Interesting point. Where is the basis of determing whether a Council is infallible? Does a committee or millions of bishops have a better understanding collectively the will of God? Like a ouija board, for example? But that would be superstitition, and that is against the First Commandment.
No need to worry. I’m a post-VII convert who loved/loves the CCC and who feels it’s most important to follow the Pope, so if he says to follow VII, I will. I was essentially posting for mental gymnastics/exercise
and not to oppose VII. Also, I do feel for those sincere Traditionalists that feel it necessary to oppose the council - I have traditionalist leanings in all sorts of areas and so empathize easily with them while not necessarily agreeing with all. I just wanted to find a “loophole” for them too, I guess.
Glad to hear it, Brigid!I’ve often thought just the same thing, however it’s hard to mention that to my family, who I live with, as they are very caught up in the intellect and education. It’s so good to hear someone I respect say the same thing - besides, reading it in Scripture, that is! (Maybe a part of the Carmelite spirituality that isn’t spoken about as often?)
Pope Paul VI said:
Who’s doubting the Church’s magisterium? Did anyone on here at any time say that Vatican II was not an exercise of the Church’s magisterium? What we are questioning is whether it is an infallible use of her magisterium or whether it was part of her ordinary magisterium.
The pope is also infallible himself, but everything the pope teaches is not infallible. The difference in both cases is when that infallibility applies.
I guess you and I have a different understanding of what a dogma is. Here is Webster’s definition:
You must as a matter of accuracy distinguish what you mean when you use the term “Ordinary Magisterium.” There are two teaching categories that teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium can fall under: the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (infallible, but certain requirements must take place for this to occur), and the merely authentic Ordinary Magisterium, (mere authenticum) which is not infallible. The specific parts of the Council that reiterate previous Church teachings on Faith and Morals fall under the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. Certain decrees, such as those on Ecumenism or Religious Liberty, would fall under the non-infallible authentic Ordinary Magisterium. This is directly from the Council:
Though it was both Pope John XXIII’s and Paul VI’s right to make use of their infallibility at the Council, nothing of the sort happened. This excludes the possibility that Vatican II could be an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium. I also think that you are quite confused as to the scope of what the Ordinary Magisterium actually is and how Vatican II relates to said teaching. I leave here with some good quotes from the great theologian Dom Paul Nau on the Ordinary Magisterium and suggest some follow-up reading:
Dom Paul Nau:
The only thing is, our canons (both Latin and Eastern) state that an Ecumenical Council IS, by its very nature, a convention of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Can you cite official Church teaching that supports your idea that every ecumenical council is by nature infallible in everything it contains? If not, you may want to reconsider your position…
This was already done a few posts ago, if you care to go back and read them. Vatican I clarified it.
If I intended to name people, I would have done so, but I was speaking generally, meaning “some” who cause others to doubt , whether through innocent ignorance or through deliberate malice of deception as I have seen on some websites. Obviously, this is the 4th time you fail to read my words correctly, which strongly suggests to me that you are looking for an argument.
That is your wrong assumption, once again. When those opposing viewpoints are in opposition to what the documents of the Councils clearly state, I am not going to agree with those viewpoints, nor should you expect me to do so.
Its also not clear to me if you are saying that by the very nature of an Ecumenical Council that all decrees are automatically infallible, or if not infallible automatically binding on all the faithful.
This is exactly what the Council Fathers did, Thistle – approve the documents by their vote – which, if the Pope had not confirmed them, they would not be infallible. However, Pope Paul did approve and promulgate them. What would you think this means? Kindly read the most important document, Lumen Gentium, and note also that the word “dogmatic” is in the final statement:
One might think that the Roman Pontiff and Canon Law would put an end to the merry-go-round.
Although I had no issue with VII, I have to say that I was confused after you pointed out some of the misdirected web sites out there that were linked to legitimate sites. That just should not be permitted. I found out a great deal more after talking to you, thanks…
I deplore the deception that causes anyone to doubt the Church or Her magisterium. There is such extensive manipulation of Her documents on the internet that I believe these catholics are not fully culpable for what they believe. What I have difficulty understanding is the beautiful purity of faith that resides in a simple, uneducated, faithful soul, is often missing in those who study the documents in order to enhance their faith, and they lose its purity as a consequence.
“Father, I praise you that you have hidden these things from the wise and clever, but revealed them to the merest children.”
And it is precisely in the fact that Paul VI made the statement that the Council avoided any infallible declarations, beyond those already made in previous Councils which VII repeated, that God’s guidance to His people is proven.
Okay, then in saying this and applying it to Vatican II you are accusing both the pope who convened the Council and the pope who promulgated it of being wrong.