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

[YoungTradCath]

Yes, of course, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that the definition of “Oecumenical” is still problematic from an Oriental perspective.

Do you not do pms?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Understood, but a good part of what I meant by “problematic” lies in the definition of “Oecumenical” itself. Classifying a council as “Oecumenical” is a problem from an Oriental perspective precisely because of the current (and that for at least 1000 years) scheme of things. The question (which, for the purpose of this forum, is strictly academic) is, really, whether a “council” convoked and dominated by, and dependent in every respect on, Rome, can ever be considered to be truly “Oecumenical,” participation by bishops “in union with Rome” notwithstanding.

I would say that yes, technically, it can be.

 

[clem456]

“Pastoral” is a word that refers to the application of doctrine to particular circumstances to achieve the greatest good for the flock. Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution, mentions how much of what is in it is contingent on the circumstances. The relatio for Dignitatis Humanae also specifically says it is applying certain principles to particular circumstances. Pretty much all of the documents of Vatican II do this. Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum are more focused on doctrine in general, rather than applying it to contemporary circumstances, but even they present such pastoral directives.

Like all Councils there is a mix of teaching and “pastoring” or governing. Like, say, Lyons I, Vatican II does not offer any definitive judgments on doctrine, but it still teaches (Lyons I, like Lateran I, was actually focused on legislation). This kind of teaching, which is often used by Popes in their encyclicals, is how Vatican II teaches. When compared to previous Councils, its mode of operation seems unique, but when compared with papal teaching after Vatican I, it fits right in. Like past Councils, Popes in earlier centuries generally only intervened to definitively settle doctrinal and disciplinary disputes; they didn’t issue long, periodic, pastoral letters to the whole Church like they do now and like bishops historically did in their diocese.

Like the ordinary teaching of a Pope, the ordinary teaching of a Council, in this case Vatican II, receives obsequium religiosum, an internal religious submission. This assent is not absolute like the faith given to definitions, but it requires a docile and sincere attempt to accept and assimilate the teaching, and to put it into effect, with a presumption of truth toward the teaching. If this fails, one may qualify their assent and even raise concerns in a way consonant with one’s rank and competence (for example, a layman going around on the internet trying to convince everyone the Council in its official teaching is improper–sometimes respectful silence is appropriate; on the other hand, a theologian or bishop submitting a dubia to the CDF would be an appropriate thing).

Incidentally, this is the main doctrinal problem with the SSPX–they deny even this kind of assent and justify it by claiming that Vatican II was not an act of the Magisterium at all. They err by believing that the teaching authority of the Church can be separted from the teaching Church.

Very helpful post thank you. Is this reasoning spelled out anywhere or is it a synthesis of things?

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

“Pastoral” is a word that refers to the application of doctrine to particular circumstances to achieve the greatest good for the flock. Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution, mentions how much of what is in it is contingent on the circumstances. The relatio for Dignitatis Humanae also specifically says it is applying certain principles to particular circumstances. Pretty much all of the documents of Vatican II do this. Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum are more focused on doctrine in general, rather than applying it to contemporary circumstances, but even they present such pastoral directives.

Like all Councils there is a mix of teaching and “pastoring” or governing. Like, say, Lyons I, Vatican II does not offer any definitive judgments on doctrine, but it still teaches (Lyons I, like Lateran I, was actually focused on legislation). This kind of teaching, which is often used by Popes in their encyclicals, is how Vatican II teaches. When compared to previous Councils, its mode of operation seems unique, but when compared with papal teaching after Vatican I, it fits right in. Like past Councils, Popes in earlier centuries generally only intervened to definitively settle doctrinal and disciplinary disputes; they didn’t issue long, periodic, pastoral letters to the whole Church like they do now and like bishops historically did in their diocese.

Like the ordinary teaching of a Pope, the ordinary teaching of a Council, in this case Vatican II, receives obsequium religiosum, an internal religious submission. This assent is not absolute like the faith given to definitions, but it requires a docile and sincere attempt to accept and assimilate the teaching, and to put it into effect, with a presumption of truth toward the teaching. If this fails, one may qualify their assent and even raise concerns in a way consonant with one’s rank and competence (for example, a layman going around on the internet trying to convince everyone the Council in its official teaching is improper–sometimes respectful silence is appropriate; on the other hand, a theologian or bishop submitting a dubia to the CDF would be an appropriate thing).

