Obedience to Vatican II

[bear06]

Check out any SSPX thread on this forum for starters.

So people whining and saying that the Vatican only picks on the SSPX are necessarily valid claims. How about looking at the Vatican’s list of dissenters and notifications and silencing of these dissenters? Sorry but there are about only 2 on the right side of the spectrum.

 

[bear06]

Check out any SSPX thread on this forum for starters.

So people whining and saying that the Vatican only picks on the SSPX are necessarily valid claims? How about looking at the Vatican’s list of dissenters and notifications and silencing of these dissenters? Sorry but there are about only 2 on the right side of the spectrum.

 

[cathsem]

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.

As to your first paragraph: Certainly some parts of V2’s teaching are infallible inasmuch as they repeat teaching that was previously decreed in an infallible manner. For example, Dei Verbum 10 says “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church …” This statement is a reaffirmation of what was decreed infallibly at Trent and Vatican I (and perhaps elsewhere). To dissent from such a teaching would be heresy in the proper sense. However, there are no new infallible dogmas proclaimed at V2. Therefore, the best statement I can make on the status of V2 teachings is that those parts which are not repeating a previously defined dogma of infallible doctrine fall into the third category of magisterial statements which are authoritative and requiring the “religious submission of the will and intellect” though not infallible. As a result, if one were to dismiss Vatican II and make claims against the legitimacy of its teachings, he would not be a heretic (unless they also denied something infallibly proclaimed earlier) in the proper sense, but would be at risk of serious error. Furthermore, such a person would be at least somewhat culpable for their error because they failed to trust the shepherds that God put over the Church. It is possible though, that one using his best judgment and reason cannot reconcile a V2 teaching with previous Church teaching. Despite wanting to believe what the magisterium is saying, that person is unable to mentally assent. Such a person runs the risk of being wrong, but perhaps is not culpable because he is attempting to be faithful and obey the Church, but is unable to do so. Such an attitude is in marked contrast with those who publicly oppose the magisterium and flaunt their disobedience and dissent from Rome. (I speak of both liberal dissent and conservative dissent; I’m not picking on anyone.)

In response to your second paragraph, it seems to be a little yes and a little no. These specific categories were clarification issued by JP2 after 30 or so years of confusion in an attempt to reexplain what Lumen Gentium professed regarding categories of teaching. The first category of dogmas with their denial being heresy dates back to the first dogmatic decision on the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Lower teachings requiring obedience (essentially the third category) are also seen in various canons of ecumenical councils, local councils, papal bulls, and the like which are authoritative but contain no anathemas or other “definitive language” (e.g. that used by JP2 when ruling out the possibility of women’s priestly ordination). The second category is the result of JP2’s clarification–it is between the two. Such a category did not seem to formally exist in a prior document. Nonetheless, we know that JP2 intended to make this category normative since, when he issued his apostolic letter he also added a paragraph to Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law which mentions these issues. Here is an English translation:

“Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who refuses those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.”
(p. 914 of the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, ed. John P. Beal, et. al.)

 

[Image_of_God]

I bet the problems with the liturgy will last just a little while. I also believe the changes might be a test from God to see who is actually faithful to the Catholic Church.

 

[Loy]

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.

I would hope that our pastors would resolve important disputes promptly, and when they don’t, because I’m human, I’m certainly disappointed. But ultimately I trust that God would not abandon His Church and that truth will ultimately prevail.

 

[RobedWithLight]

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.

Paul VI to my knowledge did not say Vatican II was not infallible, only that it did not issue solemn dogmatic definitions, which previous councils, like Vatican I often did. So while the Council it is true did not issue new dogmas, it did however clarify certain long held teachings, such as Mary’s role as mediatrix. You, as a Catholic, are therefore not at liberty to dissent from its decrees in part or whole. However still, the fact that an infallible Pope ratified its decisions gives it a guarantee of its own infallibility.

