Was Vatican II Infallible?

[pnewton]

Yes, we are bound for now by the Teachings of VII, and as far as they are interpreted as all Teachings of the Church have been interpreted for 2 millenia, we ought to happily submit to VII’s Teachings…

The question that must follow is* whose* interpretation and by what authority does one interpret these teachings. I think the post Vatican II era has shown not all interpret the documents and Sacred Tradition alike. Do we reduce the Catholic Church to where everyone interprets such things for themselves under the individual guidance of the Holy Spirit?

 

[una_fides]

The question that must follow is* whose* interpretation and by what authority does one interpret these teachings. I think the post Vatican II era has shown not all interpret the documents and Sacred Tradition alike. Do we reduce the Catholic Church to where everyone interprets such things for themselves under the individual guidance of the Holy Spirit?

You have brought up an excellent point. If we reduce everything to mere personal interpretation, then we are not in a much better position than the protestants are we… Nevertheless, weren’t there times when that is exactly what the faithful had to do in the face of many who were choosing to interpret Scripture and Church teaching in ways contrary to how they had been always understood. We have actually discovered the root cause of problematic interpretation results when dogmas of the Church are interpreted in ways contrary to how they have been always understood and practiced by the faithful. Vatican I condemned such interpretation, yet we see it over and over today in the midst of the modernists and their teachings, which have infested the Church to a large extent. The Church is sick and is in a state of crisis, but the gates of hell have not prevailed as there are still many within her that have remained faithful to her faith and tradition. I heard a great priest describe the following: The Church has repeatedly been described in tradition as the ark (like of Noah) and those who do not enter will “perish in the flood.” As the ark of salvation, the Church is currently in a turbulent storm of crisis of the faith, and many who claim to be in her and even some of the crewmen are trying desperately to turn her away from her destination in the midst of the storm. We know that ultimately they will never succeed in diverting her from her divine destination, but the storm and the crisis and the wolves in sheep’s clothing (those who attempt to change her course) cannot be denied.

Pertaining to Vatican II, I haven’t seen anyone on here who has claimed that it was necessarily taught error or that it should not be obeyed or that it was not authoritative. Again, our discussion is simply over the degree of assent one gives to it, whether it is infallible and demands a full assent of faith or whether it is simply a part of the Church’s ordinary magisterium (as Paul VI has explicitly stated) and as such only those teaching that have already been defined as infallible that are contained within Vatican II thereby require our full assent of faith, whereas the others demand a religious submission but could still be changed, modified, or corrected with time.

I think nomatter what, we are obliged to understand and interpret Vatican II in accord with the traditional teachings of the Church and in order to do that, we must first study and understand the faith prior to Vatican II in order to know how to rightly interpret Vatican II. There is not “old Church” and “new Church” for such would contract the very nature of the oneness of the Church and the continuation of her Tradition and calling. Just as the Church says we are to interpret Scripture with Scripture, we are to understand and interpret current teachings of the Church in light of the Traditional teachings and understandings. In the process, we remain humbly submitted to the Church’s magisterium and defer to her judgments while all the while remaining faithful to the Church’s judgments of the past.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

For reference:
Vatican I:

In this definition we treat:

1. the subject of infallibility, namely the Roman Pontiff as Pontiff, i.e., as a public person in relation to the Universal Church.
2. There is contained in the definition the act, or the quality and condition of the act of an infallible pontifical definition, i.e., the Pontiff is said to be infallible when he speaks “ex cathedra.” This formula is received in the schools, and the meaning of this formula as it is found in the very body of the definition is as follows: when the supreme Pontiff speaks “ex cathedra,” not, first of all, when he decrees something as a private teacher, nor only as the bishop and ordinary of a particular See and province, but when he teaches as exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians. Secondly, not just any manner of proposing the doctrine is sufficient even when he is exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher. Rather, there is required the manifest intention of defining doctrine, either of putting an end to a doubt about a certain doctrine or of defining a thing, giving a definitive judgment and proposing that doctrine as one which must be held by the Universal Church. This last point is indeed something intrinsic to every dogmatic definition of faith or morals which is taught by the supreme pastor and teacher of the Universal Church and which is to be held by the Universal Church. Indeed this very property and note of a definition, properly so-called, should be expressed, at least in some way, since he is defining doctrine to be held by the Universal Church.

