Is Vatican II Infallible

[TEPO]

Pop music at mass…? like with drum machines and rhyming beats?

 

[JohnTomHoc]

I see the ‘Vatican II Phenomenon’ as being enclosed in a circle of logic, which, if you don’t see all the elements, you think you can reach a conclusion but end up going around in a circle.

The circle is something like this:

• Someone proposes that ‘Vatican II’ says X.
• Traditionalists say X is different from tradition
• Neo-conservatives say VII can only be interpreted as being in line with tradition.
• Neo-conservatives say VII is ‘infallibile’,
• Traditionalists say infallibilty is only invoked on specific occasions when the Pope defines a doctrine and this did not occur at VII.
• Neo-conservatives say VII partakes of the ‘infallibility of the Magisterium’ and is owed assent or is binding in some way.
• Traditionalists say, well, what exactly is ‘binding’ in these documents, that is different from what we are doing. Are ecumenisn without conversion, collegiality, ‘freedom of conscience’ and indifferentism ‘binding’?
• Neo-conservatives say the documents don’t propose this.
• Traditionalists say they are used to justify them.

Personally, I would say that a traditionalist can be a Catholic in good standing without ever reading or heeding the documents themselves or whatever speaker X says they imply. They don’t really impinge on ones daily, traditionalist, religious life.

But for those with an agenda to move the Church in a progressive, ‘modern’, updated, fashionable direction, they are very important. Because of VII and the huge revision in the Mass, the precedent for major changes in our religion has been set.

You can’t say NEVER! to a small thing like altar girls after a major rewrite of your rite and versus-populum with altar tables and so on. The dam has burst.

A pretty fair summation of how it’s worked out in practice.

 When Paul VI introduced his reductionist rite which so closely corresponded to the Protestant idea that the mass is not a holy sacrifice but a communal meal, he sent a wrecking ball through the liturgical life of the Church, as well as her missionary & apologetic life. He treated his rite as the realization of the aspirations of the Conciliar recommendations in all ways, so that suddenly, to adhere to liturgical tradition, which was unmistakably broken by such a rash action, became, in his mind & action, a rejection of his personal authority & of the Council. To paraphrase William Blake,

Both read the Council day & night,
But thou readest black where I read white.*

In essence, Paul put himself on a cross of his own making, and the rest of the faithful with him. Bl. John Paul could not seem to comprehend this; Benedict had a better grasp of it, and would have liked, evidently, to turn the priest around again, but settled for advising that a crucifix be placed on the altar.

Ecumenical practice has bound itself to what the Catechism declares is a sin of presumption in 2092 in, the second half of the statement: " . . . he [commits the sin of presumption who] hopes to obtain [God’s’] forgiveness without conversion and his mercy without merit." So if the decree on ecumenical relations demands that the partners ‘no longer talk of return or conversion,’ then the Catechism contradicts the Council. I don’t believe it does, whatever the ecumenists hoped to effect by minimizing the dangers of false religion in the Conciliar statements.

 

[pnewton]

“Dogmatic” and “pastoral” are not mutually exclusive. That which is taught as dogmatic in any ecumenical council is infallible. Vatican II did this with Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. We simply cannot pick and choose which councils to believe and which to reject. There are a few who have had all ministry in the Catholic Church suspended because they do not accept this. In the past, there have been permanent schisms because of a Council’s teaching was rejected. When I see that some say this formula or that was not properly followed, I wonder if they understand the level wealth of resource in theology, canon law, and divine authority present for years at this council.

 

[Tunesmith]

This is what the Catholic Church taught before Vatican II:
Mortalium Amimos 1/6/1928
[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”

It’s very different from:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

 

[josephback]

This is what the Catholic Church taught before Vatican II:
Mortalium Amimos 1/6/1928
[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”

It’s very different from:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

The same catechism teaches the necessity of the Church. The Church before Vatican 2 was usually more blunt with its call to conversion. I have read pre-Vatican 2 books however with a nihil obstat that essentially state what the present Catechism does.

 

[devoutchristian]

I have read pre-Vatican 2 books however with a nihil obstat that essentially state what the present Catechism does.

Not to mention papal encyclicals.

 

[Tunesmith]

The following statement leaves no hope of salvation for the Jewish people:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441
"All, therefore, who after that time [the promulgation of the Gospel] observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

The following leaves no hope of salvation for anyone but a Roman Catholic:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Are you saying the Catholic Church today teaches the same message?

