There is a very interesting piece from Sandro Magister at espresso.
It is about the Credo of the People of God issued by Pope Paul VI.
The Credo of Paul VI. Who Wrote It, and Why
The Church had a 1968 upheaval of its own, expressed for example in the Dutch Catechism. The response of pope Montini was the "Credo of the People of God." It has now come to light that it was written by his friend, the philosopher Jacques Maritain
by Sandro Magister
ROMA, June 6, 2008 – At the end of this month, Pope Benedict XVI will inaugurate a jubilee year dedicated to the apostle Paul, on the occasion of the 2,000th anniversary of his birth. The celebration will begin on Saturday, the vigil of the saint’s feast day, and will end one year later.
Forty years ago, between 1967 and 1968, Pope Paul VI did something similar. He dedicated a year of celebrations to the apostles Peter and Paul, on the occasion of the nineteenth centenary of their martyrdom. He called it the "Year of Faith." And he concluded it in Saint Peter’s Square, on June 30, 1968, with the proclamation of a solemn profession of faith, the "Credo of the People of God."
The text of this Credo retraced the one formulated at the Council of Nicea, which is recited at each Mass. But with important expansions and developments.
How, and why, did Paul VI get the idea to coronate the Year of Faith with the proclamation of the Credo of the People of God? And how was the text produced?
The answer to these two questions is in a book soon to be published in France, the sixth volume of the "Correspondence" between the Swiss theologian and cardinal Charles Journet and the French philosopher Jacques Maritain, the 303 letters that the two exchanged between 1965 and 1973.
Because it was Maritain who wrote the outline of the Credo of the People of God that Paul VI later recited. In the upcoming volume, the two texts will be printed side by side, with the few variations highlighted.
Meanwhile, however Cardinal Georges Cottier – a disciple of Journet, and theologian emeritus of the pontifical household – has already revealed the background of the Credo in the international magazine "30 Days," in the cover story of the latest issue.
* * *Maritain was 85 years old in 1967. He was living in Toulouse, with the Little Brothers of Charles de Foucauld. He had just published "Le paysan de la Garonne [The peasant of the Garonne]," an unsparing criticism of the post-conciliar Church "on its knees before the world."
On January 12, Cardinal Journet wrote to Maritain to tell him that he would soon be meeting with the pope, in Rome. Neither of them knew that Paul VI intended to enact the Year of Faith. But Maritain confided to Journet that a few days before, "an idea had come to me," which he describes this way:
"The Sovereign Pontiff should draft a complete and detailed profession of faith, in which everything that is really contained in the Symbol of Nicea would be presented explicitly. This will be, in the history of the Church, the profession of faith of Paul VI."
Although Maritain did not ask him to do so, Journet photocopied the philosopher’s letter and gave it to the pope, when he met with him on January 18. On that occasion, Paul VI asked the theologian for his judgment on the state of the Church’s health. "Tragic," Journet answered. Both he and the pope were in shock over the publication in Holland, one year earlier and with the blessing of the bishops, of a new Catechism aimed at nothing less than "substituting one orthodoxy for another in the Church, a modern orthodoxy for the traditional orthodoxy" (a comment from the commission of cardinals instituted by Paul VI to examine the Catechism, of which Journet was a member).
On February 22, 1967, Paul VI announced the Year of Faith. And two days later, Maritain noted in his diary:
"Is this, perhaps, the preparation for a profession of faith that he himself will proclaim?"
That same year, from September 29 to October 29, the first synod of bishops met in Rome. The final report of the doctrinal commission submitted to the pope the proposal of issuing a declaration on the essential points of the faith.
On December 14, Paul VI again met with Cardinal Journet, who told him about Maritain’s idea. And Paul VI reminded him that others had already suggested, at the end of Vatican Council II, the promulgation of a new symbol of faith. He himself, the pope, had asked the famous Dominican theologian Yves Congar to prepare a text, but he wasn’t satisfied with it, and set it aside.
Then, suddenly, Paul VI said to Journet, "You two, prepare for me an outline of what you think should be done."Back in Switzerland, Journet told Maritain about the pope’s request. And at the beginning of the new year, while he was in Paris, Maritain drafted a profession of faith. He finished it on January 11, 1968, and on the 20th he sent it to Journet. The following day, he sent it on to Paul VI.
It emerges from the correspondence between the theologian and the philosopher that Maritain intended his text to be simply a guide, to assist Journet. But Journet decided to send the text to the pope without adding anything. In his view, it already answered all of the doubts raised by the Dutch Catechism and by famous theologians on dogmas like original sin, the Mass as sacrifice, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, creation from nothing, the primacy of Peter, the virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption.
On April 6, a letter arrived from Rome from the Dominican theologian Benoît Duroux, an adviser for the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. It praised Maritain’s text and supplied a few comments, which Journet interpreted as having come from Paul VI, who had sent the cardinal a brief message of thanks.
Then nothing. On June 30, 1968, Paul VI solemnly proclaimed the Credo of the People of God in Saint Peter’s Square. Maritain found out about this only on July 2, when he read about it in the paper. From the citations, he surmised that the Credo that the pope had presented closely matched the one he had written.
And he was right. The few variations include one regarding the Jews and Muslims.
In one passage, Maritain had explicitly cited the common witness that the Israelites and Muslims give to the one God, together with Christians. But in his Credo, Paul VI gives thanks to the divine goodness for the "many believers" who share faith in the one God with Christians, without specifically mentioning Judaism and Islam.
During the 1950’s, Maritain came close to being condemned by the Holy Office for his philosophical thought, suspected of "extreme naturalism." One reason why the condemnation was not issued was that he was defended by Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Paul VI, who at the time was substitute secretary of state and had a longstanding friendship with the French thinker.
Loading ...
And Paul VI reminded him that others had already suggested, at the end of Vatican Council II, the promulgation of a new symbol of faith. He himself, the pope, had asked the famous Dominican theologian Yves Congar to prepare a text, but he wasn’t satisfied with it, and set it aside.
It’s often very easy to criticise Pope Paul VI but it looks as if he (on re-consideration) saved the Church from what might have turned to be a very problematic Credo. From something that might have caused even more disturbance and confusion than the changes to the liturgy.
Paul VI is probably one of the most mysterious figures in the history of the Church.
Maritain and Journet are both great 20th century Thomists. In my opinion, the works of these two men provide the intellectual tools to understand Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity” — all in the language of Thomist scholasticism. Traditionalists who have problems with Vatican II should read Journet’s “Church of the Word Incarnate” and his “Theology of the Church”. Interestingly, Archbishop Lefebvre considered Journet a ally on the question of the Mass and referred to him as a “great theologian”. I recommend that those especially close to the SSPX get aquainted with this “great theologian”.
Wow, we could use another Maritain in the tragic situation the world is in today. Thank God we do have strong leaders and have had wonderful Pope’s to get us through difficult and confusing times! God bless!
This Credo is, indeed, the true “Spirit of Vatican II.” Thank you so much for recalling it to my attention. There is much food for meditation here.
I really do like this document of his. I read it a couple months ago and was quite surprised that it came from WHO it did WHEN it did. I’ve suggested incorporating it into my parish’s RCIA program, because it explains the Creed from a Catholic perspective.
I found this Credo in pamphlet form and read it one day. I was rather impressed.
I wonder if there had been a new Symbol Faith after the Council: would ‘attachment’ to the Nicene Creed provoke as much disfavour (from certain circles) as attachment to the traditional liturgy of the Church has done? Let’s be thankful that there was no such development.
By the way, does anyone ever say the Athanasian Creed? Didn’t priests have to recite it every Sunday? Or am I imagining it?
Within the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite the Athanasian Creed is used occasionally. My own parish uses it on Trinity Sunday. It is included in the Book of Divine Worship.
When all is said and done however, Paul VI carried out the auto-demolition of the church. He was a perplex figure: he seemed to show genuine remorse over the ravages in the church – ravages that came out of reforms he approved and yet he took no pains to remedy them. According to Alice von Hildebrand, apart from Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (which again, Paul VI took no actions against the Canadian conference of Bishops, when they waved two fingers to it) his own papacy was one of chaos and unrest.
It isn’t surprising that Paul VI defended people who were censured by the Holy Office in the 1950s. He was personally friends with Lubac, Congar, Balthasar and Rahner – the liberal voices of the Second Vatican Council. Even Paul VI’s biographer, Peter Hebblewaite, records how the young Montini recorded in his memoirs that he took delight in hiding books in his seminary dormitory that were on the Index of Forbidden Books.
He was personally friends with Lubac, Congar, Balthasar….
So was Pope Benedict. Frankly, using political categories to define the ideas of faithful theologians is not being fair to the facts.
Latin Mass Magazine has a very interesting piece by Dr. Alice von Hildebrand about Paul VI and his relationship to Maritain.
If we want to play the “gotcha” game against Paul VI, then we must also bash Pius XII for the bishops he appointed.
All in all, it’s a bad game to play. Legitimate criticism is due, but Paul VI (and later JPII) spent tremendous energies simply stopping wholesale schism.
By the way, does anyone ever say the Athanasian Creed?
In the traditional Breviary — now gloriously restored to use, the ICEL LOH being possibly even worse than the ICEL Mass — the Athanasian creed is said just once annually (so far as I know) — immediately following the Gloria Patri after the last psalm at Prime on Trinity Sunday. Prior to 1960 it was said at this point in Prime on the “lesser Sundays” after Epiphany and Pentecost.
Ottaviani. I could respond to each of your points but I think that in doing so I might cause you to post more examples of disapproval.
Instead, I will close with the words of Johannes Paulus Magnus at the funeral Mass for Cardinal Ottaviani:
He was really a great priest,distinguished for his religious piety; exemplary fidelity in the service of Holy Church and of the Apostolic See, solicitous in his ministry and in the practice of religious charity. He possessed that spirit which is expressed in special attachment to Peter, and, again, in keen sensitiveness to what the Church of Peter is and does and must do….Fidelity was the constant characteristic of his whole life…
Are you sure your actions are consistent with the honor and fidelity of the great man whom your screen name honors?
Pope Paul VI is dead. And each Wednesday, Pope Benedict delivers his weekly audience addresses in The Pope Paul VI Hall in the Vatican. No good can come of continuing to attack Pope Paul.
All men are weak and sinful. Even Popes. But, it is Christian tradition that we do not speak ill of the dead.
LCB, I sometimes wonder that perhaps wholesale schism might benefit the Church in the long run. Something about pruning and healthy growth comes to mind.
“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things…” Lumen Gentium (16).
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Maritain was asking for the same wording as found in documents from Vatican II.
“But, it is Christian tradition that we do not speak ill of the dead.”
This is beyond a silly assertion – especially in regards historic figures crucial to our understanding of the present by way of past events.
Yes, we should not speak ill of the dead, in most cases, as it is usually not necessary and therefore gratuitous and uncharitable.
In most cases.
In the case of Paul VI, the case has already been made, many times, in many quarters, for his being a part of the “auto demolition” of the church, or at least not a strong resistor, or strong enough. It is then up to others who disagree to challenge those assertions and make a strong case to refute that, if one has such information, so that some semblance of the truth might emerge. But, really, to say “don’t speak ill..” is well ..?
Better start striking some of those Judas passages, and many others as well, out of the Bible, according to that principal. Sheesh.
The section on the Holy Spirit conspicuously avoids a filioque. I just thought that was interesting.
