Obedience to Vatican II

A true Traditionalist will obey every dogma and avoid every anathema promulgated by Vatican II…every one of them.

:smiley:

V2 proclaimed no dogmas and issued no anathemas. If you think it did then produce the documents.

The smiley face is supposed to convey sarcasm.

Sarcasm usually does not work well in written media.

Anyways.

Whats the whole point of this thread?

Even though Vatican II proclaimed no dogmas it was still an Ecumenical Council and still requires the assent of the Faithful.

Wow. :eek: I wouldn’t have known that reading the threads in this forum.

It’s hard to “assent” to something that manages to say so very little in so many words.

It was my 800th post and I was feeling squirrely, so no real point.

I just think it odd that the Second Vatican Council is like no other. No other ecumenical council in the history of the Church issued no dogmas or anathemas. It was more like an Ecumenical Essay Contest than a council.

This thread has me thinking of a couple of things. One is, if we must assent to Vatican II, then what exactly are we obliged to assent to? With no canons or anathemas does even Vatican II oblige us to accept everything in it? So much is very vague or stated in extremely general terms, and seems extremely open to very broad interpretation. For this reason I have found myself wondering in the past, what did a person have to accept after that council that they didn’t have to accept before it?

Also, I have been wondering how we know that Vatican II is an ecumenical council? I am not saying I don’t think it is, but how do we know it is? Where is that actually definitively stated by the Church? Just curious about that.

Patrick

We can at least say that it is an ecumenical council in a category all its own.

We must follow the living magisterium however…except we can’t follow them because they are teaching error and approving false disciplines…so we must look for an explanation.

V2, for the most part, is an essay in ambiguity. In this regard it is brilliant…inspired by one who is so very intelligent…and who has way too much time on his hands.

The '“smoke of Satan” definitely puts it into a category of its own.

except we can’t follow them because they are teaching error and approving false disciplines

Would you mind elaborating?

No other ecumenical council in the history of the Church issued no dogmas or anathemas.

Well, they spoke in different styles. ie, the early councils had a clear list of canons (though even that is not unambiguous, it clearly confuses the orthodox, as some were disciplinary canons changeable while others were dogma). Then the different style of Trent and Vatican I.

There have been several odd or obscure, but nonetheless ecumenical, councils.

Ever hear much about Vienne?

And Pisa was only ecumenical during its later sessions and those condemnations retroactively approved by the Pope who finally got sorted out in the Western Schism.

:rotfl:

The Council of Vienne was held during the Avignon papacy and did condemn various heresies. The council of Pisa was not a legitimate ecumenical council, it was illegally convoked by anti-pope John XXIII. It was the Council of Constance that settled the Great Western Schism.

Anyway, this really has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. All of the previous 20 ecumenical councils used clear language to affirm dogma or condemn heresy. Vatican II did neither.

Please, I hope that my intention is not misunderstood. I am not really suggesting that it is not an Ecumenical Council, or even stating that I have an opinion on it. And I am also not trying to suggest that Catholics are not required to assent to it. However, I am thinking both more generally and more specifically.

For instance, in what do we specifically have to assent? I am really not very aware of much of substance that one can lay down is required. It really didn’t define much very specifically and rather just used vague language to say things like the Church is the Church and people should be in it, if possible, and so on. It really didn’t seem to change much. It did lay out a plan, I seem to recall, of how to look at ecumenism, but is this stuff really dogmatic? Just as was pointed out above much in the early Councils was disciplinary and could be changed, and it would seem that another Council could theoretically change that approach.

And that takes me to my next thought, how do we know for certain that it is truly Ecumenical? And does that status really have any impact? VII did seem to change much about the basic approach of Trent, and that was Ecumenical. Why could the day not come when VII was somewhat superseded by another council just as it seemed to supersede Trent?

The post above mentioning Pisa and Vienne (I am ignorant of both BTW) just make me more curious. How do we know for sure that any of these councils are truly Ecumenical? Sure, we treat them as such, but I just have never known if there is a sure-fire way to know just which councils are Ecumenical and which are not. How exactly has that worked? Have Popes declared them as such afterward? And was that declaration ‘ex cathedra?’

Patrick

The council of Pisa was not a legitimate ecumenical council, it was illegally convoked by anti-pope John XXIII. It was the Council of Constance that settled the Great Western Schism.

True. Sorry, I mixed up Pisa and Constance.

Nevertheless, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Constance, “This council is thus ecumenical only in its last sessions (42-45 inclusive) and with respect to the decrees [against Wycliffe and Hus] of earlier sessions approved by Martin V.”

So it certainly wasn’t perfect. In fact, it was highly irregular with only 3 out of 45 sessions being a valid Ecumenical council.

The Council of Vienne was held during the Avignon papacy and did condemn various heresies.

“The Acts of the council have disappeared, with the exception of a fragment which Father Ehrle, S. J., found in a manuscript in the National Library at Paris (see below). Consequently there is no positive certainty as to the course of the synod.”

It seemed to have mainly dealt with the Knights Templars (back when they were good and merely condemned due to French politics) and some sort of stillborn crusade.

Not particularly dogmatic. Not particularly disciplinary. Not particularly unequivocal. Not particularly important. Yet, still Ecumenical. And yet, what do I today have to assent to from the council of Vienne? Not much.

Vatican II is a perfectly valid ecumenical council…but it really didnt say anything new or issue anything but restatements of already defined dogma in a new, less confrontational “tone”.

Not all ecumenical councils have to be important. Look at the first council of Lyons. Pretty obscure. Dealt mainly with petty politics and the emperor Frederick. But you’re right, it did issue unambiguous religious canons too:

“The Council of Lyons took several other, purely religious, measures; it obliged the Cistercians to pay tithes, approved the Rule of the Order of Grandmont, decided the institution of the octave of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, and prescribed that henceforth cardinals should wear a red hat.” :rolleyes: Pretty important, LOL…

Who are you to judge that they (the Council) were teaching “errors” and approving “false” discipline?

And can you elaborate on your following statement?

In this regard it is brilliant…inspired by one who is so very intelligent…and who has way too much time on his hands.

Except the Council of Constance was convened to clear up confusion…while Vatican II resulted in confusion.

Please, I hope that my intention is not misunderstood. I am not really suggesting that it is not an Ecumenical Council, or even stating that I have an opinion on it. And I am also not trying to suggest that Catholics are not required to assent to it. However, I am thinking both more generally and more specifically.

Patrick,

You have misunderstood my response. I was merely pointing out that we laymen do not follow ecumenical councils…we follow the teaching authority of the Church. Now, the Church teaches that She cannot lead souls astray…but it appears that this very thing has happened. Souls were and are being led astray by following the “teaching authority”…then by Her own teaching…the Church tells us that these are false shepherds and must be rejected.

Gorman

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.