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

[YoungTradCath]

So what are the dogmatic definitions of Lumen Gentium?

 

[Mike30]

I never cease to be totally amazed at how many apparent experts in theology, Canon Law, the Catholic Church itself and interpreters of Church documents there are on this forum.

We must be truly blessed to to be able to read these eloquent responses.


Yea right.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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?

As Catholics do we not beleive that a Church Council could not do so? If we grant that it could aren’t we denying the protection of Church teaching by the Holy Spirit? To my way of thinking (and granted I could well be all wet)–the Church cannot do what you suggest here. If it can then in reality–we can believe nothing, trust nothing–we could not even know the books of the Bible.

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?

Are you suggesting that we have a right, no a duty, to forceably convert people? Is that what the Church has actually taught? I didn’t see Christ forcing anyone to follow him – he allowed them to go their own way, to choose. The ability or right to choose to do other than to worship God – is not a violation of the 1st Commandment – my choice to worship and serve someone or something other than the Lord – is the violation, the sin. I am however free to make that choice–under pain of eternal damnation-of course. Saying that someone has the right to do something – does somehow grant appoval to the choice being made. We all have a right to make many choices–however all those choices have consequences. Perhaps I am missunderstanding what you are saying–and I will go back and check Church formulations on this matter.

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.

You seem knowledgeable – can you cite Church Councils for me previous to VII that you beleive might also contain errors in teaching that I could investigate. It would have been my poor understanding that this was not possible–if it is then…

The Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[pnewton]

I never cease to be totally amazed at how many apparent experts in theology, Canon Law, the Catholic Church itself and interpreters of Church documents there are on this forum.

Rather than just laughing at others, might I ask who here has claimed expertise? My reasoning is simple. I simply can not wrap my head around dogmatic fallibility. I understand no new dogmas were defined in an extraordinary manner. The big point made by groups trying to avoid obedience to Vatican II (and thus the Church) is that the dogmatic constitutions are called so only because they re-formulated older dogma. Okay. So then what is the difference to any Catholic. So the doctrines were already around. One way are the other, we still need to believe them. How many generations will it take until the Holy Spirit is given His due for the direction He is leading the Church?

 

[twf]

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.

I can’t count the number of times on this forum that I have seen Orthodox posters posit that the involvement or assent of Rome / the Latin Church is NOT in any way required for an ecumenical council to be held. The argument Orthodox posters have made is that the Eastern / Oriental Churches have had no need for such a council, but if the need did arise, Rome’s non-involvement would be immaterial; being in a state of schism (and for many, also heresy), her vote would be invalid regardless. It is only certain Eastern / Oriental Catholics who posit that Rome / Latins cannot hold an ecumenical council without the East / Orient. What troubles me is that this way of thinking seems to almost render the Church of Christ impotent. If the Eastern bishops are required, then I would imagine that the Oriental bishops and Assyrian would also be required - which would ultimately mean that the Church of Christ has had no means of definitely determining anything since the early fifth century…

 

[QuestingKnight]

… The big point made by groups trying to avoid obedience to Vatican II (and thus the Church) is that the dogmatic constitutions are called so only because they re-formulated older dogma. Okay. So then what is the difference to any Catholic. So the doctrines were already around. One way are the other, we still need to believe them. How many generations will it take until the Holy Spirit is given His due for the direction He is leading the Church?

Ok. So, can anyone list simply:

What is in the documents …
That a Catholic must believe …
Or else be in schism/disobedient …
That is different to what was taught previously …
( … from the point of view of someone who is pro the documents?)

Please: a simple list.

 

[clem456]

Is it fair to say that understanding flourishes with time? That understanding flowers? Just as a seed is planted, and as it is watered and nourished, a stem will grow, then branches, leaves, flowers, fruit. Still, a seed is the source.

Does the fruit contradict the seed, or detract from it? Is the fruit somehow separated from the seed? Or does the seed inform everything of beauty that comes from it? Why should we doubt the seed because the fruit that comes from it does not explicitly look like it?

