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

[Just_Lurking]

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.

From Theological Highlights of Vatican II, by Joseph Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI, pages 185ff:

Following the initiative of John XXIII, even the draft of the text rejected by the bishops in 1962 attempted to revaluate the office of bishop, and for this purpose submitted two concepts: (1) the sacramentality of the ordination of bishops, and (2) the concept of the college of bishops, which even then was described as the successor of the college of apostles. This second concept was, however, modified at that time by two important qualifications which for all practical purposes obliterated it. These were:

(1) The idea that the college of bishops could exercise its ordinary powers only in an extraordinary manner–namely, in a Council convoked by the pope.

(2) Members of the college of bishops could only be residential bishops. In other words, the requirement for membership was jurisdiction over a particular diocese, conferred by the pope. In the light of this, the college would appear in the long run to be nothing more than an institution of papal privilege, and the great idea of collegiality threatened to evaporate.

In contrast with this obviously inadequate draft of 1962, in which we have both an affirmation of the sacramentality of episcopal ordination as a single isolated thesis, and, on the other hand, the idea of a college of bishops absorbed into the idea of primacy, the present text contains an important passage that combines both ideas and thus invests both with a new significance. This passage also breaches the wall that separated the Middle Ages from the early Church, and hence the Latin West from the Churches of the East. We see the reason why future references to Peter Lombard, Albert, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas will no longer be meaningful in this issue.

This passage consists in the inconspicuous little statement that membership in the college of bishops is attained through sacramental ordination and communion with the head and members of the college (n. 22). This statement gives episcopal collegiality a double basis but in such a way that these two roots are inseparably connected.

(1) First, a directly sacramental root is established in the very act of a bishop’s consecration. For this act concerns not only the individual as an individual, but also his acceptance into a body, his incorporation into a ministry, in which a common bond is essential. In the background appears a renewal of the very idea of the sacrament itself. Sacrament is no longer understood as a merely individual gift, but relates to the living unity of Church as organism.

(2) The second root of collegiality is the actual communion with other bishops and the bishop of Rome.

This obviously goes far beyond the thinking of 1962. According to this statement, collegiality is not based on a papally conferred jurisdiction, paralleling the sacrament of ordination as though that sacrament were merely an individual gift; rather, collegiality reaches into the very essence of the sacrament, which as such carries within it an intrinsic correlation to the community of bishops. To render this thought a little more clearly, we may say that two things have been achieved in the new text.

(1) The college of bishops is not merely a creation of the pope, but rather a sacramental actuality–an autonomous reality stemming from the intrinsic nature of the Church.

(2) The rigid juxtaposition of sacrament and jurisdiction, of consecrating power and power of governance, that had existed since the Middle Ages and was one of the symptoms marking the Western separation of the Churches from the East, has finally been eliminated.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

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.

Clarify in a way acceptable to the modern world. The modern world in general is sinfull like it says in the Book of Apocolypse a great many nations will need to be reconverted and have the Gosple preached again. I can find the actual quote later if anyone wants. Again I believe V 2 was completely valid as a Pastoral Council, however to my understanding Pastoral Councils are not infalliable. Please correct me if I’m wrong. As it was not infalliable, mistakes could be made. Again please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[malphono]

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.

By that I presume you mean theologians in the Latin Church.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that it was not a new teaching. What it was was merely a clarification of something that had become muddied-up in the Western (aka Latin) Church.

 

[malphono]

Clarify in a way acceptable to the modern world. The modern world in general is sinfull like it says in the Book of Apocolypse a great many nations will need to be reconverted and have the Gosple preached again. I can find the actual quote later if anyone wants. Again I believe V 2 was completely valid as a Pastoral Council, however to my understanding Pastoral Councils are not infalliable. Please correct me if I’m wrong. As it was not infalliable, mistakes could be made. Again please correct me if I’m wrong.

Yes, it was a “pastoral” Council, and was called as such. It was not called as a doctrinal Council, and true to its mission, it did not proclaim any new teaching. Considering that, perhaps the question should be whether there is really a question of “infallibility” here at all?

 

[Edmundus1581]

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

You are asking the wrong person. My post didn’t make any claims about Lumen Gentium vis-a-vis the history of any related doctrines.

