Obedience to Vatican II

[djrakowski]

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?

Over a period of 12 years, I’ve moved from nominal Catholicism (never entering a church for anything other than weddings, baptisms and funerals), to Episcopalian, then finally non-denominational evangelicalism, before entering the Church last September.

Perhaps there are Protestants who would embrace some of the material that came out of Vatican II, but then, that would be a good thing, considering the fact that it was a Catholic council, and that would move them in the direction of Catholicism. However, I’ve never met a Protestant who would say that they used Vatican II as a basis, or even justification, of their theology.

 

[cothrige]

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.

I think yes and no on this. I agree that Vatican II itself definitely opened up the Catholic Church to dialogue with the East. However, it also led the way to the complete upheaval in the liturgy which has really distanced us from the Orthodox more than any dialogue could ever hope to undo. Among the Orthodox I have spoken to it has been unanimous that the post-VII period has done absolutely nothing to bring us together, and has set up huge obstacles between us. I get the impression that they view our ‘innovations’ over the last fifty years in much the way we view the developments among the Anglicans in the recent past. Really, how can a Church, deeply steeped in a traditional approach, and incredibly dubious regarding the motives and methods of the Papacy, be encouraged when that very office uses all its authority to dismantle almost every liturgical tradition that Church celebrated? Dialogue is good I suppose, but if you are not true to your own faith I don’t think anybody cares what you have to say.

Patrick

 

[cathsem]

I think yes and no on this. I agree that Vatican II itself definitely opened up the Catholic Church to dialogue with the East. However, it also led the way to the complete upheaval in the liturgy which has really distanced us from the Orthodox more than any dialogue could ever hope to undo. Among the Orthodox I have spoken to it has been unanimous that the post-VII period has done absolutely nothing to bring us together, and has set up huge obstacles between us. I get the impression that they view our ‘innovations’ over the last fifty years in much the way we view the developments among the Anglicans in the recent past. Really, how can a Church, deeply steeped in a traditional approach, and incredibly dubious regarding the motives and methods of the Papacy, be encouraged when that very office uses all its authority to dismantle almost every liturgical tradition that Church celebrated? Dialogue is good I suppose, but if you are not true to your own faith I don’t think anybody cares what you have to say.

Patrick

I will confess that I have not had many conversations with Eastern Orthodox, so I may be wrong on what I am about to say. Nevertheless, would the objection be against the liturgical reform as it exists in Sacrosanctum Concilium and the liturgical documents promulgated thereafter or is it against how that reform has been carried out by individual priests and bishops (even a majority thereof)? The current rite can be celebrated quite reverently in a vertical manner, but often is not.

 

[cothrige]

I will confess that I have not had many conversations with Eastern Orthodox, so I may be wrong on what I am about to say. Nevertheless, would the objection be against the liturgical reform as it exists in Sacrosanctum Concilium and the liturgical documents promulgated thereafter or is it against how that reform has been carried out by individual priests and bishops (even a majority thereof)? The current rite can be celebrated quite reverently in a vertical manner, but often is not.

No, I don’t really think it is the council proper which has been a real problem, but rather the post-conciliar reforms which sprang from it. Most specifically our move away from the old Mass. We should keep in mind that these people still use the very ancient Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and not out of habit, but out of a very real theological position regarding the place of both tradition and liturgy in the faith of the Church. Basically that we could do that seems to scare them.

Patrick

 

[RobedWithLight]

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.

I once thought so too, and in a sense I now understand why no anathemas were issued by Vatican II, in stark contrast to Vatican I and Trent. Anathemas would have been easy to produce, and could have been pronounced against pernicious doctrines like Atheistic Communism for instance, which in the sixties at the time the Council was deliberating was rapidly spreading across the globe, killing millions in its march. Yet would anathemas work against Communism? Hardly, as they would have simply ridiculed it, the same way they scorn religion in general.

Sometimes the meat hatchet approach is not necessarily the best solution.

 

[elzoro]

So, is V2 an infallible council or not>>

 

[arieh0310]

So, is V2 an infallible council or not>>

Pope Paul VI can answer that:

There are those who ask what authority … the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium … given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility. (Pope Paul VI, General Audience, Jan. 12, 1966)

 

[RobedWithLight]

So, is V2 an infallible council or not>>

Yes, it is infallible in the sense that its decrees and decisions were ratified by the Pope, who enjoys infallibility proper to him. Hence, the faithful are required to accept its decisions. Whatever Vatican 2 issued is to be followed by every Catholic and you are not free to disobey it. Pope Paul VI’s address at the closing of Vatican II states it clearly:

. . . We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.

Secondly, it is likewise infallible in an intrinsic sense, since Christ Himself promised that He will be in the midst of His followers gathered in His name (Matt. 18:20). And the Council is indeed such a gathering of Christ’s disciples, the bishops, summoned together to further the Church’s mission.

 

[arieh0310]

Yes, it is infallible in the sense that its decrees and decisions were ratified by the Pope, who enjoys infallibility proper to him. Hence, the faithful are required to accept its decisions. Whatever Vatican 2 issued is to be followed by every Catholic and you are not free to disobey it.

We are running into a bit of a logical contradiction here by confusing authoritative with infallible. Pope John XXIII said in the opening address of VII that the Council was not to issue infallible pronouncements. Pope Paul VI at the end of VII confirmed that no infallible pronouncements were issued.