1. There is found in the definition the principle or efficacious cause of infallibility. That principle or efficacious cause of infallibility is the protection of Christ and the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
2. There is contained in the definition the object of infallibility. Infallibility has been promised in order to guard and unfold the integral deposit of faith. From this it can easily be seen that, in general, the object of infallibility is doctrine about faith and morals. But not all truths which pertain to the doctrine of faith and Christian morals are of the same kind. Nor are they all necessary in one and the same degree in order to guard the integrity of the faith. Therefore it follows that the errors which are opposed to guarding the deposit of faith are opposed in different degrees, just as the truths themselves, to which the errors are opposed, pertain to the same deposit in different degrees. These different degrees of error are distinguished by different notes of censure.

 

[una_fides]

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

The reason I pointed out the qualifications for a papal statement to be ex cathedra and therefore be infallible is that many people think that the pope is infallible in everything he says, when it is only under certain conditions. We must also keep in mind that a pope is above a council as the head of the universal church. A General Council does not have a higher authority than the vicar of Christ. So if not everything the pope says is infallible, how can one conclude that everything a General Council says is infallible. We have teachings from the Church that say that General Councils are infallible, and I agree 100%, but there hasn’t been anything cited as of yet that says that ever individual statement coming from any future General Council is automatically infallible.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

Vatican I:

1. It is certain that the infallibility promised by God completely includes the same extent of truths whether that infallibility resides in the whole Church teaching, when it defines truths in council, or in the supreme Pontiff considered in himself. This is so since the purpose of infallibility is the same in whichever mode it is exercised.
2. In the very word of God by which infallibility, whether considered in the Pope “per se” or in the Church teaching, has been promised in order to guard the deposit of faith, there is undoubtedly contained the fact that this infallibility extends at least to those things which in themselves constitute the deposit of faith, namely, which are necessary for defining the dogmas of the faith and, what comes to the same thing, for condemning heresies. Hence it clearly is believed and must be believed as a matter of faith by all the children of holy Mother Church that the Church, is infallible in proposing and defining dogmas of faith. Now in the same manner, the infallibility of the head of the Church is not able to be revealed and defined unless, by that very fact, it is revealed and defined that the Pontiff is infallible in defining dogmas of faith.
3. But, together with revealed truths, there are, as I said a little while ago, other truths more or less strictly connected. These truths, although they are not revealed “in se,” are nevertheless required in order to guard fully, explain properly and define efficaciously the very deposit of faith. Truths of this type, therefore, to which dogmatic facts pertain “per se,” inasmuch as the deposit of faith is not able to be preserved and expounded without them, these truths, I say, concern the deposit of faith, not indeed of themselves, but as necessary for guarding that deposit of faith. All Catholic theologians completely agree that the Church, in her authentic proposal and definition of truths of this sort, is infallible, such that to deny this infallibility would, be a very grave error. A diversity of opinion turns only on the question of the degree of certitude, i.e., on whether the infallibility in proposing these truths – and therefore in proscribing errors through censures inferior to the note of heresy – should be considered a dogma of faith, so that to deny this infallibility to the Church would be heretical, or whether it is a truth not revealed in itself but one deduced from revealed dogma and as such is only theologically certain.

