Pope Francis emphasizes that Second Vatican Council is the work of the Holy Spirit [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There have been battles which led to most of the Councils being called, and those who rejected it afterward.

After the Council of Trent, most Protestants contiued to reject the findings and decrees, in some Dioceses in Europe it took over 100 years for the decrees to be implemented most of all with regard to seminary formation of priests. With the invention of movable type, the controversies were more widespread than after previous Councils. No longer did most of the rejection of the Council have to be copied by hand.

After the (first) Vatican Council the Old Catholics rejected what the Council had defined regarding the Infalliblity of the Pope. Other issues that the Council resolved continued to be debated even though the Council had settled them.

So the phenomina is only unique after Vatican II because of the speed, audience and ability for those who misrepresent the Council on both sides to spread their personal views is far greater with modern printing and now Internet forms of media
Well said… there has been upheaval after each council… in most cases the council was called to remedy conflict. VII brought to light a conflict in the Church on a public stage, but the aftermath isn’t unique when considered by itself. Only when you add in the optics made possible by the mass media due we have a difference… in my humble opinion of course.
 
If Second Vatican Council is truly the work of the Holy Spirit then why not declare it infallible?
All councils approved by the Pope are considered to be infallible as far as I know. Vatican II was approved and hence is infallible.
 
Well said… there has been upheaval after each council… in most cases the council was called to remedy conflict. VII brought to light a conflict in the Church on a public stage, but the aftermath isn’t unique when considered by itself. Only when you add in the optics made possible by the mass media due we have a difference… in my humble opinion of course.
Well even if the upheaval was unique, it still does not shed any light on whether or not the council should be rejected. That matter lies solely on what the Church says. The Pope has approved the council which is the highest certainty one can get. Not only one Pope but all Popes after the council as well. So the council itself is infallible.

If the upheaval was indeed unique, which I believe it was, what we can learn from it is that there was a lot of bad people inside the church who were ready to use Vatican II as a scapegoat to implement their disastrous ideas.
 
All councils approved by the Pope are considered to be infallible as far as I know. Vatican II was approved and hence is infallible.
No council is infallible. Councils either make infallible decrees along with disciplinary decrees, social statements and pastoral statements or they repeat that which is already de fide. A council cannot be declared infallible, because it would bind future popes. Councils cannot have greater authority than a pontiff.
 
No council is infallible. Councils either make infallible decrees along with disciplinary decrees, social statements and pastoral statements or they repeat that which is already de fide. A council cannot be declared infallible, because it would bind future popes. Councils cannot have greater authority than a pontiff.
How can a council bind future Popes? Infallibility only extends to faith and morals. Not to laws. As far as faith and morals, all Popes are indeed rightfully bound by prior councils anyway.

So I am not sure what you mean by councils are not infallible. If you mean that I used the term loosely and someone might think the laws are also infallible, then sure. But otherwise I think its correct usage, no? Naturally, when we speak of a council, we speak of its decrees.
 
But otherwise I think its correct usage, no? Naturally, when we speak of a council, we speak of its decrees.
The usage was not correct. The second half of your statement above, explains why. A council can and often do issue infallible decrees. But the council (event) itself is not infallible. Therefore, anything beyond that which is dogmatic or moral is up to the pope to enforce, change or ignore.

If we say that the council is infallible, then everything that comes out of that event binds the Church. For this reason, those of us who dabble in theology and law do not state it this way. It’s too risky. We speak to specific statements as infallible. Sometimes even a document is not infallible, but a statement in the document is, as is the case with Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae.

The fact that the event is not infallible does not mean that the event is not the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides the event to discover and proclaim truth.
 
None of that compares to the sacrilege, the public scandal and the leading others astray caused by letting them continue to receive communion. Sorry, no one will convince me otherwise.

Of course I can’t change it, but I can pray for the Pope to have the courage to do so.
From what I’ve read, he’s already shown he has the courage to do so as a Cardinal. I’m sure prudence and other factors will determine what he does as Pope, but I doubt that the man who readily breaks with human traditions/conventions, and by this I mean only in the best of senses, will have any trouble over this issue. We’ll just have to wait and see.