Pope Paul VI does quite clearly inform us that VII is authoritative and binding on the faithful. But how exactly is that carried out? Look at the confusion surrounding the word “subsists” when identifying the Church of Christ. Or the confusion about what “the scriptures are free from error for the sake of our salvation” (paraphrase) means. Both of those statements have wildly different interpretations. We could also get into the liturgy wars sparked by the varied interpretations of Sacrosanctum Concilium. My point is: How exactly to we “religiously observe” VII.

 

[rr1213]

If V2 was not infallable, then it was fallable. Although being fallabe does not mean that it in fact erred, if fallable it was possible that it erred. If it did err, then a Church council and the Vicar of Christ on Earth erred. If they erred, then hasn’t the Gates of Hades prevailed against the Church?

 

[arieh0310]

If V2 was not infallable, then it was fallable. Although being fallabe does not mean that it in fact erred, if fallable it was possible that it erred. If it did err, then a Church council and the Vicar of Christ on Earth erred. If they erred, then hasn’t the Gates of Hades prevailed against the Church?

The charism of infallibility is tightly defined and rarely used (for example, there have been only 2 ex cathedra pronouncements since Vatican I). There are two ways through which the Church is infallible: The Extraordinary Magisterium (pope ex cathedra, and solemnly defined doctrines or dogmas issued by an ecumenical council), and the Ordinary Magisterium (persistent teaching of the bishops in union with the pope).

Many Protestant falsely assume that the Catholic Church teaches that every theological speculation that flows from the pope’s lips (or pen) is absolutely free from error. For example, Pope John XXIII speculated that the blessed in heaven prior to the Resurrection were deprived of the Beatific Vision. He later changed his opinion after various theologians challenged his opinion. Same can be said of non-solemnly proclaimed speculations, innovations, and disciplines issued by an ecumenical council.

 

[bear06]

Pope Paul VI at the end of VII confirmed that no infallible pronouncements were issued.

Help a girl out…Can you give me the quote for this? Danka!

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Interested in attention to precision, can you really conflate a denial of proclaiming dogma (which is specifically used in Paul VI’s quote) with a denial of teaching infallibly at all? Denying that Vatican II proclaimed any new dogma (which is the way Cdl. Ratzinger put it) would not rule out infallibly describing dogmas already proclaimed or even infallibly pronouncing doctrines to be held by all the faithful.

I was also wondering, since CathSem posted along the lines of a hierarchy of belief, whether the characterization of a hierarchy existed previously in the Tradition, and, if it did, whether it used the same categories.

 

[arieh0310]

Help a girl out…Can you give me the quote for this? Danka!

Look at post #67. If you want more from John XXIII, JP II, or then Cardinal Ratzinger let me know.

 

[bear06]

Look at post #67. If you want more from John XXIII, JP II, or then Cardinal Ratzinger let me know.

Thanks for the reference. I’m still a little uncertain how we get from “Vatican II didn’t define any new dogma” to “there was no dogma in Vatican II”. So, I guess I’m seconding Andreas. The Dogmatic Consitutions certainly did give teachings regarding the dogmas already defined in other councils.

 

[BobP123]

I once thought so too, and in a sense I now understand why no anathemas were issued by Vatican II, in stark contrast to Vatican I and Trent. Anathemas would have been easy to produce, and could have been pronounced against pernicious doctrines like Atheistic Communism for instance, which in the sixties at the time the Council was deliberating was rapidly spreading across the globe, killing millions in its march. Yet would anathemas work against Communism? Hardly, as they would have simply ridiculed it, the same way they scorn religion in general.

Sometimes the meat hatchet approach is not necessarily the best solution.

Interestingly or ironically enough, most of the ''anathemas" were issued after Vatican II and many of those were directed or attempted against those who failed to embrace the “spirit” of the council.

 

[bear06]

Interestingly or ironically enough, most of the ''anathemas" were issued after Vatican II and many of those were directed or attempted against those who failed to embrace the “spirit” of the council.

Prove that one please!

 

[BobP123]

If V2 was not infallable, then it was fallable. Although being fallabe does not mean that it in fact erred, if fallable it was possible that it erred. If it did err, then a Church council and the Vicar of Christ on Earth erred. If they erred, then hasn’t the Gates of Hades prevailed against the Church?

Let’s take this one step further. If the Gates of Hades have prevailed then maybe this wasn’t the real Church they prevailed against after all. Whether the council issued any anathemas or not then becomes a moot point.

So that I might not be falsely accused, I’m not saying Pope John XXIII and Paul VI weren’t Catholics. But if you do wish to bring up the subject of Freemasons permeating the council, I may be tempted to claim that they had already excommunicated themselves.

 

[BobP123]

Prove that one please!

Check out any SSPX thread on this forum for starters.

 

[arieh0310]

Thanks for the reference. I’m still a little uncertain how we get from “Vatican II didn’t define any new dogma” to “there was no dogma in Vatican II”. So, I guess I’m seconding Andreas. The Dogmatic Consitutions certainly did give teachings regarding the dogmas already defined in other councils.

I didn’t say that there were no dogmas discussed in Vatican II documents, only that none of the documents defined anything infallibly. VII did state that abortion was murder, but you will not find language such as: “If anyone says that the intentional termination of a pregnancy is not murder, let them be anathema.”

Everything was put into non-condemning language. It was like the Church was saying, “come discover the softer side of Catholicism!” I don’t think the approach has worked very well.