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

  • Thread starter Thread starter eyesopening
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
I am quite familiar with their reasons. I just can not accept them.
Click to expand...
I’m not an apologist for the Society, but I do have two questions for you.
  1. I’m sure you remember the huge debate over the “pro-multis”. The SSPX and other like-minded Catholic claim (correctly) that the translation “for all” was a wrong translation. After maintaining the contrary view in teaching and practice for almost 40 years, Rome finally agreed and the error has been corrected. My question is: Before Rome finally admitted that the translation was wrong, which side were you on?
  2. The other HUGE debate was over whether or not the old Mass has been abrogated. The SSPX and other like-minded Catholics said it never was. This was contrary to the public position of the Vatican and the practice for almost 40 years. In fact, the Pope even issued two Indults for the Old Mass. And since an Indult is permission to do what the law does not permit, this was a Papal confirmation that the old Mass was indeed abrogated.
Then, in 2007, to the utter shock of all but the SSPX and other like-minded Catholics, Pope Benedict admitted that, indeed, the old Mass "was never juridically abrogated, and, in principle, always permitted". My question is this: Which side were you on before Pope Benedict’s admission? Were you on the side of the SSPX, or the side of virtually everyone else?

I ask these two questions because you said you’ve read over their arguments and were not persuaded, so I am wondering if you were also not persuaded on their arguments with respect to these two points, since they were shown to be correct on both of them.
 
Texas_Longhorns said:
I’m not an apologist for the Society, but I do have two questions for you.
  1. I’m sure you remember the huge debate over the “pro-multis”. The SSPX and other like-minded Catholic claim (correctly) that the translation “for all” was a wrong translation. After maintaining the contrary view in teaching and practice for almost 40 years, Rome finally agreed and the error has been corrected. My question is: Before Rome finally admitted that the translation was wrong, which side were you on?
  2. The other HUGE debate was over whether or not the old Mass has been abrogated. The SSPX and other like-minded Catholics said it never was. This was contrary to the public position of the Vatican and the practice for almost 40 years. In fact, the Pope even issued two Indults for the Old Mass. And since an Indult is permission to do what the law does not permit, this was a Papal confirmation that the old Mass was indeed abrogated.
Click to expand...
Neither of these are issues of infallibility. I always knew what pro multis meant and thought the translation inaccurate. However, much of the English translation was too dynamic. That is why it has gone back to a much more stilted, less smooth, but more literal translation. The second issue is one of discipline under the direct authority of the pontiff. On this, one does what he say, unless one wants to burn off with another denomination.

In these two instances, we have cases which argue something no one suggests. I do not think anyone has suggested that* everything* from Vatican II is infallible. This is a far cry from saying nothing from Vatican II is infallible. It is better just to take the documents at their literal meaning. What is said to be dogmatic, is. What does not claim to be dogmatic, is not, but it is still binding.
 
Texas_Longhorns said:
  1. I’m sure you remember the huge debate over the “pro-multis”. The SSPX and other like-minded Catholic claim (correctly) that the translation “for all” was a wrong translation. After maintaining the contrary view in teaching and practice for almost 40 years, Rome finally agreed and the error has been corrected. My question is: Before Rome finally admitted that the translation was wrong, which side were you on?
Click to expand...
Actually the whole translation of the Canon was questioned, especially since differing and many translations* came into being. AFAIK only the “pro-multis” thing has been corrected and that of several languages**, including English and Spanish, except the Spanish changes so far have come without as much fanfare. 🙂 The Italian fix I don’t know about; the bishops there weren’t as cooperative.
  • It had been reported up to 20 different canons were used right before the 1969 promulgation of the new Missal.
**The French and Polish didn’t need this correction, but I’m not sure if other corrections are forthcoming.
 
Please see new direction of the thread before going forward.

I made this change to avoid more conflicts and disrespect and to encourage a truly intellectual discussion more appropriate for Catholic scholarship.

Remember, TC Forum is for the purpose of scholarly discussions on Catholic traditions and Catholic customs, not for airing out personal gripes or fighting with each other because one disagrees. Scholars often disagree, but they do so very diplomatically. Otherwise, a scholarly discussion is impossible.
 
ProVobis said:
Actually the whole translation of the Canon was questioned, especially since differing and many translations* came into being. AFAIK only the “pro-multis” thing has been corrected and that of several languages**, including English and Spanish, except the Spanish changes so far have come without as much fanfare. 🙂 The Italian fix I don’t know about; the bishops there weren’t as cooperative.
  • It had been reported up to 20 different canons were used right before the 1969 promulgation of the new Missal.
**The French and Polish didn’t need this correction, but I’m not sure if other corrections are forthcoming.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind: the official translation into English was 1973…

English liturgy was used as early as 1965, but no officially approved ICEL translation existed until 1973. And limited vernacular use was approved pre-vatican II for the baptismal promises and psalms; Pp. Pius XII and his 1951 revision…
 
