Was Vatican II Infallible?

[una_fides]

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.

If that were the case, then the Church would be infallible in everything. No?

The fact that the ordinary magisterium is non-infallible means that she could be wrong thought it would be unlikely due to the nature of the Church. Nevertheless, given the present-day deception of Satan and the great degree of compromise and desire to appease people that is present within our current hierarchy as well as the great influence and infiltration of modernism and liberalism, I think the hierarchy is now more prone to error than in ages past, when it was crystal clear that she was “the pillar and foundation of truth” as she boldly proclaimed the fullness of truth to the world without pulling any punches. It used to be that the Church spoke and the world listened. It now often appears the other way around. The world speaks, and the Church goes out of her way not to “offend” anyone. Political correctness is certainly a great tool in Satan’s arsenal to water down the truth to the point of confusion.

 

[Joysong]

Una Fides:

If I have misinterpreted what you said, then why do you continue to avoid answering my questions

John 8:6
They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

Lest you or anyone else think it was out of ignorance that I avoided the answers. Thoughts, in case you are not aware, do send forth a presence, and one is able to discern that which is hidden.

 

[Just_Lurking]

If that were the case, then the Church would be infallible in everything. No?

No. See next sentence.

The fact that the ordinary magisterium is non-infallible means that she could be wrong

The ordinary magisterium can be wrong in countless ways, save one - it cannot contradict prior infallible teachings. This is due to the protection the Holy Spirit is guaranteed to give to those prior infallible teachings.

Otherwise, infallibility would reduce to a sterile, Cassandra-esque charism, instead of a powerful force to preserve the Church in truth.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

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

cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/

Between 1985 and 2008, the number of priests in the Catholic Church went up by 3,000. That’s less than a 1% increase to our total number of priests. The total Catholic population, however, went up by over 250 million. That’s a 31% increase. The percentile increase of our number of priests between 1985 and 2008 is WAY lower than the increase in our normal population. Which means that even while the number of priests we have since 1985 has increased, our number of priests in proportion to our population is way, way down. Therefore the figures show that we’re running out of priests fast, worldwide.

If those 3,000 new priests were given the task of shepherding those 250 million new Catholics, each man of them would have 83,333 people in his congregation . As you can see, the worldwide percentage of priests to population has undergone serious damage since 1985.

Go through the same process with the seminarians and you’ll see we have fewer of them also in 2008 than in 1985, in proportion to the total Catholic population. I did this process part way just now and got that result, though I didn’t go through the details of finding the exact percentile numbers.

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

Granted . . . but nowhere near so commonly. Which group is advocating the change of the Church’s position on contraception, or on female priests, or abortion, or homosexuality? The liberals. There is a definite, direct defiance of the Church’s authority manifested in major movements among liberals, and there is no parallel among traditionalists.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Una Fides, can you present a case that Vatican II did contradict previously defined dogma?

I know they taught freedom of religion . . . and they left an opening for the Bible being in error on matters of history or science by saying it was true in all matters of “faith and morals,” but leaving out reference to the other matters. While freedom of religion was formally condemned as a heresy in the Syllabus of Pope Pius, was it condemned infallibly, there or elsewhere? On what grounds would you say that the Church in Vatican II did contradict previously defined dogma?

 

[una_fides]

The ordinary magisterium can be wrong in countless ways, save one - it cannot contradict prior infallible teachings. This is due to the protection the Holy Spirit is guaranteed to give to those prior infallible teachings.

Otherwise, infallibility would reduce to a sterile, Cassandra-esque charism, instead of a powerful force to preserve the Church in truth.

I understand your reasoning here, but do you have any official statements to back up this idea?

 

[una_fides]

Una Fides, can you present a case that Vatican II did contradict previously defined dogma?

I could, but I don’t agree with it. I personally do not think that V2 contradicted previously defined dogma. I think it has been misinterpreted and must be interpreted in light of what the Church has always taught, which would also include the fact that false religions do not have a divine right to exist.

