Was Vatican II Infallible?

[Bruno_Schulz]

**As the opener of the thread pointed out: In view of the pastoral nature of the second Vatican Council, it never spoke of any dogma. Infallibility
is bounded to dogmas only. All other statements and communiqués are lectureship that do not carry the state of dogmas.
A loving parent gives the children many words of maxims, the child - if it obeys truly earns a lot of advantages. So do we, if we listen to pastoral advice (as the Pope yesterday announced his disgust at human cloning and usage of embryos for medical research).

Now, earth and our live owns a great lot of maxims that are accepted as absolute true. We’d never disobey them, for that would harm us a lot. Let’s take the pastoral advice and doctrine as such.
This doctrine though, is not dogma!

Dogma is the truth of the faith in God and contains fundamental verities that have to be believed as so, and as precondition to be Catholic; such as the physical resurrection of Christ, or the physical admittance of Holy Mary, mother of Jesus Christ, into heaven.

Actually, there are very few dogmas. Right now I can’t find how many exactly, (next week I know). However; dogmas of the Rom. Cath. Church in any case are the the one and only ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
**

 

[maurin]

The Merry Go Round is still spinning, huh?

If they don’t believe Paul VI, why would they believe us?

 

[Joysong]

For this my last post in this contentious thread, I would like to remind certain posters that they resemble the argumentative pharisees who demanded the gentile converts give strict observance to their “traditions” — possibly to the point of death for those who disobeyed. “Whoever does not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let strict judgment be executed upon him, whether death, or corporal punishment, or a fine on his goods, or imprisonment.” [Ezra 7:26]

But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.” [Acts 15:5]

To their great disappointment, the apostles in the first Council of Jerusalem set aside the prescriptions of the “traditional” Mosaic Law. Scripture doesn’t record their reaction, but I would imagine some were highly indignant, possibly circulating rumors that the council was not infallible, since the apostles violated and contradicted traditional concepts of the Law. How can this be from God, who does not contradict Himself? And so on, and so on.

These holy ones neglected the right of the Holy Spirit to inspire “infallibly” the new direction the Church was taking, and believed that their interpretation was the more correct one. I suspect many of them deflected from the Church in anger. Those who were listening to the Church and the Holy Spirit remained and gave assent. I believe this submission to lawful authority separates the wheat from the chaff, even when there “appears” to be contradiction to former decrees.

‘It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’" [Acts 15:28]

And to this, I also say, Farewell.

 

[maurin]

The Merry Go Round is still spinning, huh?

If they don’t believe Paul VI, why would they believe us?

For this my last post in this contentious thread, I would like to remind certain posters that they resemble the argumentative pharisees who demanded the gentile converts give strict observance to their “traditions” — possibly to the point of death for those who disobeyed. “Whoever does not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let strict judgment be executed upon him, whether death, or corporal punishment, or a fine on his goods, or imprisonment.” Ezra 7:26

To their great disappointment, the apostles in the first Council of Jerusalem set aside the prescriptions of the “traditional” Mosaic Law. Scripture doesn’t record their reaction, but I would imagine some were highly indignant, possibly circulating rumors that the council was not infallible, since the apostles violated and contradicted traditional concepts of the Law. How can this be from God, who does not contradict Himself? And so on, and so on.

These holy ones neglected the right of the Holy Spirit to inspire “infallibly” the new direction the Church was taking, and believed that their interpretation was the more correct one. I suspect many of them deflected from the Church in anger. Those who were listening to the Church and the Holy Spirit remained and gave assent. I believe this submission to lawful authority separates the wheat from the chaff, even when there appears to be contradiction.

And to this, I also say, Farewell.

see what I mean?

 

[una_fides]

For this my last post in this contentious thread, I would like to remind certain posters that they resemble the argumentative pharisees who demanded the gentile converts give strict observance to their “traditions” — possibly to the point of death for those who disobeyed. “Whoever does not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let strict judgment be executed upon him, whether death, or corporal punishment, or a fine on his goods, or imprisonment.” [Ezra 7:26]

To their great disappointment, the apostles in the first Council of Jerusalem set aside the prescriptions of the “traditional” Mosaic Law. Scripture doesn’t record their reaction, but I would imagine some were highly indignant, possibly circulating rumors that the council was not infallible, since the apostles violated and contradicted traditional concepts of the Law. How can this be from God, who does not contradict Himself? And so on, and so on.

These holy ones neglected the right of the Holy Spirit to inspire “infallibly” the new direction the Church was taking, and believed that their interpretation was the more correct one. I suspect many of them deflected from the Church in anger. Those who were listening to the Church and the Holy Spirit remained and gave assent. I believe this submission to lawful authority separates the wheat from the chaff, even when there “appears” to be contradiction to former decrees.

