Vatican II

[Mecca]

In a discussion, I said, "the Constitutions ratified by the majority of the Bishops attending Vatican II, are ‘infallible’. A Deacon said I wasn’t right, only thr Pope can speak ‘infallibly’ not the Bishops. I retorted "when the the Pope confirms the decisions of the Council, the Constitutions become “infallible”.
I’m not looking to interject my own notion of infallibility on anyone but I’d like someone else’s authoritative (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Ocarm]

Magisterial infallibility is an extremely complex subject, and I am certainly not an expert, but canon law does summarise it with relative clarity.

The sections explaining the infallible teaching role of the magisterium can be found at:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

(This is a link to the vatican website, by the way).

It’s important to read the entire section, but the key points are:

Canon 749 §1 explains the pope’s ex cathedra authority as an infallible exercise of the extraordinary magisterium.

Canon 749 §2 explains the role of the college of bishops at an ecumenical council, whereby their teaching authority in communion with the pope and each other is also an infallible exercise of the extraordinary magisterium.

Canon 750 explains how universal tradition can also hold infallible status as exercise of the ordinary magisterium.

The Second Vatican Council produced two Dogmatic Constitutions, (the highest level of dogmatic statement, and representing infallible teachings) - these were Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium.

These would be examples of canon 749 §2 above, and are infallibly taught because they represent the treachings of all the bishops in communion with the pope.

Note that Canon 749 §3 also states that infallible teaching must be ‘manifestly evident’ as such - in this case, the manifest evidence being that the two documents have been declared to be Dogmatic Constitutions, a title which is specifically reserved for defining and/or re-stating dogma.

Hope this helps.

 

[DebChris]

These would be examples of canon 749 §2 above, and are infallibly taught because they represent the teachings of all the bishops in communion with the pope.

This is the key statement. The magisterium is comprised of the bishops and the pope. It is the unity of their statements that make them infallible.
It goes back to the pope being the successor of Peter and the bishops being the successors of the Apostles. Thus, what they teach is protected by the Holy Spirit.
Vatican II did not change the Tradition of the Church, the infallible teachings that have been passed down to us from the time of the Apostles.

 

[ravenonthecross]

Vatican II proclaim nothing infallible. As per the intention of Bl. John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.

 

[DebChris]

As has already been stated, Vatican II was a pastoral council.
It did not decree any new doctrines.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

“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.” (Pope Paul VI, General audience, 12 January 1966)

“The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared in its Constitution on the Church that all the teachings of the Council are in full continuity with the teachings of former councils. Moreover, let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II are de fide; the Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature. Cardinal Felici rightly stated that the Credo solemnly proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Year of Faith is from a dogmatic point of view much more important than the entire Second Vatican Council. Thus, those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, because the former are de fide, the latter not.” (Dietrich von Hildebrand, whom Pope Pius XII called “the 20th century Doctor of the Church”)

 

[ravenonthecross]

“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.” (Pope Paul VI, General audience, 12 January 1966)

“The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared in its Constitution on the Church that all the teachings of the Council are in full continuity with the teachings of former councils. Moreover, let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II are de fide; the Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature. Cardinal Felici rightly stated that the Credo solemnly proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Year of Faith is from a dogmatic point of view much more important than the entire Second Vatican Council. Thus, those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, because the former are de fide, the latter not.” (Dietrich von Hildebrand, whom Pope Pius XII called “the 20th century Doctor of the Church”)

Thank you.

 

[Monica4316]

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." (Pope Paul VI, General audience, 12 January 1966)

“The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared in its Constitution on the Church that all the teachings of the Council are in full continuity with the teachings of former councils. Moreover, let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II are de fide; the Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature. Cardinal Felici rightly stated that the Credo solemnly proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Year of Faith is from a dogmatic point of view much more important than the entire Second Vatican Council. Thus, those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, because the former are de fide, the latter not.” (Dietrich von Hildebrand, whom Pope Pius XII called “the 20th century Doctor of the Church”)

interesting… I didn’t know this.

There are some people who talk as if VII was the “correction” of everything that happened previously in the Church, and it’s somehow separated from Church tradition and even ‘above’ it… obviously it’s the other way around, Church tradition is above any one council, especially a pastoral council.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In a discussion, I said, "the Constitutions ratified by the majority of the Bishops attending Vatican II, are ‘infallible’. A Deacon said I wasn’t right, only thr Pope can speak ‘infallibly’ not the Bishops. I retorted "when the the Pope confirms the decisions of the Council, the Constitutions become “infallible”.
I’m not looking to interject my own notion of infallibility on anyone but I’d like someone else’s authoritative (name removed by moderator)ut!

Depends upon what you mean by infallible. There was no newly proclaimed solemn dogmatic definitions (dogmata de fide definita) declared at Vatican II. Yet, the infallibility of the Church is not limited to only statements proclaimed as dogmata de fide definita.

According to Pope Benedict XVI, while still Cardinal, speaking of the authority of all ecumenical councils:

… it is clear that conciliar decisions are infallible in the sense that I can be confident that here the inheritance of Christ is correctly interpreted (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Canon of Criticism, Salt of the Earth (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997))

So, only in this sense, not the de fide dogmata sense, you can say that Vatican II, as all ecumenical councils, are infallible. This is called by Catholic theology, indirect and negative infallibility.

We are called, for example, by disciplinary norms of the Catholic Church to give our submission of intellect and will to all doctrines promulgated by the Roman Pontiff (cf. Lumen Gentium 25, canon 752). Because it is theologically certain that ecclesiastical disciplinary norms are infallible in an indirect and negative sense (see here), it follows that the doctrines which disciplinary norms make binding upon all Catholics are also infallible in a indirect and negative sense. That is, such can never be considered “harmful” to the faithful (cf. Pius VI, Auctorum Fidei, 78).

…only thr Pope can speak ‘infallibly’ not the Bishops.

This is incorrect. The bishops in communion with the pope also exercise the charism of infallibility.

Lumen Gentium, no. 25:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

(40) Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const. dogm. Dei Filius, 3: Denz. 1712l (3011). Cfr. nota adiecta ad Schema I de Eccl. (desumpta ex.S. Rob. Bellarmino): Mansi 51, I 579 C, necnon Schema reformatum I Const. II de Ecclesia Christi, cum I commentario Kleutgen: Mansi 53, 313 AB. Pius IX, Epist. Tuas libener: Denz. 1683 (2879).

(41) Cfr. Cod. Iur. Can., c. 1322-1323.

 

[pnewton]

I believe your deacon to be correct as to Church council’s in general. If you want a really great article on Vatican II in particular, let me recommend

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9810clas.asp

It is as good as it gets and is a fairly short read by a great theologian of the Church.