T
triumphguy
Guest
You’'re welcome.
Is a pastoral council and its decrees non binding or does a council have pastoral authority over the faithful?
- Status
E
eyesopening
Guest
PietroPaolo, I generally agree with everything you say. Thank you for being so succinct. You’re one of the best posters on this forum in my opinion. Blessings!
M
MorEphrem
Guest
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.
E
eyesopening
Guest
Thanks Triumphguy! Great list btw. If I’ve been less than charitable with you in the past I apologize. That’s how these forums work isn’t it. You like the people who agree with you, and dislike those who disagree. I’ll try to do better than that in the future. Mea culpa.
T
triumphguy
Guest
No prob. I’m a big boy
I like to discuss and argue (and often I don’t know what my position really is when i start
) and I kinda stumble along, learning through debating. Some the posters I respect the most I don’t always (or even often) agree with. But we are a big church, and the mystery (and the grace) of Christ is bigger than us all.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t know that we need Vatican 3 as much as we need someone who has the authority to do so state that nothing at Vatican II undid Trent.
S
sw85
Guest
The charism of infallibility protects the Church from error in pronouncements on matters of faith and morals, because doctrinal correctness is essential for salvation and the Church exists to bring God’s salvation to the world.
“Matters of faith and morals” is pretty narrow. It doesn’t include, for instance, prudential judgments, tactical decisions, public relations maneuvers, legal proceedings, etc. The Church can and does change its mind about these sorts of things all the time. In a very real sense Vatican II’s recommendations on the liturgy were prudential: they involved a careful consideration of the circumstances of the present age, and the judgments it made as a result of that consideration might be accurate now but might need to be revisited and reconsidered in, say, 50-100 years.
Some have pointed out that Vatican II did in fact touch on matters of faith and morals which stands to reason. My uninformed intuition is that infallibility is a charism that applies when a teaching is first formulated. After that, how we express it and relay it is a matter of prudence. Do we use pastoral language or dogmatic language? Should we favor theological precision over immediate clarity? Etc. Insofar as Vatican II didn’t actually define anything but simply restated and reformulated previous doctrines, I don’t see why people cannot believe, in good faith, that Vatican II’s way of talking about those doctrines is suboptimal.
All this is a fancy way of saying that “infallibility” is kind of a sideshow here. The real question isn’t whether “Vatican II is infallible” but whether Vatican II even did anything that would be eligible for protection under the charism of infallibility. I don’t think it did, and I don’t think that fact matters. Vatican II may or may not have any interest for the average Catholic, but whether or not it does has nothing to do with its (in)fallibility.
P
pnewton
Guest
Hasn’t that happened? It seems to me that one of the issues involving the return of the SSPX was that they were required to accept that Vatican II could be understood in continuity with all of Catholic tradition. I would further say that the lack of reunification (or whatever it is called. regularization? ) with the SSPX is rather strong evidence of the infallibility of Vatican II. I mean, if acceptance of this was optional, it seems like everything would have been resolved.
Q
QuestingKnight
Guest
Here’s how the argument goes:
Liberal Catholic: “Vat. II means women priests, homosexual priests, married priests, elected bishops, lawful contraception and divorce are coming soon. Catholicism is just one religion amongst many other paths to God”
Traditionalist Catholic: “Vat. II documents contain statements which contradict dogma and/or previous Councils and/or previous Popes. There is no salvation outside the Church.”
Neo-conservative Catholic: “Vat. II can only be interpreted in the light of tradition.Other religions have useful elements.”
Questing Knight: “What does VII propose which is new or different to previous Church teachings?”
AFAIK: “Collegiality, the revision of the Mass, other religions have valuable elements, freedom of conscience, that there is salvation outside the Church”
Hence all the hubbub.
One point: Vat. II as a Council can’t trump other Councils because one is then making a circular argument e.g. ‘VII must be given assent because it’s a Council which trumps other Councils, which must also be given full assent, because they are Councils, which trump VII …’
Liberal Catholic: “Vat. II means women priests, homosexual priests, married priests, elected bishops, lawful contraception and divorce are coming soon. Catholicism is just one religion amongst many other paths to God”
Traditionalist Catholic: “Vat. II documents contain statements which contradict dogma and/or previous Councils and/or previous Popes. There is no salvation outside the Church.”
Neo-conservative Catholic: “Vat. II can only be interpreted in the light of tradition.Other religions have useful elements.”
Questing Knight: “What does VII propose which is new or different to previous Church teachings?”
