Is Vatican II infallible?

[bear06]

I still take some issue with the notion that the promulgations of the Council were protected by infallibility,

Hmm…Aren’t they teachings on Faith an Morals promulgated by the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See?

Once again, it would seem that a general study of infallibility should be discussed first. I tried to get one going: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=92787

 

[MilesXpisti]

Posted by bear06
Hmm…Aren’t they teachings on Faith an Morals promulgated by the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See?

So long as that universality is coupled with acceptance throughout the history of the Church, that is so long as it is nothing new. Those things promulgated that are in accordance with the past I have no problem with, nor should I, as the Council stated very clearly that no knew definitions would be made extraordinarily. But for ordinary magisterium to apply, it must reflect church dogma historically. These are requirements for infallibility define by Vatican I.

 

[bear06]

MilesXpisti:

So long as that universality is coupled with acceptance throughout the history of the Church, that is so long as it is nothing new. Those things promulgated that are in accordance with the past I have no problem with, nor should I, as the Council stated very clearly that no knew definitions would be made extraordinarily. But for ordinary magisterium to apply, it must reflect church dogma historically. These are requirements for infallibility define by Vatican I.

Ahhhh, but then we go back to who is the arbiter of what is in accordance with the past? And who is saying that something in Vatican II doesn’t reflect Church dogma historically? And who is saying anything about new definitions being made?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bear06:

MilesXpisti:

So long as that universality is coupled with acceptance throughout the history of the Church, that is so long as it is nothing new. Those things promulgated that are in accordance with the past I have no problem with, nor should I, as the Council stated very clearly that no knew definitions would be made extraordinarily. But for ordinary magisterium to apply, it must reflect church dogma historically. These are requirements for infallibility define by Vatican I.

Ahhhh, but then we go back to who is the arbiter of what is in accordance with the past? And who is saying that something in Vatican II doesn’t reflect Church dogma historically? And who is saying anything about new definitions being made?

Hmmm, I smell some protesting here.

 

[bear06]

ByzCath:

Hmmm, I smell some protesting here.

Hey, who’s the thumbs down for? Not little old me?! What did I say?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bear06:

Hey, who’s the thumbs down for? Not little old me?! What did I say?

No not to you. You get a as always.

The thumbs down was for the protesting of MilesXpisti.

Sorry I wasn’t more clear with my comment.

 

[bear06]

ByzCath:

No not to you. You get a as always.

The thumbs down was for the protesting of MilesXpisti.

Sorry I wasn’t more clear with my comment.

Thanks! I was trying to figure out the error of my ways and since I couldn’t find one I thought I’d ask!