Was Vatican II a pastoral council

[bear06]

Excuse me, but I know exactly what pastoral means. Vatican II defined no new dogmas, put forth no infallible pronouncements and in fact defined things so vaguely and ambiguously that people still haven’t figured out exactly what they were trying to do in many cases.

I have never stated that Vatican II was not a valid council

Actually, it would appear that you’re altering what VII said a little. It said no new and no extraordinary pronouncments but I’m not sure that you’ll find anything that simply says “no infallible” that’s not attached to extraordinary.

It is very important to understand and acknowledge that there more than one organ of infallibility. No all infallible things come with an extraordinary pronouncement.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’ve have seen different literature out there and was wondering…

Was vatican II a pastoral council or should it be considered as dogma?

Here we go:​

• 1. All Ecumenical Councils (& AFAICS, you mean no others) are pastoral
• 1. I don’t think any have been purely pastoral
• 1. The teaching of Vatican II is not all of it infallible…
• 1. …but all of it, infallible or no, is the authentic teaching of the Church.
• 1. All the teaching of the CC is to be received with submission of heart and mind, even when it is difficult to do so.
• 1. It is evidence of a bad spirit for any Catholic to seek to diminish the authority of an Ecumenical Council; the faithful are not entitled to sit in judgement over an Ecumenical Council. Uncertainty as to *whether it be *ecumenical is a different matter.
• 1. We have been here before - there were attempts to deny the authority & ecumenicity & validity of Vatican I in the early 1870s, just as there are attempts to deny the authority & ecumenicity & validity of Vatican II
• 1. If events following a Council could condemn it, the astonishing & marvellous spread of Arianism after Nicea I in 325 would condemn that Council very thoroughly; so…
• 1. …those who say that Vatican II was “*only *a pastoral Council” often say this in order to undermine it; & the reason is often that they are scandalised by the unhappy state of the Church after 1965; they forget that Vatican II is not the first Council to be followed by unhappiness; & that it does not follow that because event X is prior in time to Y, X is therefore Y’s cause.
     BTW, a Council cannot be a dogma - its teaching can have, or can (as has sometimes occurred) acquire, dogmatic force; but Councils =//= dogmas.

Hope that helps