Tradition, Heresy and the Infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium

  • Thread starter Thread starter ready
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ready

Guest
I understand that all non-heretical doctrine on faith and morals from the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. So even though Vatican II was pastoral all of it’s teaching is to be considered infallible, given nothing from the Council is heretical … isn’t that right? What exactly did the Council say about religious liberty that could be mistaken for heresy? A direct quote from the Council is what I am hoping you can provide me with. I believe it was Pope Bl. John XXIII or Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who said the Council would not teach anything new but would develop, explain and present the teachings of Tradition in a way suitable for our times. If the Council developed and explained things from Tradition in a way suited to our moderrn times how can we say she has contradicted Tradition, unless of course she says something directly opposite of Tradition. What has she said about religious liberty that some traditionalists feel is opposite Tradition? (A VII quote is what I am interested in.) Your help is appreciated!

I will trust that the Council did not teach heresy/contradict Tradition. And I pray that in the near future the Church will clarify the problematic parts of the Council documents which need clarification.
 
ready said:
I understand that all non-heretical doctrine on faith and morals from the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. So even though Vatican II was pastoral all of it’s teaching is to be considered infallible, given nothing from the Council is heretical … isn’t that right? What exactly did the Council say about religious liberty that could be mistaken for heresy? A direct quote from the Council is what I am hoping you can provide me with. I believe it was Pope Bl. John XXIII or Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who said the Council would not teach anything new but would develop, explain and present the teachings of Tradition in a way suitable for our times. If the Council developed and explained things from Tradition in a way suited to our moderrn times how can we say she has contradicted Tradition, unless of course she says something directly opposite of Tradition. What has she said about religious liberty that some traditionalists feel is opposite Tradition? (A VII quote is what I am interested in.) Your help is appreciated!

I will trust that the Council did not teach heresy/contradict Tradition. ** And I pray that in the near future the Church will clarify the problematic parts of the Council documents which need clarification**.
Click to expand...
You are making a vague general statement. What parts are problematic that need clarification?
 
ready said:
I understand that all non-heretical doctrine on faith and morals from the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. So even though Vatican II was pastoral all of it’s teaching is to be considered infallible, given nothing from the Council is heretical … isn’t that right?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s right. But honestly, I don’t spend a lot of my time studying such intricacies. 😃
 
The “what” of the magisterium is infallible. The “how” is not - like Priestly celibacy, it can and does change from time to time.
 
The pastoral statements of any ecumenical council can very well be fallible, for they are just that, pastoral statements.

Furthermore, just because a statement is not heretical does not mean it is: prudent, well-rounded, rational, needed, or good.

Can an ecumenical council teach error? Yes, I’m pretty sure they can, EXCEPT when infallibility is intended.

Disclaimer: I intend these statements to be used in principle. No, I am not “criticizing Vatican II” or whatever, nor do I intend to. I am making objective statements, which, so far as I know, are factual.
 
YoungTradCath said:
The pastoral statements of any ecumenical council can very well be fallible, for they are just that, pastoral statements.

Furthermore, just because a statement is not heretical does not mean it is: prudent, well-rounded, rational, needed, or good.

Can an ecumenical council teach error? Yes, I’m pretty sure they can, EXCEPT when infallibility is intended.

Disclaimer: I intend these statements to be used in principle. No, I am not “criticizing Vatican II” or whatever, nor do I intend to. I am making objective statements, which, so far as I know, are factual.
Click to expand...
You forgot one disclaimer: “Nor am I referring to the East”. 🙂
 
It is a fact that the teaching on faith and morals of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, save heresy. Can somebody tell me there was no Universal Ordinary Magisterium operating at the Vatican II Council? I understand that Pope Bl. John XXIII said the Council was predominantly pastoral, but it is also my understanding that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was operating at the Vatican II Council.
 
po18guy said:
The “what” of the magisterium is infallible. The “how” is not - like Priestly celibacy, it can and does change from time to time.
Click to expand...
What I am saying is the* teaching* on faith and morals of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. This is a fact, I just would like to know if it was the Universal Ordinary Magisterium operating at the Vatican II Council. I understand that the Council was predominantly pastoral, but it is also my understanding that it was the Universal Ordinary Magisterium doing the teaching.
 
