Was Vatican Ii Merely A Pastoral Council?

[Dave]

Hi everyone,

I recently posted the following article on a blog I share with some friends. I figured it might be a good idea to share it here too, since I know we've all run into the old "Vatican II was pastoral so Catholics aren't bound by it" claim, and it's a frustrating argument to deal with.

[quote](The following is a chapter from the book "More Catholic Than the Pope: An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism" by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere. Madrid is a well-known Catholic apologist, and Vere is a canon lawyer and a former adherent to the SSPX schism.)

Proponents of extreme Traditionalism will often take refuge behind the claim that Vatican II was "merely a pastoral council," therefore it cannot be recognized as an infallible council. "Didn't the Second Vatican Council, as a merely pastoral council," they demand, "break with Tradition? Furthermore, what infallible statement did Vatican II promulgate?" These are good questions that deserve good answers. The pastoral nature of the Second Vatican Council is the source of much controversy among many traditionalists. In fact, many traditional Catholics who reconcile with the Church continue to wrestle with this question long after their return to the Church.

Fortunately, Fr. Gerald de Servigny answers many of these questions in his book La Theologie de L'Euchariste dans le Concile Vatican II, which is currently being translated by one of the authors into the English language. Father de Servigny is a licensed theologian who brings both keen pastoral insight and theological reflection to the question, and this chapter could not have been written without his help. We are grateful to both him and his publisher Pierre Tequi Editeur for granting us permission to translate and quote freely from his book in this chapter (1).

Many traditionalists argue that the Second Vatican Council was the first general council of the Church to be uniquely convened as a "pastoral" council. Yet the word "pastoral" can be understood (and misunderstood) in different ways. When applied to the Second Vatican Council, as Father de Servigny points out, the word "pastoral" must be understood in the context of what Pope John XXIII intended when he convened the Council. This is a fairly common principle when it comes to the interpretation of the sacred sciences. In fact, one can draw a parallel between Father de Servigny's approach and Canon 17 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (or, since the 1983 Code of Canon Law was not yet in effect when Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council, Canon 18 from the 1917 Code of Canon Law).

Father de Servigny cites the following paragraph from Pope John XXIII's opening discourse at the Second Vatican Council: "It must come to pass that this certain and immutable doctrine, which must be faithfully respected, is deepened and presented in a way that replies to the demands of our time . . . We must attach more importance to this way and patiently, if need be, towards its elaboration, and we must hasten to a way of presenting it that better corresponds to a teaching whose character is pastoral above all else (2).

This is a fairly good summary of how Pope John XXIII understood the word "pastoral" when he convened the Second Vatican Council. "Pastoral" does not mean that the Second Vatican Council merely focused upon the Church's pastoral discipline -- those laws and practices subject to change over time. Nor does "pastoral" mean the Second Vatican Council ignored the Church's teaching, since its pronouncements had to be based on some previous Catholic teaching in order to qualify as one of the Church's general councils. Rather, "pastoral" in this context means taking the Church's existing, immutable teaching -- those matters of faith and morals that we derive from Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition -- and putting them into practice in a manner that challenges today's society and culture in terms it can comprehend.

"While the temptation exists to oppose the Second Vatican Council's pastoral nature with the dogmatic nature of previous ecumenical councils," Father de Servigny warns, "pastoral and dogmatic do not automatically exclude one another. For a pastoral teaching is a theological teaching, albeit not purely intellectual and reserved to theologians. Rahter, it is transmitted to the everyday world in order to spiritually feed Christians and enlighten them about the mystery of God. It is this teaching that enlightens the faithful, telling us what we must believe and what we must do to grow in our relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ."

In other words, "pastoral" determines where a doctrine stands among the average Catholic in the pew. We don't study God for God's sake, but for our own. We study the mystery of God to better understand Him, to love Him all the more, and to live His truth more fully. For instance, doctrinal theology teaches us about the great mystery of Christ's redemption, whereas pastoral theology teaches us to put this mystery into practice by frequenting the sacrament of confession. Doctrinal theology teaches us about the mystery of transubstantiation during the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, whereas pastoral theology teaches us when we can and cannot partake of this mystery.

