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

[Genesis315]

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

Just like before and after Nicea I or Trent or Vatican I or any other Councis, if you held the Catholic faith in all its integrity before those Councils, your beliefs would not need to change after them. However, some things should be noted:

1. Councils also legislate and/or provide directives to the faithful which we are bound to follow (see for example, the decree on the laity). They also may make judgments as to what is best given particular circumstances (which change over time).
2. Dogma may be expounded upon and doctrine developed in ways which sheds light on and clarify aspects of the faith. This is not irrelevant and should be assented to as well.
3. Along the same lines as (2), holding to previous forumlations, but also rejecting new formulations can also be problematic. For example, the Creed without the Filioque is perfectly orthodox, but one shouldn’t hold to that formulation while rejecting the Creed with the Filioque as if the latter were somehow problematic from a doctrinal standpoint.
4. It’s possible that before the Council one was mistaken and not actually holding the Catholic faith in its integrity as one tought and one can learn from the clarifications of the Council and correct one’s opinions. Similarly, one who only has lived after the Council may not actually understand what was actually taught before hand.
5. Along the lines of (4) if ones thinks the Council has deviated from past teaching, odds are one is misunderstanding either the past teaching or the present teaching or both–but it’s much easier to misunderstand the past teaching, because words are often used in different ways or doctrine is formulated to specifically address certain concerns that are not really in the mind of those reading them decades or centuries later. For example, homoousios was condemned by the Church before Nicea I but affirmed a few decades after (prior it was being addressed in the Sabellian sense, and after in the orthodox sense). One priding himself on clinging to the Ante-Nicene faith after Nicea might be in error by rejecting homoousios, even though it was orthodox to do so prior. As an aside, this is the main problem with those who see Dignitatis Humanae as contradicting past teachings–the objectors usually misunderstand what was actually being condemned in 19th century Europe. Collegiality is another perfect example of this caused by the premature end of Vatican I (it was in the planned documents and is expressed in the official explanation of Pastor Aeternus given to the voting bishops).

This is why we should go with the teaching of the living Magisterium. As Cardinal Manning wrote in his 19th century work on the Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost:
Manning:

The enunciation of the faith by the living Church of this hour, is the maximum of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the fact and the contents of the original revelation.

And further. after referencing the kinds of apparent contradictions I mentioned above:
Cardinal Manning:

No critic except the living and lineal judge and discerner of truth, the only Church of God, can solve these inequalities and anomalies in the history of doctrine. To the Church the facts of antiquity are transparent in the light of its perpetual consciousness of the original revelation.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

So what’s the difficulty in accepting that Latin is to be preserved in the liturgy, for example? Or is there enough ambiguity in the documents to undermine its binding authority?

 

[Genesis315]

So what’s the difficulty in accepting that Latin is to be preserved in the liturgy, for example?

The disciplinary decrees of an Ecumenical Council are amendable by the Pope. It appears he gave the approval for full vernacular liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

The disciplinary decrees of an Ecumenical Council are amendable by the Pope.

The ambiguity renders much of its binding authority moot, does it not? That was my point.

It appears he gave the approval for full vernacular liturgy.

But he also issued Jubilate Deo and asked that all bishops find a way to use it in every parish. So which is it, full or not? Where did he ask that Gregorian chant NOT be used?

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

Sure, here’s a simple list of what Catholics must believe from the Council:

• Dei Verbum – Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation
• Lumen Gentium – Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
• Sacrosanctum Concilium – Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
• Gaudium et Spes – Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
• Gravissimum Educationis – Declaration on Christian Education
• Nostra Aetate – Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions
• Dignitatis Humanae – Declaration on Religious Freedom
• Ad Gentes – Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church
• Presbyterorum Ordinis – Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests
• Apostolicam Actuositatem – Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity
• Optatam Totius – Decree on Priestly Training
• Perfectae Caritatis – Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life
• Christus Dominus – Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church
• Unitatis Redintegratio – Decree on Ecumenism
• Orientalium Ecclesiarum – Decree on Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite
• Inter Mirifica – Decree on the Media of Social Communication

Of course, none of it is substantively different from what was taught previously.

 

[TMC]

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?

I am probably not the best person to ask what Catholics “must” believe, as I dissent from a few current Church teachings myself. For what its worth, I think that Catholics must believe what their conscience tells them to be true. The real question is whether that puts the individual at odds with the Church, and then whether the tension between the believer and the Church is such that the person is not really Catholic anymore. I think that a Catholic can disagree with very large parts of what the Church teaches and still remain a Catholic is good standing, but others here probably disagree.

