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

[Aramis]

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.

No council has taught authoritatively that which was different from what was before. They have always endorsed prior orthodox belief.

Many have picked one of several prior views, and said “This is the only correct one”.

Prior to Vatican II, Marian devotions were universal, but not universal doctrine. Since Vatican II, they specifically are universal doctrine. That is, it’s no longer acceptable to reject marian devotions in the liturgical praxis. Few bishops would have done so anyway, tho’ not a few priests did, and used the commons rather than the marian propers for lesser marian feasts.

If anything, Vatican II rejected a lot of casual (and ignorant) desires to follow protestant leads and reject the Marian cultus. It wasn’t a heresy, yet, at the time of the council… but now, public rejection of the marian cultus and its praxis as unchristian is heresy… because it’s been defined as universal doctrine. (Private rejection is not heresy, yet, as it’s not dogma, but doctrine.)

Vatican II affirmed in various dogmatic constitutions one of several competing theologumenia in each of several areas. The one most relevant to me is that it finally rejected the latinization process. No prior council had definitively stated one way or the other; it was dogmatic that union with Rome was essential, but not that the individual Rites were of intrinsic value as Rites. Vatican II defined that they have intrinsic value as rites and particular churches, not just as a means to making everyone Roman.

In many ways, Vatican II was preventative rather than reactive…

 

[YoungTradCath]

Let me help.

QuestingKnight wants to know, probably in some concise form like a list, exactly what additional beliefs the Pope and bishops, with the Vatican II documents, command, with the requisite authority, that we believe.

In other words, he is asking not so much what is “different”–although technically that is correct, but semantically difficult–but, rather, what new things Vatican II documents formally sealed into belief*, so to speak.

*I say “sealed into belief” because no Council, no matter how dogmatic, makes up stuff.

 

[Ohana]

This is an interesting thread. I have been reading through it. Long, so forgive me if I respond with something that has been said better elsewhere.

My understanding of Vatican II with respect to prior councils is that prior councils were acting in defense of Church dogma/doctrine. The early councils were either still in process of defining what was Church and what was not,or were responding to serious error of heresy and attack. Vatican II on the other hand was pastoral in the sense that it was welcoming to all creation - part of what the “throwing open of the doors” was all about. If one is sure of ones beliefs, and most importantly, in relationship with God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, then we are able to reach out lovingly to others. The Church is certainly that!

The Council documents clearly state that the fullness of truth is contained in the Church, but acknowledges that other faiths contain part of the truth, and for some, a great deal of truth is present. I think it is on the basis of shared, if incomplete, truth that we are able to come together ecumenically.

I really find this point of view of immense support as I encounter the spiritual minefields in day to day life. It helps make judgements, but not be judgmental, to love and forgive, but as choice, not reflex.

I see that once again I have veered from the intellectual to the personal/soulful argument. But it is another perspective.

 

[Aramis]

This is an interesting thread. I have been reading through it. Long, so forgive me if I respond with something that has been said better elsewhere.

My understanding of Vatican II with respect to prior councils is that prior councils were acting in defense of Church dogma/doctrine. The early councils were either still in process of defining what was Church and what was not,or were responding to serious error of heresy and attack. Vatican II on the other hand was pastoral in the sense that it was welcoming to all creation - part of what the “throwing open of the doors” was all about. If one is sure of ones beliefs, and most importantly, in relationship with God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, then we are able to reach out lovingly to others. The Church is certainly that!

The Council documents clearly state that the fullness of truth is contained in the Church, but acknowledges that other faiths contain part of the truth, and for some, a great deal of truth is present. I think it is on the basis of shared, if incomplete, truth that we are able to come together ecumenically.

I really find this point of view of immense support as I encounter the spiritual minefields in day to day life. It helps make judgements, but not be judgmental, to love and forgive, but as choice, not reflex.

I see that once again I have veered from the intellectual to the personal/soulful argument. But it is another perspective.

Evidence that that particular view predates can be seen in the 1917 CIC… where it references the Eastern Orthodox. It can also be seen in the vesting of Orthodox clerics who translated into the Catholic church, rather than the reordaining. V II simply made that doctrinal.

 

[JustaServant]

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

Really?
Care to explain how?

 

[Ohana]

Evidence that that particular view predates can be seen in the 1917 CIC… where it references the Eastern Orthodox. It can also be seen in the vesting of Orthodox clerics who translated into the Catholic church, rather than the reordaining. V II simply made that doctrinal.

Thank you Aramis

 

[Kevin12]

Here is just a common sense thing to consider. The Church held Vatican II and various documents were produced with certain statements, like Dignitatis Humanae stating the apparently-controversial-for-traditionalists position that secular authorities perhaps ought not to torture or execute apostates from Catholicism. Indeed, I believe the current Vatican’s distaste for the notion that, even if error has no rights, we maybe ought not to burn error in a public, is one of the main reasons once-Archbishop LeFebvre lead thousands of people into quasi-schism. This has been the consistent position of the Church since then, with the claim attached that, while many theologians had argued in favor of compelling people back into the faith, and while the Church itself had turned over heretics to secular authorities for execution, the mistake was merely one of action, not doctrine.

Now, if, as many who either openly or implicitly reject Vatican II would have us believe (though they would not say it this way, this is the ultimate meaning of their statements), God is in fact fuming that we are no longer bringing people back into the fold with thumbscrews and the threat of an excruciating death, that would mean that the Living Magisterium had effectively gone totally wrong. And if it is possible for the Magisterium to go wrong, it means that the Protestant Reformation was correct after all, and the idea that a worldly institution could truly be the final word on faith was misguided from the get go.

So basically, if you think Vatican II has really taken the Church so far off track that it shouldn’t even count anymore, you instead of asking yourself whether you believe Vatican II is right, you ought to ask yourself whether you believe Catholicism itself is right.