It seems to me, trying to rigidly apply the concept of infallibility to validate the teaching of a council is like trying to put Jesus Christ in a cardboard box. He lives, the Church lives, God speaks to us through the Church in a living way. That is something larger than our understanding of infallibility.
Why would we not simply give our loving assent to the beauty that comes from the seed, prayerfully attempt to understand it, and be nourished by it? If a person demands to have the seed only, then one misses what God is giving us in it’s fullness.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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.

I am troubled by what you say here–are you asserting that the Catholic Church can indeed teach error when you basically say not all teachings are infallible? How are you using the word “teaching” above–are you using it to apply to more than just faith and morals? I would like some clarification on what you are saying.

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.

And they make no provision or room for the possibility that it is more likely that their vision is wrong than it is that the Church has taught something contradictory. They trust their own vision and reason more than they trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church.

The Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[QuestingKnight]

Ok. So what are the infallible teachings of Vatican II that we must assent to or be deemed schismatic?

 

[ProVobis]

Ok. So what are the infallible teachings of Vatican II that we must assent to or be deemed schismatic?

Precisely. All we seem to get is that Vatican II must be accepted, whatever that means.

 

[MorEphrem]

I can’t count the number of times on this forum that I have seen Orthodox posters posit…

Just for clarification, neither myself nor malphono are Orthodox. Well I mean I hope we’re orthodox, but ya know what I mean.

 

[clem456]

Precisely. All we seem to get is that Vatican II must be accepted, whatever that means.

This section of the catechism speaks about acceptance, trust, and assent, the desire to understand with the Church.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm

III. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FAITH

Faith is a grace

153 When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood”, but from “my Father who is in heaven”.24 Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to **accept and believe **the truth.’"25

Faith is a human act

154 Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions, or to trust their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our dignity to “yield by faith the full submission of. . . intellect and will to God who reveals”,26 and to share in an interior communion with him.

155 In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."27

Faith and understanding

156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.30

157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."31 "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."32

158 “Faith seeks understanding”:33 it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed; a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love. The grace of faith opens "the eyes of your hearts"34 to a lively understanding of the contents of Revelation: that is, of the totality of God’s plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ, the center of the revealed mystery. "The same Holy Spirit constantly perfects faith by his gifts, so that Revelation may be more and more profoundly understood."35 In the words of St. Augustine, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."36

 

[Aramis]

Ok. So, can anyone list simply:

What is in the documents …
That a Catholic must believe …
Or else be in schism/disobedient …
That is different to what was taught previously …
( … from the point of view of someone who is pro the documents?)

Please: a simple list.

Lumen Gentium is a mini-catechism of several doctrines and dogmas. it requires assent of will for the whole (as in, you don’t need to believe all of it, but must act as if you do) because it’s a magisterial teaching from the highest authority of the church.

It includes the key points of dogma about Jesus, and makes clear that Marian devotion is (1) part of the deposit of faith (2) not entirely optional, in that it is part of the praxis of liturgical prayer and must remain so, to wit, the marian feasts, and (3) is to be encouraged everywhere and eternally. It also discusses the roles of the clergy, laity, and religious in the life of the church and in the world, the link of people of faith outside the church to God, and the call to evangelize them.

It is, essentially, a reaffirmation of the prior dogmas and universal doctrines.

 

[twf]

Just for clarification, neither myself nor malphono are Orthodox. Well I mean I hope we’re orthodox, but ya know what I mean.

I realize that you are both Oriental Catholics. My point was that the Orthodox do NOT consider Rome’s involvement necessary for a council to be ecumenical, but many Eastern / Oriental Catholics DO consider the Orthodox’s involvement / acceptance to be a prerequisite. For Latins, the Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) has the authority to hold ecumenical councils regardless of the sad state of separation with most of our Eastern and Oriental brothers. For the Orthodox, the Orthodox Church (Eastern or Oriental) has the authority to hold an ecumenical council independent of Rome because Rome is, in their view, in a state of schism and heresy and thus has no say. I find it difficult to understand the position expressed by some E / O Catholics that the Church of Christ is somehow impotent in the event of schism.

 

[QuestingKnight]

This section of the catechism speaks about acceptance, trust, and assent, the desire to understand with the Church.

And what is it in the documents that we must accept, trust or assent to or be deemed schismatic?

