Is Vatican II Infallible

[CatholicGeek1]

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

The claim that was being made was that Pope’s had taught error. A Pope cannot teach error, because when he teaches on faith and morals, he is protected from error. If he is teaching on something it would meet the criteria for infallibility, otherwise he is not teaching, he is just speaking.

 

[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?

This is semi-correct. Because Varican Ii did not teach anyting NEW. They only explained what was already delcared. But is it “infallible”? yes as ALL

biblestudyplanet.com/the-trinity-in-the-old-testament/

bible.ca/trinity/trinity-proof-texts.htm

Check these out:thumbsup:

 

[jwinch2]

If he is teaching on something it would meet the criteria for infallibility, otherwise he is not teaching, he is just speaking.

Not really. This has been widely understood since the time of Vatican I.

A Pope must be intentionally exercising his authority as the successor of St. Peter. This requires a conscience act of the will and must be related to the definition of new doctrine to be held by the Church.
Pastor Aeternus:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

This infallibility is not absolute and is not related to the normal teaching office of the Bishop.
Gasser's Relatio:

Note well. It is asked in what sense the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is absolute. I reply and openly admit: in no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, who is the first and essential truth and who is never able to deceive or be deceived. All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and conditions under which it is considered to be present. The same is valid in reference to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.

If the Pope is not intending to declare doctrine which must be assented to by the Faithful, but rather teaching about doctrine which already exists through virtue of the office of Bishop, even the Bishop of Rome, he is protected from error only so long as he teaches in continuity with Sacred Tradition.
Dei Verbum:

The magisterium is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully by divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit. It draws from the deposit of faith everything that it presents as divinely revealed. The real source of Christian revelation, which we call the Gospel, is Jesus Christ himself, not the magisterium.

Furthermore, I am unaware of any statement by the Church which suggests that it is impossible for a Pope to lead people away from the truth of Faith and Morals due to unintentional things such as misspeaking, a lack of clarity when writing, poor translations, saying things which are open to interpretation, having actions interpreted in an unintended way, etc.

 

[Lormar]

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

Is this book easy to understand?

 

[jwinch2]

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

Precisely. Pope Benedict, back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, noted this himself.

This brings me to what I think is perhaps the most compelling argument put forth by those in the SSPX crowd (of which I am not one). If Vatican II defined no new doctrine and corrected no error in teaching, what exactly is it that people are required to assent to? Does the fact that the Faith was being presented in a new way mean that previous methods of explaining doctrine and interpretations of what those doctrines mean are no longer valid or authoritative? If yes, where exactly is that defined? If not, again, what is it that people are being required to assent to? Is Vatican II a way of presenting the Faith in the modern world, or is it the way of presenting the Faith in the modern world?

 

[jwinch2]

Is this book easy to understand?

Its a translation of the original Latin, so that always comes with potential issues, but I do find the text to be fairly clear.

This CD set is also fantastic, and is even easier to understand. store.catholicproductions.com/the-apostle-peter-and-the-papacy-conference-2012-cd/
A bit pricey though.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Furthermore, I am unaware of any statement by the Church which suggests that it is impossible for a Pope to lead people away from the truth of Faith and Morals due to unintentional things such as misspeaking, a lack of clarity when writing, poor translations, saying things which are open to interpretation, having actions interpreted in an unintended way, etc.

That is not what I was saying, and I was not trying to make a case for the Pope always being infallible. I was replying to one specific post.

The post stated that there had been popes who had taught error. What I was saying was that anything that has been officially taught by a Pope as something that the faithful must believe could not be in error because it is protected by papal infallibility.

Perhaps I was not clear enough in what I was trying to say.

 

[jwinch2]

Perhaps I was not clear enough in what I was trying to say.

No worries.

I took you to mean that anytime the pope teaches anything he is infallible, rather than being infallible when he is declaring doctrine to be definitively held by the Faithful. These are two separate issues, and it does get complex at times.

Peace of Christ,

 

[otjm]

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?

Vatican 2 did not discuss the weather, or how the Dodgers were going to do, or which economic model was more efficient, or quantum physics.

It spoke about the doctrines of the Church. It was and is part of the Magisterial proclamation of the Faith. Among other things, it took up some of what was left unfinished by Vatican 1 in that it worked to clarify to relationship of the bishops to the Pope. and should you read the documents, you might pay attention to the titles (e.g. Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church).

