Was DIGNITATIS HUMANAE infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MartyrForJesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If its not a problem, link the encyclical. An encyclical does not necessarily constitute as an ex-cathedra pronouncement thus invest it with infallible authority.

However…

This was the V-II Council and Pope Paul VI on “Religious Freedom” no? He was without a doubt a “genuis” and I believe this encyclical was under the guidence of the Holy Spirit. Though I may be wrong.

If the Bishops of Vatican II were assembled in General Council [which I believe they were] thus they received the Will of the Holy Spirit, which made their pronouncements on “faith or morals” infallible.

What became the issue of conflict here, is “if” V-II was considered a Ecumenical Council, which in fact it was, and is thus binding in teaching.

Just Sayin, I may be wrong.

Peace
 
No, it’s not a definitive judgment on a matter of faith and morals. In that decree, the Council is applying certain truths to particular, historical circumstances. The official relatio (a document given to the voting bishops on the Council explaining the decree) says the following:

Our decree, since it is pastoral, tries to treat the present matter especially from the practical point of view and, after the manner of John XXIII, will carefully strive to remove the whole question from that world of abstractions which was so dear to the nineteenth century. The question is put therefore regarding real man in his real dealings with other men, in contemporary human and civil societies.​

But I beseech you, Venerable Fathers, not to force the text to speak outside of its historical and doctrinal context, not, in other words, to make the fish swim out of water.

Let our document be studied as it stands. It is not a dogmatic treatise, but a pastoral decree directed to men of our time.
Click to expand...
web.archive.org/web/20071012192337/www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=202
(the page will load automatically after displaying the “wayback” page for a couple seconds)

Note, “it is not a dogmatic treatise” and is only directed to “men of our time” in their dealings in “contemporary societies,” so it is not intended to be permanently irreformable and therefore infallible.
 
Alright then Gary, so why then has Paul VI and Benedict XVI themselves said that Vatican II was a “pastoral” council? That doesn’t sound like general council to me. It seems to counter what you say about the council being infallible (on faith and morals that is).
 
=MartyrForJesus;8623195]Thanks,
Click to expand...
MartyrForJesus.
Click to expand...
NO! Because any pronouncement that IS defacto “infallible” MUST be stated that it is such. HOWEVER ITS TEACHING ARE STILL MANDATORY!

from the BINDING ON ALL HUMANITY CODE OF CANON LAW

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI

Can. 747 §1. The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect the revealed truth reverently, examine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate right, independent of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples, also using the means of social communication proper to it.

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

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.

*Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with ***it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.**

Can. 754** All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

God Bless,
Pat
 
MartyrForJesus said:
Thanks,

MartyrForJesus.
Click to expand...
Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

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.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Dignitatis Humanae was a Declaration of the Second Vatican Council.

Questions:
  1. Was Vatican II truly an “ecumenical council?” (I ask this because there are a whole lot of particular churches that were not represented in the Council…a/k/a the Orthodox churches)
  2. If so, did this council within this document definitively declare something as a doctrine of the faith to be held definitively by the Faithful?
The only doctrine that this declaration declares (per my reading) is:
  1. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

Compare this to the “infallible” language used by Pius XII in solemnly defining the dogma of the Assumption:

…by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
  1. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
Did Dignitatis Humanae propose anything with that level of gravity? Not by my reading. Therefore, I don’t believe it fits the definition of “Extraordinary Magisterium” and infallibility, though it is undoubtedly part of the Ordinary Magisterium.
 
PJM said:
NO! Because any pronouncement that IS defacto “infallible” MUST be stated that it is such. HOWEVER ITS TEACHING ARE STILL MANDATORY!
Click to expand...
No. It is not necessary for the Church to solemnly define a teaching for it to be infallible. Solemn definitions of the Magisterium are extraordinary by nature but solemn definitions are not the be-all and end-all of the Church’s teaching authority. There is a Solemn Magisterium, an Ordinary Magisterium and an Authentic Magisterium.
Vatican I:
It is a duty to believe with divine and Catholic Faith all that is contained in the word of God, whether written or transmitted by Tradition, that the Church puts forward to be believed as revealed truth, either in a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium
Click to expand...
The infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, nor that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations; none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone
Click to expand...
Whilst the Authentic Magisterium is owed obedience and reverence it can err and it can be opposed and rejected if necessary but that is not something to be taken lightly. Unless Dignitatis Humanae can be reconciled with the history of the Church then it falls under the Authentic Magisterium and is therefore not infallible.
 
Yet we have another principle, that the supreme legislator and interpreter of teaching is the Magisterium.
We may ask for clarification, elaboration or even appeal, but at the end of the day what the Magisterium declared, is binding, infallible or not, we like it or not.

It is the same with canon law. Most of what contained in it is not infallible. But all Catholics are bound by it. No one may disregard it at will.

It is the same with liturgical rubrics. Most (if not all) are not infallible. But all is bound by what is contained in it. Otherwise, no need to correct a priest who wear his alb over his chasuble for Mass.
 