Now, since what must be said about the infallibility of the Pope in defining truths is completely the same as what must be said about the infallibility of the Church defining, there arises the same question about the extension of pontifical infallibility to those truths not revealed in themselves but which pertain to the guarding of the deposit of the faith. The question, I say, arises as to whether papal infallibility in defining these truths is not only theologically certain but is a dogma of the faith, exactly the same question as has arisen about the infallibility of the Church. Now, since it has seemed to members of the Deputation, by unanimous agreement, that this question should not be defined, at least not now, but should be left in the state in which it presently is, it necessarily follows, according to the opinion of the same Deputation, that the decree of faith about the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff should be seen in such a way that there is defined, as far as the object of infallibility in definitions of the Roman Pontiff is concerned, that there must be believed exactly the same thing as is believed in respect to the object of infallibility in definitions of the Church. Thus, the present definition about the object of infallibility contains two parts which are intimately connected. The first part enunciates the object of infallibility only generically, namely that it is doctrine of faith and morals. The second part of the definition distinctly sets forth this object of infallibility, not indeed by individual considerations, but by circumscribing and determining it by comparing it with the infallibility of the Church in defining, so that the very same thing must be confessed about the object of infallibility when the Pope is defining as must be confessed about the object of infallibility when the Church is defining. These two parts always have to be taken together if the true meaning of our definition is to be grasped. Therefore not only must it be said that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, when he defines doctrines about faith and morals, but that this infallibility is that infallibility which the Church enjoys. Therefore, someone who would simply assert that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines something about faith or morals has by no means comprehended the meaning of our definition. Nor is the meaning of our formula comprehended by someone who simply asserts that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines something which simply must be held by the Church. The two things must always be joined so that the meaning of our formula be correct and true. Moreover, this formula seems most suitable to express both things: “The Roman Pontiff, when he defines a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith or morals.”

 

[Gratia_Plena]

Vatican I:

Therefore, in this entire definition, the following three things are contained:

1. The Roman Pontiff, through the divine assistance promised to him, is infallible, when, by his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine which must be held by the Universal Church, or, as very many theologians say, when he definitively and conclusively proposes his judgment;
2. the object of these infallible definitions is doctrine about faith or morals;
3. in respect to the object of infallibility, generically proposed in this way, the infallibility of the Pope is neither more nor less extensive than is the infallibility of the Church in her definitions of doctrine of faith and morals. Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith. However, in respect to those things about which it is theologically certain – but not as, yet certain “de fide” – that the Church is infallible, these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility. With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of the faith, fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so, with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.

Now, as to what concerns the method for treating this, matter in our voting, most eminent and reverend fathers, you can see for yourselves that everything in our formula is so interconnected that those things which are found in the following suggested corrections - touching upon the object of papal infallibility and on the relation which exists between papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Church - are not able to be joined to our formula, nor can anything be separated from our formula. Therefore there remains nothing to do except first submit to a vote of the most reverend fathers this formula of the Deputation. But if this formula is accepted – as, with the help of God, I hope it will be – then no further votes need be sought in respect to the following suggestions, to the extent that they concern the object of papal infallibility and the relation between papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Church. This is so because, as I have just said, the matter found in these suggestions cannot be taken into our formula while saving its meaning, nor is anything able to be omitted from our formula without ruining its tight connections. Therefore a vote will first be sought in respect to our formula, and, in case it is accepted by the general congregation, another further relatio about those suggestions concerning the object of infallibility and the relation between papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Church will no longer be necessary. Therefore I think I can refrain from any further observations about these suggestions and only say something if a particular thing seems to be worthy of note.

 

[mardukm]

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.

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

 

[mardukm]

Dear Gratia Plena,

Thank you very much for the quote from Abp Gasser. Of particular note is his discussion on teachings that are NOT dogmatic, but rather merely support the dogmas. Of these, he stated:

All Catholic theologians completely agree that the Church, in her authentic proposal and definition of truths of this sort *, is infallible, such that to deny this infallibility would, be a very grave error.

