Cardinal Brandmüller on the Council

[wasserfall]

This is a few days old. but perhaps still worth a read:

Card. Brandmüller: Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae non-binding

“Strangely enough, the two most controversial documents” for the SSPX – those on religious freedom and on relations with non-Christians – “do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them,” the cardinal said.

 

[Rainaldo]

This is a few days old. but perhaps still worth a read:

Card. Brandmüller: Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae non-binding

“Strangely enough, the two most controversial documents” for the SSPX – those on religious freedom and on relations with non-Christians – “do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them,” the cardinal said.

Did he mean that they are not binding, or that they lack doctrinal content?

Also, how do we know when a conciliar document is nonbinding?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Wasn’t there just another thread posting a Vatican statement that Nostra aetate was in fact binding? I find the degree of possible accommodation to the SSPX to be disturbing. Are we looking at back-peddling on the question of anti-Semitism now? If one of the things demanded by the SSPX is harsh treatment of Jews and other non-Catholics, is that an accommodation we should be making?

 

[triumphguy]

And we had Cardinal Koch (Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) saying something different a few days ago:

“All the doctrinal decisions of the church are binding on a Catholic, including the Second Vatican Council and all its texts,” Cardinal Koch said when asked if the SSPX would be expected to accept all the teachings of Vatican II. “The ‘Nostra Aetate’ declaration of the Second Vatican Council is a clear decree and is important for every Catholic,” he added.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1202023.htm

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The main thing to remember is, when some cardinal in the Vatican makes a statement to the press, that does not usually constitute a “Vatican statement.” We have to pay close attention to exactly who is making the statement and in what capacity.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

If one of the things demanded by the SSPX is harsh treatment of Jews and other non-Catholics, is that an accommodation we should be making?

The SSPX does not demand harsh treatment of the Jews and other non-Catholics. It simply wants the truth to be clearly stated that the Roman Catholic Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.

It is a perennial doctrine that some seem to feel uncomfortable with. Stating this doctrine is not being harsh towards other religions. It is the truth. Stating that the Earth orbits the Sun is not being “harsh” to Ptolemy; it simply the truth.

And in the end, it is the truth that will set us free.

• PAX

 

[Andre1000]

Did he mean that they are not binding, or that they lack doctrinal content?

Also, how do we know when a conciliar document is nonbinding?

Constitutions are very binding, but declarations are not. On the vatican page you see that Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae are declarations. A link to the vatican page:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm