All Vatican II's Documents Infallible?

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Hi again Just Lurking,

No, this was an open issue prior to Vatican II. This is why bishops were “consecrated” and not “ordained”. There was much deliberation on this issue at Vatican II, and it was one of the questions on the ballot that marked an early battle between liberals and conservatives at Vatican II.

Me: I thought you probably had good reason to affirm that this had been an unresolved question.

In the middle ages, the Pope sometimes gave abbots who were priests and not bishops the authority to ordain members of their order.

Me: This seems to argue in favor of the idea proposed at Vatican II, and taught to me as being a pre-Vatican II doctrine. I am sure we agree with each other about which teaching is correct. Were there those who argued that priests could validly ordain
priests without this papal prescript?

St. Thomas Aquinas argues that bishops do not receive a higher level of the sacrament of Orders here.

Me: In relation to the Eucharist, the central Sacrament around which all the Sacraments and priestly activity is based, the bishop and priest are equal. But he explains that in relation to other Sacraments the bishop has superior powers and this is why he argues that the Episcopacy is not another major order within Holy Orders such as was the subdiaconate, diaconate, and priesthood:
St. Thomas:

I answer that, Order may be understood in two ways. In one way as a sacrament, and thus, as already stated (37, 2,4), every Order is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Wherefore since the bishop has not a higher power than the priest, in this respect the episcopate is not an Order. In another way Order may be considered as an office in relation to certain sacred actions: and thus since in hierarchical actions a bishop has in relation to the Mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an Order. It is in this sense that the authorities quoted speak.

Me: I don’t think there is any need to concede that St. Thomas’ teaching was opposed at the Council. When the Council says “by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred”, it isn’t disagreeing with the equality St. Thomas proposes in relation to the Eucharist. It seems to be agreeing rather with what he says regarding “hierarchical actions in relation to the Mystical Body.”

You don’t believe that the Catholic Church can teach authoritatively unless infallibility is invoked?

Me: I cannot guess how my quote would lead you to that conclusion. I said: “But if the only authority were Vatican II, without clear support from the ordinary magesterium, I would be inclined to the view that good Catholics may disagree on the question.”

In any case, I have misled you. I think the Church can teach authoritatively without infallibility. I think that is exactly what the documents of Vatican II do. They are authoritative teachings that fall short of infaillible defintion.

If you would be comfortable labelling as heretics those who might oppose a teaching that had no previous magesterial support on the basis of a fallible definition, even from an ecumenical council, I can not be thus rigorous. I would be inclined to say that it would be a permissible, though perhaps minority school of thought. The term “heterodox” might even be appropriate.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Were there those who argued that priests could validly ordain priests without this papal prescript?

I’ve only seen one theologian discuss this, and his conclusion was that such ordination without papal prescript would be invalid.

Me: I don’t think there is any need to concede that St. Thomas’ teaching was opposed at the Council.

I’ll see if I can find out any more about Aquinas’ and other medieval theologians’ thinking on this.

In any case, I have misled you. I think the Church can teach authoritatively without infallibility. I think that is exactly what the documents of Vatican II do. They are authoritative teachings that fall short of infaillible defintion.

Thanks for clarifying this.

 

[pnewton]

Some of the documents are explicitly, by name, dogmatic. Others are explicitly, by name, pastoral. If in doubt, read the title.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Some of the documents are explicitly, by name, dogmatic. Others are explicitly, by name, pastoral. If in doubt, read the title.

I agree pnewton. There are teachings on faith and morals in the documents of Vatican II. As you said, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, or Lumen Gentium. It teaches. It can not be said to be merely disciplinary in nature.

However, are you suggesting, contrary to the apparent teaching of Pope Paul VI, that what is “dogmatic” in relation to Vatican II necessarily means infallible dogma? Without the lead of the Holy Father, I would never imagine to propose that Vatican II “avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the church’s infallible teaching authority.” Those aren’t the words of any who have been criticised for believing it, but of His Holiness Pope Paul VI! The little history of the Council by Wiltgen to which I referred earlier shows that the Council Fathers were under the impression that nothing infallible was being declared. I would find this significant even if the pope had been silent. But the pope has not merely been silent but in complete agreement. Pope Paul VI confirms on repeated occasions from the end of the Council to nearly the end of his life that there were no infallible dogmatic pronouncements in the documents of Vatican II.

