Was Vatican II Infallible?

[Lief_Erikson]

Thank you brother. As you have demonstrated, an Ecumenical Council need not define anything in order to be infallible - it merely has to fulfill its teaching purpose. As Joysong has pointed out, the Second Vatican Council made many decrees, officially so-called. True, the Council did not define anything (i.e., it did not propose new dogma), but she certainly taught infallibly nevertheless.

Blessings,
Marduk

Pope Paul VI said about the authority of each document that the council “provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium.” That is neither the Extraordinary Magisterium nor the Universal Ordinary Magesterium. The Ordinary Magesterium has authority, so I submit to its teachings on Friday fasting, the translation of the language of the Mass from Latin to other tongues, etc., as I follow the shepherds of the Church. But the pope said the council had chosen only to exercise the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium, and I believe him, so I don’t believe the council was infallible. However, as Joysong pointed out very effectively through lots of citations, it still has authority. Simply not infallible authority, according to the Pope.

Also, Cardinal Pericle Felici wrote in a theological note appended to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.”

This too shows that the “decrees” of the council are not all endowed with infallibility. Only where it is expressly stated that the Synod’s definition of faith and morals is binding is it binding. So this council is evidently different from preceeding councils. This council’s Supreme Pontiff explicitly said that the council acted with the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium. If he meant the Extraordinary, he would have said as much.

Where Vatican II declared its teaching on matters of faith and morals to be binding on the Church, they are binding. Where they do not, infallibility is not present, according to the Dogmatic Constitution. So while I submit to Vatican II, acknowledging its authority, I also accept the teaching of the pope that it was not infallible.

 

[mardukm]

Pope Paul VI said about the authority of each document that the council “provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium…But the pope said the council had chosen only to exercise the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium, and I believe him, so I don’t believe the council was infallible.”

I haven’t seen those statements at all ad dictum. Perhaps they are extrapolations of what Pope Paul VI actually stated?

Also, Cardinal Pericle Felici wrote in a theological note appended to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.”

I don’t see anything in this statement that states Vatican 2 was NOT infallible. An Ecumenical Council need not propose new dogma in order to be infallible.

This too shows that the “decrees” of the council are not all endowed with infallibility. Only where it is expressly stated that the Synod’s definition of faith and morals is binding is it binding.

If he meant the Extraordinary, he would have said as much.

If he meant that the Extraordinary magisterium was not exercised AT ALL, then he would have said so. All he stated was that the Extraordinary Magisterium was not exercised to define anything. But as already stated, which no one has yet refuted, an Ecumenical Council need not DEFINE anything in order to be infallible. It simply has to fulfill its function of teaching the Church. The convention of an Ecumenical Council is by DEFINITION an act of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium.

Where Vatican II declared its teaching on matters of faith and morals to be binding on the Church, they are binding. Where they do not, infallibility is not present, according to the Dogmatic Constitution.

What is the language normally used to indicate that a teaching is binding? Care to take a crack at the following statements from Joysong? forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4534424&postcount=74

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Can you cite official Church teaching that supports your idea that every ecumenical council is by nature infallible in everything it contains?

Where did I say that?

If not, you may want to reconsider your position…

I have not stated what you think I stated, so I don’t believe I need to reconsider my position.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Joysong]

Lief Erikson:

But the pope said the council had chosen only to exercise the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium, and I believe him, so I don’t believe the council was infallible. However, as Joysong pointed out very effectively through lots of citations, it still has authority. Simply not infallible authority, according to the Pope.

This is incorrectly stated. I’m not sure where you pulled this information from, and when a thread gets to be this long, much information is missed. You may want to look at my post #57 where it is stated officially in Vatican 1:

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.

And this quote in the same post from Vatican 1:

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.

There are NO exceptions saying that ecumenical councils are partly infallible based on certain criteria. No, the entire council’s promulgations approbated by the Pope who lawfully convened the Council are infallible. I cannot understand why this is so difficult to understand, and it comes up again and again – that because of people misunderstanding Pope Paul’s words, one can dismiss certain elements of the Council’s documents.

Maybe we can look at another source, the CCC. I can type the official document from Pope John Paul II in front of my Catechism, since it cannot be located on line, but perhaps this article will be sufficient.

III. THE AIM AND INTENDED READERSHIP OF THE CATECHISM

11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.

Now if the entire Catechism contains the whole teaching of the Church on faith and morals, we have to accept that the Vatican II’s documents DO in fact clarify and teach doctrine. Throughout the Catechism, references are made to the most important Council documents, using the abbreviations LG, DH, GS, and SC. If the Council was not infallible, then the teachings from these documents don’t belong in the Catechism. And therefore, the CCC cannot be called a faithful representation of Church doctrines and teaching on faith and morals, and Catholics are misled. I’m sure you can see how ridiculous that assumption is.

Hopefully, this will settle the matter of infallibility in these teachings.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

Thanks, I’m still learning the terminology.

Leroy

Apparently all of them proposed no new dogma. As you have stated, all the canons concern matters of discipline.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Joysong:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
But the pope said the council had chosen only to exercise the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium, and I believe him, so I don’t believe the council was infallible. However, as Joysong pointed out very effectively through lots of citations, it still has authority. Simply not infallible authority, according to the Pope.

This is incorrectly stated. I’m not sure where you pulled this information from, and when a thread gets to be this long, much information is missed. You may want to look at my post #57 where it is stated officially in Vatican 1:

Quote:
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.

Yes, that which is declared by the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium is infallible. Not that which is from the Ordinary Magesterium (except to the extent that it quotes that which has already been defined as infallible elsewhere), but that which is from the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium. The Extraordinary Magesterium is infallible, and so is the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium, which is referred to in Vatican 1, as you quoted. The Ordinary Magesterium is not.
Pope Paul VI:

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.

He says that “the nature and aims of each document” are endowed with “the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium.” Columbia University, as I cited above, states a difference between the Ordinary Magesterium and the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium. The Ordinary and Universal and the Ordinary both involve the propogation of a teaching without a solemn definition. The Ordinary and Universal differs from the Ordinary in that it is the united agreement of all, or almost all, of the Catholic bishops around the world on a doctrine. There was a lot of disagreement at Vatican II over doctrines, so this cannot be called an exercise of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium. It was, however, as Pope Paul VI said, endowed “with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium.” To this, careful attention by the faithful and religious submission is still required, even though it is not infallible.

Joysong:

Quote:
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.

There are NO exceptions saying that ecumenical councils are partly infallible based on certain criteria.

The fact that no exceptions are referred to does not mean none exist. Besides, Vatican II had not yet been summoned, so the chief exception, the council that the Pope said relied on the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium, had not yet occurred when this was written.

Joysong:

No, the entire council’s promulgations approbated by the Pope who lawfully convened the Council are infallible. I cannot understand why this is so difficult to understand, and it comes up again and again – that because of people misunderstanding Pope Paul’s words, one can dismiss certain elements of the Council’s documents.

I am not, but they do not appear to say what you say they do.

Joysong:

Maybe we can look at another source, the CCC. I can type the official document from Pope John Paul II in front of my Catechism, since it cannot be located on line, but perhaps this article will be sufficient.

Quote:
III. THE AIM AND INTENDED READERSHIP OF THE CATECHISM

11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.

Now if the entire Catechism contains the whole teaching of the Church on faith and morals, we have to accept that the Vatican II’s documents DO in fact clarify and teach doctrine.

Vatican II does seek to shed light on the interpretation of Christian truth through the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium. That’s what Paul VI said.

Joysong:

Throughout the Catechism, references are made to the most important Council documents, using the abbreviations LG, DH, GS, and SC. If the Council was not infallible, then the teachings from these documents don’t belong in the Catechism.

Says who? Show me where the Church teaches that every single thing in the Catechism is sourced to an infallible document.

Joysong:

And therefore, the CCC cannot be called a faithful representation of Church doctrines and teaching on faith and morals, and Catholics are misled. I’m sure you can see how ridiculous that assumption is.

It looks to me more like an assumption, and a very nasty one, to say that if the CCC uses the Ordinary Magesterium as well as infallible writings, “Catholics are misled.” Why is the Ordinary Magisterium’s authority so meaningless to you? Are its statements about truth all lies to you, that you would make such a definitive claim? The Ordinary Magesterium’s words and authority make a difference to me.

