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?
I would like to agree with you, but I believe there is an error. I follow your line, from one of your previous quotes, highlighting a phrase I want to comment on in red:
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.
The submission of intellect and will is to be given to the **doctrines of faith and morals **when authentically given (Pope or Council) even without a definitive act. Specifically this is not about the assent of faith, which is in another category.
Do you oppose the authority of the Church expressed in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law canon 599 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches?
CIC Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.
Also see: Donum veritatis
I am not questioning the authority of previous councils.
Yes, the Popes said that Vatican II was pastoral. That pastoral expression through the many documents produced, used infallible dogmas of various types, from before it.
The
Dogmatic Constitution title does not mean that everything within it is irreformable. Doctrines may be reformable or irreformable. (Doctrine is a generic term, whereas dogma is used formally, for an official judgment or decree, but also for material dogma.)
