Interpretation of Vatican II

[CutlerB]

I generally shy away from all the discussion about Vatican II, but I fear I must ask one question in that regard.

While I do accept it as a valid Ecumenical Council, I find it hard to understand what it’s standing is within Magisterial authority. By that I mean: There are those who say it was a predominantly pastoral Council (as Bl. John XXIII said in the opening) and its decrees concerning certain matters could be changed.

Did Vatican II issue any expressly infallible statements? Can it be “repealed”, so to speak, superseded or can at least parts of its decisions be?

I ask these questions in view of this article, which I find both interesting and worrying ( harvestingthefruit.com/institutional_collapse/) but also because my heart aches when I see how bad the situation is in some areas, whether geographically, demographically or liturgically (abuses, etc.). It pains me to see Holy Church afflicted and distracted, deprived of what She once had and so stricken by and smitten with those in Her who want “reform” against Church doctrine.

Though I know the Ordinary Form of the Mass was not developed by Vatican II, but under Pope Paul VI’s Pontificate, Vatican II did cal for liturgical renewal. On that front I ask: Could the Ordinary Form of the Mass technically be abrogated?

 

[Genesis315]

“Pastoral” is a word that refers to the application of doctrine to particular circumstances to achieve the greatest good for the flock. Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution, mentions how much of what is in it is contingent on the circumstances (see footnote 1). The relatio (an official interpretive guide give to voting bishops at an ecumenical Council) for Dignitatis Humanae also specifically says it is applying certain principles to particular circumstances. This was affirmed by Pope Benedict XVI in his famous “hermneutic of continuity” address to the Roman Curia (December 22, 2005). Pretty much all of the documents of Vatican II do this. Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum are more focused on doctrine in general, rather than applying it to contemporary circumstances, but even they present such pastoral directives. Obviously, if circumstances changed, pastoral decisions may change to bring about the greatest good. Popes and bishops have been doing this since the beginning through their pastoral letters and past Councils have legislated with pastoral aims (legislation based on immutable pricniples, but which was changeable in itself and was later changed in many cases).

Regarding the Mass in particular, the Council of Trent (session 21, chapter 2) and Pius XII’s Mediator Dei (par. 58) affirm the Church’s authority to modify or introduce new rites. The ordinary form could therefore be changed or replaced by another rite.

I would just add, in the link you provided, the author’s three bullet points really miss the mark. For example, Dignitiatis Humane does not even address the relationship between Church and State, but rather the relationship between the fact that man has a right to come to the true faith without coercion with the state’s duty to the common good, given the particular circumstances of the our time. In Gaudium et Spes, the Church offers to give up certain privileges to achieve a greater good, but there is nothing wrong with this (cf. Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 36). Elsewhere, Vatican II affirms the need to infuse Christianity into the laws and structures of society (Apostolicam Actuositatem 13). It simply did not repudiate Christ’s role in society (what would even be the point of, say Gaudium et Spes, if the Chuch as repudiating the authority of Christ’s doctrine in society?).

Vatican II also nowhere says false religions are of themselves means of salvation. neither does it neglect the call to convert.

Here’s a fact–none of the problems the author mentions would be a problem if every person in a spirit of docility and obedience assented to and did every jot and title of what the Council said. Every porblem that I have seen attributed to the Council is specifically countered by the Council. The problem is, people took a few buzzwords they heard in the media about the Council and went nuts with the spirit of the world.

 

[Genesis315]

I just wanted to add some words about the assent due to Vatican II, which relates to its Magisterial authority.

Like all Councils there is a mix of teaching and “pastoring” or governing. Like, say, Lyons I, but unlike, say, Trent, Vatican II does not offer any definitive judgments on doctrine, but it still teaches (Lyons I, like Lateran I, was actually focused on legislation). This kind of teaching, which is often used by Popes in their encyclicals, is how Vatican II teaches. When compared to previous Councils, its mode of operation seems unique, but when compared with papal teaching after Vatican I, it fits right in. Like past Councils, Popes in earlier centuries generally only intervened to definitively settle doctrinal and disciplinary disputes; they didn’t issue long, periodic, pastoral letters to the whole Church like they do now and like bishops historically did in their diocese.

Like the ordinary teaching of a Pope, the ordinary teaching of a Council, in this case Vatican II, receives obsequium religiosum, an internal religious submission. This assent is not absolute like the faith given to definitions, but it requires a docile and sincere attempt to accept and assimilate the teaching, and to put it into effect, with a presumption of truth toward the teaching. If this fails, one may qualify their assent and even raise concerns in a way consonant with one’s rank and competence (for example, a layman going around on the internet trying to convince everyone the Council is in error in its official teaching is improper–sometimes respectful silence is appropriate; on the other hand, a theologian or bishop submitting a dubia to the CDF would be an appropriate thing).

