Replies

"Just HOW MANY of the Documents do you reject? Why not just come out and tell us forthrightly?"

There you go - jumping to conclusions again. I don't reject any of the documents because most of them simply re-state traditional Catholic teaching but in a more up to date vocabulary. Some of them contain beautiful expositions of the faith which serve to deepen our love for God.

However, there are some ambiguities that admit of an illicit interpretation, and I would have a problem with these to the extent of wishing to see them clarified by the Magisterium. That is not the same as rejecting an entire document.

For instance, take the following sentence in Gaudium et spes 24:

"This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.(2)"

I have no problem with the main object of the sentence which is perfectly true and scriptural, however the parenthetical statement in the middle:

"who is the only creature on earth which GOD WILLED FOR ITSELF"

SEEMS to conflict with our notion of God as an impassible being who willed all things FOR HIMSELF, and who alone is non-contingent existence. As various prelates and theologians have taken this phrase out of context to support aspects of their teaching, I think it important that the Church should either correct it at some point, or, as it appears to be a novel doctrine, show clearly how it accords with the rest of revelation. After all isn't this what JPII urged theologians to do in Ecclesia Dei - in order to clear up ambiguities in the Council's document's?

There again I could just say that as the Council did not intend to establish anything as binding which it did not specifically put forward as such, and this phrase has not been promulgated as binding, then I am free to ignore it until such time that the Church clarifies it definitively.

"do you prefer to just attack the Council piecemeal?"

No - I just prefer not to be a conciliar fundamentalist!

<> Conciliar fundamentalist is a new one for me. I have heard of Concilairist as a denigrating term though. There has never been a Council that didn't have statements or documents that didn't admit of ilicit interpretations. That goes for the Ten Commandments also.

To me it is remarkable that folks have a "problem" with an Ecumenical Council and need clarifications prior to , yes, reflexive, acceptance of all of the Documents and statements of an Ecumenical Council. All Ecumenical Councils are, by their nature, Infallible and so one OUGHT to reflexively accept every single word, including "it" and "the" and every single punctuation, including "semi colons" and "parentheses," as having been preserved by the Holy Spirit from error and as having been formulated as spiritual nourishment for us by our Spiritual Fathers, the Pope and the Bishops in union with him.

To me it is a badge of honor to wear the tag of "conciliarist" or "conciliar fundamentalist" while one who withholds their assent until furter instruction (do you need an Encyclical or a moto proprio or a telephone call from the Pope before accepting that the probelm might be with you and not the Ecumenical Council?) faces,potentially, far more serious issues to address; such as, intellectual pride and private judgement.<>

<> I have been too busy to go through my Vatican Two material to respond with citations that show you do have a duty to accept an Ecuemnical Council and its decisions. That poor priest is wrong and his words are dangerous to any Catholic.

As soon as I get to the Council texts, I will show where you are wrong. I can tell you generally that you are wrong to use those words to evade accepting everything a Council decides. As a general premise, one is bound to accept any decision by competent authorities and this is even more so the case when Extraordinary circumstance applies - such as an Ecumenical Council. I see you have difficulty with part of G.S. Well, does that have to do with Faith or not? <>

No - I just prefer not to be a conciliar fundamentalist!

<> I will note that what used to be traditional and normal -faithful docility before The Magisterium of the Catholic Church established by Jesus as the Pillar and Ground of truth - now warrants a weird designation, "conciliar fundamentalist," as though Faithful Obedience were a failure or fault.

Traditionalists often complain the world has been turned upside down yet they NEVER recognise their own participation in turning it upside down. Once praiseworthy, obedience is now denigrated as a type of fundamentalism.<>

Infallibility of a General Council is intrinsic to its very nature and does not depend upon defining dogmas to be an effective charism. There is a distinction that the SSPX fails to make in their facile separation of dogmatic and pastoral as an excuse to controvert the authority of an Ecumenical Council like schismatics and heretics from days of yore. That separation is between dogmas credenda and doctrines tenenda. Both are infallible and require the same degree of assent.

Vatican II taught several doctrines tenenda but no dogmas credenda. Doctrines tenenda do not require any particular formulas or specific language to be set forth as definitive and binding. (Or to use the oft-abused term "infallibly".) Thus by denying the Council’s teachings or refusing to assent to them is to sever oneself from the Church into a state of schism.

Not all teachings of the Council would fit this criteria of definitive status; however even the lowest level of authority among the documents (the decree of which nine of the sixteen documents were constituted) still are at the level of the authentic Magisterium requiring religious submission of will and intellect. To quote the Cardinal Prefect on the matter, teachings of the authentic magisterium are:

[A]ll those teachings - on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest". (Cardinal Rzatzinger Commentary of Professio Fidei)

At a bare minimum one can qualify the assertions of the SSPX as "erroneous", when they controvert the teachings of the Council in the various documents set forth.

The Decrees were primarily (though not exclusively) promulgated to warn against ideas incompatible with the truths of the faith and against dangerous opinions which can lead to error. The Declarations of teaching from the Council (of which there were three set forth) are even higher in authority then the Decrees. These were set forth primarily to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation (most notably Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate, which specifically set forth to develop doctrine). The Constitutions are of the highest authority and deal with fundamental aspects of the faith. Included among these fundamental documents is a Constitution on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), and a primarily (but not exclusively) Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). There were also two Dogmatic Constitutions as mentioned previously. (One on the Church and one on Divine Revelation which were promulgated by the Council to finish the work of Vatican I.)...

They were addressed with regards to several teachings contained therein that were clearly set forth definitively (and thus infallibly) in a non-defining manner. But levels of infallibility are not what makes these documents authoritative. Instead, what makes them binding is the authority of the Pope who promulgated them with his Apostolic authority as Pastor of the Universal Church in union with the Fathers of the Sacred Council.

Authority is not contingent upon a teaching being infallible. This ironically is a version of one of the errors condemned in Bl. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus. Error twenty-two read as follows: "The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church." The modification of the modern ‘traditionalist’ error stems in presuming that infallibility is the criterion of truth. This is not true at all and has never been viewed as a legitimate opinion to hold by the Magisterium.

At a General Council the promulgation of a document by the Pope and the Bishops acting in union with him is sufficient to guarantee the protection of doctrinal or moral error. That does not mean that the documents are verbally inspired of course, only that they are protected from teaching doctrinal or moral error by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28).

<> Mimic the SSPX or be a faithful Catholic? Easy choice, for me. I stand with the Council and Tradition Catholicsm and I stand unsnookered.<>