Was Vatican II Infallible?

[franklinf]

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

I don’t see why Pat Buchanan wouldn’t fall in your “accepted circle,” as its not like he runs around making up statistics. In regards to the 2nd article, I’m curious why that would make you doubt all those numbers. It states that"the total number of American diocesan and religious seminarians in college and theology seminary programs decreased from 9,021 in 1978 to 4,790 in 2003–a decline of nearly 47 percent," which is the number Pat Buchanan cites.

Also, I completely agree with you that some seminaries are experiencing growth - but that doesn’t detract from the whole. Also, the dioceses that are experiencing the most vocations / rise in vocations are, for the most part, the more traditional and orthodox dioceses. While I don’t have any articles on hand to cite the numbers (just something I’ve come across through my reading over the years), one can look at the traditional priestly (and religious) orders as evidence. They (ICK, FSSP, Institute of the Good Shepard, etc) are continually expanding - yes its a small sample size but people are drawn to the more traditional orders (and dioceses).

 

[LeroyCRHP]

I may be misreading, but this is what I see:

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.

Plus we need to consider worldwide statistics. For example one of our priests went to Rome for his semininarian training so he is lost in the US count probably.

Around here the number of Catholic schools is growing and there is a waiting list at each. I do appreciate the stats and stats are always hard to get.

Thanks
Leroy

I don’t see why Pat Buchanan wouldn’t fall in your “accepted circle,” as its not like he runs around making up statistics. In regards to the 2nd article, I’m curious why that would make you doubt all those numbers. It states that"the total number of American diocesan and religious seminarians in college and theology seminary programs decreased from 9,021 in 1978 to 4,790 in 2003–a decline of nearly 47 percent," which is the number Pat Buchanan cites.

Also, I completely agree with you that some seminaries are experiencing growth - but that doesn’t detract from the whole. Also, the dioceses that are experiencing the most vocations / rise in vocations are, for the most part, the more traditional and orthodox dioceses. While I don’t have any articles on hand to cite the numbers (just something I’ve come across through my reading over the years), one can look at the traditional priestly (and religious) orders as evidence. They (ICK, FSSP, Institute of the Good Shepard, etc) are continually expanding - yes its a small sample size but people are drawn to the more traditional orders (and dioceses).

 

[franklinf]

I may be misreading, but this is what I see:

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.

Plus we need to consider worldwide statistics. For example one of our priests went to Rome for his semininarian training so he is lost in the US count probably.

Around here the number of Catholic schools is growing and there is a waiting list at each. I do appreciate the stats and stats are always hard to get.

Thanks
Leroy

Isn’t that the truth, in regards to to finding stats. I’m confused by your first part however. The number of seminarians in 2002 match up in both articles - Pat Buchanan’s just displays numbers from earlier (1965 vs. 1978).

 

[pnewton]

From 1980 until 2000 the number of seminarians have almost doubled, from 33,731 to 58,538.

cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/

The number of parishes is up slightly and the total number of Catholics up significantly. The percentage of Catholics is down slighty.

So what? There is still not cause and effect relationship. When I see an article post only the negative facts and ignore the positve, I disregard the whole article as an unreliable piece of bias reporting. In fact, the article posted earlier greatly lowered my opinion of Pat Buchannan.

 

[franklinf]

From 1980 until 2000 the number of seminarians have almost doubled, from 33,731 to 58,538.

cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/

The number of parishes is up slightly and the total number of Catholics up significantly. The percentage of Catholics is down slighty.

So what? There is still not cause and effect relationship. When I see an article post only the negative facts and ignore the positve, I disregard the whole article as an unreliable piece of bias reporting. In fact, the article posted earlier greatly lowered my opinion of Pat Buchannan.

Good find on the website - how did you come across it?

And the global doubling of seminarians is most certainly an encouraging sign. Deo Gratias!

However, the article is not an unreliable piece of bias reporting. For starters, the numbers are accurate (based on a quick comparison with your posted link). Furthermore, it is clear the emphasis of the article is on the US. Sadly, the numbers are negative. There is nothing wrong with calling attention to negative events. Should one turn a blind eye to the decline in priests and Mass attendance? No. In fact I would say it is more biased to ignore it and pretend like everything is hunky dory! As for the positives there are hardly any - even including the world numbers. Number of priests, brothers, and sisters are all down. Mass Attendance is sketchy too.