 

[mardukm]

Yes, that which is declared by the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium is infallible. Not that which is from the Ordinary Magesterium (except to the extent that it quotes that which has already been defined as infallible elsewhere), but that which is from the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium. The Extraordinary Magesterium is infallible, and so is the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium, which is referred to in Vatican 1, as you quoted. The Ordinary Magesterium is not.

The singular mistake in your assumption here is that an Ecumenical Council is not UNIVERSAL. Fine - believe it was an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, but you cannot deny that it was an exercise of the UNIVERSAL Ordinary Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Joysong]

Lief Erikson,

I’m not the one with problems believing the Catechism is the authentic teaching instrument regarding Catholic faith and morals. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it ISN’T the source of infallible doctrine.

Otherwise, we have nothing to discuss.

 

[una_fides]

Lief Erikson,

I’m not the one with problems believing the Catechism is the authentic teaching instrument regarding Catholic faith and morals. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it ISN’T the source of infallible doctrine.

Otherwise, we have nothing to discuss.

I’m having difficulty, as usual, understanding exactly what you meant in that statement. Are you saying that you believe that the CCC is the source of infallible doctrine? The word “source” can only mean that the CCC would therefore be the place where the doctrines were first taught. Correct? Or by “it” were you referring to something never mentioned in your post, which would be V2? And if you were referring to the CCC, why would we have the burden of proof to prove that the CCC is not a source of teaching infallible dogma when the Church herself has never said it was. The CCC is an exercise of the Church’s ordinary magisterium and it contains infallible teachings that have their source from ecumenical councils and other authentic authoritative documents of the Church. It contains binding teachings as part of the ordinary magisterium and are not infallible unless previously defined as such.

 

[una_fides]

I don’t see anything in the quote you gave indicating that the Second Vatican Council itself was not a convention of the Extraordinary Magisterium. It does NOT say that the Extraordinary Magisterium was not utilized PERIOD - rather, it ONLY says that the Extraordinary Magisterium was not utilized to pronounce dogma.

Blessings,
Marduk

What other than dogma does the Extraordinary Magisterium pronounce? The Quote from Paul VI clearly limits the scope of the Church’s magisterium to the degree of the “ordinary” in light of its “pastoral nature.” Otherwise, you are saying the pope was wrong in limiting it to the “ordinary magisterium.” May I also point out that at times I’ve seen some decent arguments, though I have not found them entirely convincing, in support of V2’s infallibility, but I have also seen some on here that have appeared to be grasping at the air or at whatever possible to try to support one’s presupposition. Let’s all, including myself, take a break and step back for a minute and remember for us all to be humble in our approach and willing to concede that we could be wrong and do our best to figure out the truth, rather than just trying to prove our positions correct. That said, in the process of putting forth our arguments that support our position, let’s all continue to be open to the other side in trying to sort this all out. We all on here seem to share the common ground that we view V2 as an exercise of the Church’s authority to which we are bound to obey and submit. In these discussions, we are merely trying to discern the extent of the authority the Church used in V2 given its inherent “pastoral nature,” and whether such a council was infallible or merely an exercise of the Church’s ordinary magisterium.

 

[una_fides]

I do have a question for una fides, or others who have a view, about this canon law:

'While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the The Church 's Magisterium College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by a definitive act (Canon 752).

What, according to the Church, is the meaning of “a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given . . .”? The fact that “assent of faith is not required,” appears to say that we don’t have to believe that which is not infallibly defined. However, do you have any idea what the teaching of the Church is on the boundaries and meaning of “religious submission?”

