Vatican II:
Catholics - Vatican II

Our parish is currently studying Lumen Gentium on Sunday evenings.

I recall a thread (not too long ago) regarding the nature of VII – pastoral vs. dogmatic.
I invite people to share what they have learned. But please let us not turn this into an argumentative thread!
(Sometimes I think that Satin must love some of our discussions. I myself have almost been uncharitable, if you can believe that.)

There is no higher teaching authority in the Catholic Church than an Ecumenical Council. So, Vatican II’s teachings should be understood and interpreted in that light.

Not everything taught by Vatican II has the same “weight” i.e. priority should be given to the four Constitutions over the other Decrees and Declarations (the Catechism adheres to this well).

Whether the Council was “pastoral” or “dogmatic” is a false dichotomy. It was an ecumenical council, as understood and taught by the Catholic Church, that’s the point.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Sorry, I can’t find anything in LG., Chapter 3, that is NEW dogma.
In fact, Vatican II proclaimed no new doctrine, nor was it supposed to. It was, as Pope John XXIII proclaimed, strictly pastoral. **The Bishops authority rests entirely on the fact that they are in Communion with the Pope, the Successor of Peter. **

The sacramental nature of the episcopate is new doctrine from Vatican II. The only open question among theologians is whether it is dogma (i.e., infallible) or not.

 

[CradleCath]

As a rather traditional Catholic struggling with the changes in the Church in the last 40 - 50 years I find the following troubling when trying to convince myself that Vatican II did not create a break with the past:

And:

Before I converted, the impression I had from many Catholics was that Vatican II virtually remade the Church and that anything that came before VII could be questioned and generally belonged to ‘dinosaurs’.

Now I’m wondering how much of VII might have broke with Tradition – no break, I hope. But I am still wondering.

No, we didn’t break with Tradition (capital T), though the break with tradition (small t) & Catholic culture was indeed a rupture.

We couldn’t have broken with SACRED Tradition because Vatican II was unique in that it was a NON-infallible council. I don’t know how many times we’ll have to provide the words of 3 Popes, in order to show that no NEW doctrine was promulgated by the Second Vatican Council.

In his opening address to the members of the council, John XXIII explained that **doctrinal matters were “presumed to be well known and familiar to all” but a new way of presenting that doctrine was “necessary”: **"

The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of** a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character." 4 (**

Pope Paul VI:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. **In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” **

Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI):

"Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II… The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council." 12

 

[CradleCath]

LG 21:

And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry.

You might want to read the footnote at the bottom of Lumen Gentium:
**Without hierarchical communion the ontologico-sacramental function **[munus], which is to be distinguished from the juridico-canonical aspect, cannot be exercised.

Though, some of our Bishops & Theologians would like everyone to believe that some type of “power” was given to individual Bishops, Cardinals et al., it wasn’t. For one thing, the episcopacy is not about “power”, but about acting as Shepherds of the flock FOR the Pope. None of the hierarchy have the authority to promulgate or teach anything that the Pope does not approve of despite the words of Richard- is- the- camera- rolling- McBrien.

 

[malphono]

The sacramental nature of the episcopate is new doctrine from Vatican II. The only open question among theologians is whether it is dogma (i.e., infallible) or not.

No, actually it wasn’t new at all. The East and Orient have recognized and professed this from time immemorial. There is no question about the sacramental nature of the episcopacy in the East and Orient, nor has there ever been.

Even in the Latin Church, the episcopacy has been traditionally called “the fullness of the priesthood” which pretty well reflects the sacramental nature or the episcopacy, despite the Scholastic arguments that had been ongoing for some centuries. All that was done by the Council was to dispense with that latter and clarify the sacramental nature of the episcopacy. In other words, Vatican II did not proclaim any new doctrine, much less dogma. What it did do was clarify.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I don’t doubt the validity of Vatican II as a Pastoral Councill which is not infallible. However when one says V2 didn’t so much promote new dogma as put into the context of the modern world. Then contemplate the way the modern world views Catholicism… Also the neo-Protestant style Mass made with the advice of 6 Protestant ministers with material contradicting the DOGMATIC Council of Trent protecting the Liturgy was an interesting addition.

 

[Just_Lurking]

In other words, Vatican II did not proclaim any new doctrine, much less dogma. What it did do was clarify.

Prior to Vatican II, Catholic theologians were free to hold that there were only two levels to the sacrament of Orders, as there was no official Church teaching on the matter. After Vatican II, such a position is no longer licit.

 

[puzzleannie]

no we cannot if its intent is to question that authority