I do think that Vatican II represents some evolution in Church teachings – not wholesale changes per se, but some clarifications of what certain doctrines mean. Those clarifications were different than what some Catholics thought they should be. This was not a new or unique event in Church history. Every ecumenical council did something of the sort, and the Church has evolved some teachings outside of councils.

What a Catholic who finds himself at odds with the Church’s teachings should not do, in my view, is pretend to himself or others that what he believes is what the Church “really” teaches. This is the error I see in some on the so-called traditional side of the fence. They reject certain teachings, but instead of being intellectually honest about that fact, they just say over and over that their view is the “real” Church teaching. The Church’s teachings are what the Church says they are, period. If one disagrees with them (and I do disagree with some), then the proper thing to do is to admit it. (Not saying you don’t, speaking more generally.)

So to directly answer your question, I think that a Catholic who rejects ecumenism and religious freedom, and chooses to attend the EF, can be a Catholic in good standing. He or she should be honest and admit that some of those positions differ from Church teaching, however. As to whether such a person is free to reject the concept that “you may hold beliefs contrary to Catholicism in good conscience,” isn’t that exactly what such a person is doing?

 

[TMC]

So what’s the difficulty in accepting that Latin is to be preserved in the liturgy, for example? Or is there enough ambiguity in the documents to undermine its binding authority?

I am not sure what you mean by preserving Latin in the liturgy. Do you mean what is wrong with the EF? I have no problem with it.

Despite the many claims made here and elsewhere, I do not find the VII documents to be particularly ambiguous. Certainly no more ambiguous than most other Church documents before or since.

 

[ProVobis]

The disciplinary decrees of an Ecumenical Council are amendable by the Pope.

The ambiguity renders much of its binding authority moot, does it not? That was my point.

It appears he gave the approval for full vernacular liturgy.

But he also issued Jubilate Deo and asked that all bishops find a way to use it in every parish. So which is it, full or not?

And BTW where did he ask that Gregorian chant NOT be used?

 

[QuestingKnight]

…
So to directly answer your question, I think that a Catholic who rejects ecumenism and religious freedom, and chooses to attend the EF, can be a Catholic in good standing. He or she should be honest and admit that some of those positions differ from Church teaching, however. As to whether such a person is free to reject the concept that “you may hold beliefs contrary to Catholicism in good conscience,” isn’t that exactly what such a person is doing?

My bolding. Well, it depends of what is officially taught, rather than insinuated by left-leaning cathecists.

I think we shall find that what were held to be beliefs one must hold will turn out to have been incorrect and will be overturned, in time; basically, everything that causes pilgrims to stumble.

 

[TMC]

My bolding. Well, it depends of what is officially taught, rather than insinuated by left-leaning cathecists.

I think we shall find that what were held to be beliefs one must hold will turn out to have been incorrect and will be overturned, in time; basically, everything that causes pilgrims to stumble.

I don’t think it gets much more official than council documents and the catechism.

Can you explain which current teachings you think are incorrect and causing people to stumble?

 

[clem456]

My bolding. Well, it depends of what is officially taught, rather than insinuated by left-leaning cathecists.

I think we shall find that what were held to be beliefs one must hold will turn out to have been incorrect and will be overturned, in time; basically, everything that causes pilgrims to stumble.

So people make errors in their understanding or presentation of what the Church proposes for our belief. They might be intentional errors, might not be. That does not dilute the teaching somehow. And the errors of others do not excuse us from giving our assent.
The Church teaches what it teaches.

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

 

[ProVobis]

So people make errors in their understanding or presentation of what the Church proposes for our belief. They might be intentional errors, might not be. That does not dilute the teaching somehow. And the errors of others do not excuse us from giving our assent.

What about the old adage of repetition being the mother of learning? Repetition of whatever errors you refer to can have a long-lasting effect, no?

 

[pnewton]

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.

There are two dogmatic constitutions. I would recommend reading them. They are the list. They contain orthodox doctrine For example.

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

I would note though that disagreement may be simply a matter of misunderstanding. It is not necessarily schismatic. But such disagreement is dissent from the Catholic Church, to be sure, as real as those who dissent because of the confusion from modernity. It is only when one becomes entrenched in dissent does schism become an issue, particularly when one tries to propagate heterodox dissent through recruitment and illicit or invalid ordinations.

 

[clem456]

What about the old adage of repetition being the mother of learning? Repetition of whatever errors you refer to can have a long-lasting effect, no?

