Vatican II's ambiguity

[Yours_Truly]

While most people will not say that Vatican II was outright heretical, most will admit that its documents are ambiguous and therefore allow for multiple interpretations. This explains why, they would admit, so many people “misinterpret” Vatican II.

Interestingly there was another council that used ambuguous language; and it has many similarities to Vatican II. I read the document last night where the Pope dealt with this council and its ambiguities. The Pope explains how such ambiguites are to be handled.

The similarites between that council and Vatican II are striking. In both cases, the truth is affirmed in one sentence, and then, while not necessarily contradicted, it is nevertheless undermined in the next. But the truth is undermined very subtly. Rather than actually contradicting the truth, it states it in such a way that an impression of error is left on the mind, even though it does always explicitly teach an error. That is the exact same thing that I have seen with Vatican II. While it may not expressly teach an error, the reader is left with the impression that it did. It is really cleaver.

Anyway, I thought I would post what the Pope said about such ambiguities, and how they are to be handled.

Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei 1794: "[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone’s use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

“In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.” (Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution “Auctorem Fidei,” 1794;

With that in mind, consider the follow quote from Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx who was a theolocial expert to the Dutch Episcopate during Vatican II.

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx: “We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.”(Open Letter to Confused Catholics," pg.106.)

If you are interested to see how Pope Pius VI dealt with the ambiguities in documents of the Council of Pistoia, which is no doubt how Vatican II will eventually be dealt with, here’s a link to the Bull Auctorem Fide.

 

[DavidPalm]

If you are interested to see how Pope Pius VI dealt with the ambiguities in documents of the Council of Pistoia, which is no doubt how Vatican II will eventually be dealt with, here’s a link to the Bull Auctorem Fide.

The major difference, of course, is that Pistoia was a local council of bishops, whereas Vatican II was an ecumenical council, recognized as such by the world’s bishops collectively, as well as by five Popes individually. I would say that if you’re waiting for an Auctorem Fidei style condemnation of Vatican II, you’re going to wait a very long time. And it would not be good for the Church, IMO. With what authority can she ever speak if it’s possible to meet in ecumenical council, propagate those documents for fifty years, and then repudiate the whole thing as pernicious garbage? And remember once again, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Abp. Lefebvre himself signed off on every single document. He, at least, seemed to think that there were ways to read the documents with an orthodox sense.

Yes, there were elements of the council that were seriously mishandled. But at this point what is needed is prudent damage control, not outright public condemnation and repudiation. Those passages (and there really aren’t that many, as even Abp. Lefebvre acknowledged) that have caused the most trouble need to receive official clarifications in order to harmonize them with Tradition. Even you have acknowledged that they are indeed ambiguous, not unequivocally heretical. And that process has already begun–I think particularly of the “subsists in” controversy, which I think has received a very good official explanation.

To the extent that the SSPX has been the goad to get the Vatican to acknowledge that there really are problems of ambiguity in the Vatican II documents, it’s done a good thing. But I think that traditionalists who set the bar at the level of “formally condemn this council, or else…” and would reject the path of official clarification are going to be left out in the cold.

 

[Yours_Truly]

The major difference, of course, is that Pistoia was a local council of bishops, whereas Vatican II was an ecumenical council, recognized as such by the world’s bishops collectively, as well as by five Popes individually.

Yes, that is an important difference. One was a local council that was condemned by the Pope, while Vatican II was a general council accepted by numerous Popes. This makes Vatican II much more dangerous and a much worse (just) punishment from God for the sins of man, in my opinion. I would go further and say that Vatican II would qualify as (and probably is) the “strong delusion” spoken of in the Bible, to lead into error those “who love not the truth”.

I would say that if you’re waiting for an Auctorem Fidei style condemnation of Vatican II, you’re going to wait a very long time.

These ambiguous documents need to be cleared up soon lest even more Catholics are led into error by the ambiguities. It is bad enough that just about no Bishop can properly “interpret” the documents; how much worse for the average lay person without their education?

And it would not be good for the Church, IMO.

I strongly disagree. I think it would be very good for the Church to clarify Vatican II by condemning the erroneous interpretations that are adhered to by virtually all in the hierarchy today.

