Reform of the reform? Vatican II abrogated?

[Geremia]

Is it possible for a pope and the episcopate to deem certain elements of Vatican II as non-authoritative? Is this within their power? Can Vatican II be fallible?

 

[Corki]

Such as?

Some of the documents of Vatican II dealt with pastoral and disciplinary issues. These can always be revised or changed. That doesn’t mean they are non-autoritative. There are many authoritative declarations that are changeable.

But the Council itself can’t be declared fallible without saying that prior Councils would have to be considered fallible. The Dogmatic Constitutions are products of that.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Is it possible for a pope and the episcopate to deem certain elements of Vatican II as non-authoritative? Is this within their power? Can Vatican II be fallible?

Possible, yes. Going to happen, no.

If, for some reason, the Catholic Church hierarchy wishes to abandon parts of Vatican II, they will simply start teaching the new, contrary teaching, while at the time insisting that this new, contrary teaching is somehow consistent with Vatican II. In 2000 years, the Catholic Church has never actually admitted that any of its prior teaching is wrong. For example, Pope Benedict XIV’s teaching that charging any interest whatsoever is immoral has never been officially retracted; one day, the Vatican bank just started charging interest.

 

[Cluny]

<<For example, Pope Benedict XIV’s teaching that charging any interest whatsoever is immoral has never been officially retracted; one day, the Vatican bank just started charging interest.>>

The distinction between lawful interest and unlawful usury was first made by Jean Chauvin (known to history as John Calvin).

He was the first person to break with the uniform Western moral tradition–supported by Christianity, Juadism, and even Greek pagan philosophers–that charging interest was immoral.

 

[Lancer]

This is simply my take for your consideration…

In short…the answers to your questions: No & No.

The Council was/is infallible in all matters of faith and morals…all declarations once Pope Paul VI signed out the final documents.

Pope Benedict XVI…has long said that there needs to be a “reform of the reform”…in other words…the implementation if Vatican II had some errors/distortions…but the Council was “right on target”…irrespective of what Archbishop Lefebrve and his Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) declared…and continues to say to this day.

A good example is the re-validation of the Tridentine Mass (Extraordinary Form)…while not getting rid of or denigrating the Pope Paul VI Novos Ordo (Ordinary Form)…think of what would have occurred in 1968 if the Tridentine Mass was affirmed and the Novos Ordo was simply added as a new optional celebration rite…a lot less headaches and turmoil… for all concerned.

I believe that it comes down to a simple proposition…you can believe that Vatican II was inspired by human discernment with human goals and thus not protected by the Lord or that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit’s inspirations with Divine goals and its results had the Lord’s protection…I choose the later…even though I am a “big fan” of ALL the old ways…unfortunately…the Lord wanted changes…so changes we got! Its his Church…I am just happy to be part of the Catholic Church and since Vatican II…it seems akin to being strapped on the back of a bull…trying to “hang on” and not getting “thrown off” into a “ditch”…thank
God for the gift of grace…more please!!!

Pax Christi

 

[elzoro]

Such as?

Some of the documents of Vatican II dealt with pastoral and disciplinary issues. These can always be revised or changed. That doesn’t mean they are non-autoritative. There are many authoritative declarations that are changeable.

But the Council itself can’t be declared fallible without saying that prior Councils would have to be considered fallible. The Dogmatic Constitutions are products of that.

All of the Church’s documents, especially those coming from a Council are authorititive, but just because they are authoritative doesn’t mean that they are correct, or just or wise, or beneficial, or traditional. So, of course, there are infallible documents and non-infallible documents, BOTH are authoritative, but the non-authoritative documents could be really wrong. And, yes, authoritative documents can be changed assuming they are not infallible.

But some might say “the Council itself can’t be declared fallible without saying that prior Councils would have to be considered fallible. The Dogmatic Constitutions are products of that.”

A statement like this can only come from a view that follows this logic: “All Ecumenical Councils are infallible. Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council, ergo Vatican II
is infallible”. But this is false logic,and this shows where “Neo-Conservatives” and “Traditionalists” really differ. The former would think that just because all the bishops of the world got together and approved the documents of the Council, approved by the Pope , that somehow, irregardless of the Council’s intentions that the docuuments would be infallible. The “infallible” switch was turned on because of the Some of the documents of Vatican II dealt with pastoral and disciplinary issues. These can always be revised or changed.

Most of the documents of Vatican II deal with pastoral and disciplinary issues. And, of course discipline could, theoretically changed.

All of the Church’s documents, especially those coming from a Council are authorititive, but just because they are authoritative doesn’t mean that they are correct, or just or wise, or beneficial, or traditional. So, of course, there are infallible documents and non-infallible documents, BOTH are authoritative, but the non-authoritative documents could be really wrong. And, yes, authoritative documents can be changed assuming they are not infallible.

"But, some wouls say, “The Council itself can’t be declared fallible without saying that prior Councils would have to be considered fallible. The Dogmatic Constitutions are products of that”

A statement like this can only come from a view that follows the logic that “All Ecumenical Councils are infallible. Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council, ergo Vatican II
is infallible”. But this is false logic and this is where “Neo-Conservatives” and “Traditionalists” really differ. The former would think that just because all the bishops of the world got together and approved documents of a Council,approved by the Pope ,that absolutely, irregardless of the Council’s intentions the documents of the Council would be infallible. The “infallible” switch was turned on because of the fact that and there all of the bishops of the world got together and approved documents of a Council,approved by the Pope. They are “infallible” case closed, get over it, done and over with. Accept it lock, stock, and barrel, or you are not Catholic’ and if you do not, you are just as bad as the Liberals and Modernists who reject or question Councils too. You might as well reject or question Nicea or Trent. Vatican II are the same as Vatican II.