That’s an excellent question. Perhaps one that merits its own thread? I have not seen much written defining exactly what “religious submission” is. It would seem by definition it is a submitting of one’s will as an act of religious obedience, but since that degree does not include the requirement of an affirmation of faith, then one is still free to question and perhaps even to disagree if done with a well formed and sincere conscience though he is nevertheless bound to submit. I think often the nature of such teachings themselves most often include matters of discipline rather than dogmas of the faith in which case they involve simple obedience to the laws or norms of the Church. Thus, if the Church says that the Mass can contain parts in the vulgar tongue, as V2 stated, then we accept this fact with a religious submission of will. Rather than rebel and state that such masses are invalid or any other such absurd things, we submit to the Church’s ordinary teaching authority.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The singular mistake in your assumption here is that an Ecumenical Council is not UNIVERSAL. Fine - believe it was an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, but you cannot deny that it was an exercise of the UNIVERSAL Ordinary Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk

Blessings to you too!

The Ecumenical Council is itself certainly universal. However, you’re missing the point I was making about the difference between the Ordinary and the Ordinary and Universal Magesteriums. Here’s what I wrote on the matter to Joysong:

[Pope Paul VI]
says that “the nature and aims of each document” are endowed with “the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium.” Columbia University, as I cited above, states a difference between the Ordinary Magesterium and the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium. The Ordinary and Universal and the Ordinary both involve the propogation of a teaching without a solemn definition. The Ordinary and Universal differs from the Ordinary in that it is the united agreement of all, or almost all, of the Catholic bishops around the world on a doctrine. There was a lot of disagreement at Vatican II over doctrines, so this cannot be called an exercise of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium. It was, however, as Pope Paul VI said, endowed “with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium.” To this, careful attention by the faithful and religious submission is still required, even though it is not infallible.

The Church also teaches that the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium is in effect when “the bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.” The popes have been quite clear that the bishops were not acting in Vatican II as “judges” offering “definitive declarations,” for they said that theirs was a pastoral council that did not issue any new dogmatic definitions, and that it was acting in the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium.

Besides, if all the teaching of the council was infallible whether they offered dogmatic definitions or not, the Pope’s statement that they were not making use of the extraordinary magesterium to define dogma would be rendered all but irrelevant. The “dogma” of ecumenical councils, if equal to everything else said by the ecumenical council, scarcely needs a special name . The pope’s point therefore appears logically to have been that they were not making any new infallible statements. “Dogma” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.” Therefore, according to the Pope, there were no new “doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by the Church” at Vatican II.

It’s also worth noting that given that this is the case (considering the meaning of the word “dogma”), there can be no case that the council made use of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium, even if all the points I made above about this were wrong. For the exercise of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium requires that the bishops and pope, at an ecumenical council, “definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.”

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Joysong:

Lief Erikson,

I’m not the one with problems believing the Catechism is the authentic teaching instrument regarding Catholic faith and morals. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it ISN’T the source of infallible doctrine.

Otherwise, we have nothing to discuss.

You are mixing terms such as “authority” or “authentic,” when reading the V2 documents, with the term “infallible,” and saying without support that these terms mean exactly the same thing. That is the basis you’ve been providing for your position. You’ve left your assertion that the Catechism is wholly infallible as just that, an assertion, and seem to feel that’s good enough. The burden of proof is not on me, but on you to justify your claim that the Catechism is altogether infallible.

However, as I love to research, I’ll work on this too .

Goes and researches.

Pope John Paul II said that the Catechism was “a sure norm of faith.” That’s the closest I can find to anything saying it’s “infallible.” It’s certainly pushing his language, though, to say that these words mean, “an altogether infallible declaration of faith.” The Catechism is a wonderful document outlining the faith of the Catholic Church. As such, it is “a sure norm of faith.” It cites a vast number of infallible documents too, which means large sections of it are certainly infallible. The teachings of the Early Church Fathers are also “a sure norm of faith.” When I read them, I read the teaching of the Catholic Church. The ECFs are not infallible in all they say, though.

Here’s the official statement about the Catechism, on this issue, on the Diocese of Madison’s website:
Diocese of Madison:

Q11. Is the Catechism infallible?
What parts are infallible?
Are we as lay faithful required to obey all pertinent commands?