Aramis said:
Keep in mind: the official translation into English was 1973…
Click to expand...
That may be, but I don’t recall much, if any, difference between the “unofficial” stuff used from 1969 and the “official” version of 1973. 🤷
 
pnewton said:
In these two instances, we have cases which argue something no one suggests. I do not think anyone has suggested that* everything* from Vatican II is infallible. This is a far cry from saying nothing from Vatican II is infallible. It is better just to take the documents at their literal meaning. What is said to be dogmatic, is. What does not claim to be dogmatic, is not, but it is still binding.
Click to expand...
I agree that much of Vatican II is infallible since it is simply a reiteration of what had already been infallibly defined. But nothing new was infallibly defined at Vatican II. And since the charism of infallibility was not engaged (in fact, specifically avoided), it is within the realm of possibility that the documents contain doctrinal formulations that will need to be revisited. If nothing else, we certainly deserve to have the difficult passages cleared up for us by the proper authorities. I really think the authorities owe us more than simply saying we must interpret Vatican II in accord with prior teachings; they need to show us how the apparent contradictions can be reconciled. The faithful shouldn’t have the burden of figuring this out on their own.

I’ve gone through Dignitatis Humanae very closely in an attempt to interpret it in line with what was taught by the Magisterium prior to Vatican II, and it was not easy. By making very subtle distinctions, I was able to interpret some of the more controversial points in accord with prior teachings, but it was very difficult; and in fact, I really felt like I was interpreting these passages in a way that was contrary to the surface meaning. So, if a person simply takes the document at the literal surface meaning, as you suggested, I can almost guarantee that they will arrive at a belief that is contrary to what the Popes taught prior to the Council.
 
Re: Is a pastoral council and its decrees non binding or does a council have pastoral authority over the faithful?

Good question. I guess it would depend on whether the council has been defined as a pastoral council or one with pastoral authority. If the latter, then my earlier argument still applies I think, and committees formed under the decrees and the subcommittees formed by them have the same amount of authority. The decrees put out by a pastoral council OTOH would be a little trickier as far as being binding or not.
 
ProVobis said:
Re: Is a pastoral council and its decrees non binding or does a council have pastoral authority over the faithful?

Good question. I guess it would depend on whether the council has been defined as a pastoral council or one with pastoral authority. If the latter, then my earlier argument still applies I think, and committees formed under the decrees and the subcommittees formed by them have the same amount of authority. The decrees put out by a pastoral council OTOH would be a little trickier as far as being binding or not.
Click to expand...
I think a pastoral council is binding. But, here’s another question…

Let’s say that there was a pastoral council that contained errors. Let’s say, for example, that a council which specifically avoided engaging infallibility taught that a women had the “right to choose” to have an abortion. Would a Catholic have an obligation to accept this teaching, which is not only contrary to what the Church has always taught, but also a clear violation of the 5th Commandment?

Here’s another question: Let’s say that a pastoral council taught that a person has the “right to choose”, to practice a false religion. Would a Catholic have an obligation to accept this teaching, which is not only contrary to what the Church has always taught, but also a clear violation of the 1st Commandment, which forbids the practice of a false religion?

If one answers "no’ to the first question, how can they answer "yes’ to the second, especially when violations of the 1st Commandment are, of their very nature, more serious than violations of the 5th Commandment?

So, while I think the teaching of a pastoral council are binding, generally speaking, I would argue that an error in a pastoral council is the exception to the rule.
 
Texas_Longhorns said:
So, while I think the teaching of a pastoral council are binding, generally speaking, I would argue that an error in a pastoral council is the exception to the rule.
Click to expand...
OTOH, a Catholic parent doesn’t have the (parental) authority, though he/she is a parent, to steer the child into Protestantism, for example.
 
ProVobis said:
OTOH, a Catholic parent doesn’t have the (parental) authority, though he/she is a parent, to steer the child into Protestantism, for example.
Click to expand...
Right. That’s similar to the point I was trying to make.
 
Texas_Longhorns said:
. And since the charism of infallibility was not engaged (in fact, specifically avoided), l.
Click to expand...
Again, that is something I do not agree with entirely. While this applies to most of the council, there were two dogmatic constitutions. These formulations are dogma and can not be changed or denied. A pastoral council is still an ecumenical council and most of the ecumenical councils were pastoral. The questions are as unrelated as blue and quiet.
 
pnewton said:
Again, that is something I do not agree with entirely. While this applies to most of the council, there were two dogmatic constitutions. These formulations are dogma and can not be changed or denied. A pastoral council is still an ecumenical council and most of the ecumenical councils were pastoral. The questions are as unrelated as blue and quiet.
Click to expand...
If you mean to say that, since two of the documents use the word “dogmatic” in the title, it means that what is taught within the document constitutes an infallible doctrinal definition, this reasoning is contrary to what Paul VI himself said.

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.”

If either of the documents with dogmatic in the title would have defined a dogma, it is absolutely certain that the dogmatic definition would be protected by infallibility, since it took place at an ecumenical council that was ratified by a Pope. And if the document would have contained a doctrinal definition, I’m sure Paul VI would have known about it.