As much as you might want to ignore it or deny it, there has been a definitive and precipitous drop off since Vatican II. Other factors involved? Probably. Could it have nothing to do with Vatican II? Maybe. Has there been a decline in priests and Mass attendance since Vatican II? Yes - and a severe one at that.But to claim that Vatican II, a major Council of the Church which just happened to coincide with the aforementioned statistics, has nothing to do with this decline is the real bias.

Lastly, even if the world is displaying a more positive trend than the US wouldn’t that make Pat Buchanan even more justified in calling attention to the state of affairs in the US? Wouldn’t that be even more startling and sad to see a decline in US Catholicism while the world is on an upward trend? Negative bias? No, just reporting some sad truths.

 

[franklinf]

The number of parishes is up slightly and the total number of Catholics up significantly. The percentage of Catholics is down slighty.

.

Yes the total number of Catholics is up significantly, but has remained relatively stable as a percentage of the total world population.

 

[pnewton]

As much as you might want to ignore it or deny it, there has been a definitive and precipitous drop off since Vatican II. Other factors involved? Probably. Could it have nothing to do with Vatican II? Maybe. Has there been a decline in priests and Mass attendance since Vatican II? Yes - and a severe one at that.But to claim that Vatican II, a major Council of the Church which just happened to coincide with the aforementioned statistics, has nothing to do with this decline is the real bias.

Lastly, even if the world is displaying a more positive trend than the US wouldn’t that make Pat Buchanan even more justified in calling attention to the state of affairs in the US?

I found it googling in the dark.

If the whole Catholic world is under the the same hierarchy, and if the most of the world is not undergoing some of the same problems as the US, then I would think that the problems are related to the U.S., not Vatican II.

You guys may not know this, but Catholics are not the only ones battling with modernism, humanism and an increasingly secular society. America, Europe and the modern world is becoming too sophisticated for God. While we battle within the Church the forces that some here call “the spirit of Vatican II”, it is my opinion that this is but a Catholic section of the conflict that is society wide. Thus, it is not Vatican II to blame, but rather this council, in seeking to stem the problems of the modern world, has been co-opted as a vehicle (in name at least) for undermining the faith.

 

[franklinf]

I found it googling in the dark.

If the whole Catholic world is under the the same hierarchy, and if the most of the world is not undergoing some of the same problems as the US, then I would think that the problems are related to the U.S., not Vatican II.

But the world is undergoing the same problems as the US. Maybe not to the extent of the US but problems nonetheless. Even if it was contained to the US, hypothetically speaking, it could still be a problem of Vatican II. Hypothetically speaking, if Vatican II opened the way for abuses and removals of “Catholicness” and only the US followed that way, it would still be a problem of Vatican II, even if only the US fell into error.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Apparently the same post-Vatican II decline has been observed in the Church in Wales and England.
stas.org/apologetics/crisis/Vatican_II/statistics.shtml

 

[CradleCath]

FROM JOYSONG:
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.

IF, as you say Vatican II is infallible, there are a whole lot of your “Shepherds” in trouble:

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM :
The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way **that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, **
For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, **due care being taken to preserve their substance; **

It seems to me that many of our Bishops took the above passage from S.C. & read it as, “Dumb it down & keep everybody moving.”

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else;

I don’t really think that moving around as much as possible, vying for the “best” place for a member of the laity to be when they administer the Eucharist, greeting people after the Mass has begun & talking about the upcoming football game as we “process” out is what the Council had in mind when they spoke of “full & active participation”. Perhaps the “Shepherds” just prefer the Mass this way.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together** in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. **

WHOOPS!! Did our Amchurch prelates miss this part??

**The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact **

[40], communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See,.

Am I reading this wrong or does it really say that Communion under both species should be granted only for special occasions & when the Bishops & the Apostlolic See, i.e. the Pope, concur that the occasion is indeed special. But, what would happen to the Eucharistic Ministers if this part of Sacrosanctum
Concilium was actually put into practice? Perhaps they would be used only in EXTRAordinary situations??

