Was Vatican II Infallible?

[una_fides]

Una Fides,

Now that you have informed us of your “clarified position” it tells me that we are not in agreement and I see no purpose in entering a document war, for you are firm in your opinion, as I am in mine. You bear full responsibility, spiritually, for whatever truths or errors you circulate.

So you disagree with the contents from post #7? Remember that you also bear the same responsibility as far as propagating truth or error. Do you believe that truth can be true one day and then error the next?

 

[Joysong]

So you disagree with the contents from post #7?

I think the key regardless of whether it was or was not infallible is that Vatican II as a council of the same 2000 year old Church absolutely must be interpreted according to the Church’s established tradition.

I disagree with any person who engages in peripheral reading and private interpretation of what they “think” the documents mean, and then takes it to the internet to promote their objections as absolute truth, when the Vatican has not so stated. This is a scandalous disruption of unity and charity that should be existent among ALL the members of the Mystical Body of Christ and pitts one view against another making rash judgments and charges of heresy, liberalism, and the like [on both sides, incidentally].

The final teaching of what the Church’s documents mean must come only from that Authority. To my knowledge, there is no such pronouncement coming from the Church declaring She has erred. Until there is, I do not believe a Catholic who loves the Church should spread dissension to fracture both unity and submission to the Magisterium, and teach others to do likewise based on their analysis of these documents. When they become bishop, maybe then I’ll be ready to listen.

For this reason, I will follow my own advice and [try hard] not engage in document wars that are only a matter of private opinion and serve to open the door to disunity. [Unless I perceive there is error classified as ‘gravissima’ that will due much harm to the faithful]

So, Una, it has been nice. For now, I am exiting.

 

[ProVobis]

That is not true in any way, my friend, Maurin. With a single trip to Catholicculture.org for a site review of certain websites marked “danger,” you will quickly see that there are many traditionalists who are not “sedevantist” (i.e., reject the last 5 papacies) but who reject the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II documents. It was this type of traditionalist that I was referring to … certainly NOT the loyal, devout, obedient traditionalist for whom I have the deepest respect and fraternity.
The list is long, and you would be surprised to note that these sites are frequently quoted here in the T.C. forum.

First of all, the Novus Ordo Mass is not the Vatican II Mass. Second, why would anyone in his right mind reject the relaxation of rules regarding abstinence on Fridays, Saturday fulfillment of the Sabbath obligation, mortal sins, communion in hand, fasting before communion, altar serving, Latin, and on and on? This is whom you call “loyal, devout, and obedient”? It’s more like the satisfied camper who just found a shortcut to heaven.

 

[una_fides]

I disagree with any person who engages in peripheral reading and private interpretation of what they “think” the documents mean, and then takes it to the internet to promote their objections as absolute truth, when the Vatican has not so stated. This is a scandalous disruption of unity and charity that should be existent among ALL the members of the Mystical Body of Christ and pitts one view against another making rash judgments and charges of heresy, liberalism, and the like [on both sides, incidentally].

The final teaching of what the Church’s documents mean must come only from that Authority.

I agree that the way to interpret the Church’s teachings have to come by an interpretation coming from the Church’s magisterium. For this reason, I hold to Tradition, as have all the saints before me. We understanding the new teachings of the Church in light of the old infallible ones. The Church cannot change truth. We must humbly accept the teachings of the Church for what they are and what they mean within the context of the tradition in which they were written. It is the protestants who fail to interpret Scripture in light of the Tradition in which it was written and handed down and because of this reason they are so splintered. The way we know the truth is to cling steadfastly to the traditions we have received both oral and written as St. Paul instructs us (2 Thes 2:15).

To my knowledge, there is no such pronouncement coming from the Church declaring She has erred.

Here is where you are misjudging me. I never said that the Church erred in teaching, but I do believe as I have repeatedly stated on here that the documents themselves are vague and are easily misunderstood when not interpreted in light of tradition. It even appears as if Pope Benedict XVI may have misinterpreted V2 on religious liberty in his describing it as a “counter-syllabus”; however, I prefer to read such in a different light giving him the benefit of the doubt. In the context of that passage, I believe he is not referring to it as an absolute counter-syllabus but “in a sense” meaning that the Syllabus of Errors was set against the culture and in opposition to it whereas Dignitatis Humanae was geared to embrace current culture and accept religious liberty in the sense of freedom from force and freedom of the will but not liberty in the sense of an absolute right from God.

For this reason, I will follow my own advice and [try hard] not engage in document wars that are only a matter of private opinion and serve to open the door to disunity. [Unless I perceive there is error classified as ‘gravissima’ that will due much harm to the faithful]

It is quite a dangerous thing to rely on one’s private interpretations. I suggest relying on the interpretations from endless documents written over the Church’s 2000 years prior to Vatican II and then read Vatican II in this light and try one’s best to make sense of it then.
If you are only commenting on what you perceive to be the most gravest of errors that do much harm to the faithful, then one would conclude that you view traditional Catholicism and the approach to interpret the new in the light of the old as being a grave error. I’m sorry but all the popes and saints are against you here. Even Pope Benedict XVI has emphasized the importance of holding sacred and true the same things as previous generations have held to be sacred and true. Truth cannot change. Understand that, and I think we will be able to dialogue. Until then, I don’t think we share the common ground needed to be able to build upon.

