Vatican II docs: infallible in content

[Desert Walker]

Perhaps a better way to put this question is this:

JPII has stated that the Church has no official philosophy. This implies that the infallible hierarchy, even though it teaches without the possibility of substantial error, quite possibly could use the terminology and epystemological approach to experiential reality of a philosophical architecture that might ultimately fail to communicate the practical essence of Christianity to human beings in a tangible way.



Thoughts?

[dspen2005]

all human language fails to convey the sincere essence of Christian Truth. Language is a limiting principle and vehicle of theological reflection, inherently.

[Desert Walker]

Yes. True. Just my opinion, but maybe they played the Ecumenical Council card to early. Sure does seem that way... the language of the documents is just vague enough to enable them to be translated into an affirmation of apostasy in some cases. And with the educated cultures of the world composed of people with a TV constructed cognition, and ultra-liberal university professors one wonders whether the timing was just perfect for the nourishment of utter insanity in the Church. That's what I see anyway.

[stbernardLT]

I think vagueness is something that can be found in a lot of church teaching even the bible (especially the epistles). That is why when the bible started being mass produced all these different christian dominations started springing up because now all of a sudden everyone became an interpretter. That is why in cases where something is vague we should leave it to the professionals (the heiarchy) to discern the meaning of it. Especially something as important as a document like Vatican II. Apparently those who wrote had a purpose in mind, a purpose that would bless the church and bring some type of renewal. It is not for us to say whether or not it is "too" vague, I think we just need to listen to our mother church and pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[morostheos]

I think it's also important to trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Sure, there has been a lot of turmoil and confusion, but there have also been many fruits. Look at the fruits of all the lay ecclesial movements that were created just prior to/directly after Vatican II that take to heart the universal call to holiness and the role of the laity that was stressed so much in Vatican II documents.

[Paladin]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Mar 6 2006, 04:02 PM']I think it's also important to trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.  Sure, there has been a lot of turmoil and confusion, but there have also been many fruits.  Look at the fruits of all the lay ecclesial movements that were created just prior to/directly after Vatican II that take to heart the universal call to holiness and the role of the laity that was stressed so much in Vatican II documents.
[right][snapback]904326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Bingo. Right on the money.

The Second Vatican Council was a licit ecumenical council inspired by the Holy Spirit. It's infallible. Is the language complex? Sure. It's the finite trying to explain the infinite. Did it use the language of the day? Of course. So did the Council of Chalcedon, the Council of Trent, and every council down the line. Is it misinterpreted? Frequently. I don't blame the linguistics, but the hermeneutics; i.e., the texts of the council are fine, it's the people who read them, the people who [i]want[/i] so much for them to teach what they were expecting or what's important to them that are at fault. If you want to find an excuse to do some apostacy, you'll find some legal loophole, whether it's in Vatican II or Nicea.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Paladin' date='Mar 6 2006, 08:38 PM']If you want to find an excuse to do some apostacy, you'll find some legal loophole, whether it's in Vatican II or Nicea.
[right][snapback]904854[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hm. Scary you should say that. My pastor recently said the exact same thing at Mardi Gras party. But he wasn't talking about apostasy, he was talking about Church law itself: "Sure we have laws, but there are loopholes in the laws."

[Era Might]

That's true. Non-Catholics see everything from Mary is God to the Pope is Jesus incarnate in Church documents throughout the centuries.

Everything the Church writes is subject to ambiguity, misinterpretation, and ridicule.

[Desert Walker]

I originally posted the following in Open Mic, but it seems like it would be more appropriate here.

[quote]Ok. I'm scanning the documents of Vatican II for the first time. I'm coming accross a TON of stuff that I'm having trouble applying to reality in a concrete way. There seems to be a lot of ways to apply the statements of Vatican II to the life of the Church. So... what was the council trying to say exactly? Everything?

In the document about religious education (basically catechesis) it refers to soemthing it calls "the true spirit of the church" and the duty to impart that to young people. What the heck is it anyway? I thought that if I started reading the Council documents I would be able to come to grips with what appear to be titanic forces struggling for supremecy in the Church today, or at least be able to identify that which is harming the authentic ideal of the Church.

The documents aren't helping me to see Christian life more clearly yet. In fact, whenever I read the one about religious life I start feeling like I was totally wrong to leave the Redemptorists last year. It makes me wonder things like "Does Vatican II applaud pluralism?" The Redemptorists are so pluralistic in their outlook on the Christian life that I nearly became convinced that the Magisterial Authority of the Church was more aptly represented in the laity expressing its opinions to bishops and popes than it was in the centralized circle around the Chair of Peter. That's when I was told by my relatives that I was falling into heresy. So I left.

There's a simple way of saying this... I'm trying to find it....

I see that Vatican II was an attempt by the hierarchy to "be all things to all people" as St. Paul said he was. But why have so many people taken that to mean that there is no place in the Church for an understanding of Christian life that contains anything dated before 1965?

Perhaps this will concretize my thoughts here:

I've recently started reading Peter Eymard's In the Light of the Monstrance. The first section is called Fundamental Truths. Any guess as to the first fundamental truth presented? Sanctifying Grace. Eymard says that no human soul can progress in a true, Christian way toward God without first being in, what I was taught as a child, was the "State of Grace." What I'm saying is that there is a very concrete spiritual science regarding sin, grace, penance and justice that I simply don't hear about anymore. The Baltimore Catechism expounds upon it quite explicitly. So called "conservatives" often do as well. Is it simply not important anymore? Is that what Vatican II was supposed to teach us about the Christian life?

Or is it simply that Vatican II was not intended to address that kind of thing and certain members of the Church have assumed otherwise?

Am I correct in assuming that an ecumenical council is not intended to address anything but the self-image of the Church in the world? [/quote]

Edited March 7, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Era Might]

The Baltimore Catechism was just that, a Catechism. It was intended to provide a general panorama of Catholic doctrine.

The Ecumenical Councils assume a theological foundation. They are not there to summarize the Church's faith so much as to address a particular aspect of that faith.

If you're looking for a treatment of the "state of grace", you'll have to look to the Catechism, not to the documents of Vatican II. This is not their purpose. They are not catechetical in nature. Even the Catechism was primarily intended for Bishops. It was a foundation for local Catechisms.

As for pluralism, I think the Council's decree on Ecumenism would answer that:

[quote]The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.

--Unitatis Redintegratio #11[/quote]

[BurkeFan]

... where does JPII say that? It seems to go against what Leo XIII said in Aeterni Patris, in a way.