B]Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest (or Bishop), may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

1. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress ****

No creativity? No innovations??
Sound tradition?? It would seem that, since the word is not capitalized in the document on the Sacred Liturgy, the council was speaking of Catholic culture & traditions. I believe that it
might be addressing traditions like the Rosary, Novenas, the
Angelus Bells…those pious traditions that set us apart. These practices were not “popular” with Protestants, so…of course…they needed to go, no matter what Vatican II documents actually say.

A Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral.

I’ve always wondered about why they even left the Roman Canon (translation…Eucharistic Prayer #1) in the Novus Ordo, as I haven’t heard it used since the council. I did some research & found that Vatican II had intended it to be used on Sundays & Holy Days of Obligation. It is recommended that Eucharistic Prayers #2. be used on weekdays. For some of the rest of the slew of EP’s that we now have, this site will help:

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/11/DocumentIndex/336

Norms on the Use of Eucharistic Prayers I-IV (Prot. 0)

** May 23, 1968 **

Author:
Sacred Congregation of Rites

EUCHARISTIC PRAYER I
I. Eucharistic Prayer 1, that is, the Roman Canon, may always be used; its use is particularly suited to days assigned a proper In union with the whole Church or a proper Bless and approve; to feasts of the apostles and saints mentioned in this Prayer; also to Sundays, unless pastoral reasons call for a different eucharistic prayer.

What possibly could be the “pastoral” reason for exluding the Roman Canon, in favor of less “Catholic” prayers? Could it possibly be the fact that the prayer seemed so “old Catholic” & not at all, pleasing to the “separated brethren”:

Do you realize that a Bishop who promulgated this Novus Ordo that we see today:

*with no Latin
*with Communion under BOTH species all of the time
*with various priests, parishes & diocese adding innovations such as Liturgical dance, clowns, homilies with props, etc., etc.
*with regularly scheduled EEM’s
*without the Roman Canon…

Is not following the recommendations of the council.

What could possibly be the "pastoral’’ reason for 40 years of no mention of a rosary preceeding or following the Mass? What could be the “pastoral” reason that most of our Catholics under 50 have never attended a Novena, have never heard the Angelus Bells ring & do not know the history of our devotion of the Stations of the Cross?

Several of our Bishops, Archbishops, etc. could not be the “Shepherda” you mentioned because the Mass that they promulgate is not the Mass as it was presented by a council that you call “infallible”. The way I see it, you can’t claim both of the above. You’ll have to choose…either the Council was NOT infallible, or some of our “Shepherds” as you call them, are in a world of hurt.

 

[una_fides]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4545121&postcount=148

Great post and excellent points. I especially like how you show what Vatican II actually teaches, as I have the felling that many who follow the “spirit of V2” have never even read the Council’s documents themselves or if they have, they interpret and twist them in such a way as to suit whatever they so desire, just as they (and many protestants) do with sacred Scripture.

You know I was thinking, in defense of the other side on all this, that one could argue that Scripture at times may seem vague or open for alternative interpretations, yet we know that Scripture is inerrant and is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I’ve heard the argument that just as we don’t scrap Scripture, we don’t scrap Vatican II. We just have to interpret both correctly in light of sacred Tradition.

 

[una_fides]

Obviously you know very little about church history,

I was a history major in college, and my studies of Church history were a primary part of my conversion to the Catholic faith. You have no idea of what you are speaking, and it’s obvious that you are just angry that you don’t have a good answer to the points I have brought up, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

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.

If I have misinterpreted what you said, then why do you continue to avoid answering my questions and instead resort to attacking me rather than just state what you meant clearly the first time? If it’s obvious to you, I’m sorry but it’s not to me. Maybe I’m just an idiot who doesn’t know how to read or interpret anything, or perhaps you are avoiding the points I’m making directly.

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.