TrueLight said:
I don’t think that’s right. But honestly, I don’t spend a lot of my time studying such intricacies. 😃
Click to expand...
It is a fact that when the Universal Ordinary Magisterium teaches on faith and morals its teachings are infallible. I just am trying to be certain that it was the Universal Ordinary Magisterium operating at the Vatican II Council. I know that no new dogma came out of the Council, but we did get teaching on faith and faith and morals, didn’t we?
 
YoungTradCath said:
The pastoral statements of any ecumenical council can very well be fallible, for they are just that, pastoral statements.

Furthermore, just because a statement is not heretical does not mean it is: prudent, well-rounded, rational, needed, or good.

Can an ecumenical council teach error? Yes, I’m pretty sure they can, EXCEPT when infallibility is intended.

Disclaimer: I intend these statements to be used in principle. No, I am not “criticizing Vatican II” or whatever, nor do I intend to. I am making objective statements, which, so far as I know, are factual.
Click to expand...
I understand the Council was predominantly pastoral, but did it not give us teaching on faith and morals? I know no new dogma came from this Council, but we did get teachings on faith and morals, didn’t we? What I am saying is: if it was the Universal Ordinary Magisterium doing the teaching at the Vatican II Council, then the teaching on faith and morals of the Vatican II Council is infallible. Why do I say this? Because it is a fact that the teaching on faith morals given by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible.
 
YoungTradCath said:
The pastoral statements of any ecumenical council can very well be fallible, for they are just that, pastoral statements.

Furthermore, just because a statement is not heretical does not mean it is: prudent, well-rounded, rational, needed, or good.

Can an ecumenical council teach error? Yes, I’m pretty sure they can, EXCEPT when infallibility is intended.

Disclaimer: I intend these statements to be used in principle. No, I am not “criticizing Vatican II” or whatever, nor do I intend to. I am making objective statements, which, so far as I know, are factual.
Click to expand...
Except this problematic approach subconsciously manifests a serious theological deficiency: admitting the faithful are not necessarily bound to externally assent to the pronouncements of an ecumencial council unless they are infallibly proclaimed. If this flawed proposition is followed to its logical conclusion, then Ultratraditionalists and Neo-Modernists are ironically in agreement. Since the “Pastoralˮ Constitution on the Church in the Modern World did not dogmatically define any statements on the intrinsic immorality of artificial contraception (cf. Gaudium et Spes, n. 51, §3), then what prevents Catholics from withholding religious assent? By your own underlined admission, this would be allowed. :sad_yes:
 
ready said:
It is a fact that when the Universal Ordinary Magisterium teaches on faith and morals its teachings are infallible. I just am trying to be certain that it was the Universal Ordinary Magisterium operating at the Vatican II Council. I know that no new dogma came out of the Council, but we did get teaching on faith and faith and morals, didn’t we?
Click to expand...
As an aside, Catholics must accept all teachings of the Church whether they are infallible or non-infallible.
 
If the teaching of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium contradicts the teaching of a previous Universal Ordinary Magisterium, then the new teaching must be rejected as heresy. I am not saying that Vatican II taught heresy or contradicted a previous Universal Ordinary Magisterium, but if it did, then the heretical teachings would need to be rejected. Vatican II was not the Solemn Extraordinary Magisterium at work defining dogma, but the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (the teaching of the hierachy of the Chruch whether in a Council or dispersed around the world concerning faith and morals. This teaching is free from error). We must accept all of Vatican II as infallible and give our assent in heart and mind, save anything heretical. (I am not saying there is anything heretical in Vatican II. If there is I am not aware of it) … I am saying we must see the teaching of Vatican II as free from error, unless there is found to be heresy.
 
thistle said:
As an aside, Catholics must accept all teachings of the Church whether they are infallible or non-infallible.
Click to expand...
There are some teachings that are still debated, like limbo, and babies without baptism. I still believe in limbo. I do not believe our Pope does. I’m not sure what he thinks.
 
ready said:
Yes, we must give our assent in heart and mind … unless there is heresy involved.
Click to expand...
Heresy applies to rejecting infallible teachings and not to non-infallible teachings.

