Does "Error" in This Case Mean "Heresy?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter ready
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ready

Guest
I understand that dogmas pronunced by the solemn Extraordinary Magisterium are infallible as are all teachings on faith and morals taught by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If the Vatican II Council (a predominantly pastoral council, but still the Universal Ordinary Magisterium) had taught error (I’m not saying it has or has not) would that error necessarily have to be considered heresy? Please let us not argue about whether Vatican II taught error or not because this is not what I am asking. I just would like to know if the Vatican II Council did teach error would the error have to be considered heresy. I understand that the Vatican II Council was predominantly pastoral and did not solemnly define any doctrine, but it is my understanding that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was being exercised. Thanks for your help!
 
I wonder if we don’t try to reduce the actions of our Church to mechanical processes, quantifying her teaching into degrees of infallibility or classifying her actions into categories of relative degrees of orthodoxy or heresy, all with an eye to measure the need to accept or reject those teachings or actions.

It’s not wrong to want to know the truth, but I really want to ask when our religion became a series of mechanical processes. I wonder about the value of theology without being touched by the holy spirit in some real, visceral way.

Diadochus of Photike had this to say.

***It is always better to await the illumination of faith, energized by love, which equips us to speak, since nothing is more miserable than a Godless mind philosophizing about God. ***

It seems harsh, and out side of it’s context it probably is. Before anyone shoots off a nasty PM, it’s a sixth century bishop’s observation, and the context is attempts at a completely rational approach (philosophizing) to the action of God through his Holy Church in the absence of an intuitive sense of spiritual things - call it the “Mind’s eye” if you will.

Maybe the eastern Churches have retained more of this approach. I’m not saying that anyone here at CAF lacks a spiritual sense or has not been touched by the Holy Spirit in a very real way, but am instead wondering if the introduction of Aristotlean philosophy into theology hasn’t been taken to an extreme that was never meant to be.

Maybe I’m completely wrong and have been reading too much of the desert fathers, should just shut up and register for another meditation retreat at the monastery. I’m sure it is an important question to those who are interested in such things, but the difference between Extraordinary Magisterium and Universal Ordinary Magisterium seems to me, like the difference between the composition of brake pads - they all stop the car to me.

Sorry if I am incoherent. I don’t mean to ramble and my comments are not directed at anyone personally.

-Tim-
 
ready said:
I understand that dogmas pronunced by the solemn Extraordinary Magisterium are infallible as are all teachings on faith and morals taught by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If the Vatican II Council (a predominantly pastoral council, but still the Universal Ordinary Magisterium) had taught error (I’m not saying it has or has not) would that error necessarily have to be considered heresy? Please let us not argue about whether Vatican II taught error or not because this is not what I am asking. I just would like to know if the Vatican II Council did teach error would the error have to be considered heresy. I understand that the Vatican II Council was predominantly pastoral and did not solemnly define any doctrine, but it is my understanding that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was being exercised. Thanks for your help!
Click to expand...
Your post misses the point entirely. Although Vatican II did not solemnly promulgate any dogmatic pronouncements, the faithful are still obligated to give religious assent to non-definitive authoritative acts of an ecumenical council:
“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” (Code of Canon Law, Canon 752).
 
If an Ecumenical Council contained “error” (which I don’t think is possible, but you don’t want to discuss that :p) it certainly wouldn’t be heresy. If an Ecumenical Council could teach heresy, how could we ever trust the Magisterium? I have a hard time imagining how we could remain Catholic if the Magisterium could teach heresy.
 
Note how the Catechism defines heresy in CCC 2089:

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same

“Heresy” and “error” are not interchangeable synonyms and we should never use them as such. Heresy is much more than simply being wrong about something.

Again, if the Church could teach heresy, then Jesus’ promise that the Spirit would guide the Church into all truth and his promise that the gates of hell would never prevail over the Church would be false promises. That’s a dangerous path to trod. Ironically, I think it would lead a person to heresy. 😉
 
Thanks Joe and Sanctus Peccator!

I am truly relieved to hear that a Council could not teach heresy. I feel better about things thanks to your two posts.
 
ready said:
I understand that dogmas pronunced by the solemn Extraordinary Magisterium are infallible as are all teachings on faith and morals taught by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. If the Vatican II Council (a predominantly pastoral council, but still the Universal Ordinary Magisterium) had taught error (I’m not saying it has or has not) would that error necessarily have to be considered heresy? Please let us not argue about whether Vatican II taught error or not because this is not what I am asking. I just would like to know if the Vatican II Council did teach error would the error have to be considered heresy. I understand that the Vatican II Council was predominantly pastoral and did not solemnly define any doctrine, but it is my understanding that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was being exercised. Thanks for your help!
Click to expand...
My understanding is that “error” is to heresy what “grave matter” is to mortal sin generally. Error is necessary for something to be heresy but it is not sufficient. Heresy is error held consciously, intentionally, and obstinately, even in the face of correction; in the absence of these latter conditions, the error does not rise to the level of heresy.

Yes, Vatican II’s teachings are doctrinally binding and you are, I believe, obliged to believe it taught no error. That said, it’s not immediately clear how and in what ways Vatican II expands on previous Church teachings. I certainly can’t for the life of me figure it out.
 
sw85 said:
My understanding is that “error” is to heresy what “grave matter” is to mortal sin generally. Error is necessary for something to be heresy but it is not sufficient. Heresy is error held consciously, intentionally, and obstinately, even in the face of correction; in the absence of these latter conditions, the error does not rise to the level of heresy.

