Was Vatican II infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monkciate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monkciate

Guest
I’m currently taking part in a parish’s study of the Vatican II through the CSS program entitled “This Sacred Council: Exploring the Documents of Vatican II.”

This past week, a team member (who is otherwise quite devout and intelligent regarding the faith) expressed some outrage over the following sentences in a section in which the author discusses “The Nature of Church Councils”:

**Sentence #1 - “The infallibility of the teachings of an ecumenical council is assured as an article of Catholic faith.”

Sentence #2 - “The simple fact that it was an ecumenical council is enough to assure the infallibility of its teachings by the protection of the Holy Spirit.”**

Both sentences seem to echo Wikipedia’s treatment of the Infallibility of the Church:
The Infallibility of the Church is the belief that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to err in its belief or teaching under certain circumstances.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
The infallible Sacred Magisterium includes the extraordinary declarations of the Pope speaking ex cathedra and of ecumenical councils (traditionally expressed in conciliar creeds, canons, and decrees), as well as of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
Click to expand...
However, as examples, the Wikipedia entry says,
Examples of infallible extraordinary Conciliar decrees include the Council of Trent’s decree on justification, and Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility.
Click to expand...
Since Vatican II didn’t define or promulgate anything different from what had been previously defined and promulgated, was Vatican II infallible? If so, what exactly makes it infallible? or, more to the point, what makes an ecumenical council infallible?

Any and all enlightening on this subject would be much appreciated as this concept is brand new to me.
 
Monkciate said:
I’m currently taking part in a parish’s study of the Vatican II through the CSS program entitled “This Sacred Council: Exploring the Documents of Vatican II.”

This past week, a team member (who is otherwise quite devout and intelligent regarding the faith) expressed some outrage over the following sentences in a section in which the author discusses “The Nature of Church Councils”:

**Sentence #1 - “The infallibility of the teachings of an ecumenical council is assured as an article of Catholic faith.”

Sentence #2 - “The simple fact that it was an ecumenical council is enough to assure the infallibility of its teachings by the protection of the Holy Spirit.”**

Both sentences seem to echo Wikipedia’s treatment of the Infallibility of the Church:

However, as examples, the Wikipedia entry says,

Since Vatican II didn’t define or promulgate anything different from what had been previously defined and promulgated, was Vatican II infallible? If so, what exactly makes it infallible? or, more to the point, what makes an ecumenical council infallible?

Any and all enlightening on this subject would be much appreciated as this concept is brand new to me.
Click to expand...
It’s not really clear. On one hand, an Ecumenical Council is the highest teaching authority in the Church. An Ecumenical Council does have the ability to teach infallibly. However, this does not mean that everything taught by an Ecumenical Council is infallible. For an Ecumenical Council to teach infallibly, it must clearly identify that it is doing so (see Canon Law 749 vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

You will hear some opinions that differ from that, but that’s what the Church teaches.

Regardless of whether an Ecumenical Council teaches infallibly, its teachings deserve and warrant adherence by Catholics.
 
Infallibility only applies to dogmatic matters of faith and morals. Anything not under that umbrella isn’t “infallible”, like the teachings on how priest’s pensions should be handled. A lot of Vatican II is pastoral in this way. So you can’t really say “Vatican II was infallible” when it is so heavily pastoral.

I would suggest that Vatican II’s repeats of already infallibly made statements are not a new exercise in infallibility.

See the definition of infallibility with regard to the Pope from Vatican I, session 4, chapter 4, paragraph 9.

The Council of Trent also espoused this infallibility with regard only to faith or morals in regard to interpreting Scripture. See session 4, paragraph c.

diggerdomer’s post is also very good.
:o
 
MarcoPolo said:
Infallibility only applies to dogmatic matters of faith and morals. Anything not under that umbrella isn’t “infallible”, like the teachings on how priest’s pensions should be handled. A lot of Vatican II is pastoral in this way. So you can’t really say “Vatican II was infallible” when it is so heavily pastoral.

I would suggest that Vatican II’s repeats of already infallibly made statements are not a new exercise in infallibility.

See the definition of infallibility with regard to the Pope from Vatican I, session 4, chapter 4, paragraph 9.

