Okay True Or False?

[XIX]

1) This is a true and false test. (true)
2) No no no, I was just explaining the test. (true)
3) *sigh* Look, just answer the questions and you will be fine. (false)
4) Vatican II was a dogmatic council. (false)
5) Vatican II is binding on all Catholics. (true)

How did I do? I'm pretty confident on 1-4, but I'm not solid about number 5.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Yes, Vatican II is binding on all Catholics. It helped define the Catholic faith, believing and living the Catholic faith is what makes you Catholic, therefore all Catholics are bound by Vatican II.

[Paddington]

Is there really a sharp distinction of dogmatic and pastoral councils? Are they each a mixture?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1363069' date='Aug 19 2007, 04:24 PM']Is there really a sharp distinction of dogmatic and pastoral councils? Are they each a mixture?[/quote]
Generally, each council does both. I'm actually not sure whether or not Vatican II was a dogmatic council..it didn't define any dogma, as far as I know, but it did release dogmatic documents. I'm not a conciliar theologian, though, so it's kind of a shrug for me.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1363140' date='Aug 19 2007, 04:55 PM']Generally, each council does both. I'm actually not sure whether or not Vatican II was a dogmatic council..it didn't define any dogma, as far as I know, but it did release dogmatic documents. I'm not a conciliar theologian, though, so it's kind of a shrug for me.[/quote]

John XXIII set it up as a pastoral council specifically. The first three sessions opened with statements of the council's pastoral nature. It's the only ecumenical council of its kind.

As to binding... that depends on what you mean. As most of what was discussed and written was of a pastoral nature, then a Catholic can believe that certain directions that the council wished to steer the church in were unwise. All of the documents produced by the council and promulgated by Paul VI were free of doctrinal error -- and all Catholics must believe this!

I can state that the best way to wash dishes is with a combination of maple syrup and pencil shavings. That statement is poor advice, but free of doctrinal error.

I personally take issue only with the vague wording in some of the concilular documents -- nothing wrong with what they were trying to say, but because they refused to use strong wording, the documents were easilly misinterpreted. There are parts things in Lumen Gentium , for instance, that cause many to conclude that the Catholic church now teaches that all other faiths are valid.

XIX, If you have doubts about the council, I suggest reading the documents yourself, but read them in light of tradition. When a passage is so vague that it can be interpreted a multitude of ways, choose to interpret it in the way that is most in line with the traditions of the church. Vatican II did not exist in a vacuum; do not treat it as such.

[cmotherofpirl]

Vatican II was intended as a "pastoral" council but did promulgate dogmatic statements, so it was a mixture of both. As an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church it is JUST as binding as any other council of the Church.

[Era Might]

There were no dogmatic statements from the Council, but there were doctrinal statements, and it did explicitly develop the doctrine of the Church in "Dignitatis Humanae." The teaching of the Council is binding on the Church, as the Holy Father notes in his 1988 speech to the Bishops of Chile:

[quote]It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1367716' date='Aug 22 2007, 08:36 AM']There were no dogmatic statements from the Council, but there were doctrinal statements, and it did explicitly develop the doctrine of the Church in "Dignitatis Humanae." The teaching of the Council is binding on the Church, as the Holy Father notes in his 1988 speech to the Bishops of Chile:[/quote]
It defined no NEW dogma, but did release the [i]Dogmatic[/i] Constitution of the Church.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='XIX' post='1362727' date='Aug 19 2007, 08:56 AM']1) This is a true and false test. (true)
2) No no no, I was just explaining the test. (true)
3) *sigh* Look, just answer the questions and you will be fine. (false)
4) Vatican II was a dogmatic council. (false)
5) Vatican II is binding on all Catholics. (true)

How did I do? I'm pretty confident on 1-4, but I'm not solid about number 5.[/quote]

1. Maybe... is it? I don't know...
2.
3. Good question...
4. True AND false. Depends on who you listen to.
5. Real answer: false. I think it's commonly accepted to be true though by the Vatican.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='XIX' post='1362727' date='Aug 19 2007, 10:56 AM']1) This is a true and false test. (true)
2) No no no, I was just explaining the test. (true)
3) *sigh* Look, just answer the questions and you will be fine. (false)
4) Vatican II was a dogmatic council. (false)
5) Vatican II is binding on all Catholics. (true)

How did I do? I'm pretty confident on 1-4, but I'm not solid about number 5.[/quote]
I love how you can ask a question in the form of a self-assigned, pre-answered test. Only you would come up with such things.