Ratzinger also stated that no dogmas were defined at Vatican II, even though the word dogmatic was used in the title of several documents. This is what Ratzinger said:

“Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II… 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.”

Bishop Rudolf Graber, in his book Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, stated the same:

“…since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council.”

Cardinal Heenan of Westminster said Vatican II “unique” because: “It deliberately limited its own objectives. There were to be no specific definitions. Its purpose from the first was pastoral renewal within the Church and a fresh approach to the outside.”

The Council Fathers specifically asked for the doctrinal weight of the Council, and were told that it was not aiming at defining doctrines. The Council Father, Bishop Morris, said the following about his thought when he heard this:

Bp. Thomas Morris: “I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement of doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and likely to be reformed.”

If we accept what the Pope and Council Fathers have said, no dogmas were defined and infallibility was not engaged, even though two of the documents used the term “dogmatic” in their title.
 
Infallibility of the Magisterium is engaged even when dogmas are not being defined. It’s very clear, from the documents issued by the Holy See, that religious submission is to be given.

No new doctrines were defined, but a deepening & widening (not ‘broadening’ in the pejorative sense) of modern (i.e., unquestionable 19th & 20th century magisterial teachings) theology in relation to the oldest teachers, especially the Church Fathers, did take place, as witness the Marian chapter in Lumen Gentium.

These were meant to give greater focus and clarification to practices and affirmations that were being attenuated by problematic emphases that were prevalent, those that blurred over essential aspects, for instance, of the mass or even Marian devotions that made it seem as if Our Lady’s will was at odds with the will of her Son.

The more I discover from the faithful Catholics who lived through the Conciliar years, the more it becomes clear that those who were protestantizing were either not reading the actual instructions and declarations at all, or were deliberately interpreting a sort of shadow Council – especially Cardinal Suenens – which was supposedly routed by conservatives.

Paul VI was prophetic in warning that Archbishop Lefebvre was undermining the Church, basically dissolving the connection between the Church militant, the “pilgrim Church”, and the article of the Creed declaring one’s faith in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.

For two decades, this was obscured by my own one-sided reading of Traditionalist writers.
 
As far as I can tell, the term “Dogmatic Constitution” does not mean that the document in question contains dogmatic definitions. It only means that the document talks about dogma in some specific way. The two are not the same.

Now, for the thousandth time, I am not saying we should not be obedient to these and other documents. However, these distinctions exist for a reason, and it can only profit us to understand these distinctions.

Having too little faith in something like the Resurrection is tantamount to self-anathema. Having too much faith and trying to say that the contents of Dei Verbum (my favorite document btw) are “infallible” in toto approaches the previous error in severity.
 
Jaysuitical said:
Infallibility of the Magisterium is engaged even when dogmas are not being defined. It’s very clear, from the documents issued by the Holy See, that religious submission is to be given.
Click to expand...
These are two different issues. Religious submission is to be given to all teachings, even if they are not infallible. There are some teachings contained in the Syllabus of Pius IX, for example, that are probably not infallible; yet we are still require to accept them. So when the Church states that the faithful are require to give religious submission to certain teachings, it does not imply that those teachings are infallible. There are different levels of submission required, depending on the particular teaching, but infallibility itself is tied to doctrinal definitions.

The following is taken from the very respected manual of dogmatic theology by Msgr. Van Noort.

“The Church’s rulers are infallible not in any and every exercise of their teaching power; but only when, using all the fullness of their authority, they clearly intend to bind everyone to absolute assent or, as common parlance puts it, when they ‘define’ something in matters pertaining to the Christian religion. That is why all theologians distinguish in the dogmatic decrees of the councils or of the popes between those things set forth therein by way of definition and those used simply by way of illustration or argumentation. For the intention of binding all affects only the definition… And if in some particular instances the intention of giving a definitive decision were not made sufficiently clear, then no one would be held by virtue of such definitions, to give the assent of faith: a doubtful law is no law at all”.

The reason some people object to certain statements in the documents of Vatican II, is because they see them as being contrary to teachings that require their assent. Since their mind cannot assent to contradictory teachings, they hold to what was always taught prior to the Council, even the Vatican II seems to contradict them.
 
YoungTradCath said:
As far as I can tell, the term “Dogmatic Constitution” does not mean that the document in question contains dogmatic definitions. It only means that the document talks about dogma in some specific way. The two are not the same.

Now, for the thousandth time, I am not saying we should not be obedient to these and other documents. However, these distinctions exist for a reason, and it can only profit us to understand these distinctions.
Click to expand...
Look at the last paragraph of the body of Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium:

Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.

The only stronger form of binding it upon the church is to specify an anathema and/or pain of sin for disagreement.

It’s clear that it’s imposing its text upon the church by the joint authority of the pope and the council.

It’s clear that it’s a magisterial action ex cathedra - which is all that is required for it to be binding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top