Vatican II Council:"all who have been justified by faith in Baptism ARE MEMBERS of Christ's body,

[jam070406]

The question which comes into play by Traditionalists is if V-II was indeed a ecumenical council. Thats the defining factor of Infallible in this case. The Pope and Magisterium wouldn’t be of question in regards to LG. IMO the arguement and counter-arguement is in this area.

Pope Benedict affirms V-II as did Blessed JP-II.

Pope Benedict also said the council defined no new dogma and that it must interpreted in light of Tradition, lest it does damage to the Catholic Faith.

 

[Cristiano]

This is an extract from the book by D.r Ludwig Ott that I quoted in a previous post.

The Theological Grades of Certainty

- “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”
by Ludwig Ott.

1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact it a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita.”
2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.

Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum,” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.

 

[Phyllo]

The Council of Trent didn’t infallibly teach the Mass had to be in Latin, because what language the Mass is in can change, since it wasn’t always in Latin. V2 didn’t change any teaching, but reaffirmed teaching. You can be saved if you aren’t Catholic, but not because you aren’t Catholic; you’re saved in spite of being part of a false religion. That is Catholic teaching. The only path that leads to heaven is Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church.

As far as the Council of Trent goes
See Session 22 Chapter 8

The rite for Roman Catholics was/is the Latin Mass.

that is just what I said—The only path that leads to heaven is Jesus Christ THROUGH the Catholic Church.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The question which comes into play by Traditionalists is if V-II was indeed a ecumenical council. Thats the defining factor of Infallible in this case. The Pope and Magisterium wouldn’t be of question in regards to LG. IMO the arguement and counter-arguement is in this area.

Pope Benedict affirms V-II as did Blessed JP-II.

Gary,

We’ve had discussions before regarding LG. Isn’t LG infallible?

Peace,
Anna

 

[jam070406]

Gary,

We’ve had discussions before regarding LG. Isn’t LG infallible?

Peace,
Anna

I believe it depends on how it is interpreted.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I believe it depends on how it is interpreted.

This is confusing,

Are the LG teachings noted below infallible?

Peace,
Anna

LUMEN GENTIUM is an infallible document from Vatican II:

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
CHAPTER II
ON THE PEOPLE OF GOD
15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities.

Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. . . . .

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126)

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*)

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. . .

At certain points in history, it certainly seemed that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was aimed at those who were not subject to the Roman Pontiff. Some infallible teachings were very specific, and they didn’t leave much room for arguments of semantics regarding the definition of “Catholic,” or being “Catholic” without knowing it.

The Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII is a good example:

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Link: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/B7UNAM.HTM

The Catholic Argument has been, at least on other threads, that the teaching of Vatican II does not contradict the infallible teachings of the past, but more fully defines them.

However, Catholic Traditionalists see Vatican II and EENS somewhat at odds: See Link: catholicism.org/eens-popes.html

It’s a complicated subject.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Cristiano]

This is confusing,

Are the LG teachings noted below infallible?

Peace,
Anna

A teaching can be infallible because we know that considering that the Church make a clear statement about it, and that is not the case of LG. However, a teaching does not need the recognition of the Church to be infallible, it is infallible on its own merits and in some cases the Church, in her own time, reaffirms so. Just look at the case of the Immaculate Conception, that teaching has always been infallible but the Church formally affirmed it as infallible almost two thousand years after the fact.

 

[Usagi]

The Council of Trent didn’t infallibly teach the Mass had to be in Latin, because what language the Mass is in can change, since it wasn’t always in Latin. V2 didn’t change any teaching, but reaffirmed teaching. You can be saved if you aren’t Catholic, but not because you aren’t Catholic; you’re saved in spite of being part of a false religion. That is Catholic teaching. The only path that leads to heaven is Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church.

Right!

Infallible teachings can’t very well apply to areas in which there has always been variation and change – a truth of the Faith can’t be true today but not have been true yesterday. Thus, the language of the Mass is not a matter for infallible teaching. If it were, the teaching would have to have been handed down early on and we would all be using Aramaic.

Of course, Latin has been the special language of the Latin Rite for many centuries and should not idly be cast aside, but it is incorrect to say that Trent laid down an infallible rule that Mass must always be said in Latin.

Usagi

 

[Phyllo]

Right!

Infallible teachings can’t very well apply to areas in which there has always been variation and change – a truth of the Faith can’t be true today but not have been true yesterday. Thus, the language of the Mass is not a matter for infallible teaching. If it were, the teaching would have to have been handed down early on and we would all be using Aramaic.

Of course, Latin has been the special language of the Latin Rite for many centuries and should not idly be cast aside, but it is incorrect to say that Trent laid down an infallible rule that Mass must always be said in Latin.

Usagi

I think that what Trent was saying is that there are different rites in the Catholic Church and say for instance if you are a Roman Catholic you rite is the Latin Rite and should not be changed to the vernacular. In my case that would be English. As did happen in Vatican II the Latin Mass was made into English and it lost something in the translation and that is why we now have ANOTHER English translation
So now according to the Bishops we have a universal English translation for all the English speaking countries. Also after Vatican II the Latin Mass was put on the back burner and that was wrong. Latin Masses are not easily found in my area , and when one is found it is a distance away.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s a link from Catholic Culture on the topic which relates.

google.com/url?q=http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm%3Fid%3D886&sa=U&ei=Wk8dT6L1MoHe0QGhsK3KCw&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=6rRD5KY09YXRO90zX_TyAg&usg=AFQjCNGGutQmfANAPTD4aQi-vpXUcIJLzw

 

[Anna_Scott]

This is confusing,

Are the LG teachings noted below infallible?

Peace,
Anna

A teaching can be infallible because we know that considering that the Church make a clear statement about it, and that is not the case of LG. However, a teaching does not need the recognition of the Church to be infallible, it is infallible on its own merits and in some cases the Church, in her own time, reaffirms so. Just look at the case of the Immaculate Conception, that teaching has always been infallible but the Church formally affirmed it as infallible almost two thousand years after the fact.

So, you’re saying Lumen Gentium is not infallible?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Cristiano]

So, you’re saying Lumen Gentium is not infallible?

Peace,
Anna

No, I am telling you that it has not been declared infallible and so we do not know.

It could be infallible as far as I know but it could also be wrong. I usually use the prudential judgement that when it comes to this kind of documents I accept them as true and that if there is something that I do not like it is probably because of my limited knowledge or understanding.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Gary,

We’ve had discussions before regarding LG. Isn’t LG infallible?

Peace,
Anna

I believe it depends on how it is interpreted.

jam070406,

That is a vague answer and doesn’t really answer my question.

I checked the Ask an Apologist section of CAF and did a search for Lumen Gentium. I found numerous questions about infallibility answered with quotes from Lumen Gentium.

The question, “Is it true that Catholics are free to choose, with serious consideration, which Church teachings to obey?” was answered by Peggy Frye, Catholic Answers Apologist.

As in other threads on the Apologist section of CAF, LG is used to explain to what a Catholic must submit. So, if LG is not infallible, why is it quoted to answer questions regarding submission to the teachings of the Catholic Church?

If LG is not infallible, then it’s requirement to submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff could be called into question, could it not? However, if you accept LG, you can’t question non-Ex Cathedra teachings.

To protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors:
Motu proprio

Catholics are not free to “choose which teachings to obey”. And no, it has not always been this way.

The Code of Canon Law no 750 clearly states:

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Submission of mind and will to the teachings of the Church even when not speaking ex cathedra must be shown (e.g., truths contained in the Catechism, and that artificial contraception is sinful).

Lumen Gentium no 25:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

And Vatican II in Gaudium et Spes no. 50) makes it clear that

“The teaching Church does not invent her doctrines; she is a witness, a custodian, an interpreter, a transmitter. As regards the truths of Christian marriage, she can be called conservative, uncompromising. To those who would urge her to make her faith easier, more in keeping with the tastes of the changing mentality of the times, she answers with the apostles, we cannot.” (Acts. 4:20)

Is it o.k. to be a cafeteria Catholic? Pope John Paul II says,

“It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.” (Pope John Paul II in his speech to the Bishops in 1987)

Can the faithful form their own consciences when it comes to the teachings of the Church? No.

“In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself.”
Dignitatis Humanae. Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=50546&highlight=LUMEN+GENTIUM

Is anyone able to give a “yes” or “no” answer regarding whether or not Lumen Gentium is infallible?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Cristiano]

jam070406,

That is a vague answer and doesn’t really answer my question.

I checked the Ask an Apologist section of CAF and did a search for Lumen Gentium. I found numerous questions about infallibility answered with quotes from Lumen Gentium.

The question, “Is it true that Catholics are free to choose, with serious consideration, which Church teachings to obey?” was answered by Peggy Frye, Catholic Answers Apologist.

As in other threads on the Apologist section of CAF, LG is used to explain to what a Catholic must submit. So, if LG is not infallible, why is it quoted to answer questions regarding submission to the teachings of the Catholic Church?

If LG is not infallible, then it’s requirement to submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff could be called into question, could it not? However, if you accept LG, you can’t question non-Ex Cathedra teachings.

Is anyone able to give a “yes” or “no” answer regarding whether or not Lumen Gentium is infallible?

Peace,
Anna

Can you accept the fact that for now we are not to know?

You have to stop thinking that only documents that have a declaration of infallibility must be accepted as true.

