All Vatican II's Documents Infallible?

[IntegraCatholic]

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.

Sorry for the delay. I’ll see if I can find it for you.

 

[Rogerteder]

I will make a seperate post about this when I feel like it. AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL IS INFALLIBLE WHEN IT DEFINES A MATTER ON FAITH OR MORALS. NOT EVERY WORD IN AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL IS INFALLIBLE.

MOST ECUMENICAL COUNCILS WERE CALLED TO SETTLE A SPECIFIC MATTER. THUS THE INFALLIBLE DEFINTION OF THAT DOCTRINE/DOGMA.

VATICAN II TO MY KNOWLEDGE DIDNT DEFINE ANYTHING. HOWEVER, IT DID REPEAT OTHER PRIOR INFALLIBLE DOCTRINES AND DOCTRINES THAT ARE PROBABLY INFALLIBLE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM.

SO PEOPLE STOP ASKING," IS VATICAN II INFALLIBLE?"

THE CORRECT QUESTION WOULD BE “DID VATICAN II DEFINE ANY MATTER ON FAITH AND/OR MORALS?”

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

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”.

Hi again Geremia,

It would seem that what persuades me, moves many Catholics not at all towards conceding that Vatican II is unique among the ecumencial councils in that it defined no dogma infallibly. It seems to me that there are a lot of things Pope Paul VI could have done to assure that Catholics understood the Council to be speaking infallibly whenever it spoke on subjects of faith or morals. Silence would have argued strongly, in my opinion, for infallibility. Silence, with the signature of the pope, would have assured the faithful that this ecumenical council was like any other, infallible whenever it taught on matters of faith and morals.

But on the day of the last meeting of the Council, the pope expressed himself in his closing remarks in such a way as to bring about a question in the minds of many. Subsequently, less than a year after the end of the Council, the pope expressly declared his intention regarding this Council in the following words:

"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

It seems to me to be as simple as obeying and believing what the pope said in closing the council. Pope Paul VI continued to give similar disclaimers about his council through the following decade until his death. I have cited the current pope, Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed that Vatican II was unique among the ecumenical councils in this respect. Do faithful Catholics have the liberty to disagree with the popes about this?

You seem to be suggesting that any solemn promulgation must be understood to be infallible. It seems to me that the promulgator has the authority to assign any qualifiers to such a decree, and Pope Paul VI appears to have done so.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

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.

Okay, I found what I was looking for. My memory served me wrong. Taken from A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M., 1939. (That’s interesting, I wouldn’t have guess that he was a Franciscan.) Here is the relevant paragraph:

1. Whether priests have ever received from the Holy See the power to confer deaconship and the priesthood, and whether such a power can be given to a priest by the Supreme Pontiff, is an interesting question. It seems that, by the Constitution “Exposcit” of April 9, 1489, Pope Innocent VIII gave the Abbot of the Cistercians at Citeaux and four other abbots of the same Order the power to ordain deacons. Much has been written for and against the genuineness of this concession. A number of the older prominent authors affirm the privilege. Cardinal Gasparri found the document in the Vatican archives, but he states that there was no mention in it of the privilege to confer deaconship [emphasis added].

Recently it has been asserted that in 1401 Pope Boniface IX granted to the Abbot of St. Osyth, in England, and to his successors forever, the power to confer on the professed subjects of his abbey all the orders from the minor orders to the priesthood, inclusively. In his commentary on the Code [Handbuch des kath. Kirchenr., II, 117**], Dr. Martin Leitner relates that the English scholar, Egerton Beck, sent him copies of two documents of Pope Boniface IX–one of February 1, 1401, granting the above-mentioned privilege, and another of February 6, 1404, revoking it. His conclusion is that there is no pronouncement of the Church either in the Council of Trent or in any other dogmatic document by which it has been decreed that the Supreme Pontiff does not possess the power the delegate to a priest the faculty to ordain deacons or priests. Strange as this opinion may seem, it finds its counterpart in the opinion of many theologians of the Middle Ages, who held that the minor orders conferred the Sacrament of Orders, and yet they did not call in question the power of the Supreme Pontiff to delegate priests to confer these orders.

**Appendix III, 41a:

Concerning the Bull “Exposcit” of Pope Innocent VIII, April 9, 1489, which empowered some Cistercian Abbots to confer deaconship, Dr. Gillmann (Würzburg) requested Cardinal Ehrle to have a thorough search made at the Vatican Archives, and the result was that the above-mentioned Bull was not found [emphasis added]. The search, however, established the fact that seven volumes of Regesta of the fifth year of the pontificate of Pope Innocent VIII were missing, as well as five volumes of the Regesta of the sixth year, and the fifth volume of the “Regesta Supplicum” of the sixth year of his pontificate. Dr. Gillmann remarks that the authenticity of the Bull in question is quite certain, since it was published as early as 1491, at Dijon, in the Collectanea Cisterciensium Privilegiorum, and the Cistercian Abbots made us of the privilege as late as the middle of the seventeenth century (Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht, CIV, 57-59).

Concerning the Bull “Sacrae religionis” of Pope Boniface IX, February 1, 1400, granting faculty to the Abbot of St. Osyth, England, to confer all the Order including priesthood, Dr. Gillmann states that he was informed by the Vice-Prefect of the Vatican Archives that the Bull is the be found in the archives. He also proves that the abbots did not have episcopal consecration, but were priests only (Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht, CV, 474).

There is a divergency of dates concerning the last-mentioned Bull. Dr. Leitner has February 1, 1401, and Dr. Gillmann has February 1, 1400. In the withdrawal of the Bull they differ one year–Dr. Leitner, February 6, 1404, Dr. Gillman February 6, 1403. It is evidently through a difference of figuring of time in those centuries that authors differ in the reading of the dates of Papal documents.

–
What are we to make of all that? Perhaps Gasparri did indeed find the document, but it was lacking another portion that gave the privilege. What are we to make of Pope Boniface? Did he give the privilege and then remove it because he was informed that such a privilege was not certainly valid by some Roman theologians? I don’t know if we’ll ever know, but it seems that there can be no doubt that, at the very least, the Abbot of St. Osyth had the express permission for three years from the Pope to confer all orders, including the priesthood, even though he was simply a priest himself. (This is obvious, for if he were a bishop, he would certainly have the right to ordain his subjects without appealing, for many abbots had jurisdiction apart from any diocese, that is, Abbots Nullius, even as simple priests.)

 

[malphono]

Okay, I found what I was looking for. My memory served me wrong. Taken from A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M., 1939. (That’s interesting, I wouldn’t have guess that he was a Franciscan.) Here is the relevant paragraph: …

Thanks for the citation. Indeed, very interesting.

What are we to make of all that? Perhaps Gasparri did indeed find the document, but it was lacking another portion that gave the privilege.

From what the author above says, it seems clear to me that Gasparri found what he found and no more. Knowing something of Gasparri, I find it doubtful that he would have said what he did if, in fact, some part of the document were missing.

What are we to make of Pope Boniface? Did he give the privilege and then remove it because he was informed that such a privilege was not certainly valid by some Roman theologians? I don’t know if we’ll ever know, but it seems that there can be no doubt that, at the very least, the Abbot of St. Osyth had the express permission for three years from the Pope to confer all orders, including the priesthood, even though he was simply a priest himself. (This is obvious, for if he were a bishop, he would certainly have the right to ordain his subjects without appealing, for many abbots had jurisdiction apart from any diocese, that is, Abbots Nullius, even as simple priests.)

Admittedly I know little of Boniface IX, but the one thing that jumps out from all accounts that I’ve read is that he was sorely lacking in theological training. I would posit that the “permission” in question was given as a political gesture (the Western Schism and Citeaux was, of course in France) without understanding (at first) that he did not have the authority. When he finally did come to understand, the “permission” was rescinded. But of course, that’s conjecture: you’re absolutely right that we’ll never know any of it for certain. But it all makes me wonder how many (if any) deacons and/or priests were ordained, and whether they were later subjected to at least “conditional” ordination at the hands of a real bishop?

Whether any medieval theologians erroneously believed that Minor Orders conferred the Sacrament of Orders is kind of irrelevant. Such a question doesn’t arise in the East and Orient, where the distinction between Major and minor Orders is, perhaps, clearer than it is/was in the West. As I see it, Apostolic Tradition is very clear that the conferral of Major Orders is reserved to a bishop, as successor to the Apostles. In it’s way it’s like the late Pontiff’s remarks that he did not have the authority to allow priestesses. Both are part of Apostolic Tradition which is beyond the reach even of the Roman Pontiff.

Just my off-the-cuff :twocents: even if this question is somewhat tangential to the thread.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

My conjecture about Gasparri was that there may have been multiple documents, perhaps one offering the permission, one with a “cover letter,” as it were. The sheer historical evidence of the Cistercian document of permissions must be worth something, especially with the use of the privilege even after Trent. Considering that this sweep of the library appears to have happened after Gasparri claimed to have found the document, one obviously is left to question what Gasparri did with the document, if he did indeed find it.

Concerning your hypothesis about Boniface IX., that was a different abbey. It was in England.

Admittedly I know little of Boniface IX, but the one thing that jumps out from all accounts that I’ve read is that he was sorely lacking in theological training. I would posit that the “permission” in question was given as a political gesture (the Western Schism and Citeaux was, of course in France) without understanding (at first) that he did not have the authority. When he finally did come to understand, the “permission” was rescinded.

That seems to be my conjecture, too. The question would be whether such would be possible given the charism of infallibility. If a Pope approves the validity of a Sacrament, it seems to touch on his infallibility as Roman Pontiff.

But it all makes me wonder how many (if any) deacons and/or priests were ordained, and whether they were later subjected to at least “conditional” ordination at the hands of a real bishop?

I’m pretty sure they were not conditionally ordained because they were all simply monks of a given abbey. They probably had no contact with a Bishop the rest of their lives. I would assume if there were any records of conditional ordination, Woywod would have included them.

Whether any medieval theologians erroneously believed that Minor Orders conferred the Sacrament of Orders is kind of irrelevant.

It’s not necessarily an erroneous opinion. The Church has not definitively said one way or the other.

Such a question doesn’t arise in the East and Orient, where the distinction between Major and minor Orders is, perhaps, clearer than it is/was in the West.

Perhaps the East is wrong.

As I see it, Apostolic Tradition is very clear that the conferral of Major Orders is reserved to a bishop, as successor to the Apostles.

This doesn’t seem to be so clear. A lot of the language used in the early Church didn’t always make much of a distinction between priests and bishops. What’s more, there is no doubt that abbots not consecrated bishop frequently had permission to ordain those subject to them to the subdiaconate, which is a major order, even if it is not an holy order.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Ok. I have not read the entire thread, but just wanted to throw in my :twocents:. The easiest way to clear all of this up is for the Pope to infallibly state whether there was any new dogma or infallible definitions made at Vatican II. He needs to also state what beliefs must be held as doctrine, and what dont.

I see this as the major issue. Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council. Vatican II did define DOCTRINE. It might have even stated new DOCTRINE. But because it was an Ecumenical Council, you could say that this doctine is therefore dogma. However, Paul VI said that this council did not enjoy infallibility. So here’s my question, is there the possibility that an Ecumenical Council can be simply pastoral and administrative and have no infallibility? At what level of authority do the doctrines discussed in such a Council have?

Pax!

 

[Dempsey1919]

I think we can all agree that we have to assent to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council because it was an Ecumenical Council of the Church. That does not mean that we have to assent to the various interpretations of the Council. We need to read the documents and interpret them in light of the traditions of the Church. The task facing the Church today is to finally declare the true interpretation of the Council. We need clarifications and guidelines about this Council. Vatican II has been a contentious issue for too long; it is time for the Church to clear up our misunderstandings about Vatican II. I hope the discussions between Rome and the SSPX will shed much light on this subject.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The Council of Florence listed the canon of Scripture non-infallibly about 100 years before the Council of Trent infallibly defined the same canon, so I don’t see what the problem is with ecumenical councils being able to promulgate non-infallible doctrine.

 

[Geremia]

The Council of Florence listed the canon of Scripture non-infallibly about 100 years before the Council of Trent infallibly defined the same canon, so I don’t see what the problem is with ecumenical councils being able to promulgate non-infallible doctrine.

What do you predict in Vatican II might be deemed infallible 100 years from now that is not so already?

 

[Just_Lurking]

What do you predict in Vatican II might be deemed infallible 100 years from now that is not so already?

I think the sacramentality of the episcopate will be the only new doctrine from Vatican II that might be deemed infallible any time soon. There is still just too much debate about the other new teachings, e.g., those on religious liberty and Christian ecclesiology.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Just FYI, here is what an actual infallible declaration from Vatican II looks like, from Lumen Gentium 18:

And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.

From the “again”, it is clear that this is not a new teaching from Vatican II, but a re-iteration of the previous teaching of Vatican I. The phrase “to be firmly believed by all the faithful” is a standard marker for infallibility. A related phrase “to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (e.g., from Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) indicates infallibility at a slightly lower level. The key distinction for the level of infallibility is in the verb “believed” (Latin credenda) versus the verb “held” (Latin tenenda).

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I think we can all agree that we have to assent to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council because it was an Ecumenical Council of the Church. That does not mean that we have to assent to the various interpretations of the Council. We need to read the documents and interpret them in light of the traditions of the Church. The task facing the Church today is to finally declare the true interpretation of the Council. We need clarifications and guidelines about this Council. Vatican II has been a contentious issue for too long; it is time for the Church to clear up our misunderstandings about Vatican II. I hope the discussions between Rome and the SSPX will shed much light on this subject.

Hi Dempsey1919,

I can agree that we must respectfully consider all the teachings of Vatican II. I do not believe that we can say one is heretical for doubting doctrines that are not infallibly defined. I do not say personally that any particular teaching found in Vatican II is false or irreconcilable with Tradition. But am I not permitted to have doubts about a few of them? I am just saying that it is enough that faithful Catholics must assent to doctrines that are infallibly defined. I can see no warrant in Scripture or Tradition for insisting that Catholics must give unqualified assent to undefined, fallible dogmas.

I happen to know that there are those who have misgivings about a statement found in Unitatis Redintegratio, #4 where it says, “This unity we believe subsists in the Catholic Church.” I do not consider myself qualified to argue about the meaning of the Latin word translated “subsists”. But there are good, faithful Catholics who think it is an unacceptable expression. Are they to be told that although this is fallible dogma, they must give unqualified assent to it?

One of the biggest problem areas for me lie in the words immediately preceding this passage, still in #4, where the Council promotes a new tactic and a new confidence with regards to what will happen if we can begin to have “dialogue between competent experts” where “They also come together for common prayer where this is permitted.” Before explaining how unity “subsists” in the Catholic Church, the Council tells us the results of “dialogue between competent experts” and “common prayer”: “The results will be that, little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church…”

But after 45 years of dialogue and common prayer, where have obstacles been little by little removed until there is a common celebration of the Eucharist? What group or individual has converted by reason of this novel approach to heresy? Ironically, the people who still believe in dialogue get upset when Anglicans want to become Catholic, lest it threaten their dialogue! Who still believes that if we could only issue more joint declarations of mutual respect we would be gradually winning our separated brothers and sisters back to Christ’s true Church?

I might have been able to believe it in 1965, even though the immediately previous popes had resoundingly spoken against such a policy. But now that it has been tried, I don’t see that converts are drawn little by little according to what now seems like overly optimistic pollyanna prophecies about gradual removal of obstacles. It seems like folly to me, and if we all must give assent to it, what do we say about St. Paul for instructing St. Titus as follows?

A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

—Titus 3:10, 11

If I must give assent to Unitatis Redintegratio #4, it will have to be after a manner that incorporates the wisdom of Popes Pius IX, Pius XI, and the Apostle Paul as to the most charitable ways to behave toward our separated brethren.

Rory

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I think we can all agree that we have to assent to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council because it was an Ecumenical Council of the Church. That does not mean that we have to assent to the various interpretations of the Council. We need to read the documents and interpret them in light of the traditions of the Church. The task facing the Church today is to finally declare the true interpretation of the Council. We need clarifications and guidelines about this Council. Vatican II has been a contentious issue for too long; it is time for the Church to clear up our misunderstandings about Vatican II. I hope the discussions between Rome and the SSPX will shed much light on this subject.

I would also add that we don’t necessarily have to assent to teachings of the council that seem to be incompatible with the tradition of the Church. There have been dogmatic statements made in oecumenical councils (Ephesus or Chalcedon, I think) that have erred. Following councils cleared them up. Had people just assented to the errors of the first council, there never would have been discussion that led to the corrections the later council made. My opinion is simply that if these sorts of statements that seem incompatible with tradition are able to be reconciled with it, that’s fine, and I accept the possibility. With some statements, I’m just not capable of doing so myself.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

Now I might be just hearing from a few bad apples in a group or have just misunderstood something, but it seems like traditional Catholics have nothing to good to say about V2. Isn’t that heresy?

 

[choy]

its one thing to criticize, its another to outright reject

but both would go against the humility that is exected of us Christians. many think they know better and its this pride that causes the to criticize and reject Vatican II

 

[DeepeningFaith]

I agree with Choy. However, as you notice, Choy never said that to reject Vatican II is to be heretical, why? Because there are certain things that were said and done that you can reject, but the teachings are another story.

I disagree with the “Spirit of Vatican II” and I do criticize it. There is a huge difference however between the two.

Pax!

 

[CDNowak]

Now I might be just hearing from a few bad apples in a group or have just misunderstood something, but it seems like traditional Catholics have nothing to good to say about V2. Isn’t that heresy?

Depends: the answer to the title question is generally no; the answer to the question in the post is definitely no.

There are differences among being critical of the Council, the documents of the Council, and the so-called “spirit” of the Council. The important point to avoid heresy is submission to the Council documents.

Personally, I think it is debatable whether having the Council was imprudent, whether the documents could have more accurately worded, and whether the implementation could have been done less disruptively (and I would argue the affirmative on at least the first two).

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Now I might be just hearing from a few bad apples in a group or have just misunderstood something, but it seems like traditional Catholics have nothing to good to say about V2. Isn’t that heresy?

Nope, Vatican II is not a dogma and it is denial of dogma’s that is heresy.

 

[RichardJS]

Instead of obeying the Blessed Virgin Mary and consecrating Russia, specifically, to Her Immaculate Heart in 1960, the way Sister Lucia told the Pope to do, in 1962 Vatican 2 ruined the Catholic church. Religious people who disobey the Immaculate Heart of Mary, do not expect to go to heaven. And, all the bad things that have happened since then, and all the babies that have died, Vatican 2 can take credit for that.