Is Vatican II Infallible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
aspirant:
Because there isn’t any. 😉
.
Click to expand...
I think there is a change in doctrinal* teaching*. Not that the doctrine has changed, but the method of teaching has. The reformulations brought out in Vatican II need to be understood in the continuity of tradition. I do not know how many times the Church has said this.
 
jwinch2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
We may be on the same page, at lest to some extent.

I was in high school when Vatican 2 started and in college seminary when it finished. We were reading the documents as they were coming out, and interestingly, we didn’t have the problems that some now seem to have.

Part of that might be that many (if not most) people are not well trained in critical thinking. Among other issues are the repeated failures to separate out what the documents say, from what the twits of the last 40 years have been saying (the so-called "spirit of Vatican 2, a conglomeration of ideas that have nothing to do with the documents). The assumption among some seems to be that the documents are the cause of the meandering of those in the Flat Earth Society, which has then caused them to fall off the edge. That shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of recent history.

Dissent became almost de rigueur when the explosion upon the release of Humanae Vitae occurred; here were tens of theologians “taking on” Rome and “defeating it”.

The Church’s job is to speak the truth, and the Truth. I don’t agree with the idea of withholding documents for a gradual release. Poland seemed to be able to implement the documents without the chaos that occurred in western Europe or North America; they also had a group of bishops who got right to it. Ours - eh, for the most part, they lost headway so soon…

Just because someone is intellectually gifted does not mean they engage in right thinking. I have watched a cat-and-mouse game being played, for which I have little or no sympathy. The issue is nowhere near the lack of clarity of the documents; it is in the lack of clarity of understanding some basic doctrine established long before Vatican 2, and the inability to separate coincidence from causality.

Welcome to the Church; or as some famous wag said, “Here comes everybody!”
 
otjm said:
We may be on the same page, at lest to some extent.

I was in high school when Vatican 2 started and in college seminary when it finished. We were reading the documents as they were coming out, and interestingly, we didn’t have the problems that some now seem to have.

Part of that might be that many (if not most) people are not well trained in critical thinking. Among other issues are the repeated failures to separate out what the documents say, from what the twits of the last 40 years have been saying (the so-called "spirit of Vatican 2, a conglomeration of ideas that have nothing to do with the documents). The assumption among some seems to be that the documents are the cause of the meandering of those in the Flat Earth Society, which has then caused them to fall off the edge. That shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of recent history.

Dissent became almost de rigueur when the explosion upon the release of Humanae Vitae occurred; here were tens of theologians “taking on” Rome and “defeating it”.

The Church’s job is to speak the truth, and the Truth. I don’t agree with the idea of withholding documents for a gradual release. Poland seemed to be able to implement the documents without the chaos that occurred in western Europe or North America; they also had a group of bishops who got right to it. Ours - eh, for the most part, they lost headway so soon…

Just because someone is intellectually gifted does not mean they engage in right thinking. I have watched a cat-and-mouse game being played, for which I have little or no sympathy. The issue is nowhere near the lack of clarity of the documents; it is in the lack of clarity of understanding some basic doctrine established long before Vatican 2, and the inability to separate coincidence from causality.

Welcome to the Church; or as some famous wag said, “Here comes everybody!”
Click to expand...
👍
 
aspirant said:
If you insist on misinterpreting one or both, of course they won’t agree. 🤷
Click to expand...
It’s not misinterpretation. It’s a shell game using words to change the what the original author had in mind. Heretics and schismatics were called heretics and schismatics for a reason and that reason was to exclude them from the Church. Today heretics and schismatics are separated brethren who are part of the Body of Christ. I’m not complaining about that. I think it’s a wonderful realization. Why didn’t the earlier popes realize this?
 
devoutchristian said:
They’re connected, not members.
Click to expand...
They were not connected for the first 1962 years of church history.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal… and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above,both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. **But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ… the Son of God is God and man… This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” **

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.”

If we can say this about the Muslims who deny the divinity of Christ then why not include the Jehovah’s witnesses also?
 
Tunesmith said:
They were not connected for the first 1962 years of church history.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal… and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above,both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. **But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ… the Son of God is God and man… This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” **

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.”

If we can say this about the Muslims who deny the divinity of Christ then why not include the Jehovah’s witnesses also?
Click to expand...
Where exactly is the contradiction?
 
devoutchristian said:
Where exactly is the contradiction?
Click to expand...
Really? Isn’t it obvious?

