Was Vatican II Infallible?

[una_fides]

Likewise, the Seventh Ecumenical Council pronounced NO new teaching (as many Protestants are wont to point out). Would you deny as well that the Seventh was not infallible?

No General Council has EVER pronounced any NEW teachings. Such is not the nature of the Church. The Church only settles issues based on the deposit of faith that has been entrusted to her and preserved by sacred Tradition. If the Church were to pronounce a NEW dogma of the faith, then by definition such a dogma would not have been revealed by Christ to his apostles and as such would constitute new public revelation. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary both must be understood as being part of the deposit of faith regardless of whether the early Church fathers explicitly understood or universally accepted such teachings. They have been defined by the pope, and as such are infallible. Did you perhaps mean by “new teachings” meaning that they ruled on an issue that had not been previously settled?

 

[mardukm]

Here are brief summaries of the General Councils you referenced:
Just over a century after Chalcedon, heresy was running rampant and the Roman Emperor in Constantinople Justinian I decided it was time for another General Council. The Second Council in Constantinople condemned the “Three Chapters” which was a collection of statements by three deceased disciples of the deposed Nestorius. The Council determined that the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa were soundly condemned. This Council also affirmed the condemnations declared at the Council of Carthage in 416 and previous condemnations by Popes of heresies. For the full documents see CONSTANTINOPLE TWO

Just over a century after the Third Council of Constantinople, a 7th General Council was necessary in 787 to deal with the heresy of Iconoclasm. The Council was called by the Empress Irene - the widow of the late Emperor Leo IV and mother of the Emperor Constantine IV - to head off the growing unrest with the Eastern Bishops who were spreading the heresy of Iconoclasm fostered by Emperor Leo III. The latter had been fiercely condemned by Pope Hadrian I, as well as his predecessors Popes Gregory II and Pope Gregory III. A great Doctor of the Church Saint John Damascene had also defended images as a means of reverence. At the core was the growing split and resentment between East and West. For the full documents see NICAEA TWO
dailycatholic.org/history/councils.htm#rc-5

Both councils were called to deal with and settle errors which they did. What errors did Vatican II set out to resolve? Also were there any popes immediately following the councils that said that the councils were merely uses of the ordinary magisterium, which by definition is NOT infallible by nature?

SO now we’re changing our criteria? The OP only stated that dogmas were not enacted. Now you want to add that there were no condemnation of errors as well? Fine (but I wonder what OTHER criteria you will add later on to try to prove your position - this might turn out to be a good exercise in determining what an ecumenical council actually entails ).

So what do you make of the 9th Council that the Latin Church calls “ecumenical” (or general)? It pronounced no new dogma, nor did it condemn any errors.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

They have been defined by the pope, and as such are infallible. Did you perhaps mean by “new teachings” meaning that they ruled on an issue that had not been previously settled?

I meant “new dogmas.” Thanks for asking.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Thanks for your comments Marduk. I think that every General Council has the capacity for infallibility but it must invoke such capacity by making an explicit acceptance or condemnation of a particular dogma. We also must remember as the Church has explained that only the pronouncements themselves are infallible and not the theological reasoning provided by the council. So if a council does not make use to accept or condemn any dogmas (or the teachings of any particular persons) then it is infallible in potential but has not made use of its infallibility. This is my current understanding.

When I came into the Catholic Church, I understood that within the infallible Church there are four pillars (so to speak) of infallibility (i.e., ways that God makes known his infallible teaching):

1. The Pope teaching ex cathedra.
2. The Ecumenical Council
3. Sacred Tradition
4. All the bishops even when dispersed teaching in unison on a matter of faith or morals.

I have never heard nor read that the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council depends on its ACTIONS. I understand the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council to be inherent by virtue of the Holy Spirit, not by virtue of any specific thing it DOES. It is only natural that the Ecumenical Council will teach something, but I’ve never heard nor read that the infallibility of the Council could be called into question because the TYPE of teaching it proposes.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[una_fides]

SO now we’re changing our criteria? The OP only stated that dogmas were not enacted. Now you want to add that there were no condemnation of errors as well? Fine (but I wonder what OTHER criteria you will add later on to try to prove your position - this might turn out to be a good exercise in determining what an ecumenical council actually entails ).