The historical development of the doctrines is interesting, but not a subject I wish to pursue at the moment.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

Yes, it was a “pastoral” Council, and was called as such. It was not called as a doctrinal Council, and true to its mission, it did not proclaim any new teaching. Considering that, perhaps the question should be whether there is really a question of “infallibility” here at all?

Yes, I just read the OP again and I’m sure the question was on if Vatican II was Pastoral or Dogmatic and thus infallibility/fallibility

 

[edwest2]

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.

First of all, I was there before and after Vatican II and in Catholic school. The only change visible to parishioners was the addition of a smaller altar in front of the large original, the priest facing the people and the Mass being in English instead of Latin. As the nuns told us at the time, it was to encourage greater participation by the people.

All of the other changes that occurred were not even suggested by the Second Vatican Council. Dissidents inside and outside of the Church were putting on pressure to change something.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

The real damage began to occur in 1967 when some Catholic colleges and universities under the cover of “academic freedom” chose to break with the Church hierarchy.

catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm

So for those who wonder about how Catholic Universities ended up as they are today, just read that statement.

The largest assault against the Church would occur in 1968 with the publication of Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI. He knew that The Pill was just entering widespread use and the additional temptation it would bring. He warned Catholics that there would be more promiscuity and a lessening of regard for the love of your life if his words were not heeded. He was right. Some theologians decided to take out a full page ad in the New York Times denouncing the words of the Pope! A priest posted here some months back about a meeting he attended with some other priests in 1968. One priest was urging the others to sign a letter against Humanae Vitae, he refused. This priest went on to write the priest in charge, a former Marine, used rather salty language to try to get him to change his mind. He still refused.

In the 1970s, Humanae Vitae was taught in seminaries, but prospective priests were also told that the Church would change its teaching on artificial birth control someday. So, when they became priests, they told their parishioners that artificial birth control was a personal conscience matter. Recently, I heard a priest on Catholic radio tell listeners that new priests are being taught correctly. And at least one priest who signed that protest letter in 1968 has publicly regretted his decision.

After Vatican II, I had no reason to be less worshipful or less Catholic in any way.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

First of all, I was there before and after Vatican II and in Catholic school. The only change visible to parishioners was the addition of a smaller altar in front of the large original, the priest facing the people and the Mass being in English instead of Latin. As the nuns told us at the time, it was to encourage greater participation by the people.

Ed

Greater participation? In your average parish, average mind you, how many come to participate? How many actually do? Even then we are not supposed to participate as such, we need to remember Mass is not only a celebration, it’s also a sacrafice. The Sacrafice of God no less; as such we must treat the Mass with great reverence.

 

[Just_Lurking]

By that I presume you mean theologians in the Latin Church.

I’m not aware of any teaching that was only binding on Eastern Catholic theologians.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that it was not a new teaching. What it was was merely a clarification of something that had become muddied-up in the Western (aka Latin) Church.

I guess it depends on what you mean by “new”. Under your definition, one could argue that Vatican I promulgated no new dogma in 1870, as Pope Pius IX had already invoked papal infallibility in 1854 for the immaculate conception.

 

[AnneTeresa]

I have come to realize that a lot of people who post on these boards do not understand the difference between what is fallible and what is infallible–what is infallible doctrine that must be believed and what is pastoral teaching which must be considered, but not abolutely obeyed. It isn’t easy to figure out.

But not knowing can lead to legalism and people claiming the Church says absolutely “do this” and “there’s no other way”, when in fact that’s not always true. Hence part of the beauty of the small c, catholic church.

Vatican II was pastoral as many people above have indicated.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I have come to realize that a lot of people who post on these boards do not understand the difference between what is fallible and what is infallible–what is infallible doctrine that must be believed and what is pastoral teaching which must be considered, but not abolutely obeyed. It isn’t easy to figure out.

But not knowing can lead to legalism and people claiming the Church says absolutely “do this” and “there’s no other way”, when in fact that’s not always true. Hence part of the beauty of the small c, catholic church.

Vatican II was pastoral as many people above have indicated.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, Vatican II was never intended to be infalliable. We need to seriously consider it but then there is no need to completely agree -especially on areas where there is contrast with Dogmatic Councils like Trent- until His Holiness issues an actual infalliable statement on the matter. to my knowledge he has not. Also what do you mean by small c- catholic?

