Obedience to Vatican II

[arieh0310]

Some points of clarification:

1. Vatican II was a valid ecumenical council
2. Vatican II is binding and authoritative
3. Vatican II taught no heresy
4. Catholics must follow the Magisterium of the Church in all matters, including disciplinary.

My issues with Vatican II:

1. No dogmas nor anathemas (what was the point of convening it?)
2. Vague and ambiguous language that is used by folks on both sides of the isle to support their theological opinions (which makes it hard to know what to believe about what the documents are trying to say)
3. The Magisterium after Vatican II has not been Johnny-on-the-spot in clarifying many points of contention.

My hope is that with the help of traditional orders (like the Institute of the Good Shepherd) we will regain much of what was lost. I think that the Hermeneutic of Reform that Benedict XVI talks about is more than just reading the texts of Vatican II in the light of tradition, but also “editing” (for lack of a better word" many of the texts to bring the full Catholic truth into full clarity (like Dominus Iesus did in clarifying many statements from that can be taken to deny the salvific universality of Jesus and His Church).

 

[Jake_Connor]

Parts of Vatican II are certainly ambiguous. Let’s start with one of the most famous examples:From Lumen Gentium, ¶ 16
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, 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.The plain langauage of that statement is susceptible to two interpretations: 1) That Moslems are saved by their Muslim faith, or 2) that some or all Moslems may be saved even though they do not possess the saving faith that is Christianity. The magisterium must explain which of those two interpretations is correct in order for the faithful to understand it properly.

It’s important to call a duck a duck, and several key statements from Vatican II are ambiguous or vague.

That would not be ambiguous since preceding that earlier in documents (which you have conveniently left out) was the part where it said the church and Christ were the sole bridge to God.

 

[arieh0310]

As an aside, Lateran I is a good example of an ecumenical council without any dogmatic decrees.

Likewise, following the logic of the OP, that would mean that all the encyclicals by popes that were not definitve and solemn proclamations to be held by all the faithful, are therefore meaningless. And yet, I continue to see self-procliamed traditionalists cling to even the disciplinary decrees as if they were issued before the dawn of time by God-Almighty.

Lateran I forbid marriages with blood relations, demanded clerical celebacy, and eliminated lay investiture. All of these are pretty substantial, and the prohibition of blood relation unions was ordered because of divine law, hence infallible.

And I am not saying that we ignore the pope unless he proclaims something infallible. But it seems to me that most of the documents of Vatican II are similar in force as Benedict XVI’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est. While this document is lovely and full of valuable insights, it isn’t something that is of ecumenical council material (in my opinion). I think that many of the documents of Vatican II would have made wonderful encyclicals, but documents from a council???

 

[Loy]

rr1213;1889583:

So what has that living magisterium done lately to resolve the questions that arose from Vatican II that was, what, over 40 years ago? I’m serious here…I don’t know. Maybe the magisterium has done plenty of explaining and I am simply not aware of it (Protestant you know). What’s the scoop?

I would say that pretty much the entire time since the Council has ben nothing but that. Just about everything any Pope has written and any synod has agreed on was either a clarification or an application of the Conciliar teachings. Everything from Ut Unum Sint to Dominus Jesus were reflections of the Council and its fruit. And I think that is why we have gone from the overexuberant chaos of the sixties, when so many thought they knew what the Council really wanted us to think, to the relative calm of today, when all that constant reflection and clarification is beginning to show results. Remember, that in Church time forty or fifty years is the blink of an eye.

Like Patrick said, certain papal writings have helped clarify some issues, but I would shy away from the local synods which have proven to be a mixed bag. One of the most significant efforts of our Church leaders to help clarify Vatican II is the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I’m sure you’ve seen discussed on these forums quite a bit.

 

[cothrige]

Like Patrick said, certain papal writings have helped clarify some issues, but I would shy away from the local synods which have proven to be a mixed bag. One of the most significant efforts of our Church leaders to help clarify Vatican II is the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I’m sure you’ve seen discussed on these forums quite a bit.

Oh yes, very good point. The Catechism is most certainly a fantastic example of the Church working at implementing Vatican II effectively.

Patrick

 

[bear06]

I, personally, don’t find Vatican II ambiguous and vague. But for those of you who do, it does seem to be in doctrinal areas (i.e. who’s saved). Now, you obviously think that you hold the key to the proper interpretation so you might want to just consider the documents which you hold ambiguous and vague to be a way of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Maybe that’ll give you some comfort.

It really doesn’t matter what the documents said, those who want to interpret it one way will and those who want to interpret it another way will no matter how crystal clear they be written. If you look through history, you will find that most schisms whether they be liberal or conservative can take a crystal clear teaching and tweak the interpretation to their favor. Of course it leaves the rest of us scratching our heads and saying “How did they come to that conclusion?!”

 

[Loy]

That would not be ambiguous since preceding that earlier in documents (which you have conveniently left out) was the part where it said the church and Christ were the sole bridge to God.

You’ll have to explain to me which part I conveniently left out because I honestly don’t know what you’re referring to.