I was recently in a thread about religious liberty. Here’s a link to it: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=272104&page=6
I’m particularly fond of Pax Et Charitas’s posts. Here’s one in particular that makes a lot of sense: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4520608&postcount=78

I know they taught freedom of religion . . . and they left an opening for the Bible being in error on matters of history or science by saying it was true in all matters of “faith and morals,” but leaving out reference to the other matters. While freedom of religion was formally condemned as a heresy in the Syllabus of Pope Pius, was it condemned infallibly, there or elsewhere? On what grounds would you say that the Church in Vatican II did contradict previously defined dogma?

I do not believe that Vatican II taught “freedom of religion” other than that the Catholic Church has such freedom. Other religions cannot have the right to objectively sin against God any more than mothers have a “right” to have an abortion. Such “rights” are made up and contradict true divine rights.

I think the argument can be made the freedom of religion was infallibly condemned both by solemn definition and by the Church’s ordinary universal magisterium. Since the pope settled the issue in an encyclical and since virtually all the bishops in union with the pope accepted such teaching and did not teach contrary to it, then in my mind that would make such teaching is infallible according to the Church’s ordinary universal magisterium. In the words of St. Augustine, “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.”

In addition, we must understand that the Church herself by her very nature is Tradition. She is not innovation, and in order to teach something as true, she must reach into the deposit of faith handed down by the apostles and practiced by the Church throughout her life and can then come to a conclusion on a matter. To my knowledge, the Catholic Church has never taught in her 2000 years that people have a right to practice their false religions and spread lies and false ideas. Such an idea also according to Catholic theology does not make sense. False religions can be tolerated and for the sake of peace or some other greater good can be permitted to exist, but they cannot be given a right by God to exist and spread their lies and errors nor can they be given the right to offer up false worship and thereby violate the 1st Commandment. If we wish to discuss religious liberty more so, I suggest posting in the thread I cited above.

Again, concerning V2, I do not believe the council directly taught contrary to defined dogma. If you are referring to my previous comments, I was more asking in the hypothetical than necessarily applying those comments to V2.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

Una Fides, can you present a case that Vatican II did contradict previously defined dogma?

I know they taught freedom of religion . . . and they left an opening for the Bible being in error on matters of history or science by saying it was true in all matters of “faith and morals,” but leaving out reference to the other matters. While freedom of religion was formally condemned as a heresy in the Syllabus of Pope Pius, was it condemned infallibly, there or elsewhere? On what grounds would you say that the Church in Vatican II did contradict previously defined dogma?

The syllabus is infallible. A condemnation of error is infallible.

Gratia_Plena

 

[Just_Lurking]

I understand your reasoning here, but do you have any official statements to back up this idea?

Here is what I know:

The Lumen Gentium 25 sentence I quoted above actually discusses the “reception” of infallibly-proclaimed dogma. Reception goes way beyond mere non-contradiction by any subsequent ordinary magisterium to include how the entire Church (and not just the bishops) must inevitably come to accept the infallibly-proclaimed dogma as coming from God and not from man, as described in 1 Thess. 2:13.

The Latin term for this is “sensus fidei”. For more details, I debated this point in another thread (see here).

 

[pnewton]

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

I know that the percentage of priest to parishoners went down, but that was not what was mentioned. Also, I didn’t want to go back that far because that would be pre-Vatican II and not germane to this thread.

 

[pnewton]

Now if Vatican II taught about freedom of religion and freedom of religion is a matter of faith and morals, then Vatican II was the Church meeting in Council and teaching in a matter of faith of morals and thus would meet the criteria of infallibility.

 

[una_fides]

I know that the percentage of priest to parishoners went down, but that was not what was mentioned. Also, I didn’t want to go back that far because that would be pre-Vatican II and not germane to this thread.

It would actually be most relevant because it would demonstrate that since Vatican II the # of priests and religious has decreased substantially, while protestant sects did not experience the same fall out at the same time.

 

[una_fides]

Here is what I know:

The Lumen Gentium 25 sentence I quoted above actually discusses the “reception” of infallibly-proclaimed dogma. Reception goes way beyond mere non-contradiction by any subsequent ordinary magisterium to include how the entire Church (and not just the bishops) must inevitably come to accept the infallibly-proclaimed dogma as coming from God and not from man, as described in 1 Thess. 2:13.

The Latin term for this is “sensus fidei”. For more details, I debated this point in another thread (see here).

…if the assent of the Church is found wanting, then the teaching is not an infallible definition.