AFAIK: “Collegiality, the revision of the Mass, other religions have valuable elements, freedom of conscience, that there is salvation outside the Church”
Hence all the hubbub.
One point: Vat. II as a Council can’t trump other Councils because one is then making a circular argument e.g. ‘VII must be given assent because it’s a Council which trumps other Councils, which must also be given full assent, because they are Councils, which trump VII …’
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Well, an Ecumenical Council is in fact a synod of a sort. However, you know that. Eastern bishops were fully eligible to attend and did.
This is one of the single best packaged statements I’ve read on these forums. It is precise in its impreciseness. No, really, I mean that in a good way.
I think, to make an analogy, this is kind of like talking about the CCC. It would be an error to say, “The Catechism is infallible.” That is not true. Rather, the Catechism contains infallible teaching–which it does not itself establish but only presents or re-presents–which is binding on Catholics. The statements are contained in one form or another in the CCC at various lengths throughout the book, but the CCC itself is not infallible. The formulations which are infallible in the whole are contained in the documents in which the dogmas were promulgated finally, as such.
For example, the CCC presents the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. But the document which is itself infallible is Munificentissimus Deus.
Now, some might argue that all this is pointless to talk about. I say nonsense. If none of this mattered, the distinction between infallible vs. restatement vs. not infallible vs. _____ would not exist in the first place.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Yes, but no. 2 is not a teaching as such, and the rest can either be deduced in one way or another using logic from previously-existing formulations.
Vatican II’s value in that regard is that it stated these things together, or relatively closely together, so that we did not have to go looking through other documents.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Aside from its application in the SSPX affair, I find the whole argument of council infallibility a little problematic, especially since the issue of ecumenism was brought up and apparently settled at this council. Very few outside the Catholic Church accept the infallibility of the Pope (or much of anything else for that matter), so how can we preach true ecumenism by dwelling on the infallibility of a council, whether or not it actually exists? Seems self-defeating but that’s only my opinion.
That said, I don’t think one can pick a session of Trent that hasn’t been severely undermined by events during and after Vatican II. Trent is tradition to many Catholics, even those who aren’t traditionalists. Seems like the Pope’s message about continuity with tradition would be better directed to those who think Trent doesn’t apply anymore. But again, that’s only my opinion.
M
malphono
Guest
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).
T
Texas_Longhorns
Guest
The Remnant had an article on Papal Infallibility earlier year, which may be of some help.
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0402-siscoe-infallibility.htm
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0402-siscoe-infallibility.htm
R
Rich_C
Guest
Infallibility is a negative – “this can’t be untrue.”
It isn’t positive. It doesn’t mean “this is true.”
As Catholics, we have to believe that the Holy Ghost prevented any heresy in truth or morals from being written in those documents.
We aren’t required to believe every idea the bishops put in there is straight from the mouth of God.
Anyhow, since the Deposit of Faith wasn’t touched at Vatican II, I don’t pay it much attention. I mean, if it weren’t for the new Mass we laity probably wouldn’t have been aware of its effects much, if at all.
It isn’t positive. It doesn’t mean “this is true.”
As Catholics, we have to believe that the Holy Ghost prevented any heresy in truth or morals from being written in those documents.
We aren’t required to believe every idea the bishops put in there is straight from the mouth of God.
Anyhow, since the Deposit of Faith wasn’t touched at Vatican II, I don’t pay it much attention. I mean, if it weren’t for the new Mass we laity probably wouldn’t have been aware of its effects much, if at all.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Before Vatican II, no faithful Catholic anywhere or anytime would say that an ecumenical council could not be infallible, which is to say, could teach erroneous doctrines on faith or morals.
However, since sedevacantists and Lefebvrites want to reject Vatican II without rejecting their entire Catholic faith, they have to embrace this preposterous doublethink: that VII a valid ecumenical council, but that the promulgations therein were not infallible on account of this-or-that.
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. As shown earlier in the thread, just read the first paragraph of Lumen Gentium and you’ll hear the very same language used at every other council, Nicaea to Vatican I. The Papacy is the supreme interpreter of magisterial documents, and through the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, has unequivocally condemned the position that VII was “just” pastoral. That’s why the SSPX has now withdrawn their talks with Rome. Their erroneous beliefs about VII are untenable, so they now have no interest in reconciling with the Supreme Pontiff.