Regardless, anyone is going to naturally think that the authors are describing an exception to the general plan of salvation when reading the following sentence:But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.In fact, the entire paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium is full of exceptions to the general plan of salvation, as it states that one does not need to believe in Christ or the Church necessarily to be saved. Nowhere in the Vatican II documents does it explicitly state how the salvation of nonbelievers comes from the Church or Christ. So even if the Vatican II documents state that the Church and Christ are the sole bridge to God, that alone does not clarify matters. Additional explanation and commentary is therefore necessary.

But if you can show me the parts of the Vatican II documents that would prove me wrong, which remove the apparent ambiguity from “the plan of salvation also includes those who believe in the creator”, please feel free.

BTW, I’m well aware that the English translation of this is not the best, but if anyone is able to find clarity by parsing through the Latin, please demonstrate, because to me the Latin seems as ambigous as the English, to wit:Sed propositum salutis et eos amplectitur, qui Creatorem agnoscunt …

 

[rr1213]

I think you exaggerate a little here, don’t you?

Not really. Perhaps a bit for effect, but not much.

 

[rr1213]

Remember, that in Church time forty or fifty years is the blink of an eye.

True, but in the life of a man it is the best part of his time on this earth. If there is ambiguity or confusion it is no benefit to those who must deal with that confusion in their lives to say that it will be resolved during the time of their grandchildren.

 

[Loy]

True, but in the life of a man it is the best part of his time on this earth. If there is ambiguity or confusion it is no benefit to those who must deal with that confusion in their lives to say that it will be resolved during the time of their grandchildren.

Why would it be of no benefit? A Catholic has faith that God will resolve these problems in God’s own time. The benefit comes from the believer persevering in his or her faith despite confusion that might lead someone to doubt. When the matter is settled, that believer’s faith is validated, regardless of whether the believer is alive to enjoy it. The faithful believer does not need to see the fruits of his or her faith in order to receive any benefit from them.

 

[Loy]

Now, you obviously think that you hold the key to the proper interpretation so you might want to just consider the documents which you hold ambiguous and vague to be a way of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Maybe that’ll give you some comfort.

I really don’t know what you’re trying to say here. The key to interpretation is to compare one’s understanding with the teachings of the magisterium. However, in the case of some parts of the Vatican II documents, the magisterium’s teaching is confusing. I can’t speak for others, but I certainly don’t alter my perception of a document to give me comfort. If my own senses tell me that I’m confused, then by golly I’m confused. If others find it confusing then I know it’s not just my problem.

It really doesn’t matter what the documents said, those who want to interpret it one way will and those who want to interpret it another way will no matter how crystal clear they be written. If you look through history, you will find that most schisms whether they be liberal or conservative can take a crystal clear teaching and tweak the interpretation to their favor. Of course it leaves the rest of us scratching our heads and saying “How did they come to that conclusion?!”

All I can say is, I desire to follow the magisterium’s teaching authority, I understand most of what was declared by the Vatican II Council, but thank goodness those aren’t the only magisterial documents that teach the faith.

 

[rr1213]

Why would it be of no benefit? A Catholic has faith that God will resolve these problems in God’s own time. The benefit comes from the believer persevering in his or her faith despite confusion that might lead someone to doubt. When the matter is settled, that believer’s faith is validated, regardless of whether the believer is alive to enjoy it. The faithful believer does not need to see the fruits of his or her faith in order to receive any benefit from them.

In real life, and in our real faith life, it may not matter that a particular issue of dispute be resolved. We go on believing and trusting in Christ in any event. However, if it is an important dispute where a prompt resolution really does matter, then it does nobody any good to leave the thing “in limbo” – so to say.

 

[cathsem]

I realize that this post may not win me much popularity on the Traditional Catholicism Forum, but as a seminarian, I should probably get used to being unpopular.

According to John Paul II’s 1998 apostolic letter Ad tuendam fidem, there are four levels of magisterial teaching:

1. Dogmas: Divinely (formally) revealed and as such irreformable–these must be believed with theological faith (divine faith); rejection of such a dogma is heresy in the proper sense. (Examples: Trinity, Incarnation, Eucharist, Marian dogmas, papal infallibility, etc.)
2. Infallible Catholic Doctrine: A truth that is concerned with the faith or customs that is proposed for the Church in a definitive way, but is not considered formally revealed. These teachings are to be received with an ecclesial faith. Failure to assent results in no longer being in full communion with the Catholic Church. (Examples: abortion as an intrinsic evil and women not being able to be ordained priests. Also in this category would be the canonization of saints.)
3. Church Doctrine: Teachings presented as true or at least secure, but neither defined with solemn judgment nor proposed as definitive by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. These teachings require a religious submissions of the will and intellect. (Examples: Humanae Vitae, most of the teachings of Vatican II, various other teachings contained in ecumenical councils, etc.) Failure to assent runs the risk of error; one may find him/herself unable to interiorly assent to a teaching, but should not actively (and less still publicly) dissent. (E.g. the “New York Times” incident after Humanae Vitae was unacceptable even if some individuals could not interiorly assent to its teaching.
4. Theological Propositions: These can be debated freely among theologians. If a bishop or even the Pope issues an opinion, it must be respected and listened to, but may be dissented from in a respectful (and generally private) manner.