And to this, I also say, Farewell.

Two serious errors in this section that must be addressed. First, you are confusing “traditions of men” with “sacred Tradition.” This error is common to protestant thinking as they are opposed to Catholic tradition as it contradicts their private interpretations of the Bible. Joysong, I suggest you be cautious when you hear such protestant teachings emerge and that you hold to the unchangeable Tradition of the Church.

I realize now why you earlier never answered me when I asked whether you believed that truth can be true one day and false the next. It seems as though you interpret that Vatican II has contradicted previous teaching that the Church has infallibly defined to be true. If something does not contain any error whatsoever one day, how can it contain error the next? It is impossible by the definitions of truth and error. Why would one be Catholic at all and hold to such an understanding of truth as changeable? Perhaps you believe that tomorrow the Church could assemble a General Council and decide the the Real Presence is no longer real but just figurative. It is impossible and defies the very nature of the Catholic Church and truth itself.

to be continued…

 

[una_fides]

For this my last post in this contentious thread, I would like to remind certain posters that they resemble the argumentative pharisees who demanded the gentile converts give strict observance to their “traditions” — possibly to the point of death for those who disobeyed. “Whoever does not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let strict judgment be executed upon him, whether death, or corporal punishment, or a fine on his goods, or imprisonment.” [Ezra 7:26]

To their great disappointment, the apostles in the first Council of Jerusalem set aside the prescriptions of the “traditional” Mosaic Law. Scripture doesn’t record their reaction, but I would imagine some were highly indignant, possibly circulating rumors that the council was not infallible, since the apostles violated and contradicted traditional concepts of the Law. How can this be from God, who does not contradict Himself? And so on, and so on.

These holy ones neglected the right of the Holy Spirit to inspire “infallibly” the new direction the Church was taking, and believed that their interpretation was the more correct one. I suspect many of them deflected from the Church in anger. Those who were listening to the Church and the Holy Spirit remained and gave assent. I believe this submission to lawful authority separates the wheat from the chaff, even when there “appears” to be contradiction to former decrees.

And to this, I also say, Farewell.

A serious error is present in this post that must be addressed. It seems this post has confused the “traditions of men” with “sacred Tradition.” This error is commonly proposed by protestants as they are opposed to Catholic tradition since it contradicts their private interpretations of the Bible. Here is a site that explains the difference between the two types of tradition, one that Christ condemned and the other that Christ himself taught and that Scripture tells us to cling to (2 Thes 2:15). ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PILLAR.htm Here is the relevant text:

Sacred Tradition

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere traditions of men, which are more commonly called customs or disciplines. Jesus sometimes condemned customs or disciplines, but only if they were contrary to God’s commands. He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn’t even condemn all man-made tradition.

Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways the Church hands on the gospel. Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary’s perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition, although they are also implicitly present in (and not contrary to) the Bible. The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with customs and disciplines, such as the rosary, priestly celibacy, and not eating meat on Fridays in Lent. These are good and helpful things, but they are not doctrines. Sacred Tradition preserves doctrines first taught orally by Jesus to the apostles and later passed down to us through the apostles’ successors, the bishops.

Christ also never condemned the Word of God, which it appears you are equating to be “the traditions of men.” You see, when Christ condemned the traditions of men, He was condemning the extra-biblical traditions that the pharisees had created themselves, also known as “a hedge about the law.” The pharasees in Christ’s day had made up traditions of discipline to aid people to not possibly come close to actually breaking the Mosaic law. (The Mosaic law btw was divine revelation, and our records in Scripture of such are inspired by the same Holy Spirit of truth who inspired the New Testament). An example of their extra-biblical tradition would be that they proscribed that no one could lift anything that weighed more than an egg on the sabbath so as to not be considered coming close to possibly doing “work.” Christ condemned such traditions. Also keep in mind that the Jews were never given the charism of teaching infallibility but the Church has been given that charism. Lastly, the teachings Christ condemned were not regarding dogma, they were regarding discipline. HUGE difference.

Joysong, I suggest you be cautious when you hear such protestant teachings emerge and that you hold to the unchangeable Tradition of the Church. I realize now why you earlier never answered me when I asked whether you believed that truth can be true one day and false the next. It seems as though you interpret that Vatican II has contradicted previous teaching that the Church has infallibly defined to be true. If something does not contain any error whatsoever one day, how can it contain error the next? It is impossible by the definitions of truth and error. Why would one be Catholic at all and hold to such an understanding of truth as changeable? Perhaps you believe that tomorrow the Church could assemble a General Council and decide the the Real Presence is no longer real but just figurative. It is impossible and defies the very nature of the Catholic Church and truth itself.