But do not mistake what I am saying. The kinds of traditions I am talking about are not “the tradition” of the Church, but the customs and conventions we fall into over the years that may cause the public to misinterpret our real meaning. For example, there is nothing at all wrong with dressing in the finest of clothing as head of the largest organization on earth and as representative of Christ Himself on earth. We honor Christ when we so honor the Pope. But his desire for simpler clothing shows another facet of Christ, one who is humble, not desirous of honors, but a man of the people who chose simple fishermen to be His Apostles. And his taking of the bus, and not a limousine. We all want to put our Holy Father in the highest place of honor, to drive in a limousine, to be protected by bodyguards from those who would do him harm, to be set apart, our priceless Supreme Pontiff, our dear Father, but He, like Christ, and like His namesake, Francis, would rather enter Jerusalem on a donkey, instead of a chariot, to be counted among the lesser folk, than those of high position and power. His departure from stereotypes, from what the public has been accustomed to seeing in a Pontiff, is refreshing and forces everyone to take a new look at Catholicism, and challenges the conventional wisdom as to what the Catholic hierarchy is all about. Without the pomp and circumstance, we see the virtue of the man, the unpretentiousness of Christ, the man who will shoulder the cross for our generation. That is what I mean by the man who readily breaks with tradition, not sacred tradition, but human tradition. He makes himself accessible to us, and in some measure I think he makes Christ more accessible to us, makes Him more human to us.

This is not a man who will be afraid to tell Catholic politicians where the line is and what the consequences are for crossing it, if he decides that that indeed is the right course of action. But not being in his shoes, and seeing things from his perspective, I do not know what the right answer is. More than courage is required-- prudence, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, charity, zeal for the Church, compassion, discernment, and carefully weighing the consequences of whatever he may choose to do. I will not judge him or any past Pontiff. It’s too easy to sit on the sideline and judge, I can see that he is a holy man, I will accept whatever he decides. Not knowing all the facts, I think I owe him that much.
 
The usage was not correct. The second half of your statement above, explains why. A council can and often do issue infallible decrees. But the council (event) itself is not infallible. Therefore, anything beyond that which is dogmatic or moral is up to the pope to enforce, change or ignore.

If we say that the council is infallible, then everything that comes out of that event binds the Church. For this reason, those of us who dabble in theology and law do not state it this way. It’s too risky. We speak to specific statements as infallible. Sometimes even a document is not infallible, but a statement in the document is, as is the case with Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae.

The fact that the event is not infallible does not mean that the event is not the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides the event to discover and proclaim truth.
Ok. Well, I always saw the phrase “council is infallible” used in the context of its decrees on faith and morals. But if such a confusion exists that it extends to laws, I stand corrected.
 
Therefore, anything beyond that which is dogmatic or moral is up to the pope to enforce, change or ignore.
While I understand that they can change, wouldn’t you say that we are bound by the Council’s pastoral directives until a Pope or new Council abrogates them Brother?
 
The usage was not correct. The second half of your statement above, explains why. A council can and often do issue infallible decrees. But the council (event) itself is not infallible. Therefore, anything beyond that which is dogmatic or moral is up to the pope to enforce, change or ignore.

If we say that the council is infallible, then everything that comes out of that event binds the Church. For this reason, those of us who dabble in theology and law do not state it this way. It’s too risky. We speak to specific statements as infallible. Sometimes even a document is not infallible, but a statement in the document is, as is the case with Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae.

The fact that the event is not infallible does not mean that the event is not the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides the event to discover and proclaim truth.
This just occurred to me. According to your reasoning, shouldn’t we refrain from saying that the Pope is infallible as well? Because the Pope declares laws and other things too so it might be too risky, yes?

So I think perhaps it is indeed correct to say councils are infallible just as we say Pope is infallible. He cannot change the council decrees on faith and morals later on just as he cannot change his own teachings on faith and morals later on.
 
While I understand that they can change, wouldn’t you say that we are bound by the Council’s pastoral directives until a Pope or new Council abrogates them Brother?
Yes, definitely.
This just occurred to me. According to your reasoning, shouldn’t we refrain from saying that the Pope is infallible as well? Because the Pope declares laws and other things too so it might be too risky, yes?
Oh no . . . the definition of infallibility only applies to doctrine and morals, to laws and disciplines. When we say that he’s infallible, we know that we mean only in those areas. This does not mean that his policies outside of faith and morals are up for grab. They are not. The pope also has the power to govern. Governance does not require infallibility. It’s about authority, not being right. He can be mistaken and must still be obeyed. As a ruler he has rights. In this case, he has the right to demand obedience and assent without having to invoke infallibility. What he cannot do is demand or expect obedience from his successors.
So I think perhaps it is indeed correct to say councils are infallible just as we say Pope is infallible. He cannot change the council decrees on faith and morals later on just as he cannot change his own teachings on faith and morals later on.
In theology and law, the pope’s rights and the rights of a council are not the same. The pope has absolute rights. A council only has the rights granted to it by the pope. No one has to recognize the pope’s right to be infallible. He claims it of his own authority. Whereas a council cannot claim infallibility. It needs a pope to say that it is. So far, no pope has ever said that any council is infallible.