With what authority can she ever speak if it’s possible to meet in ecumenical council, propagate those documents for fifty years, and then repudiate the whole thing as pernicious garbage?

She can speak with the authority that comes from God, and with the certitude that infallibility guarantees; that is, she can engage the extraodinary magisterium and be protected from error. Unfortunately, this was specifically avoided during Vatican II, as Pope Paul VI admitted.

And remember once again, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Abp. Lefebvre himself signed off on every single document. He, at least, seemed to think that there were ways to read the documents with an orthodox sense.

This isn’t about Archbishop Lefebvre. This is about the Church clarifying the ambiguities within the documents - ambiguities which have resulted in complete doctrinal (and moral) chaos on the Church.

Yes, there were elements of the council that were seriously mishandled. But at this point what is needed is prudent damage control, not outright public condemnation and repudiation.

I think I agree with you here. I don’t think it would be prudent for the Pope to come out and condemn Vatican II at this point. Instead, what I think should happen, and what I believe will happen, is that it is “clarified” in the manner expressed by Pope Pius VI. T

Pope Pius VI: “In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.”

That is to say that the interpretation of the document that is at odds with what the Church has always taught should be condemned. So, for example, with respect to the “subsists” statement. The Church could clarify this by saying that the word “subststs” should not be interpreted as meaning that the Church of Christ is larger than the Catholic Church, but rather identical with it. That would clear up any confusion once and for all.

Since Vatican II has been praised, it would be too much of a shock for it to be outright condemned, in my opinion. Let a later Pope condemn it, while the current Pope merely clarifies it in the manner above.

Pope Honorious was not condemned by the next Pope. In fact, the next Pope tried to excuse him. It was not until later, after he was a distant memory, that he was condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo.

Those passages (and there really aren’t that many, as even Abp. Lefebvre acknowledged) that have caused the most trouble need to receive official clarifications in order to harmonize them with Tradition. Even you have acknowledged that they are indeed ambiguous, not unequivocally heretical. And that process has already begun–I think particularly of the “subsists in” controversy, which I think has received a very good official explanation.

Hey, that’s interesting. I actually hadn’t read that when I wrote what I did above.

To the extent that the SSPX has been the goad to get the Vatican to acknowledge that there really are problems of ambiguity in the Vatican II documents, it’s done a good thing. But I think that traditionalists who set the bar at the level of “formally condemn this council, or else…” and would reject the path of official clarification are going to be left out in the cold.

I think we are in agreement here. But I wonder if you would agree with me that Vatican II should be formally condemned after some time has passed? After this generation, and maybe the next, are gone? I think it should for the good of the Church.

 

[Ocarm]

While most people will not say that Vatican II was outright heretical, most will admit that its documents are ambiguous and therefore allow for multiple interpretations.

I find this a very interesting idea. Could you give me a few examples of these ambiguities? (Specific points, if possible, not general assertions that e.g. Dei Verbum is ambiguous.

Rather than actually contradicting the truth, it states it in such a way that an impression of error is left on the mind, even though it does always explicitly teach an error. That is the exact same thing that I have seen with Vatican II. While it may not expressly teach an error, the reader is left with the impression that it did. It is really cleaver.

Would I be right in assuming that by saying it’s clever, you are suggesting that any ambiguities in the V2 documents are deliberate? If not, why clever? If so, why?

These ambiguous documents need to be cleared up soon lest even more Catholics are led into error by the ambiguities. It is bad enough that just about no Bishop can properly “interpret” the documents; how much worse for the average lay person without their education?

I haven’t heard any complaints from bishops that they don’t know how or otherwise struggle to interpret the council’s documents. Do you have any citations to that effect?

She can speak with the authority that comes from God, and with the certitude that infallibility guarantees; that is, she can engage the extraodinary magisterium and be protected from error. Unfortunately, this was specifically avoided during Vatican II, as Pope Paul VI admitted.

That would be really significant - again, any citation? My understanding would be that to deny the fact that V2 was an ecumenical council, and that its pronouncements therefore carried the weight of the extraordinary magisterium, would be contrary to canon law (and the defintion of the doctrine of infallibility in Pastor Aeternus at the first Vatican Council). See Canon 749 §2 at the Vatican website at:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

Then again, I’m not a canon lawyer!