But, Quaesumus, the section on the Father states, “We believe…in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love[.]”
The Latin says, “credimus in Spiritum Sanctum, Personam increatam, qui ex Patre *Filioque* ut sempiternus eorum Amor procedit.”
Craigmaddie,
Interesting that you should mention the Athanasian Creed (the “Quiqumque vult”). The Trinitarian articles of Paul VI’s Credo reminded me very much of the Quicumque.
I believe that it was once said on Sundays at Prime. Then in one of the pre-Vatican II “reforms” of the Breviary it was restricted to Trinity Sunday at Prime. When Prime was suppressed that was that.
Too bad… it’s a wonderful and powerful profession of Faith. I was very happy to find that it is included in the “Handbook of Prayers” published by the Midwest Theological Forum as well as in their “Daily Roman Missal” so it’s not too difficulty to incorporate into one’s devotional life.
My favorite phrase: “40. This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise, one cannot be saved.” It sounds even better in the Latin.
“Maritain was asking for the same wording as found in documents from Vatican II.”
Malta, I think there are advantages to both, however, in the formulation of the Credo it does not limit other “believers” in the One God to only Muslims and Jews. Nor does is necessarily presume that all Muslims and Jews are “believers” in the proper supernatural sense.
Dear Schoolman,
I don’t think there are advantages to publicly proclaiming either; although the statements might be technically true (ie there was a recent Muslim who was Baptized and Confirmed by Pope BXVI, so Muslims can be included in God’s plan of salvation, particularly if they enter the Church, or through invincible ignorance, and the lack of mortal sin: an unlikely concoction, these days, in my opinion.) I don’t think we need to be affirming the possibility of salvation to non-believers in Creeds about our own faith, such statements are singled-out and can lead to indifferentism, relativism and syncretism…
Malta, I think there are errors to be avoided in both exremes. In this case, it is good to include it to defend against errors of Feeneyism and such like.
Dear Schoolman,
I don’t think it is error to believe in Feeneyism; St. Aquinas rejected such notions, but St. Augustine would have agreed. In any case, there are societies which profess Feeneyism in perfect communion with Rome, as its contrary is not a dogma or doctrine to be professed to be in communion. Myself, since all of my relatives are protestants, I can’t wrap my mind around Feenyism, but, of course, I’m not God, and I do think Christ founded one Church to save us from damnation. The Sacrifice of Christ and the Sacraments weren’t given to us as accrutements to enjoy, but are necessary for salvation; otherwise, what is the point? The Catholic Church becomes “irrelevant,” or, “unnecessary”…
“I don’t think it is error to believe in Feeneyism…”
Malta, you may have been mis-informed regarding Feeneyism. To recognize that God can and does distribute “sufficient” salvific grace to all men — even those who do not belong to the Church as visible members — takes nothing away from the Church and its necessity for salvation. Such men can have a spiritual and invisible bond with the Church — but without the fulness or perfection of visible membership and all the spiritual benifits that this entails.
Dear Schoolman,
I tend to agree with you, but your belief is not a dogma or doctrine to be believe by all in order to be in communion with Rome (SSPX, btw, agrees with you, and rejects Feeneyism.)
“I tend to agree with you, but your belief is not a dogma or doctrine to be believe by all in order to be in communion with Rome…”
Malta, this doctrine is explicitly taught in the CCC. General or “universal” catechisms form part of the ordinary universal magisterium and demand the assent of all Catholics.
dear schoolman,
It is not a dogma or doctrine to believe that any non-Catholic may go to heaven. It is NOT explicitly taught in the CCC. Read the words carefully. Much of the flaw in the modern CCC and documents of VII is that they can be read to mean what the reader wants them to mean. I guarantee you that Universal Salvation cannot be found in said documents. It would be nice if it could; it would give my mind alot of ease, for one. But I think that Christ died on the Cross for a very serious reason: ie, none of us deserve to be saved. We can play loosey-goosey all night and into the next day if you want, but the fact is that the infallible doctrine of, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” has been declared three times by popes and infallible councils.
There is no doctrine that even one person outside of the Church can be saved. Not one. Point me to it. You say that, “this doctrine [possibility of salvation outside the Church] is explicitly taught in CCC.” It has not; there is no doctrine that Salvation is even possible outside the Church. There are hopeful pronouncements, but no doctrines or dogmas. Not every option in CCC is a doctrine. For instance, its stance on the death penalty is not a doctrine of the Church…
Malta,
The duplicity of the modernists concerning EENS is in the phrase,”means of salvation.” That has been cleverly un-defined. It was always known and taught that whatever grace operates on those outside of the Church is for the express purpose of bringing them into the Church.
The Holy Spirit may use events and distribute grace through some faulty non-Catholic means but it is a secondary means to get a person to the first means of salvation. Namely, the Catholic Church.
The second duplicitous misrepresentation is claiming that Fr. Feeney believed that salvation was only if one had their name in the Church registry. That’s the straw man that the modernists set up in order to mislead people about Fr. Feeney.
It comes down to a matter of faith. If someone honestly and truly searches out God with their whole heart and whole strength, God will supply them with what HE has deemed necessary. Namely a water baptism. We have a lot of cases of Angels and Saints baptizing through supernatural means, bilocation of priests and infused knowledge being supplied, but God will not abandon anyone seeking Him nor will he require rationalizations of his word by men in order to “pick up the slack.”
Conversely, neither will He needlessly extend His grace if someone has lived a life against the natural law and rejected sufficient grace without ever knowing of Christ.
All this talk of the ‘traditional’ Breviary forces me to point out that the Breviary of 1962 was, at the time of its quasi-abrogation, only as traditional as the Novus Ordo Mass is today: there in parts, licit and valid, but very different from the liturgy of the Church for centuries. For those who do not know, the Roman Breviary was rather seriously reformed in 1911. Nevertheless, I must confess ignorance on how often the Athanasian Creed was said in the Old Old Breviary.
hmm, gerard, I guess I agree with you, I ardently wish to agree with you, but I must again stress that unless Christ’s Sacrifice is salvific, then it means nothing.
Here’s another question: “Who really knows Christ?:”
The Sacrifice of the Mass is unknown to most Catholics, wouldn’t you agree?
Of course Ratzinger was friendly with Lubac, Congar, Balthasar. He was amoung the New Theologians condemned by Cardinal Ottaviani’s Holy Office in the 1950s.
If this story of Cardinal Cottier is true and the Church was saved from a Symbol of Faith by this Credo its furthur evidence of the Divine Nature of the Catholic Church. Humanly speaking the Church would be dead by now as a result of the manouverings of Paul VI.
Speaking of the great Cardinal Ottaviani: is there any movement to recognize his sainthood?
I find it impressive that, in the Homily pronounced during the Funeral Mass for Cardinal Ottaviani, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II started by uttering the “Ecce Sacerdos magnus”, quasi recognizing Cardinal Ottaviani, Bishop, as a confessor:
“Ecce Sacerdos magnus, qui in diebus suis placuit Deo et inventus est iustus” (cf. Sir 44,16-17): sono queste le prime parole che mi salgono spontaneamente alle labbra nel momento in cui offriamo a Dio il sacrificio eucaristico e ci accingiamo a dare l’estremo saluto al venerato fratello, il Cardinale Alfredo Ottaviani.
It brings to mind the fact that, according to the Apostolic Brief Exsulta, Lusitania issued by Pope Pius XII to declare St. Anthony a Doctor of the Church, it is recorded that, centuries earlier, Pope Gregory IX already uttered the following words regarding Anthony: “O doctor optime, Ecclesiae Sanctae lumen, beate Antoni divinae legis amator, deprecare pro nobis Filium Dei”.
Just as the papal use of the antiphon “O Doctor Optime” regarding St. Anthony was an anticipation of his future declaration as a doctor of the Church, I see the papal use of the antiphon “Ecce Sacerdos” as an anticipation of Ottaviani’s future canonization. He was indeed a great priest!
So, when people claim that the popes never clarified Vat II in light of tradition
doesn’t this show that they did, but no one was listening (and still don’t.)
Trey,
But the problem is that Paul VI (and John Paul II as well) sent mixed signals all the time…
Consider Assisi.
*****
On a related topic…
I still think, reading, for instance, Mortalium Animos, that we are owned an explanation, a teaching, from our common Father, as to how the doctrine of Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings such as “Ut unum sint”, and practices such as Assisi gatherings, are compatible with earlier doctrine, reaffirmed also in the 20th century, such as the doctrine contained in Mortalium Animos.
We are taught that the Faith of the Church never changes, and we believe in that, we belive that the Church is the keeper of the deposit of Faith, handed down since the Apostles, and that there is no contradiction between what was received and what was handed down from generation to generation. The Doctrine of the Faith may be better explained, but never changed. If that is so, how is it that recent teaching does not contradict Mortalium Animos?
I know, because I believe in the Catholic Church, that there must be an answer to that question, showing us the compatibility between the two. But I cannot figure out alone how that compatibility works. It is for me a mystery. But I think it is only fair that the competent authority explains that mystery, since there must be a rational demonstration of compatibility.
Others don’t accept the premise that there is some mysterious compatibility, and then either reject earlier teaching (thus espousing the “hermeneutics of rupture”, or reject the latter teaching and even perhaps the teaching authority of current popes, labled as “modernists”, as if the Church could err in Her teachings, or as if the gates of Hell had prevailed against Her, thus rejecting several basic dogmas of Our Faith. For that reason, too, it is important for the Church to show that those people are wrong, by adressing head on the compatibility between current teaching and past teaching.
This Credo — along with Humanae Vitae — demonstrates that Our Lord will prevent the popes from teaching error. As for the rest of Paul VI’s sad reign, perhaps it can only be understood in the context of the allocution to Leo XIII in the late 19th Century: that Our Lord would somehow give satan “a century to destroy the Church.”
Dear prof. basto,
As a purely pastoral council did VII teach doctrine or dogma?
prof basto: An important place to start would be reconciling the doctrine of Religious Freedom with that of the Social Reign of Christ the King. Pope John XXIII intended the Second Vatican Council to better explain the Doctrine of the Faith. Apparently he intended this Council to last for 3 mounths but events went beyond his control and he died saying “Stop the Council. Stop the Council!”. Montini did not heed him and falsely believed he knew the mind of Pope John. As Paul VI he took the Council far beyond the wish of Pope John.
On April 6, a letter arrived from Rome from the Dominican theologian Benoît Duroux, an adviser for the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. It praised Maritain’s text and supplied a few comments, which Journet interpreted as having come from Paul VI, who had sent the cardinal a brief message of thanks.
Good to see the name of the Pere Duroux OP mentioned, a Swiss and a man I first met in 1972. Later in in 90’s he was one of my profs. He has been very much a friend of Fontgombault and made substantial effort to try to convince the OP’s to take the Society of St Vincent Ferrer. And I think he had more to do with the Credo than the article concedes.
To say that he was an adviser in the SCDF is inadequate. He was a consultor (“con un voto”, as he used to remind me). And he was much involved in the production of the catechism.
If we start claiming that our doctrines contain a “mysterious compatibility” between opposites, then we ourselves participate in the destruction of language and the denial of certainty that characterizes modern times. It’s better to recognize and weed out aberrant statements in the Church, then to go down a path on which we expect the reconciliation of opposites in the future. What opposes now, will always oppose. There’s no future in which light and darkness end up really being the same thing.
Malta asked: As a purely pastoral council did VII teach doctrine or dogma?
