Is a pastoral council and its decrees non binding or does a council have pastoral authority over the faithful?

[Rich_C]

@Triumphguy,

I think those articles you put up are intended to refute the idea that only ex cathedra statements must be believed. But that’s not what I was contending.

I assent to all the doctrines of the Church, however proclaimed–solemnly, ordinarily, hilariously. But since even popes have said that the Council taught no new doctrine, it follows to me (just a layman’s common sense, I have no pretentions to theology) that therefore there is nothing I am bound to believe in the documents of Vatican II that wasn’t already binding before Vatican II.

Therefore, I don’t worry about it. As long as a Catechism includes the Dogma of the Assumption, it’s up to date in my book.

 

[triumphguy]

@Triumphguy,

I think those articles you put up are intended to refute the idea that only ex cathedra statements must be believed. But that’s not what I was contending.

I assent to all the doctrines of the Church, however proclaimed–solemnly, ordinarily, hilariously. But since even popes have said that the Council taught no new doctrine, it follows to me (just a layman’s common sense, I have no pretentions to theology) that therefore there is nothing I am bound to believe in the documents of Vatican II that wasn’t already binding before Vatican II.

Therefore, I don’t worry about it. As long as a Catechism includes the Dogma of the Assumption, it’s up to date in my book.

I must have mis-read your post then.

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

The fact that the SSPX argument that “Vatican II wasn’t infallible” keeps coming up is mind boggling. The documents themselves at face value do not support it.

Pope Paul VI: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

If the magisterium specifically avoids engaging the charism of infallibility, the charism is not engaged; and if it is charism of infallibility is not engaged, error is possible. It is a simple as that.

 

[MorEphrem]

Yes, that’s true, but I think the point is that only those bishops “in union with Rome” were fully eligible to participate. IOW, not all Eastern/Oriental bishops were included. It seems to me that’s where the question lies. (As an aside, and FWLIW, I happen to agree that it is indeed problematic from Oriental perspective).

Exactly, a Coptic bishop and a few of the melkite bishops were present for some part of this year’s Maronite local synod: but by the logic of the Latin Church that seems to make it an Ecumenical Council because there were bishops present that were allowed to speak and were not of the sui iuris Church it was being hosted by.

 

[EphelDuath]

Pope Paul VI: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

Misconstrued context. The Council did not formally define a theoretical doctrine into a dogma of the Church, as such was the case with the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. In that sense, no charism was invoked. Nevertheless, what the documents say are infallible because they were promulgated by the Magisterium. A Catholic in good conscience cannot, e.g., say that Lumen Gentium possibly errs when it says that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ. To do so is to disparage sacred authority.

 

[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. The relatio for Dignitatis Humanae also specifically says it is applying certain principles to particular circumstances. 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.

Like all Councils there is a mix of teaching and “pastoring” or governing. Like, say, Lyons I, 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 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).

Incidentally, this is the main doctrinal problem with the SSPX–they deny even this kind of assent and justify it by claiming that Vatican II was not an act of the Magisterium at all. They err by believing that the teaching authority of the Church can be separted from the teaching Church.

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

Misconstrued context. The Council did not formally define a theoretical doctrine into a dogma of the Church, as such was the case with the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. In that sense, no charism was invoked. Nevertheless, what the documents say are infallible because they were promulgated by the Magisterium. A Catholic in good conscience cannot, e.g., say that Lumen Gentium possibly errs when it says that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ. To do so is to disparage sacred authority.

Infallibility requires more than just promulgation. The teaching itself must be of a definitive nature. Vatican II did not define any dogmas, as Cardinal Ratzinger stated:

Cardinal Ratzinger: “The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council…”.

Since infallibility is tied to teachings of a definitive nature; and since only definitions are protected by infallibility, the only teachings of Vatican II that are infallible are those that were defined prior to the council, as Bishop Butler of England stated two years after the close of Vatican II

Bishop Butler of England: “Not all teachings emanating from a pope or Ecumenical Council are infallible. There is no single proposition of Vatican II – except where it is citing previous infallible definitions – which is in itself infallible.” (The Tablet 26/11/1967)

If the Church specifically avoids engaging the charism of infallibility, it is not engaged. It is as simple as that The formal promulgation of a document is not, in and of itself, sufficient to render the teachings contained within a document infallible. Promulgation is one of the requirements, but it is not the only requirement.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Exactly, a Coptic bishop and a few of the melkite bishops were present for some part of this year’s Maronite local synod: but by the logic of the Latin Church that seems to make it an Ecumenical Council because there were bishops present that were allowed to speak and were not of the sui iuris Church it was being hosted by.

No, an Ecumenical Council (currently anyway) has to be convoked by or at least allowed to occur by the will of the Sovereign Pontiff.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Misconstrued context. The Council did not formally define a theoretical doctrine into a dogma of the Church, as such was the case with the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. In that sense, no charism was invoked. Nevertheless, what the documents say are infallible because they were promulgated by the Magisterium. A Catholic in good conscience cannot, e.g., say that Lumen Gentium possibly errs when it says that the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ. To do so is to disparage sacred authority.