Answer: An answer offered by Brad Klingele, diocesan coordinator of young adult ministries… The Catechism contains many quotes and various sources, so it’s not as though it’s “just” pronouncements. The Catechism has many infallible portions. There are levels of authority to the Catechism based on who said what. Infallibility in the strict and full sense is applied to Conciliar and Papal teachings - and these would always be rather short and specific formulae. The CCC contains many such things, but you would never have a text of book length described as infallible in its totality. From a council, a statement is infallible if it was a solemnly defined doctrine. If a Pope pronounces something on either faith or morals in a definitive manner it is considered infallible. If a pope says something from the chair of Peter on faith or morals to all of the faithful, it is considered an infallible statement. There are other high levels of pronouncements that have great weight, but these two are the biggies. One can also argue that if it has been the self-understanding of the Church in practice and prayer, it may not need to have been solemnly defined to be infallible. Then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI stressed the importance to obey the Church and basically not to quibble about ‘levels’ of authority in statements. The CCC as a whole is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, and as such even the non-infallible points are to be received by the faithful with “religious assent.” In short, the Catechism is the teaching of the Church and should be understood to have authority for our lives. See CCC 892 below: 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

madisondiocese.org/Ministry/EvangelizationandCatechesis/ProgramsandEvents/DiocesanLayInstitute/ParticipantsPage/ParticipantQA/tabid/290/Default.aspx

 

[Lief_Erikson]

That’s an excellent question. Perhaps one that merits its own thread? I have not seen much written defining exactly what “religious submission” is. It would seem by definition it is a submitting of one’s will as an act of religious obedience, but since that degree does not include the requirement of an affirmation of faith, then one is still free to question and perhaps even to disagree if done with a well formed and sincere conscience though he is nevertheless bound to submit. I think often the nature of such teachings themselves most often include matters of discipline rather than dogmas of the faith in which case they involve simple obedience to the laws or norms of the Church. Thus, if the Church says that the Mass can contain parts in the vulgar tongue, as V2 stated, then we accept this fact with a religious submission of will. Rather than rebel and state that such masses are invalid or any other such absurd things, we submit to the Church’s ordinary teaching authority.

That’s how I’ve been understanding it. That’s the main way I can see it as different from the “assent of faith” that the exercise of the Ordinary Magesterium does not require of Catholics. I was mainly wondering if we have the right to express disagreement (respectfully), or if that is excluded by our necessary religious submission.

I suspect the Church would be all right with some of her flock saying they disagree with some of her Ordinary teaching. I doubt that this violates religious submission, though I wish I could know for sure.

 

[Just_Lurking]

It’s also worth noting that given that this is the case (considering the meaning of the word “dogma”), there can be no case that the council made use of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium, even if all the points I made above about this were wrong. For the exercise of the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium requires that the bishops and pope, at an ecumenical council, “definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.”

In case you are interested, see post #36 of the thread Teachings of VII (see here) for an argument by Yves Congar concerning an possible infallible definition of the council.

 

[Joysong]

This thread has become a virtual spin on whether or not the V-II Council proclaimed infallible doctrine. There is no point in my further debate here because the agenda is still prevalent; i.e., to eliminate the existence its infallibility so that one may dismiss the decrees they disagree with, and horrors teach others to do likewise.

I will most faithfully adhere to the teaching that the V-II decrees are infallible, and that the CCC promulgated by Pope John Paul II teaches the Council’s doctrines, and is a most certain guide for my faith.

When the pundits contact Rome to learn whether or not they are expounding this matter truthfully, I might listen. Until then, these opinions are nothing more than private interpretation.

Caveat emptor.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

I’m with you Joysong. Our great leader The Pope spoke and the church became better. There are so many things we should be doing to help the poor in body and spirit.

God Bless
Leroy

This thread has become a virtual spin on whether or not the V-II Council proclaimed infallible doctrine. There is no point in my further debate here because the agenda is still prevalent; i.e., to eliminate the existence its infallibility so that one may dismiss the decrees they disagree with, and horrors teach others to do likewise.

I will most faithfully adhere to the teaching that the V-II decrees are infallible, and that the CCC promulgated by Pope John Paul II teaches the Council’s doctrines, and is a most certain guide for my faith.

When the pundits contact Rome to learn whether or not they are expounding this matter truthfully, I might listen. Until then, these opinions are nothing more than private interpretation.

Caveat emptor.

 

[una_fides]

I’m with you Joysong. Our great leader The Pope spoke and the church became better. There are so many things we should be doing to help the poor in body and spirit.