So what do you make of the 9th Council that the Latin Church calls “ecumenical” (or general)? It pronounced no new dogma, nor did it condemn any errors.

Blessings,
Marduk

I haven’t read the council, but from what I’ve quickly gathered, the the First Lateran Council in confirming the Concordat of Worms thereby settled the false notion that the pope was somehow under the complete control of the emperor and that kings had a divine right to appoint popes. I’m sure there are other issues settled as well.

What do you propose was infallible then if there were not dogmatic definitions (which btw can include both positive teaching and condemnations of error)? Do you think that every word from every ecumenical council is infallible? And what evidence can you muster to specifically support your view, whatever it may be?

And yes, infallibility involves more than just positively defining dogmas as anyone who reads canons of ecumenical councils knows that they infallibly anathematize false beliefs as well. I do not see the contradiction you are attempting to draw here, as both are uses of infallibility and both were not employed by V2. And my OP was not meant to be some sort of complete infallible compilation and summation of everything. I was just trying to get the dialogue rolling… But yes, I agree that this thread will hopefully allow us to come away with a much better understanding of the use of the Church’s infallibility.

 

[una_fides]

I meant “new dogmas.” Thanks for asking.

Blessings,
Marduk

So you are saying that you believe the Church infallibly promulgated new dogmas that have not been previously entrusted to her by divine revelation and which were not therefore contained in the initial deposit of faith entrusted to her???

 

[una_fides]

The date is important. You bring up some good points there RJ. It has me wondering about the time line in all this.

In '62, John XXIII mentions “Revolutionary Changes” in his Veterum Sapientia. One of which was allowing venacular in the Liturgy. He died a year later. GRHS
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

In '63, the Sacrosanctum Concilium was adopted, which allowed for the introduction of venacular in the Liturgy.

Less than 6 months later, these appear in the US…
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z256/hwjennings1/church stuff/mustangbas055.jpg

While this experimentation was going on, Paul VI makes the statement quoted above in '66.

By 1969, we have the Novus Ordo.

As far as the Liturgy, I don’t think Paul VI was warning of abuse. I think the last we heard of that was in the Veterum Sapientia. John XXIII was the one trying to warn those who were a bit too eager for changes.

Again as far as the Liturgy is concerned, I think it is very clear what was on the minds of those who embraced the SC, and what they deemed the nature of the document. No misinterpretation, no misimplimintation. The powers that were, wanted a new Mass.

Whether it was well intended or the fruits of the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, is of course, a topic for it’s own thread. But here is what some prominent Clergy have said…

ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html
These statements were made before BXVI’s SP, and thankfully, by the Grace of God, we have not succeeded in eliminating the Mass for All Time.

No matter what side one takes, there is no denying that the Council’s SC has enabled division.

Kyrie eleison

It’s crazy how you put out that picture and TODAY my friend just showed me her dad’s old missal from 1964 that has the same stuff!! It has parts for the priest and then the “faithful” rather than the servers. and has other differences she said she found as well. so yes, i can attest that i’ve now seen them too. I was telling her that I would have loved it if the Church just left it at that without changing the rest of the mass around and producing a new one altogether. Couldn’t they have just allowed some vernacular and some participation of the people as V2 permitted rather than producing an all new liturgy altogether.

 

[una_fides]

When I came into the Catholic Church, I understood that within the infallible Church there are four pillars (so to speak) of infallibility (i.e., ways that God makes known his infallible teaching):

1. The Pope teaching ex cathedra.
2. The Ecumenical Council
3. Sacred Tradition
4. All the bishops even when dispersed teaching in unison on a matter of faith or morals.