Since Vatican II has been praised, it would be too much of a shock for it to be outright condemned, in my opinion. Let a later Pope condemn it, while the current Pope merely clarifies it in the manner above.

Once again, I don’t see how a pope could condemn an ecumenical council - that really would contradict the doctrine of infallibility summarised in canons 747-56. I think your original point that it is possible to fallibly interpret an infallible statement is valid and very significant, but you’re extending that possibility in a way that undermines the premise that there can be such a thing as infallible teaching. The Second Vatican Council (and any dogma or doctrine) can be elaborated upon and better explained, but can’t be condemned and disposed of without taking an heretical position on the dogmatic definition of the infallibility of the magisterium as teacher.

Best wishes,

 

[DavidPalm]

I’ll get back to Yours Truly, but Ocarm wrote:

I find this a very interesting idea. Could you give me a few examples of these ambiguities? (Specific points, if possible, not general assertions that e.g. Dei Verbum is ambiguous.

Sure. Since you bring it up, let’s look at Dei Verbum 11:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. (Abbott translation)

To many this translation implies that, while certain portions of the sacred Scriptures are part of that which God “intended for our salvation” and hence are free from error, others are not and so do not share the same divine protection and so could contain errors. But that would be an heretical interpretation, since Pope Pius XII taught that:

Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,’ since divine inspiration ‘not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.’ This teaching, which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously. (Divino Afflante Spiritu 3-4)

Rather, the correct interpretation which harmonizes with the Church’s solemn Tradition is that everything in sacred Scripture is placed there by God “for the sake of our salvation” and therefore all that is asserted as true by the authors of Scripture, without exception, is without error. This is expressed better by the translation below:

Since, therefore, everything affirmed by the inspired authors, or sacred writers, must be held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must in consequence acknowledge that the books of Scripture teach the truth firmly, faithfully, and without error, keeping in mind that it was for the sake of our salvation that God wanted this truth recorded in the form of Sacred Writings. (translation by Fr. Brian Harrison in Pope Paul VI and the Truth of Sacred Scripture).

The start of the clarification process has begun with the 1998 amendment to Canon Law, Ad Tuendam Fidem, which puts “the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts” in the first category of theological statements, along with such dogmas as the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception of our Lady. The CDF states that, “These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law” (Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei 11). Therefore, obviously, to interpret DV 11 in a way that admits error in the sacred Scriptures would be formally heretical.

Unfortunately, it remains true that even such ostensibly orthodox clergymen as Cardinal Pell of Australia and Fr. Joseph Fessio of Ignatius Press hold this erroneous view of Scripture. So indeed, this ambiguity of DV 11 has caused serious problems and really requires an official clarification, preferably with formal condemnation of the erroneous interpretations.

This is but one example. Hope this helps.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Some of your questions will take a while to answer, but I’ll do this one real quick.

I

My understanding would be that to deny the fact that V2 was an ecumenical council, and that its pronouncements therefore carried the weight of the extraordinary magisterium, would be contrary to canon law (and the defintion of the doctrine of infallibility in Pastor Aeternus at the first Vatican Council). See Canon 749 §2 at the Vatican website at

Pastor Aeternus defines Papal Infallibility. It explains that for the Pope to be protected from error several conditions must be met.

1.) It must related to either faith or morals

2.) The Pope must be defining a doctrine, which thereby engages the extraordinary magisterium.

1. The doctrine must be intended for the entire Church.

Vatican II did not define any doctrines, which means it did not meet condition #2. It discussed doctrinal points, some of which had already been infallibly defined, but Vatican II itself did not define any doctrines. Therefore, it did not engage the extraordinary magisterium.

Paul VI: "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoid issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility

Notice that he says Vatican II specifically avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.