Well, if this were true, why would SSPX and the Vatican be discussingVatican II? How can you discuss an “infallible” Council? As a Catholic, you either accept Trent or you don’t. And if you don’t you are not Catholic. Can we say the same thing with Vatican II? "You either accept Vatican II or you don’t, and if you don’t you are not Catholic? The Neo-Conservative would say absolutely, “Yes!, you are not Catholic if you do not accept Vatican II–an infallible Council!” , and have said that many times ad nausea.

Traditionalists say that although Vatican II is an authoritative Council, it is **not **infallible; furthermore, there are elements in the documents which cannot be justified according to 2,000 years of Catholic teaching. But how can they reject an “infallible” Council, or claim that it has “errors”?, the Neo-Conservatives would say. “Are they not Catholic? They must accept it or they are just as bad as the Liberals and Modernists”. It is here that Traditionalist will remind their Neo-Conservative brethren, that intention of Vatican II was pastoral not dogmatic. And these pastoral documents were not intended to be infallible doctrinal of pastoral documents , but, rather non-infallible pastoral documents. Authoritative, yes–but not infallible. Pope Paul confirmed this by saying exactly that. Pope John XXII and Pope Paul VI both said that the intention of Vatican II was not to procalim any infallible doctrines but was merely to be pastoral in nature. So can Vatican II be abrogated? Yes, it can!

 

[elzoro]

Such as?

Some of the documents of Vatican II dealt with pastoral and disciplinary issues. These can always be revised or changed. That doesn’t mean they are non-autoritative. There are many authoritative declarations that are changeable.

But the Council itself can’t be declared fallible without saying that prior Councils would have to be considered fallible. The Dogmatic Constitutions are products of that.

All of the Church’s documents, especially those coming from a Council are authoritative, but just because they come from a Council and are authoritative doesn’t mean are that they are infallible. And if they are non-infallible it doesn’t mean that they are correct, or just, or wise, or beneficial, or traditional.

Within a Council there can be infallible documents and non-infallible documents, BOTH are authoritative, but the non-authoritative documents could be really wrong, yet authoritative, and could be changed assuming they are not infallible.

But some might say “the Council itself can’t be declared fallible without saying that prior Councils would have to be considered fallible. The Dogmatic Constitutions are products of that.”
A statement like this can only come from a view that follows this logic: “All Ecumenical Councils are infallible. Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council, ergo,Vatican II
is infallible”. But this is false logic, and demonstrates where “Neo-Conservatives” and “Traditionalists” really differ.

Neo-Conservatives would think that just because all the bishops of the world got together and approved the documents of a Council, approved by the Pope , that somehow, irregardless of the Council’s intentions that the documents would necessarily be infallible. The “infallible” switch was turned on because of the fact that all the bishops of the world met at a Council and had their documents approved by the Pope.

The documents and the Council are “infallible”, case closed, get over it, done and over with. Accept it lock, stock, and barrel, or you do not, you are not Catholic-- just as bad as the Liberals and Modernists who reject or question other Councils too. You might as well reject or question Nicea or Trent. Vatican II is on the same dogmatic, infallible level.

Well, if this were true, why would SSPX and the Vatican be discussingVatican II? How can you discuss an “infallible” Council? As a Catholic, you either accept Trent or you don’t. And if you don’t you are not Catholic, it is claimed. Can we say the same thing with Vatican II though? "You either accept Vatican II or you don’t, and if you don’t you are not Catholic? The Neo-Conservative would say absolutely, “Yes!, you are not Catholic if you do not accept Vatican II–an infallible Council!” , and have said that many times ad nausea.

Traditionalists say that although Vatican II is an authoritative Council, it is **not **infallible; furthermore, there are elements in the documents which cannot be justified according to 2,000 years of Catholic teaching.
But how can they, the Neo-Conservatives would claim, reject an “infallible” Council, or claim that it has “errors”? “Are they not Catholic?” “They must accept it or they are just as bad as the Liberals and Modernists”.
It is here that Traditionalists will remind their Neo-Conservative brethren, that intention of Vatican II was intrinsically pastoral, not dogmatic. And the pastoral documents were not intended to be infallible , but, rather non-infallible pastoral documents. Authoritative, yes–but not infallible. So, you can have a Council that was approved by the Pope be fallible, and not automatically infallible, simply because the intention of the Church is that it not be infallible. To the Neo-Conservative, this is *impossible.

• A Ecumenical Council approved by tthe Pope means by defintion an infallible Council, and that’s that.

Pope Paul confirmed this by saying exactly that. Pope John XXII and Pope Paul VI both said that the intention of Vatican II was not to procalim any infallible doctrines but was merely to be pastoral in nature. So can Vatican II be abrogated? Yes, it can! And if you believe so, you’re still Catholic.

"

 

[Ockham]

My theory is the Holy Church is waiting for the “Spirit of V2” rebels to die off and then get on to the task of rebuilding the Church they severely compromised. Major changes won’t happen for awhile. In the meantime, minor improvements like the SP and the pope only distributing Holy Communion to those on their knees and tongues are a welcome sight.