Eastern Catholic teaching of the Second Vatican Council

[jwinch2]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1203788.htm

Archbishop Weisgerber, former president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, told them, "Sometimes we get the impression that – because the Roman Catholic Church is so large – that it has nothing to learn from anyone else.

“This is a great, great mistake. Often the smallest have the most important things to say,” the archbishop said.

"I am convinced that your exercise of the episcopacy and your exercise of synodality certainly reflect better the teaching of the Second Vatican Council than many other churches," he told them. (emphasis mine)

I am curious about this last statement. Does anyone in the Eastern Catholic community have a thought as to what Archbishop Weisgerber might have meant by this statement?

I readily acknowledge the issues on the implementation and teaching of Vatican II in the Roman Church and stand with Pope Benedict in agreeing that the writings of the council should be interpreted within the entire Tradition of the Church. In addition, I stand against those who tried to take some sort of undefined “spirit of Vatican II” as license for interjecting modernity into the Church. Having said that, I also stand against those who would suggest that Vatican II in some way destroyed the Church or changed Church doctrine.

However, after reading that article, I recognized that I know little if anything about the implementation and teachings of the council in the Eastern Catholic Churches and thought that some of our knowledgeable members here might have some general thoughts and some specific ones about the Archbishop’s comments in the article.

Peace,

 

[Zekariya]

Here is something that many don’t know that Vatican II said about itself:

From the Acts of the Council*

‘NOTIFICATIONES’ GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL
OF THE COUNCIL AT THE 123rd GENERAL CONGREGATION,
NOVEMBER 16, 1964

A question has arisen regarding the precise theological note which should be attached to the doctrine that is set forth in the Schema de Ecclesia and is being put to a vote.

The Theological Commission has given the following response regarding the Modi that have to do with Chapter III of the de Ecclesia Schema: “As is self-evident, the Council’s text must always be interpreted in accordance with the general rules that are known to all.”

On this occasion the Theological Commission makes reference to its Declaration of March 6, 1964, the text of which we transcribe here:

“Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.”

Source: (near the bottom): vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Emphasis mine.

 

[Vico]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1203788.htm

I am curious about this last statement. Does anyone in the Eastern Catholic community have a thought as to what Archbishop Weisgerber might have meant by this statement?

I readily acknowledge the issues on the implementation and teaching of Vatican II in the Roman Church and stand with Pope Benedict in agreeing that the writings of the council should be interpreted within the entire Tradition of the Church. In addition, I stand against those who tried to take some sort of undefined “spirit of Vatican II” as license for interjecting modernity into the Church. Having said that, I also stand against those who would suggest that Vatican II in some way destroyed the Church or changed Church doctrine.

However, after reading that article, I recognized that I know little if anything about the implementation and teachings of the council in the Eastern Catholic Churches and thought that some of our knowledgeable members here might have some general thoughts and some specific ones about the Archbishop’s comments in the article.

Peace,

Yes. Vatican II did give a clarification about the infallibility of the Church as a council which added to Vatican I. And in the eastern Catholic Churches there are multiple synodal assemblies. Also the metropolitan roles may be defined by the ritual Church in the Patriarchial and Major Archepiscopal hierarchies.

 

[mardukm]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1203788.htm

I am curious about this last statement. Does anyone in the Eastern Catholic community have a thought as to what Archbishop Weisgerber might have meant by this statement?

I readily acknowledge the issues on the implementation and teaching of Vatican II in the Roman Church and stand with Pope Benedict in agreeing that the writings of the council should be interpreted within the entire Tradition of the Church. In addition, I stand against those who tried to take some sort of undefined “spirit of Vatican II” as license for interjecting modernity into the Church. Having said that, I also stand against those who would suggest that Vatican II in some way destroyed the Church or changed Church doctrine.

However, after reading that article, I recognized that I know little if anything about the implementation and teachings of the council in the Eastern Catholic Churches and thought that some of our knowledgeable members here might have some general thoughts and some specific ones about the Archbishop’s comments in the article.

Peace,

I’m fairly certain he is simply speaking of the practice of collegiality.