This makes it impossible for me to regard the documents in the same light as I would the ecumenical councils that preceded it. I hear simplistic arguments about how everything in Vatican II has to be true because it was a valid ecumenical council. Not when the pope says otherwise. I am prepared to defend the documents of Vatican II as true, and reconcilable with Tradition, but not because they are necessarily so. The qualifications issued by Pope Paul VI regarding its limited dogmatic authority make it impossible that I should consider the Church has failed, if it can be proven that a teaching of Vatican II is irreconcilable with Tradition. I would simply back up and point to what Paul VI said. I don’t know that I will ever to have to do that, and if anyone doesn’t want that ace in the hole, I guess that’s fine. I just don’t think it is wise to commit before the whole world to a position that no pope has ever taken since 1965 when the Council ended.

 

[pnewton]

This makes it impossible for me to regard the documents in the same light as I would the ecumenical councils that preceded it. I hear simplistic arguments about how everything in Vatican II has to be true because it was a valid ecumenical council…

I have already noted on another thread that I am a simplistic literalist. I do understand the meaning of the word “dogmatic.” I do not try to stack Church Councils in aposition to each other. I take all the Church teaches, up to the present and try and understand it. I do not take my understanding and make it a filter of what is, or is not, doctrine.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I have already noted on another thread that I am a simplistic literalist. I do understand the meaning of the word “dogmatic.” I do not try to stack Church Councils in aposition to each other. I take all the Church teaches, up to the present and try and understand it. I do not take my understanding and make it a filter of what is, or is not, doctrine.

Hi again pnewton,

I don’t take have a negative opinion about how you say you arrive at what you believe. I sure didn’t doubt that you know what dogmatic means. I tend to like how you put it. Am I failing to be a simplistic literalist when I understand what Pope Paul VI said about avoiding “issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the church’s infallible teaching authority”? How does the simplistic literalist arrive at the conclusion that it is otherwise than what the pope says?

The question in the thread is about whether the documents are infallible. Some have argued that the Council is exclusively pastoral, and that is why it cannot be infallible. I thought you raised an important point in showing that the Council also teaches on faith and morals. My reason for denial of infallibility is not based on the assurance that the Council is exclusively pastoral and never teaches on faith or morals. It is recognition though that it was called for a pastoral purpose (see Pope John XXIII’s opening of the Council), and refrained from defintions of dogma when it did teach. My reason for denial of infallibility is based on the repeated affirmations of the promulgating pope and the subsequent silence of the popes who have succeeded him. Silence, unless you count Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal Ratzinger who, taking his cues from Paul VI said:

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.

—Cardinal Ratzinger’s Address to the Bishops of Chile, 13 July, 1988

---

 

[WatchingMedia]

The Catechism and Missals quote from all manner of non-infallible documents. If Vatican II is infallible because the document on the liturgy is referenced in the Missal which followed the Council, then so are many encyclicals, writings of Augustine, and even writings of Tertullian, the heretic who eventually left the Church. It would be even more entertaining to go to the Catechism and find alongside Vatican II other fallible documents that according to your criteria, must be accepted as infallible. These would include such arcane documents as the Didache and non-ecumenical councils that were held in Toledo.

No one has yet suggested that anything in Vatican II is false. Being fallible, there remains a high degree of authority attached to its teaching and I am inclined to believe that we can reconcile it with Tradition. We can’t just dismiss it with a sweeping judgment regarding its fallibility. What is proposed in its teachings must be given very serious consideration and that is what Paul VI said after he gave his qualifiers saying that the documents did not rise to a level of infallibility.

Some Catholics seem to think that a proposition is either infallible or false. It cannot be that simple. This is an impossibly untenable approach to arriving at truths that are as yet undefined. The Church often cites (and rightly so) fallble documents in support of its teaching as I have demonstarted…that is unless a Catholic is inclined to propose the Didache, St. Augustine’s Sermons, parts of Tertullian (!) and the Councils of Toledo among the Church’s infallible teachings.

Rory

Sorry, Pope John Paul II, has said the CCC 2nd Edition is the "authentic reference text’ (on matters of Faith and Morals). The Holy See holds the copyright.
This CCC 2nd Ed., is what you must abide by whether you like it or not, unless you are a heretic.

The task of interpreting the Word of God has been entrusted **SOLEY ** to the Pope and to the Bishops in communion with him. 100
The rest of us do not qualify for interpretation.

