Was Vatican II Infallible?

[Lief_Erikson]

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

Gratia_Plena

Can you source that?

I mean, I know that the Syllabus condemns freedom of religion. But can you show me proof that the condemnation of an error by the Pope is always infallible?

Also, why should I believe the Syllabus is fully infallible?

I’m not saying either of these things is untrue. I’m just looking for evidence from what the Church says, so I can fill up my Catholic education with official Church teaching .

 

[Joysong]

Maurin:

Joysong:

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

       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.

Then “one just figures” wrong. You misread not only my post, but the scripture. Jesus DID NOT answer their question, because they were unworthy that He should do so.

They said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.
Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?"

He never answered, except to say that those who were without sin should cast the first stone, and avoided the dispute about the law of Moses and its application concerning the woman. He turned the tables on their evil hearts and they walked away.

I suggest you do the same, for your post is more of the same taunting insincerity. Your thoughts sent forth a clearly discernible presence.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Wikipedia has a decent article on the Syllabus of Errors (see here).

 

[maurin]

Then “one just figures” wrong. You misread not only my post, but the scripture. Jesus DID NOT answer their question, because they were unworthy that He should do so.

He never answered, except to say that those who were without sin should cast the first stone, and avoided the dispute about the law of Moses and its application concerning the woman. He turned the tables on their evil hearts and they walked away.

I suggest you do the same, for your post is more of the same taunting insincerity. Your thoughts sent forth a clearly discernible presence.

Then, it should be quite easy for you to answer the questions asked of you, joysong. Instead of merely attempting to be clever.

Jesus’ point is that the law has been fulfilled by Him. The law given to Moses lacked one thing: God’s Physical and Real Presence among His people.

I would say that THAT is answer enough to the Pharisees. None of us are worthy of His Love, joysong. He gives it to us freely. And those of us like the Pharisees who ignore it, He awaits us with patience and with urgency.

With His Presence, stoning is no longer an option–or at least a first option. Matthew, I believe, has something to say about the proper way of handling a brother who sins against you. As inferring an accusation of the devil’s presence in another poster is no longer an option for one who really knows His Real Presence. One would think that someone with such vast experience and Spritual Progress would glean this.

 

[pnewton]

Wikipedia has a decent article on the Syllabus of Errors (see here).

Thank you for the link. This was condemned

“in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.”

The way this is worded, how can it be an infallible declaration? If it was, all it would say is that at that time such an expediency was false. Besides, are all papal documents infallible, while the Church when meets as a Church council is not?

 

[Just_Lurking]

The way this is worded, how can it be an infallible declaration?

My understanding is that the Syllabus was a curial document, not a papal document, and thus could not be infallible, as the Pope cannot delegate his infallibility to the curia or anyone else.

 

[franklinf]

Thank you for the link. This was condemned

The way this is worded, how can it be an infallible declaration? If it was, all it would say is that at that time such an expediency was false. Besides, are all papal documents infallible, while the Church when meets as a Church council is not?

I would say the Church is not speaking infallibly at a Church Council when both Popes presiding during it said as much. Furthermore, when the Church meets in Council to discuss doctrinal / pastoral issues (such as the presentation of Church teachings) as opposed to making statements on / defining Dogma it isn’t infallible (even if it is authoritative).

 

[Necrohol]

Vatican II fulfilled all the conditions for Infallibility, therefore it was Infallible, despite all the things they say in defense for it, making matters even worse.

 

[Necrohol]

Moreover, it intended to teach with the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium, which is also endowed with Infallibility. Look it up.

 

[franklinf]

Moreover, it intended to teach with the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium, which is also endowed with Infallibility. Look it up.

Could you please provide something to back this up.

 

[franklinf]

Vatican II fulfilled all the conditions for Infallibility, therefore it was Infallible, despite all the things they say in defense for it, making matters even worse.

What statements were made that were protected by infallibility? What dogmatic (not pastoral) statements were pronounced?

 

[Necrohol]

Could you please provide something to back this up.

Alright then.

What statements were made that were protected by infallibility? What dogmatic (not pastoral) statements were pronounced?

First off, the idea or rumor/whatever that V2 was a “pastoral” Council is a simple lie and mistranslation/misunderstanding or twist of what John XXIII actually said.

What he actually did say at the opening of the Council was this:

John XXIII, Opening Speech at Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “The substance of the ancient 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."

John XXIII or Paul VI never said it was a pastoral council.

And even if it were, it’s irrelevant, because it nonetheless fulfilled the conditions of Infallibility. Let me show you.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, [1] When carrying out the duty of the Pastor and teacher of all christians[2] In accord with his Supreme Apostolic Authority[3] He explains a doctrine of the faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, **operates with that infallibility **with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema."

