HELP! Confused about the Trinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Upgrade25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican I did not specifically say the Pope can bind people to fallible teachings. The Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican II did. The first is infallible, but Paul VI said the second did not engage infallibility, yet he allowed it to be a Dogmatic Constitution (like Vatican 1) with a new specific teachings. That is the trouble here
 
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (Lumen Gentium)

If ex cathedra is meant here only explicitly revealed doctrines defined formally, than religious submission of mind could be interpreted as the supreme magisteruim’s infallibility otherwise. However religious submission of mind is meant for fallible teachings according to latter usage in the Catechism and Canon Law. So once against there is not consistent use of terms.

Bottom line though, I think we have to say there is nothing in the Dogmatic Constitutions of Vatican II that is new doctrinally in any way. That’s where I’m steering to on this. If there is anything new in the Dogmatic Constitutions, than it would be infallible because Dogmatic Constitutions from a Council are infallible, and Paul VI said infallibility was not used at the Council.
 
thinkandmull said:
In between ex cathedra and disicpline-government is authentic teaching authority, which wasn’t taught at Vatican I
Click to expand...
Ex cathedral was not what was said in that statement from Vatican I, rather “matters concerning faith and morals”:
“not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”
 
Then Vatican II used ex cathedra in a more limited sense than Vatican I, because otherwise Vatican II would have been teaching on religious submission to fallible teaching (see my previous post), which would be a new infallible teaching considering it was a Dogmatic Constitution.
 
thinkandmull said:
Then Vatican II used ex cathedra in a more limited sense than Vatican I, because otherwise Vatican II would have been teaching on religious submission to fallible teaching (see my previous post), which would be a new infallible teaching considering it was a Dogmatic Constitution.
Click to expand...
Vatican I used the understanding that the Magisterium can bind the faithful to something regarding faith and morals that has not been defined ex cathedra, just as Vatican II did.
 
Vico said:
Vatican I used the understanding that the Magisterium can bind the faithful to something regarding faith and morals that has not been defined ex cathedra, just as Vatican II did.
Click to expand...
If it did, than Vatican II didn’t say anything new, which it mustn’t since it would be infallible, and Paul VI said infallibility wasn’t engaged. However, if Vatican I did teach the Pope can bind to fallible teachings, which haven’t you quoted it for us? “Governing” does not necessary include that aspect
 
As you should already know, “not only in matters concerning faith and morals” could be referring just to infallibility, and “discipline and government of the Church throughout the world” to settling legal disputes and making laws
 
thinkandmull said:
As you should already know, “not only in matters concerning faith and morals” could be referring just to infallibility, and “discipline and government of the Church throughout the world” to settling legal disputes and making laws
Click to expand...
If it is a matter of faith and morals then the Church cannot error.

Chapter 3, Dogmatic Constitution Dei filius, Vatican I also has:
“all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed.”
 
That’s applies to infallible teachings, as you know. But if you’re not going to have a rational conversation anymore why post?
 
thinkandmull said:
That’s applies to infallible teachings, as you know. But if you’re not going to have a rational conversation anymore why post?
Click to expand...
Yes, for divinely revealed truths. Most of the Church’s teachings are proposed non-infallibly. Since when a teaching is not infallible, then it may be reformed later. These are the categories of teaching:

Extraordinary Magisterium
  1. Pope defining and proclaiming a doctrine definitively
    …a. Infallible: a truth of faith or morals. *
    …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.
  • What has been proclaimed is not subject to review or approval by the other bishops or the faithful, but is guaranteed infallible through the action of the Holy Spirit (and the assent of the Church will eventually be evident).
  1. Pope and bishops teaching when in council
    …a. Infallible: proclaiming a truth.
    …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.
Ordinary Magisterium
  1. Pope and bishops teaching while dispersed throughout the world
    …a. Infallible: bishops teaching in harmony a truth that they say must be held definitively by all the faithful.
    …b. Non-Infallible: all other instances of teaching on faith or morals.
References:
Vatican I
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25
The Gift of Infallibility by Bishop Gasser, Rev. James O’Connor, p 120-123.
And DONUM VERITATIS, excerpt below:
  1. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.
When the Magisterium proposes “in a definitive way” truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)

When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

(15) Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, n. 25; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decl. Mysterium Ecclesiae, nn. 3-5: AAS 65 ( 1973) 400-404; Professio fidei et Iusiurandum fidelitatis AAS 81 (1989) 104 f.