So they do.
Even errors repeated do not water down what the Church actually teaches. Are you saying there are errors in Church teaching or theology? Or that catechists make errors?
If catechists make errors, “we” (those with the authority) straighten that out. But those errors do not cast one bit of doubt on any documents or teachings, or excuse us from giving our loving assent to them.

 

[pnewton]

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

That is an entirely different question. Something does not have to be different to be doctrine. I think a better question is what differences eliminate some earlier acceptable understandings of doctrine. Development is not only about learning something new (or more fully). It is also about better defining the limits of acceptable orthodoxy.

For example, at one time the Church did not define the beginning of human life. St. Augustin could legitimately believe in a concept of a later ensoulment. Now that doctrine has been defined. Note that this was **not **done ex cathedra. But wouldn’t you agree that dissent from the idea that life begins at conception would be heterodox? One simply cannot now hold the more traditional (earlier) belief of St. Augustine and support some early abortions. Such a one we would call a cafeteria Catholic and say they are dissenting from Church teaching. I think we all agree on this. The only difference between that and dissenting from the Church teaching in Lumen Gentium is the amount of time, something not relevant to the Church.

The moderator has asked us to stick more to whether this is binding or non-binding. That will be my focus. Think indulgences and Martin Luther. A subject does not need a solemn declaration to cause schism. The only “I” word I will use is “is”. Lumen Gentium** is** the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

 

[Gidge]

Someone in another thread has made the remark that Vatican II is not infallible because it was pastoral in nature and therefore is not binding upon us Catholics. Let us discuss here!

That’s why we have bishops to interpret anything handed down from Rome and translate it for the faithful.

The premise of this thread seems to be a “loaded” question begging those of us not totally enamored with the interpretation of Vatican II to walk a fine line between speaking our mind honestly and inviting the possibility of being banned or getting an infraction from the moderators.

The pastors need to take the lead in all things pastoral ; sadly, many have dropped the ball over the past 40-50 years, IMO.

 

[ProVobis]

So they do.
Even errors repeated do not water down what the Church actually teaches. Are you saying there are errors in Church teaching or theology? Or that catechists make errors?
If catechists make errors, “we” (those with the authority) straighten that out. But those errors do not cast one bit of doubt on any documents or teachings, or excuse us from giving our loving assent to them.

I don’t know how to respond to this. I guess it’s difficult for me, a physics major who has learned how to measure possible errors in the physical world, to measure errors in the teaching of theology, for example. But if something can’t be specifically rendered infallible, there would seem to be some possibility or degree of introduced error where precision is required, even if it’s only language or semantics. But that’s my opinion.

 

[clem456]

I don’t know how to respond to this. I guess it’s difficult for me, a physics major who has learned how to measure possible errors in the physical world, to measure errors in the teaching of theology, for example. But if something can’t be specifically rendered infallible, there would seem to be some possibility or degree of introduced error where precision is required, even if it’s only language or semantics. But that’s my opinion.

I have a science degree as well and I like things to line up in an orderly fashion. But there is no certain understanding in this life. That’s why I really like that catechism passage.

What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason:…

This has always been hard for me. And on a personal note, viewing what the Church teaches with skepticism and doubt has led me to live a life of… skepticism and doubt, rather than docile trust. Talk about living a life of errors…I tried most of my life to conform the Church to my understanding. As Alex Trebek likes to say, “Ooooo no, I’m sorry. That’s not correct”.

 

[QuestingKnight]

…

Of course, none of it is substantively different from what was taught previously.

So what are the things that traditionalists like SSPX object to, for example? Are they:

Religious freedom = ‘I can believe what I want’;
Collegiality = ‘We’ll ignore the Pope’;
Ecumenism = ‘We’ll sup with Protestants but we won’t attempt to convert them or assert our beliefs’;
New Mass = ‘We’ll add things we like’;

A thought: It doesn’t matter what a document says if people really want to do X.
You then need a Pope to tell you, 30 years later “Actually, this is what we meant”.

Personally, I’d like to get ahead of the game.

 

[pnewton]

So what are the things that traditionalists like SSPX object to, for example? Are they:

Religious freedom = ‘I can believe what I want’;
Collegiality = ‘We’ll ignore the Pope’;
Ecumenism = ‘We’ll sup with Protestants but we won’t attempt to convert them or assert our beliefs’;
New Mass = ‘We’ll add things we like’;

Those are great objections, but they are not objections to Vatican II as these are not anything Vatican II taught. I find the second one particularly ironic though considering their history.