Infallibility and Vatican II

[fri]

A common English translation of an excerpt of a speech by Paul VI concerning the infallibility of Vatican II is as follows:

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.

If you look at the original Italian text you will find something is missing.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112_it.html

In the sixth paragraph it is stated:

[D]ato il carattere pastorale del Concilio, esso ha evitato di pronunciare in modo straordinario dogmi dotati della nota di infallibilità; ma esso ha tuttavia munito i suoi insegnamenti dell’autorità del supremo magistero ordinario il quale magistero ordinario e così palesemente autentico deve essere accolto docilmente e sinceramente da tutti i fedeli, secondo la mente del Concilio circa la natura e gli scopi dei singoli documenti.

The word “supreme” has been omitted. Certainly the supreme ordinary magisterium is not the same as merely the ordinary magisterium. Perhaps the word “supreme” would be considered as the universal ordinary magisterium?

Does this seem to agree with anyone else?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Certainly the supreme ordinary magisterium is not the same as merely the ordinary magisterium.

I’m not sure I agree. What would be the practical difference? Does the Church actually (ie, officially) recognize degrees of difference? Does one degree trump another? I’ve never heard of any such thing, and I’m pretty sure it’s not enumerated in Canon Law or Church Doctrine.

I think the Italian wording is redundant (maybe this is a linguistic device of the Italian language that doesn’t translate well into English, and was thus omitted in translation. Or, maybe it was some Italian Canon Lawyers doing something lawyers do well - adding a lot of redundant terms to *really *make their point).

 

[Ron_Conte]

The use of **supreme **indicates that this is the **highest **expression of the ordinary Magisterium, because it is the Pope gathered with the body of Bishops. However, it does not indicate that each assertion in the documents of Vatican II is necessarily of the ordinary and universal Magisterium (which is infallible). A lower expression of the ordinary Magisterium occurs when an individual Bishops teaches, or a Bishops’ Conference, or a congregation of the Holy See.

 

[fri]

The use of supreme indicates that this is the highest expression of the ordinary Magisterium, because it is the Pope gathered with the body of Bishops. However, it does not indicate that each assertion in the documents of Vatican II is necessarily of the ordinary and universal Magisterium (which is infallible). A lower expression of the ordinary Magisterium occurs when an individual Bishops teaches, or a Bishops’ Conference, or a congregation of the Holy See.

I was thinking along the same lines.

The CCC says this:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

I’m pretty damn sure it’s not up to the laity to decide what belongs to the ordinary and universal Magisterium. I bring this up because I thought of the SSPX when I read this. The laity aren’t given any permission to pick and choose what to believe, and we’re certainly never allowed to withhold religious assent, being the case of “He that heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16).

 

[fri]

The laity aren’t given any permission to pick and choose what to believe

On second thought, I recall a quote by Cardinal Newman, something to the effect that somethings are open to believe or disbelieve, but I don’t think such a things would include teachings of ecumenical councils, would it?

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Magisterium teaches infallibly in any of three ways:

1. papal infallibility
2. solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils
3. the ordinary and universal Magisterium
   All other teachings of the Magisterium are non-infallible.

It is not always clear if a teaching falls under one or more of the types of infallibility, or whether it might be a non-infallible teachings. But both types of teaching require assent: the full assent of faith for infallible teachings, and religious assent for non-infallible teachings.

The faithful do have a role in perceiving which teachings are infallible, especially under the universal Magisterium, since these teachings are harder to discern (there is no one solemn definition, but rather a set of non-defining acts).

It is not always clear if an Ecumenical Council is teaching infallibly or non-infallibly. Some Councils made their infallible teachings very clear in Canons with attached anathemas. But the same Councils also taught many things in other language, without a specific anathema. So we do need to discern which teachings of Councils are infallible and which are not. Councils also exercise the temporal authority of the Church (discipline, not doctrine), which is fallible.