Those who take the stance that it was “merely pastoral” are often those who try to say that it was a breach from prior Church teaching; that is a borderline, if not outright denial that the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church when it speaks of faith and morals.

Further, it was the first Council in which all the bishops of the world united with the Pope in drafting the documents; it was not some sort of minor missive on a merely disciplinary matter or two. It was not a break with the past, as both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have explicitly said; and those who insist it makes a break with the past are at some point going to be called to an accounting if they persist in that behavior.

The documents were not written in the language of doctrinal formation but rather in the language of spirituality (which has been explained at some length and far better than I can by Brother JR in other threads recently). Part of the problem that some people have with them seems to stem from the failure to understand the differences, and the failure to accept that the Church does not simply speak in the language of doctrinal formation.

 

[jwinch2]

Those who take the stance that it was “merely pastoral” are often those who try to say that it was a breach from prior Church teaching; that is a borderline, if not outright denial that the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church when it speaks of faith and morals.

The council was certainly pastoral in nature, and as noted did not infallibly declare anything.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

Pope Paul VI:

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.

The question which must be raised is one I alluded to earlier, and one that has been noted by many elsewhere. Is Vatican II the expression of the Faith for our time, or is it a expression of Faith for our time? Did it replace previously established authoritative interpretations of dogma, or did it not? Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, would seem to suggest the latter in both cases, to my way of reading his words, and based on other statements he made, both prior to being pope, and while he was pope.
Pope Benedict XVI:

The council did not formulate anything new in matters of faith, nor did it wish to replace what was ancient. Rather, it concerned itself with seeing that the same faith might continue to be lived in the present day, that it might remain a living faith in a world of change.

The council fathers neither could nor wished to create a new or different church. They had neither the authority nor the mandate to do so. That is why a hermeneutic of rupture is so absurd and is contrary to the spirit and the will of the council fathers.

 

[aspirant]

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”.

Of course it is not intended to “replace” them. I said it is the criterion against which local catechisms must be judged and understood.

 

[Megan7]

Originally Posted by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest

Thank you “Jwinch2”, for Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote.
Our Beloved POPE BENEDICT XVI!

Pax

 

[otjm]

Precisely. Pope Benedict, back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, noted this himself.

This brings me to what I think is perhaps the most compelling argument put forth by those in the SSPX crowd (of which I am not one). If Vatican II defined no new doctrine and corrected no error in teaching, what exactly is it that people are required to assent to? Does the fact that the Faith was being presented in a new way mean that previous methods of explaining doctrine and interpretations of what those doctrines mean are no longer valid or authoritative? If yes, where exactly is that defined? If not, again, what is it that people are being required to assent to? Is Vatican II a way of presenting the Faith in the modern world, or is it the way of presenting the Faith in the modern world?

I think you stopped too soon as to what the SSPX have been saying. The biggest bone of contention between the SSPX and the Rome has been that the SSPX refuse to accept the hermeneutic of continuity of Vatican 2 documents with what the Church has taught about the Faith for 2000 years.

 

[otjm]

The council was certainly pastoral in nature, and as noted did not infallibly declare anything. The question which must be raised is one I alluded to earlier, and one that has been noted by many elsewhere. Is Vatican II the expression of the Faith for our time, or is it a expression of Faith for our time? Did it replace previously established authoritative interpretations of dogma, or did it not? Ratzinger would seem to suggest that latter in both cases, to my way of reading his words, and based on other statements he made, both prior to being pope, and while he was pope.

I am quite aware of what he, both as Cardinal and as Pope, has said about the documents. The issue has been not whether it is “the” expression or “a” expression, but rather that it is a break with the past.

If those who insist that it is a break with the past could find resolution with the Holy See, then the issue of “the” vs. “a” would not be a particularly relevant issue. Rome has not said that one cannot speak of morals and faith in the language of prior councils, or that one can speak of them only in the language of Vatican 2. Rome has said that it is not a break with the past and that those who say that it is do not speak with the mind of the Church.

And that is a whole different matter.

“Only pastoral” has been used by those who wish to deny the validity of Vatican 2 as a code phrase; they insist that Vatican 2 was a break with the past… And that is the real issue; not whether it was only pastoral.

 

[jwinch2]

I think you stopped too soon as to what the SSPX have been saying. The biggest bone of contention between the SSPX and the Rome has been that the SSPX refuse to accept the hermeneutic of continuity of Vatican 2 documents with what the Church has taught about the Faith for 2000 years.