I’ll say more about V2 in my next post…

 

[homewardbound]

As a person very new to Catholicism, much of the posts here are over my head. Sorry that my posts here on CAF are never as intelligant sounding as most.

I just wanted to say, V2 had its good points but unfortunately, for some weird reason, some “progressive” Catholics decided to put words into V2’s mouth…least from what I’ve seen and read thats what happened. I don’t think the men who put those documents together ever meant for the Church to become the way too many parishes are these days.

Me and my boyfriend, being the traditionalist young people we are, will continue to pray for a return to more pre V2 times and traditions.

Just my two cents, sorry if its off topic of what everyone else is posting about.

 

[BobP123]

You Catholics tell us that we can’t read Scripture for ourselves, that we engage in private interpretations and make ourselves Popes. You say that our orders are invalid and our Eucharist a sham. You say that we are schismatics, heretics and most likely, if not certain, to perish. You say that the Church is infallable regarding faith and morals, that the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church, that the Magisterium is a living authority with the power to bind and lose and that for our own salvation we must submit to it. And then you can’t agree among yourselves whether Vatican II is a binding or not, taught heresy or not, was good for the Church or not. Who’s in charge here?

The fact that Protestants are more likely to embrace whatever came out of Vatican II than the Council of Trent says a lot.

 

[Church_Militant]

We must follow the living magisterium however…except we can’t follow them because they are teaching error and approving false disciplines

…so we must look for an explanation.

V2, for the most part, is an essay in ambiguity. In this regard it is brilliant…inspired by one who is so very intelligent…and who has way too much time on his hands.Please knock yourself out telling me just what “errors and false disciplines” you mean. I have yet to see any such list.

I don’t think you can do it.

 

[cathsem]

The issue of ambiguous language is not new to ecumenical councils. Nicaea I tried to define the Trinitarian dogma; it did anything but solve the controversy because the word homoousion “same substance” was not understood in the same manner by all people. 56 years of turmoil later, the Church issues more clarifications at Constantinople I.

Still more common is the phenomenon of the ecumenical council more concerned with disciplinary matters than dogmatic ones. Even Lateran IV, where the dogma of transubstantiation was defined, devoted 69 of its 71 canons to disciplinary issues, touching virtually every area of medieval Church life.

For example, Dei Verbum continues along the line of Vatican I’s Dei Filius (which incidentally included no anathemas) in describing the phenomenon of Divine Revelation.

Now, as to why Vatican II issued no anathemas: It was the reasoned conviction of Blessed John XXIII that the previous approach in councils toward heretics and schismatics had failed to bring those lost sheep back into the fold. It was his vision to abandon the combative manner that theology had taken up to that point and be a little more kind and compassionate. One thing is sure: the words anathema sit do not exactly manifest charity and compassion to those who might be sincerely mistaken. Now, before somebody explodes on me, that does not mean that we abandon the truths of the faith, but merely that we try to explain and listen better and hopefully, little-by-little, bridge the gap between Catholic and Orthodox, Catholic and Protestand, etc. While this approach may be imperfect, it is an new attempt to try and achieve communion. Let’s be honest, before Vatican II, there was ZERO hope for reunion with the Orthodox, and even less hope for finding common ground with Protestants. While we don;t have much hope for reunion with many Protestant denominations (the gap is just too large), we have been able to draw closer to the Eastern Churches. The approach is not infallible, but is at least a sincere approach to address the greatest Christian scandal in the largely secular modern world: the great division among Christians.

 

[Church_Militant]

The fact that Protestants are more likely to embrace whatever came out of Vatican II than the Council of Trent says a lot.

Gee that’s odd…I don’t see them doing that and I seem to interact with more of them on these forums that any of you traditionalists. I do see some traditionalists telling them things not in line with Catholic teaching and treating them with some of the same lack of charity as some of their a-C forums do Catholics. That’s a :crying: shame.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[djrakowski]

The fact that Protestants are more likely to embrace whatever came out of Vatican II than the Council of Trent says a lot.

Please provide an example where a Protestant body has cited the proceedings of Vatican II as a reason for adopting some aspect of theology. Before I converted, the only reference to Vatican II I ever heard was from grumbling Catholics from both ends of the dissident spectrum.

 

[BobP123]

Please provide an example where a Protestant body has cited the proceedings of Vatican II as a reason for adopting some aspect of theology. Before I converted, the only reference to Vatican II I ever heard was from grumbling Catholics from both ends of the dissident spectrum.

I purposely used the words MORE LIKELY in my comment. I thought that was made obvious by the fact that the Council of Trent was a reaction to the Luther/Henry revolt as opposed to Vatican II which was necessary because…(please fill in blank).

By the way, from which denomination did you convert?