Obedience to Vatican II

[Loy]

I’ll read all these over the weekend.

 

[RobedWithLight]

From The Old Catholic Encyclopedia:
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).

To us it isn’t, but to those early fourth century Christians it certainly is, and this is precisely the reason why Arianism, by simply reducing the status of Christ to that of a mere creature, spread rather quickly after Nicaea, to the extent that it even enjoyed the support of several Roman emperors. Even to this day, the phrase “of one substance with the Father” is still misinterpreted by non-trinitarians and even by some trinitarians. But this is already off-topic.

 

[RobedWithLight]

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

Let’s put it this way. This type of infallibility amounts to what is known as negative infallibility, meaning, the Church **does not **and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching, that the Church cannot, being guided by God, be in error in imposing its directives. What the Church decrees, must therefore be correct. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states in its article on Ecclesiastical Discipline:

the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact.

 

[elzoro]

So, is VII an infallible Council or not??

 

[arieh0310]

I am going to have to dig in and research what “negative infallibility” means practically. By its very definition a discipline is subject to change, unlike a dogma. I am going to need some concrete examples of how “negative infallibility” works because Church history is filled with instances of what we may term disciplinary mistakes. For example, St Anthanasius was excommunicated by the pope, St Aquinas was forbidden to read Aristotle, and the whole Jesuit order was suppressed for a time. These were obviously mistakes, so how does that work with infallibility. How do we deal with interdicts of the past where entire countries were forbidden from receiving the sacraments until their sovereign changed his/her behavior? What about the 1390 Jubilee Indulgence which was a contributing factor to the Protestant revolt? You also have to deal with passages such as these from ecumenical councils:

Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts. They should not be given other public offices, or admitted to any academic degrees, or allowed to have on lease lands or other ecclesiastical rents.Council of Basel (Florence) Session 19

Is that statement infallible? I really need a better definition of “negative infallibility” because Church history seem rife with disciplinary mistakes.

 

[gorman64]

I am going to have to dig in and research what “negative infallibility” means practically. By its very definition a discipline is subject to change, unlike a dogma. I am going to need some concrete examples of how “negative infallibility” works because Church history is filled with instances of what we may term disciplinary mistakes.

Dear arieh310,

See post #98 on this thread.

Gorman

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dear arieh310,

See post #98 on this thread.

Gorman

Gorman…thank you for the additional dogmatic theology references.

 

[gorman64]

Gorman…thank you for the additional dogmatic theology references.

You are welcome. I would also point out that what I posted on disciplinary infallibility is what is contained in all of the manuals. The proposition is given the “note” of theologically certain. It is not something with which we may disagree…it is a mortal sin to knowingly disregard this teaching…and now you know it.

The crisis in the Catholic Church must be understood within this confine.

Gorman

P.S.

I have other references if you are interested.

 

[arieh0310]

OK, I have taken the last few days to try to understand what disciplinary infallibility means, and I don’t think in answers my question of obedience to Vatican II. It seems to me that all that “negative infallibility” with regards to discipline effectively does is prevent the Church from issuing universal disciplines in direct contradiction to divine law. That I can fully accept.

But, as the Old Catholic Encyclopedia states:

To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform.

So, if we were to take disciplinary infallibility to an extreme, there would never be reform or change within the Church.

I would also posit that Vatican II issued statements that were, in the words of John XXIII, “conversational”. They were neither doctrinal nor disciplinary, but theological speculation or pastoral in nature. Statements like the plan of salvation being open first of all also to Muslims cannot be taken as a disciplinary law for the faithful. Nor is the statement that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. As I have said before, I do not hold that Vatican II directly taught heresy, even in its “conversational” moments. What criticism I do have is all over ambiguous language. So, Gorman, I don’t think one will commit a mortal sin by questioning style when it seems to obfuscate truth.

 

[AlexV]

It’s very simple, really. Disciplines aren’t infallible. And the liturgy isn’t mere “discipline” that can be changed on the whim of a pope.

 

[Crumpy]

The smiley face is supposed to convey sarcasm.

That’s not sarcasm, that’s irony.

 

[Crumpy]

This thread has me thinking of a couple of things. One is, if we must assent to Vatican II, then what exactly are we obliged to assent to? With no canons or anathemas does even Vatican II oblige us to accept everything in it? So much is very vague or stated in extremely general terms, and seems extremely open to very broad interpretation. For this reason I have found myself wondering in the past, what did a person have to accept after that council that they didn’t have to accept before it?

