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

[TimothyH]

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.

Many have that same belief about Mr. Voris, that he doesn’t always teach things in the best way possible.

-Tim-

 

[PJM]

=ready;9407091]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!

What friend is the goal and motive of your “if-but”?

Either Magisterium: Ordnary or Extrodinary MUST have Papal approval and ONLY the POPE can issue a orginal DOGMATIC proclaimation.

Infallibility MUST always be in communion with the Pope.

God Blesws,
PJM

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Many have that same belief about Mr. Voris, that he doesn’t always teach things in the best way possible.

-Tim-

 

[ready]

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)

• Dei Verbum 19

I’ll try to provide you with the Voris’ video. Peace!

 

[ready]

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.

Thanks for the clarification. God bess you!

 

[ready]

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.

You make a great deal of sense. Thanks for your great help!

EDIT:

But the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible when she teaches on faith and morals. So it is my understanding that the Vatican II teachings on faith and morals are all free from error, unless the Church says that something she has taught on faith and morals in Vatican II is heretical.

 

[ready]

What friend is the goal and motive of your “if-but”?

Either Magisterium: Ordnary or Extrodinary MUST have Papal approval and ONLY the POPE can issue a orginal DOGMATIC proclaimation.

Infallibility MUST always be in communion with the Pope.

God Blesws,
PJM

You have misunderstood me, my question is about Vatican-II and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, not the solemn Extraordinary Magisterium. If I mentioned the solemn Extraordinary Magisterium and pronouncing dogmas it was for no other purpose but to clarify my question.

 

[catharina]

:banghead:

Ditto.

 

[wasserfall]

You have misunderstood me, my question is about Vatican-II and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, not the solemn Extraordinary Magisterium. If I mentioned the solemn Extraordinary Magisterium and pronouncing dogmas it was for no other purpose but to clarify my question.

Ready, the universal and ordinary magisterium is just the teaching of doctrines that the Church has always taught and believed. Anything in the documents of Vatican II that was repetition or rephrasing of what the Church has always taught is an exercise of the universal and ordinary magisterium.

However, anything in the documents of Vatican II that is contradictory to that which the Church has always taught is not an exercise of the universal and ordinary magisterium.

If there is something in Vatican II that appears to contradict the constant teaching of the Church then we have a problem.

It might be the case that our understanding of the council text is false, such that by correctly understanding the text, we can see that there is no contradiction.

On the other hand, it might be the case that the council text is in error, however none of us have the authority to make a definitive declaration that such is the case, although we can discuss the possibility.

To wrap this back around to the SSPX situation, the SSPX declares that there are errors in the council documents. The Pope is saying to them: “You don’t have the authority to make that declaration, so I require that you cease doing so.” This is a reasonable demand.

It would be unreasonable, however, to require that the SSPX affirmatively declare that the council is free from error, and as far as I can see, the Pope is not doing that (although some other persons have attempted to do so).

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Joe 5859;9407517:

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.
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?

This underlined simplification inadvertently overlooks the complex realities facing the Church in the mid-twentieth century. The Roman Curia had unconsciously adopted philosophical methodologies – based upon unintentional misunderstandings from the original genius of St. Thomas Aquinas – that virtually ignored intellectual developments in the modern world since the Protestant Reformation. Simply put, the Church was essentially confronting the twentieth century with a seventeenth-century mentality.

Vatican II employed orthodox philosophical insights from personalism and phenomenology to provide a much more dynamic approach of the Deposit of Faith than the static outlook found in the pre-conciliar theological manuals characteristic of Leonine Thomism. Consequently, this has resulted in beneficial developments toward understanding the dignity of the human person, religious liberty in secular society, ecumenism & interreligious dialogue, religious liberty in secular society, sexuality within the context of marriage, and the role of the laity in evangelization.

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?

Except this is contradicted by the fact that even now the ordained members of the S.S.P.X. are themselves not in unanimous agreement regarding the precise status of Vatican II rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/bishop-tissier-de-mallerais.html ]

 

[ready]

I agree with your post.

My newest question is: Who has the authority to address the Church and accuse a pope or council of teaching errors? Only Bishops in union with the Pope? Saints? Anyone else? St. Athanasius was against many Bishops in his understanding of things, thanks be to God the Pope saw he was right in seeing heresy for what it truly is - heresy.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

So it is my understanding that the Vatican II teachings on faith and morals are all free from error, unless the Church says that something she has taught on faith and morals in Vatican II is heretical.

Ready, you seem not to have read the earlier response to this? To repeat, this underlined hypothetical is impossible since it would violate the indefectibility of the Church promised by Our Lord (cf. Matthew 16:18).

