C
Catholic4Jesus
Guest
I heard someone tell me that Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, but only a pastoral council and it is not binding. Is that true?
- Status
J
josephback
Guest
I’ve heard the same thing about it being pastoral and not dogmatic, but I doubt very much that it isn’t binding. This would be a good question to ask the apologists.
T
Theophorus
Guest
Vatican II billed itself as a pastoral council rather than a dogmatic one, this is because there was no crisis which required dogmatic definition such as at Nicea, Chalcedon or Trent. That being said the documents are documents of an oecumenical Council of Holy Mother Church and cannot simply be ignored. The plan was to represent the perennial teachings of the church to the modern world and in that sense they are binding. There is however still legitimate debate as to what some of the documents mean as the council did not issue canons of its decrees(ie 1. Holy church teaches…if you don’t believe it you can’t really call yourself catholic etc.) as it did at previous councils. The documents are binding but must be read in light of Tradition.
S
SuscipeMeDomine
Guest
Archbishop Muller is the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the same job Cardinal Ratzinger held before he became pope.
Here is his explanation of Vatican II being “pastoral” as reported by the National Catholic Register:
Some argue the Second Vatican Council was merely pastoral and, therefore, not binding. How do you respond to this?
The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral.” All councils are pastoral, in that they are concerned with the work of the Church — but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and therefore not binding. Vatican II is an official ecumenical council, and all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels. We have dogmatic constitutions, and you are certainly obliged to accept them if you are Catholic. Dei Verbum discusses divine Revelation; it speaks about the Trinitarian God revealing himself and about the Incarnation as fundamental teaching. These are not only pastoral teachings — they are basic elements of our Catholic faith.
Some practical elements contained in the various documents could be changed, but the body of the doctrine of the Council is binding for everyone.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
They are authoritative but not infallible.
T
twf
Guest
They are an authoritative expression of truths that are infallible by virtue of either previous dogmatic degrees or the ordinary magisterium (the consistent teachings of the popes and bishops down through the centuries)
E
edwest2
Guest
Whenever you hear something from someone, always ask for a source. It is binding. Vatican II was called by Pope John XXIII and is binding.
Peace,
Ed
T
The_Blunt_Brig
Guest
You can’t be excommunicated as a heretic for rejecting teachings written in Vatican II because it’s from Vatican II. I think it would be an excommunicable deal only if what Vatican II said was said infallibly by the Pope/older ecumenical council.
But the changes Vatican II made in procedures are to be followed until the Vatican changes them again. It’s not a matter of doctrine so the Vatican could change them from the rules Vatican II set up whenever they want. But if you call the pope a heretic because he accepts Vatican II and refuse to accept him as the pope you’d be in schism (a mortal and excommunicable sin)
But the changes Vatican II made in procedures are to be followed until the Vatican changes them again. It’s not a matter of doctrine so the Vatican could change them from the rules Vatican II set up whenever they want. But if you call the pope a heretic because he accepts Vatican II and refuse to accept him as the pope you’d be in schism (a mortal and excommunicable sin)
E
edwest2
Guest
T
triumphguy
Guest
So what about the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (dei verbum)?
T
triumphguy
Guest
Or…
the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (lumen gentium)
What exactly do you think “dogmatic” means in these instances?
the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (lumen gentium)
What exactly do you think “dogmatic” means in these instances?
D
devoutchristian
Guest
It’s a matter of speaking. The conditions for infallibility were not meant. (of course I accept everything the Council taught, as it is authoritative either way)
T
triumphguy
Guest
Yeah - you’re right I gave a knee jerk reaction.
Vatican II did not teach new dogma, but it did teach about dogma, and it also taught about infallibility.
eg DV 10"The task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether in its written form or in that of tradition, has been entrusted only to those charged with the Church’s living magisterium, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ" (No. 10)
E
erlembald
Guest
Since Vatican 2 didn’t formulate any new dogmas, it’s statements and declarations (i.e., schemata) are new formulations or reiterations of the traditionally held dogmas.
If some of the declarations seem to contradict the depositum fidei, then only because the wording is ambiguous to the mind of the erring believer. In such a case it should be patently obvious to both modernists and traditionalists alike that only that interpretation which conforms to tradition can be the correct one.
If some of the declarations seem to contradict the depositum fidei, then only because the wording is ambiguous to the mind of the erring believer. In such a case it should be patently obvious to both modernists and traditionalists alike that only that interpretation which conforms to tradition can be the correct one.
Q
QuestingKnight
Guest
I see the ‘Vatican II Phenomenon’ as being enclosed in a circle of logic, which, if you don’t see all the elements, you think you can reach a conclusion but end up going around in a circle.
The circle is something like this:
But for those with an agenda to move the Church in a progressive, ‘modern’, updated, fashionable direction, they are very important. Because of VII and the huge revision in the Mass, the precedent for major changes in our religion has been set.