Silly me. I must be confusing the OLD COVENANT with the NEW COVENANT. Oh wait… that’s right… wasn’t circumcision part of the Old Covenant practices, and now that we have a new covenant, we no longer follow the old? Otherwise, you would claim that I am arguing to also observe the Jewish Sabbath, which we as Catholics do not. If you wish to claim that Vatican II was a New New Covenant, then you are not going to win many converts to your cause. Furthermore, did Christ teach that circumcision was itself wrong? No, as Christ fulfilled the requirements Old Covenant law. St. Paul explains in Scripture that we are no longer under the Torah, but we are now under the New Covenant of grace and that we are only bound to follow the practices of the New Law of the Church. Lastly, circumcision was not a dogma but a practice. Yes, it was instituted by God as part of the old law, but that fact has never changed and circumcision as part of the Old Covenant will always have been necessary for Jews in those times to practice. Now that we have the New Covenant, we have baptism, which now saves us. Circumcision was a sign pointing to the future fulfillment of baptism in many ways. Did Christ ever condemn circumcision? And why did the apostles rule that the Gentiles need not be circumcised? It was due to the fact that they were under the New Covenant and as such now had a better way. The law had been fulfilled and now we follow Christ.

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.

I do hope you are not being serious here. You have no idea who I am or what background I have. You choose to avoid my questions and then attack me.

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

Feel free to leave the thread. I realize you probably wanted to get the last word in with that post and that you didn’t want me to respond, but when you are attacking me personally, I feel it necessary to point that out. But again since my education, studies, and understanding of Scripture and Catholic theology does not even begin to scratch the surface of your deeper and more studious understanding, then I don’t even know why I’m bothering to respond to your posts at all, as there’s certainly nothing that you could learn from such a degenerate like me.

 

[una_fides]

So I dug up something from one of my previous studies I complied for a study group about a year ago on the Church’s magisterium. Hopefully this can help us shed some light on at least our degree of assent necessary to the definitive teaching from encyclicals and consequently apply such as an understanding of what it means to have a religious submission of will and intellect to the Church’s ordinary magisterium:

His Holiness Pope Pius XII. Humani Generis. Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine. August 12, 1950.
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who hears you, hears me”;[6] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm

Certainly, for traditional Catholics, this understanding should not pose much difficulty in accepting any teaching that a pope settles according to his ordinary magisterium that is in accord with prior tradition. But now here’s the most relevant question. What happens if one reads a new encyclical or a new authoritative teaching of the Church exercised by her ordinary magisterium that contradicts her previous teachings? or what if these prior teachings were universal in scope? As part of the ordinary universal magisterium, we understand that the latter question cannot happen within the realm of infallible contradiction for if the Church universally at any time accepted such a teaching, then it would fall under the ordinary universal magisterium and would therefore be infallible. If the Church were to pronounce otherwise, then what was infallible would then become fallible, and truth would then become error. Not to beat a dead horse, but again, truth does not depend upon circumstances or situations to be true. It is true by its very nature and cannot be changed.

What if it appears that the Church by an act of her ordinary magisterium is applying a different sense of interpretation to a solemnly defined dogma? Well, we know by Vatican I that it is infallibly true that she cannot infallibly do so. Thus, in any of the cases above, our recourse would be to do our best to first give the Church the benefit of the doubt (if possible) and interpret the new teaching in light of the old and consider that we simply do not understand or that we are not interpreting it correctly. If the error is blatant, then we should petition the Church that she align her ordinary magisterium (which is not infallible) with the teachings that she has always taught and understood in the same sense as she has always understood them.

 

[mardukm]

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.

The reason that the Pope’s consent is necessary is NOT because of his singular infallibility, but because he is the head bishop. It is a canonical and constitutional imperative borne of ancient directives from the Apostles themselves or from apostolic men. Sometimes, despite Latin Catholics’ claim that the Vatican 1 decrees on the papacy is not a new thing, your defense of the papacy often seems to revolve completely around Vatican 1. That’s rather disappointing.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[pnewton]

What happens if one reads a new encyclical or a new authoritative teaching of the Church exercised by her ordinary magisterium that contradicts her previous teachings? or what if these prior teachings were universal in scope? …Thus, in any of the cases above, our recourse would be to do our best to first give the Church the benefit of the doubt (if possible) and interpret the new teaching in light of the old and consider that we simply do not understand or that we are not interpreting it correctly.

I think that was well said. Often we talk past each other in an effort to prove a point that we may all agree on, at least from a certain point of view. I must think that the same thing can happen with papal encylclicals.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

At this moment I’m too tired to give your analysis the level of thought it deserves, una fides, so I’ll try to respond later. Tomorrow or the day after.

