Vatican II Magisterium

[yosupman]

I have a question to other traditionalists out there - some traditionalists believe that since Vatican II was a “pastoral” council, that there are actual errors in the official documents.

I take the position that the the magisterium will never teach anything contrary to the deposit of faith. When the charism of infallibility is used, this to identify a truth that has always been taught.

So therefore, yes, Vatican II did not define any teachings, but authoritatively handed on what has always been taught.

It’s been mentioned that only when the Vatican II council taught something that’s been believed always and everwhere that the teaching was free from error. But in the same breath some traditionalists will say the Vatican II councl taught doctrines in conflict with the deposit of faith.

Here is an example of their logic: When the church teaches that murder is wrong, its infallible. But in the same document that church is able to teach murder is ok, and therefore that teaching is not infallible. Huhhhh?

 

[diggerdomer]

I have a question to other traditionalists out there - some traditionalists believe that since Vatican II was a “pastoral” council, that there are actual errors in the official documents.

I take the position that the the magisterium will never teach anything contrary to the deposit of faith. When the charism of infallibility is used, this to identify a truth that has always been taught.

So therefore, yes, Vatican II did not define any teachings, but authoritatively handed on what has always been taught.

It’s been mentioned that only when the Vatican II council taught something that’s been believed always and everwhere that the teaching was free from error. But in the same breath some traditionalists will say the Vatican II councl taught doctrines in conflict with the deposit of faith.

Here is an example of their logic: When the church teaches that murder is wrong, its infallible. But in the same document that church is able to teach murder is ok, and therefore that teaching is not infallible. Huhhhh?

Vatican II is considered by Catholics as authoritative as all previous ecumenical/general Councils.

 

[Jacafamala]

May I add some questions, op?

Yes, it was a “pastoral council”. And an “ecumenical council”. How is this different or less binding than say, the “Council of Trent”?

I like to hope it’s less binding because it seems to me there really are parts that contain contradictions to defined doctrine.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I have a question to other traditionalists out there - some traditionalists believe that since Vatican II was a “pastoral” council, that there are actual errors in the official documents.

That’s not how the logic flows. It is not that a) Vatican II was pastoral; b) pastoral councils are not protected by the charism of infallibility; c) therefore, Vatican II taught errors.

It is rather this: a) Vatican II was a pastoral council; b) pastoral teachings are not the object of infallibility; c) Therefore, it is within the realm of possibility that Vatican II could have taught errors, since the charism of infallibility was not engaged.

Now, the reality with respect to Vatican II is this: Vatican II is interpreted by just about every single person who reads it as teaching exactly what was condemned as a heresy by previous Popes. In fact, when one particular error first emerged about 250 years ago, it was condemned over and over by the Popes. This error is religious liberty. The Vatican II document *Dignitatis Humanae *is interpreted by just about everyone as teaching exactly what these Popes condemned as an error.

The way most people handle this apparent contradiction is to reject what all the Popes prior to Vatican II taught, and accept what they think Vatican II teaches in the subject. The end result is that they stand condemned by the Popes prior to Vatican II based on what they believe Dignitatis Humanae teaches.

Now, the heresy of religious liberty must be understood properly. The Church does not forbid that false religions be tolerated; all it teaches is that no one has the moral right to practice a false religion since false religions are a mortal sin against he first commandment. The Church also teaches that the State has the duty, and therefore the right, to supress false religions. The State also has the right to tolerate them when it is more prudent to do so, but it also has the right to supress them. Everyone who reads Dignitatis Humanae interprets it as saying the exact contrary to what the Church has always taught on this subject.

It’s been mentioned that only when the Vatican II council taught something that’s been believed always and everwhere that the teaching was free from error. But in the same breath some traditionalists will say the Vatican II councl taught doctrines in conflict with the deposit of faith.

What is said is that if something has been taught “always and everywhere”, the teaching is to be considered infallible, even if it has not been defined so. Magisterial teachings that have been taught “always and everywhere” are said to be part of the universal ordinary magisterium, which is considered infallible.

But a novel teaching - one that is in contradiction to what has been taught always and everywhere - is not to be considered infallible. For example, if Vatican II teaches that men have a moral right, based on their “dignity”, to profess a false religion publicly, and to propogate errors publicly, such a teaching would not be infallible since it has never been taught by the Church before; and in fact has been condemned by the Church in the past.

If Vatican II wasn’t interpreted by just about everyone as teaching exactly what the Church has condemned as an error, over and over again, no one would object to it. Never before has the Church issued documents that are interpreted by virtually all as teaching what the Church has formally condemned. That is the problem with Vatican II.

And I’ll be more than happy to post what Vatican II teaches and compare it to what multiple Popes have taught prior to Vatican II. It is these apparent contradictions that Rome and the SSPX are discussing right now.

