Is Vatican II Infallible

[Tunesmith]

You’re saying that Catholiism isn’t true?

Catholicism is true. I’m saying some popes have taught error and strayed from Catholic truth.

 

[Tomster]

Catholicism is true. I’m saying some popes have taught error and strayed from Catholic truth.

Tune,

If you would, please, make a list of all the errors “some popes have taught”.

Please be brief so as to help us help you.

Thank you.

 

[Tunesmith]

In regards to Protestants and Jews we were always taught, and I do mean always, that not only did Jesus Christ die for Catholics, He died and rose for all of humanity and that it was up to us to bring that Good News to everyone. (That was my Confirmation promise just before the good bishop gave me my “tap” on the cheek. :knight1

I see what you mean. They are now politically correct. The new catechism seems to be saying something new but it never really says Muslims and Jews are saved by observing the Muslim and Jewish faiths.
This statement could be misleading:
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

839 The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

Compare with the The Baltimore Catechism of 1891. Political correctness was not an issue.
pcpbooks.net/docs/baltimore_catechism.pdf
Q. 516. Why can there be only one true religion?
A. There can be only one true religion, because a thing cannot be false and true at the same time,
and, therefore, all religions that contradict the teaching of the true Church must teach falsehood.
**If all religions in which men seek to serve God are equally good and true, why did Christ disturb
the Jewish religion and the Apostles condemn heretics? **

Q. 571. How do you show that Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church?
A. Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church, because:
(1) They are not one either in government or faith; for they have no chief head, and they
profess different beliefs;
(2) They are not holy, because **their doctrines are founded on error and lead to evil
consequences; **
Q. 1043. Does the Church seek to make converts by its laws concerning mixed marriages?
A. The Church does not seek to make converts by its laws concerning mixed marriages, but seeks only to keep its children from losing their faith and becoming perverts by constant company with persons not Catholics.

Q. 1177. What excuse do some give for neglecting to seek and embrace the true religion?
A. Some give as an excuse for neglecting to seek and embrace the true religion that we should
live in the religion in which we were born, and that one religion is as good as another if we
believe we are serving God.
Q. 1178. How do we show that such an excuse is false and absurd?
A. We show that such an excuse is false and absurd because:
(1) It is false and absurd to say that we should remain in error after we have discovered it;
(2) Because if one religion is as good as another, Our Lord would not have abolished the Jewish religion, nor the apostles have preached against heresy.

The Lord abolished the Jewish religion. You can’t make any Jewish friends with that one.

 

[Tomster]

I see what you mean. They are now politically correct. The new catechism seems to be saying something new but it never really says Muslims and Jews are saved by observing the Muslim and Jewish faiths.
This statement could be misleading:
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

839 The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

Compare with the The Baltimore Catechism of 1891. Political correctness was not an issue.
pcpbooks.net/docs/baltimore_catechism.pdf
Q. 516. Why can there be only one true religion?
A. There can be only one true religion, because a thing cannot be false and true at the same time,
and, therefore, all religions that contradict the teaching of the true Church must teach falsehood.
**If all religions in which men seek to serve God are equally good and true, why did Christ disturb
the Jewish religion and the Apostles condemn heretics? **

Q. 571. How do you show that Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church?
A. Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church, because:
(1) They are not one either in government or faith; for they have no chief head, and they
profess different beliefs;
(2) They are not holy, because **their doctrines are founded on error and lead to evil
consequences; **
Q. 1043. Does the Church seek to make converts by its laws concerning mixed marriages?
A. The Church does not seek to make converts by its laws concerning mixed marriages, but seeks only to keep its children from losing their faith and becoming perverts by constant company with persons not Catholics.

Q. 1177. What excuse do some give for neglecting to seek and embrace the true religion?
A. Some give as an excuse for neglecting to seek and embrace the true religion that we should
live in the religion in which we were born, and that one religion is as good as another if we
believe we are serving God.
Q. 1178. How do we show that such an excuse is false and absurd?
A. We show that such an excuse is false and absurd because:
(1) It is false and absurd to say that we should remain in error after we have discovered it;
(2) Because if one religion is as good as another, Our Lord would not have abolished the Jewish religion, nor the apostles have preached against heresy.

The Lord abolished the Jewish religion. You can’t make any Jewish friends with that one.

Tune,

Did you take a look at post # 77?

If not, please do so.

 

[aspirant]

Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

With all due respect to the Baltimore Catechism, it was a local catechism. (Or, rather, a name given to a number of local catechisms, since there were different versions over time.) The Baltimore was American, designed in and for use in the United States. Local catechisms must always be judged and understood in the light of magisterial teaching, as the more recent Catechism of the Catholic Church pointed out: “the Church intends the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be the criterion against which local catechisms must be judged and understood.” Yet, in its defense, even the Baltimore Catechism pointed out that a “limbo of infants,” as it was commonly called, was simply a “common belief.”

The Church has always taught that baptism is absolutely required to enter heaven. In fact, it still teaches that today. However, baptism is not only by water though. While this is the norm, there is also the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood.

And these are not new concepts. If we looked again at the Baltimore Catechism, we would find:
"Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?

A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?

A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ…

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Another local catechism, used in Rome, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, mentions both: “The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.”

As I said above, these are local catechisms. What of magisterial teaching? Yes, the Council of Trent also mentions “the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof.”

To say that there has been a further understanding of that teaching and that certain points are now highlighted at times when they previously were not, would be the correct understanding.

I agree.

Vatican II teachings were new to the average lay person.

Like crazzeto, I don’t doubt that many Catholics were then ignorant of Church teaching or misunderstood what they did know. The same is true now.

Nevertheless, the Church has long taught that the salvation of non-Catholics, and even Christians, is possible in Jesus Christ through means known to God. As Pope Pius IX wrote, “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” (That last bit can hardly be irrelevant to the question of unbaptized infants.)

All of the preceding seems to me entirely consistent with the current teaching of the Church:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation… The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude… God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

 

[Tunesmith]

Tune,

If you would, please, make a list of all the errors “some popes have taught”.

Please be brief so as to help us help you.

Thank you.

I already posted this but I was told my interpretation is wrong. This pope does not acknowledge baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

“nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

It’s specifically talking about those who shed their blood in the name of Christ. They would have to be non-baptized martyrs. It’s saying their sacrifice counts for nothing.

Pope John Paul II said Jews are saved by observing the Old Covenant and the catechism had to be revised.

 

[aspirant]

“nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

It’s specifically talking about those who shed their blood in the name of Christ. They would have to be non-baptized martyrs. It’s saying their sacrifice counts for nothing.

This interpretation of the quote makes no sense. If the passage in question was talking about people who had never been baptized, it would not say “unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

 

[aspirant]

This interpretation of the quote makes no sense. If the passage in question was talking about people who had never been baptized, it would not say “unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

I cannot help recalling this passage from C.S. Lewis’ introduction to St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation:

St. Athanasius has suffered in popular estimation from a certain sentence in the “Athanasian Creed.” I will not labour the point that that work is not exactly a creed and was not by St. Athanasius, for I think it is a very fine piece of writing. The words “Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly” are the offence. They are commonly misunderstood. The operative word is keep; not acquire, or even believe, but keep. The author, in fact, is not talking about unbelievers, but about deserters, not about those who have never heard of Christ, nor even those who have misunderstood and refused to accept Him, but of those who having really understood and really believed, then allow themselves, under the sway of sloth or of fashion or any other invited confusion to be drawn away into sub-Christian modes of thought.

 

[Tomster]

With all due respect to the Baltimore Catechism, it was a local catechism. (Or, rather, a name given to a number of local catechisms, since there were different versions over time.) The Baltimore was American, designed in and for use in the United States. Local catechisms must always be judged and understood in the light of magisterial teaching, as the more recent Catechism of the Catholic Church pointed out: “the Church intends the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be the criterion against which local catechisms must be judged and understood.” Yet, in its defense, even the Baltimore Catechism pointed out that a “limbo of infants,” as it was commonly called, was simply a “common belief.”

And these are not new concepts. If we looked again at the Baltimore Catechism, we would find:

Another local catechism, used in Rome, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, mentions both: “The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.”

As I said above, these are local catechisms. What of magisterial teaching? Yes, the Council of Trent also mentions “the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof.”

I agree.

Like crazzeto, I don’t doubt that many Catholics were then ignorant of Church teaching or misunderstood what they did know. The same is true now.

Nevertheless, the Church has long taught that the salvation of non-Catholics, and even Christians, is possible in Jesus Christ through means known to God. As Pope Pius IX wrote, “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” (That last bit can hardly be irrelevant to the question of unbaptized infants.)

All of the preceding seems to me entirely consistent with the current teaching of the Church:

I agree and thank you very much.

 

[aspirant]

the Church has long taught that the salvation of non-Catholics, and even Christians

That should say “and even non-Christians.” I swear I typed that, too, which makes me wonder if the “non” got inserted elsewhere.

 

[Tunesmith]

This interpretation of the quote makes no sense. If the passage in question was talking about people who had never been baptized, it would not say “unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

Persevere - to continue a course of action. I am wrong about my interpretation.
Next: a man who leaves the Catholic Church and sheds his blood for Christ would have to be doing that with sincere conviction so he is saved by obedience to his conscience.

 

[devoutchristian]

Pope John Paul II said Jews are saved by observing the Old Covenant and the catechism had to be revised.

