Is Vatican II a Dogmatic Fact?
#21
(01-14-2013, 08:15 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote: Dogmatic fact or not, I live my Catholicism as though that Council never occurred.

I accept the VATII council's teachings so far as they don't contradict any teaching previously issued by the Magisterium or by another council.
So, you will understand that VATII doesn't hold much over me.
Reply
#22
"Neo-crunchy"? Gosh, please don't say "crunchy". Makes me want to eat Coffee Crisp, and I am trying to stop!

On a more serious note, I wonder if there is a difference depending on whether or not one is priest, religious or layman. For instance, as a layman, given what we said above, I am really under no obligation ever to read, reflect on, or apply anything from Vat II. As a pastoral council, its contents are for pastors to reflect on and "apply." So I can live as Richard or Maso describe with no problem. But for a bishop or priest, it is a different matter. He is obliged to be knowledgeable about and apply the directives of the Magisterium, so he cannot live as if VII did not exist. Nevertheless, the fact that VII never actually affirms anything clear, and the fact that the Magisterium itself does not seem to be clear on what VII says, gives him a way out to say "Well, I read the documents and they are very interesting. And now, back to my work."
Reply
#23
The big question seems to be is it possible for an Oecumenical Council of the Church to be fallible.

1776 quote from CE tells us that an valid Council is infallible, wheher one thinks it was declared so or not.
Reply
#24
Why would that be the big question Old Salt? I mean, if a council is pastoral and non-dogmatic, I think the question is whether or not one can completely ignore it or not. Also, if it was pastoral, the question arises until when are its suggestions to be considered? I would see no problem with a bishop or priest deeming that VII was a series of pastoral avenues tied to its time, that is, the sixties(!). You know what I mean? The council was all about "the times", but that was another century, and a very different world from the one we live in today. One could easily say that it was infallibly a council about times that no longer exist. This is the internal weakness of every movement that sets itself up to be all about being "new": it can be deemed old and irrelevant almost immediately.

And this does not even address the issue that NO ONE seems to be able to assert what the meaning of VII actually is. It can be infallible, but if it says nothing, well, it is infallibly about nothing. This is what the Pope understands and I think he believes it is easier to make the Council mean what "the hermeneutic of continuity" agrees with (i.e. it means whatever is not in contradiction with Tradition) than it would be to scrap the Council altogether.  But he knows that no one can say what the darn thing means. This was the strong point of the liberals, because they could make it mean whatever they wanted it to mean, until and unless a pope were to state specifically what it means. Pope Benedict knows that it would be chaos for him to try to say what it means. So instead he is trying to say what it does NOT mean. All of this is a waste of time and energy, I know, but the fact is that whether or not it is infallible is, I think, irrelevant.
Reply
#25
(01-15-2013, 10:53 AM)Old Salt Wrote: The big question seems to be is it possible for an Oecumenical Council of the Church to be fallible.

1776 quote from CE tells us that an valid Council is infallible, wheher one thinks it was declared so or not.

So called reform proposals and rosy predictions which make up much of Vatican II can't in and of themselves be infallible.
Reply
#26
(01-15-2013, 12:34 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(01-15-2013, 10:53 AM)Old Salt Wrote: The big question seems to be is it possible for an Oecumenical Council of the Church to be fallible.

1776 quote from CE tells us that an valid Council is infallible, wheher one thinks it was declared so or not.

So called reform proposals and rosy predictions which make up much of Vatican II can't in and of themselves be infallible.
Agreed.
I revise my former statment to be in line with you post CK and the one before.
Reply
#27
(01-14-2013, 10:40 AM)Petertherock Wrote: Yes, it's a dogmatic fact that VII occurred, I and a lot of other people wish it hadn't, but it did.

Even better, Vatican 2 was a factual fact.  It happened, or at least, men of the utmost credibility and good moral character have assured us that it did, in fact, take place during the periods it is claimed to have transpired.  Not having been present myself, I am nevertheless prepared to accept their assurances on the matter.

Then we come to the word, "dogmatic."  This is more a different question, unless we believe in magic spells.  If we do believe in the power of incantations, all we have to do is investigate whether the pope, or his designees, used the correct words of incantation to produce the desired charm, or result.  If they did, then, under the logic of voodoo, the spell worked.  If a witch doctor uses the correct words, the victim dies.  If someone sees the victim in the market a week later, it is obvious to the believer that the person seen after the curse was either a zombie or a spectre. 

It seems, however, that the Catholic view is somewhat more nuanced.  For instance, a good exorcist will tell you that notwithstanding the words of exorcism, the devil sometimes refuses to depart as ordered.  Why?  One of (at least) two possibilities seem to offer an answer:  either God does not desire that the words of exorcism take effect at that time, or the devil has a will of its own that is capable of withstanding the spoken word of the exorcist.  In either case, it seems that reality does not necessarily bend to the ritual of the spoken word and gesture.

In looking at Vatican 2, and in determining what it did or did not accomplish, or whether it did or did not correctly enunciate Catholic dogmas, it seems that we are forced to confront what actually happened during and after its convocation, and to compare the results with what came before.  I agree that that can be tiresome, however the alternative seems as pointless as insisting that an exorcism successfully cast out a devil, even though the poor possessed person has now grown a tail and cloven hooves. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)