People often get confused when the Church says that Council X made an infallible decree and Council X was infallible. The Council is not infallible. The Council made a decree that the Pontiff accepts as infallible. It’s not infallible, because the Council said so. The Council’s decree is infallible, because the pope said so. A council is dependent on Peter, but Peter is not dependent on a council.
 
Oh no . . . the definition of infallibility only applies to doctrine and morals, to laws and disciplines. When we say that he’s infallible, we know that we mean only in those areas. This does not mean that his policies outside of faith and morals are up for grab. They are not. The pope also has the power to govern. Governance does not require infallibility. It’s about authority, not being right. He can be mistaken and must still be obeyed. As a ruler he has rights. In this case, he has the right to demand obedience and assent without having to invoke infallibility. What he cannot do is demand or expect obedience from his successors.
I don’t think you caught the objection.

You said that we should not call Councils infallible because someone might think every thing from the council, including laws are infallible.

I was just pointing out that such thinking is inconsistent because we say Pope is infallible and yet he too makes laws which are not infallible.

So basically, to say that Councils and Pope’s are infallible is fine. If we can’t say councils are infallible for this risk you speak of, then we cannot do so about Pope’s infallibility either.

Just as you say we know what the Papal infallibility means, almost all Catholics should know what the infallibility of a valid council means.
In theology and law, the pope’s rights and the rights of a council are not the same. The pope has absolute rights. A council only has the rights granted to it by the pope. No one has to recognize the pope’s right to be infallible. He claims it of his own authority. Whereas a council cannot claim infallibility. It needs a pope to say that it is. So far, no pope has ever said that any council is infallible.

People often get confused when the Church says that Council X made an infallible decree and Council X was infallible. The Council is not infallible. The Council made a decree that the Pontiff accepts as infallible. It’s not infallible, because the Council said so. The Council’s decree is infallible, because the pope said so. A council is dependent on Peter, but Peter is not dependent on a council.
No one is saying the rights of the council and the Pope are the same. The council cannot govern. The Pope does govern.

The point here is with respect to infallibility. In that context, I see a council as being infallible. We do not need to care about governance and whether it has the privileges the Pope does. The validity of the council is what the Pope approves. That is the DEFINITION of a council i.e. that it be approved by the Pope and be commenced in communion with him. If the Council is valid, then the council is infallible.
 
While I understand that they can change, wouldn’t you say that we are bound by the Council’s pastoral directives until a Pope or new Council abrogates them Brother?
Yes. It remains in force until he or his successor changes it.
This just occurred to me. According to your reasoning, shouldn’t we refrain from saying that the Pope is infallible as well? Because the Pope declares laws and other things too so it might be too risky, yes?

So I think perhaps it is indeed correct to say councils are infallible just as we say Pope is infallible. He cannot change the council decrees on faith and morals later on just as he cannot change his own teachings on faith and morals later on.
I don’t think you caught the objection.

You said that we should not call Councils infallible because someone might think every thing from the council, including laws are infallible.

I was just pointing out that such thinking is inconsistent because we say Pope is infallible and yet he too makes laws which are not infallible.

So basically, to say that Councils and Pope’s are infallible is fine. If we can’t say councils are infallible for this risk you speak of, then we cannot do so about Pope’s infallibility either.

Just as you say we know what the Papal infallibility means, almost all Catholics should know what the infallibility of a valid council means.

No one is saying the rights of the council and the Pope are the same. The council cannot govern. The Pope does govern.

The point here is with respect to infallibility. In that context, I see a council as being infallible. We do not need to care about governance and whether it has the privileges the Pope does. The validity of the council is what the Pope approves. That is the DEFINITION of a council i.e. that it be approved by the Pope and be commenced in communion with him. If the Council is valid, then the council is infallible.
Look, I’m noticing a pattern here and I want to break it right now. It’s starting to take up too much space and time on these threads.

Each time I say something, you come up with a 500 word essay to challenge, question or contradict what I say, even when what I say is simply what the Church has said and what the Church has taught me.

I think it’s best if you not respond to my posts and I ignore yours as well. Otherwise, these threads become a Eufrosnia - Br. Jay dialogue and everyone else is an observer.

As a Franciscan, I do not have the freedom that you do to ask questions about what the Church teaches, how she does things or how she thinks. I am bound by holy obedience to believe and to say only what the Church has taught me and only what my rule and constitutions allow me to say. You want to discuss that which is beyond those parameters. I cannot go there. I also understand that wisdom of our superiors and of Francis himself in not allowing us to go there. It was precisely to avoid these interminable discussions that only get in the way of prayer, spiritual growth and holy obedience, which is what happens when everything becomes a question. I’m not interested in asking questions about everything that the Church does, how she does it or what she does not do. That is not my business. My business is to tell others what the Church does and does not do. That’s it.