Vatican II was not a purely pastoral council, and if you have to ask whether or not a council that produced two dogmatic constitutions taught doctrine or dogma, then you should perhaps familiarise yourself with the chief documents of the council.
There’s no future in which light and darkness end up really being the same thing.
That is not what I have said!
And I don’t think that I participate in the post-modernistic “destruction of language and the denial of certainty that characterizes modern times”.
What I have said is that I expect THE CHURCH to clarify how pre-Vatican II doctrine on Ecumenism and post-Vatican II doctrine on Ecumenism can be compatible.
It is a fact that HOLY MOTHER CHURCH issued both teachings (i.e. pre and post Vatican II doctrines on Ecumenism). It as a fact that the Deposit of Faith does not change. It is a fact that the gates of hell have not prevailed and will never prevail against the Catholic Church.
Then it is my expectation to be shown in my lifetime how those two sets of doctrines can fit together. Not in a darkness and light kind of way – because here we have TWO DOCRINES PROMULGATED BY HOLY MOTHER CHURCH, and so neither can be termed “darkness”, for darkness does not proceed from the Church of Christ!
And God would never let the Church be confounded by error in that institutional way: God would never allow the Church’s supreme authority to publicly and formally teach errror! Neither before, nor after the Second Vatican Council . Which leads us to the conclusion that neither the pre-Vatican II teaching documents, nor the Vatican II teaching documents nor post-Vatican II teaching documents can be rejected.
And, given that the retention of all such documents generates many confusions and doubts, it is only appropriate that Mother Church clarifies how is it that both teachings fit together.
In the mean time, it is absolutely certain that there is compatibility here. For otherwise the Deposit of Faith would contain internal contradictions, and that is not possible at all. The Faith of the Church never changes. That’s a dogmatic certainty. I believe in the Holy Catholic Church. That’s a certainty as well. Benedict XVI is the Sucessor of Peter, that’s also certain, as Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II all were. SO, IT CANNOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH CATHOLIC FAITH TO ARGUE THAT ONE SET OF DOCRINE, PROMULGATED BY ONE POPE IS “DARKNESS”, WHILE THE OTHER IS “LIGHT”, AND THAT THEY ARE IN OPPOSITION. THERE CAN BE NO OPPOSITION, NO RUPTURE, ONLY CONTINUITY. I do not pretend that I am the smartest person on Earth, and given that I personally cannot figure out how, for instance, Mortalium Animos and Ut unum sint are perfectly in sync, I defer that explanation to Mother Church, IN THE CERTAINTY, HOWEVER, THAT NONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS CONTAINS ERROR, THAT BOTH TEACH THE CATHOLIC TRUTH. And in the society of that Church instituted by Christ I wish to live and die.
But in order that we might better know what is expected of us regarding Ecumenism, religious liberty/tolerance, etc., it is important that there be a clarification of the doctrine by Holy Mother Church, adressing the question of the compatibility of all the pontifical pronouncements on the matter.
All this talk of the ‘traditional’ Breviary forces me to point out that the Breviary of 1962 was, at the time of its quasi-abrogation, only as traditional as the Novus Ordo Mass is today: there in parts, licit and valid, but very different from the liturgy of the Church for centuries. For those who do not know, the Roman Breviary was rather seriously reformed in 1911. Nevertheless, I must confess ignorance on how often the Athanasian Creed was said in the Old Old Breviary.
Comment by jacobus
In the new Breviary there are several departures from what had been done for centuries.
1. The weekly cycle of Psalms is changed to a four week cycle.
2. What is now called the second reading is taken from sources other than the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
3. On Sundays and Feasts the commentary from the Fathers directly referred to the Gospel, which was read at Matins.
4. The Pauline Christological hymns have been added to the Office, a change that I like.
I understand your point of view and appreciate your answer, but the generation of confusion and doubt doesn’t spring from nowhere. It’s not always the doubter’s lack of understanding that causes confusion. Confusion may also come from language that fosters it, and authority doesn’t attach itself arbitrarily to the venue or people themselves.
Will we remain mystified awaiting the day when the ambiguity of “Tertio Millennio Adveniente” suddenly coincides completely with Catholic doctrine? Will we wait in willing confusion for the day when a sentiment like “man is the only creature that God willed for its own sake” is deemed reconcilable with its opposite: namely, that God himself is the goal of all creation? Or, with candor, can we respectfully say that no such day will come? Words have meaning, and being members of the “Church Taught” doesn’t rob us of the ability to reason.
Jordanes: “Vatican II was not a purely pastoral council, and if you have to ask whether or not a council that produced two dogmatic constitutions taught doctrine or dogma, then you should perhaps familiarise yourself with the chief documents of the council.”
Friend, let me educate you:
“Although called a Dogmatic Constitution, the most solemn form of conciliar utterence, Lumen Gentium does not actually define any new dogmas. It sets forth, with conciliar authority, the Church’s present understanding of her won nature. In accordance with Pope John’s directive that the Council should be predominantly pastoral in character, Vatican II wished to propose its teaching without anathemas and condemnations. It exhibits the Church, as Pope John expressed it in his opening allocution at the first session, as the “loving mother of all,” spreading everywhere the fullness of Christian charity.”
The Documents of Vatican II, introduction by Avery Dulles, SJ, Corpus Books, NY, 1966, pg. 11 (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.)
Malta,
I would have to disagree.
Lumen Gentium 25.2 elevates the status of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium by extending its authority to secondary objects of infallibility (definitive tenendam). This goes beyond Vat I, which only extends such authority to primary objects of infallibility (credendam), cf Session 3.3. I consider this to be dogmatic.
This new status was the basis for the Ratzinger explanation of the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. NB: “declaramus Ecclesiam facultatem nullatenus habere ordinationem sacerdotalem mulieribus conferendi, hancque sententiam ab omnibus Ecclesiae fidelibus esse definitive tenendam.”
BTW, a few years ago I spoke with Cardinal Dulles on this very point.
RBrown,
I guess you and Dulles are wrong then. I am reading St. Catherine of Sienna right now (an old good copy from Britain, copyright 1906,) and you are barking up the wrong tree if you think I’m impressed by your associations with Cardinal Dulles.
Cardinal Dulles is a great man, but don’t name call to impress.
You say that: “Lumen Gentium 25.2 elevates the status of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium by extending its authority to secondary objects of infallibility (definitive tenendam). This goes beyond Vat I, which only extends such authority to primary objects of infallibility (credendam), cf Session 3.3. I consider this to be dogmatic.”
I thought the point of VII was to give a voice to laymen; why don’t you explain your self, man?
dear rbrown and jordanes,
I apologize for my too “free-speach” in my messages, supra. In the past, I’ve said anything I post on the internet I should be willing to say to the recipient in person. The distance of computers shouldn’t give us license to say whatever we want in blogs such as this. I apologize to you, friends, for reactive words, and unfocused sentences. I am as liable to sin and death as any man. Sorry if I’ve offended in the past.
Super interesting… thank you for sharing!
Malta, thank you for sharing the Dulles quote, though I was not previously unaware of it. I would only note that Cardinal Dulles did not say Lumen Gentium is not a Dogmatic Constitution, nor did he says that it contains no doctrines or dogmas. He said it doesn’t define any “new” dogmas, and does not include any “anathemas.” But it is still doctrinal and dogmatic — it is still a very, very authoritative teaching document of the Magisterium. So I’m afraid it’s just not accurate to say that Vatican II was “purely pastoral.” The Council of Vienne was purely pastoral, but Vatican II was both pastoral and doctrinal. That’s what it means to “set forth, with conciliar authority, the Church’s present understanding . . .” And conciliar authority, when endorsed by the Pope, is the highest level of teaching authority the Church has.
“Although called a Dogmatic Constitution, the most solemn form of conciliar utterence, Lumen Gentium does not actually define any new dogmas. It sets forth, with conciliar authority, the Church’s present understanding of her won nature. In accordance with Pope John’s directive that the Council should be predominantly pastoral in character, Vatican II wished to propose its teaching without anathemas and condemnations. It exhibits the Church, as Pope John expressed it in his opening allocution at the first session, as the “loving mother of all,” spreading everywhere the fullness of Christian charity.”
I guess you and Dulles are wrong then.
First, you invoke Dulles as your source, then you dismiss him, which of course undermines your original argument.
I am reading St. Catherine of Sienna right now (an old good copy from Britain, copyright 1906,) and you are barking up the wrong tree if you think I’m impressed by your associations with Cardinal Dulles.
See my comment above.
Cardinal Dulles is a great man, but don’t name call to impress.
No one’s is name calling (I assume you mean name dropping).
You say that: “Lumen Gentium 25.2 elevates the status of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium by extending its authority to secondary objects of infallibility (definitive tenendam). This goes beyond Vat I, which only extends such authority to primary objects of infallibility (credendam), cf Session 3.3. I consider this to be dogmatic.”
I thought the point of VII was to give a voice to laymen; why don’t you explain your self, man?
Comment by Malta
I did explain it, but you didn’t grasp it. And for some reason you seem to have implied that is my fault. I’m not in a classroom, and you’re not my student. My purpose in the above was very simple: To show you as concisely as possible that your comment above is ill considered.
BTW, Vat II did indeed give voice to laici, but that didn’t mean infused knowledge of disciplines that require years of study.
Cardinal Ratzinger: “The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. “
Originally Posted by The Appendix From the Acts of the Council
Notificationes’ Given by the Secretary General (Archbishop Felici) of the Council at the 123rd General Congregation, November 16, 1964:
“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.”
http://www.fisheaters.com/notapraevia.html
“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council”
Again, just because the Council defined no dogma, that does not mean it did not deal in doctrines and dogmas at all. Even a “merely pastoral” council is still a council, with all the authority of a general council — and ALL councils teach doctrine, even if they do not define dogmas. You asked if Vatican II, as a “purely pastoral council,” taught doctrine and dogma. The answer is yes, it did, and it’s not a “purely pastoral council.” It may have been on a “modest level” compared to Trent or Vatican I, but even a modest oecumenical council is still an oecumenical council, and therefore of supremely weighty authority.
Dear “I am not Spartacus”,
Will you join me in my yearly novena to the great Alexander VI?
In answer to the question, By the way, does anyone ever say the Athanasian Creed?, Henry Edwards said:
In the traditional Breviary—now gloriously restored to use, the ICEL LOH being possibly even worse than the ICEL Mass—the Athanasian creed is said just once annually (so far as I know)—immediately following the Gloria Patri after the last psalm at Prime on Trinity Sunday. Prior to 1960 it was said at this point in Prime on the “lesser Sundays” after Epiphany and Pentecost.
Very interesting bit of information. Thanks for sharing that. (This Trinity Sunday, I led my family in the Athanasian Creed, but I didn’t know it was to be said on that day according to the traditional Breviary.)
Jordanes,
Where did VII define new doctrine? The documents are not infallible, and could be abrogated tomorrow.
In my opinion SSPX should be welcomed back into the Church with open arms even while they reject many of the reforms of VII; certain councils have been shelved, essentially, and VII should be one of them. It was oecumenical, but did little good for the Church and has, in fact, wrought havoc. Here is a good and balanced commentary:
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/10/45th-anniversary-of-vatican-ii.html
Cardinal Ratzinger: “The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. ”
Comment by Malta
The extension of the authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium to secondary objects of Infallibility is not a definition of dogma. In fact, the extension itself is a secondary object, the primary object being the aforementioned Session 3.3 of Vat I.