There’s two ways to interpret it. He is saying that Eastern Catholics practice collegiality better than the Latin Catholics, or that Eastern Catholics practice collegiality better than other apostolic Churches (namely, those not in communion with Rome)…

Addition: “…or BOTH.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

OOPS!!! CORRECTION: The Archbishop was speaking to the Synod of the Ukranian Orthodox Church-MP, instead of an Eastern Catholic Synod or bishop . I think he was referring to the High Petrine praxis of the Ukranian Orthodox Church-MP as reflective of the collegiality taught by V2. By “than many other Churches,” he could be referring to other Orthodox Churches or he could be including the Catholic Church itself in that comment.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jwinch2]

I’m fairly certain he is simply speaking of the practice of collegiality.

There’s two ways to interpret it. He is saying that Eastern Catholics practice collegiality better than the Latin Catholics, or that Eastern Catholics practice collegiality better than other apostolic Churches (namely, those not in communion with Rome)…

Addition: “…or BOTH.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Interesting. Thanks!

 

[Cristiano]

Here is something that many don’t know that Vatican II said about itself:

From the Acts of the Council*

‘NOTIFICATIONES’ GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL
OF THE COUNCIL AT THE 123rd GENERAL CONGREGATION,
NOVEMBER 16, 1964

A question has arisen regarding the precise theological note which should be attached to the doctrine that is set forth in the Schema de Ecclesia and is being put to a vote.

The Theological Commission has given the following response regarding the Modi that have to do with Chapter III of the de Ecclesia Schema: “As is self-evident, the Council’s text must always be interpreted in accordance with the general rules that are known to all.”

On this occasion the Theological Commission makes reference to its Declaration of March 6, 1964, the text of which we transcribe here:

“Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.”

Source: (near the bottom): vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Emphasis mine.

The bolded part that you present seem to me a recursion and almost a form of tautology.

 

[jwinch2]

The bolded part that you present seem to me a recursion and almost a form of tautology.

I disagree. It suggests to me not something self supporting as you suggest, but actually supportive of the claims of many who have claimed that the council was by and large a pastoral one rather than a dogmatic one. Specifically, unless binding teachings are made explicitly so in the text of the council documents, then the teachings are not to be interpreted that way.

 

[Zekariya]

It suggests to me not something self supporting as you suggest, but actually supportive of the claims of many who have claimed that the council was by and large a pastoral one rather than a dogmatic one. Specifically, unless binding teachings are made explicitly so in the text of the council documents, then the teachings are not to be interpreted that way.

That is what I believe it is saying as well.

“The Second Vatican Council issued no “solemn judgments.” While Vatican II did repeat prior dogmatic teaching (e.g., on the Eucharist and Sacred Tradition), it did not define any dogmas or condemn any errors. When Pope John XXIII opened the council, he stated that the **council would be “pastoral,” unlike the previous councils. **This is why Paul VI said that Vatican II did not issue “any extraordinary statements with a note of infallibility.” So Vatican II is not infallible based upon the first type of teaching, “solemn judgment,” set forth in Vatican I’s Dei Filius.” - John Salza, Catholic Author, Apologist and Creator of www.ScriptureCatholic.com

Source: scripturecatholic.com/tradissues_qa.html

 

[ByzCathCantor]

OOPS!!! CORRECTION: The Archbishop was speaking to the Synod of the Ukranian Orthodox Church-MP, instead of an Eastern Catholic Synod or bishop . I think he was referring to the High Petrine praxis of the Ukranian Orthodox Church-MP as reflective of the collegiality taught by V2. By “than many other Churches,” he could be referring to other Orthodox Churches or he could be including the Catholic Church itself in that comment.

FWIW, that’s how I read it …

 

[jwinch2]

OOPS!!! CORRECTION: The Archbishop was speaking to the Synod of the Ukranian Orthodox Church-MP, instead of an Eastern Catholic Synod or bishop . I think he was referring to the High Petrine praxis of the Ukranian Orthodox Church-MP as reflective of the collegiality taught by V2. By “than many other Churches,” he could be referring to other Orthodox Churches or he could be including the Catholic Church itself in that comment.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m having a hard time following you on this one. Why would the Archbishop have any expectation on the following of Vatican II’s teachings by anyone other than Catholics in communion with Rome?