If one argues that Vatican II taught dogma that contradicts previous dogmas that the Church has defined as infallible, then such a person has no concept of infallibility or truth. Discipline can change, but truth by its very nature cannot. The Church has ruled that to hold to the idea that truth can become untruth is modernism, and modernism is heresy.

 

[Joysong]

Una,

Obviously you know very little about church history, and once again are twisting my words to mean what you say they mean, and furthermore, baiting me with your inaccurate interpretation of my words in order to discredit them. This is the 5th time, so I have no alternative but to believe it is malicious and deliberate.

The scripture I referenced, Acts 15:5, stated clearly that the pharisees wanted to demand circumcision of the gentile converts. Were you not aware that circumcision was a mandate from God Himself, and not as you imply, “a tradition of men?” It was this requirement to be circumcised, among other things, that the Council, under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, dispensed the gentiles from following.

Your time would be best spent doing some serious bible history study and refrain from nitpicking others’ posts when you haven’t the background to understand them.

Now if you don’t mind, I would like to leave this thread.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Una Fides, can you show me where or when freedom of religion was condemned infallibly? I know that the Syllabus condemned it, and that popes have condemned it, but I’ve never seen evidence that it was condemned infallibly.

Except that the Bible is infallible, and there are some scriptures (NT as well as Old) that look like they oppose it. But outside of that, I don’t have a clear collection of the evidence.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Now if you don’t mind, I would like to leave this thread.

You’re like me- just about completely incapable of leaving a debate once engaged .

 

[maurin]

Now if you don’t mind, I would like to leave this thread.

how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? the world may never know.

Joysong, many many times it has been shown to you that you may be confusing infallible and immutable teachings with disciplines that are mutable.

This is evidenced very well by your citation of Scripture above.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

mardukm:

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

This is incorrect. You need to study this issue in much greater depth; I say that because this is a pretty fundamental thing to misunderstand.

Gratia_Plena

 

[LeroyCRHP]

I have looked for broad statistics but did not find any that I trusted so I can just tell you about my church. Over the past 10 years we have been there it has doubled in members from ~6,000 to over 12,000 now. We grew from 2 to now we have 4 full time priests and have 4 seminarians from our church at this time. We are entering our second major expansion! We have started another parish in the town next to us and sponsor a church in Haiti. Our parish has a adoration chapel 24/7. Our Christ Renews His Parish is in it’s 32 year with team 63 in formation now. We just added bells to our mass after much pray and discussion. It really added to the mass. Our priests offer various classes and we have guest speakers in almost every week. Through blessings of many we were able to deliver over Thanksgiving feast to over 400 families. We have 7 masses including a Spanish mass and High School Mass. We have had the blessing of having one of our young priests out twice in the past year for dinner. I went through RCIA in 93/94. Our RCIA program has 40-50 converts every year that love our church so much they take a year of prayer, learning and devotion to join our church. I appreciate the insight from this thread and will continue to read even if my posts are on other threads. I hope this does not sound boasting or pride. I am honored to be Catholic and love our church.

The church we attended before this for 10 years went through a similar growth.

I don’t see the moral decline and doctrinal crisis but that could be me. It trust my Priests to give me what my family and I need. If there is a V3 I’ll be here. I do see a problem with the selective beliefs for birth control and abortion in our parish even with strong Pro-Life moment at our church. There are 4 Planned Parenthood clinics within 40 minutes of our church.

I just checked out a new book from the library today “the fall of the evangelical NATION”, I’ll try to report back if it is good.

Respectfully, YBIC

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.

 

[mardukm]

This is incorrect. You need to study this issue in much greater depth; I say that because this is a pretty fundamental thing to misunderstand.

I have not misunderstood. An Ecumenical Council as a body has divine assistance from the Holy Spirit, not just the Pope. The Pope is not the locus of infallibility. The Vatican Councils explicitly affirm that the infallibility the Pope possesses is one and the same the infallibility of the Church. The Church and the Ecumenical Council possess infallibility NOT BECAUSE the Pope possesses infallibility. I believe you’ll have an impossible time proving otherwise.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[franklinf]

I’ve been skimming through the thread and I thought I would throw my hat in the ring, so to speak. Please forgive me if I have repeated something that has said before.

I find myself agreeing with Maurin in that it seems that Joysong, and others, are confusing Church Dogma with Church disciplines. It is pretty clear that Vatican II is not infallible. This is not my own personal opinion; rather it is what the Popes have told us.

From Blessed John XXIII’s Opening Address of the Second Vatican Council

"**The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church **which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character."