The Roman Pontiff, by Reason of his office as Vicar of Christ ,and as Pastor of the the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. 882
Either you are faithful to the Pope in matters of Faith and Morals, or you are a heretic.

937 The Pope enjoys by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.

Now most of this string does not matter except to heretics who want to confuse, they are “Friends of the Devil”.

Read your “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II, and first printed in the US.

The Church teachings are clear. Taking advice of indivduals who think they know best, or pontificate from their soapbox will lead you to hell.
Either you are Faithful or not.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Sorry, Pope John Paul II, has said the CCC 2nd Edition is the "authentic reference text’ (on matters of Faith and Morals). The Holy See holds the copyright.
This CCC 2nd Ed., is what you must abide by whether you like it or not, unless you are a heretic.

The task of interpreting the Word of God has been entrusted **SOLEY **to the Pope and to the Bishops in communion with him. 100
The rest of us do not qualify for interpretation.

The Roman Pontiff, by Reason of his office as Vicar of Christ ,and as Pastor of the the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. 882
Either you are faithful to the Pope in matters of Faith and Morals, or you are a heretic.

937 The Pope enjoys by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.

Now most of this string does not matter except to heretics who want to confuse, they are “Friends of the Devil”.

Read your “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II, and first printed in the US.

The Church teachings are clear. Taking advice of indivduals who think they know best, or pontificate from their soapbox will lead you to hell.
Either you are Faithful or not.

Hi Watching Media.

Are you sure you are taking issue with anything I actually I said regarding your affirmation that because the Catechism and the General Instruction to the Roman Missal cites Vatican II, that it must be considered infallible?

If so, you are welcome to cite your disagreements, but I agree with you that “Taking advice of indivduals who think they know best, or pontificate from their soapbox will lead you to hell,” although I would not put it quite so strongly. I might say “can potentially lead you to hell” instead. A blessed Lord’s Day be yours tomorrow Watching Media. I am sure you love Our Lord, Our Lady, and the Catholic faith. Be assured that in spite of my liberal tendencies, so do I.

Rory

 

[voltape]

I am glad that the Pope has allowed for the old breviary because, as a tertiary who prays the office daily, I find the “Tu autem Domines” very beautiful and the modern hours sterile and boring. You might find that more the rule than the exception on this board.

---

I would certainly love to be a Carmelite tertiary –
Well, I have been praying the office daily for about half a century – around 1960 I got my 4-tome breviary in Latin and with 3 nocturnes. It was really long – not to speak of the pre-Pius X breviaries where matins had 18 complete psalms!!! I love the breviary as it was before Paul VI – Paul VI’s breviary has only three readings: the 1st = 1st, 2nd: = 2nd+3rd and the 3rd = the 7th, i.e. the 1st of the 3rd nocturne. So the entire second nocturne was missing, and also the rest of the last nocturne. So now and then I choose to pray with the 1960 breviary and I apply the simplifications enacted around 1971 or so, that is – Invitatory – Ps 94 – Lauds – Matins: 3 psalms and the readings of the day (and also those of the Novus Ordo) – no prime – just one Hora Media – Vespers and Compline (usually the Sunday I or II compline – But mostly I use the Liturgy of the Hours. I have resisted for around 20 years to use it but finally I had to give up. But don’t worry, after each reading, I say “Tu autem Domine miserere nobis” just as not to forget that centuries-old closing phrase. And I use either my native Spanish (I am a Peruvian in Peru) or in Italian (Maran ata site) or in Latin. The problem with the modern LotH breviaries is that they come with the Nova Vulgata which is (to me, sorry) a clumsy version of the Gallican, patched here and there with the Pius XII psalter, so I avoid it.
Now as to your “Tu autem Domines” very beautiful and the modern hours sterile and boring.” I am sorry not to be able to share your opinion. 1st The Tu autem’s are certainly beautiful and as I said, I have kept them and in Latin even if I read in Spanish or other language. 2nd as to sterile and boring, well, we had before one capitula for every day – In lauds “Nox praecesit, dies autem appropinquabit…” most beautiful, the more so if we consider it helped St. Augustin to find the right path", but sorry, if you have to say it every day… well there are so many beautiful passages that it won’t hurt to choose a different one for each day. I don’t see how you can call the word of God sterile or boring. I rather think repeating the same capitula every day is really boring. Or the “Beatus vir qui inventus…” for pontiffs and non pontiffs. Or repeating the psalter every week instead of one month – and all the new canticles!
The readings were meager in the traditional breviary; just 4 or 5 versicles, separated by the “ jube Domine benedicere’s – Ad societatem …. etc. Tu autem’s , then the responsory; and finally you were more concerned as to fulfilling the rubrics than as to what you were reading. Then the second nocturnes with long and too often makeshift or fantastic stories of the life of a saint. Now, we have a resumé in a few lines of the life of the saint, before the office, and if necessary, the second reading from his or her own writings, praising the Lord. And the second readings are really practical: many are from modern writers who are closer to us and face problems similar to ours, or Vatican documents which we should know. Item: read the reading of St. Jerome for December 24: May St. Jerry, my beloved patron forgive me, but I think it is out of the question!
Ora pro nobis sancta décor Carmeli