 

[una_fides]

First of all, the Novus Ordo Mass is not the Vatican II Mass.

This is a very important point you raised that often goes overlooked. What emerged from Vatican II in the realm of abuses and bad translations was not in any way intended or implied. Nowhere in V2 does it instruct the priest to face the people, communion rails be removed from churches, altars be replaced with tables, Communion in the hand, or any of the other innovations that resulted. The Church can also dispense of these “people pleasing” aspects at any time, and I am of the humble opinion that for the sake of the truth that she should do so asap.

Can you imagine how the world would react? What do you think would be the result of such a decision?

 

[Joysong]

If you are only commenting on what you perceive to be the most gravest of errors that do much harm to the faithful, then one would conclude that you view traditional Catholicism and the approach to interpret the new in the light of the old as being a grave error. I’m sorry but all the popes and saints are against you here.

Until then, I don’t think we share the common ground needed to be able to build upon.

A perfect classic example of “spin,” Una. This was again NOT my meaning, and I think you well know that. Read my words correctly please in the light they were written, which clearly stated that I will refrain from document wars [in the future] UNLESS I [would ‘happen’ to stumble upon] harmful errors of the gravest kind. It is future tense in the most certain sense of my words and does not lead anyone to draw your insulting conclusion that popes and saints are against me!

For this reason, I will follow my own advice and [try hard] not engage in document wars that are only a matter of private opinion and serve to open the door to disunity. [Unless I perceive there is error classified as ‘gravissima’ that will due much harm to the faithful]

Consequently, you would have me believe that on this second occasion of rashly misinterpreting my very simple statements, that you thoroughly grasp the intended meaning of lengthly complex papal documents.

Good day.

 

[una_fides]

Joysong,

Your contempt for a traditional approach to Catholicism is obvious from your other posts regardless of how one reads each post you send out. You also have still to answer the question I have repeatedly asked on here concerning whether truth can be true one day and then later become error. It also makes sense to me why you have chosen to not answer me before when I asked you whether you adhered to the oath against modernism: papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

– “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ” (Saint Athanasius, AD 373).

 

[RJames]

Joysong:

The final teaching of what the Church’s documents mean must come only from that Authority. To my knowledge, there is no such pronouncement coming from the Church declaring She has erred.

Nor will there ever be. The idea of the Church erring in the doctrinal issue concerning faith and morals is impossible.

Joysong:

Until there is, I do not believe a Catholic who loves the Church should spread dissension to fracture both unity and submission to the Magisterium, and teach others to do likewise based on their analysis of these documents. When they become bishop, maybe then I’ll be ready to listen.

The Authority you speak of consists of the Pope and the Bishops and their auxiliaries, which includes the Parish priest. This is how the faith is preached to the faithful.

You say, and rightly so, that this authority has the duty and the charge to explain the Church’s teaching to the faithful. And the faithful have a duty of submission to these teachers (hearing the preaching of the Church is the primary rule of faith for a Catholic).

So when a member of this authority preaches something contrary to what is commonly known by the faithful to be Catholic doctrine they (the member in a position of authority) are not to be actively opposed but only “somehow reported to Rome”.

In the mean time, if I understand you, the faithful are to secretly tell others in the parish not to listen to this priest, tell them that he is wrong, thus undermining his teaching authority. Then, according to the ideas you have presented here in many, many posts, it appears that one should not do anything to fracture unity, so we may not even tell others what is know is wrong.

But what is the object of this “unity” to which you refer? A political unity or a unity of faith?

 

[Unitas]

I think Pope Paul VI’s statement is pretty clear. Obviously VII was a valid council. No one is arguing to the contrary. The council certainly had the capacity to teach infallibly. But the council chose not to invoke it. Pope Paul VI said that they chose to teach from the capacity of the ordinary magisterium, which is not protected from error.

By that am I implying that the documents of VII contain error? No, I am not. All I’m saying is that it is possible they contain error.

We can all play armchair theologians and discuss nuance and ambiguity, but we must remember that when it comes to interpretation and guidance, there is no promise that we will get a banquet every time. Sometimes it will be only bread and water. The only promise we have is that we will not starve. By this I mean that sometimes what is written or interpreted will not always the very best way it could have been done. But it won’t be an outright contradiction.

Even under the ordinary magisterium, VII still carries authority. Just like the papal encyclicals we love to quote from as evidence in debate. In my opinion the documents were poorly written and could have been much more clear, and could have included much more context. Bread and water. But until the Vatican releases more clarifications on the documents, that is all I think VII may or may not say will remain: my opinion.

