Vatican II infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter consumedconvert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

consumedconvert

Guest
Did Vatican II produce any infallible documents? Or are the sixteen documents of Vatican II infallible? Is it possible that Vatican II was incorrect in any matter concerning correct belief or morals? There seems to be some disagreement on this, and as a fairly recent convert, I’m perplexed!
 
Cardinal Ratzinger "The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. "
 
stmaria said:
Cardinal Ratzinger "The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. "
Click to expand...
Could you provide the source please?
 
stmaria said:
Cardinal Ratzinger "The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. "
Click to expand...
Also, does it follow that only dogma is infallible?
 
It is also very important to read this statement (one of the few “victories” for traditional Catholics at Vatican II and something deplored by the liberals):
The Appendix From the Acts of the Council:
Notificationes’ Given by the Secretary General (Archbishop Felici) of the Council at the 123rd General Congregation, November 16, 1964:

Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.
Click to expand...
Now, since the Council never actually did this (the bolded part), nothing from Vatican II can necessarily be declared infallible and therefore binding upon Catholics in terms of a high level of assent. Here is a link where you can read a summary of the story surrounding the Nota Praevia and the actual text itself.

fisheaters.com/notapraevia.html
 
consumedconvert said:
Did Vatican II produce any infallible documents? Or are the sixteen documents of Vatican II infallible? Is it possible that Vatican II was incorrect in any matter concerning correct belief or morals? There seems to be some disagreement on this, and as a fairly recent convert, I’m perplexed!
Click to expand...
**The purpose of a Council is to define, clarify, and determine a direction that is best for the Church. This is rarely done with specific dogmas which are left up to both the pope and the magisterium (bishops). Vatican II continued the basic teachings of the Church - these did not change. What did change was how these teachings should be brought into the world to become relevent for further evangelization.

As far as I am concerned, Vatican II made no mistake in furthering the authentic teachings and Faith of the Church which has been passed down through apostolic succession.**
 
Of course,* doctrinal* statements by an ecumenical council are infallible. However, SemeperFidelis is correct, that this council (according to this council) explicitly denied infallibility. Also, the popes who presided over the council both denied its infallibility. The final word on the council, and the reason it was called, would seem to deny infallibility.

John XXIII on why he’s opening.
The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians… everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)

Paul VI, on the day the closing of the council.
“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, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.” (Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top