Once the reader understands this pastoral orientation of the Second Vatican Council, Father de Servigny introduces the following quotation from Cardinal Yves Congar, O.P. -- one of the many theological experts invited to partake in the Council. "What John XXIII designated by 'pastoral' was doctrine," Cardinal Congar writes, "but expressing itself in history, in the time of the actual world . . . It is doctrinal, but pastoral doctrine, that is to say doctrine that asks to be applied historically" (3). What Congar means is that, as a pastoral council, the Second Vatican Council sought to apply the Church's teaching within the context of current history -- to make the Church's doctrine relevant to today's world. At the incarnation, Christ didn't merely take upon Himself human flesh -- He also took upon Himself our customs, mores, culture, and, as far as creation is concerned, time and space. Thus, doctrine applies here and now, across the expanse of human geography, in an age of modern technology and universal communications. Doctrine is not simply restricted to the Hebrew population gathered in the vicinity of Jerusalem during the era of King Herod and Pontius Pilate.

Father de Servigny writes: "For Congar and for others, pastoral doctrine is an incarnate doctrine, not unlike our Lord who incarnated Himself in the womb of the Blessed Virgin. Its vocabulary also possesses the ability to renew itself. For while the Church's essential teaching can't change according to the time or the culture, the Church can render this teaching more accessible to the faithful according to time and place, as she discovers better ways of expressing the essential truths of our Faith. Therefore, we shouldn't mistake pastoral for negligible, secondary, or meaningless, nor should we see it as inferior to the magisterial or to purely doctrinal teaching. Yet this is how certain opposition movements have come to misunderstand the Council, always in order to combat it. To briefly summarize their arguments, they oppose the pastoral character of the Vatican Council because they maintain that as a pastoral council, Vatican II only undertook a disciplinary content. Following up on this faulty premise, they then conclude the Second Vatican Council obviously had nothing to do with the magisterial teaching of the Church."

Father de Servigny then points us to the following insights penned by Pope Paul VI in a letter responding to Archbishop Lefebvre's criticism of certain conciliar texts. "You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others," the Holy Father explains. "Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application" (4).

Thus, even the purely pastoral teaching of the Second Vatican Council belongs to the Church's magisterium. After all, the three functions of the Church are to teach, to govern, and to sanctify. While each of these functions is unique -- much as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost exist as unique persons within the Holy Trinity -- they are nevertheless interrelated. Similarly, the Church's purely doctrinal teaching is related to how this teaching is implemented. In other words, the Church's governing function can never be totally separated from her teaching function. And thus the Second Vatican Council's pronouncements are at the same time both doctrinal and pastoral.

Father de Servigny speaks of the consequences this implies: "The Supreme Pontiff and the bishops gathered into a council, and subsequently the Holy Spirit assists the college of bishops, as successors of the Holy Apostles, in proposing doctrine to the universal Church. Of notable interest is the formula employed by the Holy Father and the bishops in signing and promulgating the text, namely: 'by virtue of the apostolic power that we hold from Christ in union with the venerable fathers, we approve, decree, and establish in the Holy Spirit . . . '"

While the weight of each particular text arising from the Second Vatican Council may vary, the documents are nevertheless to be received and understood as authoritative Church teaching. The pastoral texts of the Second Vatican Council carry behind them the weight of college of bishops teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff. As we read in Pastor Aeternus, the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, "To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule, and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons . . . Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity . . . are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world."

In short, Catholic Tradition maintains we must submit to the Roman Pontiff in matters of discipline and governance, which encompass the pastoral application of doctrine, and not merely in faith and morals. As Catholics, we cannot become like Martin Luther, who, at the Diet of Worms, allegedly stated, "I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other."

At this point, it is helpful to look at the doctrine the Second Vatican Council attempted to put into pastoral practice. "From the very first lines of Lumen Gentium, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," Father de Servigny writes, "the Council places itself in continuity with previous ecumenical councils. Witness the following statement within the opening paragraph of Lumen Gentium: '[The Church]here proposes, for the benefit of the faithful and of the whole world, to set forth, as clearly as possible, and in the Tradition laid down by earlier Councils, her own nature and universal mission.'"

