Protestants Call on Pope to Accept Vatican II
#31
Valz Wrote:
Credo Wrote:Firstly, Vatican II never claimed to hold to weight other Councils have.

It was an Ecumenical council convened and ratified by the Pope and made binding upon all the faithful. Just like the previous 20 ecumenical councils. Bear in mind, the claim that it was just "pastoral" doesn't work.

Tell that to the Council Fathers who declared it pastoral! You would tell the Council Fathers that they are incorrect and that their council is infallible when they themselves at the time said it wasn't.

Furthermore what is "binding"? Vatican II defined nothing. We are free to ignore it if we wish and wouldn't be any worse off and freely within our rights to do so.
Reply
#32
StevusMagnus Wrote:We are free to ignore it if we wish and wouldn't be any worse off and freely within our rights to do so.

Actually, we are not. Pope Paul VI in the closing speech of the council said that:

"We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on. "

In an address on 23 April 1966 to the Roman Curia he also said in response to some who were objecting to the council, that:

"Whatever were our opinions about the Council's various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be wholehearted and without reserve[...]

[...] The council was something very new; not all were prepared to understand and accept it. But now the conciliar doctrines must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit."
The last two statements show clearly what is the manifest mind and will of the Pope with regards to the council and leave no doubt about the fact that the faithful must give their assent to it. Consider also this from the Code of Canon Law:

Quote:341: "The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation."

752: "Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it."

By virtue of the Pope's ratification, the council has obligatory force according to canon 341 and according to 752, even if and when the council did not proclaim anything ex-cathedra, it demands our consent. Do you think it is just for fun that the Holy Father is asking the SSPX to accept Vatican II?


Valz

Reply
#33
Again, give assent to what?

To the fact it was a valid pastoral council that declared no doctrine. Fine.

Any novel doctrines proposed from VCII that do not accord with Tradition (ecumenism, religious liberty) are to be ignored in favor of previous condemnations. If these provisions are later re-interpreted, clarified, corrected to come in line with Tradition, great. If they are left ambiguous and confused, ignore them and stick to Tradition which cannot be wrong.

Reply
#34
StevusMagnus Wrote:Again, give assent to what?

You mentioned two already: ecumenism and religious liberty. Others such as collegiality may also be named.

With regards to religious liberty the council states that this teaching has roots not just in the dignity of the human person but also in divine revelation (Dignitatis Humanae, 9). As far as ecumenism goes, at it's end the decree Unitatis Redintegratio states that:

"Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God."

A similar statement is found in Lumen Genitum, which touches on the issue of collegiality and the relationship of The Church and Christian communities. Per the canon cited previously, these two documents even if they stood alone, carry obligatory force.

If you really believe that Vatican II really had nothing to say and was one massive blob of nothingness, then I would suggest you put down the Remnant Newspaper and read the documents of the council instead.


Valz
Reply
#35
The Council Fathers themselves said the Council was pastoral and not infallible as it declared no new dogma. Whatever ideas it espoused as far as "ecumenism" and "religious liberty" that were different than Tradition are non-binding. Let the theologians figure out what all the ambiguous phrases mean. And while they are busy hashing that nonsense out I'll stick to the Traditional view of these things which can never be contradicted. It is the safest course.
Reply
#36
An explanation given by the Council’s own Theological Commission, cited by the Secretary of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici, in a theological note appended to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.





Reply
#37
StevusMagnus Wrote:An explanation given by the Council’s own Theological Commission, cited by the Secretary of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici, in a theological note appended to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.

Fact is that Vatican II did openly declare so. Even the sedes over at vaticancatholic.com admit this (see here) yet, they are consistent in their belief and reject the whole council along with the Pope that ratified it as an anti-Pope.

What Cardinal Felici was stating here are the same rules that are used for all ecumenical councils. An ecumenical council is not binding on The Church unless it is ratified by the Pope. Vatican II was ratified and not all it's documents are pastoral, there are declarations, decrees and dogmatic constitutions in it. In fact, the only document that has "pastoral" in it's title is Gaudium Et Spes.


Valz
Reply
#38
Oh yeah!? Well I call on all protestants to accept the Council of Trent!

So there....[Image: tounge2.gif]

Seriously, this is about as relevant as what a bunch of apostate Jews think about anything the Catholic Church does.
What? Was it a slow news day? Or some prottie just got his panties in a bunch because all the news is about Catholics and Jews so he had to get some action?



Reply
#39
Valz,

The Synod (VCII) never openly declared any defined matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church. It was pastoral and the quote I gave even describes the Council as such.

Reply
#40
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives...can-II.htm

Infallible or Non-infallible

The testimonies which follow should be more than adequate to convince any reasonable person that the documents of Vatican II do not pertain to the Extraordinary Magisterium, and are, therefore, not infallible, and, therefore, not divinely protected from error.  It is not my purpose here to claim that they actually contain error, simply to prove that they are not protected from such a possibility.

The first testimony should, in itself, suffice to do this, as it is the testimony of a Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Paul VI.  In his General Audience of 12 January 1966, he explained:

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.

What could be more clear?  Pope Paul states unequivocally that the documents of Vatican II do not pertain to the Extraordinary Magisterium, and that they are not endowed with the note of infallibility.

The next testimony could, short of being a statement of the Sovereign Pontiff, hardly be more authoritative. It is an explanation given by the Council’s own Theological Commission, cited by the Secretary of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici, in a theological note appended to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.