God Bless
Leroy

In what ways do you feel the Church “became better” since V2?

Here are a few things to consider:

• Has Mass attendance increased or decreased?
• Has the liturgy become more or less stable (i.e. more or less variations and abuses)?
• Have the people increased or decreased in their acceptance of the teachings of the Catholic Church?
  • on that note, has belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist increased or decreased since the focus has been shifted in the Mass less on God and more on the people?
• Have the number of vocations to the priesthood increased or decreased since V2?
• Have protestant churches had a similar fall out of vocations and religious adherents as the Catholic Church has in the past 40 years? (I recommend researching this one, as it may surprise you.)

I could continue the list for a while, but I think you get the point… I’m not saying that nothing at all good can be argued to have come since the council, I’m just saying that overall the Church is in a state of serious moral and doctrinal crisis right now, and it may take a Vatican 3 to sort it all out.

 

[una_fides]

That’s how I’ve been understanding it. That’s the main way I can see it as different from the “assent of faith” that the exercise of the Ordinary Magesterium does not require of Catholics. I was mainly wondering if we have the right to express disagreement (respectfully), or if that is excluded by our necessary religious submission.

I suspect the Church would be all right with some of her flock saying they disagree with some of her Ordinary teaching. I doubt that this violates religious submission, though I wish I could know for sure.

I’ve been pondering the same thing. Unfortunately, I haven’t found much on the subject, but I’m sure there’s got to be some more complete explanation of religious assent out there to be found… I personally think that if the Church in her ordinary magisterium deviates from Tradition, then we can rightly and should rightly and humbly petition her and make such apparent to her with a religious submission to her absolute authority over us here on earth. Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against her, but he did not promise that many or even at some time that most of her priests or even bishops would not deviate from the truth and teach error, as is exemplified at the time of the Arian heresy. I think most importantly is that we pray and remain humble and submitted to her authority, and at the same time, we hold fast to the Traditions that have been handed on from the apostles and throughout the centuries understanding them in the same sense as the Church has always understood them.
If you find any documents expounding upon religious assent, please do share.

 

[una_fides]

This thread has become a virtual spin on whether or not the V-II Council proclaimed infallible doctrine. There is no point in my further debate here because the agenda is still prevalent; i.e., to eliminate the existence its infallibility so that one may dismiss the decrees they disagree with, and horrors teach others to do likewise.

Has anyone on here that has taken the position that V2 is not infallible said that it is not something to which we are to give religious submission? I think that many of those who wish to argue that it is infallible then try to interpret its often times vague statements to fit with whatever new theological notions they wish it to mean. For example, many will try to interpret V2’s comments on religious liberty to mean that everyone has a right to pursue whatever religion that their conscience tells them is right. However, to interpret it in such a way contradicts what previous popes have solemnly defined as heresy. No one has a right to objectively commit sin, no matter how sincere or ignorant he or she is when doing it. The person may or may not be culpable for their action, depending on the degree of their ignorance (invincible = not culpable); however, they do not have a right to do illicit behavior, which would include offering false worship. If one has difficulty reconciling a part of V2 with previous solemn teachings of the Church, he or she is bound to say at that point that they don’t understand but that there must be a way to do so. If V2 is non-infallible, then this gives the sincere reader the ability to also say that perhaps there was a slight error of wording in the document that may need to be clarified or revised at some point. This fact would not, however, let the person disregard the teaching as requiring a religious submission to it as coming from the authority of the Church.

Like I’ve repeated many times on this thread, we must interpret V2 in light of the rest of the Church’s tradition and understand it as such. We cannot interpret it in isolation from tradition for, just as with the Bible, to do so results in one simply interpreting in the way he or she wants it to mean. That result is inevitable and has resulted in over 20-30,000+ protestant denominations in the case of interpreting Scripture. We must understand and interpret what the Church is teaching now with what she has always taught faithfully throughout the centuries. She is the same one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and her teachings are not up for “re-interpretation.” They must be understood in the same sense as the Church of all time has always intended them to be understood. To do anything otherwise is to deviate from the path of truth and to inevitably fall into error.