This claim may seem incredible to some of his fellow traditionalists, but Father de Servigny backs it up with hard information. In terms of quantity, the Second Vatican Council abundantly cites its two immediate predecessors -- namely, the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council. In fact, each of these councils is substantially cited twenty times in the Second Vatican Council (5). "The first reference to the Council of Trent appears in the fifty-fifth paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy)," Father de Servigny shares, "with regard to communion under both species: 'The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact . . . '" This is a most important reference to a prior council since it establishes a concrete area where the Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted in light of the Council of Trent. In short, the doctrinal principles underlying the pastoral focus of the Second Vatican Council are those of the Council of Trent.

(1) Cf. Fr. Gerald Beauchamp de Servigny, "Was Vatican II Merely a Pastoral Council?," translated by Pete Vere, Envoy Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 24-29.
(2) John XXIII, 11 October 1962, translated by Pete Vere.
(3) Yves Congar, Entretiens d'automne, Cerf, Paris, 1987, p. 13.
(4) Paul VI, Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, Nov. 10, 1976.
(5) Congar, Entretiens d'automne, op cit. p. 10.[/quote]

Edited May 9, 2007 by Lil Red

[goldenchild17]

I'm about as "extreme" as is possible when it comes to the supposed "rad-trads", but I believe that Vatican II was certainly intended to be an infallible council.

[N/A Gone]

for the Neophyties. Wanna share, outside of semantics, what exactly the difference is?

[Aloysius]

a Pastoral Council would only change discipline, but would not make any teachings which need to be believed as part of the Catholic Faith.

Vatican II was intended to be primarily a Pastoral Council, in that it was intended to deal primarily with matters of discipline--the question was "how do we relate the Church's Teaching to the modern world?", not "what is the Church's Teaching?", clearly about discipline not doctrine.

But it also developed some of the doctrines along the way; while it's mostly affirming the Church's teaching and describing how it should be applied in the modern world, a few things are developments in the Church's Teaching itself. for example, it finished Vatican I's incomplete work on the doctrines of Infallibility. most of the stuff everyone thinks were the most important things ever, however, were primarily not a developing of the doctrines but an affirmation of the traditional doctrine and a description of how it should be applied to the modern world. it did not intend to teach doctrinally that everyone had a moral right to their own religions, for instance, in fact that doctrine specifically said it was doing nothing but confirming the traditional teaching that it was only a moral right to practice the One True Faith; but it went on to support the idea of having a civil right to worship as one chooses in every country; a decision about how to negotiate the traditional teaching with the modern world in such a way as to guarantee Christians in non-Catholic countries the right to worship in the Catholic Faith.

[Era Might]

"Dignitatis Humanae" says explicitly that the Council Fathers were developing doctrine:

[quote]Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.[/quote]What the Council did not do was define dogma. It did, however, address and expand on "points of doctrine" as Pope John Paul II called them:

[quote]Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

--Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei"[/quote]
"Dei Verbum" and "Lumen Gentium" were both dogmatic constitutions, while "Gaudium et Spes" was a pastoral constitution, and "Sacrosanctum Concilium" was a constitution. This is why they attached a note for theologians that the documents had different purposes, and should be understood according to the mind of the Fathers in each document:

[quote]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.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

I didn't say it wasn't. I said that it's main aim was to keep in place the existing doctrines whilst shifting policy.

My point is that most of everything they said was already said before; and in a few places they furthered and extended the development of doctrine... all of it must be adhered to (with varying degrees, but all with docility and the Divine Catholic Faith).

my example was that the idea of a "right to religious freedom" was not a doctrinal development about a moral right but a policy shift about a civil right; ie, no one has the moral right to worship in a false religion (affirmed by DH), they have the moral right to be able to choose it.

the developments of doctrine were almost all primarily policy-shifts, in that the actual doctrines and principals as had always been taught were specifically intended to stay completely in place.

and again, we must assent even to the policy-shifts so that the Body of Christ can provide a united whole and convert the world

[Era Might]

I wasn't responding to anything you said, just adding my two cents. :

[Aloysius]

cool. I thought you were since I mentioned DH, thought it was useful to clarify anyway though.

the worst part of the phrase in the topic title is "merely" in my opinion; as if laity should shrug off pastoral councils on their own initiatives the primary focus of Vatican II was basically "maintain the traditional teachings, alter the pastoral approach, and advance a few doctrines"... in fact, that's almost like a formula for how the Council was presented through the Catechism... just think of an example like Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus or the Death Penalty. It first starts with re-affirming the traditional doctrine as still entirely valid and true; then it talks about how to apply that traditional doctrine to the modern world, then it advances the doctrine slightly based on which specific situations need to be addressed in the modern world.

