Authority of Vatican 2
#1
Does Vatican 2 have the same authority as other councils? I was told that it made no infallible pronouncements so could be revoked.  That it was not called over a theological dispute, and that the Roman leadership did not chose the bishops but they were elected. Does this make it not binding on Catholics?
Reply
#2
(11-10-2019, 03:00 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: Does Vatican 2 have the same authority as other councils? I was told that it made no infallible pronouncements so could be revoked.  That it was not called over a theological dispute, and that the Roman leadership did not chose the bishops but they were elected. Does this make it not binding on Catholics?

The council/pope specifically stated that it was pastoral in nature and made no binding, infallible statements.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • Tolkien1096
Reply
#3
There are different degrees to which Catholics must assent.

What is declared to be "of Faith" must be believed without reservation. Rejection of this would be heresy. The Holy Ghost only works at this level to protect the councils and Popes from defining anything against the Faith as necessary to be believed as part of revelation.


What is taught otherwise must be accepted, but out of deference to the dignity of the teacher. Thus if a council says something which is not "of Faith" but for which there is no reason to make any objection, then it must be accepted. To fail to do so would not be against the faith, but a species of Pride, setting oneself unreasonably over experts who are giving a theological opinion. 

When there is, however, good reason to question or doubt such latter statements which normally require a religious submission, but not Faith, one would be free to doubt. This would especially be the case if notable persons of repute questioned these things.

The latter is the case with the Second Vatican Council. The history alone should show that not everything said ought to be accepted out of hand. The council was prepared for years by experts, and the first act of the liberals was to throw away all the preparatory work and substitute their own pre-prepared ideas. Since this is highly imprudent, it becomes very easy to think there is some problem here.

There was a large contingent of conservative Fathers who objected, and after the council we have have good solid theologians throwing up objections to certain points.

So that means, that no, Vatican II does not have the same authority as Trent, for instance. Trent defined many things clearly, Vatican II defined nothing, and was very much unclear and even seems to have called into question certain things previously taught by the Church and Popes.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jack89, Tolkien1096
Reply
#4
Thanks. So is it the traditionalist Catholics who often object to vatican 2? I here that is when liberalism and modernism crept in.
Reply
#5
(11-10-2019, 04:14 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: Thanks. So is it the traditionalist Catholics who often object to vatican 2? I here that is when liberalism and modernism crept in.

This page might help you, Tolkien: https://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalca...sm101.html
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#6
I am being received into the Ukrainian Byzantine rite. Greek Catholics do not acknowledge anything past Nicaea II as dogmatic authority. This is based on first millennium rules on ecumenical councils.
Reply
#7
(11-10-2019, 06:01 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: I am being received into the Ukrainian Byzantine rite. Greek Catholics do not acknowledge anything past Nicaea II as dogmatic authority. This is based on first millennium rules on ecumenical councils.

So you're telling me you're at liberty to not believe in the infallibility of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption? Why be Catholic then? Just join the schismatics. I'm sorry to tell you, but the whole Church, regardless of Rite or sui generis status is bound by the decisions of Ecumenical Councils and infallible Papal decrees.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#8
(11-10-2019, 04:14 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: Thanks. So is it the traditionalist Catholics who often object to vatican 2? I here that is when liberalism and modernism crept in.

Being a traditionalist is about being the coolest Catholic in the room and totally dabbing on the "Nerdus Ordumb" losers. That's why we are called "rad trads."
Reply
#9
(11-10-2019, 06:22 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(11-10-2019, 06:01 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: I am being received into the Ukrainian Byzantine rite. Greek Catholics do not acknowledge anything past Nicaea II as dogmatic authority. This is based on first millennium rules on ecumenical councils.

So you're telling me you're at liberty to not believe in the infallibility of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption? Why be Catholic then? Just join the schismatics. I'm sorry to tell you, but the whole Church, regardless of Rite or sui generis status is bound by the decisions of Ecumenical Councils and infallible Papal decrees.
Yes. But the councils past Nicaea II do not have ecumenical status and the pope's infallibility is dependent on the Church. This is simple common sense!
Reply
#10
(11-10-2019, 06:01 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: I am being received into the Ukrainian Byzantine rite. Greek Catholics do not acknowledge anything past Nicaea II as dogmatic authority. This is based on first millennium rules on ecumenical councils.

Half of my family are Greek Catholics (of Slavic rites). We accept all of the Ecumenical Councils.

The Orthodox reject these, and that is one reason they are schismatics. Those "rules" you mention are made up by the Orthodox to reject the Church of Christ and justify their separation.

I think you have been given bogus advice from someone who is at least crypto-Orthodox.

Anyway, whether people accept it or not, dogmatic definitions like which are found in Trent and Vatican I are binding on all Catholics, and to deny them would be heresy. To quibble about the theological definitions of certain things (e.g. the Immaculate Conception) is not a problem, but to deny the dogmatic authority of what has been declared by the Vicar of Christ or all the Ecumenical Councils as being required to be believed by Faith is to reject the Faith.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Florus, jovan66102, yablabo
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)