 

[QuestingKnight]

It includes the key points of dogma about Jesus, and makes clear that Marian devotion is (1) part of the deposit of faith (2) not entirely optional, in that it is part of the praxis of liturgical prayer and must remain so, to wit, the marian feasts, and (3) is to be encouraged everywhere and eternally. It also discusses the roles of the clergy, laity, and religious in the life of the church and in the world, the link of people of faith outside the church to God, and the call to evangelize them.

It is, essentially, a reaffirmation of the prior dogmas and universal doctrines.

So, if I were a 1950’s Catholic transported to 2013 and believed and practiced the same as I had done all my life, I would not be in schism today?

I want to know what pro-Council Catholics think we really must assent to or be deemed schismatic. The key points, that are different to what we believed previously.

 

[QuestingKnight]

And what is it in the documents that we must accept, trust or assent to or be deemed schismatic?

As in, what is it that is different to traditional beliefs?

 

[clem456]

And what is it in the documents that we must accept, trust or assent to or be deemed schismatic?

I have to apologize. I cannot wrap my head around your question. The “or” part of your question does not make sense to me. I don’t understand why you are even worried about being schismatic. If you listen to the faith as the catechism asks us to, reading the Church documentsc etc…prayerfully, with the mind of the Church, attempting to understand them, trusting the Church, there is no need to worry about being in schism.

As in, what is it that is different to traditional beliefs?

How is the apple different from the seed?

 

[TMC]

And what is it in the documents that we must accept, trust or assent to or be deemed schismatic?

I believe the answer is all of it. There seems to be a confusion on this thread between binding and infallible. All of the Church’s teaching is binding, and deviating from any of it creates some degree of schism, or at least dissent. Very little that has ever been taught by the Church is infallible, and the Church has never set out in any formal way what is infallible and what is not. But it is all binding on the faithful.

That said, I think most Catholics dissent on at least some teachings, and I’m not suggesting that one must agree with every jot and tittle to remain in the Church. I don’t know where that dividing line appears.

As in, what is it that is different to traditional beliefs?

This questions seems backwards to me. By definition, that which the Church teaches is the traditional belief. The real question is, for those that deny some or all of Vatican II, what within Vatican II do they assert is different than traditional beliefs? To my knowledge, those that have a problem with Vatican II usually focus on ecumenism and freedom of religion (including the status of Judaism); EENS; and liturgical forms. I am sure there are other issues, but those are the ones I hear brought up most often.

 

[QuestingKnight]

… To my knowledge, those that have a problem with Vatican II usually focus on ecumenism and freedom of religion (including the status of Judaism); EENS; and liturgical forms. I am sure there are other issues, but those are the ones I hear brought up most often.

The pro-Vatican II case is simply stated as ‘You must believe, assent, obey what is in the documents’.

Curious enquirers want to know if Vatican II stated anything novel that they must believe, because this Council has been used to justify, for example, the drastic liturgical changes post-1970.

There has been a lot of debate on this forum about the level of assent due to Vatican II. But if it didn’t say anything different to what was stated previously, then assent is moot. We then believe and do what we’ve always done.

But if “Vatican II” used in conversation really means ‘Whatever I, the speaker, wish to justify in terms of novelty or archeologism’ then it’s up to the speaker to show where assent is demanded on pain of the disputer being schismatic. Like JPII’s definitive declaration on women priests.

Now you’ve found some good points there: “… ecumenism and freedom of religion (including the status of Judaism); EENS; and liturgical forms …” to which I would add maybe quasi-indifferentism (other religions have value) and collegiality (bishops conferences emerge as authorities.

Must one therefore assent to:

• Ecumenism-without-a-real-attempt-at-conversion,
• That it is fine to remain in your non-Catholic religion,
• That you may hold beliefs contrary to Catholicism in good conscience;
• That the Novus Ordo is an improvement on the Vetus Ordo?

Hold it! I don’t want to blow up the forum at this stage I think the answer is no to all.

Another way of putting it would be: Would a traditionalist Catholic who simply ignored what was being said about Vatican II and didn’t read the documents, but who simply went to the Vetus Ordo mass and griped about altar girls in his own time, etc, be a Catholic in good standing?