To say that is infallible you must have a specific affirmation that does not exists right now. To say that it is fallible it must be shown within the context of the Church documents that it clearly contradicts a previous dogmatic teaching beyond any possible interpretation.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Can you accept the fact that for now we are not to know?

Not really. The vagueness of infallibility is an issue in any serious consideration of Catholicism.

You have to stop thinking that only documents that have a declaration of infallibility must be accepted as true.

I didn’t say that, nor am I thinking that about the Catholic faith.

Lumen Gentium states,

1. . . .This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

This “submission of religious mind and will” to the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra is one of the main reasons I have not converted to Catholicism. So, infallible vs. fallible matters a great deal–to me, anyway.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Usagi]

jam070406,
Is anyone able to give a “yes” or “no” answer regarding whether or not Lumen Gentium is infallible?

Vatican II isn’t supposed to have defined any new dogma, so nothing pronounced there was infallible in the same sense as the definition of the Assumption in 1950 (or, to pick a conciliar example, Nicea I’s definition of the relationship between Father and Son as found in the Creed).

Of course, much existing Church teaching was restated, and that retains whatever level of authority it already had.

V2 is still a recognized ecumenical council (recognized by the subsequent Popes, whose opinion is the only relevant one on that specific issue), so its documents are certainly authoritative regarding the position and policy of the Church on various issues. You mention the number of times LG has been cited since its publication (including in the CCC), a good indication that the current Church leadership still finds it relevant – more so, on some very important issues, than (for example) Unam Sanctam.

Ultimately, a whole document isn’t gonna be infallible in the sense you’re asking about. As far as I know, no brand-new de fide propositions were put forth for belief in LG. Any de fide teachings quoted or mentioned in LG of course retain their authority. Pope Benedict (who was there at the council, though only a priest consulted as a theological expert at the time) says that LG must be read and understood in continuity with all previous de fide teachings, which is always the case with any conciliar writings.

Is there some specific proposition/teaching within LG that you are curious about?

Usagi

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .Is there some specific proposition teaching within LG that you are curious about?

Usagi

Yes, see post 55.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Cristiano]

…This “submission of religious mind and will” to the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra is one of the main reasons I have not converted to Catholicism. So, infallible vs. fallible matters a great deal–to me, anyway.

Peace,
Anna

I think that I would not fret too much about that but I would spend more time trying to understand the details of what “submission of religious mind and will” means. I think that you are trying to infer too much from a single document. For example as Catholic in general we have to submit our religious mind and will to our Bishop because of his ontological status (see the rest of LG), and he has no guarantee of infallibility at all. The bottom line is either we trust in the Holy Spirit and the way He leads the Church or we don’t. Don’t you have to submit to your bishop authority in your rite, or can you choose any doctrine that you like and drop the ones that you dislike?

 

[Usagi]

Yes, see post 55.

Peace,
Anna

The passage you quote in post 55 is specifically talking about being obedient in matters outside the purview of infallibility, but on which the Church (and specifically, the Pope individually) still has authority to bind.

For example, no specific version or translation of the Mass is (or could be) proclaimed infallibly as the one and only allowable variation, but it would still be disobedient for an English-speaking priest to refuse to offer the Ordinary Form liturgy in the most recently approved translation.

That teaching (obedience to those whom God has placed in legitimate authority over us even when we are not guaranteed that they will always make the best decisions, so long as they don’t command anything actually sinful) is hardly new or unique with LG, though. We find it even in Scripture (doesn’t Paul say to obey those who are above us in the Lord?). The issue for an Anglican looking at Catholicism would be one of who may rightfully exercise legitimate authority in religious matters, surely, and not whether such authority exists.

Usagi

 

[jam070406]

jam070406,

That is a vague answer and doesn’t really answer my question.

I checked the Ask an Apologist section of CAF and did a search for Lumen Gentium. I found numerous questions about infallibility answered with quotes from Lumen Gentium.

The question, “Is it true that Catholics are free to choose, with serious consideration, which Church teachings to obey?” was answered by Peggy Frye, Catholic Answers Apologist.

As in other threads on the Apologist section of CAF, LG is used to explain to what a Catholic must submit. So, if LG is not infallible, why is it quoted to answer questions regarding submission to the teachings of the Catholic Church?

If LG is not infallible, then it’s requirement to submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff could be called into question, could it not? However, if you accept LG, you can’t question non-Ex Cathedra teachings.

Is anyone able to give a “yes” or “no” answer regarding whether or not Lumen Gentium is infallible?

Peace,
Anna

Anna,
Please read the document Dominus Iesus, issued by then Cardinal Ratzinger. It specifically addresses the documents such as LG that were written ambiguously and can, if not read in light of Tradition, lead to relativistic errors and actually cause damage to the Catholic Faith.
Hope that helps.