 

[Jacafamala]

Ultimate Ratio: And I’ll be more than happy to post what Vatican II teaches and compare it to what multiple Popes have taught prior to Vatican II. It is these apparent contradictions that Rome and the SSPX are discussing right now.

Glennoy just beat you to it here.

 

[yosupman]

Ultima Ratio Said:

“But a novel teaching - one that is in contradiction to what has been taught always and everywhere - is not to be considered infallible. For example, if Vatican II teaches that men have a moral right, based on their “dignity”, to profess a false religion publicly, and to propogate errors publicly, such a teaching would not be infallible since it has never been taught by the Church before; and in fact has been condemned by the Church in the past.”

Ok…what I’m trying to say is, if the church has always taught a doctrine - such as abortion is murder, the church cannot teach a doctrine that is opposed to that. The net effect would be the church is changing her teaching, a teaching that is part of the deposit of faith.

The very term “taught always and everywhere” implies the church will never teach anything different. Example - the church has always taught abortion is murder. The church will never teach a doctrine that is in opposition to this doctrine.

Does that make sense? But it’s a fairly basic belief about the magisterium that lots of SSPXer’s miss. The church has always had the belief/teaching that the magisterium (Rome) will never teach error in faith and morals.

It seems contradictory to me to take the position the church can’t error in faith and morals, and then say Vatican II documents error in faith and morals. Furthermore, its also contradictory to pit two popes against each other. All popes are guided by the same Holy spirit in their magisterium.

 

[tmancath]

I have a question to other traditionalists out there - some traditionalists believe that since Vatican II was a “pastoral” council, that there are actual errors in the official documents.

I take the position that the the magisterium will never teach anything contrary to the deposit of faith. When the charism of infallibility is used, this to identify a truth that has always been taught.

So therefore, yes, Vatican II did not define any teachings, but authoritatively handed on what has always been taught.

It’s been mentioned that only when the Vatican II council taught something that’s been believed always and everwhere that the teaching was free from error. But in the same breath some traditionalists will say the Vatican II councl taught doctrines in conflict with the deposit of faith.

Here is an example of their logic: When the church teaches that murder is wrong, its infallible. But in the same document that church is able to teach murder is ok, and therefore that teaching is not infallible. Huhhhh?

Vatican II is considered by Catholics as authoritative as all previous ecumenical/general Councils.

I agree with diggerdomer in this situation. I recently spoke with a priest who has been doing the mass for over 50 years now. I ask him if the documents went to far or was it just peoples interpretation of them. Vatican II documents, after reading them, show no signs of error. Only people’s interpretation of them is what is in err. Sir can you back this up in any of the 16 documents of Vatican II. I really think you are overstepping your boundry

 

[tmancath]

May I add some questions, op?

Yes, it was a “pastoral council”. And an “ecumenical council”. How is this different or less binding than say, the “Council of Trent”?

I like to hope it’s less binding because it seems to me there really are parts that contain contradictions to defined doctrine.

Such as?? Please site documents and paragraphs please? Thank you sir

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

It seems contradictory to me to take the position the church can’t error in faith and morals, and then say Vatican II documents error in faith and morals. Furthermore, its also contradictory to pit two popes against each other. All popes are guided by the same Holy spirit in their magisterium.

I only have a short time to respond so I can’t give you a thorough reply. Regarding the underlined part, the Church will never error when teaching on faith or morals when it is protected by the charism of infallibility. That makes sense, right? If the Church is protected by infallibility, it cannot err.

But, what if a document is not being protected by the charism of infallibility? Would it be impossible for such a document to contain error? If it is impossible, then what is the difference between times in which infallibility is being invoked, and times when it is not?

The charism of infallibility is only engaged in limited circumstanes. If the Pope defines a dogma, infallibility is invoked. If a council defines a dogma, and if the Council document is ratified by the Pope, this too is protected by infallibility. But outside of these instances infallibility is not engaged, which means, logically, that error is possible. It is not likely, but it is within the realm of possibility.

Vatican II did not engage the charism of infallibility. It was merely a pastoral council that defined no dogmas at all. Since it did not engage infallibility, why would anyone say it is impossible for it to err? It is only impossible for error to exist when the Church uses the full power it has been given, which it purposefully avoided at Vatican II.

**Pope Paul VI: **“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to 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, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”

If the Church desires to issue a document that does not engage infallibility, the Church has the right to do so; but if it does, it remains a possibility that the document could teach error. If that was not the case, it would mean that engaging the charism of infallibility was no different than not engaging it.

 

[yosupman]

Ultima,

Thanks for responding to my post. I think we’ve identified where we disagree. You mainting the church is only protected from error when she solemnly defining a doctrine. I maintain that anytime the church is teaching officially, that if the document touches anywhere upon faith and morals, that she is protected from error.