Secondly, the point of this thread is obedience to Vatican II, so I’m also speaking with obedience and assent to the Council’s acts in mind.

As for “confusion”, it has often been the case after every ecumenical Council. The term homoousios created a lot of confusion in the aftermath of Nicea I (325 A.D.), which accelerated the spread of the Arian heresy throughout the known world in the following decades, and which nearly brought the Church to its knees, yet we now accept it as a given, and as a matter of conviction.

 

[RobedWithLight]

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.

We were talking about anathemas issued by an ecumenical Council, such as Trent and Vatican I. Perhaps you were thinking of the excommunication proceedings against certain “traditionalists” in 1988. Anathemas should not be confused with excommunication, since the former applies to doctrines while the latter applies to persons.

 

[arieh0310]

Paul VI to my knowledge did not say Vatican II was not infallible, only that it did not issue solemn dogmatic definitions, which previous councils, like Vatican I often did. So while the Council it is true did not issue new dogmas, it did however clarify certain long held teachings, such as Mary’s role as mediatrix. You, as a Catholic, are therefore not at liberty to dissent from its decrees in part or whole. However still, the fact that an infallible Pope ratified its decisions gives it a guarantee of its own infallibility.

From The Old Catholic Encyclopedia:

The subject matter of infallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the definitions and decrees of councils, and in them alone, to the exclusion of the theological, scientific, or historical reasons upon which they are built up. These represent too much of the human element, of transient mentalities, of personal interests to claim the promise of infallibility made to the Church as a whole; it is the sense of the unchanging Church that is infallible, not the sense of individual churchmen of any age or excellence, and that sense finds expression only in the conclusions of the council approved by the pope. Decisions referring to dogma were called in the East diatyposeis (constitutions, statutes); those concerned with discipline were termed kanones (canons, rules), often with the addition of tes eutaxias (of discipline, or good order).

And again, Pope Paul VI:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

And Cardinal Ratzinger:

“Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. …] The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.” (Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 1988)

So, what am I missing here? It seems that everyone is saying that VII was not infallible.

As for “confusion”, it has often been the case after every ecumenical Council. The term homoousios created a lot of confusion in the aftermath of Nicea I (325 A.D.), which accelerated the spread of the Arian heresy throughout the known world in the following decades, and which nearly brought the Church to its knees, yet we now accept it as a given, and as a matter of conviction.

It is not true that homoousios (same substance) was a confusing term. As a matter of fact it was a very clear term and heretics had to use other terms to promote their heresies: homoiousios (of like substance) or animoios (unlike substance).

 

[Rykell]

So, what am I missing here? It seems that everyone is saying that VII was not infallible.

You are missing the truth, Arieh. The “everyone” you quote from (erroneously) are those who have misquoted purposely, using out-of-context paragraphs at SSPX websites, to further their agenda. May we please see the authentic sources themselves so we can see what was truly stated in the documents?

There are a number of threads on this forum that have refuted these alleged statements in the past, so maybe you missed these?

 

[Loy]

So, what am I missing here? It seems that everyone is saying that VII was not infallible.

You’re oversimplifying what Pope Paul VI and what (then) Cardinal Ratzinger were saying about Vatican II. No new dogmas means no new dogmas.

But anyone who would say that Vatican II is infallible has also seriously oversimplified matters.

Calling a council “infallible” or “not infallible” is problematic. Just like the pope, not every word that comes from the pen of a council reflects the charism of infallibility. For example, many of the councils dealt with matters of Church discipline. Those portions of council declarations that were purely disciplinary are obviously not infallible.

Those portions of Vatican II that reïterated prior dogmas and continuous Catholic doctrine were taught infallibly.

Because there has been some difficulty understanding portions of what the council said, we must patiently await clarification from the magisterium, and trust that everything proclaimed by the council may be reconciled with the prior teachings of the Church. This has already been largely accomplished through subsequent teachings from the popes as well as the publication of the CCC.

