According to the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia entry on General (or Ecumenical) Councils:
“Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils.”
Let’s now consider the same volume’s entry on Infallibility:
“That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority.”
What we see taking shape in these texts is an image of the Ecumenical Councils that strongly suggests that they necessarily teach with the intent to bind, and as such, enjoy the protection of the Holy Ghost from all error in matters of faith and morals. Such, it would seem, is part and parcel of the General Council’s very nature.
For more insight, let’s take a look at the 1917 Code of Canon Law; the same in force during the Second Vatican Council.
(The citations provided are taken from The New Code of Canon Law: A Commentary and Summary of the New Code of Canon Law – Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M., Imprimatur – John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, 1918)
Can. 227 The decrees of the Council have no definite binding force, unless they shall have been confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his orders.
The implication here is simple enough: Once confirmed by the pope, the decrees of the General Council have “definite binding force.”
Can. 228 The General Council has supreme jurisdiction in the whole Church. From the judgment of the Roman Pontiff, there is no appeal to the General Council.
Furthermore, the “binding force” of the General Council’s teaching is universal and of the first order in authority.
Based upon these citations, it appears evident that in the preparatory years leading up to Vatican Council II it was the reasonable expectation of every Catholic to imagine that it, like all of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church, necessarily intended to teach with binding force, and to do so under the protection of the Holy Ghost such that it would be free from all error.
It is good and proper that one with sensus Catholicus should have harbored such an expectation as the opening of the Council approached, for anything less than this would arguably amount to a violation of the General Council’s very essence.
With all of this said, we know very well (or at least we should) that the Second Vatican Council did not, in fact, meet this expectation as it neither taught with the intent to bind, nor did it teach under the protection of the Holy Ghost unto infallibility.
Prior to, during, and in the aftermath of Vatican II, the popes have seen fit to reiterate the non-definitive nature of the Council; their words presumably so widely familiar by now that there is no need to repeat them here.
No part of the religious teaching is to be understood as dogmatically declared and defined, unless such declaration or definition is clearly known to have been made. (cf Can. 1323 Code of Canon Law, 1917)
This canon served to inform the “Explanatory Note” that is recorded in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium:
“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.”
For the record, the Second Vatican Council made such an open declaration precisely zero times.
In spite of all that has been said about the non-binding nature of the Council and its lack of infallibility, the sensus Catholicus resists (and understandably so) the very notion that the text of this, or any, Ecumenical Council could possibly contain error.
So much is this the case that Pope Benedict XVI made the establishment of “continuity” (between the text of Vatican II and the faith of the Church as traditionally taught) the priority of his pontificate. This continuity, in the mind of the pope, simply must exist because the alternative (discontinuity) is utterly incompatible with the very nature of the General Council.
Based on our examination thus far, he seems to have had a point, and yet, even after a seven year reign on the Throne of St. Peter, the continuity that Benedict sought still eludes us.
How can this be?
In the aftermath of the Council, it seems to me, we have wasted far too much time asking all the wrong questions:
Does Vatican II bind all Christians? Did it teach infallibly? Does ‘continuity’ exist?
When the question we need to ask is far more basic:
Does Vatican Council II truly merit, based on its nature and intent, to be designated an “Ecumenical Council” of the Catholic Church?
I would speculate that a day may very well come when a future pope will answer this question by ruling in the negative, citing the Second Vatican Council’s deliberate lack of intent to bind with the mark of infallibility as the disposition that effectively rendered it more properly a glorified, historic, and ultimately embarrassing Synod of Bishops.
Relieving this event of the title “Ecumenical Council” and all of the expectations that come with it will, in truth, change nothing. And yet, in a certain sense, doing so may cause the scales to fall from the eyes of those who currently find themselves at war with their own sensus Catholcus, allowing them to see the deficiencies in the conciliar text for what they truly are and to set things aright at long last.
Such a revelation to the real question to be asked concerning the validity of VII teachings or mistaken teachings may put to rest the response to the conflict of doubt that has haunted the Church since those documents were first promulgated. Yet, here we are 50 years later in total disarray from probably the largest gathering of the hierarchy in the Church’s history. They set the direction and 5 decades later there is still total doubt about so many areas of the practices of the faith. This result of that “synod” was a total catastrophe for the Church. It may take us another 500 years to straighten out the errors that have arisen from that mistaken meeting. So from my place in the peanut gallery the questions of how and why only get more intense with time. This is our eternal salvation with which we are dealing. This is a chain that goes back to the person of Christ himself. Somebody has to stand up and say it was all a BIG, HUGE, ENORMOUS mistake. Delay in our true path will only amplify the division of our one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I do not see that admission on our horizon.