 

[devoutchristian]

The following statement leaves no hope of salvation for the Jewish people:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441
"All, therefore, who after that time [the promulgation of the Gospel] observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

The following leaves no hope of salvation for anyone but a Roman Catholic:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Are you saying the Catholic Church today teaches the same message?

You should hold the Catholic faith in its entirety.
ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9quanto.htm paragraph 7

 

[aspirant]

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?

False dichotomy.

Archbishop Muller is the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the same job Cardinal Ratzinger held before he became pope.

Here is his explanation of Vatican II being “pastoral” as reported by the National Catholic Register:

Some argue the Second Vatican Council was merely pastoral and, therefore, not binding. How do you respond to this?

The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral.” All councils are pastoral, in that they are concerned with the work of the Church — but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and therefore not binding. Vatican II is an official ecumenical council, and all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels. We have dogmatic constitutions, and you are certainly obliged to accept them if you are Catholic. Dei Verbum discusses divine Revelation; it speaks about the Trinitarian God revealing himself and about the Incarnation as fundamental teaching. These are not only pastoral teachings — they are basic elements of our Catholic faith.

Some practical elements contained in the various documents could be changed, but the body of the doctrine of the Council is binding for everyone.

This.

 

[Megan7]

This is what the Catholic Church taught before Vatican II:
Mortalium Amimos 1/6/1928
[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”

It’s very different from:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Thanks.

 

[Megan7]

The following statement leaves no hope of salvation for the Jewish people:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441
"All, therefore, who after that time [the promulgation of the Gospel] observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”

The following leaves no hope of salvation for anyone but a Roman Catholic:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Are you saying the Catholic Church today teaches the same message?

 

[devoutchristian]

ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9quanto.htm
Paragraph 7

 

[pnewton]

Are you saying the Catholic Church today teaches the same message?

No, but neither does it contradict what was taught. “Different” is not the same as contradictory.

By the way, which conciliar document is your quote from? I can not find it and would like to verify the context and its accuracy, especially as it is very different from what was said in the first Church council as found in the book of Acts. Perhaps the learned men at the Vatican Council were aware of the disposition decided in Jerusalem and know better the history of the Church and its doctrine than we do.

 

[pnewton]

Never mind. I found the quote. It is not from the council but a papal bull and does not convey infallibility. However, there is still little problematic with it, if one will quit reading snipets. It is not an absolute statement, but one with context.

http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html

… after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation

Note the context is for those who to whom the gospel is promulgated and put their trust in circumcision as if faith in Christ could not save them without it.

Obviously this particular statement was addressing a specific issue at the time. I would recommend that if anyone see the selected quote presented above as some evidence of contradiction in Vatican II, that they flee such a one like they have a plague. There is obviously more concern for slandering the Church presenting truth.

 

[Tunesmith]

Never mind. I found the quote. It is not from the council but a papal bull and does not convey infallibility. However, there is still little problematic with it, if one will quit reading snipets. It is not an absolute statement, but one with context.

http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html

These are infallible Councils that say only Catholics can be saved.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…"

Unam Sanctum 11/18/1302
“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff”

Mortalium Amimos 1/6/1928
[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.

 

[devoutchristian]

These are infallible Councils that say only Catholics can be saved.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…"

Unam Sanctum 11/18/1302
“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff”

Mortalium Amimos 1/6/1928
[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.

Was Pius IX a heretic?

 

[Tunesmith]

ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9quanto.htm
Paragraph 7

1. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. 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.

If this is what the church has always taught then why did the pre-vatican II church send unbaptized babies to limbo?

 

[Tunesmith]

Was Pius IX a heretic?

Not at all. I’m just saying not all popes teach the same message about salvation for non-catholics.

 

[devoutchristian]

If this is what the church has always taught then why did the pre-vatican II church send unbaptized babies to limbo?

From what I’ve read torment is a better translation than punishment.

Not at all. I’m just saying not all popes teach the same message about salvation for non-catholics.

You need to read the statements from those popes in context.

 

[Tunesmith]

From what I’ve read torment is a better translation than punishment.

Are you saying it’d OK to torment an innocent being?

You need to read the statements from those popes in context.

I have read the whole of Mortalium Animos. It was composed in 1928 so it’s only about 40 years prior to Vatican II. It has a whole different and even opposite view from Vatican II.
Here is the link. You can read it for yourself. I will only post segments of paragraphs.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos , Jan. 6, 1928
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

1. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
2. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.
3. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith?
4. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.
5. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.