Once I tell you what the Church does, it is up to you to accept it or not. It is also up to you to believe it or not. I have no obligation to prove it to you. The burden is on the person who doubts. It becomes your obligation to go find out for yourself. This is Catholicism not Protestantism, which puts every word under a microscope and doubts anything that is not in print. We have many beliefs, rules, customs, disciplines that are in print and you can read for yourself. We also have many that are handed down by word of mouth or simply by practice in daily life, which you would have to observe or accept someone else’s word that they are observed.

I can’t do more for you. I wish you well on your search and on your journey. You may want to find a Jesuit with whom you can have these dialogues. It is their mission to engage in this type of exchange, not that of a Franciscan or any other mendicant for that matter.
 
Look, I’m noticing a pattern here and I want to break it right now. It’s starting to take up too much space and time on these threads.

Each time I say something, you come up with a 500 word essay to challenge, question or contradict what I say, even when what I say is simply what the Church has said and what the Church has taught me.

I think it’s best if you not respond to my posts and I ignore yours as well. Otherwise, these threads become a Eufrosnia - Br. Jay dialogue and everyone else is an observer.

As a Franciscan, I do not have the freedom that you do to ask questions about what the Church teaches, how she does things or how she thinks. I am bound by holy obedience to believe and to say only what the Church has taught me and only what my rule and constitutions allow me to say. You want to discuss that which is beyond those parameters. I cannot go there. I also understand that wisdom of our superiors and of Francis himself in not allowing us to go there. It was precisely to avoid these interminable discussions that only get in the way of prayer, spiritual growth and holy obedience, which is what happens when everything becomes a question. I’m not interested in asking questions about everything that the Church does, how she does it or what she does not do. That is not my business. My business is to tell others what the Church does and does not do. That’s it.

Once I tell you what the Church does, it is up to you to accept it or not. It is also up to you to believe it or not. I have no obligation to prove it to you. The burden is on the person who doubts. It becomes your obligation to go find out for yourself. This is Catholicism not Protestantism, which puts every word under a microscope and doubts anything that is not in print. We have many beliefs, rules, customs, disciplines that are in print and you can read for yourself. We also have many that are handed down by word of mouth or simply by practice in daily life, which you would have to observe or accept someone else’s word that they are observed.

I can’t do more for you. I wish you well on your search and on your journey. You may want to find a Jesuit with whom you can have these dialogues. It is their mission to engage in this type of exchange, not that of a Franciscan or any other mendicant for that matter.
Ok I can see you are upset now. I only write detailed replies to you because I consider you knowledgeable and that any objection I make should be detailed. To be fair, you do write pretty long replies yourself, yes?

Now about this specific issue. In my defense, you did not present any document. So I obviously do not know if you are just saying it. Since there was a logical inconsistency in what you said, with respect to how we say Pope is infallible and reasons you say to refrain from saying a council is infallible, I saw reason to doubt it even more.

But if you feel this way, I won’t reply to you further.
 
Once I tell you what the Church does, it is up to you to accept it or not. It is also up to you to believe it or not. I have no obligation to prove it to you. The burden is on the person who doubts. It becomes your obligation to go find out for yourself. This is Catholicism not Protestantism, which puts every word under a microscope and doubts anything that is not in print. We have many beliefs, rules, customs, disciplines that are in print and you can read for yourself. We also have many that are handed down by word of mouth or simply by practice in daily life, which you would have to observe or accept someone else’s word that they are observed.
Slam dunk Brother Jay.
👍
 
Eufrosnia…you live in Europe…??? I hear WWII damaged so many peoples’ faith.

Irregardless…the life of the Church requires each one of us to have faith with certitude. We are going through the Church, run by men, but animated and sustained by Jesus Christ, to enter union into Him and with Him, Alpha and Omega.

There is a book out, ‘Faith and Certitude’, by Fr. Thomas Dubay, SM. Faith always has certitude…this certitude reflected most perfectly in the Virgin, who responded with ‘Yes’, her fiat, to the Lord, to allow the Lord to begin His life within her.

Faith and certitude…not human reasoning…St.Thomas Aquinas said, to compare human intellect to the understanding of God is akin to the eye of an owl next to the sun.

Note the eye of the owl only works in darkness. We can never fully understand God…or His living Church as its essence is both faith/certitude and mystery.

It takes alot of courage to see beyond men, to step out into the water…so to speak…the water of baptism?..to then touch and hold on to the Lord, the Giver of Life.

Have certitude and courage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top