Primary Objects of infallibility are to be believed (credenda) and thus involve dogmatic definitions. Secondary objects of infallibility are to be held (tenenda). And, as someone mentioned above, the word “dogmatic” does not necessarily mean that a new definition of dogma follows.
Where did VII define new doctrine? The documents are not infallible, and could be abrogated tomorrow.
Comment by Malta
The infallibility of the Church extends beyond new definitions of dogma.
“The infallibility of the Church extends beyond new definitions of dogma.”
That may be true but did VII proclaim anything infallibly?
Is a dogma is undefined how is it dogmatic?
“The infallibility of the Church extends beyond new definitions of dogma.”
That may be true but did VII proclaim anything infallibly?
Comment by Malta
Not may be true but necessarily true.
Hasn’t your question already been answered? Define, no. But the text I mentioned LG 25.2 is infallible. And it should make trads happy because it elevates the status of Tradition.
Is a dogma is undefined how is it dogmatic?
Comment by Habemus Papam
By its intrinsic relationship to a defined dogma. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not a definition, but it is infallible.
“the Roman Breviary was rather seriously reformed in 1911”
This is so. The reformed breviary mainly just rearranged the psalms. I think it compares
poorly to the traditional (i.e., pre-1911)but still better than the current.
FYI – the Benedictine office retains the ancient arrangment for the most part.
(courtesy of the Rule)There is a good book by DOBSZAY from the Church Music Society
and I believe (if memory serves) then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the forward.
Infallibility of VII –
What if it contradicts Trent? That was a Dogmatic council.
If it did there would be a problem. Since it doesn’t, there isn’t a problem.
Keep in mind that not everything in the Council of Trent is dogma.
Infallibility of VII –
What if it contradicts Trent? That was a Dogmatic council.
Comment by Trey
Such as?
Pope Benedict as Cardinal tells us Vatican II is a merely pastoral Council. He was there so I guess he would know.
Prof Basto,
If we are owed an explanation of current teachings and how they can be reconciled with previous teachings, why is it improper to reject those teachings? If it is beyond my capability to understand these things in this light (and you indicated that it was beyond yours as well) barring further clarification what, precicely, am I expected to accept?
The best I can do is have a negative interpretation. That is, I am really unsure of what the Church is trying to teach, but I can be certain, based on prior teachings, of what She is not teaching. Ultimately, while this may help me keep my sanity, it ends up being rather pointless.
Pope Benedict as Cardinal tells us Vatican II is a merely pastoral Council. He was there so I guess he would know.
Comment by Habemus Papam
Maybe this will help:
October 28, 1995
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Note that he has referenced LG 25.2 as the foundation for the infallibily of the OUM. If it is not a dogmatic text, then his explanation is invalid.
RBrown,
I agree that if LG is not a “dogmatic text” the explanatory note provided by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger is invalid. It does not follow though, that LG is therefore a dogmatic text. I am not claiming that it isn’t, just that it is not a logical conclusion.
Malta asked: Where did VII define new doctrine?
Is it your contention that a document is doctrinal or dogmatic only if it “defines new doctrine”? So, even though the Pope and the Council say Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum are dogmatic constitutions, because they only infallibly restate the longstanding doctrines of the Church, with a few developments, rather than “defining new doctrine,” that means they are not dogmatic constitutions even though the Church says they are?
The documents are not infallible, and could be abrogated tomorrow.
Since LG and DV reiterate what the Church has always believed, if they were abrogated tomorrow, that would mean the Church would be saying that what they say is false, which would mean the Church would be saying the Catholic faith is false and the Church is a fallible and unreliable teacher.
You seem to have an extremely un-Catholic notion of the Church’s teaching authority and the nature and function of ecclesial infallibility.
Habemus Papam said: Pope Benedict as Cardinal tells us Vatican II is a merely pastoral Council. He was there so I guess he would know.
Not necessarily, since Cardinal Ratzinger was not infallible. But, as I’ve said, even if it was “merely pastoral” (which it wasn’t, if one means that it did not teach doctrine), it remains glaringly obvious that it still dealt in doctrine and dogma.
The Church at Vatican II decided to call LG and DV “dogmatic constitutions.” The Church was there so I guess She would know whether or not the content of those doctrines was doctrinal or dogmatic. Furthermore, I wasn’t there, but even someone like me is somehow able to notice that LG and DV have doctrinal content. So enough with these laughable and embarrassing attempts to claim that Vatican II taught no doctrine, or said nothing that couldn’t be abrogated tomorrow with no effect whatsoever on the verity of Catholicism.
Jordanes,
Unfortunately, the Church of late seems to be fond of taking phrases and using them in a sense that is different(not contrary, just different) from how She used them previously. The phrase “religious freedom” comes to mind. The sad result of this is that it really matters little to me what She chooses to call Her documents. Certainly “dogmatic constitutions” means something, but you’ll have to do better than the title if you want to prove that the content is doctrinal.
For Lumen Gentium, at least, you’ll have to contend with the Nota Praevia, especially as it relates to Cardinal Ratzinger’s rather explicit remarks regarding the nature of the Council.
“Since LG and DV reiterate what the Church has always believed, if they were abrogated tomorrow, that would mean the Church would be saying that what they say is false, which would mean the Church would be saying the Catholic faith is false and the Church is a fallible and unreliable teacher.
You seem to have an extremely un-Catholic notion of the Church’s teaching authority and the nature and function of ecclesial infallibility.”
You completely misunderstand what I was trying to say. Let me repeat Dulles’ quote:
“Although called a Dogmatic Constitution, the most solemn form of conciliar utterence, Lumen Gentium does not actually define any new dogmas. It sets forth, with conciliar authority, the Church’s present understanding of her won nature. In accordance with Pope John’s directive that the Council should be predominantly pastoral in character, Vatican II wished to propose its teaching without anathemas and condemnations. It exhibits the Church, as Pope John expressed it in his opening allocution at the first session, as the “loving mother of all,” spreading everywhere the fullness of Christian charity.”
The Documents of Vatican II, introduction by Avery Dulles, SJ, Corpus Books, NY, 1966, pg. 11 (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.)
Therefore, it seems to me, the Church could clarify or issue a document superceding certain texts of Vatican II (clearly not reiterated doctrines or dogmas, that is not what I meant.) The Fourth Lateran Council, for instance, taught that Muslims should wear special dress; wouldn’t you agree that the Church’s opinion on that has changed. There are many things in VII that the Church could change its mind on, for instance, the decree on social communicated could be superceded if it becomes dated. Etc. I never meant to imply that VII teaches error. I do believe that what it teaches is too often misconstrued into error.
Could it be that the upper hierarhcy are a bit confused by the Second Vatican Council?
RBrown, The section of Lumen Gentium that Ratzinger cites in the dubium you posted has nothing to do with Holy Orders, and Ratzinger isn’t invoking LG as an infallible authority on Holy Orders. That section of LG explains the sources of authority of the Church. Ratzinger refers to LG 25, 2 to give a reference to anyone who wishes to know the ways in which infallibility is exercised in the Church. He is not saying that LG 25, 2 lays out the infallible teaching that only men may be admitted to Holy Orders. LG 25, 2 has nothing to do with Holy Orders. Ratzinger is giving a reference for his use of the phrase “ordinary and universal Magisterium.” That is all.
Prof. Basto,
While there is clearly a change of discipline from Pope Pius XI Mortalium Animos, where is there an apparent disparity of doctrine between this document and that of the Council?
Scott
Michael J said: The sad result of this is that it really matters little to me what She chooses to call Her documents.
Maybe it doesn’t matter to you, but it does matter all the same.
In this context, the statement “it really matters little to me . . .” betrays a deficit of needful Catholic docility.
If you wish to deny that a document that Holy Mother Church calls a “dogmatic constitution” is really what the Church calls it, if you wish to deny that its content is doctrinal even though its content is 100% doctrine, go right ahead, but I for one will continue to live in this little old place called “reality.”
Care to explain how the Catechism of the Catholic Church (I hope you will concede that Catholic catechisms deal in doctrine) could cite LG some many times if LG were not of a doctrinal or dogmatic character?
Certainly “dogmatic constitutions” means something, but you’ll have to do better than the title if you want to prove that the content is doctrinal.
How about noticing that the content is purely doctrinal? Or would you like to make a case that there is no doctrine in LG and DV? Good luck with that. But first give me fair notice so I can bake some popcorn and watch the entertaining spectacle you’ll be making of yourself.
For Lumen Gentium, at least, you’ll have to contend with the Nota Praevia, especially as it relates to Cardinal Ratzinger’s rather explicit remarks regarding the nature of the Council.
Since the Nota Praevia does not say LG and DV are not dogmatic constitutions, and since Cardinal Ratzinger never said they do not contain doctrine, but rather — as has been demonstrated for you more than once (and yet you still seem not to have noticed it) — he treated LG as dogmatic in his treatment of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, it therefore follows that the Nota Praevia and Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement that Vatican II was “purely pastoral” do not in any way establish that LG and DV are devoid of doctrinal content.
Malta said: The Fourth Lateran Council, for instance, taught that Muslims should wear special dress; wouldn’t you agree that the Church’s opinion on that has changed.
That’s not a good example, since the canons on sumptuary law were not matters of infallible and irreformable doctrine, but were socially contingent disciplinary matters that were subject to change.
Therefore, it seems to me, the Church could clarify or issue a document superceding certain texts of Vatican II (clearly not reiterated doctrines or dogmas, that is not what I meant.) . . . There are many things in VII that the Church could change its mind on, for instance, the decree on social communicated could be superceded if it becomes dated. Etc.
I don’t disagree at all — in fact I’ve said the same myself on various occasions.
I never meant to imply that VII teaches error. I do believe that what it teaches is too often misconstrued into error.
I agree with that too. But I was taking exception with your suggestion that the most recent council, being pastoral, did not deal in doctrine or dogma, something that is manifestly not the case.
Caleb1x said: RBrown, The section of Lumen Gentium that Ratzinger cites in the dubium you posted has nothing to do with Holy Orders, and Ratzinger isn’t invoking LG as an infallible authority on Holy Orders.
RBrown was obviously aware of how and why Cardinal Ratzinger invoked LG, as otherwise RBrown’s argument would not make any sense.
That section of LG explains the sources of authority of the Church.
If LG were not of a dogmatic or doctrinal character, what is it doing explaining the sources of the Church’s teaching authority?
Ratzinger refers to LG 25, 2 to give a reference to anyone who wishes to know the ways in which infallibility is exercised in the Church. He is not saying that LG 25, 2 lays out the infallible teaching that only men may be admitted to Holy Orders.
Of course he’s not saying that. RBrown neither said nor implied that Cardinal Ratzinger cited LG 25.2 for that purpose. RBrown cited this example to indicate that LG 25.2 is a development of the Church’s understanding of the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium — which means that if LG were not dogmatic, then Cardinal Ratzinger’s argument in favor of the infallibility of the teaching that only men may be admitted to the presbyterate is entirely invalid.
LG 25, 2 has nothing to do with Holy Orders. Ratzinger is giving a reference for his use of the phrase “ordinary and universal Magisterium.” That is all.
He’s doing MUCH more than giving a reference for his use of a phrase.
I don’t have the source now but John Paul II did say Vatican II was pastoral and dogmatic. Cardindal Ratzinger (not infallible so why all the quotes from LG) said it was merely pastoral. Note “merely”. As Pope has Benedict addressed this point?