The Council of Trent also espoused this infallibility with regard only to faith or morals in regard to interpreting Scripture. See session 4, paragraph c.

Scroll down to p. 25

diggerdomer’s post is also very good.
:o
Click to expand...
Also note what Vatican II taught about infallibility (which completed what Vatican I was unable to address due to its unfortunately being cut short):

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
 
Monkciate said:
Sentence #2 - “The simple fact that it was an ecumenical council is enough to assure the infallibility of its teachings by the protection of the Holy Spirit.”
Click to expand...
This is true. Though the Extraordinary Magisterium was not exercised at Vatican 2, it still meets the criteria for the Church to recognize its infallibility - namely, it was an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium on matters pertaining to Faith that was universal and definitive.
Since Vatican II didn’t define or promulgate anything different from what had been previously defined and promulgated, was Vatican II infallible? If so, what exactly makes it infallible? or, more to the point, what makes an ecumenical council infallible?
Click to expand...
What makes an Ecumenical Council infallible is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We can recognize it as infallible because it taught universally and definitively on matters of Faith.

An Ecumenical Council need not be defining something to be regarded as infallible (unlike the exercise of papal infallibility). It can be merely affirming a matter of Faith and/or morals. It’s infallible Magisterium is recognized through the universal and definitive nature of its decrees. An example in antiquity is the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which did not make any new definitions of Faith, but, by its actions against certain persons, affirmed the theologically dogmatic definitions of prior Ecumenical Councils.

Blessings
 
Monkciate said:
I’m currently taking part in a parish’s study of the Vatican II through the CSS program entitled “This Sacred Council: Exploring the Documents of Vatican II.”

This past week, a team member (who is otherwise quite devout and intelligent regarding the faith) expressed some outrage over the following sentences in a section in which the author discusses “The Nature of Church Councils”:

Sentence #1 - "The infallibility of the teachings of an ecumenical council is assured as an article of Catholic faith."

Sentence #2 - "The simple fact that it was an ecumenical council is enough to assure the infallibility of its teachings by the protection of the Holy Spirit."

Both sentences seem to echo Wikipedia’s treatment of the Infallibility of the Church:

However, as examples, the Wikipedia entry says,

Since Vatican II didn’t define or promulgate anything different from what had been previously defined and promulgated, was Vatican II infallible? If so, what exactly makes it infallible? or, more to the point, what makes an ecumenical council infallible?

Any and all enlightening on this subject would be much appreciated as this concept is brand new to me.
Click to expand...
YES, Vatican II is an infallible Ecumenical Council. Everything that Vatican II teaches or re-states that was previously defined as Dogma and Doctrine is still infallible teaching. An Ecumenical Council is infallible because it is a gathering of the worlds Bishops, under the authority and approval of the Pope, the successor of Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit.
 
The Pope is not infallible, but his teaching is infallible, when it meets certain conditions. Similarly, Ecumenical Councils are not infallible, but their teaching is infallible when it meets certain conditions.

An Ecumenical Council possesses the full authority given by Christ to the Pope and the body of Bishop. Therefore, a Council can exercise the temporal authority, in judgments of the prudential order. But these are not teachings; they are decisions on discipline, not doctrine. Such decisions are changeable and revocable. A Council can also teach non-infallibly, as well as infallibly.

Although there is no formal definition telling us when a Council is teaching infallibly, we can apply the criteria of papal infallibility, with slight modification, to the infallibility exercised by a Council.

Papal infallibility according to Vatican I
  1. “the Roman Pontiff”
  2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
  3. “he defines”
  4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
  5. “must be held by the whole Church” [Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4]
Conciliar infallibility:
  1. the body of bishops with the Pope as their head
  2. speaks ex cathedra (that is, when in the discharge of their office as shepherds and teachers of all Christians)
  3. they define
  4. that a doctrine concerning faith or morals
  5. must be held by the whole Church
Not every teaching of every Council is infallible. This is particularly clear in the more ancient councils, when infallible teachings were distinguished as separate Canons with attached anathemas for those who would reject the teaching. But there were also variour teachings that were non-infallible, such as introductory material before a set of Canons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top