Blessings,
Marduk*

 

[LeroyCRHP]

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

Hello Marduk;
Which of the 22 canons is this? From newadvent.org/cathen/11045a.htm

The council promulgated twenty-two canons relating to points of discipline, which may be summarized as follows:

Canon 1: The clergy must observe “the holy canons,” which include the Apostolic, those of the six previous Ecumenical Councils, those of the particular synods which have been published at other synods, and those of the Fathers.
Canon 2: Candidates for a bishop’s orders must know the Psalter by heart and must have read thoroughly, not cursorily, all the sacred Scriptures.
Canon 3 condemns the appointment of bishops, priests, and deacons by secular princes.
Canon 4: Bishops are not to demand money of their clergy: any bishop who through covetousness deprives one of his clergy is himself deposed.
Canon 5 is directed against those who boast of having obtained church preferment with money, and recalls the Thirtieth Apostolic Canon and the canons of Chalcedon against those who buy preferment with money.
Canon 6: Provincial synods are to be held annually.
Canon 7: Relics are to be placed in all churches: no church is to be consecrated without relics.
Canon 8 prescribes precautions to be taken against feigned converts from Judaism.
Canon 9: All writings against the venerable images are to be surrendered, to be shut up with other heretical books.
Canon 10: Against clerics who leave their own dioceses without permission, and become private chaplains to great personages.
Canon 11: Every church and every monastery must have its own œconomus.
Canon 12: Against bishops or abbots who convey church property to temporal lords.
Canon 13: Episcopal residences, monasteries and other ecclesiastical buildings converted to profane uses are to be restored their rightful ownership.
Canon 14: Tonsured persons not ordained lectors must not read the Epistle or Gospel in the ambo.
Canon 15: Against pluralities of benefices.
Canon 16: The clergy must not wear sumptuous apparel.
Canon 17: Monks are not to leave their monasteries and begin building other houses of prayer without being provided with the means to finish the same.
Canon 18: Women are not to dwell in bishops’ houses or in monasteries of men.
Canon 19: Superiors of churches and monasteries are not to demand money of those who enter the clerical or monastic state. But the dowry brought by a novice to a religious house is to be retained by that house if the novice leaves it without any fault on the part of the superior.
Canon 20 prohibits double monasteries.
Canon 21: A monk or nun may not leave one convent for another.
Canon 22: Among the laity, persons of opposite sexes may eat together, provided they give thanks and behave with decorum. But among religious persons, those of opposite sexes may eat together only in the presence of several God-fearing men and women, except on a journey when necessity compels.

 

[SemperFidelis]

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

If the pope did not intend to make use of his infallibility (which he clearly said that he did not) than no such label can apply to Vatican II, and thus it would be absurd to claim that Vatican II falls under the authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium. I have never heard nor seen of any theologian, pro-Vatican II or otherwise, who would claim what you are claiming: that Vatican II was an exercising of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Not even the staunchest defenders of the “difficult” documents of Vatican II (DH, GS, etc.) claim that Vatican II is a part of the of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Why do you feel the need to do such?
Cardinal Ratzinger:

Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II… The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.

Now how, pray tell, can “on a modest level” equal Extraordinary Magisterium?

 

[mardukm]

Hello Marduk;
Which of the 22 canons is this? From newadvent.org/cathen/11045a.htm

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

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

If the pope did not intend to make use of his infallibility (which he clearly said that he did not) than no such label can apply to Vatican II, and thus it would be absurd to claim that Vatican II falls under the authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium. I have never heard nor seen of any theologian, pro-Vatican II or otherwise, who would claim what you are claiming: that Vatican II was an exercising of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Not even the staunchest defenders of the “difficult” documents of Vatican II (DH, GS, etc.) claim that Vatican II is a part of the of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Why do you feel the need to do such?

First of all, it is not the Pope’s infallibility that is being exercised in an Ecumenical Council, but the COUNCIL’s infallibility.

Second, you ask, “why do you feel the need to do such?” However, I have not seen you offer any evidence that Vatican II was NOT an Ecumenical Council. An Ecumenical Council by definition is infallible. That is the very nature of it. The question is not why I feel the need to defend the Extraordinary magisterium of the Ecumenical Council, for that quality of an Ecumenical Council needs no defense (it is inherent). The question is why you feel the need to deny it.

Now how, pray tell, can “on a modest level” equal Extraordinary Magisterium?

The same way Christ, our supreme leader, was modest and humble. Infallibility need not be exercised with fire and brimstone, and threats of damnation or excommunication. Why you think so puzzles me.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have read through this thread with great interest.