 

[malphono]

I’m not aware of any teaching that was only binding on Eastern Catholic theologians.

:banghead:

I guess it depends on what you mean by “new”. Under your definition, one could argue that Vatican I promulgated no new dogma in 1870, as Pope Pius IX had already invoked papal infallibility in 1854 for the immaculate conception.

:banghead:

 

[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.

As you know, I’ve disagreed with you re. the fact that Vat. II gave us **new Dogma **by “teaching that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the scrament of Orders is conferred”.

As far as I know the ordination to the Epicopate has ALWAYS been considered the “fullness of the sacrament of Orders”. However, the OP asked that we have a polite discussion & I really want to abide by his wishes. Still, I’d like to understand where you’re coming from on this. I noticed that you mentioned the word “power” twice in the above quote. What I’d like to know is, could you explain in your own words (I don’t need any more quoted documents . just what this means to you. Are you saying that Vatican II gave additional power to our Bishops & did so in an infallible statement? Maybe, I’m just misunderstanding your post.

 

[Just_Lurking]

As far as I know the ordination to the Epicopate has ALWAYS been considered the “fullness of the sacrament of Orders”.

In the second millennium in the Western / Latin Church, the prevailing theory among theologians was that there were two levels to the sacrament of Holy Orders, deacon and priest, and that bishops merely held a higher ecclesiastical office, like monsignor, archbishop, or pope. In fact, three different medieval popes allowed abbots who were priests but not bishops to perform ordinations.

As noted by Pope Benedict XVI, as I quoted in post 17, this was another source of contention between the Eastern and Western Churches. Vatican II resolved this issue by making the first official Church teaching that the sacrament of Holy Orders has three levels, with bishops at the top. This was a matter of free theological speculation prior to Vatican II. Because of Vatican II it is now a binding teaching on the Catholic faithful. Whether it is an infallible teaching, or merely a non-infallible but authoritative teaching, is still up for debate.

As a small side effect of this teaching, it is now correct to refer to episcopal ordination instead of merely episcopal consecration.

 

[diggerdomer]

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, the sacramental nature of the episcopate was not a new doctrine from Vatican II, it was simply different than the understanding taught since the 12th-13th century A.D. or so. That was the time period that the Scholastics (and perhaps more importantly, those who followed them) defined the episcopacy as not sacramental. That in itself was a new development in Christian theology.

 

[diggerdomer]

I have come to realize that a lot of people who post on these boards do not understand the difference between what is fallible and what is infallible–what is infallible doctrine that must be believed and what is pastoral teaching which must be considered, but not abolutely obeyed. It isn’t easy to figure out. .

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.

 

[diggerdomer]

As you know, I’ve disagreed with you re. the fact that Vat. II gave us **new Dogma **by “teaching that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the scrament of Orders is conferred”.

Not new dogma. Only different than what had been taught for 700-800 years.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Vatican II didn’t break with Tradition. That’s why it’s one of the 21 ecumenical councils the Catholic Church relies on.

 

[pnewton]

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

That’s what I have always taken as a way of knowing the difference. The Council labeled the documents according to their purpose. Yes, I see know reason a discussion should be impolite on this. Dogmatic means containing dogma and pastoral means for the purpose of shepherding people.

 

[CradleCath]

=Just Lurking;7295803]In the second millennium in the Western / Latin Church, the prevailing theory among theologians was that there were two levels to the sacrament of Holy Orders, deacon and priest, and that bishops merely held a higher ecclesiastical office, like monsignor, archbishop, or pope. In fact, three different medieval popes allowed abbots who were priests but not bishops to perform ordinations.

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

As noted by Pope Benedict XVI, as I quoted in post 17, this was another source of contention between the Eastern and Western Churches. Vatican II resolved this issue by making the first official Church teaching that the sacrament of Holy Orders has three levels, with bishops at the top. This was a matter of free theological speculation prior to Vatican II. Because of Vatican II it is now a binding teaching on the Catholic faithful. Whether it is an infallible teaching, or merely a non-infallible but authoritative teaching, is still up for debate.

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.

As a small side effect of this teaching, it is now correct to refer to episcopal ordination instead of merely episcopal consecration.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that any dogma is involved re. this issue. However, I really thank you for the polite reply. I just don’t think this issue has much to do with the authority of Vatican II.