Yes, Vatican II’s teachings are doctrinally binding. That said, it’s not immediately clear how and in what ways Vatican II expands on previous Church teachings. I certainly can’t for the life of me figure it out.
Click to expand...
What you say about “error” and “heresy” was my gut feeling about it. Thanks for the clarification!

I too believe that the V- II teachings are doctrinally binding, even though the V -II Council was called predominantly pastoral. I take the V-II teaching very seriously, like I do all of the teaching of the Church.
 
ready said:
What you say about “error” and “heresy” was my gut feeling about it. Thanks for the clarification!

I too believe that the V- II teachings are doctrinally binding, even though the V -II Council was called predominantly pastoral. I take the V-II teaching very seriously, like I do all of the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
You’re welcome. I am open to correction if I’ve misrepresented anything.

As I said, it’s not clear what if anything Vatican II actually taught. The only consensus surrounding it is a positively heretical one that can’t be trusted. My intuition is that Vatican II was largely an experiment in re-expressing traditional teachings in more modern language, and there are some quotes by Bl. John XXIII and Paul VI to suggest as much.
 
sw85 said:
You’re welcome. I am open to correction if I’ve misrepresented anything.

As I said, it’s not clear what if anything Vatican II actually taught. The only consensus surrounding it is a positively heretical one that can’t be trusted. My intuition is that Vatican II was largely an experiment in re-expressing traditional teachings in more modern language, and there are some quotes by Bl. John XXIII and Paul VI to suggest as much.
Click to expand...
I think calling Vatican II an “experiment” is not the best choice of words. The word implies it is something the pope cooked up just to see if it would work (and maybe it would, or maybe it wouldn’t). No Ecumenical Council of the Church is an “experiment”.

John XXIII’s opening address to the Council really helps to frame the whole thing. You are correct that the purpose of Vatican II was not to respond to a heresy or propose new teaching, but simply to articulate the constant teaching of the Church in ways that meet the new conditions of the present age. I think it does a pretty good job with that.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I think calling Vatican II an “experiment” is not the best choice of words. The word implies it is something the pope cooked up just to see if it would work (and maybe it would, or maybe it wouldn’t). No Ecumenical Council of the Church is an “experiment”.

John XXIII’s opening address to the Council really helps to frame the whole thing. You are correct that the purpose of Vatican II was not to respond to a heresy or propose new teaching, but simply to articulate the constant teaching of the Church in ways that meet the new conditions of the present age. I think it does a pretty good job with that.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, bet you get what I mean.

This interpretation of the Council is the only one that makes sense to me. But it leads to some baffling problems of its own (though, perhaps, less baffling than all the other interpretations). Namely, if the Council was really just an attempt to re-express the Church’s teachings in the language of a different (and probably incompatible) philosophy, what “doctrinal problems” are there between Rome and the SSPX? If in fact this is all Vatican II did, any “doctrinal problem” is really a “prudential problem,” i.e., the SSPX arguing that the Council expressed those teachings poorly. We are obliged to believe what Vatican II taught, but are we obliged to believe it taught it in the best way possible?
 
sw85 said:
We are obliged to believe what Vatican II taught, but are we obliged to believe it taught it in the best way possible?
Click to expand...
I think this is where there is room for debate. But, of course, the debate is probably more fruitfully engaged in by people smarter than me. 🙂
 
sw85 said:
As I said, it’s not clear what if anything Vatican II actually taught. The only consensus surrounding it is a positively heretical one that can’t be trusted. My intuition is that Vatican II was largely an experiment in re-expressing traditional teachings in more modern language, and there are some quotes by Bl. John XXIII and Paul VI to suggest as much.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is still some confusion surrounding some Vatican II statements … but to call them heretical would be perhaps a bit rash. What is the consensus you speak of?
 
sw85 said:
We are obliged to believe what Vatican II taught, but are we obliged to believe it taught it in the best way possible?
Click to expand...
Judging from what I heard Michael Voris on RealCatholicTV say I can not believe that what Vatican II taught was taught in the best way possible.
 
ready said:
Judging from what I heard Michael Voris on RealCatholicTV say I can not believe that what Vatican II taught was taught in the best way possible.
Click to expand...
I do hope you read the documents yourself and don’t base your opinions only on what Voris says. 😉

Simply because some in the Church usurped the “spirit of Vatican II” to push their own agenda does not necessarily mean the documents themselves are at fault. I’ve read them all. I don’t see anything that supports a lot of the goofiness that ensued. I wouldn’t be surprised if Voris was speaking more to the craziness that followed rather than to the actual content of the documents themselves. Those are two separate issues.

Here a nice quote from the Council:

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)
 
ready said:
Yes, there is still some confusion surrounding some Vatican II statements … but to call them heretical would be perhaps a bit rash. What is the consensus you speak of?
Click to expand...
I mean the consensus of people we might call modernists. The people who claim that Vatican II constitutes a substantive doctrinal divergence from previous Church teachings. The narrative of, for instance, the LCWR, Fr. McBrien, etc.

There is, unfortunately, no widely-held counternarrative to the modern misrepresentation of Vatican II.
 
Saying that a council cannot have errors, would mean that infallible dogmas are meaningless, because why do we need dogmas if everything is said is right?
The fact that we differ between infallible and non-infallible shows that errors are possible and occur.
Also there are different levels of binding, parts that are not binding could contain heresy without misleading the Church. The council did not intend that every document is binding.

The pope complained that many make Vatican II to a superdogma. It is likely that every council had some small errors, but that did not hurt too much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top