What you propose is fine for non-Catholics. Catholics are not free to ignore the teachings of any ecumenical council or any other authoritative and authentic Magisterial teaching.
What’s in the Catechism is a good place to start if the documents themselves aren’t clear enough.
I thought Paul 6 stated vat.ii was NOT an infallibly declared council? Then why do you state it was? I believe vat. ii was the first council not declared infallible. Since when is a purely pastoral council infallible when there was not any new infallibly declared dogmas?
a council could be binding yet not dogmatic… if it addresses liturgy, etc, rather than doctrine. Such a council’s decisions can be changed at a later council, however. (and dogma is not changing).
Br. JR,All councils are binding. No council is infallible. Councils have made infallible decrees. This is where the confusion comes in. For example, everyone thinks that everything that came out of Trent was infallible. Not true. Everything that came out of trent was binding until the next pope or council unbound it. Only that which was declared as infallible truth is such.
I’l give you an example. The Right of Exemption came from Trent. It is still in effect today. It was not an infallible statement, but it binds all bishops. It is a decree by Trent that certain religious: Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Benedictines and any other to whom the pope extends the privilege are not subordinate to the authority of any bishop. The bishop may not enter their houses withou their permission. He may not correct the or discipline them. He may not take their property. He must ensure that the faithful of his diocese support their apostolic works in his diocese. He may not suppress their presence in his diocese once permission has been given for them to establish a house there, even if it’s by a previous bishop.
This came out of Trent. It is still the norm. It is not an infallible statement. Any pope can retract it and throw it out. While it is the norm, bishops and laity are bound by it. Councils bind us. It is one thing to bind us to comply and another to bind us to believe. That’s probably the simplest way of saying it. Vatican II, as part of the Church’s tradition, has the same authority as other councils. Therefore, Catholics are bound to comply with its decrees. If there is something that is not clear, the individual has an obligation to ask for clarification, not for the purpose of argumentation, this was the case against Archbishop Lefebvre, as then Cardinal Ratzinger points out. However, one has the right to ask for clarification, for the sake of understanding. Archbishop Lefebvre was within his rights to say that something was unclear or ambiguous or could be said better. What he could not do was to say that it was wrong. That is argumentation.
Cardinal Razinger tried very hard, in this talk, and has done so for a long time, to teach the difference between asking for clarity and rejecting the authority of Vatican II to bind. In the end, pastoral decrees, rules, policies and rules must be followed. We don’t just follow dogma while picking and choosing which pastoral rules, policies and decrees we like. You can’t do that in any organization. That only leads to chaos.
Neither the Lefebvres of this world, nor the Call to Action people of this world can pick and choose what policies they like under the excuse that it was not an infallible decree. That’s not the way that order works. Authority has the right to command. The governed have the right to ask questions, but not the right to refuse obedience. When the governed ask questions, authority has the duty to answer them as best as possible.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Ha ha.Why would you want a rebuttal? it was well said.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Though I don’t disagree, I’m not sure this is the clearest way of putting it. Councils *are *infallible, what I mean when I say this is the same thing that the Chuch means when it says that Popes are infallible, that both are infallible in matters of faith and morals. Council canons regarding mere discipline are fallible and can be changed, those concerning faith and morals are not being subject to the same infallibility as the council itself is regarding faith and morals.
This is a disciplinary canon, it doesnt directly or indirectly relate to faith or morals and as such is changeable.
It is indeed true that the normal rule of the church would have meant that Catholics were bound to follow all the decrees of Vatican II, however the point you seem to be missing here is that because not all of it appears to be infallible, the case could arise where someone is bound to follow something which could in fact be wrong as regards faith and/or morals. This becomes even more of a pressing issue when this something can in fact be demonstrated to be wrong. In that case it would seem absurd to have someone ‘bound to be obedient’ to something that is demonstrably wrong. This is the core of the issue, many people see Vatican II’s decrees as so demonstrably contradicting previous infallible and non-infallible church teaching on several matters that the only way they can obey it is by proclaiming it as infallible and thus it must be right. Others equally believing that ‘Truth cannot contradict Truth’ point out that as the council declared itself non-infallible if a non-infallible source contradicted an earlier infallible one, it is the infallible that must be followed and any ‘duty of obedience’ due to the non-infallible source is insofar as it contradicts the infallible source dispensed or rather abrogated. Further obedience cannot compel someone to believe an untruth or to practice something that harms or endangers the salvation of souls.
Very good rebuttal. Round three after the commercial break.
ThanksVery good rebuttal. Round three after the commercial break.
I learn so much from reading CAF.
The problem is that some Traditionalists are so focussed on Archbishop Lefebvre’s questions about Conciliar decrees that they fail to notice that he did break with doctrine. He ordained four bishops without a papal mandate. He was told that the canons that he used in his defense did not apply to his situation. He insisted that they did. There is an ancient doctrine that the Pope is the Living Law of the Church. He can annul, invalidate, suspend, overrule and ignore anything in Canon Law, stated by previous councils that do not bind him or by previous popes that do not bind him.