Obviously, many in the SSPX have gone far beyond that which I mentioned. However, that was not my point. My point was that at times, they have raised valid questions. The questions that I highlighted were those in which I believe they have done just that. I do not claim to agree with some of their other statements, nor in their handling of the situation.

To be entirely clear, the documents of Vatican II have been treated, as Pope Benedict noted, as a start from zero and a rupture from Tradition, so often, that it was only very recently that the concept of reading them in line with Sacred Tradition really came to the forefront. I have only been Catholic for a short time, but I have already lost count of the number of times I heard people refer to Vatican II in way that is entirely unrepresentative of the text of the documents, and the ancient teachings of the Church.

Some have noted that this sort of thing happens after every council. To me, that is about the worst explanation or excuse that I could think of. If we have been doing this for 2000 years and still have not realized that we need to take our time releasing the documents and making sure that they are written in clear fashion, then God help us, because we are truly inept. If the Church knew going in that the documents could be open to interpretation, then the smart move is to issue authoritative interpretations along with the documents, just as was done with Vatican I.

It is this lack of clarity that the SSPX has brought up repeatedly, and is an area where I feel they have a valid perspective. However, for the record, there are many other areas where I disagree with them quite strongly, and I find some of the rhetoric used by some who are affiliated with the group to be distasteful.

 

[Megan7]

Below, quote from “Jwinch2” in black ink.

The council was certainly pastoral in nature, and as noted did not infallibly declare anything.

The question which must be raised is one I alluded to earlier, and one that has been noted by many elsewhere. Is Vatican II the expression of the Faith for our time, or is it a expression of Faith for our time? Did it replace previously established authoritative interpretations of dogma, or did it not? Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, would seem to suggest the latter in both cases, to my way of reading his words, and based on other statements he made, both prior to being pope, and while he was pope.

The council was certainly pastoral in nature, and as noted did not infallibly declare anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pope Paul VI :

“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.”

The question which must be raised is one I alluded to earlier, and one that has been noted by many elsewhere. Is Vatican II the expression of the Faith for our time, or is it a expression of Faith for our time? Did it replace previously established authoritative interpretations of dogma, or did it not? Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, would seem to suggest the latter in both cases, to my way of reading his words, and based on other statements he made, both prior to being pope, and while he was pope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pope Benedict XVI :

"The council did not formulate anything new in matters of faith, nor did it wish to replace what was ancient. Rather, it concerned itself with seeing that the same faith might continue to be lived in the present day, that it might remain a living faith in a world of change.

The council fathers neither could nor wished to create a new or different church. They had neither the authority nor the mandate to do so. That is why a hermeneutic of rupture is so absurd and is contrary to the spirit and the will of the council fathers. "

---

Jason

---

Thank you Jason, for the above quotes, I will read them later on in my spare time. God bless.
Pax

 

[Lormar]

To be entirely clear, the documents of Vatican II have been treated, as Pope Benedict noted, as a start from zero and a rupture from Tradition, so often, that it was only very recently that the concept of reading them in line with Sacred Tradition really came to the forefront.

That is so very true. It is my opinion, and only an opinion, that if we had been told in the sixties what they are now saying (that the documents of Vatican II must be interpreted in light of all that came before it [in other words, traditional church doctrine]), many (if not most) of the problems we have now wouldn’t be. Especially if they had kept both the EF and the OF (instead of forbidding the usage of the EF), there probably wouldn’t be an SSPX, and we wouldn’t be divided into different camps (liberal, traditional, ultra-lib, ultra-trad…whatever).

 

[Megan7]

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.

Thank you.

 

[Tunesmith]

“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.

The Old Covenant was definitely done away with.

Hebrews 8:7 If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one, 8 but God found something wrong with his people when he said, “Look! The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant
with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah."

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a “new” covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

 

[Tunesmith]

“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.”

Look at the beginning. It also refers to those who were never baptized. Pagans and Jews must also be joined to the Church before the end of their lives. This definitely does not agree with Vatican II.

ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#4
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
It 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 catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the 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 his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

According to Vatican II heretics and schismatics are imperfectly joined so there’s something not right here. If Pope Eugene had the same ideas of salvation as Pope John Paul he would never have said what he said in the Council of Florence.