He Deepening Faith. Here is my explanation.
I have quoted ad nauseam the references for what Paul VI said about Vatican II. The disclaimers of Paul VI give us the liberty, if not the obligation to treat this Council in a different way than those which propose definitve dogma. In relation to Vatican II, The Society of St. Pius X gets criticised for believing the pope! I guess they are supposed to ignore the Paul VI when he says his council isn’t making any definitions? To some, believing the pope about the limited authority of Vatican II in matters of doctrine borders on sedevacantism. Its weird when you think about it.
You seem like you want to know. Maybe you haven’t seen the quotes so here they are again. I’ve included some original comments from an old e-mail that might be helpful that was originally from around 2005 to someone who was disturbed when it was disclosed that his old friend had begun assisting at SSPX masses:
- “Differing from other councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.”
Pope Paul VI, General Audience of August 6, 1975, To the rectors of the Universities of the Society of Jesus
- “Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council…But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…”
Pope Paul VI, Address of the last general meeting of the Council, Dec. 7, 1965
- “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”
Pope Paul VI, General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966
- “Taking into account conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such.”
Addendum of Nov. 16, 1964 (alluded to by Paul VI above) in the Explanatory Note to Lumen Gentium.
A little commentary might be helpful here. Many of the council fathers were wary of the theological ambiguity that characterized the volumes of words with which they had to deal. You can read about this in The Rhine Flows Through the Tiber, by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen. Earlier councils were written with the concise brevity and clarity that characterizes your writing (name). Your writing is easy to analyze. It is easy to know if you agree or disagree, and it is the kind of writing that is required in an infallible pronouncement. Of what use is an infallible pronouncement that is subject to multiple interpretations?
So, some of the more conservative council fathers, before signing off on Lumen Gentium, wanted to make certain that they weren’t signing off on something that could be said to be binding on the Church. In response they were directed to a document written four months previously to Lumen Gentium, that applied not only to that document, but to the entire council. It can be misleading seeing it is now seen as an explanatory note to Lumen Gentium, but a careful reading of the whole explanation will reveal that it applied to all of the Council teachings. That would be why Paul VI cited that explanatory note when qualifying the teaching authority of the entire Council in his audience of Dec. 1, 1966.
It seems to me to be at least very doubtful about whether Paul VI intended to proclaim Vatican II to be proclaiming infallible teachings. Subsequently, many conservative Catholics have taken a position which doesn’t take into consideration the distinct difference drawn between Vatican II and all previous ecumenical councils by its promulgator, Pope Paul VI. The problem is that those Catholics (like the SSPX) who have recognized the liberty we have to question the fallible teachings of the Council, have been so attacked and maligned by the liberal bishops who predominate in the episcopal conferences, that they have been demoted to an at best irregular status in the Church, while many or most are convinced we are excommunicated and in schism. It is the saddest story, and upon hearing it and understanding it, recognizing that we are not bound to accept fallible teachings, I gained a clear conscience in associating myself with faithful Catholics who in their own ironic way, are much more liberal than those who malign them. Those in the majority cannot perceive of any development in the Catholic understanding of an ecumenical council. They seem unwilling to even comment upon the statements of Paul VI, or the history of a Council where it seems like many of the documents were only accepted with the assurance that they were NOT infallible.