That’s a bald-faced lie.

 

[jwinch2]

With all due respect to the Baltimore Catechism, it was a local catechism. (Or, rather, a name given to a number of local catechisms, since there were different versions over time.) The Baltimore was American, designed in and for use in the United States. Local catechisms must always be judged and understood in the light of magisterial teaching, as the more recent Catechism of the Catholic Church pointed out: “the Church intends the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be the criterion against which local catechisms must be judged and understood.” Yet, in its defense, even the Baltimore Catechism pointed out that a “limbo of infants,” as it was commonly called, was simply a “common belief.”

And these are not new concepts. If we looked again at the Baltimore Catechism, we would find:

Another local catechism, used in Rome, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, mentions both: “The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.”

As I said above, these are local catechisms. What of magisterial teaching? Yes, the Council of Trent also mentions “the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof.”

I agree.

Like crazzeto, I don’t doubt that many Catholics were then ignorant of Church teaching or misunderstood what they did know. The same is true now.

Nevertheless, the Church has long taught that the salvation of non-Catholics, and even Christians, is possible in Jesus Christ through means known to God. As Pope Pius IX wrote, “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” (That last bit can hardly be irrelevant to the question of unbaptized infants.)

All of the preceding seems to me entirely consistent with the current teaching of the Church:

Fidei Depositum also states in regards to the CCC: “this catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the Diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See”. Thus, local catechisms, if they were properly approved, are still valid.

 

[Tunesmith]

That’s a bald-faced lie.

You mean boldfaced.
old.usccb.org/mr/mediatalk/backgrounder_recognitio.shtml

The Holy See has granted a recognitio to a modification of a passage in the USCCA that refers to God’s covenant with the Jewish people.

United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

(Washington, D.C.: USCCB Publ., 2006)

Revision on pages 130-131

Prior version:

The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues.” (LG, no. 16) When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” This began the history of God revealing his divine plan of salvation to a chosen people with whom he made enduring covenants. Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them. At the same time, “remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews, and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4)

New version:

The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues.” (LG, no. 16) When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.” (Rom 9: 4-5; cf. CCC, no. 839) At the same time, “remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews, and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4)

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Catholicism is true. I’m saying some popes have taught error and strayed from Catholic truth.

This is saying that Catholicism is not true! Catholicism teaches that when it comes to matters of faith and morals the Pope cannot teach error for he is protected by the Holy Spirit.

 

[crazzeto]

You mean boldfaced.
old.usccb.org/mr/mediatalk/backgrounder_recognitio.shtml

The Holy See has granted a recognitio to a modification of a passage in the USCCA that refers to God’s covenant with the Jewish people.

United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

(Washington, D.C.: USCCB Publ., 2006)

Revision on pages 130-131

Prior version:

The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues.” (LG, no. 16) When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” This began the history of God revealing his divine plan of salvation to a chosen people with whom he made enduring covenants. Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them. At the same time, “remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews, and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4)

New version:

The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues.” (LG, no. 16) When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.” (Rom 9: 4-5; cf. CCC, no. 839) At the same time, “remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews, and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4)

I fail to see the changed doctrinal teaching

 

[Tunesmith]

I fail to see the changed doctrinal teaching

“Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”

This was eliminated because it’s not true.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

“Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”

This was eliminated because it’s not true.

I could be wrong on this, but I do not think that it sounds like a change in the doctrine or the belief, but a change in the wording used to express it to make it more clear.

 

[jwinch2]

This is saying that Catholicism is not true! Catholicism teaches that when it comes to matters of faith and morals the Pope cannot teach error for he is protected by the Holy Spirit.

I have believed for sometime that Gasser’s Relatio, which was the official explanation of Papal Infallibility given at Vatican I, should be required study for Catholics, particularly those who wish to do apologetics or who are working in catechesis, teaching theology, etc. Based upon the reports that I have seen, the Bishops were not initially inclined to support this doctrine. It was the manner in which Gasser presented it per the official definition and explanation, which convinced them of its truth. This is a good resource for anyone interested in studying this doctrine in more detail.
amazon.com/The-Gift-Infallibility-Official-Relatio/dp/1586171747

The simple truth of the matter is that there are very specific circumstances in which the Pope is protected from error though the grace of the Holy Spirit. If those conditions are not met, per the council, then the pope is not protected from such error. Catholics and non-Catholics alike have been taking this doctrine out of its needed context ever since.

This also appears to be a good reference on the subject: catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Fessler.htm

 

[PJM]

=Catholic4Jesus;10498530]I heard someone tell me that Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, but only a pastoral council and it is not binding. Is that true?

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

The statement is true insofar as Vatican II did nothing NEW as far as Doctrines are concerned. They “broke no new ground.”