I think you misunderstand what the charism of infallibility is. Indefectibility protects the church from ever departing from the faith of the apostles, the structure of the church, etc., etc. The charism of infallibility protects the pope when he is defining a doctrine that the church has always taught. When the pope defines a doctrine it doesn’t make it true. He identifies a doctrine the church has always taught.

Also, are you a Raiders fan?

Later,

yosup

 

[diggerdomer]

The charism of infallibility is only engaged in limited circumstanes. If the Pope defines a dogma, infallibility is invoked. If a council defines a dogma, and if the Council document is ratified by the Pope, this too is protected by infallibility. But outside of these instances infallibility is not engaged,

Almost. The Church can also teach infallibly when the Pope and bishops, though dispersed throughout the world, do so.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Ultima,

Thanks for responding to my post. I think we’ve identified where we disagree. You mainting the church is only protected from error when she solemnly defining a doctrine. I maintain that anytime the church is teaching officially, that if the document touches anywhere upon faith and morals, that she is protected from error.

I think you misunderstand what the charism of infallibility is. Indefectibility protects the church from ever departing from the faith of the apostles, the structure of the church, etc., etc. The charism of infallibility protects the pope when he is defining a doctrine that the church has always taught. When the pope defines a doctrine it doesn’t make it true. He identifies a doctrine the church has always taught.

Also, are you a Raiders fan?

Later,

yosup

Last question first: Not, not a Raiders fan. Why?

OK, so it is your position that every single document issued by the authorities in the Church and approved by the Pope is infallible? Then what is the difference between a normal document issued by the Church and approved by the Pope, and an infallible statement by the Pope? Are both equally infallible? If so, why did Vatican I limit Papal Infallibility to when a Pope is defining a dogma to be held by the entire Church, if every single document approved by a Pope is infallible?

Would you also say that a Pope is infallible when he is teaching the Church, such as during sermons?

One final question: In your opinion did Vatican II teach that every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Almost. The Church can also teach infallibly when the Pope and bishops, though dispersed throughout the world, do so.

No one would deny that they “can” teach infallibly. But is it your position that every statement uttered by a Bishop is infallible? If not, how would you know when a particular statement is infallible and when it is not?

 

[yosupman]

Ultima, explain to me what big T tradition is. What is it? It’s got a lot to do with indefectibility.

 

[yosupman]

Such as?? Please site documents and paragraphs please? Thank you sir

You prove to me that Vatican II is protected from error. You’re in the tradtional catholic forum, you have to understand your audience.

The balls in your court.

yosup

 

[tmancath]

You prove to me that Vatican II is protected from error. You’re in the tradtional catholic forum, you have to understand your audience.

The balls in your court.

yosup

Well you sir are rude!! I asked where in the Vatican II does it contradict doctrine. No council is infallible. If you can’t respond with a document, paragraph and section that Vatican II contradicts doctrine, then please don’t respond. BTW the Council of Trent is no less bounding or more bounding than all the other councils. I do consider the Council of Trent to be the best council. I also do not reject Vatican II and its teaching. It is wrong to reject them. I even sought advise from Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN. I also accept Pope Benedict XVI as valid Pope. I too love traditional Catholicism, but all I am asking is that if you can’t give me proof that Vatican II contradicts doctrine then don’t respond to me.

 

[yosupman]

If you read my posts you’d know my position. In fact I set the whole thread up. Now, I’ve proved my position, can you site some authoritative teaching that supports your assertion? I’m an auditor. Don’t just tell me. Show me.

 

[diggerdomer]

N But is it your position that every statement uttered by a Bishop is infallible?

No. Where did you ever get that idea?

 

[Jacafamala]

Such as?? Please site documents and paragraphs please? Thank you sir

Have you checked out the thread on religious liberty? I’ve linked it above (Post #5). It’s pretty interesting and considers the problematic issues with Dignitatis Humanae (DH).

In addition, what was stated on ecumenism in Unitatis Redintegratio needs to be better explained. Ecumenism has done much damage to a church. Here’s a good article on a book “The Great Facade” by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr. You may want to check it out.

 

[yosupman]

I will admit that a lot of “influential” people have miss-interpreted Vatican II in the last 40 years. But I think Vatican II was a great gift of the Holy Spirit, laying the foundation to truly envangelizing the world. You see…we must be able to present the faith in terms people today understand, while being faithfull to the Gospel. Is this not what John XXIII said at the opening of the council?

There is no scandal being faithful to the council. Thats the solution in dealing with all of the false teaching.

As Cardinal Ratziner stated in his book “The Salt of the Earth”, in the forseeable future, faithful christians will be a small number. So don’t look for the great Christendom in the near future.