Was Vatican II an Infallible Ecumenical Council?

[EA_Man]

Are the teachings and / or pronouncements of Vatican II infallible?

 

[Brian_Crane]

Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral. --Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General Audience

 

[Brian_Crane]

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as part of the entire living tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. 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.-- Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (1988 address to the bishops of Chile)

 

[Roman_Army]

“Are the teachings and / or pronouncements of Vatican II infallible?”

That my friend is a good question that I myself have asked and those of the extreme right and extreme left both answer “No. it has erred.” The right answer is obviously “Yes, it is infallible.” Every ecumenical council that the Church holds is infallible and must be followed. Vatican II was an ecumenical council. The problem is that both Progressive Catholics and Traditionalists misinterperet it.

Here’s a good link from Catholic Answers:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207fea3.asp

 

[rwoehmke]

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as part of the entire living tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero.b]
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.-- Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (1988 address to the bishops of Chile)

Ratzinger is not saying that any decrees of the Council were not binding. He comments only on one of the ways it is/has been abused. The documents of the Council, while indeed pastoral in nature, are non the less infallible. It did not change or contradict any previously defined dogma or doctrine.

 

[slinky1882]

“Are the teachings and / or pronouncements of Vatican II infallible?”

That my friend is a good question that I myself have asked and those of the extreme right and extreme left both answer “No. it has erred.” The right answer is obviously “Yes, it is infallible.” Every ecumenical council that the Church holds is infallible and must be followed. Vatican II was an ecumenical council. The problem is that both Progressive Catholics and Traditionalists misinterperet it.

Here’s a good link from Catholic Answers:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207fea3.asp

I have to admit that at times the fact that the Church is attacked from all sides points to the Divine founding of the Catholic Church on the Rock of Peter. The turbulent waters swirl all around the Rock, yet the Rock remains firm in the face of the tempest. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[thessalonian]

The council did not proclaim any dogma. However a negative of infallilbility is that the council will also not proclaim dogmatically error. The doctrine of infallibility works both ways. The Church will not proclaim error and what it does proclaim dogmatically will be true. Therefore yes it was.

Further there is a tendency for people to think that because a pope or council has not made infallible declaratoins, that there declaratoins are fallible and non-authoritative. This is not the case. The Pope is supreme and the magesterium has a similar authority.

Blessings

 

[KBarn]

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as part of the entire living tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. 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.-- Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (1988 address to the bishops of Chile)

I agree whole-heartedly with this; however, the fact that it was pastoral does not mean that it lacked infallibility. It was a modest council but infallibly so.

 

[EA_Man]

thessalonian:

The council did not proclaim any dogma. However a negative of infallilbility is that the council will also not proclaim dogmatically error. The doctrine of infallibility works both ways. The Church will not proclaim error and what it does proclaim dogmatically will be true. Therefore yes it was.

Further there is a tendency for people to think that because a pope or council has not made infallible declaratoins, that there declaratoins are fallible and non-authoritative. This is not the case. The Pope is supreme and the magesterium has a similar authority.

Blessings

Thanks for the clarification. I too have heard both a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ on this question depending on who you ask.

Also, it seems as though some regard Vatican 2 as somehow a “step backwards”(?)

Why?

 

[Roman_Army]

EA_Man:

Thanks for the clarification. I too have heard both a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ on this question depending on who you ask.

Also, it seems as though some regard Vatican 2 as somehow a “step backwards”(?)

Why?

Because some people think that Vatican 2 is a fresh start as if all the previous teachings are gone and don’t count and that it is starting over again in defining doctrine.

 

[EA_Man]

Because some people think that Vatican 2 is a fresh start as if all the previous teachings are gone and don’t count and that it is starting over again in defining doctrine.

How do they arrive at that conclusion?

Peace

 

[scylla]

Because they didn’t read what Vatican II really taught. Many people understood heard it was a sort of opening up of the Church and to make it more relative to the times. Unfortunately they then thought off of this understanding that everything was up for grabs.

You then have many people who never even read what Vatican II taught making up their own beliefs and doing liturgical dances in skimpy outfits.

The reason they arrive at that conclusion is they heard second-hand what it taught in a general sense, since this happened at a time of great social change and desires for change, many people used it as an excuse to further their own desires.

God Bless
Scylla

There is a good show on EWTN that shows what Vatican II really taught, I have been watching it and it is really informative and makes good sense.

 

[Lucam]

sounds good.

 

[Brian_Crane]

Because some people think that Vatican 2 is a fresh start as if all the previous teachings are gone and don’t count and that it is starting over again in defining doctrine.

EA_Man:

How do they arrive at that conclusion? Peace

It is easy to see why people arrived at that conclusion. In short order, after the close of Vatican II, most altar rails were taken out, mass was said in the vernacular, with the priest facing the people. Folk music and other kinds of music entered the mass. People no longer knelt to receive communion. People received communion in the hand, etc.

*“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” *-- Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, Preface to the book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

I was dismayed [by the ban of the old missal]. Such a development had never been seen in the history of the liturgy. I am convinced that the ecclesiastical crisis of today depends on the collapse of the liturgy…" – Cardinal Josef Ratzinger*, f*rom his autobiography

 

[EA_Man]

Brian Crane:

It is easy to see why people arrived at that conclusion. In short order, after the close of Vatican II, most altar rails were taken out, mass was said in the vernacular, with the priest facing the people. Folk music and other kinds of music entered the mass. People no longer knelt to receive communion. People received communion in the hand, etc.

*“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” *-- Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, Preface to the book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

I was dismayed [by the ban of the old missal]. Such a development had never been seen in the history of the liturgy. I am convinced that the ecclesiastical crisis of today depends on the collapse of the liturgy…" – Cardinal Josef Ratzinger*, f*rom his autobiography

So it was infallible in decree, but fallible in implementation?

Peace

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

So it was infallible in decree, but fallible in implementation?

Peace

This perspective is wrong. It was not the council that was implemented. It was men who took authority upon themselves. This is always the heart of division and strife in the Church.