(22) The text of the new Profession of Faith (cf. n. 15 ) makes explicit the kind of assent called for by these teachings in these terms: “Firmiter etiam amplector et retineo. …”.

(23) Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, n. 25; Code of Canon Law, can. 752.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html
 
If you’ve been following my line of reasoning, Paul VI did not say that “infallibility was not used in a solemn manner at the Council”, but that infallibility was not engaged. That’s what his words say. Now, Vatican II had two Dogmatic Constitutions. Vatican I used Dogmatic Constitutions, as Councils do. In order to safeguard previous Councils, we would have to argue that Vatican II offered not a single teaching that was not already infallible in the two Dogmatic Constitutions. This is imperative. Now, the Church as far as I know has only taught with fallible authority that the Pope can bind to fallible teachings, therefore when Vatican II says “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking”, I’ve interpreted “authentic magisterium” to be infallible but not solemn teachings, and therefore “ex cathedra” merely for solemn teachings. Now, religious submission to a Pope is language now used for fallible teachings, but again there is no common usage of many of these terms among Catholics.
 
thinkandmull said:
If you’ve been following my line of reasoning, Paul VI did not say that “infallibility was not used in a solemn manner at the Council”, but that infallibility was not engaged. That’s what his words say. Now, Vatican II had two Dogmatic Constitutions. Vatican I used Dogmatic Constitutions, as Councils do. In order to safeguard previous Councils, we would have to argue that Vatican II offered not a single teaching that was not already infallible in the two Dogmatic Constitutions. This is imperative. Now, the Church as far as I know has only taught with fallible authority that the Pope can bind to fallible teachings, therefore when Vatican II says “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking”, I’ve interpreted “authentic magisterium” to be infallible but not solemn teachings, and therefore “ex cathedra” merely for solemn teachings. Now, religious submission to a Pope is language now used for fallible teachings, but again there is no common usage of many of these terms among Catholics.
Click to expand...
We give assent to the fallible (reformable) teachings is because of the teaching authority of the Church and our obligation to not give scandal but rather respect to that authority, and submit to the sacramental disciplines of the Church, the Church that has the authority to bind and loose sins, and to write the canon law and require that the faithful observe them.

The term “authentic magisterium” refers to the authority not to the type of dogma.

Formal Dogmas (dogmata formalia) and Material Dogmas (dogmata materialia). The former are proposed for belief by the Teaching Authority of the Church as truths of Revelation; the latter are not so proposed, for which reason they are not Dogmas in the strict sense. - Fundamental of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, p. 6.

Material Dogmas are not infallible, and are called dogmas in the moderate sense. An ecumenical council can teach both formal and material dogma, which means any of infallible and fallible, and in the moderate sense, the term dogmatic constitution is accurate.

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (c£ D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions ofthe Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obiequiosum” that is “reverent silence” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error. - Fundamental of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, p. 6.
 
“…infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate”

Dogmatic Constitutions of a Council are infallible. If there is no new teaching at all, there are any new infallible teachings, so Paul VI’s words only make sense in that regard

I get the impression that you are here just to teach people what you know, instead of to learn from others
 
thinkandmull said:
“…infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate”

Dogmatic Constitutions of a Council are infallible. If there is no new teaching at all, there are any new infallible teachings, so Paul VI’s words only make sense in that regard

I get the impression that you are here just to teach people what you know, instead of to learn from others
Click to expand...
You sentence is a fragment so I cannot make sense of it.

What is the authoritative basis of your statement that the Catholic ecumenical councils never make statements on faith and moral that are reformable?