Jordanes, Thanks for your answer. I respect your points. A footnote to a document isn’t “MUCH more” than a reference. It’s no more than that. To suggest that Ratzinger, in writing about an entirely different topic (Holy Orders), intends a parenthetical reference on infallibility to confirm the infallibility of the reference is absurd.
I agree that if LG is not a “dogmatic text” the explanatory note provided by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger is invalid. It does not follow though, that LG is therefore a dogmatic text. I am not claiming that it isn’t, just that it is not a logical conclusion.
Comment by Michael J
It follows from an argument of probability (ex convenientia) that it is a dogmatic text.
I already mentioned that it is a dogmatic texts because it pertains to the nature of the Magisterium.
Jordanes, Thanks for your answer. I respect your points. A footnote to a document isn’t “MUCH more” than a reference. It’s no more than that. To suggest that Ratzinger, in writing about an entirely different topic (Holy Orders), intends a parenthetical reference on infallibility to confirm the infallibility of the reference is absurd.
Comment by caleb1x
No, it’s not an entirely different topic.
The topic on which Cardinal Ratzinger is writing is the Infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the substance of which he says has been infallibly taught by the OUM. Then he references LG 25.2, which deals with the infallibility of the OUM.
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.
rbrown, I have to disagree that VII created new dogma even while it affirmed dogmas already pronounced:
“There will be no infallible definitions. All that was done by
former Councils. That is enough.” –Pope John XXIII (“Gaudet Mater Ecclesia,” October 11, 1962)
“The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself
under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…” –Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, December 7, 1965
“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic,
but disciplinary and pastoral.” –Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General Audience.
rbrown, I have to disagree that VII created new dogma even while it affirmed dogmas already pronounced:
“There will be no infallible definitions. All that was done by
former Councils. That is enough.” —Pope John XXIII (“Gaudet Mater Ecclesia,” October 11, 1962)
“The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself
under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…” —Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, December 7, 1965
“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic,
but disciplinary and pastoral.” —Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General Audience.
Comment by malta
I already answered your objections. I’ll reproduce my comments from above:
The extension of the authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium to secondary objects of Infallibility is not a definition of dogma. In fact, the extension itself is a secondary object, the primary object being the aforementioned Session 3.3 of Vat I.
What’s the deal fellas?
There hasn’t been any new dogma since Pius XII definition of the Assumption.
Vatican II did not define new dogma.
Dogmatic Constitution: does not equal defining new dogma.
A Dogmatic Constitution is a solemn magisterial pronouncement. It doesn’t mean it is defining dogma.
Jordanes,
You are either feigning indignation, or your shorts really are in a wad. Either way, statements such as “betrays a deficit of needful Catholic docility.” really do nothing to advance your arguments, are needlessly confrontational and indicate that you have been interpreting the written word for far too long.
I mean exactly what I write and nothing more. Get out of your huremenic of everybody who comments on what I say is a bad Catholic and must be schismatic if I can possibly extrapolate and interpret what they write in order to paint them in the worst light possible.
When I write “it does not matter what the Church chooses to call Her documents” it means simply that and nothing more and is in no way indicative of any opinion I may have formed about their contents.
If you can get past this, the discussion could be fruitful. Otherwise, it is entirely pointless
It follows from an argument of probability (ex convenientia) that it is a dogmatic text.
I do not disagree and agree that Cardinal Ratzinger’s citation of LG indicates that (he believes at least) the protection of infallibility extends to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. I can also agree that this extension of the authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium was first (or at least most notably) proposed in Lumen Gentium.
Still, something that is “probably infallible” is somewhat limited in its usefulness, dont you think? There are only two conclusions that a faithful Catholic can draw when he encounters an apparent contradiction between something that is probably infallible and something that is definitely infallible. One is that his understanding is incorrect and the other is that the probably infallible document is not infallible. Either way, the end result is the same. Stick with what was previously defined.
Michael J,
You missed the point.
The probability of it being dogmatic refers only to Cardinal Ratzinger’s use of the text.
On the other hand, (as I said above) reading the text itself (25.2), we have certitude that it is obviously a dogmatic text.
I can also agree that this extension of the authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium was first (or at least most notably) proposed in Lumen Gentium.
Do you know of another place where it was proposed?
Still, something that is “probably infallible” is somewhat limited in its usefulness, dont you think? There are only two conclusions that a faithful Catholic can draw when he encounters an apparent contradiction between something that is probably infallible and something that is definitely infallible. One is that his understanding is incorrect and the other is that the probably infallible document is not infallible. Either way, the end result is the same. Stick with what was previously defined.
Comment by Michael J
Your comment seems confused. It is not “probably infallible”.
1. LG 25.2 extends the authority of the OUM to secondary objects of infallibility.
2. OS concerns a secondary object (male priesthood). And so Cardinal Ratzinger invokes LG 25.2 as the foundation for the infallibility of OS.
Michael J said: You are either feigning indignation, or your shorts really are in a wad. Either way, statements such as “betrays a deficit of needful Catholic docility.” really do nothing to advance your arguments, are needlessly confrontational and indicate that you have been interpreting the written word for far too long.
Speaking of statements that do nothing to advance one’s arguments . . . .
I mean exactly what I write and nothing more.
I don’t see how that helps your case, because I was objecting to exactly what you wrote and what you meant and nothing more.
Get out of your huremenic of ‘everybody who comments on what I say is a bad Catholic and must be schismatic if I can possibly extrapolate and interpret what they write in order to paint them in the worst light possible.’
I’m sorry, the word “huremenic” does not appear in any English dictionaries of which I am aware. Perhaps you meant “hermeneutic”? Anyway, I can’t get out of that “huremenic” (or hermeneutic?) since I’m not in it. “It really matters little to me what She chooses to call Her documents” is not the kind of thing one says when one is approaching the teaching documents of Holy Mother Church with docility. The Church doesn’t gather together in Council every day, and Councils do not lightly or whimsically choose the character of their teaching documents.
Xpihs said: Vatican II did not define new dogma.
Correct.
Dogmatic Constitution: does not equal defining new dogma.
Again correct. Nobody here has said otherwise.
A Dogmatic Constitution is a solemn magisterial pronouncement. It doesn’t mean it is defining dogma.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Ironically, women priestesses uses the seemining dichotomy between Vatican II (Dignitatis Humanae) and Pius IX (Syllabus of errors) to advance their cause (SSPX uses a similar parallel on their website);
now, who was right, Pius IX or DH? It does seem difficult to reconcile these positions in the extreme.
http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/piusix.asp
Cardinal Ottaviani’s original schema on the Church which contained the statement “the Roman Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ” was rejected. Pity. Sounds as though it would indeed have been a dogmatic constitution.
Malta: Can the Syllabus and DH be interpreted in the light of Tradition?
HP,
perhaps; query: could VII’s understanding of religious freedom again change if it was a developement of tradition? VII impied that even a doctrine can change. I’m a layman on these things (as rbrown and jordanes have ably demonstrated) but I to find the topic interesting. In any case, doesn’t it seem at least possible that VII’s teaching on religious liberty is not infallible? Therefore, SSPX could reconcile with their understanding on religious liberty, since it is not a dogma to be embraced to be a member of the Church?
RBrown,
The fact that LG was referenced by another docement and perhaps treated as infallible in and of itself is insufficient to conclude that the referenced document is, in fact, doctrinal.
This is what you suggested when you wrote “Note that he has referenced LG 25.2 as the foundation for the infallibily of the OUM. If it is not a dogmatic text, then his explanation is invalid.” That is the only thing I was trying to say – really.
As you say later, reading the text itself is required.
Malta, what innovation did Vatican II teach regarding religious liberty?
It seems that there is a false dichotomy between Pius IX and Dignitatis Humanae.
The moral obligation remains for the individual and the state, however coercion should not be a tool of the secular (atheistic) state to prevent the individuals from doing what their conscience demands them to do as regards religion.
The declaration on relgious liberty needs to be understood in line with Sacred Tradition and within the climate of the world. The Council refused to address Communism directly and this should be understood as a response to it not as a repudiation of the traditional teaching of the Church.
Michael J said: The fact that LG was referenced by another docement and perhaps treated as infallible in and of itself is insufficient to conclude that the referenced document is, in fact, doctrinal.
You’re still not following RBrown’s argument. It isn’t just “LG being referenced by another document perhaps treated as infallible.” It’s “LG 25.2 referenced by another document in order to show that the teaching in a third document is infallible.” If LG 25.2 is neither dogmatic nor doctrinal, then Cardinal Ratzinger’s grounds for saying the teaching of OS is infallible is invalid. Obviously Cardinal Ratzinger believed, and the Successor of St. Peter agreed, that LG 25.2 is a doctrinal statement.
Going further, obviously LG 25.2 is a doctrinal statement, and obviously the entirety of LG is doctrinal (well, it’s obvious to anyone who would read it and note that it is a “dogmatic” constitution and is treated by the Catholic Church as a doctrinal text — though some might go so far as to question the Church’s right to tell us which of her documents are dogmatic or doctrinal; hopefully we won’t have to contend with any of that here). Consequently it is erroneous to claim that since Vatican II was “merely pastoral” that means it never issued any doctrinal texts.
This is what you suggested when you wrote “Note that he has referenced LG 25.2 as the foundation for the infallibility of the OUM. If it is not a dogmatic text, then his explanation is invalid.”
No, that isn’t at all what he suggested, as said above.
Now, I hope you do not seriously doubt that LG is doctrinal — but I would also note that if you after all agree with the Church about the nature and character of LG, then this latest discussion has been an unprofitable academic exercise.
Thank you. I understand and respect your response.
Do you know of another place where it was proposed?
Yes, I do, and I can’t agree with the consensus here that LG “first proposed” the “authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.” LG did not first propose this. The First Vatican Council defined the authority of the ordinary and universal teaching power, and LG 25, 2 is a repetition of this point. See here from Section 3 (Faith) of Vatican I:
All this to-do about Ratzinger’s reference to LG is overblown. His reference is insignificant in assessing the infallibility of Vatican II. Your point amounts to this: In using a parenthetical reference to a section of LG that repeats the First Vatican Council, Ratzinger intends to confer infallibility on the whole Vatican II Council. I understand that we’re treading on complicated matters, but this is convoluted reasoning.
Caleb1x:
I don’t know about this reasoning being convoluted or not, but:
a Council of the Church is a pretty serious thing, isn’t it? I am sure Pope’s do not convoke Councils just to chat about irrelevant stuff that can be readily dismissed by the faithful on account of “that was nothing but a purely pastoral council”. C’mon! What does that make the magisterium look like? Anyway, Vatican II was the product of the pre-Conciliar magisterium. If everything was truly as rosy before, how did an “objectionable” council come about?
Yes, I do,
No, you don’t. Read on.
and I can’t agree with the consensus here that LG “first proposed” the “authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.” LG did not first propose this. The First Vatican “Council defined the authority of the ordinary and universal teaching power, and LG 25, 2 is a repetition of this point. See here from Section 3 (Faith) of Vatican I:
caleb1x
Dio mio! Why not actually take the time to read what I wrote. I will reproduce it below. Maybe if you read it slowly, you might actually have some idea what I’m saying.
Lumen Gentium 25.2 elevates the status of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium by extending its authority to secondary objects of infallibility (definitive tenendam). This goes beyond Vat I, which only extends such authority to primary objects of infallibility (credendam), cf Session 3.3. I consider this to be dogmatic.