While it is normal for a general council to be infallible, it is only infallible it it intends to be. It it specifically avoids engaging the extraordinary magisterium, it is not protected by the charism of infallibility

Vatican II was not a dogmatic, but merely a pastoral council, that defined no dogmas, as our current Pope explained below when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger:

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. 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; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.( to the Bishops of Chile, 1988)

And again…

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **"But since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council

Writing in the September 1972 edition of L’Osservatore Romano (the Vatican newspaper), Fr. E. Doronzo, OMI explains the following:

L’Osservatore Romano: "The Extraordinary Magisterium consists in a formal, explicit, and solemn declaration of doctrine made only by the supreme authority, expressed by the formula or mode of declaration; this Magisterium can be either infallible or non-infallible. Examples of the former are the definitions of the primacy and infallibility of the Pope by the First Vatican Council, of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX, and of the Assumption by Pope Pius XII. **Examples of the non-infallible Extraordinary Magisterium include the various documents of Vatican **II and most of the great papal Encyclicals from Leo XIII to Paul VI.

Once again, I don’t see how a pope could condemn an ecumenical council - that really would contradict the doctrine of infallibility summarised in canons 747-56.

It would be no more of a condemnation of Papal Infallibility than it was when Pope Leo condmned Pope Honorious as a heretic. The Pope is only infallible when he meets the conditions set forth by the First Vatican Council. To claim the Pope is infallible when he speaks outside of those conditions is to teach what the Church does not.

Therefore, for a Pope to condemn the non-infallible documents of Vatican II would not touch, in any way, the dogma of Papal infallibility.

 

[Ocarm]

Sure. Since you bring it up, let’s look at Dei Verbum 11:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. (Abbott translation)

To many this translation implies that, while certain portions of the sacred Scriptures are part of that which God “intended for our salvation” and hence are free from error, others are not and so do not share the same divine protection and so could contain errors.

This is but one example. Hope this helps.

Hi there,

Thanks for the response. The reason I used DV as an example was because I re-read it recently and found it to still be as obscure as I had remembered it! Then again, dogmatic constitutions often lack detail because (as per the topic of this thread) there is an expectation that people will come along later and explain them to us poor non-theologians.

I’m not 100% in agreement that this is a good example of ambiguity, however - it seems to me that the section you offer says unequivocally that the assertions of the biblical authors are the assertions of the Holy Spirit, and thus they teach us without error what God wanted us to know. I’m not sure how one can get from there to the possibility that some writings are without errors and some aren’t. Actually, it may not matter, inasmuch as I certainly concede that many church documents, including those of V2, are ambiguous. I was interested to get some particular examples from the writer of the OP given the breadth of their assertion.

I think that all of us who have contribued so far would agree that if there are grey areas in church teaching, it would be helpful if they could be declared to be black or white. I’d also add that some times I would like to hear the church admit that as of now, an area is grey, and will require further thought, rather than issue an obscure statement that feeds uncertainty.

Best wishes,

 

[duckbill]

Vat II—LUMEN GENTIUM#25 :

And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others**, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.** **For *then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43) …To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting,vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

a.) Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

b.)Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

According to Vat.II these definitions, a. and b., are: “irreformable” “they need no approval of others” NOR “do they allow an appeal to any** other judgment**” Not even the Ordinary Magisterium

 

[Ocarm]

Pastor Aeternus defines Papal Infallibility. It explains that for the Pope to be protected from error several conditions must be met.

Yes, it does. But it also makes reference to the infallible role of ecumenical councils and to infallible proclamation through apostolically received tradition. The position is summarised, as I said (with reference to doctrine other than Pastor Aeternus alone) in canons 747-755, which also explain in what circumstances the church might teach but without engaging the authority of the magisterium. Ex cathedra and an ecumenical council are infallible actions of the extraordinary magisterium, and apostolic tradition an infallible action of the ordinary magisterium.

Paul VI: "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, **knowing that it avoid **issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. 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; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.( to the Bishops of Chile, 1988)

Well, I wouldn’t dare disagree with 2 popes (!) but I will say that this is inconsistent with the fact that V2 proclaimed 2 dogmatic constitutions (the highest level of doctrinal proclamation, after which comes a pastoral constitution, of which most of the other V2 documents were examples, concerning themselves with matters of discipline rather than doctrine).

The two dogmatic constitutions were the aforementioned Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. If the council did not invoke the extraordinary magisterium, it would have been unable to make dogmatic proclamations. Likewise, it is not required that a dogma is said to be infallible when proclaimed (unless pronounced ex cathedra) for it to be, in fact, infallible. If that was required, none of the infallible teachings preceding the declaration of infallibility in Pastor Aeternus would have infallible stature, because they did not declare themselves to be infallible when proclaimed. (That’s a real mouthful).