Also, I have been wondering how we know that Vatican II is an ecumenical council? I am not saying I don’t think it is, but how do we know it is? Where is that actually definitively stated by the Church? Just curious about that.

Patrick

I would normally have just skipped over this thread. But, I just bought a copy of the documents of Vatican II and started reading Sacrosanctum Concilium (on the liturgy) which was one of the earliest documents issued by the council. And, I’m not done reading it, either.

but… Hey, it says the Mass is supposed to be in Latin and it says that priests aren’t to change anything in the Mass, either by addition or omission.

And, before either of those, it said that the priests are supposed to be well-trained in all aspects of the Mass, to understand and appreciate all its parts and their history. Further, the priests are supposed to make sure that the faithful “fully” understand and “fully” appreciate everything in the Mass.

It looks like the conventional interpretation was, they couldn’t do the latter without dumping the Latin. So, there you go.

 

[bear06]

Disciplines aren’t infallible.

At least I’m in good company! The CE is wrong too.

 

[gorman64]

It’s very simple, really. Disciplines aren’t infallible.

What is your source for this statement? It contradicts all of the dogmatic theology manualists. It contradicts Herve and Tanquerey and all of the other theologians.

If you would have read what I posted earlier, you would see how Church disciplines are infallible. There is no basis for your statement and I challenge you to provide one.

 

[gorman64]

Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae
VOL. I De ReveIatione Christiana — De Ecclesia Christi ; De Fontibus Revelationis
EDITIO DECIMA OCTAVA, PARISIIS, APUD BERCHE ET PAGIS, EDITORES 69,via dicta de Rennes, 69
(Omnia jura vindicabuntur)

p.515, 516

OBJECTUM INDIRECTUM INFALLIBILITATIS

1. DE REBUS DISCIPLINARIBUS

1. Status questionis. — Res disciplinares intelligimus leges ecciesiasticas, quibus homo, ad Deum rite colendum et ad vitam christianam bene instituendam, dirigitur et ordinatur.

Solas autem leges,pro universa Ecclesia editas, ad magisterium infallibile pertinere contendimus, eo quidem sensu quod nil, unquam verae fidei aut bonis moribus oppositum continere possint.

Assertio : Ecciesia infallibilis est in decretis disciplinaribus universalibus. Theol. Certum. (Cf. Trid. 22. can. 7; Synod. Pist, prop. 78, Denzinger, 954, 1578.).

1. Haec thesis statuitur contra Iconoclastas, Pseudo-reformatores, praesertim Calvinistas, Modernistas, Rationalistas et omnes qui cultum Ecclesia et leges impugnant.

Probatur: 1) Ex Ecclesic natura et fine. — Si Ecelesia enim, pro suprema sua auctoritate, omnibus fidelibus praeciperet aliquid contra fidem aut bonos mores, practice erraret, et eo ipso a vera fide deficeret; sancta esse cessaret et homines a salute averteret, viam falsam edocendo, nimirum vera Christi Ecciesia esse desineret et sub potestate diaboli constituta inveniretur.

Ergo.

1. Ex verbis Christi. — Nam, ex assistentia Christi perpetua et quotidiana << non minus infallibilis exhibetur Ecclesia in concreta et practica interpretatione revelationis, quam in ejus interpretatione dogmatica: <<docentes eos, aiebat Dominus, servare omnia quaecumque mandavi vobis, et ecce ego vobiscum sum…>> (Mt. xxviii. 20). Quod sane verum non esset, si per Ecclesiae leges possent aliquando amoveri fideles a rectitudine regulae evangelicae. >> (Billot, th. 22)

Absolute etiam promisit Christus ligatum fore in caelo, quidquid in terra ligaverit Ecllesia (Mt. xvi, 19; xviii, 18). Atqui nihil a Deo ratihaberi posset, quod, contra jus divinum, quocumque modo praescriptum fuisset. Ergo.

