Binding language rule of thumb
#1
APPENDIX From the Acts of the Council

Notificationes' Given by the Secretary General of the Council at the 123rd General Congregation, November 16, 1964

A question has arisen regarding the precise theological note which should be attached to the doctrine that is set forth in the Schema de Ecclesia and is being put to a vote.

The Theological Commission has given the following response regarding the Modi that have to do with Chapter III of the de Ecclesia Schema: "As is self-evident, the Council's text must always be interpreted in accordance with the general rules that are known to all."

On this occasion the Theological Commission makes reference to its Declaration of March 6, 1964, the text of which we transcribe here:

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation."


My question: What is the binding language that one must look for as prescribed by the council itself. Because honestly, I don't see binding language anywhere. Help me out.









Reply
#2
It's just giving the general rule on interpretation of Concilliar texts (which also applies to papal teaching, for that matter). Since, as you note,  there doesn't appear to be anything that indicates any particular declaration in Chapter III is definitively binding, this applies:

"The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation."

Barring any definitively binding language, the general rule which would have been known to all at that point is that the teachings are to receive "obsequium relgiousum" (religious submission).  That would be a docile and interior acceptance and sincere application of the teaching. This is not an unconditional acceptance like faith, however.  While one must give the supreme magisterium the presumption of truth, if, after a good faith effort to accept the teaching one believes it is in error, one could qualify or withhold acceptance.  Then, one could submit criticisms, appropriate to one's rank and competence, to the relevant authority. 

If the Council makes known that a decision is merely in the practical realm even lower forms of acceptance might be required, like silentium obsequium (reverent silence), which does not require an inner agreement, but merely a good faith effort to obey and to otherwise hold one's tongue (except to raise criticisms in the manner described for religious submission).

these kinds of assent maintain the proper hierarchy of judges and authority and eliminate occasions for some who disagree to scandalize others who don't, while still accounting for the possibility of error and its correction.

See also par. 23-31 here (it is geared to the role of theologians, not untrained laymen, but the general principles can be drawn out of it):

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...on_en.html
Reply
#3
Sebastian, I hear what your saying. What is your take on your cited quote in light of Cardinal Kasper:


"The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation."



If there has been an admitted action (Kasper) by the Council to give "two definitons", how is one supposed to apply the above quoted rule? We're not talking about the constant teachings of the Church throughout history and it's "mind", which of course is the mind of God, guided by the Holy Ghost. The rule above asks to think with the mind of the Council. Which mind? The ones who hijacked it, or the ones that were in the minority?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)