This new status was the basis for the Ratzinger explanation of the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. NB: “declaramus Ecclesiam facultatem nullatenus habere ordinationem sacerdotalem mulieribus conferendi, hancque sententiam ab omnibus Ecclesiae fidelibus esse definitive tenendam.
All this to-do about Ratzinger’s reference to LG is overblown. His reference is insignificant in assessing the infallibility of Vatican II. Your point amounts to this: In using a parenthetical reference to a section of LG that repeats the First Vatican Council, Ratzinger intends to confer infallibility on the whole Vatican II Council. I understand that we’re treading on complicated matters, but this is convoluted reasoning.
Comment by caleb1x
No, that wasn’t my point. And I already answered that.
I have to wonder whether you’re just playing games. Either that or you’re just not capable of understanding these arguments, which, BTW, are not that complex.
I believe I do understand what you’re saying. But it isn’t so that LG of the Second Vatican Council “first proposed” the infallibility of secondary objects. Ott takes it for granted that these are infallible, and Hardon explains in detail how the First Vatican Council included them. (On the other hand, oddly, Heinrich Freis goes as far as to cite LG 25 to say that the Church “does not teach authoritatively” that infallibility includes secondary objects! But this is a digression.)
The issue isn’t how and when infallibility extends to secondary objects, but to the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium. The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium comes from the consensus of the whole Church over a long period of time. Extraordinary infallibility comes from an affirmation of the intention that a particular thing is to be believed absolutely by all. That’s why, for example, even if LG were the “first time” the infallibility of secondary objects were referenced (It wasn’t!), still LG would not “for the first time” infallibly extend this character to secondary objects. It’s also why any other ostensibly “new” statements in Vatican II documents don’t, and really can’t, include the intention that they must be believed absolutely by all.
rbrown, let’s take a close look at LG 25:2:
“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.”
**authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.**
I must say, with all due respect, that you are completely misconstruing this easily read document. You said:
“Michael J,
You missed the point.
The probability of it being dogmatic refers only to Cardinal Ratzinger’s use of the text.
On the other hand, (as I said above) reading the text itself (25.2), we have certitude that it is obviously a dogmatic text.”
25.2 was not saying that it itself is a dogmatic text, only that such a possibility exists when “on faith and morals,” Bishops are in agreement “on ONE position to be definitely held,” especially during councils. But as noted above, no one position on faith and morals was agreed upon by the Fathers to be DEFINITIVELY held. No Catholic would disagree that Bishops proclaiming one position to be definitively held regarding faith and morals at a ecumenical council is fallible. But that didn’t happen at Vatican II, as even Pope Paul VI reminds us.
I believe I do understand what you’re saying. But it isn’t so that LG of the Second Vatican Council “first proposed” the infallibility of secondary objects. Ott takes it for granted that these are infallible, and Hardon explains in detail how the First Vatican Council included them. (On the other hand, oddly, Heinrich Freis goes as far as to cite LG 25 to say that the Church “does not teach authoritatively” that infallibility includes secondary objects! But this is a digression)
As I said above, the indicator of secondary objects is the use of the word “held” (tenenda). In Vat I “held” is used to refer to what is taught infallibly by the Pope, but “believed” is used for the OUM. The former covers secondary objects, the latter does not.
Ott assumes the word “held” is used for the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, but as I noted above, the text from Vat I does not justify that assumption. He writes are to be firmly held with “divine and Catholic faith”. But only the quoted words are directly from Vat I. As I noted earlier, “held” is not found in the Vat I text on the OUM.
If Hardon, before 1965, includes secondary objects of infallibility in the OUM, I would like to see his proof of such.
The issue isn’t how and when infallibility extends to secondary objects, but to the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium. The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium comes from the consensus of the whole Church over a long period of time. Extraordinary infallibility comes from an affirmation of the intention that a particular thing is to be believed absolutely by all.
The Extraordinary magisterium is not relevant to this argument. As I noted above, the Responsum that references LG 25.2 makes specific reference to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
That’s why, for example, even if LG were the “first time” the infallibility of secondary objects were referenced (It wasn’t!), still LG would not “for the first time” infallibly extend this character to secondary objects. It’s also why any other ostensibly “new” statements in Vatican II documents don’t, and really can’t, include the intention that they must be believed absolutely by all.
Comment by caleb1x
I’ll await your reply that contains binding texts previous to Vat II that reference the Infallibility of the OUM in secondary objects.
Jordan,
You still fail to comprehend what I am saying. Please try not to read between the lines, either in what I write to you or to someone else on this board. When I say, for example, that “I do not care what the Church calls her documents”, it is in the literal sense. No meaning can be assigned to this sentence beyond what the words literally mean. Neither is it correct to infer (as you seem to be in the habit of doing) some “attitude” you think I may have. Your ability to extract the meaning behind the written word may serve you well in other areas, but it will invariably lead you to the incorrect conclusion when speaking to me at least.
Just so that there is no mis understanding, lets recap:
1. Do I care what the Church chooses to call her documents? – No.
2. Does this mean that I find them to have no value? – No.
3. Will I withhold my asent on the basis of this (non-existant)”non-docile attitude”? – No
4. Do I believe that a document discusses dogma simply by the virtue of the fact that it is titled “Dogmatic Constitution”? – No, and neither do you as you previously wrote
5. Does this mean that I think it does not discuss doctrine? – No
My comments to RBrown were made in a similar spirit, and I won’t bother going over them.
In the future, I sincerly hope that you can refrain from interpreting simple phrases, especially if your interpretation goes well beyond the literal meaning of the words. Barring that, at least avoid jumping to unjustified conclusions about the character, intelligence, disposition or nature of the person posting the comments. Honestly, thats a bit of rash judgement, don’t you think?
I have a question, though admittedly it is tangential to the direction in which this discussion is going:
Why is eligibility for Holy Orders a secondary object, not a primary one?
Thanks for your response. I appreciate your explanations. I hope I’m closer to understanding.
For Hardon on Vatican I and secondary objects, see here:
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_031.htm
On another tangent, consider that Freis calls the Apostle’s Creed “the classic example” of a secondary object. By your logic, it was not until LG that the Church could deem a secondary object such as this to be infallible.
You used the phrase “binding texts.” This phrase covers a large group of dogmatic, doctrinal, and disciplinary documents. The question of the documents of Vatican II is not whether they’re “binding texts,” but the nature of the authority that makes them binding. I believe it’s universally acknowledged that the council did not exercise extraordinary infallibility. Yet in any of its newfangled statements, it could not be exercising ordinary infallibility because by its nature, ordinary infallibility doesn’t apply to something new. Does Vatican II teach Catholic doctrine? This is a tautological question. Of course it does. Does it participate in the ordinary infallibility of the Church? Again, of course. But are the unprecedented statements of Vatican II infallible? No.
I have a question, though admittedly it is tangential to the direction in which this discussion is going:
Why is eligibility for Holy Orders a secondary object, not a primary one?
Comment by Mr. M. M. Regan
Because it’s a truth that guards and protects the dogma–but is not the dogma itself, which is that Holy Orders is a Sacrament instituted by Christ.
Denial of the limitation of Orders to men does not directly mean denial of the existence of the priesthood.
Michael J said: You still fail to comprehend what I am saying.
No, I think the problem is that you fail to comprehend what you are saying. If you didn’t mean what your words mean, then you shouldn’t have said them, or you should have clarified what you really meant and withdrawn what you had said previously. This isn’t a matter of reading between the lines or trying to discern some hidden meaning in your words, because your words can only mean that you don’t care that when the Church produces a certain kind of document it really is the kind of document She says it is. Your stance is neither reasonable nor docile. It does matter what the Church calls her documents, and if it doesn’t matter to you then you really shouldn’t be discussing them, as you will be incapable of correctly understanding them.
Do I believe that a document discusses dogma simply by the virtue of the fact that it is titled “Dogmatic Constitution”? – No, and neither do you as you previously wrote
No, I never said that. A dogmatic constitution must necessarily deal in doctrine and dogma, or else the Church would not issue it as a dogmatic constitution. But a dogmatic constitution need not define any dogmas — it can reiterate or elaborate upon previously defined dogmas, or even dogmas that have not yet been defined.
Malta: as another layman in these matters its interesting to see the Syllabus side by side with DH as in your link to womenpriests. For me, they look incompatible. Not a match made in Heaven.
Andreas: I guess a way to look at this is that Pope John intended his Council to reframe Church teaching in a less harsh tone for the modern world. Hence the use of “pastoral” and the denial of any need to define new dogmas. The problem was that the resultant language of Vatican II was ambiguous.
What then is a “Dogmatic Constitution”. The earliest documents that I can find that were titled “Dogmatic Constitution” are De Fide Catholica and Pastor Aeternus from Vatican I. Unlike later “Dogmatic Constitutions”, these two actually defined Dogma. I have also heard of Apostolic Constitutions and the terms have been used interchangeably, but I must assume that this is due to sloppiness. Since the titles of documents issued by the Church are apparently of vital importance, somebody should be able to point to an official definition of the term.
This might be going out on a limb, but I’m betting since they titled it “Dogmatic Constitution” they meant it. I am also betting that they were aware that the document contained no new dogma, yet used the title anyway. That tells me “dogmatic constitution” does not equal “declaration of new dogma” but rather “conciliar document that pertains to dogma”.
I am really unclear as to why there is a discussion on this point. It’s pretty straight forward and obvious.
Habemus Papam:For me, they look incompatible.
That was the point that women(non)priest was going for.
However, it isn’t necessarily the case. The Catholic Church has always held certain things that may seem to be mutually exclusive in tension. Just because two things seem to be mutually exclusive, does not mean that they are so in fact. What are issues for Pius IX are not issues for DH and vice versa.
A (moral)right to error (religious liberty) does not exist for either Pius IX or DH.
A right not to be coerced by the secular state from exercising one’s religious convictions (religous liberty) exists as a basic right for both Pius IX and DH.
It is the definition of religious liberty that is at issue when showing the disparity.
God grants to no one the right to be in error. However he does not coerce the intellect of men either. This seems to me to be pretty basic.
laudetur JS CHS!
Oh – what a discussion…
Perhaps my comment can give some help – I hope so – and not making confusion bigger…so:
1. VII was in one sence “merly pastoral” (Ratzinger et al.) or better: at its beginning ist was called/announced (and intended?) (as) only pastoral.
2. In another sence not or better: it then went further/farther/beyond (than) its – early intented or announced – merly pastoral attitudes.
3. So it dealt also with doctrinal points.
4. “Dogmatic” is only an other word for “doctrinal”: dealing with/concerning doctrine (or “dogma” in a broad sense).
5. So “Dogmatic constitution” does not mean it is “dogmatic” in a special narrow sense, ie. a “dogma” (in narrow, normal sense) but only dealing with the faith/doctrine (“dogma” in broad sense or – as said – “dogmatic”)
6. So this does NOT mean this constitution or some sentences in it is/are a “dogma” and infallible – it leaves just open if it is fallible or not or better: it is in itselfe NOT infallible.
7. As every teaching of the Magisterium Ordinarium [or better: of a member of the Mag Ord.] it is only infallible if it recalls a) some old infallible teachings of the Mag extraordinarium – but then the infalibillity is only there per accidens or b) old infallible teachings of the Mag. Ordinarium – then it assures this old infallibility and by this way it becomes part of the MO in the stricter sense of the word.