Dear Louie,
Thanks for your hopeful words:
…” a day may very well come when a future pope will answer this question…”
It’s a shame there’s such a long, long, list of other issues to which we can apply it at this moment in the history of the Church..
How about: Vatican Coun[s]el II?
Unrelated but I found this at another site by someone named gangnelli
ganganelli Me too • 9 months ago
I’ll take that backhanded compliment. Admit it, I debate better than most libs.
• Reply•Share ›
Me too ganganelli • 9 months ago
Yes, Your skill at changing the subject and avoiding questions is unmatched. Have you thought of running for congress?
1 • Reply•Share ›
Jess1 ganganelli • 9 months ago
“I’m not an expert in every state”
Yet that stops you from pontificating… Hmm.
• Reply•Share ›
MNHawk ganganelli • 9 months ago
“Why don’t you shop the exchange?”
That’s a funny, right?
I did check out what was out there pre-exchange. Higher deductibles, higher co-pays, and a higher costs overall. I’m far from alone.
Russ, I’m trying to put myself into the shoes of a true believer cultist. You mean I don’t come across as well as gangenelli, at typing out a line of pure bullcrap?
• Reply•Share ›
ganganelli MNHawk • 9 months ago
No it’s not funny. I understand you may live in the right wing bubblesphere that was sure Romney was going to Win! All the polls were skewed!
But yes, I found a policy 30 percent cheaper than our current policy simply by shopping healthcare.gov. The website sucks, but you can still navigate it.
The whole exchange can be found here
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/10/so-much-for-being-able-to-keep-my-health-insurance.html
The one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church suffers no division. She does not long for, pine for, seek, await, or desire unity– for She is intact. She is not on a path. She is whole and undefiled.
It is those who do make make, among other things, the ascent required to adhere to Her that suffer division and are therefore scattered.
correction:
“It is those who do not make, among other things, the ascent ——–”
Apology.
Yes, they called it a council of the Church but they kept saying that it’s only “pastoral” in order to ram through novelties veiled in verbose and confusing language. Subterfuge and deception. Then later on, persecution was the order of the day for those who did not tow the party line. All prophesied by the Blessed Virgin.
Good to see your sensus Catholicus is alive and well, Louie. You know in your heart of hearts that an Ecumenical Council of the Holy Roman Catholic Church can’t teach error.
@stmykearchangel: Interesting link. The Disqus log has a long memory, I see.
Exactly.
It can’t bind anyone to error. Of course, the promulgating pope of Vatican II informed us that the council binds us to NO NEW TEACHING. So did the Secretary of the Council in a theological note to the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. And one of the most powerful cardinals in the world and a champion of the council told us that the documents contain novelties juxtaposed with orthodox statements just last year. And I could go on and on and on about such things.
—–
It seems your oversimplifications are good only for obfuscation.
Seems ganganelli maybe a a self described lib who pushes Obamacare .
Oh, there’s more than that there. Click on his username to get a full log of all of his posts on Disqus across the internet. Paints a vivid picture.
Well said.
I am am a proud old school liberal. But I don’t dissent from a single teaching of the Church. In fact, I dare you to find a single post that would indicate that I do. By the way, with the HHS mandate out of the way, the bishops will be pushing for the expansion of medicaid.
Which Pius was it that said that “liberal Catholics are the worst ENEMIES of the Church”?
—–
Well, now I understand why you believe that infallible Church teaching can be reversed by the Church – even though the Church, like a sleazy used car salesman, tries to hide that, according to you.
—–
It is difficult to find a position either less Catholic or more nonsensical. It’s ironic that this positing this very argument about that very subject (usury) is the preferred tactic of anti-Catholics attempting to disprove the divine origin of the Church.