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Some of the documents are explicitly, by name, dogmatic. Others are explicitly, by name, pastoral. If in doubt, read the title.

Of course, just because a council speaks on a dogmatic issue doesn’t make it infallible. It is only infallible when making absolute decrees. There were errors in an early Church council that were corrected by a later council. On matters of lesser importance, there were historical errors in the council of Florence. This is not something new. The charism of infallibility as defined at Vatican I is only for strict cases. Even the rationale for the infallible decree is not infallible, only the decree itself. This is no less true of Nicaea or Trent or Vatican II.

 

[pnewton]

Of course, just because a council speaks on a dogmatic issue doesn’t make it infallible…

From the Catechism:

The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form** obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith**, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

It sounds like you are redefining dogma. Would you think one can dissent from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception or the dogma of, well Vatican I definition of papal infallibility? Can Catholics use conscience when it comes to the area of dogma?

This seems to be in a contradiction to the Catechism. I do not see where the issue is, unless one starts with their own understanding and works backwards to the data (the documents) to determine which one’s to accept and which one’s to disregard. That seems to be the technique preferred by Vatican II dissenters and global warming climatologists.

 

[ProVobis]

From Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Ecumenical councils

1
An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head. Hence:

•the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.

•As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.

•Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).

2
That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope? If Christ promised to be present with even two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name (Matthew 18:20), a fortiori He will be present efficaciously in a representative assembly of His authorized teachers; and the Paraclete whom He promised will be present, so that whatever the council defines may be prefaced with the Apostolic formula, “it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.” And this is the view which the councils held regarding their own authority and upon which the defender of orthodoxy insisted. The councils insisted on their definitions being accepted under pain of anathema, while St. Athanasius, for example, says that “the word of the Lord pronounced by the ecumenical synod of Nicaea stands for ever” (Ep. ad Afros, n. 2) and St. Leo the Great proves the unchangeable character of definitive conciliar teaching on the ground that God has irrevocably confirmed its truth “universae fraternitatis irretractabili firmavit assensu” (Ep. 120, 1).

3
It remains to be observed, in opposition to the theory of conciliar infallibility usually defended by High Church Anglicans that once the requisite papal confirmation has been given the doctrinal decisions of an ecumenical council become infallible and irreformable; there is no need to wait perhaps hundreds of years for the unanimous acceptance and approbation of the whole Christian world. Such a theory really amounts to a denial of conciliar infallibility, and sets up in the final court of appeal an altogether vague and ineffective tribunal. If the theory be true, were not the Arians perfectly justified in their prolonged struggle to reverse Nicaea, and has not the persistent refusal of the Nestorians down to our own day to accept Ephesus and of the Monophysites to accept Chalcedon been sufficient to defeat the ratification of those councils? No workable rule can be given for deciding when such subsequent ratification as this theory requires becomes effective and even if this could be done in the case of some of the earlier councils whose definitions are received by the Anglicans, it would still be true that since the Photian schism it has been practically impossible to secure any such consensus as is required — in other words that the working of infallible authority, the purpose of which is to teach every generation, has been suspended since the ninth century, and that Christ’s promises to His Church have been falsified. It is consoling, no doubt, to cling to the abstract doctrine of an infallible authority but if one adopts a theory which represents that authority as unable to fulfil its appointed task during the greater part of the Church’s life, it is not easy to see how this consolatory belief is anything more than a delusion.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

From the Catechism:
It sounds like you are redefining dogma. Would you think one can dissent from the dogma of the Immaculate Conception or the dogma of, well Vatican I definition of papal infallibility? Can Catholics use conscience when it comes to the area of dogma?