So you would argue that Gravissimum educationis is infallible? Or am I misreading you?

 

[malphono]

No, an Ecumenical Council (currently anyway) has to be convoked by or at least allowed to occur by the will of the Sovereign Pontiff.

That’s true, yes, but what was presented was by way of analogy. Perhaps he could have been a bit clearer, but the intent was, I think, to show that just because someone is admitted as an observer, even if allowed to speak, he is not a true “voting member” of the synod.

 

[EphelDuath]

So you would argue that Gravissimum educationis is infallible? Or am I misreading you?

Gravissimum educationis was “just” a declaration, so that’s somewhat more complicated. To be very technical (which misses the point of our audience consideration, but I digress): Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes, and Sacrosanctum Concilium are all infallible because they’re apostolic constitutions promulgated by the Magisterium. So the claims made in those documents cannot be disputed by an orthodox Catholic, as confirmed by the CDF. Decrees and declarations, however, are more matters of policy which do not formulate or re-emphasize claims of dogma, so speaking of if they’re infallible is a somewhat moot point. You can’t get wrong answers on a test if you don’t put any down.

That being said. The SSPX says that Dignitatis Humanae is a rupture with Sacred Tradition, and that’s not an apostolic constitution so they are free to examine it critically. Nevertheless to reject it entirely is heterodox because it was decreed to be an official document of the Church.

So to summarize. The SSPX rejects Lumen Gentium, that’s theological heterodoxy. The SSPX rejects Dignitatis Humanae, that’s a functional schism but not heretical.

Infallibility requires more than just promulgation. The teaching itself must be of a definitive nature. Vatican II did not define any dogmas, as Cardinal Ratzinger stated.

Yes, it did not provide any NEW definitions or promulgations of dogma. That being said, the way it describes previously held dogma is infallible. Otherwise you need to explain to me why the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has condemned the notion that one can freely reject e.g. “subsists in”.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Gravissimum educationis was “just” a declaration, so that’s somewhat more complicated. To be very technical (which misses the point of our audience consideration, but I digress): Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes, and Sacrosanctum Concilium are all infallible because they’re apostolic constitutions promulgated by the Magisterium.

That is plainly not true. An apostolic constitution is not automatically infallible. Plenty of non-infallible apostolic constitutions exist. For example, Anglicanorum Coetibus is nowhere near infallible. Sacrosanctum Concilium is not “infallible” either. No one would seriously try to argue that this or that paragraph on art is infallible, I hope. That can’t be infallible.

At the same time, I am not saying that none of what is contained in the various constitutions of Vatican II is infallible. Please take this for what I say and nothing more: the fact that a document is called an apostolic constitution does not make what it contains infallible. A pope could promulgate a dogma on a napkin and call it the Apostolic Napkin and it would be infallible if it met the requirements set out by the Church for such a status. The physical form and title of a document does not itself offer anything towards its contents being dogmatic unless it does express some hint that that is what is intended by the document. For example, something called “A Document on Mary” could or could not be infallible. It does not seem to be, but if the subtitle or another part of the document sets out to meet the requirements set out by the Church for infallibility, it very well could be infallible. But something called “A Dogmatic Constitution on Mary” could be infallible, or at least would contain certain statements which are infallible, or contain some explications of already-held dogmatic teachings. But unless all of the requirements for infallibility are met, the formulation of words in a document itself is not infallible.

Again, my analogy rests with the CCC, which contains statements which describe and sometimes directly state the definitions of infallible teaching, but the CCC itself is not infallible, nor is it intended to be.

Disclaimer: what I have said is, as far as I can tell, fact. It is not a “challenge to the Magisterium” or anything any poster who might wish to report me might think. On the other hand, if anyone notices anything which is glaring, please consider it a gloss on my part and I will be happy to talk.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That’s true, yes, but what was presented was by way of analogy. Perhaps he could have been a bit clearer, but the intent was, I think, to show that just because someone is admitted as an observer, even if allowed to speak, he is not a true “voting member” of the synod.

Well, whether or not a bishop is allowed to vote depends on whether he is a Catholic bishop or not. Clearly the Church will not, and probably can not, allow Orthodox bishops to vote in Ecumenical Councils. In a similar way, would you expect the Orthodox to allow Pope Francis to vote in a synod of theirs? Would that even be “valid?” Well, yes!, I suppose it would be for him–but not the above–but that would be kind of a major ecclesiastic faux pas probably.

A synod is not necessarily an ec, but just grant for the sake of argument that this works logically.

 

[malphono]

Well, whether or not a bishop is allowed to vote depends on whether he is a Catholic bishop or not. Clearly the Church will not, and probably can not, allow Orthodox bishops to vote in Ecumenical Councils. In a similar way, would you expect the Orthodox to allow Pope Francis to vote in a synod of theirs? Would that even be “valid?” Well, yes!, I suppose it would be for him–but not the above–but that would be kind of a major ecclesiastic faux pas probably.

A synod is not necessarily an ec, but just grant for the sake of argument that this works logically.