 

[Loy]

You are missing the truth, Arieh. The “everyone” you quote from (erroneously) are those who have misquoted purposely, using out-of-context paragraphs at SSPX websites, to further their agenda. May we please see the authentic sources themselves so we can see what was truly stated in the documents?

There are a number of threads on this forum that have refuted these alleged statements in the past, so maybe you missed these?

It’s possible to disagree with Arieh’s interpretation without questioning the authenticity of the quotes. If these quotes are authentic (and I believe they are) then it’s important to place them into proper context.

 

[arieh0310]

It’s possible to disagree with Arieh’s interpretation without questioning the authenticity of the quotes. If these quotes are authentic (and I believe they are) then it’s important to place them into proper context.

Well, Rykell brings up a good point, though not quite what he was intending. I don’t doubt the authenticity of the quotes, but since I don’t have access to the microfiche of L’Osservatore Romano archives I cannot prove it is true. However, since these quotes (Ratzinger and Paul VI) are just private talks they have no authority. But we can still look at the opening address given by Pope John XXIII and the documents themselves to know that there never was a solemnly issued statement. Plenty of infallible doctrines and dogmas were discussed but never presented in infallible language.

 

[bear06]

For example, many of the councils dealt with matters of Church discipline. Those portions of council declarations that were purely disciplinary are obviously not infallible.

This kind of throws out the idea of disiplinary infallibility. Please read on Ecclesiastical Disciplines in the CE. The whole article is good and explains why there is a negative infallibility rather than a positive infallibility attached to disciplines. Here’s one little chunck since I can’t paste the who article:

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law;

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

 

[rr1213]

So the disciplinary rules are infallable and unchallengeable until the Church changes them. Then the new rules are infallable and unchallengable.

 

[arieh0310]

So the disciplinary rules are infallable and unchallengeable until the Church changes them. Then the new rules are infallable and unchallengable.

Yeah, I think Bear06 is misreading that CE entry. I have never heard of infallible disciplines.

 

[bear06]

Yeah, I think Bear06 is misreading that CE entry. I have never heard of infallible disciplines.

How exactly am I misreading it? I encourage you to read the article in it’s entirety. You may not have heard of them but this is the Old Catholic Encyclopedia has. If you’d like to provide some proof that I’m reading it wrong, please do. The quote I gave came directly from the article.

If there were a positive infallibility attached to each discipline, they could never change because then we would have to assume each discipline was the best and therefor shouldn’t be changed. The negative infallibility attached to disciplines allows the Church to enact disciplinary reform which is required in changing times.

Read the link I gave under Disciplinary Infallibility.

 

[arieh0310]

If there were a positive infallibility attached to each discipline, they could never change because then we would have to assume each discipline was the best and therefor shouldn’t be changed. The negative infallibility attached to disciplines allows the Church to enact disciplinary reform which is required in changing times.

It does not state that disciplinary infallibility is positive infallibility, but negative infallibility. I take that to mean that any discipline can be assured of not contradicting divine law. An example may be that the Church cannot issue a discipline requiring communicants spit out the Host into the trash rather than consuming it. But the Church isn’t prevented from allowing practices that are less than ideal for fostering reverence to the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[bear06]

It does not state that disciplinary infallibility is positive infallibility, but negative infallibility. I take that to mean that any discipline can be assured of not contradicting divine law. An example may be that the Church cannot issue a discipline requiring communicants spit out the Host into the trash rather than consuming it. But the Church isn’t prevented from allowing practices that are less than ideal for fostering reverence to the Blessed Sacrament.

This seems to be treading close to denying Autorum Fidei

as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, 78, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

Dave did a good job in listing all the other quotes and documents dealing with this subject. Not going to reinvent the wheel! It’s quite interesting to see what other Popes have said on the subject.

itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/04/are-ecclesiastical-disciplines.html

 

[gorman64]

Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, Translated and Revised by John J. Castelot, S.S., S.T.D., S.S.L. & William R. Murphy, S.S., S.T.D., The Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1957. pp 102-124.

Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.

By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

1. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ’s doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

1. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)

Corollary

The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals. But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in the homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true.(17) As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.

 

[gorman64]

A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben’s “Dogmatik”, Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D. With A Preface By Cardinal Manning

Vol. 1. The Sources Of Theological Knowledge, God, Creation And The Supernatural Order Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lt. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benziger Bros. 1906

SECT. 34.—Dogmatic Censures.

I. The Vatican Council has spoken of the right of censure belonging to the Church in the following terms: “Moreover, the Church having received, together with the apostolic office of teaching, the command to keep the Deposit of the Faith, hath also the right and the duty of proscribing knowledge falsely so-called, lest any one should be deceived by philosophy or vain deceit. Wherefore all the Faithful are forbidden, not only to defend as legitimate conclusions of science opinions of this kind which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of the Faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are also bound to hold them rather as errors having the deceitful semblance of truth “ (sess. iii., chap. 4). See also Pius IX’s brief Gravissimas inter.

II. Dogmatic censures impose most strictly the duty of unreserved assent. In matters of Faith and Morals they afford absolute certainty that the doctrines or propositions censured are to be rejected in the manner required by the particular censure affixed to them. Sometimes the obligation of submitting to the Church’s judgment is expressly mentioned ; e.g. in the Bull Unigenitus. “We order all the Faithful not to presume to form opinions about these propositions or to teach or preach them, otherwise than is determined in this our constitution.” In cases of this kind the infallibility of the censures is contained in the infallibility concerning Faith and Morals which belongs to the Teaching Apostolate, because submission to the censure is made a moral duty. No difference is here made between the binding power of lesser censures and that of the highest (heresy). Moreover, these censures bind not only by reason of the obedience due to the Church, but also on account of the certain knowledge which they give us of the falsity or untrustworthiness of the censured doctrines To adhere to these doctrines is a grievous sin because of the strictness of the ecclesiastical prohibition sanctioned by the heaviest penalties, and also because all or nearly all the censures represent the censured act as grievously sinful. The duty to reject a censured doctrine involves the right to assert and duty to admit the contradictory doctrine as sound, nay as the only sound and legitimate doctrine. The censures do not expressly state this right and duty, nevertheless the consideration of the meaning and drift of each particular censure clearly establishes both. In the case of censures which express categorically the Church’s certain judgment, such as “Heresy,” “Error,” “False,” “Blasphemous,” “Impious,” and also in cases where moral certainty is expressed, such as “Akin to Heresy,” “Akin to Error,” “Rash,” there can be no question as to this.

Doubt might perhaps arise whether the other censures, such as “Wicked,” “Unsound,” “Unsafe, and mere condemnations without any particular qualification, impose the duty of admitting the falsity of the condemned doctrines as at least morally certain, or whether it is enough to abstain from maintaining them. As a rule, however, we must not be content with the latter.

III. The Church’s judgment is also infallible when condemning doctrines and propositions in the sense meant by some determinate author. This infallibility is already contained in the infallibility of the censure itself when no distinction can be drawn between the meaning of the words and the meaning intended by the author. But, where this distinction can be drawn, the infallibility of the judgment concerning the author’s meaning is at least virtually contained in the infallibility of the censure itself. The Church sometimes condemns an author’s propositions in the sense conveyed by their context, and sometimes formulates propositions conveying the author’s meaning. In the former case the censure applies to the context as well as to the proposition; in the latter case there is a twofold censure, one on the propositions as formulated by the judge, and another on the text as containing the sense of the propositions. In neither of these cases would the censure be infallible, if it were not infallible in determining the sense of the author. For this reason the Church does not give a separate judgment to establish that a particular text conveys a particular meaning; she simply attaches the censure to the text as it stands.

These various distinctions were of great importance in the Jansenistic controversy. The Jansenists admitted that the five propositions censured by Innocent X were worthy of condemnation, but denied that they were to be found in their master’s works.