You likely do not realize this but what you have proposed is heresy as the infallible declaration in Vatican I refutes this idea explicitly:

Vatican I, infallible declaration:

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

* when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
      o that is, when,
           1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
           2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
           3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, 
* he possesses,
      o by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, 
* that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
* Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and **not by the consent of the church**, irreformable.

piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined

 

[Gratia_Plena]

You likely do not realize this but what you have proposed is heresy as the infallible declaration in Vatican I refutes this idea explicitly:

Yes, and here is the explanation from Bp. Gasser, relator of the Faith at Vatican I:

Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

Una Fides, can you present a case that Vatican II did contradict previously defined dogma?

… While freedom of religion was formally condemned as a heresy in the Syllabus of Pope Pius, was it condemned infallibly, there or elsewhere? On what grounds would you say that the Church in Vatican II did contradict previously defined dogma?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4545143&postcount=94

Gratia_Plena

 

[Just_Lurking]

You likely do not realize this but what you have proposed is heresy as the infallible declaration in Vatican I refutes this idea explicitly:

I addressed this in the other thread:

Similarly, the assent of the Church is not a requirement of infallibility, but it is an unerring test of infallibility. If something fails this test, then it is not infallible, and indeed it never was. The lack of assent of the Church did not somehow make what would otherwise be an infallible teaching fallible; the teaching was never infallible to begin with.

What I have presented is commonly accepted by approved Catholic theologians. For example, you can read about it in chapter 6 of Francis Sullivan’s Creative Fidelity (see here). Fr. Sullivan taught at the Gregorian University in Rome for 36 years, and was dean of the faculty of Theology there for 6 of those years. He was the doctoral thesis adviser of Cardinal Levada, prefect of the CDF. He is well-respected as a mainstream dogmatic theologian.

According to chapter 6, the use of reception to identify instances of conciliar infallibility was studied in detail by Fr. Hermann Josef Sieben (see here) and to identify instances of papal infallibility by Fr. Klaus Schatz.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Yes, and here is the explanation from Bp. Gasser, relator of the Faith at Vatican I:

What you quote agrees perfectly with what I quoted from Lumen Gentium 25. From Bp. Gasser:

Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail.

From Lumen Gentium 25:

To these 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*)

 

[Gratia_Plena]

What you quote agrees perfectly with what I quoted from Lumen Gentium 25. From Bp. Gasser:

Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail.

From Lumen Gentium 25:

To these 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*)

It did seem to me that you were making the consent of the Church a “condition” for infallibility.

Here’s the entire quote from Bp. Gasser’s relatio to the Fathers of Vatican I:

Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail.

The argument can certainly be made by reasonable men that the Church has not accepted the Second Vatican Council (after approved by Paul VI), as nobody can tell us for sure what it actually says or how it was to be interpreted and implemented.

Gratia_Plena

 

[SemperFidelis]

Now if Vatican II taught about freedom of religion and freedom of religion is a matter of faith and morals, then Vatican II was the Church meeting in Council and teaching in a matter of faith of morals and thus would meet the criteria of infallibility.

This is not possible as the Catholic Church can not contradict previous infallible teaching. Such teachings of the popes on religious liberty are infallible according to the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

Regarding Dignitatis Humanae, one of the following must be true:

1. DH interpreted in light of Tradition is in full conformity with what previous popes had taught concerning the matter of religious liberty.

or

2 DH is not in conformity with previous infallible teaching regarding religious liberty. Therefore, the scope of the document would fall under the authority of the non-infallible and merely authentic Ordinary Magisterium and should be completely disregarded by the Church in favor of what came previously.

 

[maurin]

John 8:6
They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

Lest you or anyone else think it was out of ignorance that I avoided the answers. Thoughts, in case you are not aware, do send forth a presence, and one is able to discern that which is hidden.

       John 8:7
      But when they continued asking him, he straightened up    and said to them,......

sincerely, joysong, ignorance is not what comes to mind when one wonders why you avoid answering the questions which have been asked of you many many times. It is quite clear from your posts that you possess experience well beyond your years.

One just figures that you know there is no justifiable answer from your perspective.

Glad to see you’re back–after the third time you proclaimed that you have shaken the dust of this thread from your sandals.