However, I did run across an interesting prophecy today I wanted to share. I think it’s particularly interesting in view of the serious drops in vocations to the priesthood, seminaries, Mass attendance and the consecrated brothers and sisters, as well as the extensive doctrinal disputes between liberals and conservatives in the Church.

It’s a prophecy from the Church-approved apparition “Our Lady of Akita.” Here’s part of the message from 1973, eight years after the close of Vatican II and in a period before the statistical results had come in:
Our Lady of Akita:

Each day, recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and the priests. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. The Church and altars will be vandalized. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

“The demon will rage especially against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will no longer be pardon for them.”

olrl.org/prophecy/akita.shtml

Souls consecrated to God and priests (referred to in this prophecy) are greatly diminished now in number, and according to a traditionalist viewpoint, the Pope, bishops and priests are indeed (as Mary said) very much in need of our prayers because of the deception of the devil in the Church. Church altars are “vandalized” in the sense that Mass attendance is greatly reduced, and the Church is vandalized in the sense that the legitimate authority of its teachings is disregarded by many Catholic liberals. The Church is “full of those who accept compromises,” and the cardinals and bishops of today often oppose in their teachings the bishops of past centuries of the Church, even as Mary predicted, “one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops.”

In a real sense, this deception was already active in the Church at the time Our Lady of Akita appeared, but the disastrous impact had yet to be fully realized in the Church itself. That probably is still true, though the evil impact on the Church that our Lady spoke of in 1973 has grown much more drastic by now. The precision with which her words match what is going on now in the Church is uncanny. As our Mother said, our ecclesiastical hierarchy needs our prayers very keenly, right now.

 

[pnewton]

Souls consecrated to God and priests (referred to in this prophecy) are greatly diminished now in number, and according to a traditionalist viewpoint, the Pope, bishops and priests are indeed (as Mary said) very much in need of our prayers because of the deception of the devil in the Church. Church altars are “vandalized” in the sense that Mass attendance is greatly reduced, and the Church is vandalized in the sense that the legitimate authority of its teachings is disregarded by many Catholic liberals.

Except, that this is not true. Since 1985, both the number of priests and seminarians have increased.

cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/

Also, refusing to listen to legitimate authority is not exclusive to liberal priests and theologians, but occurs among traditionalists, too.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What if it appears that the Church by an act of her ordinary magisterium is applying a different sense of interpretation to a solemnly defined dogma? Well, we know by Vatican I that it is infallibly true that she cannot infallibly do so.

The above statement is true even if the bolded “infallibly” is removed.

From Lumen Gentium 25: To these [infallible] definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

So it really makes no difference if Vatican II is fallible or infallible - either way the Holy Spirit protected it from contradicting prior infallible dogma.

 

[una_fides]

Except, that this is not true. Since 1985, both the number of priests and seminarians have increased.

cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/

Also, refusing to listen to legitimate authority is not exclusive to liberal priests and theologians, but occurs among traditionalists, too.

Please compare the 1950s with the present day and also take into account the vast growth in population.

 

[CradleCath]

**Yes the total number of Catholics is up significantly, but **has remained relatively stable as a percentage of the total world population.

My own reaction to this news is, what kind of Catholics are those who have been converted to the faith since the '60s? Are we so anxious to bring others into the fold that we “sell” them an easy Catholicism. Do we downplay Humana Vitae, do we really explain what Primacy of Catholic Conscience means? Do we make it clear what is expected of Catholic parents? Do we introduce to them our devotions, our Prayers & the history of these things? Do we explain our doctrine re abortion & active homosexuality…or…do we just ignore all things that may be “distasteful” to non-Catholics & reel them in to make our numbers look good?

IMO., from what I’ve seen on these boards, RICA is not working & 1 hour a week at CCD. classes does not teach one the Catholic faith. IMO., the saddest result of the liberalism that so invaded the post-Vatican II Church…second only to the pederasty crisis that claimed the minds & souls of those abused by gay priests…is the loss of our Catholic nuns. I have much admiration for the lay people who teach in our schools as they do so for a love of the faith. Most could get a job in the public schools & make a higher salary. However, there is nothing close to being taught the faith by a woman who has given up a husband & children (& often moved far away from parents & siblings at a young age) to serve God. If she was a teaching nun, her 4 priorities were God, her Church, her order & “her” children.