1. Ex praxi Ecclesiae. — Ecclesia suam in rebus disciplinaribus infallibilitatem nonnunquam diserte aut impticite affirmavit (Act. xv, 28; Denzinger, 626, 856, 1578.). Quinimo doctrinam, ipsa Ecclesiae praxi universali consecratam et confirmatam, semper ut veram habuerunt non solum Patres et theologi, sed Pontifices et Concilia (S. Steph, I, ep. ad Cypr.; Conc. Nic. II, act. 7; Denzinger, 46, 302; S. Aug., serm. 294, 2, 2; S. Leo I M., ep. 114, 2, 119, 3; Journel, 1525, 2185, 2186.). Ergo.

 

[arieh0310]

What is your source for this statement? It contradicts all of the dogmatic theology manualists. It contradicts Herve and Tanquerey and all of the other theologians.

If you would have read what I posted earlier, you would see how Church disciplines are infallible. There is no basis for your statement and I challenge you to provide one.

I think AlexV is thinking positive infallibility when he uses the term infallible. Positive infallibility is irreformable, whereas discipline is reformable.

 

[gorman64]

SYNOPSIS THEOLOGIIE DOGMATICAE FUNDAMENTALIS
DE RELIGIONE REVELATA IN GENERE
DE CHRISTO DEl LEGATO
DE VERA CHRISTI ECCLESIA
DE CONSTITUTIONE ECCLESIAE CATHOLICAE
DE FONTIBUS REVELATIONIS.

Auctore AD. TANQUEREY
EDITIO VICESIMA QUARTA, QUAM PENITUS RECOGNOVIT ET DE NOVO REDEGIT
J. B. BORD, Dogmaticae theologiae Professor.
Typis Societatis Sancti Joannis Evangelistae, DESCLEE ET SOCII, PARISIIS — TORNACI (BELG.) — ROMAE, 1937.

p.625

DE OBJECTO INFALLIBILITATIS IN ECCLESIA

5 DE LEGIBUS DISCIPLINARIBUS.

[Paragraph] 932. — (i) Leges disciplinares, de quibus agitur, eae sunt quae ad Dei cultum et vitam christianam dirigendam pro universali Ecciesia sunt statutae; differunt ergo a praeceptis, statutis et legibus particularibus.

1. Ecclesia est infallibilis in legibus disciplinaribus universalibus. Certum.

EXPLICATUR. Haec infallibilitas consistit in eo quod EccIesia, doctrinali judicio nunquam legem universalem statuet, quae fidei, moribus et saluti animarum adversetur. Ut patet, ejusmodi infallibilitas optime componitur cum mutabilitate disciplinarum legum; et distinguitur ab earumdem apportunitate: nam nullibi Ecciesiae promittitur summus prudentiae gradus ad optimas leges pro omnibus temporum vel locorum circumstantiis ferendas.

PROBATUR. (a) Ecciesia infallibilitate donata est ad Christi doctrinam tuto conservandam, ut fideles secure ad salutem dirigantur. Sed, si in rebus generalibus disciplinaribus erraret, vera Ecciesia non esset doctrinae revelatae fidelis custos, nec fideles in sanctitatis viam duceret. (b) Quapropter Pius VI, ut ”ad minus erroneam “, judicat hypothesim juxta quam “Ecciesia disciplinam constituere posset periculosam, noxiam… (D.B., 3578.)

Hinc Ecclesia pariter infallibilis est quando definitive et sollemniter approbat constitutiones alicujus Ordinis religiosi, quatenus approbare nequit instituta quae fidei et moribus sunt contraria, propter eamdem rationem ac supra; sed non est infallibilis quoad opportunitatem talis vel talis reguIae pro variis adjunctis loci et temporis. (Cf. Pesch, op. cit. n. 545)

Conclusio. Ex his omnibus merito infertur Ecclesiae infallibilitatem, ex una parte, res mere profanas non attingere; ex alia vero, sese applicare non solum iis quae revelata sunt, sed etiam iis quae ita cum revelatis connectuntur ut, si in eis falleretur, error perniciosus in rebus ad fidem spectantibus induci posset.

 

[gorman64]

I think AlexV is thinking positive infallibility when he uses the term infallible. Positive infallibility is irreformable, whereas discipline is reformable.

I asked for the source.

Who teaches this? What authority has taught this?

 

[bear06]

I asked for the source.

Who teaches this? What authority has taught this?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1896108&postcount=92

 

[arieh0310]

I asked for the source.

Who teaches this? What authority has taught this?

One would need to be blind not to see that disciplines change.