So now let us examine if they indeed fulfill these conditions:

1. A Pope must act as Pastor and teacher of all Christians

Each one of the 16 documents of Vatican II begins with these words:

“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY.”

Pope Eugene IV, Julius II and Pius IX all began their respective council sessions or the Council itself with the same words.

So Paul VI thus fulfills to act as Pastor of all the Christians.

1. A Pope must teach in accord with his supreme apostolic
   authority

Each one of the 16 documents of V2 ends with these words:

“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

He fulfills the 2nd requirement with this.

1. A Pope must explain a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by
   the universal Church

He clearly says (Paul VI) that V2 is to be Religiously Observed:

Paul VI, Papal Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:
“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our
predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE
FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL
EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

And that sums up the thrid condition.

 

[Necrohol]

So there you have it, V2 was an Infallible Council. But we all know what the problem is, otherwise they wouldn’t be making a thread about it would they?

 

[Necrohol]

Could you please provide something to back this up.

Pope Pius XI, Rappresentanti in Terra (# 16), Dec. 31,192:
“Upon this magisterial office Christ conferred infallibility, together with the command to teach His doctrine to all.”

 

[pnewton]

…when the Church meets in Council to discuss doctrinal / pastoral issues (such as the presentation of Church teachings) as opposed to making statements on / defining Dogma it isn’t infallible (even if it is authoritative).

So then freedom of religion, from a political point of view, is not something that can be defined infallibly. That was the only thing I was wondering. I hear some say that Vatican II contradicted infallible doctrine, then others say it did not address anything that can be infallible. It would seem obvious that both can not be true. Therefore, why was the Syllabus of Errors even brought up?

 

[SemperFidelis]

are all papal documents infallible

If they are in continuity with what several popes have stated over time then yes. If not, then no. Such is the way of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium (whether Universal or Pontifical). While Dignitatis Humanae is very ambiguous in certain areas, it nowhere states that the Church should or must be seperated from the state; in fact no Magisterial document does that I am aware of. To hold such a position that Bl. Pius IX condemns is an untenable position according to a Catholic perspective. Several popes before and after him have stated such.
Dom Paul Nau:

In the case of the Ordinary pontifical Magisterium , it is the continuity of teaching of the successors of Peter: in other words, it is the “tradition of the Church of Rome,”…

 

[Necrohol]

What statements were made that were protected by infallibility? What dogmatic (not pastoral) statements were pronounced?

You are making the common mistake that people do, which think that “only when proclaiming or defining a Dogma is the Church infallible!” but anyone who studies the conditions and all that is said about the Church’s and the Pope’s infallibility knows that that’s not the case.

And, wasn’t everything of V2 binding and to be religiously observed and accepted by all as I just showed you above? They threw away the Tridentine Mass and commanded that everyone accept and celebrate the “new mass”, or did they not do that?

 

[franklinf]

So then freedom of religion, from a political point of view, is not something that can be defined infallibly. That was the only thing I was wondering. I hear some say that Vatican II contradicted infallible doctrine, then others say it did not address anything that can be infallible. It would seem obvious that both can not be true. Therefore, why was the Syllabus of Errors even brought up?

What? I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was referring to Vatican II not freedom of religion. I went back and read what I wrote and I was way too oblique / subtle. My humble apologies, disregard what I wrote. The Church has already taught, through its authority and that of its Popes, on freedom of religion, and that it is to be condemned. It is protected through the Ordinary Magisterium.

“The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX is differently explained by Catholic theologians. All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the Encyclical “Quanta Cura”. There is no agreement, however, on the question whether each thesis condemned in the Syllabus is infallibly false, merely because it is condemned in the Syllabus. Many theologians are of the opinion that to the Syllabus as such an infallible teaching authority is to be ascribed, whether due to an ex-cathedra decision by the pope or to the subsequent acceptance by the Church. Others question this. So long as Rome has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses. Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.” (New Advent)

 

[Necrohol]

So then freedom of religion, from a political point of view, is not something that can be defined infallibly. That was the only thing I was wondering. I hear some say that Vatican II contradicted infallible doctrine, then others say it did not address anything that can be infallible. It would seem obvious that both can not be true. Therefore, why was the Syllabus of Errors even brought up?

The truth is that the former option you stated is the true one. It did contradict past infallible doctrine.

 

[franklinf]

The truth is that the former option you stated is the true one. It did contradict past infallible doctrine.

What? You stated that Vatican II was infallible - so if that is so then it can’t contradict past infallible doctrine.