Does Vatican II Have Supreme Authority?

[Michie]

In 1962 the Second Vatican Council was opened as an Ecumenical Council. It took place under the governance of the 1917 Code ofCanon Law, which was operative until the 1983 Code of Canon Lawsuperseded it.

The 1917 Code described Ecumenical Councils as having “supreme authority (suprema potestate) over the universal Church” (Canon 228). If Vatican II really was an Ecumenical Council, then that would seem to mean that Vatican II must have a supreme authority for Catholics.

But some Catholics reject aspects of Vatican II. So, the question arises whether Vatican II really is an Ecumenical Council which has supreme authority in the Catholic Church.

1. Was Vatican II an Ecumenical Council?​

Continued below.

Does Vatican II Have Supreme Authority? - Catholic Stand

Some Catholics reject aspects of Vatican II and question whether it is really an Ecumenical Council having supreme authority over the Church.

catholicstand.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

In 1962 the Second Vatican Council was opened as an Ecumenical Council. It took place under the governance of the 1917 Code ofCanon Law, which was operative until the 1983 Code of Canon Lawsuperseded it.

The 1917 Code described Ecumenical Councils as having “supreme authority (suprema potestate) over the universal Church” (Canon 228). If Vatican II really was an Ecumenical Council, then that would seem to mean that Vatican II must have a supreme authority for Catholics.

But some Catholics reject aspects of Vatican II. So, the question arises whether Vatican II really is an Ecumenical Council which has supreme authority in the Catholic Church.

...​

Yes, people can also argue about wider issues, such as whether Vatican II was infallible, or about its status as a Pastoral Council, or its non-use of the word “anathema.” But strictly speaking none of those issues are relevant to the more fundamental question of whether Vatican II met the 1917 canonical criteria for a council to count as an Ecumenical Council.

If it is indeed difficult to avoid the conclusion that Vatican II met the (1917) requirements for it to count as an Ecumenical Council, then that has a clear practical implication for Catholics. It means that the teachings of Vatican II have a “supreme authority” in theological matters within the Catholic Church. Whatever else “supreme authority” might mean, it is difficult to see how rejecting or disparaging the teachings of Vatican II could count as treating the Council as having “supreme authority” in the Church.

My take differs.

Vatican II was a valid Ecumenical Council. It met the required criteria. It had the authority to teach as supreme authority. It just did not teach every thing at the same level. There are some dogmatic parts and some pastoral parts. The dogmatic parts (Dei Verbum for example) we accept as the teaching of the Church. The pastoral parts we are not bound by because Vatican II did not intend to bind us to those parts.

So Vatican II had supreme authority but did not always use it. Some parts we cannot reject or disparage. Other parts we can. And then there is the Vatican II document on the Liturgy that basically hasn't been tried as the Council wrote it because a bunch of liturgical experimenters decided to do something in accord with the 'spirit' of Vatican II but not the letter of Vatican II.

 

[fide]

My take differs.

Vatican II was a valid Ecumenical Council. It met the required criteria. It had the authority to teach as supreme authority. It just did not teach every thing at the same level. There are some dogmatic parts and some pastoral parts. The dogmatic parts (Dei Verbum for example) we accept as the teaching of the Church. The pastoral parts we are not bound by because Vatican II did not intend to bind us to those parts.

So Vatican II had supreme authority but did not always use it. Some parts we cannot reject or disparage. Other parts we can. And then there is the Vatican II document on the Liturgy that basically hasn't been tried as the Council wrote it because a bunch of liturgical experimenters decided to do something in accord with the 'spirit' of Vatican II but not the letter of Vatican II.

All of which highlights the problem when "laws" of men become mixed and conflated with the Law of God. Jesus warned us about this. Authorities in the Church presume that they are inerrant, that the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead and guide into all the Truth, applies to matters, and to the degree, that they - the Authorities - conclude by means of their human reasoning. Thus "Church law" weighs as heavily as Divine Law. And thus, clericalism. And thus, the papacy of Francis has come upon us.

 

[chevyontheriver]

All of which highlights the problem when "laws" of men become mixed and conflated with the Law of God. Jesus warned us about this. Authorities in the Church presume that they are inerrant, that the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead and guide into all the Truth, applies to matters, and to the degree, that they - the Authorities - conclude by means of their human reasoning. Thus "Church law" weighs as heavily as Divine Law. And thus, clericalism. And thus, the papacy of Francis has come upon us.