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity;”

"But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ… the Son of God is God and man… This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Do you know anything about the Muslim faith? They don’t believe any of this so how are they included in the plan of salvation?
 
devoutchristian said:
Yes. Also, Islam does not profess belief in the Trinity, therefore it is not theological faith.
Everyone is included in the plan of salvation, that doesn’t mean everyone is saved.
Click to expand...
Well you see we actually agree on that but the language of the catechism very easily allows a double interpretation to exist.
 
Tunesmith said:
Well you see we actually agree on that but the language of the catechism very easily allows a double interpretation to exist.
Click to expand...
If we’re talking about ‘everyone is included in the plan of salvation’ as opposed to ‘everyone is saved’ I would suggest you must have an agenda in order to believe the second. In no way does the language of the CCC suggest the latter.
 
crazzeto said:
If we’re talking about ‘everyone is included in the plan of salvation’ as opposed to ‘everyone is saved’ I would suggest you must have an agenda in order to believe the second. In no way does the language of the CCC suggest the latter.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what agenda you’re talking about. If someone says to me “you’re included in the plan of salvation” that means you’re in or you’re accepted. If they’re not saved it means they’re not included in the plan of salvation.
 
crazzeto said:
If we’re talking about ‘everyone is included in the plan of salvation’ as opposed to ‘everyone is saved’ I would suggest you must have an agenda in order to believe the second. In no way does the language of the CCC suggest the latter.
Click to expand...
Agreed to a point. I don’t think you need an agenda, but it is easy misinterpret the text. In order to correctly read this passage, we must understand that the “plan of salvation” does indeed take into consideration everyone, but that people must cooperate with God’s plan in order for salvation to occur. For someone outside of the Catholic Church, that might mean a sincere effort in searching for the Truth of God’s plan, but then again, even that is open to interpretation depending on the situation. If someone reading that passage in the CCC does not know Catholic doctrine on free will and cooperation with grace, it is very easy to completely misunderstand what it is trying to say.

This is one of the reasons that I often don’t recommend the CCC, particularly for beginners (i’m not calling you a beginner, just illustrating a point). That particular section on salvation highlights something that exists throughout the CCC, which is language which can easily be misinterpreted. Its not that the CCC is wrong, I would never suggest that. However, the style of writing it uses, which is often quite nuanced, can lend itself to misinterpretation. That’s probably why it lists in the preface the Bishops as its primary audience. Unlike most of us in the laity, the Bishops should have the theological training to put passages which are more nuanced into their proper context, so that they can be understood and taught correctly.

One practice which I have seen recommended and one that seems to me to be a great idea, is to read the CCC along side the corresponding text from a pre-Vatican II approved catechism (Baltimore, Trent, My Catholic Faith, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, etc.). Again, not because there is anything wrong about the CCC. However, this pratice may serve to ground the CCC in what is typically less nuanced text, but still give the reader the opportunity to understand how the Church expresses these truths in today’s world and to experience what will probably be greater use of both Biblical and extra-Biblical sources such as the Church Fathers, Papal Encyclicals, Church Councils, etc. It may also serve to help the reader see the continuity between how the Faith was expressed and taught prior to Vatican II and how it is expressed today.
 
crazzeto said:
If we’re talking about ‘everyone is included in the plan of salvation’ as opposed to ‘everyone is saved’ I would suggest you must have an agenda in order to believe the second. In no way does the language of the CCC suggest the latter.
Click to expand...
As far as I can see the confusion would and probably does arise from the term plan of salvation. What exactly is the plan of salvation? I can definitely see why that particular term could be confusing to some, heck maybe even to many.
 
Mike30 said:
As far as I can see the confusion would and probably does arise from the term plan of salvation. What exactly is the plan of salvation? I can definitely see why that particular term could be confusing to some, heck maybe even to many.
Click to expand...
‘Plan of salvation’ i.e. the plan to save souls. This should, i think be fairly plain. What might not be is if you start defining it more clearly, i.e. God plans to save all souls but not all souls are indeed saved.

For me plan of salvation is incredibly straight forward. In fact I could come up with a bad but I think workable analogy that struck my favorite football team.

The Detroit Lions had a plan of victory against the Green Bay Packers last year. They were within a decently narrow margin of bringing that plan to fruition. However not every team member cooperated with that plan. A WR called Titus young intentionally lined up incorrectly, dismantling the best lain plans, costing the team the whole game.

The plan of something, is not equal to that plan coming to fruition. I realize this is God we’re talking about. But there is something else we must keep in mind, our own free will which, out of love for us, God respects. Thus God allows his own best laid plan, though he need not to, to be dismantled by our own machinations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top