Incidentally, this is the main doctrinal problem with the SSPX–they deny even this kind of assent and justify it by claiming that Vatican II was not an act of the Magisterium at all. They err by believing that the teaching authority of the Church can be separted from the teaching Church.

That was a good explanation, but the part about the SSPX is not exactly right. The SSPX does not reject everything in Vatican II; and they do not deny that it was a council of the Church. What they reject to are certain teaching contained within the Council, such as religious liberty, as understood to mean people have a right to practice a false religion (which is a violation of the First Commandment). The SSPX considers this to be contrary to what was taught by all the Popes, up to and including Pius XII.

So, it is only certain teaching of the Council that they object to. They claim that the Council erred in its formulation with respect to these teachings (since it did not engage the charism of infallibility, which would have prevented error), and therefore do not accept the teachings. And it is interesting to note that a number of prelates on the left do agree that the Council contracted previous magisterial teachings on this subject.

Interestingly, Bishop Athanasius Snyder (in my opinion one of the best bishops alive today) recently did an interview with Michael Voris, and he expressed some of the same concerns the SSPX has with certain teachings of Vatican II.

 

[pnewton]

Misconstrued context…

Also no link.

Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.

 

[pnewton]

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.

Well, it is at least equally well directed at them. I think they are less of an issue only because of visibility. These are a dispersed group and only on occasion to they rise in visibility enough to be excommunicated (like when they ordain women priest).

For me, I find the whole issue kind of academic. Infallible or not, what is binding is binding. I really have no opinion on the pastoral constitutions, though I know something can be both pastoral and infallible. As to the two biggies, I simple take that when the Catholic Church (who is my teacher) says dogmatic, she means dogmatic. I can not* imagine* wanting to jump through hoops to nuance that term. It gives me shivers. I will leave the nuancing to those on the left and the right.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I think it is unhealthy to focus on this idea of a “pastoral council” as opposed to a “dogmatic council”, and even more unhealthy to focus on infallibility in such a way that anything not infallible would be regarded as optional.

The fact is that the Second Vatican Council was an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church and we laypeople should approach its documents with an attitude of submission and a desire to learn, not to judge whether those documents meet our personal preconceived standards for approval.

 

[ProVobis]

Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes, and Sacrosanctum Concilium are all infallible because they’re apostolic constitutions promulgated by the Magisterium.

What I find tricky here is that commissions were formed by the council and even if these four were so-called “infallible” how infallibile is the work done by those committees and the subcommittees formed by those committees, all the way down to liturgical committees formed at each parish level? Can we say the council called for all this infallibily and therefore it’s binding to the highest degree?

 

[Boulder257]

For me, I find the whole issue kind of academic. Infallible or not, what is binding is binding. I really have no opinion on the pastoral constitutions, though I know something can be both pastoral and infallible. As to the two biggies, I simple take that when the Catholic Church (who is my teacher) says dogmatic, she means dogmatic.** I can not* imagine*** wanting to jump through hoops to nuance that term. It gives me shivers. I will leave the nuancing to those on the left and the right.

Yep to all of it, especially the bold.

 

[YoungTradCath]

What I find tricky here is that commissions were formed by the council and even if these four were so-called “infallible” how infallibile is the work done by those committees and the subcommittees formed by those committees, all the way down to liturgical committees formed at each parish level? Can we say the council called for all this infallibily and therefore it’s binding to the highest degree?

Yes but SC is not infallible, and the Church has never said it is. It can’t be, it doesn’t have anything to do with defining or upholding specifically faith or morals. Also, it doesn’t contain canons (which can also be binding in a different way).

 

[Genesis315]

That was a good explanation, but the part about the SSPX is not exactly right. The SSPX does not reject everything in Vatican II; and they do not deny that it was a council of the Church. What they reject to are certain teaching contained within the Council, such as religious liberty, as understood to mean people have a right to practice a false religion (which is a violation of the First Commandment). The SSPX considers this to be contrary to what was taught by all the Popes, up to and including Pius XII.