However, since sedevacantists and Lefebvrites want to reject Vatican II without rejecting their entire Catholic faith, they have to embrace this preposterous doublethink: that VII a valid ecumenical council, but that the promulgations therein were not infallible on account of this-or-that.
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. As shown earlier in the thread, just read the first paragraph of Lumen Gentium and you’ll hear the very same language used at every other council, Nicaea to Vatican I. The Papacy is the supreme interpreter of magisterial documents, and through the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, has unequivocally condemned the position that VII was “just” pastoral. That’s why the SSPX has now withdrawn their talks with Rome. Their erroneous beliefs about VII are untenable, so they now have no interest in reconciling with the Supreme Pontiff.
S
sw85
Guest
I don’t think anyone, though, is saying Vatican II “could not” be infallible, in the sense that there was no possible way it could be protected under the charism of infallibility. Rather what is being said is that the Council expressly declined to exercise that charism.
When the Pope speaks, it doesn’t follow that everything he says is infallible, even if he is speaking about matters of faith and morals. That’s an extraordinary charism that has to be explicitly invoked. If he doesn’t invoke it, infallibility doesn’t inhere. And if he isn’t talking about matters of faith and morals then infallibility cannot possibly inhere because there is nothing for it to inhere to. Similar thing here with ecumenical councils. Not every jot and tittle of every single document produced in connection with a council is dogmatic, much less infallible. Much of it is prudential. If it’s prudential then “error” is something that only arises contingently. It’s not the kind of “error” we mean when we talk about infallibility.
Now no one denies, I think, that Vatican II talked about doctrine. But talking about doctrine is not the same thing as defining doctrine and, it seems to me, infallibility pertains to the latter and not the former. Once a doctrine is defined, the work of the Holy Spirit is largely done. All that’s left is the question of how best to express that teaching, to relay it to the faithful, and to ensure their adherence to it. Those are prudential questions. Their resolution depends on a studied consideration of the pastoral needs of the Church at a given time and context. The answer today may not be the same answer as it was 100-200 years ago, 1000 years ago, or 200 years hence.
Personally I dunno what “pastoral Council” is supposed to mean. What makes a Council “ecumenical” is its scope/universality, not its objectives.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
No, plenty of people say that VII cannot be infallible. Sedevacantists and the SSPX both argue that since VII is an objective rupture with Sacred Tradition on the definition of the Church, the Order of Mass, religious liberty, and ecumenical/interreligious dialogue, that therefore it MUST be false in some regards and CANNOT be infallible. That’s why they argue the council was “pastoral” in nature and thus not dogmatic or doctrinal – it’s a political way for them to say that they’re orthodox Catholics but won’t accept VII.
T
triumphguy
Guest
ewtn.com/library/doctrine/TRIGINFL.HTM
A DISCUSSION OF INFALLIBILITY
Father John Trigilio
re:
“We aren’t required to believe every idea the bishops put in there is straight from the mouth of God.”
DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
S
sw85
Guest
Consider, though, what it’s actually saying. “Non-infallible teachings” doesn’t mean the same thing as “non-teachings.” The dogma of the Assumption of Mary is an infallible teaching, the Church’s current teachings on the death penalty are a fallible teaching, and the Church’s decision about how to express these teachings to the faithful aren’t a teaching at all. Of these three things, Vatican II consisted (I would argue) mainly of the latter: hence many of the Council fathers said, e.g., that “[t]he greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.” That’s a prudential question. It’s a question of tactics, which can change, not strategy, which can’t.
Infallible teachings are nonnegotiable and irreformable; they are “defined” because discussion on them has reached its end. Fallible teachings have to be obeyed but people are allowed to discuss them in good faith and with humility, charity, submission, and obedience; that’s how doctrinal development occurs. Questions of tactics and such aren’t teachings at all so it’s kind of pointless trying to discern whether or not they are “infallible.” By definition they aren’t. You don’t carve tactics in stone. Insofar as tactics, prudential judgments, etc., can change, discussion on them is pretty much open, bearing in mind always the duties we owe to bishops and Popes to treat them with the reverence they merit as men most closely configured to the ontological image of Christ the high priest.
Rich C’s point is that there is an asymmetry between teachings (what we are required to give “religious submission of intellect and will,” at a minimum, to) and literally everything they say on any and every topic. We are obliged to obey and respect what they say when what they say is a teaching. When what they say is, say, an expression of personal preference, subjective valuation, tactics, etc., we aren’t. If Cardinal Dolan says “Pepsi is far superior to Coke,” I’m free to think he’s wrong.
- Status