You can’t say NEVER! to a small thing like altar girls after a major rewrite of your rite and versus-populum with altar tables and so on. The dam has burst.
The circle is something like this:
- Someone proposes that ‘Vatican II’ says X.
- Traditionalists say X is different from tradition
- Neo-conservatives say VII can only be interpreted as being in line with tradition.
- Neo-conservatives say VII is ‘infallibile’,
- Traditionalists say infallibilty is only invoked on specific occasions when the Pope defines a doctrine and this did not occur at VII.
- Neo-conservatives say VII partakes of the ‘infallibility of the Magisterium’ and is owed assent or is binding in some way.
- Traditionalists say, well, what exactly is ‘binding’ in these documents, that is different from what we are doing. Are ecumenisn without conversion, collegiality, ‘freedom of conscience’ and indifferentism ‘binding’?
- Neo-conservatives say the documents don’t propose this.
- Traditionalists say they are used to justify them.
But for those with an agenda to move the Church in a progressive, ‘modern’, updated, fashionable direction, they are very important. Because of VII and the huge revision in the Mass, the precedent for major changes in our religion has been set.
You can’t say NEVER! to a small thing like altar girls after a major rewrite of your rite and versus-populum with altar tables and so on. The dam has burst.
T
TEPO
Guest
I’ve never heard the term “neo-conservatives” used in this context… Did you mean 'Neo-Catholics"…?
T
TradAvenger
Guest
The way I see it, Vatican II added nothing to the deposit of faith, nor did it detract from it. It simply used novel wording and turns of phrase to express it. I liken the situation of Vatican II to a church getting a new monstrance for exposition and benediction . . . maybe it lacks the gold and precious jewels of the previous monstrance, and maybe some people like it better or worse, but it’s still the same Lord God and Savior being exposed for public worship. Likewise, the deposit of faith has different language and trappings because of how it is expressed by Vatican II, but the deposit of faith itself is unchanged.
That said, I believe that some of the documents were very poorly worded and this has caused great confusion, scandalized many, and has no doubt been the cause of the loss of very many souls and of great damage to the Church. See, for example, Lumen Gentium 8, “This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church.” This is a completely different formulation than what was used by Pius XII only 20 years earlier in Mystici Corporis 1, “The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, etc.” Of course, we know that Lumen Gentium and all the other documents of Vatican II must be understood in light of tradition, and the Church has repeatedly stated that the term “subsists” still denotes the identity between the Church established by Christ and the Catholic Church, even though using the term “subsistit” here is entirely novel.
I guess the bottom line is, one cannot doubt the teachings exposed in Vatican II, but not because of Vatican II, but because of their previously magisterial status. To this end, it was not necessary that Vatican II be called, and in fact it was probably gravely imprudential, but we are still bound to interpret everything it teaches in the light of tradition and adhere to it.
That said, I believe that some of the documents were very poorly worded and this has caused great confusion, scandalized many, and has no doubt been the cause of the loss of very many souls and of great damage to the Church. See, for example, Lumen Gentium 8, “This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church.” This is a completely different formulation than what was used by Pius XII only 20 years earlier in Mystici Corporis 1, “The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, etc.” Of course, we know that Lumen Gentium and all the other documents of Vatican II must be understood in light of tradition, and the Church has repeatedly stated that the term “subsists” still denotes the identity between the Church established by Christ and the Catholic Church, even though using the term “subsistit” here is entirely novel.
I guess the bottom line is, one cannot doubt the teachings exposed in Vatican II, but not because of Vatican II, but because of their previously magisterial status. To this end, it was not necessary that Vatican II be called, and in fact it was probably gravely imprudential, but we are still bound to interpret everything it teaches in the light of tradition and adhere to it.
M
Megan7
Guest
I will have to read this later on along with the enitre thread. Subscribing. Thank you
S
Sister_Terese
Guest
It is interesting that we often refer to “changes” yet few really understand the changes that were made. Most of what we see and experience today in our parishes which claim to be in the “Spirit of Vatican II” are nowhere near what the Council intended: altar girls, the altar being turned around to face the congregation, all vernacular Masses, profane pop-like music, and so much more. These things came about as abuses, not in proper interpretation of the Council’s documents. Who knows what the intentions might be. All I know is that if you were to attend the Novus Ordo Mass the way it was intended to be said in the Vatican II documents, you would not recognize it as what we experience in today’s common parishes. Gregorian chant was to be maintained, instead we have music that takes over the whole liturgy. Mass is not meant as Catholic entertainment. It is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, not a performance by priest or deacon.
The tide is turning, but there is much resistance to going “backward” as some see it. Anyone who rejects the Pope as the legitimate Vicar of Christ is indeed in schism. Whether we like him or not, whether we agree with him or not, he is still the pope and that demands our respect and obedience.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Seriously? Name the parish that did this.
- Status