Was Vatican II a pastoral council

[rkm8563]

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

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

 

[eelpis]

Yes, but it produced two dogmatic constitutions: Dei verbum - on divine revelation and Lumen Gentium - on the Church. I wonder if all this talk about pastoral just means that the dogmas of the Church are pastoral

 

[rkm8563]

Was it infallible?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Was it infallible?

Pope Paul VI: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

Pope Paul VI: "The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965

 

[cam100]

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

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

The emphasis on the word “pastoral” was something promoted by those who wished to discredit the council. It means nothing with regard to the authority of the council.

There is no official category of councils known as “pastoral”. This is merely a descriptive term that indicates the main focus that was envisioned for Vatican II. Vatican II was an ecumenical council, just like Vatican I, and Trent, and the others. As such, it is just as binding on the faithful as the previous councils were.

Since the council was described as “pastoral”, its primary purpose was to handle matters of a more practical nature, rather than to define dogma. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we can dismiss it as have no authority, or a lesser authority than other councils. As far as being infallible goes, it had the capacity for infallibility just as much as any other ecumenical council. Councils don’t actually specify what is being infallibly defined and what is not. However, we are supposed to submit to the decrees of a council, whether infallible or not, as they are all authoritative.

 

[markadm]

Though we could reasonably call Vatican II “pastoral” because it defined no new dogmas.

 

[SJP]

Pope Paul VI: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

Pope Paul VI: "The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965

Interesting

 

[palmas85]

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

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

Pope Paul VI thought it was a pastoral council and publicly said so. Since he was the Pope during the bulk of it, I would think his opinion should carry some weight.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

There are two kinds of “councils” in the Catholic Church: synodal (or local) and ecumenical (or general). The term “pastoral” is applied to those councils that address issues of pastoral concern as opposed to addressing issues of teaching (dogma/doctrine). Thus, the Second Vatican Council, although pastoral in nature, was an Ecumenical Council and tanks right up there with the First Vatican Council (which was, in fact, closed at the beginning of the Second Vatican Council) or Trent.

Deacon Ed

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

There are two kinds of “councils” in the Catholic Church: synodal (or local) and ecumenical (or general). The term “pastoral” is applied to those councils that address issues of pastoral concern as opposed to addressing issues of teaching (dogma/doctrine). Thus, the Second Vatican Council, although pastoral in nature, was an Ecumenical Council and tanks right up there with the First Vatican Council (which was, in fact, closed at the beginning of the Second Vatican Council) or Trent.

Deacon Ed

Except that Vatican I and Trent defined dogmas and as such were protected from error, on those points, by the charism of infallibility; whereas Vatican II specifically avoided defining dogmas, and therefore did not engage the extraordinary magisterium.

Pope Paul VI: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966.

The difference between Vatican II, on the one hand, and Vatican I and Trent, on the other, is that the later defined infallible dogmas, whereas the former purposefully avoided the exercise of infallibility.

 

[cam100]

Pope Paul VI thought it was a pastoral council and publicly said so. Since he was the Pope during the bulk of it, I would think his opinion should carry some weight.

Yes, but you have to understand what “pastoral” means in the context of a council to know what the Pope was saying. It doesn’t mean, as some have tried to say, that it was a less authoritative council.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Except that Vatican I and Trent defined dogmas and as such were protected from error, on those points, by the charism of infallibility; whereas Vatican II specifically avoided defining dogmas, and therefore did not engage the extraordinary magisterium.

Pope Paul VI: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966.

The difference between Vatican II, on the one hand, and Vatican I and Trent, on the other, is that the later defined infallible dogmas, whereas the former purposefully avoided the exercise of infallibility.

As far as the Church is concerned there is no difference! An Ecumenical (General) Council is an Ecumenical Council. As I said, the term “pastoral” refers to what the Council covered. There is no such think as a “pastoral council” as far as the Church is concerned. And, of course, we are concerned about what the Church teaches, right?

Deacon Ed

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

As far as the Church is concerned there is no difference! An Ecumenical (General) Council is an Ecumenical Council. As I said, the term “pastoral” refers to what the Council covered. There is no such think as a “pastoral council” as far as the Church is concerned. And, of course, we are concerned about what the Church teaches, right?