8. But if some teaching of the “MO” [better: a member of the MO] is not in continuity with the former MO or with some other, contemporaneous teachings of the MO or even contradicts the former MO, then it is not earning the phrase “MO” – it is only an abuse of the magisterial power, not beloning to the “MO” in the stricter sence.
Example: if a bishop [member of the MO] teaches some thing it is a teaching of the MO [broader sense or “first-glimp-sense”] – but if this teaching contradicts f. e. the teaching of all the other bishops [also members of the MO] then the teaching of the first bishop emerges as only “broader-or first-glimp-sense” MO-teaching but not belonging to MO in the strict sense.
In other words: it does not belong to the infallible MO (= MO-strict sense) but only to the fallible one (= not really MO or only in broader sense)!
9. So application to VII: Its teachings are perhaps “first-glimps” MO-teachings (- and only “perhaps”, because it is not clear if all, some or the most bishops did really want to bind and definitly teach, what is constitutive also for MO,
not only for M Extraord.!!) but if they contradict some old MO-teaching they emerge as not realy belonging to MO – not in a infallible sense.
10. Or putting it another way: MO is only infallible (and then MO-teaching in the strict sense) if all the members of the MO teach UNANIMOUSLY. If not – if it is only some or even many members – or all but not unanimously – every single teaching [of some single member] is NOT infallible and therefor not MO-teaching in a strict sense, but only in a broad or “first-glimps” -sense.
11. So that´s also the answer to You, Prof. Basto:
(i)Yes, it can´t be that the Mother Churche contradicts Herselfe
(ii)But, yes, there are obviously two different teachings before and after VII (oecumenism and religious freedom)
and (iii) contra factum non est/fit argumentum (so no misterious solving of some contradiction by explanation of the magisterium now or in future…)
Conclusion: Only one of the two contradicting teachings is the teaching of Mother Church. If some Popes or even many bishops teach something that contradicts the whole tradition, so the old MO-teaching – that was tought hundreds of years unanimously and therefor infallible and so MO-teaching in the strict sense, then this new papal or episcopal teachings are just fallible teachings and emerge as privat errors and NOT the teaching of Mother Church.
Again in other words: There is no unanimously, non-ambigue and with the will to bind definitivly teaching in and after the VII. So it is all fallible, so therefor not shure, that it is the teaching of our Mother the Church. If it contradicts some clear infallible teaching, then it emerges as clearly NOT the teaching of the Church and as error.
In CHO per Mam
Short to prof.Basto:
The Mag Ord. or better the members of it is/are not in it-/themselfes infallible.
Only if the members teach a)unanimously and b)with the will to bind all
faithfull by definitive teaching and c) in a clear, unambigouse way
there is an infallible teaching of the Church.
In/on and after VII the popes and bishops did not teach neither a) nor b) nor c)
and to a): neither all present bishops unanimously [at least if you connect it with points b) and c)!] nor unanimously [or: in continuity] with the former bishops and popes.
So we have no infallible Church-teaching (= Ma.Or.-teaching in the strict sense) but only fallible authentic and magisterial teaching (= not real M.O.-teaching or only in a broader sense). As fallible it is NOT shure that it is the teaching of the Church.
In tradition we have some clear ( c)), unanimously ( a)) and definitive ( b)) teaching of the M.O. so therefor infallible and clearly the teaching of the Church.
So there is no cotradiction between two infallible Church-teachings but only between the (infallible) teaching of the Church and some fallible teaching which therefor emerges as not right and NOT the teaching of the Church.
So of course some teachings of the recent popes and bishops, also at VII, are not infallible, so therefor they can be erroneouse and are in this case NO teachings of the Church and need to be (and are able to be) corrected.
In CHO per Mam
It is not heretical to say that VII taught no new dogma until we hear otherwise from the “boss” (i.e. PBXVI,) since every pronouncement speaks otherwise, I would say it’s safe to assume that new opinions expressed at VII are possibly fallible.
But we shouldn’t lightly dismiss the opinions of over 1,500 Bishops, consecrated before the pronouncement against Modernism was abolished.
And even SSPX will admit that there are many fine passages from the documents of VII; pronouncements in favor of marriage, and against contraception (which became dogma with hummanae vitae).
Just tonight I was mulling over the documents of VII (which I HAVE read, unlike many of the couch-side reactionaries,) and really, I am impressed by much of the thinking going on in these documents.
But, again, I must reiterate, that these documents defined no new dogmas; they reiterated past doctrine and dogma, some of it forgotten, but nothing new was pronounced, except for a new and novel (and possibly fallible) understanding of the Church in the modern world.
Whatever; I think we need to get over Vatican II, and quickly. I also think we need to quickly re-embrace SSPX, as they are the stalwarts for the Church founded by Christ.
But, also, SSPX better have some humility and come back home even if it entails a less-then-full agreement vis-a-vis Vatican II; since VII was not dogmatic, why not invite SSPX back home without any agreement about VII, and SSPX can continue to teach and believe as Catholics did before VII?
Easy solution, no?
Malta, ignoring the council by saying it is not dogmatic is a heresy. That would be akin to the Orthodox and the Catholic Church re-uniting by ignoring the issues that cause separation. We should simply ignore papal infallibility and the filioque clause all in the sake of reunion. But that’s not real unity is it? Union at the expense of Truth is not unity.
Thankyou for answering my question, RBrown.
Malta, I agree that VII shouldn’t be as big of an issue as some make of it.
However, I would disagree that it can easily be side stepped. If the cause of the SSPX is valid, then they as much as anyone would prefer to address the situation regarding the impact of the Council on the Church today. If the excommunications are lifted, with the understanding that there was at least an impression of an extraordinary circumstance, then I think the SSPX would be willing to work more as a voice from within, which is what a lot of Post-VII Catholics would be most upset with. It is one thing for some “outside” group to criticize the VII. It is quite another for a group in “good standing” to do the same and be taken seriously by the Holy Father and the Curia.
Just a thought.
Excuse the delay.
On another tangent, consider that Freis calls the Apostle’s Creed “the classic example” of a secondary object. By your logic, it was not until LG that the Church could deem a secondary object such as this to be infallible.
First, I would disagree strongly that the Credo is a secondary object. How can anything be more primary than Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem creatorem caeli et terrae et in Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum filus eius unigenitum?
Second, the word Infallibility does not enter the lexicon until the 19th century. I think Fr Augustine op, who posts here now and then, has written on its history.
Third, according to Freis’ opinion, it could also be said about the Credo before 1870.
Also: In the text you cite, Fr Hardon seems to me to be speaking about Papal infallibility re secondary objects, not the OUM.
You used the phrase “binding texts.” This phrase covers a large group of dogmatic, doctrinal, and disciplinary documents. The question of the documents of Vatican II is not whether they’re “binding texts,” but the nature of the authority that makes them binding. I believe it’s universally acknowledged that the council did not exercise extraordinary infallibility. Yet in any of its newfangled statements, it could not be exercising ordinary infallibility because by its nature, ordinary infallibility doesn’t apply to something new. Does Vatican II teach Catholic doctrine? This is a tautological question. Of course it does. Does it participate in the ordinary infallibility of the Church? Again, of course. But are the unprecedented statements of Vatican II infallible? No.
I used the phrase “binding text” simply because I cited a distinction found in primary sources–any secondary source could not refute this distinction.
If you compare LG 25.2 with the text from Vat I on the OUM, there is not a lot of difference in the authority that is invoked.
RBrown:
Yes, as I stated above, of course some texts of VII are “dogmatic” in the harmless/innocent sense of “doctrinal” or “dealing with dogmatic stuff”.
It would be infallible if it were magisterium-ord.-teaching (in the strict sense). – I deny that it is so and argued for it above.
BUT, sorry, caleb1x is still right if he claims that “binding (definitivly)” is not proper only to secondary-object-teaching but to both secondary and primary.
Also your quoted “to believe” is no sufficient differentiating factor for also the secondary-object-teachings are to be beleived.
Both (primary and secondary obj. – teachings) are to be believed and to be hold definitivly and they both bind this way – the differetiation is only that the primary are binding and to beleived by/with fides divina, the secondary by/with fides mere catholica.
But, again: both binding, both to be believed.
As you read LG 25, as posted by malta, there is absolutly no dealing with the problem of primary and secondary object. It would be an overinterpretation if you read “binding” as concerning only the latter. And also before Vat.II like quoted Ott the theologians did not reserve the power to decide sec.obj. questions only to the mag. extraord. but declared it as in the power of the magisterium without any limitation.
Considering two facts of LG 25 we have nearly evidence (I say only nearly, so yes, we can discuss about – but seem to me strong arguments) that only the primar-obj.-teaching is dealt with or at least not only or especially the secondary-obj.-teaching:
1. the phrase “doctrinam Christi (infllibiliter enuntiant)” seems to indicate primary objects – otherwise how can “doctrinam Christi” be explained?
2. there is a direct reference to Vat. I [at least in my DH]; and as You commited it dealt only with primary object then Vat II also – or, at least (that is undoubtful), it deals also with primary object here – so not only with sec. obj.
Therefor it is clear by the text itselfe that caleb1x is right and “definitive tenendam” is not reserved for sec-obj-teaching but is a common word for all magisterial (infallible) teaching.
btw, like the creed – I totaly agree with You in this – the question of possibility of women to be ordained is by similar argument also primary object, not secondary. Where did You read some other opinion??
In CHo per Mam
Both (primary and secondary obj. – teachings) are to be believed and to be hold definitivly and they both bind this way – the differetiation is only that the primary are binding and to beleived by/with fides divina, the secondary by/with fides mere catholica.
But, again: both binding, both to be believed.
As you read LG 25, as posted by malta, there is absolutly no dealing with the problem of primary and secondary object. It would be an overinterpretation if you read “binding” as concerning only the latter. And also before Vat.II like quoted Ott the theologians did not reserve the power to decide sec.obj. questions only to the mag. extraord. but declared it as in the power of the magisterium without any limitation.
Considering two facts of LG 25 we have nearly evidence (I say only nearly, so yes, we can discuss about – but seem to me strong arguments) that only the primar-obj.-teaching is dealt with or at least not only or especially the secondary-obj.-teaching:
1. the phrase “doctrinam Christi (infllibiliter enuntiant)” seems to indicate primary objects – otherwise how can “doctrinam Christi” be explained?
2. there is a direct reference to Vat. I [at least in my DH]; and as You commited it dealt only with primary object then Vat II also – or, at least (that is undoubtful), it deals also with primary object here – so not only with sec. obj.
Therefor it is clear by the text itselfe that caleb1x is right and “definitive tenendam” is not reserved for sec-obj-teaching but is a common word for all magisterial (infallible) teaching.
btw, like the creed – I totaly agree with You in this – the question of possibility of women to be ordained is by similar argument also primary object, not secondary. Where did You read some other opinion??
In CHo per Mam
Comment by D.S. —
Your post is a complete mess.
Whenever tenendum (for secondary objects) is used to indicate authority (cf LG 25.2), it includes credendum (for primary objects). That’s why the Vat I definition of Papal infallibility uses tenendum.
But the authority given with credendum does not include tenendum.
As I said above more than once, and as you somehow missed more than once, according to Vat I that papal infallbility refers to both, but the infallibility of the OUM only refers to primary objects. Vat II expands that to secondary objects.
And, no, the question of the possibility of women’s ordination is a secondary object.
RBrown:
Calling my comment a “mess” sounds nice, but is no argument.
You did also not argue against my two arguments: 1. “doctrinam CHi” and 2. quotation of Vat.I
You said: “Whenever tenendum (for secondary objects) is used to indicate authority (cf LG 25.2), it includes credendum (for primary objects).”
But that was not the point we were discussing. I stated and still state, that also the sec.obj. are “credendum”.
And to your “As I said above more than once, and as you somehow missed more than once, according to Vat I that papal infallbility refers to both, but the infallibility of the OUM only refers to primary objects. Vat II expands that to secondary objects”:
again you only repeat your opinion – that I did and do understand, so not miss! – but give no new arguments.
My point was (perhaps You missed it) that I deny that Vat. II is dealing with sec.obj.-question and I also deny that before Vat.II the power of mag. ord. was reserved/restricted to only the primary objects – and I gave you some arguments for that.
The only interesting argument of you, the word “tenendam” indicating sec.objects, is collapsing when youselfe commit that “tenendum” can also be applied to primary objects, so is not specific to sec. obj. So there is no clear indicator for referring to sec obj. in LG 25.
Therefor the only thing what is “a totaly mess” (to speak so) seems to be your overinterpretation (trying to read somthing in the text what the text does not say) of LG25.
To give You a new argument that also before the Vat. II there was no doubt that the power of mag.ord. also extends to sec. obj. let me not only quote Ott but, f.e., Diekamp (or Diekamp-Jüssen) who does also not restrict the power of ordinary – infallible – teaching to the primary obj. [cf. Katholisch Dogmatik, Einleitung, §19]; on the contrary, he speaks of sec. objects and does not restrict them only to mag. extraord. but just speaks of the mag. of the Church.
That is absolutly clear. [see there]
And last but not least: You did not give me some new argument (besides
your first one above) women´s ordination-question beeing sec. obj. I asked for other sources that share Your interpretation. But I am afraid it is again here only “primary source” so only your own interpretation of it but no other “secondary literature” can be found. Or do You have a quotation?
In CHrist through Mary
laudetur JS CHS!
Rbrown:
I´ve looked up my Hettinger [Franz Hettinger (1879): Lehrbuch der Fundamentaltheologie, 2. Teil, §§ 43, 44, 45, 46 (and 37)] and he like Ott or Diekamp also does NOT restrict the infallibility of the mag. ord. to primary objects; in contrary he speaks in §45f about sec. objects and confirms that the Church or the magisterium judges here – so not only the pope, not only Councils, not only the mag. extraord. There is no limitation to those. Or read § 43. There he states that the “Consesus Eccl. dispersae” (Mag. ord.) has the character of infllibility but he does NOT limitate it primary obj.
So, let me assure that I take your argumentation seriously and I commit that you have this point: in Vat.II the “tenendam” is open not only to prim.obj but also to sec. whilst in Vat. I Dei Filius III it is only/merely dealt with prim. object. So that is a difference.
But I deny as I stated (i) that in Vat.II/LG 25 it is absolutly clear that tenendum means both. For me it seems not clear. Yes, tenendum CAN mean both (that was my agreement – and agree that in Dei F. III it is not the case, so difference) but it need not. And as I stated, there are two arguments (1. and 2.) that “tenendam” in this context is used only for referring to primary obj. But, well, if you can bring an argument against my two arguments, as I also stated above, I will consider it.
So still my point is that it is at least not that clear and obviouse that LG-tenendam deals also with the sec.-obj.-question.
But, because “tenendam” can meen both it is realy possible that LG wants to “extend” the power of mag.ord. to sec. objects. But is does not do so explicitly and clear, so therefor better to not to speak of “extend” but of “not limitating/restricting”. So even sec. obj are not excluded, it is (ii) at least no definitive and infallible decision here.
To be such an infallible decision it would have to be explicit and clear.
So at least the sec-objects-question is NOT dealt DIRECTLY and explicitly with, but only indirect and “in passing” (“im Vorbeigehen, “per accidens”). That´s NOT enough for a definitive binding, infallible teaching.
[cf. Hettinger or others: only matters that are taught directly, clear and with the obvious will to bind do infallibly bind. Matters only touched per accidens and not as direct object of some definitv teaching are not to be seen as infallible. And: if there is a prudent doubt if something is infallible it is to be seen as not.]
Besides my points (i) [not clear if LG deals also with sec.obj….] and (ii) at least, if it deals with, it is only indirect/implicit and not infallible teaching] my main point is still – like of caleb1x (and others…?, don´t remember) – that
(iii) it would not be a real extension in the sense of novelty if LG intended also sec. obj. teachings. It is not new.
I brouhgt you some arguments of theologians; last I quoted Hettinger.
But there is also some argument from Vat.I
As I said before I agree and commit or better: admit that in Dei F. III the discussed
phrase deals only with prim. obj.
But in Dei F. IV you can find some phrases that can also interpretated as dealing with sec. obj. (concerning mag. ord.). I admit that this is now on the other hand not so clear. But it is an interpretation that I share with Hettinger [cf. op.c. §45].
And much more impressive: Past. Aet. IV: “…ea infallibilitate … qua Divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina … instructam esse voluit” So as you admit the infallibility of the pope extends to both prim. and sec. objects and if it is the same – “ea” – “infallibilitate” than that of “the Curch” (“Ecclesiam suam”) it is clear that this infallibility of the Church (=mag ord.)extends also to both.
[cf. here also Hettinger (§37)]
But I think the argument from the Consensus of theologians before Vat.II (Ott, Diekamp, Hettinger, …) should be enough. I do not know one pre-VatII-theologian who limits the power of mag. ord. to primary obj.
If you can cite one please do so. I would be – honestly(!) – interested in it and consider it as a grave argument.
in CHo per Mam
1. When tenendum is used to explain teaching authority, it necessarily includes credendum, simply because tenendum concerns objects that extend beyond credendum. They are concentric circles, with credendum being the smaller.
2. I recommend that you read Ad Tuendam Fidem, which notes the difference between the objects signified by the use of credendam (#2) and tenendam (#3).
3. You seem to be assuming that “doctrinam Christi” of itself indicates only primary objects, but 25.2 makes it clear that it extends beyond them.
4. I already noted above that Ott’s opinion that the authority of the OUM extends to objects to be held is not justified by the text of Vat I.
Thanks for your response. We’re drifting away from the question of the scope of infallibility in the Vatican II documents, but other fascinating issues arise.
Though Hardon is writing about papal infallibility, he explains that the pre-Vatican II Church deems the infallibility of secondary objects a characteristic of the whole Church, not only of the pope: “Any other position would have been a concession to Gallicanism and an implicit denial that the Church has a right not only to proclaim the word of God but also to protect it and derive its implications.” Without mentioning Jansenism and Gallicanism, Ott and Freis use a similar language of derivation.
Regarding the term “infallibility,” Thomas More uses the phrase “infallible authority of the Church.” With due respect to Father Augustine, More’s use would date the phrase to at least the sixteenth century. In any case, is the dating of term “infallibility” relevant to the Church’s knowledge of its own infallibility? In his response to Gladstone, Cardinal Wiseman argues that Vatican I didn’t establish the doctrine of the pope’s infallibility.
The questions posted above involve the nature of the authority of Vatican II. Again, it’s universally acknowledged that the council didn’t exercise extraordinary infallibility. If LG 25.2 grants that secondary objects share in the Church’s infallibility, the authority of this inclusion comes as a repetition of what the ordinary magisterium has held. Hardon gives some of the historical backdrop for the infallibility of secondary objects. The primary question in these posts, it seems to me, hasn’t been whether Vatican II participates in the infallible ordinary magisterium, but whether the council’s unprecedented or historically-determined language shares the characteristic of infallibility.
Thomas More was a great man, but he is not only not a doctor of the Church but also not a theologian. I do think that his use of the word “infallible” indicates that it is of legal rather than theological origin (if I remember correctly, Fr Augustine makes the same point). As you no doubt know, St Thomas does not use such a word in his famous article in the Treatise on Faith.
I agree there is no extraordinary infallibility in Vat II.
There are obvious flaws and ambiguities in the documents, and they often seem to be political speeches with the usual blah, blah, blah. But I don’t really have that much of a problem with the language in LG 25.2.
Thanks for the response. Regarding Vatican II, there seems to be more agreement here than disagreement.
If we look at the posts above, we’ll find the claim that because of the indestructibly and infallibility of the Church, the Second Council’s “flaws and ambiguities,” as you acknowledge them, aren’t really flaws, but are solid teachings that our understanding hasn’t caught up with yet. The idea is that the compatibility of these so-called flaws with unambiguous, unflawed teachings is sure, but that we await a future in which what’s contradictory today, will be reconcilable later.
There’s no validity to this argument. First, it’s untrue that every word of the council is imbued with infallibility. Second, what we know to be contradictions in didactic texts will never cease to be contradictions, unless we’re willing to side with the idea of our times that divests language of any sure footing. On the other hand, the council frequently repeats the words of previous popes and councils. These restatements can share in the infallibility of the Church’s ordinary teaching office. I believe you agree with me on these things.
As an aside on the term “infallibility,” More writes of “the infallible authoritie of the church in yt god techeth it euery trueth requisite to ye necessitie of mans saluacion.” I have no context for this quotation and certainly don’t know whether the origin of More’s use is legal or theological. Regardless of precedent, More uses “infallible” in the same way that we use it today: namely, to indicate (as More says elsewhere) “that the very true faith without error hath been preserved in the See Apostolic.” I mention this because I have a curiosity about the history of words. I’d love to read Father Augustine on this.
RBrown:
Thanks for answering politly.
Meantime I´ve studied a bit (f.e. G.B. Sala) and considered carefully your arguments and so by now I ADMIT that you are right (so I wrong) in 1. 2. and 3.
Especially 3. is convincing – together with the argument (also in some articles of Sala or in Ad Tuendam Fidem etc.) that credandam is used only for prim. obj-teaching (your 1. and 2.).
I was not familiar with this new nomenclature. According to what I posted it seems to me that the old nomenclature was another one, sc. credenda as well as tenenda for both/each prim. or sec. obj.; the differenciation seemed to be that the prim obj. were to credenda by/with divine faith whilst sec. obj. by mere cath. faith (or, according to other theologians, even both credenda fide divina, but the pr. obj immediate, the sec. obj. only mediate). But both credenda.
But, again, I admit there seems to have been a changing in the nomenclature (or am I also wrong in this??). So yes, you are more familiar with the actuell nomenclature I see.
So 1.-3. You convinced me.
But I still deny, dealing with your 4. point, that this is a novelty. So perhaps you can be convinced in this point :)
I have given enough arguments for it and now also caleb1x gave more. They are realy convincing. See also G.B. Sala. And I qouted also the phrase of Past. Aet.
And, as I also noted, at least I deny (besides the novelity) that in itselfe the teaching of LG is infallible. It is not an infallible mag. ord. teaching because of lacking some conditions for it (see above – but also see G.B.Sala for it. I can cite you some text of him if you want. LG does not claim for definitive holding and so for infallibility, neither by an extraord. nor by an ordinary decision). it is only infallible because it is NOT new and in old times the mag. ord. taught it yet (infallibly).
So perhapas as you convinced me you can be convinced by me and caleb1x in this two points. Would be a nice ending, wouldn´t it [:)]?
Honestly thanking for discussion
in CHrist through Mary