The modernists, brewing in the Church for about 100 years prior, seized their chance at VII and purposely made the documents ambiguous in many areas for later abuse. The ambiguity also served to protect against out-and-out contradiction: plausible deniability. But that’s not to say there is no way at all they can be reconciled with tradition. I believe they can, but I’m in no position to try. (Y’know what? I think I will anyway, but I’ll make a new thread.)

My two cents.

 

[RJames]

Unitas:

Pope Paul VI said that they chose to teach from the capacity of the ordinary magisterium, which is not protected from error.

Can you quote the exact wording and document where you think Paul VI says this?

 

[Unitas]

Can you quote the exact wording and document where you think Paul VI says this?

Read the OP.

 

[RJames]

Read the OP.

OK. Here it is:

“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).

Note that this is after the close of the Council.

So the council avoided making any “extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility”.

I take it you think this means extraordinary statements are the only thing endowed with the note of infallibility. That is not a correct inference though. The statement only means what it says.

The quest is what is the proper understanding of "the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium’. What is the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium and is it subject to the protection of the Holy Ghost, as in the Infallibility of the Church. An Ecumenical Council with the acceptance of the Pope is infallible as far as everything I have read has indicated.

The statement below is unclear, IMHO:

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

Is Paul VI hinting here that the Council might be abused? You must believe and submit to it, but according to the “mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document”.

Where does one find the “mind” of the Council and the “nature and aims of each document”?

 

[Unitas]

I take it you think this means extraordinary statements are the only thing endowed with the note of infallibility.

This is from Newadvent concerning Infallibility:

Organs of Infallibility:

. . .]

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ’s promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences – unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

So yes, definitions are infallible. The explanations and argumentations are not. Paul VI said that the council refrained from making definitive decrees. So what we have left is explanations and argumentations (treating already-existing decrees) from the ordinary magisterium that are not infallible.

 

[Daviin]

So when a member of this authority preaches something contrary to what is commonly known by the faithful to be Catholic doctrine they (the member in a position of authority) are not to be actively opposed but only “somehow reported to Rome”.

 

[I_Believe]

OK. Here it is:“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).

Note that this is after the close of the Council.

So the council avoided making any “extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility”.

… The statement only means what it says.

…Is Paul VI hinting here that the Council might be abused? You must believe and submit to it, but according to the “mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document”.

Where does one find the “mind” of the Council and the “nature and aims of each document”?

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.

1. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

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…


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…

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes: “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” (February 1979).

Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy” (Milestones, page 148).

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

 

[Joysong]

Una Fides:

Your contempt for a traditional approach to Catholicism is obvious from your other posts regardless of how one reads each post you send out.

More flaming, Una? Third example in just a few days of being unable to correctly read my posts. My guess is you have a personal vendetta that causes you to attack with a forked pen. Read my words just a very few posts ago which prove I am not in any way wearing the robe you attempt to clothe me with.

It was this type of traditionalist that I was referring to … certainly NOT the loyal, devout, obedient traditionalist for whom I have the deepest respect and fraternity

 

[maurin]

More flaming, Una? Third example in just a few days of being unable to correctly read my posts. My guess is you have a personal vendetta that causes you to attack with a forked pen. Read my words just a very few posts ago which prove I am not in any way wearing the robe you attempt to clothe me with.

“methinks you doth protest too much.”

take it easy joysong…when you make what you believe to be “observations”, then you call them “observations.” When someone else does it, it becomes “flaming.”

It is difficult to have a reasonable conversation with someone who, when reason or pertinent responses fails her, reverts to inappropriate appeals to emotion by using words such as “flaming” and “vendetta.”

Maybe if you simply responded to the questions asked you wouldn’t need be on the defensive.

Noone here is claiming that the Teachings of VII need be ignored. On the Contrary, people are claiming that they need to be followed and interpreted in the light of Traditional Teachings.

You fail, it seems to me, to see any distinction between the two.

 

[mardukm]

Dear una fides,

Since the ordinary magisterium is not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be free from error, can the Church revoke the vague passages in Vatican II and reassert her clearer more direct approach as she has used in the past? And if so, do you think she should, and what would be the effect?

EVERY Ecumenical Council BY DEFINITION is infallible. The Fifth Ecumenical Council was a Council that made NO new pronouncement of dogma, but was only disciplinary in nature (to posthumously try and convict three individuals). Would you deny that the Fifth Ecumenical Council was infallible?

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?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[una_fides]

Dear una fides,

EVERY Ecumenical Council BY DEFINITION is infallible. The Fifth Ecumenical Council was a Council that made NO new pronouncement of dogma, but was only disciplinary in nature (to posthumously try and convict three individuals). Would you deny that the Fifth Ecumenical Council was infallible?

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?

Blessings,
Marduk

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.

 

[una_fides]

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?