—–
This position of yours also proves false the assertion you made above: the fact that infallible teaching cannot change IS a doctrine of the Church; it is inherent in the definition of “infallible”. So, whether or not you believe that infallible teachings can change, or you believe that the Church is never really infallible (really a far more logical position given your statements), you deny Catholic teaching. (Even if you don’t know it: that just makes it material rather than formal heresy. I cannot accuse you of formal heresy.)
And – I really can’t quite help myself now – do you expect us to buy that you are a “proud old-school liberal” AND were a traditionalist for 15 years? How is that possible?
—–
My kids like to watch Scooby Doo. The old ones; the new ones are full of weird demonic garbage. My thought now is that it is time for Gangenelli to be unmasked: who is he? The meddling kids have foiled this plot, it would seem.
—–
If I’m wrong I’ll apologize.
Seems the coyote blog site is down now hmmm.
Is this a serious question? Do you have grandparents? Mine were faithful Irish Catholics who went to mass every Sunday and lived a full Catholic life in their parish. But if you even THOUGHT about voting Republican, you would have been disowned. They had a picture of Pope Pius XII and John F. Kennedy in their home. Are you going to tell me they weren’t real Catholics?
So now we see that some posters here are Republicans in Catholic clothing. So here are some quotes for you all on Catholic Social teaching from the author of Mortalium Animos His Holiness Pope Pius XI.
–
In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family. That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father’s low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman.
Ok. I will admit that your position is at least logical. Those quotes do exist and, as far as I know, they haven’t been challenged by the post-conciliar popes. Having said that, what do you expect to happen? Do you really believe a future pope will come along and disavow V2 and the post-conciliar magisterium?
http://disqus.com/ganganelli/
Mr. V,
Spot on as the English would say. And I would add that it is only a matter of time before the Holy Ghost rights the Barque of St. Peter in the upcoming Council of Econe. ;). And those Econe documents will include a generous amount of citations from the Hall of Fame popes. 🙂
______
As for the political stuff, I think it was Barry Goldwater who said that “it is far better to be extremely right, than extremely wrong”.
______
And now for something completely different, (and why it is so important of not being “extremely wrong”), I bring you the re-re-conquista agents, from that religion of peace. Enjoy!
______
PS They already suggested last week that they would conquer Rome.
_______
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-07/isis-latest-and-most-ambitious-plan-yet-invade-spain
PPS. And just in case you thought I was kidding about the conquest of Rome, this from the EF blog:
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/07/islamic-state-will-conquer-rome-and-win.html
And this.
______
No truer words have ever been said:
“These men (moderists) are certainly to be pitied, and of them the Apostle might well say: They became vain in their thoughts. . . professing themselves to be wise they became fools (Rom. i. 21, 22); but, at the same time, they excite just indignation when they accuse the Church of torturing the texts, arranging and confusing them after its own fashion, and for the needs of its cause. In this they are accusing the Church of something for which their own conscience plainly reproaches them.”
St. Pius X ‘s Pascendi Dominici Gregis of 8 September 1907.
_______
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-great-error-of-modernists-for-them.html
Mr. Verrecchio, you and many of your blog’s readers might find this video interesting. It explores some provocative questions and a daring thesis by the Rev. Gregory Hesse about Vatican II.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnEQIq4_AKI
No republican here., monarchist. Just using your own words from your posts.
And… and… and…. this.
_______
http://www.timescolonist.com/business/vatican-bank-profit-plunges-scrutiny-of-clients-stressed-amid-pope-s-reform-orders-1.1197563
_______
I guess the Francis effect isn’t showing up in the Vatican Bank’s bottom line.
dear AaronFatimaCatholic,
I know !
I love Fr. Hesse, {God rest his soul.} I recommend him in catechesis. It’s amazing to me when folks find Father too searing. What they don’t realize is something I find myself constantly reiterating— Catholics always spoke with boldness in the late 1940’s during my childhood. Pre-empting every single word with an over the top nicety did not exist.
I believe Father was ordained NO but moved onward to SSPX, although I’m not 100% on that.
It’s also amazing to see Fr. Hesse address VIi ecumenism vs. this nauseating piece:
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/44555-why-did-copeland-robison-meet-with-pope-francis
Honorius was condemned by a Council, so it’s not entirely impossible.