Pope Paul VI stated the same during the last general meeting of Vatican II:

“But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity”

Further clarification was given by Pope Paul VI in his general audience of January 12, 1966:

"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. "

Both Blessed Pope John XIII and Pope Paul VI stated that Vatican II made no dogmatic statements. The Council was not infallible. Does that mean Catholics are not to accept it? No! The Popes clearly stated that it is an authoritative Council that all Catholics must follow. What then was the point of the Council? For better or for worse, it dealt with the presentation of the Church. For example, it created a new liturgy, the Novus Ordo Mass.

One must accept Vatican II but one also must interpret it in light of Church Tradition, for Church Tradition, both Extraordinary and Ordinary, is protected by infallibility. Thus, while Vatican II documents can seem ambiguous, the Dogma is the Dogma. There is no salvation outside the Church (with the exception of God’s mercy through Baptism by desire and blood), the Church is hierarchical (i.e. the Pope is in charge), all religions aren’t equal, etc etc etc. So in summary, while not infallible, Vatican II must be accepted by Catholics, provided it is viewed in light of Church Tradition.

 

[franklinf]

I have looked for broad statistics …

I don’t see the moral decline and doctrinal crisis but that could be me. …
Leroy

* Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.

* Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.

* Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

* Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

* Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven. The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

* Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million – from 4.5 million.

Though the number of U.S. Catholics has risen by 20 million since 1965, Jones’ statistics show that the power of Catholic belief and devotion to the Faith are not nearly what they were.

* Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.

* Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

* Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29948

 

[Lief_Erikson]

:

 

[mardukm]

Dear franklinf,

One must accept Vatican II but one also must interpret it in light of Church Tradition, for Church Tradition, both Extraordinary and Ordinary, is protected by infallibility.

I believe the problem here is that there are those who don’t believe that Vatican II IS perfectly aligned with Sacred Tradition. Hence, their need to claim it was not infallible. The plain fact of the matter is that

1. The convention of an Ecumenical Council is by its very nature EXTRAordinary.
2. Though the authority exercised is considered ordinary, it is nevetheless ordinary and UNIVERSAL, which has the same character as EXTRAordinary authority. Someone argued that there was a lot of debate about the decrees of V2. Well, give me one Ecumenical Council that DID NOT have any debates.

Thus, while Vatican II documents can seem ambiguous, the Dogma is the Dogma. There is no salvation outside the Church (with the exception of God’s mercy through Baptism by desire and blood),

Baptism by desire and blood puts one WITHIN the Church, so that’s a bad example of “salvation outside the Church.” All salvation comes from Jesus Christ THROUGH the Church. V2 was not objectively ambiguous. It’s detractors only PERCIEVE it to be so.

the Church is hierarchical (i.e. the Pope is in charge)

No, it is hierarchical AND collegial. The Pope is in charge ONLY and ALWAYS in the context of the college of bishops, never apart from it.

all religions aren’t equal, etc etc etc.

Show us anywhere that V2 stated that.

So in summary, while not infallible, Vatican II must be accepted by Catholics, provided it is viewed in light of Church Tradition.

V2 ALREADY validly and faithfullly reflects Sacred Tradition. No need for anyone to assume otherwise.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[pnewton]

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29948

Contrary to what Pat Buchannan thinks, the United States is not the world. His article is a tribute to a narrow, provencial mindset that views everything from its effect on America, as well as the danger truism of Mark Twain, that their are lies, damned lies and statistics.

And while we are dealing with re-occurring logical fallacies, the cause and effect evidence is, as always, non-existent.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

I have not misunderstood. An Ecumenical Council as a body has divine assistance from the Holy Spirit, not just the Pope. The Pope is not the locus of infallibility. The Vatican Councils explicitly affirm that the infallibility the Pope possesses is one and the same the infallibility of the Church. The Church and the Ecumenical Council possess infallibility NOT BECAUSE the Pope possesses infallibility. I believe you’ll have an impossible time proving otherwise.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Pope has to accept the Council.

The Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible independently of the consent of the subordinate members of the Teaching Body. The whole of the Bishops apart from the Pope cannot pronounce an infallible judgment.

Gratia_Plena

 

[LeroyCRHP]

Thanks franklinf, I’ll confirm these facts with one of the priests at my church. Pat Buchanan doesn’t fall in my accepted circle for Catholic facts.

Several Diocese articles seem to say seem to say there are record numbers of seminarians, example:
austindiocese.org/newsletter_article_view.php?id=885

This article from on the world wide spectacular growth of seminarian students makes me doubt all of those numbers:
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/ziegler_seminarians1_aug05.asp

Leroy

• Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.
  • Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.
  • Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.
    worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29948