As I say, I won’t argue with their holinesses. But this seems contradictory. I’d welcome an opinion from a canon lawyer, if any is reading this thread.

It would be no more of a condemnation of Papal Infallibility than it was when Pope Leo condmned Pope Honorious as a heretic. The Pope is only infallible when he meets the conditions set forth by the First Vatican Council. To claim the Pope is infallible when he speaks outside of those conditions is to teach what the Church does not.

Therefore, for a Pope to condemn the non-infallible documents of Vatican II would not touch, in any way, the dogma of Papal infallibility.

I think you’re conflating papal infallibility with magisterial infallibility: you’ll note that in my previous mail I referred to the doctrine of infallibility, not the doctrine of papal infallibility, since that is only one element of the overall doctrine.

The condemnation of a pope for heresy is ultimately no different to that of condemning any heretic, because it is merely reflecting upon their views as an individual (although these might have been propagated within church documents, although not any that were dogmatically proclaimed).

But, if the pope (or anyone else, but is was you who raised the possibility of a pope commenting thus) were to declare that dogmatic teachings of an ecumenical council were wrong, he would be speaking heretically. Given that V2 included dogmatic teaching, dismissal of at least those elements of the council would constitute heresy on the grounds of defiance of the dogma concerning magisterial infallibility.

Best wishes,

 

[Yours_Truly]

I was interested to get some particular examples from the writer of the OP given the breadth of their assertion.

David’s example was good because it is an example which has led many otherwise good Catholics into heresy. Based on their interpretation of the quote he provided, they reject what the Church has always taught; and it was taught in more than just the encyclical David quoted. *Providentissimus Deus * of Leo XIII is even more clear, yet people explicitly reject this teaching in favor of the error that they believe Vatican II teaches. I’ve had many long debates with Catholics over this issue, and very few will accept what the Church has always taught, but instead reject it based on their “interpretation” of Vatican II.

I’ll give you another example. But rather than showing you how some interpret the follow quote erroneously (as David did with De Verbum), I’ll let you give us your interpretation. The following quote from Digninatis Humanae deals with the subject of religious liberty.

Dignitatis Humanae:“Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligations of seeking the truth and adhering to it.

“Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or written word.

“In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity.

“This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.”

If you would, summarize in your own words what that is teaching.

 

[Yours_Truly]

The two dogmatic constitutions were the aforementioned Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. If the council did not invoke the extraordinary magisterium, it would have been unable to make dogmatic proclamations.

Just because the title has the word dogmatic in it, does not mean what it teaches is a dogma. How do we know this? Because dogmas are infallible, whereas, according to the Pope who ratified Vatican II and our current Pope, Vatican II was not infallible, and purposefully avoided engaging the extraordinary magisterium…

**Paul VI: **"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoid issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility .

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. 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…( to the Bishops of Chile, 1988)

Those are the words of two Popes. The only explanation to your delimna is the one I gave above: Just because the word “dogmatic” is in the title, does not mean what it teaches rises to the level of a dogma.

 

[Ocarm]

I’ll give you another example. But rather than showing you how some interpret the follow quote erroneously (as David did with De Verbum), I’ll let you give us your interpretation. The following quote from Digninatis Humanae deals with the subject of religious liberty.

If you would, summarize in your own words what that is teaching.

As you will have seen in my response to David, I’m not contradicting what you said in your OP. I agree that church documents (including those of V2) are often obscure or ambiguous: I was merely asking for some specific cases where you felt this was particularly problematic, and obviously this is one (I couldn’t locate it in the document because of the lack of a reference number, however). Thank you for for the example.

Best wishes,

 

[Ocarm]

Just because the title has the word dogmatic in it, does not mean what it teaches is a dogma. How do we know this? Because dogmas are infallible, whereas, according to the Pope who ratified Vatican II and our current Pope, Vatican II was not infallible, and purposefully avoided engaging the extraordinary magisterium…

**Paul VI: **"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoid issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility .

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. 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…( to the Bishops of Chile, 1988)

Those are the words of two Popes. The only explanation to your delimna is the one I gave above: Just because the word “dogmatic” is in the title, does not mean what it teaches rises to the level of a dogma.

If it is termed a dogmatic constitution it certainly is dogma. If that wasn’t so, all a pope would have to do to ‘unwrite’ a dogmatic constitution would be to say it wasn’t a proper dogmatic constitution: they don’t have that power.

Inasmuch as you have pointed out that popes are not infallible unless they speak ex cathedra (and one of them wasn’t even a pope when they commented as you quote them) I think it is more likely that context would explain, or that at worst, these good men are making fallible statements about infallible matters. As I said, I’m not a canon lawyer, and would welcome an expert opinion.

I should own up to an error (I’m definitely not infallible!) in stating that the other documents of V2 were predominantly pastoral constitutions; in fact they were predominantly decrees. Apologies for that.

The thread seems to have become legalistic, when I was actually quite interested in this idea of confusion resulting from bad wording or bad translation. I’ll bow out on the grounds that I may have taken things in that direction, which wasn’t my intent.

Best wishes,

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

If it is termed a dogmatic constitution it certainly is dogma. If that wasn’t so, all a pope would have to do to ‘unwrite’ a dogmatic constitution would be to say it wasn’t a proper dogmatic constitution: they don’t have that power.

Ocarm, the word, “dogmatic” can be used in different contexts with different meanings and the use of it does not magically make everything else that follows into a dogmatic teaching of the Church. Here is what the Theological Commission of Vatican II had stated while the Council fathers were deliberating the DOGMATIC Constitution of the Church: Lumen Gentium.

“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)

If you are discounting Cardinal Ratzinger’s statements about V2 being merely pastoral because he was not an elected Pope at the time then you have other issues to contend with, however, playing by those rules here are some more from Paul VI:

General Audience , December 1, 1966 published in L’Oservatore Romano 1/21/1966
"Differing from other councils , this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral."

*General audience August 6, 1975.
*"Pope John conceived the council as eminently pastoral event."

 

[Cluny]

I should think that where Vatican II’s documents are ambiguous, such ambiguities (if any) should be resolved according to tradition, and not contrariwise.

 

[duckbill]

We need a New Council the Church is a mess and the Ordinary Magisterium is just not capable of handling such** a big mess!!**

 

[TMC]

Ocarm, the word, “dogmatic” can be used in different contexts with different meanings and the use of it does not magically make everything else that follows into a dogmatic teaching of the Church. Here is what the Theological Commission of Vatican II had stated while the Council fathers were deliberating the DOGMATIC Constitution of the Church: Lumen Gentium.

“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)

If you are discounting Cardinal Ratzinger’s statements about V2 being merely pastoral because he was not an elected Pope at the time then you have other issues to contend with, however, playing by those rules here are some more from Paul VI:

General Audience , December 1, 1966 published in L’Oservatore Romano 1/21/1966
"Differing from other councils , this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral."

*General audience August 6, 1975.
*"Pope John conceived the council as eminently pastoral event."

The fact that the council was pastoral and defined no new dogma does not prevent the Council from being binding or mean that the Dogmatic Constiution does not contain dogma. The Council expressed no new dogma, but it did express existing dogma in somewhat different terms. Some have viewed this as a break with the past and a change in dogma, but the Pope has said that the Council was directed at reform and at expressing the Church’s ancient teaching anew with new insights.

 

[Yours_Truly]

I should think that where Vatican II’s documents are ambiguous, such ambiguities (if any) should be resolved according to tradition, and not contrariwise.

I think that is a very wise, and very *Catholic *comment, from an “other”.

 

[daughteroftruth]

Ah, ambiguity…When I was a child, this was the way I got away with lying to anyone: I just gave an ambiguous answer. Eventually, it stopped working, why? Because, although I didn’t lie, per se, I was nevertheless deceitful. This is what the Holy Scriptures call being “double-tongued.” I believe we all remember what the Lord says will happen to the “double-tongued,” and with those who tolerate/approve/endorse/etc what He declares evil. It’s not good. In fact, it’s rather bad. Very bad. (unless one’s a masochist, in which case, maybe not so bad, but that’s another issue)