This seems to be in a contradiction to the Catechism. I do not see where the issue is, unless one starts with their own understanding and works backwards to the data (the documents) to determine which one’s to accept and which one’s to disregard. That seems to be the technique preferred by Vatican II dissenters and global warming climatologists.

Not at all. Speaking about a doctrinal issue isn’t the same as defining a doctrine. As I said before, even the explanatory doctrinal reasons for an infallible statement are not infallible. Only the decree is. Please consider the examples I gave before.

It’s not a matter of starting with one’s own understanding. It’s a matter of starting with the understanding of the dogma before Vatican II. If you read authors from that time, you will see there is a definitive difference between the understanding of many dogmas by them and by modern theologians. This is impossible in a legitimate development of doctrine. It cannot develop such that it is understood in a way that contradicts its previous understanding. Some of the most egregious areas that this is relevant are EENS, religious liberty, the state of the Jews, etc., etc. I’m sure you know the relevant issues as well as I do.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Sullivan writes in Creative Fidelity (page 166) about then-theologian Father Ratzinger’s 1967 conclusions as to the infallibility of chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium:

Ratzinger raised this question at the end of his article, which dealt with the sections of Chapter 3 of Lumen gentium that treat of the episcopate. He first notes that while the teaching of the council on the sacramentality of the episcopate is the one that comes closest to being a dogmatic definition, it still falls short of what that requires. Hence there is no new dogma. On the other hand, the doctrine as a whole is the expression of the supreme magisterium of the church, and that implies a certain measure of obligation to accept it. Consideration of the nature of doctrines taught, the intensive discussion that led to the decisions, and the role of the pope in the whole conciliar process brought Ratzinger to the following conclusion:
The conciliar text by far surpasses the ordinary declarations of papal magisterium, including the encyclicals, regarding the nature of the theological obligation which it entails. It is a document produced by the most intense work over many years, and it expresses the sense of its faith at which the whole church assembled in council has arrived. It has formulated this document as a profession of its Credo… The conclusion is that it has an importance of the first rank among modern doctrinal texts, in the sense that it is a sort of central interpretation.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Very good find!

 

[Geremia]

So, some of the more conservative Council Fathers, before signing off on Lumen Gentium, wanted to make certain that they weren’t signing off on something that could be said to be binding on the Church. In response they were directed to a document written four months previously to Lumen Gentium, that applied not only to that document, but to the entire council. It can be misleading seeing it is now seen as an explanatory note to Lumen Gentium, but a careful reading of the whole explanation will reveal that it applied to all of the Council teachings. That would be why Paul VI cited that explanatory note when qualifying the teaching authority of the entire Council in his audience of Dec. 1, 1966.

What would Pope Paul VI had to have done to assert the infallibility of, e.g., Lumen Gentium? It was, after all, “SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI”.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What would Pope Paul VI had to have done to assert the infallibility of, e.g., Lumen Gentium? It was, after all, “SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI”.

The following would have been a typical form of an infallible declaration, had the bolded part been added:

And the Sacred Council teaches and defines as a divinely revealed dogma that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church’s liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I’ve hard this before but am not quite sure of it’s authenticity or veracity [abbots having authority to ordain].

There are at least two definitive cases where this happened. The documents were found in the Papal archive by Cardinal Gasparri, I believe. He is most famous for orchestrating the 1917 code of canon law. I’m pretty sure I have the exact reference upstairs in a commentary on the 1917 code, actually, if you want me to look it up.

 

[pnewton]

If you read authors from that time, you will see there is a definitive difference between the understanding of many dogmas by them and by modern theologians.

I know. That is why I think it is best to stick with just what the Church is officially teaching. The current Catechism quotes Lumen Gentium extensively on the topics you mention. Being a dogmatic constitution from the Church’s Magisterium meeting in Council, I find it the best place to start

I do tend to avoid any theologian post-VII that takes doctrine beyond what the Church has taught then. I see that this has been the greatest source of misunderstanding.

 

[malphono]

There are at least two definitive cases where this happened. The documents were found in the Papal archive by Cardinal Gasparri, I believe. He is most famous for orchestrating the 1917 code of canon law. I’m pretty sure I have the exact reference upstairs in a commentary on the 1917 code, actually, if you want me to look it up.

Yes, he was quite the scholar and was famous for unearthing quite a bit amidst the dust in the archives. Anyway, if you have the chance, it would be interesting to know the details of those cases.