Someone earlier brought up the Catholic Encyclopedia’s statement about the infallibility of General Councils. I think it’s worth repeating, as it seems to me pretty clear on the matter:
Catholic Encyclopedia:

Subject matter of infallibility

The subject matter of infallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the definitions and decrees of councils, and in them alone, to the exclusion of the theological, scientific, or historical reasons upon which they are built up. These represent too much of the human element, of transient mentalities, of personal interests to claim the promise of infallibility made to the Church as a whole; it is the sense of the unchanging Church that is infallible, not the sense of individual churchmen of any age or excellence, and that sense finds expression only in the conclusions of the council approved by the pope. Decisions referring to dogma were called in the East diatyposeis (constitutions, statutes); those concerned with discipline were termed kanones (canons, rules), often with the addition of tes eutaxias (of discipline, or good order). The expressions thesmoi and horoi apply to both, and the short formulae of condemnation were known as anathematismoi (anathemas).

In the West no careful distinction of terms was observed: canones and decreta signify both dogmatic and disciplinary decisions. The Council of Trent styled its disciplinary edicts decreta de reformatione; its dogmatic definitions decreta, without qualification, where they positively assert the points of faith then in dispute, and canones when, in imitation of the ancient anathematisms, they imposed an anathema sit on those that refused assent to the defined propositions. An opinion too absurd to require refutation pretends that only these latter canons (with the attached anathemas) contain the peremptory judgment of the council demanding unquestioned submission. Equally absurd is the opinion, sometimes recklessly advanced, that the Tridentine capita are no more than explanations of the canones, not proper definitions; the council itself, at the beginning and end of each chapter, declares them to contain the rule of faith. Thus Session XIII begins: “The Holy Synod forbids to all the faithful in future to believe, teach, or preach concerning the Holy Eucharist otherwise than is explained and defined in the present decree”, and it ends: “As, however, it is not enough to speak the truth without discovering and refuting error, it has pleased the Holy Synod to subjoin the following canons, so that all, now knowing the Catholic doctrine, may also understand what heresies they have to beware against and avoid.” The same remark applies to the chapters of the Vatican Council in its two Constitutions, as appears from the concluding words of the proemium of the first Constitution and from the initial phrases of most chapters. All that may be conceded is that the chapters of both councils contain the doctrina catholica, i.e. the authorized teaching of the Church, but not always and invariably dogmata formalia, i.e. propositions of faith defined as such.

According to the Church’s teaching, it appears that official decrees and definitions of councils are infallible, and that the rationale behind them, or other statements or arguments that are not official decrees or definitions, are not infallible. So the question is whether or not the statements of Vatican II are decrees or definitions.

I haven’t seen any evidence that everything said in an Ecumenical Council is infallible. In fact, such a belief contradicts what I have just quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The decrees and definitions of the ecumenical council are infallible.
Columbia University:

Clarifying terms

Now to clarify some terms. Extraordinary Magisterium refers to a special exercise of their teaching office by either the Pope and bishops together, or the Pope alone, in which a definitive judgment is given. When a General Council pronounces a solemn definition, this is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. So is an ex cathedra definition by the Pope: a decision definitively settling the question.

By contrast ordinary Magisterium refers to the exercise of the teaching office without a solemn definition being given. This is the case with the day-today teaching of bishops in their dioceses, or the greater part-almost the entire part-of the Popes teaching. (Much in these categories, however, has already been defined infallibly.)

The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church’s teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.

The extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. A definition given by a General Council or an ex cathedra definition by a Pope cannot be erroneous. Likewise, the ordinary universal Magisterium is infallible. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world’ (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.

What of the ordinary (but not universal) Magisterium? Is it infallible? No, as Vatican II indicates in the quotation above concerning statements that are not ex cathedra.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

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?”

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I expect that this passage from Lumen Gentium has already been referenced in this debate, but I thought I’d brought it up again, as it provides important illumination on the expression of the infallibility of ecumenical councils.
Lumen Gentium:

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 (LG 25).