So, it is only certain teaching of the Council that they object to. They claim that the Council erred in its formulation with respect to these teachings (since it did not engage the charism of infallibility, which would have prevented error), and therefore do not accept the teachings. And it is interesting to note that a number of prelates on the left do agree that the Council contracted previous magisterial teachings on this subject.

Interestingly, Bishop Athanasius Snyder (in my opinion one of the best bishops alive today) recently did an interview with Michael Voris, and he expressed some of the same concerns the SSPX has with certain teachings of Vatican II.

That’s not an accurate assessment of the SSPX’s current position. They do reject it as an act of the Church’s authentic Magisterium and claim it is some different, new “magisterium” that must be rejected. This position was expressed by Bishop Tissier during his ordination sermon at Winona, June 15, 2012 where he lays out the SSPX’s reasons for this position and concludes the Council “has no authority of teaching” and “we do not accept that the council be a true Council.” Sure, Bishop Fellay gave some talks when reconcilliation seemed like a possibility hinting that he was more of the opinion you described, but recently he signed on to a joint statement of the SSPX bishops expressing Tissier’s position (see par. 4 of their June 26, 2013 joint declaration for the 25th anniversary of their episcopal ordinarions, which declares Vatican II to create a new false Magisterium distinct from the authoritative Magisterium exercised by the Church until then). This is also a major point of Fr. Gleize, who teaches on this subject at the Econe seminary (see his back and forth with Msgr. Ocariz from the end of 2011). Their whole point is that by introducing what they see as errors, and by having what they see as the overall intention of surrendering the Church to the world, the Council is not an act of the Church’s true Magisterium, but something else that must be rejected *in toto, *even if it says things that are materially true in certain places.

Bishop Schneider, on the other hand, from what I have read from him does give proper submission and expresses his difficulties in line with the principles expressed Donum Veritatis 23-31 (which the SSPX certainly do not do, even if they hold to the position you understand them to hold).

 

[murraymuzz]

I think perhaps looking at this from a different angle can help. Consider, the only thing we know that is infallible are dogma’s of the faith. Now the public revelation had stopped at the death of the last apostle, so what does the magisterium do in an ecumenical council? It teaches the faithful what the apostles said and taught and explains what they meant by everything they said.

To use a teacher/student analogy, being Catholic means that we are guaranteed by our faith given to us by God, that the magisterium has the absolutely correct and true curriculum, the only thing is, like with any teacher/student relationship we may have complete confidence that our teacher knows what they are talking about and are absolutely qualified to be teaching us, although they may have trouble explaining a certain topic to a particular class in a way they will understand, and also the student may have a hard time understanding what is being explained.

Now how does this apply to V2? So we know that everything written in the council documents are correct and true, but maybe the council didn’t explain it as well as they could have or we are not understanding it. So for example in V2 documents when it says in LG 16 “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, 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.” Now I know that the meaning behind this statement is true and correct in every sense because of my faith, though I don’t believe the council explained what they meant by this very well, and I don’t think it is my lack of understanding in this case, and clarification by the appropriate authorities would be very much appreciated.

To summarize however, I don’t think we should say all ecumenical councils are infallible without further clarifying what that means, as in we know the magisterium is completely guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, but we should take into account the human element involved also, which means to say it cannot teach error but sometimes it may have a hard time explaining the truth because (at least I’ve never heard this before) it was never guaranteed to be the perfect teacher who can make all her students understand.

 

[Genesis315]

Very helpful post thank you. Is this reasoning spelled out anywhere or is it a synthesis of things?

It’s a synthesis of things really, but the principles are laid out in various places dealing with “religious submission.”

Here is a good old article on the authority of papal encyclicals, which shows how many theologians have described the assent due to fallible acts of the papal magisterium.

Edited by moderator

Since the Pope alone as head, or gathered with the other bishops in a Council as head and body, both exercise the one same supreme teaching authority, it logically follows that these principles can be applied to Concilliar acts which teach in the same way.

Ott’s Fundamentals explains it as: “as an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See. The so-called “silentium obsequiosum.” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.”