Deacon Ed

In your opinion, what did Paul VI mean when he said Vatican II was different than other councils? Here’s the quote:

Paul VI: "Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.” (General Audience, August 6, 1975)

Was it different than Vatican I and Trent? If so, how?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

As far as the Church is concerned there is no difference! An Ecumenical (General) Council is an Ecumenical Council. As I said, the term “pastoral” refers to what the Council covered. There is no such think as a “pastoral council” as far as the Church is concerned.

Deacon Ed

In addition to my last question; if there is no such thing as a pastoral council, why did Cardinal Ratzinger say the following:

Cardinal Ratzinger: "Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. …] **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.” **(Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 1988)

What did the Cardinal mean when he said Vatican II was “merely a pastoral council”, if there is no such thing as a pastoral council? Why did he call it a pastoral council, and what did he mean by “merely”?

 

[Genesis315]

It is a General Council whose constitutions, decrees, and declaratiosn were promulgated by the Pope. As such, they are an exercise of the supreme authority within the Church. Most ecumenical Councils have a mix of “pastoral” decrees and “dogmatic” decrees–but there are some exceptions. Vatican I, for example, only contains dogmatic judgments (because it got cut short, they never got to other things). On the other hand, no dogmatic judgments were promulgated by the Lyons I–so it may be called pastoral.

In that sense, Vatican II seeks primarily not to definitvely settle any particular doctrinal matters, but to explain and apply Church doctrine to particualr circumstances. In that, some of its decrees are of a similar nature to papal encyclicals without any definitive doctrinal judgments.

However, this means it probably has a greater impact on us as Catholics. Catholics of every state of life are given commands by the Council and we should obey. For example, as laity we must pay special attention to the commands given to all Catholics and those given to the laity specifically.

For every legitimate problem or error we may see Catholics embracing, there is almost always a command from the Council to do the opposite (the right thing). If all Catholics did what those in their state of life were to do, Catholic truth would be ever present in society and we would be converting the world–unfortunately, many Catholics of all states have become apathetic, spiritually lazy, or turned in on themselves. We may be more “active” within the church walls on Sunday, but we are not being active leaven in the world as the Council commands.

 

[Brendan]

As far as the Church is concerned there is no difference! An Ecumenical (General) Council is an Ecumenical Council. As I said, the term “pastoral” refers to what the Council covered. There is no such think as a “pastoral council” as far as the Church is concerned. And, of course, we are concerned about what the Church teaches, right?

Deacon Ed

Deacon Ed,

This is where I will respectfully disagree. A large majority of the Council was Ecumenical ( in the truest sense, of applying to all sui juiris Churches)

Other elements are not.

Sacrosactum Concillium is a document directed at one sui juris Church alone, the Latin Church. The Eastern Churches, as you well know, are not bound by it teachings. That is a specific sign that it is not Ecmenical.

Does it mean that one does not need to obey it. Of course not. But unlike the dogmatic teachings of Trent and Vatican I, a Pope may abrogate all of S.C. if he so chooses. So it does put it on a different ‘plane’ of authority.

 

[Genesis315]

It’s not on a different plane of authority–it exercised the supreme authority–the content just varies as is the case for most Councils throughout history. For example, some ecumenical Councils have decrees for the whole Church, for particular regions or groups of people and even those directed at one individual (for example, some ecumenical Councils excommunicate an emperor). The Council of Trent, for example has both pastoral and dogmatic acts (e.g. the decree on reform and the decree on justification, respectively).

What makes a Council ecumenical is not it’s content, but it being representative of the entire college acting in union with its head.

What is true is that all that is irreformable from them are the definitive judgments of particular truths.

 

[palmas85]

Yes, but you have to understand what “pastoral” means in the context of a council to know what the Pope was saying. It doesn’t mean, as some have tried to say, that it was a less authoritative council.

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

 

[bear06]

Pope Paul VI: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

Pope Paul VI: "The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965

Here’s the quote in its totallity:

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium. This ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents." vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112_it.html General Audience of 12 January 1966

And here’s a good analysis of the whole topic:
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LG603.TXT

 

[bear06]

Also, I think this article quite helpful in this conversation to better understand ordinary magisterium vs. the extraordinary.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#III