This section explains that ecumenical councils must be adhered to with submission of faith insofar as they provide “definitions.”

This corroborates what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about ecumenical councils being capable of error in the arguments they give to support a dogmatic definition- the Encyclopedia only says the definition itself is altogether free from error, not the backing used to support it.

The infallibility of ecumenical councils should not be approached in a simplistic way. The Church does not treat it that way. Its position, as it states it, is nuanced.

 

[mardukm]

IAccording to the Church’s teaching, it appears that official decrees and definitions of councils are infallible, and that the rationale behind them, or other statements or arguments that are not official decrees or definitions, are not infallible. So the question is whether or not the statements of Vatican II are decrees or definitions.

I haven’t seen any evidence that everything said in an Ecumenical Council is infallible. In fact, such a belief contradicts what I have just quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The decrees and definitions of the ecumenical council are infallible.

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

 

[mardukm]

I guess you and I have a different understanding of what a dogma is. Here is Webster’s definition:
“a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.”
Just so we both have a correct understanding of what the word dogma means and implies, a dogma can be an innovation and there is nothing inherent in the word that infers that it must be an already established doctrine. A dogma can be something newly taught. But in this case, if you understand it to be defined in such a way that the word itself only refers to dogmas that have been established as being contained within the sacred deposit, then yes the Church could teach such things “anew” but such things would not in and of themselves be new as in newly created, which is what the word “new” seems to inevitably imply. I’m glad we clarified so we can make sure we’re on the same page.

Everything you stated is exactly what I said. I don’t understand the rationale for your first sentence. Yes, we are on the same page.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The pope is also infallible himself, but everything the pope teaches is not infallible. The difference in both cases is when that infallibility applies.

No. The Pope does not possess personal infallibility. The infallibility is inherent in the OFFICE, NOT the person of the Pope. It may be stated he is personally infallible only to the extent that he exercises the office ex cathedra.

That is different from an Ecumenical Council. An Ecumenical Council by its very nature is convened for the very purpose of TEACHING something to the Church universal in a solemn setting. Thus, it is INHERENTLY infallible (i.e., has the special protection of the Holy Spirit). She does not have to define any new dogmas; she simply has to fulfill her purpose to teach the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Joysong]

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.

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.

This last paragraph is very imortant to note that jurisdictional power extends to matters of discipline as well. Council 1 set forth definitions of infallibility regarding the Pope, but Council 2 went beyond and extended the teaching to include the Bishops, which expanded the former definition.

We find a disciplinary example recently where many of the U.S. bishops dispensed the faithful from obligatory attendance at Mass on November 1, Feast of All Saints, because it fell on a Saturday. It was within their authority to do so. If the faithful felt that his dispensation was not truly lawful and that they would commit a mortal sin for failing to attend mass, that would be a serious error in failing to give religious assent to the bishop’s official statement. Of course, many still attended the mass out of devotion, but it was not a sin to stay home. Hopefully there were no “holier-than-the-bishops” people who instructed others to disregard the dispensation.

Another instance is with regard to Friday abstinence and the fast for holy communion. These are disciplines lawfully set forth and not matters of faith or morals. I have actually encountered statements from erroneous religious ones who instruct others to continue their fast from midnight, and that they may NOT eat meat on Friday. They exert their rationale out of context from official documents in order to set aside the disciplines and allege that the magisterium is wrong. Again, one may continue the practice out of personal devotion, but it is not a “sin” to adopt the relaxed one-hour fast.

Nothing is sacred with some people, it seems, except their own private inclinations. It does a lot of harm to innocent consciences to cause this type of confusion, doubt, and lack of submission to the Shepherds who govern the Church.

 

[Joysong]

Twb1621:

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…

You’re very welcome! I don’t believe the staff is able to catch all of these links due to their workload. Many of them seem so “holy” as the web name itself would suggest. The worst one of all, Mostholyfamilymonastery, has a very devout ring to their name, huh? That’s the deception perpetrated on innocent people. I’m utterly grateful that Catholicculture takes the time to research these websites for the benefit of us all. It is a great ministry and service.

Carole