Laudate_Dominum said:
No. It is not necessary for the Church to solemnly define a teaching for it to be infallible. Solemn definitions of the Magisterium are extraordinary by nature but solemn definitions are not the be-all and end-all of the Church’s teaching authority. There is a Solemn Magisterium, an Ordinary Magisterium and an Authentic Magisterium.

Whilst the Authentic Magisterium is owed obedience and reverence it can err and it can be opposed and rejected if necessary but that is not something to be taken lightly. Unless Dignitatis Humanae can be reconciled with the history of the Church then it falls under the Authentic Magisterium and is therefore not infallible.
Click to expand...
More in line to what I was thinking before I went to church. Now read this.

google.com/url?q=http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php%3Fsection%3Darticles%26subsection%3Dshow_article%26article_id%3D2718&sa=U&ei=eHXSTv6VCuje0QGh_ukf&ved=0CBsQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFvFaIvfKxYCdP8YENl5p9CurHhEQ

As I stated earlier I’m not absolute on this encyclical, it presents a interesting debate.

Peace
 
Laudate_Dominum said:
No. It is not necessary for the Church to solemnly define a teaching for it to be infallible.
Click to expand...
See Can 749 §3
There is a Solemn Magisterium, an Ordinary Magisterium and an Authentic Magisterium.
Click to expand...
Whilst the Authentic Magisterium is owed obedience and reverence it can err and it can be opposed and rejected if necessary but that is not something to be taken lightly. Unless Dignitatis Humanae can be reconciled with the history of the Church then it falls under the Authentic Magisterium and is therefore not infallible.
Click to expand...
I have heard of an Ordinary Magisterium, that ism the teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical.

I have heard of an Extraordinary Magisterium, that is, the Church’s teaching office exercised in a solemn way, as in formal declarations of the Pope or of ecumenical councils of bishops approved by the Pope. Canon 749 §3 defines when such a teaching is to be considered infallible.

I have heard of the Universal Magisterium, that is, when the Magisterium is exercised by the Pope and bishops in union with him, intended for the faithful throughout the world.

I have heard of Authentic Teaching, that is, the official teaching of the hierarchical Church. Its authenticity depends on its authorization, which means the assurance of divine guidance, as vested in the duly ordained successors of the Apostles united with the Bishop of Rome.

But I’m afraid I haven’t heard of the terms “Solemn Magisterium” or “Authentic Magisterium” used in the way you used them. Could you please point me to where I could find good definitions of those terms? Thanks.
 
YoungCanRCMale said:
Alright then Gary, so why then has Paul VI and Benedict XVI themselves said that Vatican II was a “pastoral” council? That doesn’t sound like general council to me. It seems to counter what you say about the council being infallible (on faith and morals that is).
Click to expand...
Friend,

It seems there is a common misunderstanding often found among theologians. Listening to the Francisican Friars of the Immaculate I have come under the impression that it goes something like this…

According to those of the School of Bologna there has been no ‘true’ council since before Trent because those who are at odds with the Church, but having the grace to be Christian, were not included until the Vatican II council. Even though they were not voting or speaking members their advisory capacity meant that they were included, and as such, deference was given to them in certain areas which the official churchmen lacked.

All this is false of course, but it is a common thought, even when not explicitly known of said. It is still commonly conveyed, again, sometimes intentionally and sometimes out of ignorance.

One can see this in the letters and autobiographies of some of the men in the liturgical movements who say quite directly that the holy Sacrifice of the Mass is ineffectual because the Church is being held-down by churchmen who refuse to include Christians not in the Fullness of the Faith. It is a subtle, less muted form of the Great Apostasy theory so often trumpeted in proud white-people countries.

I think often we forget that the exemplification of the Church is found in Mary. She is a valley surrounded, protected on three-sides. We can enter Her land by way of the Eastern Gate. Mary never apostasized and likewise the Church cannot. Both She and the Church are motherly. Both She and the Church are objects of worship. Just as we should bow our head to acknowledge Her as the Immaculate we should bow our head at the phrase 'One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church" for She too is immaculate.

I digress. This was mostly for myself it appears.
 
=Laudate Dominum;8623793]No. It is not necessary for the Church to solemnly define a teaching for it to be infallible. Solemn definitions of the Magisterium are extraordinary by nature but solemn definitions are not the be-all and end-all of the Church’s teaching authority. There is a Solemn Magisterium, an Ordinary Magisterium and an Authentic Magisterium.
Click to expand...
Whilst the Authentic Magisterium is owed obedience and reverence it can err and it can be opposed and rejected if necessary but that is not something to be taken lightly. Unless Dignitatis Humanae can be reconciled with the history of the Church then it falls under the Authentic Magisterium and is therefore not infallible.
Click to expand...
DUH! 😃