I have never heard nor read that the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council depends on its ACTIONS. I understand the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council to be inherent by virtue of the Holy Spirit, not by virtue of any specific thing it DOES. It is only natural that the Ecumenical Council will teach something, but I’ve never heard nor read that the infallibility of the Council could be called into question because the TYPE of teaching it proposes.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, the Church does officially teach that the content of the teaching and the intent of those propagating the teaching determines whether it is or is not infallible. We know this from Vatican I.

piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
* not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
* but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

*** we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma** that
      o when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
            + that is, when,
                 1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
                 2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
                 3. **he *defines*** a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, 
      o he possesses,
            + by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, 
      o that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
      o **Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable**.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Notice the three criteria for #3 are that the pope must

1. actually define a doctrine
2. concerning faith or morals
3. to be held by the whole Church

If any of these three are not complete, then we do not have infallibility, but we do nevertheless have the authority of the Church’s ordinary magisterium (non-infallible, but still authoritative and requiring a religious assent of the will). This fact is inerrant to ex cathedra declarations and can be applied in the same way to General Councils, which are only given their ability for infallibility when given papal approval. So if something in a General Council for example says that Latin rite priests should be celebate, that does not mean that it is infallibly true that all Latin rite priests of all time were bound to be celebate as it is pertaining to discipline and not to a dogma of faith or morals. Make sense?

But you are indeed correct on a basic level that all four of the sources you cited contain unchangeable dogmas, but are nevertheless different. Scripture is actually divine revelation itself and is part of the deposit of faith entrusted to the apostles and is inerrant. Sacred Tradition pertaining to the rest of the teachings that are a part of the sacred deposit is also divine revelation itself, but all apostolic tradition is not divine revelation. That’s where #'s 3&4 come in as the authentic interpreters of #'s 1&2 when they set out on defining a particular issue from this deposit of faith.

 

[mardukm]

Dear un fides,

What do you propose was infallible then if there were not dogmatic definitions (which btw can include both positive teaching and condemnations of error)? Do you think that every word from every ecumenical council is infallible? And what evidence can you muster to specifically support your view, whatever it may be?

What I propose was infallible was the Council ITSELF. Once the bishops of the world are FORMALLY gathered by the Pope, either directly or through consent, for the purpose of teaching the entire Church, that Council is imbued with the divine protection of the Holy Spirit.

It does not have to define dogma. It does not have to create canons. It does not have to enact anathemas. It simply has to fulfill its function as a teaching body. So the question is, did Vatican II propose to teach anything to the Church militant? Yes it did.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

So you are saying that you believe the Church infallibly promulgated new dogmas that have not been previously entrusted to her by divine revelation and which were not therefore contained in the initial deposit of faith entrusted to her???

Well, yes. Of course, this comes with the understanding of what a dogma is. A dogma is a prior teaching of the Church which the Church has formally recognized as a teaching that MUST be believed under pain of excommunication (dogmas normally have anathemas attached to them, but an anathema is not inherent to a dogma). So the Church never proposes new teaching (or new doctrine). But she has the authority to propose new dogmas.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Notice the three criteria for #3 are that the pope must

1. actually define a doctrine
2. concerning faith or morals
3. to be held by the whole Church

If any of these three are not complete, then we do not have infallibility

I don’t understand how you can so easily apply this criteria to an ecumenical council. These are criteria explictly applied to the papacy, not the Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Joysong]

Marduk, Thank you!

Your posts are solidly truthful in expounding the nature of an ecumenical council. It has been alleged by many who refuse to accept the teachings of Vatican II that it is not infallible due to isolated false beliefs held by those who have no authority to teach. I think it is necessary to review the Solemn Promulgations set forth in Lumen Gentium, which we note was a “dogmatic” constitution of V-II.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM

1. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.

1. Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.

22.The supreme power ** in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them. [All of these conditions were fulfilled by John XXIII, and confirmed by Paul VI.]

1. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

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. 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.

 

[maurin]

Marduk, Thank you!

Your posts are solidly truthful in expounding the nature of an ecumenical council. It has been alleged by many who refuse to accept the teachings of Vatican II that it is not infallible due to isolated false beliefs held by those who have no authority to teach. I think it is necessary to review the Solemn Promulgations set forth in Lumen Gentium, which we note was a “dogmatic” constitution of V-II.

joysong,

noone is contesting that the teachings must be adhered to–this for the seventh or eighth time now. We all adhere to the Teachings as seen through the lens of the Traditional Faith.

What is under discussion is the infallibility of the Teachings. We must adhere to the fact that the Church allows both the reception on the tongue of the Blessed Sacrament or in the hands–we don’t have to like one or the other, we only need to accept that right now both postures are ‘acceptable.’