But Vatican II never claimed every part of every document was infallible. There were four dogmatic constitutions that contained such teaching but the bulk of the documents never pretended to be so. We should not allow creeping infalliblism nor outright rejection of Vatican II.

You are right about hyperpapalism. We now have ‘the magisterium of Francis’ but that only works if we toss everything from before.

 

[fide]

But Vatican II never claimed every part of every document was infallible. There were four dogmatic constitutions that contained such teaching but the bulk of the documents never pretended to be so. We should not allow creeping infalliblism nor outright rejection of Vatican II.

You are right about hyperpapalism. We now have ‘the magisterium of Francis’ but that only works if we toss everything from before.

"Gradualism" is a technique snipers use to approach and get close undetected, to weaken their enemy by attacking the centers of leadership and strength, weakening the whole by destroying the more valuable few. The analogy of techniques of progressives (nicer name than communists, socialists, anti-Catholic atheists and freemasons) strikes me as accurate. "Militarized ambiguity" is a great camouflage, confusing terms and teachings, church and world mixed, tradition and innovation tossed together, lies and truths like poison and purity poured into the one golden cup. We are still wondering if the very real casualties are from mistaken "friendly fire", or snipers or traitors, or sheep in wolves clothing. In any event, the woman is still swallowing the bad fruit, and the serpent is still among us.

 

[RileyG]

No.

 

[chevyontheriver]

No.

No what?

 

[RileyG]

No what?

No, Vatican II does not have supreme authority. It wasn't infallible.

 

[RileyG]

My take differs.

Vatican II was a valid Ecumenical Council. It met the required criteria. It had the authority to teach as supreme authority. It just did not teach every thing at the same level. There are some dogmatic parts and some pastoral parts. The dogmatic parts (Dei Verbum for example) we accept as the teaching of the Church. The pastoral parts we are not bound by because Vatican II did not intend to bind us to those parts.

So Vatican II had supreme authority but did not always use it. Some parts we cannot reject or disparage. Other parts we can. And then there is the Vatican II document on the Liturgy that basically hasn't been tried as the Council wrote it because a bunch of liturgical experimenters decided to do something in accord with the 'spirit' of Vatican II but not the letter of Vatican II.

I agree. I like your answer better than mine. I think many of the documents of Vatican II get misinterpreted by the Church's pastors IMO.

 

[chevyontheriver]

No, Vatican II does not have supreme authority. It wasn't infallible.

Parts of it really were. Most of it didn't pretend to be. Parts of the Council of Trent were and are infallible. Other parts were intended to be only disciplinary and never were and still aren't infallible. These things have to be read in their setting. Neither council was intended to be all infallible doctrine all the time.

You may not like all of Vatican II. Fine. But at least know the parts that are transitory and can be changed based on new historical situations and those parts that are part of the permanent deposit of the faith. Dei Verbum is a dogmatic constitution. There were only four such documents in Vatican II. The rest could be tinkered with.

Also watch out for those purveyors of the 'spirit' of the Council that have to ignore the words of the Council. Those people have been most active in the liturgical wreckovation we have all experienced. We could have some sound liturgical advance by going back to what Vatican II actually said about the liturgy instead of what the experts gave us. We still don't have a real Vatican II liturgy. The solution is not the TLM but something that has much of the look and feel of the TLM. Something like the 1965 vernacular liturgy, which even Lefvebre approved of. We could just implement Sacrosanctam Concilium and it would pump some new life into liturgical life.

 

[RileyG]

Parts of it really were. Most of it didn't pretend to be. Parts of the Council of Trent were and are infallible. Other parts were intended to be only disciplinary and never were and still aren't infallible. These things have to be read in their setting. Neither council was intended to be all infallible doctrine all the time.

You may not like all of Vatican II. Fine. But at least know the parts that are transitory and can be changed based on new historical situations and those parts that are part of the permanent deposit of the faith. Dei Verbum is a dogmatic constitution. There were only four such documents in Vatican II. The rest could be tinkered with.

Also watch out for those purveyors of the 'spirit' of the Council that have to ignore the words of the Council. Those people have been most active in the liturgical wreckovation we have all experienced. We could have some sound liturgical advance by going back to what Vatican II actually said about the liturgy instead of what the experts gave us. We still don't have a real Vatican II liturgy. The solution is not the TLM but something that has much of the look and feel of the TLM. Something like the 1965 vernacular liturgy, which even Lefvebre approved of. We could just implement Sacrosanctam Concilium and it would pump some new life into liturgical life.

Yes, I agree with you completely. You said it much better than me. Thanks