Yes a future pope will come along and disavow V2 and the post-conciliar magisterium. But I would correct your choice of words: disavow V2 and the post-conciliar program. There has been no post-conciliar teaching authority. It is all conferences, press releases, and trial balloons. It’s party lines and company policy and updating on schedule. The “new springtime” is wallowing in manure as the Church and creation itself already groans for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart and the ensuing resurrection of the Church militant.
At last – the definitive answer – ‘the Second Vatican Council did not, in fact, meet this expectation as it neither taught with the intent to bind, nor did it teach under the protection of the Holy Ghost unto infallibility…for the record, the Second Vatican Council made such an open declaration precisely zero times.’
–
If only true hearted bishops and priests and laity would now boycott the error inducting Trojan horse that has been doing a real termite’s job of tearing down the church from the inside our since Roncalli sealed away Fatima. When we have a pope who declares VII, ‘anathema’ – then I guess I would know for sure we have the real deal.
p.s. one has to ask, will October be yet another ‘historic ultimately embarrassing Synod of Bishops’?
my dear salvemur,
I’m afraid I’m overly hysterical vis a vie October, to bee quite honest. {Pun intended.}
My name for it as of today is “maniacal modernist menagerie.”
Does Vatican Council II truly merit, based on its nature and intent, to be designated an “Ecumenical Council” of the Catholic Church?
No, because its intent was not to bind, but to destroy, under the false appearance of binding, to see how many clergy and faithful could be caught asleep at the wheel in their assent to this evil deception.
How many? Most of them, it would seem.
dear GreatPretender51,
Perfect what you said. And beautiful. Why. Because Truth is beautiful.
We know that Satan’s intent is to destroy anything God wills, but he often dupes humans into believing their ideas actions are only an attempt to enhance understanding of and illuminate Truth. There is a great deal of evidence for this.. With so many different souls involved in the council, is it really prudent to declare the intent of the entire council “to destroy…to see how many could be caught asleep.?
Another question that can be asked is how to reconcile, on the one hand, Oscar Maradiaga’s conclusion that “[the Second Vatican Council] meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism” with, on the other, the Oath against Modernism, which (presumably) would have been sworn by all of the Council Fathers.
Consider, for example, the civil law maxim that “a legal action does not arise from a dishonorable cause”. If Maradiaga’s conclusion is correct, and an attempt is made to take legal action against clergy or laity who reject it, would this attempt not be dishonorable, given that the Council Fathers bound themselves as follows (“so help them God”):
“Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili…. I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing”.
When our priests and bishops take this oath again – then will the counterfeit-church be on the way out.
The ‘maniacal modernist menagerie’ are maniacs against the faith. At little more histrionics from the Faithful wouldn’t go astray. When they introduced the novus ordo all those decades ago, Romans, one morning, got up to find all the fountains in the city flowing red. Some protesting Catholics poured red dye in the fountains – I can’t remember the words of their protest, but the red dye represented the blood of matyrs who were raised by and died sanctified by the Mass that had just been ‘outlawed’.
What about the First Commandment? Sadly, too many people put the Faith in a little compartment, not allowing it to inform and lead all of their life, especially their political, public activity. I have seen a lot of this among nominal Irish Catholics (I am Irish.) Many apostates continue to call themselves “Catholic”. It is easy for them to do so with impunity because of the diabolical disorientation and dictatorship of relativism within the Church at the highest levels.
You appear to be a Democrat in Catholic clothing. Support for that political party is a breach of the moral duties of all men, particularly a Catholic, who owes obedience and fidelity to Our Lord God.
If, through Cardinal Tisserant, John XXIII agreed with delegates of Moscow that the then-forthcoming Council would not condemn Communism, V2 cannot be an Ecumenical Council; for such an undertaking means the Council lacked the freedom necessary for its deliberations. And such freedom is essential if a putatively Ecumenical Council is to be Ecumenical in reality.
If this agreement was secret, even more can it not be Ecumenical – for a Council at which the attending Fathers have their hands tied w/o knowing it, is even more manifestly lacking in the liberty it needs if it is to provide for the good of the Church. It is in any case intolerable that Communists should be permitted to hobble the Church of Christ.
AFAICS, the documents of V2 have no more authority than is intrinsic to them. They lack the extrinsic authority that they would have if they were the work of an Ecumenical Council; but they are not the work of such a Council, because it lacked liberty. Which is an irony beyond words…