As I descried in my other postes, other old theological manuals I’ve read describe this form of assent requires a spirit of docility that gives a presumption of truth to the teaching and a good faith effort to assimilate the teaching. If that effort fails, then assent can be suspended, but criticism may only be given in a manner consonant with one’s rank and competence and with due reverence for the Magisterial organ doing the teaching.

The CDF Instruction Donum Veritatis is about the role of theologians, but in paragraphs 23-31 it discusses the princples related to how and when dissent can be possible and how and when it can be expressed.

If you go further in the address where Pope Paul VI said Vatican II avoided any definitions bearing the mark of infallibility, he describes the assent as obsequium religiousum (alhtough he doesn’t use that particular phrase):

“But it [the Council] has invested its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary magisterium is so obviously authentic that it must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council as expressed in the nature and aims of the individual documents.”

He said the same in his letter to Archbishop Lefebrve Nov. 10, 1976:

“Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application”.

 

[ProVobis]

Now how does this apply to V2? So we know that everything written in the council documents are correct and true, but maybe the council didn’t explain it as well as they could have or we are not understanding it.

The other possibility is that it was translated with a bias. Nothing infallible about translations.

 

[pnewton]

What I find tricky here is that commissions were formed by the council and even if these four were so-called “infallible” how infallibile is the work done by those committees and the subcommittees formed by those committees, all the way down to liturgical committees formed at each parish level? Can we say the council called for all this infallibily and therefore it’s binding to the highest degree?

I found this post absolutely hilarious and wanted to add an “amen”. Then I got to thinking about the conditions of the Church during other councils. It makes bureaucratic red tape seem tame by comparison. I guess if the Holy Spirit could use some of the earlier earthen clay, he can use bureaucracy.

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

That’s not an accurate assessment of the SSPX’s current position. They do reject it as an act of the Church’s authentic Magisterium and claim it is some different, new “magisterium” that must be rejected. This position was expressed by Bishop Tissier during his ordination sermon at Winona, June 15, 2012 where he lays out the SSPX’s reasons for this position and concludes the Council “has no authority of teaching” and “we do not accept that the council be a true Council.” Sure, Bishop Fellay gave some talks when reconcilliation seemed like a possibility hinting that he was more of the opinion you described, but recently he signed on to a joint statement of the SSPX bishops expressing Tissier’s position (see par. 4 of their June 26, 2013 joint declaration for the 25th anniversary of their episcopal ordinarions, which declares Vatican II to create a new false Magisterium distinct from the authoritative Magisterium exercised by the Church until then).

The SSPX has always maintained the position that they accept Vatican II “in light of Tradition”. That is what Archbishop Lefebvre states a number of times. He also explained what he meant. He said, they accept all the teachings of Vatican II that are in accord with tradition; those teachings that are ambiguous, they interpret in accord with the previous teachings; and the teachings that cannot be reconciled with previous magisterial teachings, they reject.

I agree that Bishop Tissier would take a strong stance than that, but that has always been the official teaching, and I have no doubt that if you asked Bishop Fellay (who is the Superior General), he would agree with the statement of Archbishop Lefebvre. Inn face, we see virtually the same teaching reflected in the April 15 declaration that Bishop Fellay sent to Rome. Here’s a few of the points from that declaration:

April 15th Declaration: 1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the College of Bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, the chapter (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.

1. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, …
2. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium, relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is, with difficulty, reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever, that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition, or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.
3. That is why it is legitimate to promote, through legitimate discussion, the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don’t appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church.

This doctrinal declaration from last year is consistent with the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre, except for the part about the new Mass being “legitimately promulgated”. The SSPX has always acknowledged that the new Mass is valid, but the term “legitimately promulgated” is new. That caused some disagreement, which is probably why Bishop Fellay later distanced himself from the declaration.

Regarding the comment from Bishop Tissier saying that Vatican II is not part of the Magisterium, you would have to ask exactly what he means. He might mean that he expects the entire council to be rendered null by a future pope, which is probably the opinion of most in the SSPX; but the official position taken here and now (before it is rendered null), is what I mentioned above. That has always been the official position on Vatican II, even if they may believe a future Pope will render it null.