 

[SanctusPeccator]

However, anything in the documents of Vatican II that is contradictory to that which the Church has always taught is not an exercise of the universal and ordinary magisterium.

If there is something in Vatican II that appears to contradict the constant teaching of the Church then we have a problem.

It might be the case that our understanding of the council text is false, such that by correctly understanding the text, we can see that there is no contradiction.

On the other hand, it might be the case that the council text is in error, however none of us have the authority to make a definitive declaration that such is the case, although we can discuss the possibility.

To wrap this back around to the SSPX situation, the SSPX declares that there are errors in the council documents. The Pope is saying to them: “You don’t have the authority to make that declaration, so I require that you cease doing so.” This is a reasonable demand.

It would be unreasonable, however, to require that the SSPX affirmatively declare that the council is free from error, and as far as I can see, the Pope is not doing that (although some other persons have attempted to do so).

Your underlined statement has just “cut the Gordian knot” toward resolving this persisently illogical fear of the perceived errors emanating from Vatican II. Why not follow your own advice?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Joe 5859;9407517:

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.
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?

This underlined simplification inadvertently overlooks the complex realities facing the Church in the mid-twentieth century. The Roman Curia had unconsciously adopted philosophical methodologies – based upon unintentional misunderstandings from the original genius of St. Thomas Aquinas – that virtually ignored intellectual developments in the modern world since the Protestant Reformation. Simply put, the Church was essentially confronting the twentieth century with a seventeenth-century mentality.

Vatican II employed orthodox philosophical insights from personalism and phenomenology to provide a much more dynamic approach of the Deposit of Faith than the static outlook found in the pre-conciliar theological manuals characteristic of Leonine Thomism. Consequently, this has resulted in beneficial developments toward understanding the dignity of the human person, religious liberty in secular society, ecumenism & interreligious dialogue, religious liberty in secular society, sexuality within the context of marriage, and the role of the laity in evangelization.

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?

Except this is contradicted by the fact that even now the ordained members S.S.P.X. are themselves not in unanimous agreement regarding the precise status of Vatican II rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/bishop-tissier-de-mallerais.html ]

 

[wasserfall]

Vatican II employed orthodox philosophical insights from personalism and phenomenology to provide a much more dynamic approach of the Deposit of Faith than the static outlook found in the pre-conciliar theological manuals characteristic of Leonine Thomism. Consequently, this has resulted in beneficial developments toward understanding the dignity of the human person, religious liberty in secular society, ecumenism & interreligious dialogue, religious liberty in secular society, sexuality within the context of marriage, and the role of the laity in evangelization.

It is entirely debatable whether or not these developments have been beneficial in all cases.

 

[catharina]

It is entirely debatable whether or not these developments have been beneficial in all cases.

In your opinion.

The Church is older Vatican II.
Vatican II is a brand-new factor in Church History.
Why would anyone attempt to debate the worth of a Council???

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;9409939:

Vatican II employed orthodox philosophical insights from personalism and phenomenology to provide a much more dynamic approach of the Deposit of Faith than the static outlook found in the pre-conciliar theological manuals characteristic of Leonine Thomism. Consequently, this has resulted in beneficial developments toward understanding the dignity of the human person, ecumenism & interreligious dialogue, religious liberty in secular society, sexuality within the context of marriage, and the role of the laity in evangelization.

It is entirely debatable whether or not these developments have been beneficial in all cases.

Where was it said this recent ecclesiastical approach was beneficial in all cases? The Baroque Thomism adopted by the Council of Trent was not beneficial in all cases either since Protestantism failed to reconcile with the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, it did provide the necessary impetus for the gradual expansion of the Counter-Reformation.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

The Church is older Vatican II.
Vatican II is a brand-new factor in Church History.
Why would anyone attempt to debate the worth of a Council???

Quite so Catharina…let alone (unintentionally) second-guessing the Magisterium? :banghead:

 

[ready]

Ready, you seem not to have read the earlier response to this? To repeat, this underlined hypothetical is impossible since it would violate the indefectibility of the Church promised by Our Lord (cf. Matthew 16:18).

I’m sorry you had to repeat yourself.

If the Universal Magisterium contradicts a previous Universal Magisterium then the contradiction is to be rejected. This is what I have been taught.

 

[wasserfall]

In your opinion.

The Church is older Vatican II.
Vatican II is a brand-new factor in Church History.
Why would anyone attempt to debate the worth of a Council???

Nicht jedes Konzil der Kirchengeschichte war fruchtbar; letzten endes sind viele von ihnen reine Zeitverschwendung gewesen.
– J. Kard. Ratzinger

books.google.com/books?id=f2H9_uqW8p8C&pg=378#v=onepage&q&f=false