We know that three ecumenical councils and a few Popes condemned interest on a loan to be against natural law. Lateran II (1139), Lateran III (1179), Pope Clement V (1311), Pope Sixtus V, for example.
  • The Second Council of the Lateran condemned usury (Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio.
  • Third Council of the Lateran declared usury to be condemned “by the pages of both Testaments” (Mansi 22.231).
  • The Council of Vienne declared any “pertinaciously affirming that to practice usury is no sin should be punished as a heretic”
See: DEVELOPMENT IN MORAL DOCTRINE by JOHN T. NOONAN, JR. (Theological Studies 54 (1993) )
 
thinkandmull said:
“…infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate”

Dogmatic Constitutions of a Council are infallible.
Click to expand...
Where does the Church teach this?
If there is no new teaching at all, there are any new infallible teachings, so Paul VI’s words only make sense in that regard
Click to expand...
I get the impression that you are here just to teach people what you know, instead of to learn from others
Click to expand...
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, documents cannot be infallible. Why? Because they are subject to interpretation, which can be faulty.
 
Usury is defined as interest in excess or interest when it is contrary to charity. If Dogmatic Constitutions are not always infallible from a Council, what argument do you have that Trent’s decrees apart from the anathema’s were infallible?
 
thinkandmull said:
Usury is defined as interest in excess or interest when it is contrary to charity. If Dogmatic Constitutions are not always infallible from a Council, what argument do you have that Trent’s decrees apart from the anathema’s were infallible?
Click to expand...
Usury is defined that way now. From Catholic Encyclopedia:
Nevertheless, the 12th canon of the First Council of Carthage (345) and the 36th canon of the Council of Aix (789) have declared it to be reprehensible even for laymen to make money by lending at interest. The canonical laws of the Middle Ages absolutely forbade the practice.
newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

Read this from Cardinal Walter Kasper:

Indeed, the Council of Trent issued nothing but Decrees; yet it approved documents with this title that were both dogmatically important and binding.

As compared with Trent, the Second Vatican Council made a distinction between Constitutions and Decrees; but the Council did not explain this differentiation, or at least not in such a way as to justify the above-mentioned argument.

Pope Paul VI’s declarations on the act of the solemn promulgation of Unitatis Redintegratio took another direction.

…

When the Decree on Ecumenism was promulgated at the end of the third session (together with the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), Pope Paul VI said that the Decree explained and completed the Constitution on the Church: "ea doctrina, explicationibus completa in Schemate “De Oecumenismo’ comprehensis…”. Thus, with regard to theological importance, he closely linked this Decree to the Constitution on the Church.

Lastly, in his Closing Address on 8 December 1965 (in agreement with what Pope John XXIII had said in his Opening Address) he declared that the Council overall, hence including the Dogmatic Constitution, had a pastoral orientation. And he left no room for doubt concerning the fact that the pastoral orientation neither excluded nor relativized doctrinal pronouncements but, on the contrary, was founded on the teaching of the Church.

Effectively, there is no pastoral service worthy of the name that is not anchored in the teaching of the Church; nor is there any teaching of the Church that consists solely of doctrine and is devoid of pastoral aims. The First Vatican Council had already declared that the teaching of the Church must be interpreted in view of the ultimate destiny of the human being (DS, 3016).

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20031110_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
 
You are not making clear what your position is, but instead copying and pasting in post after post, nor offering agreement if I have a valid point. Paul VI, again, did not say that infallibility was not used in a solemn way but that extraordinary authority “engaging infallibility” was not used at VII. So Vatican II was not infallible. Trent did not issue Decrees only, but also anathemas. Since you are questioning the authority of previous councils, what argument do you have against those who say only the anathemas were infallible and not the decrees, or that only the decrees were infallible and the anathemas were just disciplinary? You have no safeguard against these claims. I take everything from a Council was infallible, accept when the Pope says that it is not infallible. A Dogmatic Constitution means by the definition of its title that it is infallible, unless there is nothing new taught in the document (in that cause there is no new dogma). We are not speaking of an encyclical “on dogmatic questions”

“Nevertheless, the 12th canon of the First Council of Carthage (345) and the 36th canon of the Council of Aix (789) have declared it to be reprehensible even for laymen to make money by lending at interest” That is because making money from a loan is against charity. Saying there could be exceptions to it in societal situations does not take away from the authority of those councils.

“The canonical laws of the Middle Ages absolutely forbade the practice.” And?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top