It seems to me that you are still not understanding the distinction between teachings to which we are bound for now and infallible Doctrine and Dogma which bind us forever, per saecula seculorum, Amen.

 

[Joysong]

I don’t know what “you” were discussing, Maurin, but the last few posts were challenging whether ecumenical councils are infallible. L.G. proves that they are, and always have been.

1. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.

The council is reaffirming the teaching of Vatican I, and we must believe that it will never change. It is not simply a “discipline” and that one may hold a wrong belief that ecumenical councils are infallible only for certain types of teachings, or worse yet, that Vatican II was NOT an “ecumenical” council.

 

[Joysong]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I don’t know what “you” were discussing, Maurin, but the last few posts were challenging whether ecumenical councils are infallible. L.G. proves that they are, and always have been.

You will note in the promulgated wording, that the Church is only repeating “again” that which it taught in Vatican 1. And it will be forever held as truth, not as a changing discipline.

 

[maurin]

I don’t know what “you” were discussing, Maurin,

careful joysong, or you may have to accuse yourself of a flaming vendetta !

but the last few posts were challenging whether ecumenical councils are infallible. L.G. proves that they are, and always have been.

and now we are back to the op. Paul VI made it quite clear–His Holiness Paul VI.

The only infallible Teachings of VII were reiterations of previous infallible teachings.

The council is reaffirming the teaching of Vatican I, .

And now you are getting closer to what is actually under discussion!

 

[Joysong]

The only infallible Teachings of VII were reiterations of previous infallible teachings.

That is YOUR opinion. All of the teachings of an ecumenical council, when solemnly promulgated by the Pope, ARE INFALLIBLE. Period, no loopholes. Marduk stated this correctly. One’s private exemption from belief in its teachings, by alleging conditional qualifiers is truly sad, bordering on heresy and a lack of faith in the Magisterium.

P.S. Putting smilies on your sarcasm does not excuse them.

 

[Joysong]

Una Fides:

If any of these three are not complete, then we do not have infallibility, but we do nevertheless have the authority of the Church’s ordinary magisterium (non-infallible, but still authoritative and requiring a religious assent of the will).

I have seen the argument circulating among dissidents, that “ordinary magisterium” is not infalllible. I see that you have at least the courtesy to elevate it to a matter of religious assent. However, in the same Vatican I Council that you quote from, we read:

Section 3, Chapter 3, 8: Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed
…which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition
…and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
…whether by her solemn judgment
…or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

Furthermore, we find promulgation in this same Council to dispel the errors that also circulate, that if a matter of discipline is taught, this would not be infallible. This debunks the theorists who say that pastoral or disciplinary teachings are not protected by infallibility, and therefore may be rejected.

Section 4, Ch. 1, 1-2 To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church.

**All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons. **

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.

Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

 

[brigid12]

Was Vatican II an infallible council or only an extension of the Church’s ordinary magisterium (non-infallible)? It appears Paul VI who presided over the council sides with the latter view and thus such is the mind of the pope:
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document” (Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966).

I would think that as the Pope needs to “ok” (sorry, brain working only so much today) the council that since he didn’t say it was dogmatic, that it is not to be taken as infallible.

 

[Joysong]

Hello Brigid,

These are difficult matters when posts such as the OP’s are pulled out of context. Read the second half of Paul VI’s statement from the OP, and compare the teaching of Vatican I in my last post which clearly states that the Ordinary Magisterium is also infallible.

."In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility,… but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium

Then read the first part of Paul VI’s words below in this light: extraordinary, i.e., those rare statements of dogma such as the only two proclaimed “Ex Cathedra” until now, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. He wished to clarify that the purpose of convening an Ecumenical Council was not to condemn errors or to define new dogmas. Rather, they gathered in order to pastorally safeguard that which has already been entrusted to the Church’s faith, in greater clarity.

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility,

It is utterly foreign to the mind of the Church that Her teachings, especially when set forth in union with 2500 bishops and promulgated in solemn decrees defined in an ecumenical council, are merely optional pastoral niceties. I hope you do not succomb to this flagrant misuse of Church teaching.