See pars. 23-31 of this CDF document where how these principles relate to theologians is explained. The standard for untrained layment will be a bit different, but you can get the main point from this I think:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

 

[edwest2]

To the OP’s last question, the answer is here:

"In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

The closing words of Pope Benedict refer to the “arbitrary deformations of the liturgy.” The blame for this can be laid on those dissidents inside and outside the Church who now proclaim Vatican II as the cause or likely cause for the problems that followed its end in 1965. Nothing could be further from the truth.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Peace,
Ed

 

[Joe_5859]

I would encourage you to actually read the documents of Vatican II for yourself.

Far too many make too much of it being a “pastoral” Council with the implicit conclusion being that we don’t really have to believe or accept anything it says. That’s completely false.

But again, read the documents yourself. There are lots of people promoting goofy things or living in fear of goofy things that have nothing to do with the documents.

Sure, the OF could be abrogated by the lawful Church authority just as any form could be. But it’s not. Such a possibility is as much a criticism of the OF as it is off any form of the Mass.

 

[CutlerB]

“Pastoral” is a word that refers to the application of doctrine to particular circumstances to achieve the greatest good for the flock. Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution, mentions how much of what is in it is contingent on the circumstances (see footnote 1). The relatio (an official interpretive guide give to voting bishops at an ecumenical Council) for Dignitatis Humanae also specifically says it is applying certain principles to particular circumstances. This was affirmed by Pope Benedict XVI in his famous “hermneutic of continuity” address to the Roman Curia (December 22, 2005). Pretty much all of the documents of Vatican II do this. Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum are more focused on doctrine in general, rather than applying it to contemporary circumstances, but even they present such pastoral directives. Obviously, if circumstances changed, pastoral decisions may change to bring about the greatest good. Popes and bishops have been doing this since the beginning through their pastoral letters and past Councils have legislated with pastoral aims (legislation based on immutable pricniples, but which was changeable in itself and was later changed in many cases).

Regarding the Mass in particular, the Council of Trent (session 21, chapter 2) and Pius XII’s Mediator Dei (par. 58) affirm the Church’s authority to modify or introduce new rites. The ordinary form could therefore be changed or replaced by another rite.

I would just add, in the link you provided, the author’s three bullet points really miss the mark. For example, Dignitiatis Humane does not even address the relationship between Church and State, but rather the relationship between the fact that man has a right to come to the true faith without coercion with the state’s duty to the common good, given the particular circumstances of the our time. In Gaudium et Spes, the Church offers to give up certain privileges to achieve a greater good, but there is nothing wrong with this (cf. Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 36). Elsewhere, Vatican II affirms the need to infuse Christianity into the laws and structures of society (Apostolicam Actuositatem 13). It simply did not repudiate Christ’s role in society (what would even be the point of, say Gaudium et Spes, if the Chuch as repudiating the authority of Christ’s doctrine in society?).

Vatican II also nowhere says false religions are of themselves means of salvation. neither does it neglect the call to convert.

Here’s a fact–none of the problems the author mentions would be a problem if every person in a spirit of docility and obedience assented to and did every jot and title of what the Council said. Every porblem that I have seen attributed to the Council is specifically countered by the Council. The problem is, people took a few buzzwords they heard in the media about the Council and went nuts with the spirit of the world.

I will try and do so. Indeed, I have read Dei Verbum already. But the others are really quite… long, which is always rather daunting.

The link I posted was referred to at Father Z’s blog (wdtprs.com), or rather quoted in part to which he added his personal comments. I really enjoy his blog.

 

[CutlerB]

I would encourage you to actually read the documents of Vatican II for yourself.

Far too many make too much of it being a “pastoral” Council with the implicit conclusion being that we don’t really have to believe or accept anything it says. That’s completely false.

But again, read the documents yourself. There are lots of people promoting goofy things or living in fear of goofy things that have nothing to do with the documents.

Sure, the OF could be abrogated by the lawful Church authority just as any form could be. But it’s not. Such a possibility is as much a criticism of the OF as it is off any form of the Mass.

I will try and do so. Indeed, I have read Dei Verbum already. But the others are really quite… long, which is always rather daunting.

The link I posted was referred to at Father Z’s blog (wdtprs.com), or rather quoted in part to which he added his personal comments. I really enjoy his blog.

 

[Joe_5859]

I will try and do so. Indeed, I have read Dei Verbum already. But the others are really quite… long, which is always rather daunting.

The link I posted was referred to at Father Z’s blog (wdtprs.com), or rather quoted in part to which he added his personal comments. I really enjoy his blog.

Dei Verbum is a good one. Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes are really the long ones. Most of the rest aren’t too bad.

I created a reading plan (in my signature) for reading through the documents in a year by just reading the equivalent of 1 to 1 1/2 pages a day. Just take it one document at a time.