Rejecting an infallible teaching = heresy and a sin of grave matter (mortal if you know that).
Rejecting a non-infallible teaching = a sin of grave matter (mortal if you know that) but not heresy.
 
ready said:
Yes, we must give our assent in heart and mind … unless there is heresy involved.
Click to expand...
And who can proclaim with authority a heresy is a heresy? That is the Magisterium.
Thus the never ending cycle.

If you don’t agree with the Magisterium pronouncement, then what?
Claimed the throne, select your own pope, be a sedevacantist, or more mildly, assert that “the Magisterium is the sole final authoritative interpreter of tradition, except for this one thing because I know I am right and they are wrong?”

Sounds protestant to me…

And please… even if the Magisterium defined something infallible, for those with that mindset, will easily say, “that infallible pronouncement were not binding, they were enshrining heresy, therefore, it was not valid…”
 
When I said I did not find anything heretical in Vatican II I meant that I still do not see clear cases of heresy, just ambiguities. But I do not like how the Latin Mass was changed to the Novus Ordo Mass. Such a major change in the Mass was not allowed.
 
Alfonsus said:
And who can proclaim with authority a heresy is a heresy? That is the Magisterium.
Thus the never ending cycle.

If you don’t agree with the Magisterium pronouncement, then what?
Claimed the throne, select your own pope, be a sedevacantist, or more mildly, assert that “the Magisterium is the sole final authoritative interpreter of tradition, except for this one thing because I know I am right and they are wrong?”

Sounds protestant to me…

And please… even if the Magisterium defined something infallible, for those with that mindset, will easily say, “that infallible pronouncement were not binding, they were enshrining heresy, therefore, it was not valid…”
Click to expand...
I tried to delete my other post because it was simplistic. What I would like to say is: I must give my assent to all the teaching of the Chruch, BUT, if in my well formed conscience I see heresy (a contradiction to what has been traditionally taught) I must obey my conscience and dismiss the heresy. To accept heresy would be a personal sin. It is the conscience of many traditionalists that force them to reject the infallible teaching of the Second Vatican Council. I do not reject the teaching as heretical, but I see problems with ambiguity.
 
SanctusPeccator said:
Except this problematic approach subconsciously manifests a serious theological deficiency: admitting the faithful are not necessarily bound to externally assent to the pronouncements of an ecumencial council unless they are infallibly proclaimed. If this flawed proposition is followed to its logical conclusion, then Ultratraditionalists and Neo-Modernists are ironically in agreement. Since the “Pastoralˮ Constitution on the Church in the Modern World did not dogmatically define any statements on the intrinsic immorality of artificial contraception (cf. Gaudium et Spes, n. 51, §3), then what prevents Catholics from withholding religious assent? By your own underlined admission, this would be allowed. :sad_yes:
Click to expand...
I am not advocating for anyone to disobey the pastoral statements of Vatican II or any other council. All I meant by that was that an ecumenical council’s pastoral statements are fallible and that they can teach error, and that in the future, should a pope or another ecumenical council find it necessary to do so, a pastoral statement of an ecumenical council can be effectively reversed or ignored. Even history can make it necessary to ignore an ecumenical council’s pastoral statements if they are no longer relevant. For example, no one talks about the statements of the Council of Vienne against the Knights Templar, even though it is still part of the Magisterium of the Church.

I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that the faithful are not bound to the pronouncements of an ecumenical council. They most certainly are. But if a pope or a subsequent ecumenical council reverses a previous ecumenical council’s pastoral statements, then the faithful are no longer bound to those pastoral statements. =|
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top