This is all very well and good but it strays entirely from the point I was making, my response had to do with your comments regarding Vatican II and not at all with the so called illicit consecrations. I will not enter into discussion on that subject a) because you already know my point of view and the authorities I use to support it and b) Because I am bound by the rules of this forum, which will not permit me to play ‘devils advocate’ (I use that term in the loose sense) and defend his actions.
Essentially the philosphy of St Thomas Aquinas, in particular his method of enquiry into subjects, it can probably be best seen in his famous work The Summa.
Yes, this is good. Now, if I can only absorb it!Very good rebuttal. Round three after the commercial break.
I learn so much from reading CAF.
There is a mistaken notion among some people that the Church threw Aquinas out, sort of fired him, if you will. This is not true. Long before the Council, Aquinas was not the sole teacher of philosophy and theology. Many dioceses and most religious orders did not require Thomistic theology. The Church had stated that Thomas’ work, his methods and systems were by far the most excellent and should be taught by all in the formation of priests.
And the neo-scholastics had problems with John Paul 2 and his Theology of the Body, in particular because his approach was not a neo-scholastic approach, but rather one from humanism and phenomenolgy.
The fact is Thomas Aquinas along with the other things I mentioned were essentially disposed of by many bishops in their seminaries during the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and even 90’s. That may not be the case anymore but we are not talking about now we were talking back then when Lefebvre made his stand. And we are not saying that the method of Thomas Aquinas was replaced by an Augustinian or Franciscan method, it was replaced by a system of ‘Modern Theology’ which was essentially made up on the spot by the bishops according to the ‘spirit of Vatican II’. It is therefore not entirely relevant to make reference to the other systems of theology because in many cases they were not the ones adopted.There is a mistaken notion among some people that the Church threw Aquinas out, sort of fired him, if you will. This is not true. Long before the Council, Aquinas was not the sole teacher of philosophy and theology. Many dioceses and most religious orders did not require Thomistic theology. The Church had stated that Thomas’ work, his methods and systems were by far the most excellent and should be taught by all in the formation of priests.
However, as it always happens in the history of the Church, when these statements are made, there are many exceptions to them. This is no different. I can’t think of a single school of theology where Aquinas is not presented throughout the four-year program needed to obtain an M.Div. or an MA in Theology. What is not always done is the exclusive teaching of Thomistic theology, philosophy and systems. But you are familiar with Thomas when you finish an M.Div. If you want more, your bishop or your religious superior can grant you permission for a higher level degree in theology where you can major in Thomism.
If you were Augustinian, it was the same thing as the Franciscans, you saw a lot of Thomas, but your focus was Augustine.
Someone can ask ByzCath (Br. David), but I believe that the Carmelites did not focus on Thomas, but also on Augustine.
However, the Church never threw Thomas out. Thomas is still required study for a Master of Divinity or a Master of Theology, which all priests, friars and monks must complete. What happened was that many secular seminaries adopted many of the programs of studies from the religious communities. This meant that Thomas was not center stage. But it does not mean that he is not studied or that he is not appreciated.
I can speak best for the Franciscan schools of theology. If you attend one of them, such as St. Bonaventure’s in Rome, which is a Pontifical School of Theology, you will read what Aquinas has to say about X and then what Bonaventure has to say about X. Obviously, more time will be spent on what Bonaventure says or one of the Franciscan doctors or Franciscan masters. But Aquinas is in there.
There is a resistence, which has some validity. That is because some people want to elevate everything that Aquinas said as authoritative. This is not the case. Aquinas was the best and brightest theologian in Catholic history. The Church did not subscribe to everything he said. Other things that he said, simply support what the Church has always said. He says it better. He also raises questions and answers them that existed, but had not been correctly answered before. Even there, some of them he answered incorrectly, such as the Immaculate Conception.
When you throw out, “Aquinas said X; therefore it is so,” you’re going to get a knee-jerk reaction, because people who are very fluent in theology can find five theologians who disagree with him. Among the five, there are some very big names. Aquinas himself did not claim to have all the answers. He wouild be horrified to be used just to shut people up.
From where I sit, I don’t think the objection is to Aquinas. I think the objection is to how Aquinas is used. He is often used as a hammer.
Many people do not like the way that Pope Benedict does theology. He admits that he’s not a Thomist. He is an expert in Franciscan and Augustinian thought and systems. When he writes he uses their language and their method. However, he arrives at the same place as the Thomistic School.
There is more being made out of this than is really appropriate. This is not a change made by the Council. It always existed. The difference after the Council was that bishops allowed diocesan seminaries to borrow from the orders and some bishop actually handed their seminaries over to religious who became academic deans. The Academic Dean is the man who pulls together the entire program of studies from every department. If you give that position to an Augustinian or a Franciscan, you should not be surprised to see a lot of Augustinians and Franciscan doctors in relation to Thomistic ones. But neither Augustinian nor Franciscan theologians are heretics. They simply come at the same questions from a different approach. To say it concisely, they are less systematic.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