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX has always maintained the position that they accept Vatican II “in light of Tradition”. That is what Archbishop Lefebvre states a number of times. He also explained what he meant. He said, they accept all the teachings of Vatican II that are in accord with tradition; those teachings that are ambiguous, they interpret in accord with the previous teachings; and the teachings that cannot be reconciled with previous magisterial teachings, they reject.

The use of the word “accept” is unique here. They accept everything except that which they don’t. I can’t get my hear around how that is accepting any more than I can around why dogmatic is not dogmatic.

 

[thomas1956]

centreleonardboyle.com/PastoralCVII.html

ON THE PASTORAL NATURE OF VATICAN II: AN EVALUATION

(by Brunero Gherardini)

[Abstract]: Msgr. Gherardini discerns four levels of teaching in the Second Vatican Council, which is an authentic council (level I), expression of the solemn, but not dogmatic teaching of the Church (level II), dogmatic inasmuch as it reasserts the dogms of the previous 20 councils (level III), innovative; but its innovations cannot be dogmatic if they collide with the perennial Tradition of the Church (level IV). In the proclaimed but never defined pastoral character of Vatican II - its documents mention activities, necessities, studies, aids, sensitivity, methods, actions, questions, all pastoral - Msgr. Gherardini recognizes the rationalism begotten by Enlightenment and revamped by Romantic enthusiasm for the timeless flow of history, and a zest for life germane to human nature and turned into an instrument of salvation.

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

The use of the word “accept” is unique here. They accept everything except that which they don’t. I can’t get my hear around how that is accepting any more than I can around why dogmatic is not dogmatic.

Let’s see if I can clear it up

Let’s consider the objects being accepted. We will break these out.

First, I have heard bishop Fellay say several times: “What does it mean to accept Vatican II? We accept that it was a pastoral council of the Church. Our Founder was present at the Council”.

So, the first object to consider is the reality of the Council itself. They accept that Vatican II was a council.

The next object to consider is the documents and teachings that came from the council. We can break these out into three categories:

1. Those that are simply restating what the Church has always taught.
2. Those teachings that are ambiguous, and can be interested in more than one way.
3. The teachings that appear contrary to what the Magisterium has always taught.
4. Regarding the first category, the SSPX accepts these teachings as being in perfect accord with what the Church has always taught;
5. Regarding the second category, they agree to interpret the ambiguous statements in a way that is in agreement with what has always been taught;
6. Regarding the third groups of teachings (those that appear unambiguously contrary to what the Church has always taught), they reject them.

In order to explain how it could be that the third category of teachings exist within a council document, they show that infallibility was specifically avoided by the Pope, which means, of course, that error could be present.

Now, it is certainly out of the ordinary that error would be present in a council document, but since infallibility was not engaged, it is within the realm of possibility. The SSPX believes that a future Pope will rectify the unusual situation with Vatican II (just as Pope Benedict rectified the situation of the “pro-multis”, and the illicit suppression of the Old Mass, which, he admitted, “was never juridically abrogated, and, in principle, always permitted”); but between now and the time a future Pope rectifies the unusual situation, they have to find a way to deal with it. And they do so by what was mentioned above.

 

[pnewton]

Let’s see if I can clear it up

I am quite familiar with their reasons. I just can not accept them. I know they believe that the Pope at the calling of the council prevented any possible infallibility. However, I do not think they show it, or prove it to anyone who doesn’t all ready believe it. The Old Catholic Church has similar arguments about Vatican I. I do not think any Catholic, even a bishop, possessed the authority to determine what parts of a dogmatic Church document is in fact dogmatic. I surely do not think those who have no ministry in the Church will have any charism to make such interpretations. For the life of me, I do not understand why Catholics would listen. Pope Benedict made it clear. They have no part of ministry in the Church. They are as though they are lay. I would no more accept their opinions than I would any Catholic blogger. And their arguments (which I have read at length) always fail in one rational point or another.

In the end, one believes, or not, that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that the Holy Spirit is guiding. There have been four papal enclaves since the council. Four times the Church has sought discernment. Four time the Holy Spirit has continued to lead in the same general direction. How many popes, how many generations does it take to realize the work of the Holy Spirit?