[kafka]

I think a better way to conceptualize it is that any Council can exercise any combination of:

1. infallible dogmas
2. non-infallible doctrines
3. pastoral advice and temporal decisions

[Aloysius]

doctrines put out by a council, as far as I know, are all infallible.

operating under the understanding that a "doctrine" is a teaching about faith or morals.

[Victoria DePalma]

 

Catholic must know Dogma > Ripped from your soul

 

If you're at all interested in knowing ... the Catholic Dogma ... that we *must believe* to
get to Heaven, and which you have *never* seen ...

I list it on my website > > www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com

And no ... the anti-Christ vatican-2 heretic cult (founded in 1965) is not the Catholic Church (founded in 33 A.D.).

Currently ... you are outside the Catholic Church and so ... have no chance of getting to Heaven.

Physical participation in a heretic cult (vatican-2, lutheran, evangelical, etc) ... automatically excommunicates you from the Catholic Church (that is, Christianity) >

www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com/section_13.2.2.html

Mandatory ... Abjuration of heresy to enter the Catholic Church >

www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com/section_40.html
 

Dogma that one must Abjure to leave the vatican-2 heretic cult and enter the Catholic Church >
www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com/section_40.1.html

The BIBLE says ... 15 TIMES ... it is not the authority on Faith,
the BIBLE says the Church in it's Dogma and Doctrine ... is the authority on Faith and the definition of the Catholic Faith ... www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com/section_6.html

The Catholic God knows ... what we think and believe ...

Catholic writing of Romans 1:21 >
"They ... became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened."

Catholic Faith (pre-fulfillment) writing of Deuteronomy 31:21 >
"For I know their thoughts, and what they are about to do this day."

Catholic Faith (pre-fulfillment) writing of Job 21:27 >
"Surely I know your thoughts, and your unjust judgments against Me."

 

Regards - Victoria

[chrysostom]

28 minutes ago, Victoria DePalma said:

 

Catholic must know Dogma > Ripped from your soul

 

If you're at all interested in knowing ... the Catholic Dogma ... that we *must believe* to
get to Heaven, and which you have *never* seen ...

I list it on my website > > www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com

And no ... the anti-Christ vatican-2 heretic cult (founded in 1965) is not the Catholic Church (founded in 33 A.D.).

Currently ... you are outside the Catholic Church and so ... have no chance of getting to Heaven.

 

Regards - Victoria

Welcome to Phatmass. I'm pretty "trad" in my own kind of way, and as a part of how I understand the traditional faith delivered for millenia I am entirely unwilling to leave the visible unity of the Catholic Church under the jurisdiction of the Vicar of Christ.

In 1966, Pope Saint John XXIII worked an astonishing miracle for a religious called Sister Caterina Capitani, whose illness led to most of her stomach, pancreas, and spleen being removed. Only three years after his death - and many years before any hypothesis of sedevacantism ever existed - he appeared at her beside (which was to have been her deathbed), and healed a hole in her belly that was leaking acids out of her body to the open air. Not only that - but without the latest cutting-edge medicine, humans cannot live without a full stomach to process certain necessary vitamins. In the healing, the hole was removed, but her stomach continued to be the size of a prune. However, she lived until 2010 as an extremely active religious with no dietary supplements. This is physically impossible aside from divine intervention. The miracle, then, was not simply a one-time event in 1966, but a continuous walking miracle until her death in 2010. She is interviewed, in Italian, in the link below.

http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/02/to-lost-sheep-contradicting.html

There are arguments and there are arguments galore. But miracles reach beyond that. God bless.

[Guest]

Lumen Gentium

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/what-went-wrong-with-vatican-ii-10174 "Unfortunately, some theologians, particularly moral theologians, for reasons we will examine in subsequent chapters, have simply rejected this clear teaching of Vatican II. They have come to see their role as one of criticizing, passing judgment on, and even dismissing magisterial teaching.

There is no surer protection against this attempted usurpation than the documents of Vatican II themselves and particularly the passages just quoted from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium"