Can someone help me with these seeming contradictions?

[Lisa44]

• “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility*, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”
  – Pope Paul VI
  General Audience, 12 January 1966(Emphasis mine)

Hi,
What does the underlined part mean?

Nope, just trust what the Popes had to say about it. It was deliberately modest in nature, and didn’t invoke the charism of infallibility. John XIII wanted to “let a little air in through the windows.” Unfortunately, it backfired to a certain extent. Modernism had been a problem prior to the council being called, and these modernists have used the council as an excuse to make all sorts of changes that the council itself never even called for.

What does that mean?

 

[Lisa44]

Thanks for that explanation.

The way I see it, and maybe I see it incorrectly, is that you can’t get around it. You just can’t. Period. It is an ecumenical council and as that it does have to be assented to.

People are trying to find a loophole or a way out but there isn’t one, is there?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

To be honest, I’m not really interested in all the legalese surrounding Church Councils. I’ll leave that to the experts. I find it hard enough to live as a Christian, without getting bogged down in canon law.

However since you mentioned “extraordinary” and “ordinary” magisterium, what’s the difference?

 

[savienu]

Thank you! That helps a whole lot!

 

[Lisa44]

Yes, thank you (name removed by moderator)

Its a counter syllabus alright. The traditionalists do get some bones don’t they? As we chew and chew on Vat II.

 

[savienu]

Yes, thank you (name removed by moderator)

Its a counter syllabus alright. The traditionalists do get some bones don’t they? As we chew and chew on Vat II.

I think it does make sense that Quanta Cura was never actually infallible per se, though, since it was just an encyclical. The question now becomes, “Which was more in line with Church teaching throughout 2000 years?” I guess the struggle for me is this- I can accept a lot of things on faith, as I believe and profess that the Church was founded on Peter and Christ will not abandon His Church to error. However, if this came up in a question with Protestants, I’m not sure I’d know how to defend “the Church can not teach error” and “the Church can not change” in light of some of the documents of Vatican II.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Right. Thanks for taking the time to answer the question. I’ve bookmarked it and will go through it with a fine toothed comb later.

However since one of my main bunfights is over the contraceptive pill, where I disagree with the Church’s current ruling (which, if Christ’s statement to Peter is correct, may at some stage be “loosed” - I sincerely hope), then where does this leave a statement like the Winnipeg Statement of the Canadian Bishops which dissents from the Church’s ruling - is that “authentic teaching” or what?

 

[savienu]

Right. Thanks for taking the time to answer the question. I’ve bookmarked it and will go through it with a fine toothed comb later.

However since one of my main bunfights is over the contraceptive pill, where I disagree with the Church’s current ruling (which, if Christ’s statement to Peter is correct, may at some stage be “loosed” - I sincerely hope), then where does this leave a statement like the Winnipeg Statement of the Canadian Bishops which dissents from the Church’s ruling - is that “authentic teaching” or what?

Just so you know, no Pope has the authority to “loose” us from the moral law- the binding and loosing has to do with disciplines in the Church. The teaching against contraceptives has been a constant teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium for 2000 years, and so falls under infallible doctrine. For your own reading, this article may be helpful for you regarding contraception: catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Also, bishops do not have the charism of infallibility unless the entire college is speaking in union with the Pope, so no, the Winnipeg Statement would not at all be authentic teaching, especially since it contradictions the Magisterium.

 

[diggerdomer]

Just so you know, no Pope has the authority to “loose” us from the moral law- the binding and loosing has to do with disciplines in the Church. The teaching against contraceptives has been a constant teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium for 2000 years, and so falls under infallible doctrine. For your own reading, this article may be helpful for you regarding contraception: catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

There’s disagreement on whether that particular teaching is taught infallibly. Just because the Ordinary Magisterium teaches it for whatever length of time does not mean the teaching has been taught infallibly.

Also, bishops do not have the charism of infallibility unless the entire college is speaking in union with the Pope, so no, the Winnipeg Statement would not at all be authentic teaching, especially since it contradictions the Magisterium.

To be authentic does not require the exercise of infallibility. If the Winnipeg statement was issued by Canadian bishops and not retracted (or otherwise condemned by the Vatican) then it’s authentic teaching. If there’s disagreement in the Church, even among bishops, that’s nothing new.

 

[savienu]

There’s disagreement on whether that particular teaching is taught infallibly. Just because the Ordinary Magisterium teaches it for whatever length of time does not mean the teaching has been taught infallibly.

To be authentic does not require the exercise of infallibility. If the Winnipeg statement was issued by Canadian bishops and not retracted (or otherwise condemned by the Vatican) then it’s authentic teaching. If there’s disagreement in the Church, even among bishops, that’s nothing new.

Well, that’s wrong is just about every way possible. First of all, no, everything taught by a Bishop is NOT infallible teaching. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Bishops can say and teach heretical things just like anyone else. The Winnipeg Statement is NOT authentic teaching of the Church. Authentic teaching of the Church would be something like Humane Vitae.

Also, yes, one of the conditions for infallibility is that it has been taught everywhere for extended periods of time (“all” time), by the Magisterium. Not everything has to be dogmatically defined to be infallible teaching.
cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=149

Furthermore, the doctrine condemning birth control IS infallibly taught:

• The Catholic Church teaches infallible doctrine, both in faith and
  morals.
  

  + This infallible teaching is done by the Church's extraordinary and
    by her ordinary universal authority or magisterium.
  
  + The grave sinfulness of contraception is taught infallibly by the
    Church's ordinary universal teaching authority.
  
  + Therefore, those who defend contraception forfeit their claim to
    being professed Catholics.
  
  + Consequently, those who persist in their defense of contraception,
    deprive themselves of the divine graces which are reserved to 
    bona fide members of the Roman Catholic Church.

ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CONFATAL.TXT

More about this: jimmyakin.org/2004/11/contraception_i.html
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Please cease and desist spreading lies and falsehoods about the faith and the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. It is uncharitable, and can be scandalous to those of lesser faith.

 

[diggerdomer]

First of all, no, everything taught by a Bishop is NOT infallible teaching. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

I agree. I never said it, but whoever did sure doesn’t understand infallibility.

Bishops can say and teach heretical things just like anyone else. The Winnipeg Statement is NOT authentic teaching of the Church. Authentic teaching of the Church would be something like Humane Vitae.

Yes, of course. That’s why I said if such-and-such a teaching has not been retracted or condemned – as I would expect heretical teachings to be, especially after 40 years – then it would still be authentic teaching. As I mentioned, I don’t know the history of the Winnipeg statement. Has it been retracted or condemned by the Bishops or Vatican? If so, fine, if not then it’s authentic as it came from Bishops.

Also, yes, one of the conditions for infallibility is that it has been taught everywhere for extended periods of time (“all” time), by the Magisterium.

There’s no time limit in any condition for infallibility that I am aware of. Can you elaborate? Or show me where this is? Thank you.

Furthermore, the doctrine condemning birth control IS infallibly taught:

As I said, there’s debate on that. Google the issue and you’ll come up with all kinds of defenses saying it’s been taught infallibly. I think that raises the question of why it has to be defended so vociferously if its infallibility was made manifestly clear (that’s a Canon Law condition for infallible teaching, see 749.3). No Catholics are arguing about the infallibility associated with the teachings on the Immaculate Conception or Assumption, apparently it IS manifestly clear that those were taught infallibly. I also found, on that same Google search, this homily by an archbishop who says HV was not taught infallibly: catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=674 That’s just an example. I’m not saying he’s right or wrong, and I’m certainly not questioning the teaching in Humanae Vitae. I’m just pointing out there is debate on whether HV was taught infallibly.

Please cease and desist spreading lies and falsehoods about the faith and the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. It is uncharitable, and can be scandalous to those of lesser faith.

Wow. Ouch. What lies? If I am in error I apologize. I make mistakes. I am here to learn. I can certainly be wrong. But lying? Why do you think I’m spreading lies? I take that as a serious accusation. If you don’t understand or agree with something I write just please ask for clarification rather than assuming the worst and making it personal.

 

[savienu]

Yes, of course. That’s why I said if such-and-such a teaching has not been retracted or condemned – as I would expect heretical teachings to be, especially after 40 years – then it would still be authentic teaching. As I mentioned, I don’t know the history of the Winnipeg statement. Has it been retracted or condemned by the Bishops or Vatican? If so, fine, if not then it’s authentic as it came from Bishops.

No, it is NOT authentic teaching, whether the Vatican formally retracted it or not. It is heresy, becuase it goes against an infallibly defined teaching of the church.

There’s no time limit in any condition for infallibility that I am aware of. Can you elaborate? Or show me where this is? Thank you.

Simple. If something has been universally and everywhere taught, it is infallible. That’s one of the marks of infallibility.

As I said, there’s debate on that. Google the issue and you’ll come up with all kinds of defenses saying it’s been taught infallibly. I think that raises the question of why it has to be defended so vociferously if its infallibility was made manifestly clear (that’s a Canon Law condition for infallible teaching, see 749.3). No Catholics are arguing about the infallibility associated with the teachings on the Immaculate Conception or Assumption, apparently it IS manifestly clear that those were taught infallibly. I also found, on that same Google search, this homily by an archbishop who says HV was not taught infallibly: catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=674 That’s just an example. I’m not saying he’s right or wrong, and I’m certainly not questioning the teaching in Humanae Vitae. I’m just pointing out there is debate on whether HV was taught infallibly.

I think you are confusing DEBATE with DISSENT. There is DISSENT over whether the teaching is infallible, and plenty of people will jump through hoops to say it is not infallibly defined to find any excuse to justify disobeying the Church on this matter- because it is a controversial subject, and the Church stands alone in her condemnation of artificial contraceptives in this self-centered world. I have provided multiple sources for you to show how and why it is infallibly defined and can not and will not change. You choose to continue to disagree, but that doesn’t mean there is debate on the subject. It means you are in error.

Wow. Ouch. What lies? If I am in error I apologize. I make mistakes. I am here to learn. I can certainly be wrong. But lying? Why do you think I’m spreading lies? I take that as a serious accusation. If you don’t understand or agree with something I write just please ask for clarification rather than assuming the worst and making it personal.

If you are here to learn, then ask questions, don’t make vast statements that directly contradict the Magisterium of the Church, with nothing to back up your statements but your own words, and claim to be here to learn.

 

[diggerdomer]

No, it is NOT authentic teaching, whether the Vatican formally retracted it or not. It is heresy, becuase it goes against an infallibly defined teaching of the church.

Simple. If something has been universally and everywhere taught, it is infallible. That’s one of the marks of infallibility.

I think you are confusing DEBATE with DISSENT. There is DISSENT over whether the teaching is infallible, and plenty of people will jump through hoops to say it is not infallibly defined to find any excuse to justify disobeying the Church on this matter- because it is a controversial subject, and the Church stands alone in her condemnation of artificial contraceptives in this self-centered world. I have provided multiple sources for you to show how and why it is infallibly defined and can not and will not change. You choose to continue to disagree, but that doesn’t mean there is debate on the subject. It means you are in error.

If you are here to learn, then ask questions, don’t make vast statements that directly contradict the Magisterium of the Church, with nothing to back up your statements but your own words, and claim to be here to learn.

Thank you for your thoughtful and charitable response. I appreciate that you read and considered what I wrote.