Needless to say, as was made clear in the subsequent statement by Pope Paul VI, which has already been quoted, the Council did not invest any of its teaching with the note of infallibility. This was made very clear in an article by Bishop B.C. Butler, one of England’s most active and most Liberal Council Fathers, in which he explained that not “all teachings emanating from a pope or an ecumenical council are infallible.  There is no single proposition of Vatican II – except where it is citing previous infallible definitions – which is in itself infallible.”  The Bishop has made an important distinction here.  The documents of Vatican II do contain infallible teaching, but this teaching is infallible because it had already been proclaimed as such, and not because it is contained in a document of the Council.

An article by Father E. Doronzo, OMI, which appeared in the 14 September 1972 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, made a distinction between infallible and non-infallible statements of the Extraordinary Magisterium.  Strictly speaking, if the statement is not endowed with the note of infallibility it does not pertain to the Extraordinary Magisterium.  What Father Doronzo is evidently attempting to do here is to stress the fact that the two sources of the Extraordinary and Infallible Magisterium, the Pope and a general council, are not infallible in all their pronouncements.  He explains:

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.

The fact that the Magisterium can indeed present teaching that cannot be said with certainty to be free from error was admitted candidly by the German Bishops in a very important Joint-Pastoral in September 1967.  Their concern was principally with what the attitude of the faithful should be to such teaching, the attitude of theologians in particular.  That there can be magisterial teaching open to the possibility of error was taken for granted.

Beyond her guardianship of the inner substance of the faith the Church has, even at risk of going sometimes into error, to formulate teachings which have a certain degree of authority, while yet, since they are not definitions of faith, they are sufficiently provisional to admit a possibility of error.

Dignitatis humanae could certainly appear to come within this category of teaching.  It is (a) teaching with a certain degree of authority; (b) it is not a definition of faith (and, therefore, not infallible); it is sufficiently provisional to admit a possibility of error.

In his article “Magisterium” in A Catholic Dictionary of Theology, Father Joseph Crehan, S.J., provided an interesting insight into the degree of assistance given by the Holy Spirit to the Magisterium when it is not producing infallible decrees:

If, as Molina held, human weakness is a limiting factor even in the work of an ecumenical council, so that we ultimately get only the decrees that we deserve, and not all that the Spirit might have given us, then much more reasonably is a place to be found for human weakness in the day-to-day working of the Magisterium.

Father Crehan also drew our attention to the fact that the Council accepted the fact that it had “put forth its teaching without infallible definitions: by concluding the decree on the Church with the words decernimus et statuimus (‘we decree and establish’) and not with the word definimus.”  The same formula was used for all the sixteen promulgated documents of the Council.  It will be explained in great detail below that infallibility pertains only to definitions.  As Bishop B.C. Butler remarked in respect to papal definitions, but with equal applicability to those of a general council:  “Infallibility is involved only when the papal definition is propounded as binding the whole Church finally and forever.”

In a profound study intended to enhance the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium, Dom Paul Nau, O.S.B., cites a number of authors who reckon the duty of Catholics when confronted with a document of the Ordinary Magisterium “to be that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught.”

Dom Paul, basing himself upon the Encyclical Humani Generis, insists that this attitude of mere prudence cannot be made a general rule to be observed towards the Ordinary Magisterium and he is undoubtedly correct.  He warns, with equal correctness, that a pronouncement of the Magisterium “always has the right to claim the benefit of any doubt”.  He adds that Humani Generis reserves such an attitude to an isolated pronouncement having a bearing on a matter which is still in dispute:

In this event, if the Sovereign Pontiff does not mean to commit himself to pronouncing a conclusive judgement, such a judgement would not fulfill the conditions required for infallibility and consequently it could not call for faith, but only for a respectful and prudent obedience.

It is hard to imagine a more evident case of a document than Dignitatis humanae to which the Sovereign Pontiff did not wish to commit himself to pronouncing a conclusive judgment.  It would also be hard to imagine a document which, to a greater extent than Dignitatis humanae, contained teaching that was “an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught.”

As a final comment on the possibility of a magisterial pronouncement being open to the possibility of error, an explanation by Dr. Germain Grisez in the July 1984 Homiletic and Pastoral Review is very pertinent:

Obviously, teachings which are proposed infallibly leave no room for dissent on the part of faithful Catholics.  However, other teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium can be mistaken, even though they may require and demand religious submission of mind and will.  Such teachings can deserve acceptance inasmuch as they are the Magisterium’s current best judgement of what God’s word requires of Christians.  However, that judgement, on the leading edge of developing doctrine and in truly prudential matters, can be mistaken, and faithful Christians can be led by superior claims of faith itself to withhold their submission to it.

Dom Paul Nau’s insistence that the withholding of submission of inward assent to a pronouncement of the Ordinary Magisterium could only occur in the most exceptional circumstances is echoed by Dr. Ludwig Ott.  He explains our duty towards the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium as follows:

The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible.  Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.  Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religious).  The so-called silentium obsequiosum, that is “reverent silence”, does not generally suffice.  By the way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conclusion that the decision rests on an error.”

As was stated above, this is not intended to prove that any teaching contained in Dignitatis humanae rests on error.  It is intended simply to prove that the teaching of the Declaration is not divinely protected from error.  The documentation already provided should have been more than adequate to establish this. Having cited unimpeachable authorities to establish that the teaching of Dignitatis humanae most certainly cannot be considered as a definition of the Extraordinary Magisterium, and hence infallible, it now remains to explain in detail the conditions necessary for a magisterial teaching to be classified as a teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but before doing so it is necessary to understand the precise meaning of infallibility.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)