OK, and yes I understand all that, but the point I (and, I think, MorEphrem, though he will have to speak for himself) was trying to make was, as I noted in an earlier post, that a definition of an Oecumenical Council that is not fully inclusive is, in itself, problematic from an Oriental perspective. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[sw85]

Yes, it did not provide any NEW definitions or promulgations of dogma. That being said, the way it describes previously held dogma is infallible. Otherwise you need to explain to me why the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has condemned the notion that one can freely reject e.g. “subsists in”.

One may not reject the principle to which “subsists in” refers. But one may object that “subsists in” is not the best or clearest way to describe that principle. The SSPX is wrong not because they make that argument (which is a perfectly licit one to make) but because they incorrectly argue that “subsists in” fundamentally altars the principle as it was previously defined, which the Church itself rejects. Here again, the distinction: principles and doctrines are protected by the charism of infallibility, but the question of how best to state or formulate these doctrines is not, because it’s a prudential question.

 

[YoungTradCath]

OK, and yes I understand all that, but the point I (and, I think, MorEphrem, though he will have to speak for himself) was trying to make was, as I noted in an earlier post, that a definition of an Oecumenical Council that is not fully inclusive is, in itself, problematic from an Oriental perspective. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, yes, sure, from a Latin perspective it is “problematic,” in the sense that it is infinitely better that all be one and that sort of stuff than it is to be split. I think it is very sad that our Churches are split.

Anyway, yes it is problematic. But it seems to me that this is the best we can do right now. Sometimes the ideal cannot be met. Jesus never guaranteed we would not be without problems, after all!

 

[YoungTradCath]

One may not reject the principle to which “subsists in” refers. But one may object that “subsists in” is not the best or clearest way to describe that principle. The SSPX is wrong not because they make that argument (which is a perfectly licit one to make) but because they incorrectly argue that “subsists in” fundamentally altars the principle as it was previously defined, which the Church itself rejects. Here again, the distinction: principles and doctrines are protected by the charism of infallibility, but the question of how best to state or formulate these doctrines is not, because it’s a prudential question.

Well actually, the statement or formulation of dogmas can in fact be infallible, or at least that is how I understand Pastor aeternus. They usually are not, but they can be. To use it again, the dogma of the Assumption of Mary can never be changed or reformulated. The Latin words of the Constitution themselves in their particular syntactical configuration are absolutely and completely inviolate from the moment Pius XII signed it forever. To wit:

Quamobrem, si quis, quod Deus avertat, id vel negare, vel in dubium vocare voluntarie ausus fuerit, quod a Nobis definitum est, noverit se a divina ac catholica fide prorsus defecisse.

Ut autem ad universalis Ecclesiae notitiam haec Nostra corporeae Mariae Virginis in Caelum Assumptionis definitio deducatur, has Apostolicas Nostras Litteras ad perpetuam rei memoriam exstare voluimus; mandantes ut harum transumptis, seu exemplis etiam impressis, manu alicuius notarii publici subscriptis, et sigillo personae in ecclesiastica dignitate constitutae munitis, eadem prorsus fides ab omnibus habeatur, quae ipsis praesentibus adhiberetur, si forent exhibitae vel ostensae.

Nulli ergo hominum liceat paginam hanc Nostrae declarationis, pronuntiationis ac definitionis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario adversari et contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem Omnipotentis Dei ac Beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum.

ie

1. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

1. In order that this, our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be brought to the attention of the universal Church, we desire that this, our Apostolic Letter, should stand for perpetual remembrance, commanding that written copies of it, or even printed copies, signed by the hand of any public notary and bearing the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, should be accorded by all men the same reception they would give to this present letter, were it tendered or shown.

1. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

And this does bind Popes.

But Vatican II did not employ the analogous concept for ecumenical councils. So afaik this case would fall in to the lines of what you say.

 

[Aramis]

I’m a bit confused as to how the Latin Church refers to VII. It seems they say what I would call a Church’s synod an Ecumenical Council, which is problematic for many reasons from an Eastern mindset. Someone correct/help me out.

The Eastern Churches in union were participants.

 

[malphono]

Oh, yes, sure, from a Latin perspective it is “problematic,” in the sense that it is infinitely better that all be one and that sort of stuff than it is to be split. I think it is very sad that our Churches are split.

Anyway, yes it is problematic. But it seems to me that this is the best we can do right now. Sometimes the ideal cannot be met. Jesus never guaranteed we would not be without problems, after all!

Understood, but a good part of what I meant by “problematic” lies in the definition of “Oecumenical” itself. Classifying a council as “Oecumenical” is a problem from an Oriental perspective precisely because of the current (and that for at least 1000 years) scheme of things. The question (which, for the purpose of this forum, is strictly academic) is, really, whether a “council” convoked and dominated by, and dependent in every respect on, Rome, can ever be considered to be truly “Oecumenical,” participation by bishops “in union with Rome” notwithstanding.

 

[malphono]

The Eastern Churches in union were participants.

Yes, of course, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that the definition of “Oecumenical” is still problematic from an Oriental perspective.