Concerning Sungenis and Vatican II

[lumengentleman]

Also, and this is a bit of a digression, what teachings of Vatican II should we try to recapture for the Traditional cause?

 

 

Perhaps another thread should be started for that topic, where we can look at specific passages and discuss how they can be interpreted in harmony with tradition ... but for starters, I would note some of the "trouble" passages of Vatican II that are so often used by the liberals to promote their cause.

 

For example, when Lumen Gentium says that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church, we cannot let the liberals say that this means the Church of Christ is a larger entity than the Catholic Church, and embraces all the churches.

 

Rather, we should be interpreting that in light of Pius XII's statement that the Church of Christ "is" the Catholic Church, and proceed with Lumen Gentium under that understanding.

 

"Subsists", by the way, is a very specific term.  It refers to something that exists autonomously, of itself; the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church because it is the Catholic Church; but the Church of Christ exists in a contingent, dependent way in other sects - and Lumen Gentium actually goes on to explain what is meant by this.

 

What the document means is that certain things which belong properly to the Catholic Church also exist in other sects: some Protestant sects have retained the Sacrament of Baptism in a valid way; the Eastern Orthodox have retained true Apostolic Orders, which means they have a valid priesthood and a valid Eucharist; there are other examples.

 

But these sacraments which belong to the Church of Christ exist in those non-Catholic sects in a dependant way - the Protestants would not have valid baptisms except that they got the sacrament from the Catholic Church, and the sacrament owes its efficacy to the Catholic Church.

 

In contrast, those same sacraments exist in the Catholic Church in an autonomous way; they subsist in the Catholic Church.

 

I think the use of the word "subsists" in Lumen Gentium is there in order to affirm the traditional teaching concerning the nature of the Church, while also trying to deal with the strange reality of non-Catholic sects that have valid baptisms, valid priests, a valid Eucharist, etc.

 

Anyway, like I said, perhaps another thread should be started for this topic.

[Mark]

 

Also, and this is a bit of a digression, what teachings of Vatican II should we try to recapture for the Traditional cause?

 

 

Perhaps another thread should be started for that topic, where we can look at specific passages and discuss how they can be interpreted in harmony with tradition ... but for starters, I would note some of the "trouble" passages of Vatican II that are so often used by the liberals to promote their cause.

 

For example, when Lumen Gentium says that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church, we cannot let the liberals say that this means the Church of Christ is a larger entity than the Catholic Church, and embraces all the churches.

 

Rather, we should be interpreting that in light of Pius XII's statement that the Church of Christ "is" the Catholic Church, and proceed with Lumen Gentium under that understanding.

 

"Subsists", by the way, is a very specific term.  It refers to something that exists autonomously, of itself; the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church because it is the Catholic Church; but the Church of Christ exists in a contingent, dependent way in other sects - and Lumen Gentium actually goes on to explain what is meant by this.

 

What the document means is that certain things which belong properly to the Catholic Church also exist in other sects: some Protestant sects have retained the Sacrament of Baptism in a valid way; the Eastern Orthodox have retained true Apostolic Orders, which means they have a valid priesthood and a valid Eucharist; there are other examples.

 

But these sacraments which belong to the Church of Christ exist in those non-Catholic sects in a dependant way - the Protestants would not have valid baptisms except that they got the sacrament from the Catholic Church, and the sacrament owes its efficacy to the Catholic Church.

 

In contrast, those same sacraments exist in the Catholic Church in an autonomous way; they subsist in the Catholic Church.

 

I think the use of the word "subsists" in Lumen Gentium is there in order to affirm the traditional teaching concerning the nature of the Church, while also trying to deal with the strange reality of non-Catholic sects that have valid baptisms, valid priests, a valid Eucharist, etc.

 

Anyway, like I said, perhaps another thread should be started for this topic.

 

Veri nteresting! Thank you.. I'd also be for another thread for discussing this..

[VoxClamantis]

Catholic Encyclopedia on Infallibility:

 

 

V. WHAT TEACHING IS INFALLIBLE?

A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.  

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.  

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.  

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

[Amadeus]

I think we have agreed on this. You don't have to give your assent to non-definitive truths proposed in a non-dogmatic Council (which is not to say that it wasn't infallible). Since we are not learned theologians (and haven't really engaged with official theologians) we are permitted to whithhold assent. However, this "withholding" cannot equal "rejection", for that would imply error in the Ordinary Magisterium. Therefore, it has to be only temporary, until it is sufficiently clarified by one's own investigation, or by the Magisterium of the Church.

[lumengentleman]

It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

 

I've heard this before ... it's really a double-edged sword, though, and again, it opens an epistemological can of worms.  Take the Council of Trent, for example: how much of Trent is infallible?  Just the decrees?  The canons too?  Within the texts of Trent there are many, many explanatory paragraphs (the decree on Justification is 16 chapters long) - and nowhere is it clearly denoted where the "infallible decree" parts begin and end.

 

I say this is a double-edged sword because I can't tell you how many times I've debated with liberal Catholics who fall back on this principle in order to justify departing from traditional doctrine.  You quote to them from the canons of the Council of Trent, and they come back with, "well, the canons aren't dogmatic statements - and not all parts of a conciliar document are infallible, you know."

 

Same goes for papal documents like Mortalium Animos, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, the Syllabus of Errors, and so on ... they're not infallible you know, so they're subject to future "clarification" (which always mean "reform" it seems).

 

It appears that both trads and neo-cats want to have their cake and eat it too.  They tell us we can't question the non-infallible statements of the current pope, because they're still authoritative statements, but then they turn around and criticize and/or reject the non-infallible statements of prior popes; we insist that they can't just reject the solemn encyclicals of past popes (like Mortalium Animos), even if they aren't infallible documents, because they're still authoritative - but then we turn around and do that very thing with the encyclicals of current popes.

 

We justify our criticisms of Vatican II because its documents are not infallible; but we won't allow the neo-cats to do the same thing with the non-infallible portions of past councils, even though we agree that not every last word in the old conciliar texts are infallible.

[VoxClamantis]

The difference is Tradition -- both the Divine and ecclesiastical. The liberals and neo-Cats forget all about that and just look for solemn definitions put out in the last 40 years, pretending the first two millenia of Church History doesn't exist.