Is that NOT what I just posted:shrug: 🙂
 
The point being in V-II, with this encyclical …

Fr. Lucien asserts that the teaching of Vatican II on religious freedom is infallible because it is the equivalent of a teaching of the universal and ordinary Magisterium. We know that the pope can exercise the Magisterium infallibly and that he can do so whether alone or with the bishops. Three unique circumstances in which the supreme authority enjoys infallibility can be distinguished: 1) an act of the physical person of the pope speaking ex cathedra; 2) an act of the moral person of an ecumenical council, which is the physical assembly of the pope and the bishops; and 3) the body of acts, unanimous and simultaneous, that emanates from all the pastors of the Church, the pope and the bishops, but dispersed and not gathered together. The teaching of the pope speaking ex cathedra and that of an ecumenical council correspond to the infallibility of the solemn or extraordinary Magisterium, while the unanimous teaching of all the bishops dispersed, under the authority of the pope, is the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

I fail to see where he is wrong? This encyclical fits #3.

And I fail to see where 1) This isn’t an ecumenical council. Stating hear-say without the actual context of the Document is …well, a very weak arguement.

I fail to see any point above which invalidate’s this as infallible.

Especially in light of another posted comment above…

“§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.”

Did this not happen with this encyclical? It appears to me it did? This is the #3 spoken about above.

🤷

Peace
 
markomalley said:


§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
​
Click to expand...

Just a note…(not getting into what is infallible or not in any particular document).

“No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”

Such is a about that which is “defined” as infallible. That word there is I would say is rather important. Defining is a rather explicit act.

Doctrines can be infallible without them being “defined” so.

And of course as others have noted we do not just accept and live that which is infallible.​
 
Bookcat said:
Just a note…(not getting into what is infallible or not in any particular document).

“No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”

Such is a about that which is “defined” as infallible. That word there is I would say is rather important. Defining is a rather explicit act.

Doctrines can be infallible without them being “defined” so.

And of course as others have noted we do not just accept and live that which is infallible.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and I myself am not trying to state “definately” this is or isn’t infallible. I believe what I stated from the on-set is I am not sure. All indications from what I have read “so-far” seem to indicate it is.

There may well be a theological side or aspect I haven’t read or am unaware of. So far everything I have read appears to confirm infallible though. I haven’t read anything contrary but papers I seriously felt were lacking. All I have read to the affirmation, I thought was very well written, its not a surprize that Pope Benedict is an advocate of Vatican II and he defends it.

And of course this particular encyclical brings other question’s in regards to V-1. Which alludes to assume V-II is some form of heresy. which is Biblically impossible, and personally I find that thinking preposterous. For that would mean the Gates of Hell would have prevailed. 🤷 I admit I attended V-I CC school/mass growing up, and though change is difficult, nothing is constant but change. Personally I’m dedicated to this thick or thin. Its absolute that when the Lord stated the word…“prevail”. It was a direct indication this wouldn’t always be a cakewalk.

Today we already see CC members balking about the November change’s in the translation. Truth is its the same conversation I heard in the 60’s. Its human nature when one’s comfortability is disturbed.

Peace
 
Paul VI in his allocutio of 12 January 1966 stated that the council defined no dogma. Fr Lucien’s views are very much his own. One can attached the note of infallibility only to dogmatic definitions of Popes or councils or in situations in which the Pope and bishops of the world propose a doctrine of faith or morals as divinely revealed and to be held as such by all the faithful (cf Dei Filius of vatican I and Lumen gentium of vatican II).

This is because the primary object of the magisterium is Divine Revelation, it’s secondary object being those truths necessary to safe guard it , eg that human reason is valid that the intellect is capable of abstract thought etc.as well as truths of Natural Law which is that by which rational creatures participate in the divine eternal law.

Dignitatis Humanae falls into none of these categories and was intended as a purely pastoral decree as the relator (Mons de Mestre, if memory seves) explained to the assembled fathers. Gaudium et Spes is another example of a nondogmatic or noninfallible nature; except naturally when such documents reaffirm previously defined teaching.

All the decrees of Vatican II represent a high level of the ordinary magisterium, but not every phrase is intended to be an infallible utterance…
 
Paul VI in his allocutio of 12 January 1966 stated that the council defined no dogma. Fr Lucien’s views are very much his own. One can attached the note of infallibility only to dogmatic definitions of Popes or councils or in situations in which the Pope and bishops of the world propose a doctrine of faith or morals as divinely revealed and to be held as such by all the faithful (cf Dei Filius of vatican I and Lumen gentium of vatican II).

This is because the primary object of the magisterium is Divine Revelation, it’s secondary object being those truths necessary to safe guard it , eg that human reason is valid that the intellect is capable of abstract thought etc.as well as truths of Natural Law which is that by which rational creatures participate in the divine eternal law.

Dignitatis Humanae falls into none of these categories and was intended as a purely pastoral decree as the relator (Mons de Mestre, if memory seves) explained to the assembled fathers. Gaudium et Spes is another example of a nondogmatic or noninfallible nature; except naturally when such documents reaffirm previously defined teaching.

All the decrees of Vatican II represent a high level of the ordinary magisterium, but not every phrase is intended to be an infallible utterance…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top