Was Vatican II Infallible?

[Errham]

This is something that I hear people arguing about a ridiculous number of times. Both sides make great arguments, and I’m kind of confused as to what exactly the doctrine on the issue is, as there never seems to be any consensus and interpretations vary wildly based on one’s personal views on the council. Generally, those leaning towards the traditionalist/liberal sides have told me that it wasn’t, whereas those who are very much in favor of the changes made have told me that it was. And those who have been traditionalist/liberal to the point that they left the Church because of Vatican II have also cited the fact that it’s considered “infallible” as a central reason. And even amongst these generalized camps there’s a lot of infighting. So where does CAF stand on this? What would be the “moderate” Catholic’s position?

Another interesting point is that I’ve never heard anyone try to claim that specific parts were and others weren’t. Everyone usually seems to go to the farther ends of the spectrum. Could that possible be the case?

 

[Ignatius]

This is something that I hear people arguing about a ridiculous number of times.

When you ask “Was Vatican II infallible”, Exactly what doctrines of Vatican II are you or they talking about?

 

[jlhargus]

This is something that I hear people arguing about a ridiculous number of times. Both sides make great arguments, and I’m kind of confused as to what exactly the doctrine on the issue is, as there never seems to be any consensus and interpretations vary wildly based on one’s personal views on the council. Generally, those leaning towards the traditionalist/liberal sides have told me that it wasn’t, whereas those who are very much in favor of the changes made have told me that it was. And those who have been traditionalist/liberal to the point that they left the Church because of Vatican II have also cited the fact that it’s considered “infallible” as a central reason. And even amongst these generalized camps there’s a lot of infighting. So where does CAF stand on this? What would be the “moderate” Catholic’s position?

Another interesting point is that I’ve never heard anyone try to claim that specific parts were and others weren’t. Everyone usually seems to go to the farther ends of the spectrum. Could that possible be the case?

Infallible only applies to doctrine concerning faith and morals. No teaching of faith or morals were defined by Vatican II. Vatican II was concerned mostly with pastoral issues.

 

[hu324b]

Well I don’t think the church would of survived if not for the changes - it allowed the church to evangelize everyone in their own language - How would it be today if this one change was not made? - the priest facing away from you all mass mumbling in Latin and not involving the congregation

 

[R_H_Benson]

the priest facing away from you all mass mumbling in Latin and not involving the congregation

That is an uniformed, rude assessment of the Mass of Ages. That Mass nourished most of the Church’s greatest saints.

As to the OP - Vatican II was purely a pastoral council. This was the stated intention of Pope St. John XXIII. No doctrinal definitions came out of Vatican II.

 

[eddie_too]

in Vatican II nothing was defined as infallible, but when the pope and the bishops speak as one, their pronouncements that touch on doctrinal and moral issues are rightfully considered infallible. since, no doctrines were being challenged at the time of Vatican II, the council did not issue any infallible definitions. however, the documents of Vatican II frequently make references to infallible doctrines.

not to quibble, but the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth are just a few infallible doctrines that have never been proclaimed infallible through the ex cathedra process.

so, my position is that Vatican II definitely teaches infallibly. my readings of the documents of Vatican II (I have not read them all and have not studied any of them in depth) have found nothing that I would consider to be contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. since I am a layperson without a great amount of theological training my opinion is not that important, but I believe that most of our bishops and the pope would agree with it. I know of nothing that would indicate they disagree.

 

[edwest2]

Well I don’t think the church would of survived if not for the changes - it allowed the church to evangelize everyone in their own language - How would it be today if this one change was not made? - the priest facing away from you all mass mumbling in Latin and not involving the congregation

Most of the external changes some claim were caused by Vatican II were not even suggested by Vatican II. We even had Mass in my native language: Polish. The congregation was deeply involved. We knew what the Latin meant and the priest never mumbled. He spoke the words clearly and we responded in Latin. The Church, wherever it was, could always evangelize in the local native tongue. I think the early missionaries to China would have been in trouble if they couldn’t learn Chinese

From the beginning, with few exceptions, the priest faced away from the people. His focus, along with the congregation, was to be on Christ. See the book, The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Ed

 

[pianistclare]

Why do you ask?

 

[Genesis315]

It does not contain any definitive doctrinal judgments itself, so it does not contain the mark of the infallible extraordinary Magisterium. But it certainly taught and put forth doctrine, doctrine that has been taught universally throughout the Church now for about 60 years. Another truth of the faith is the infallibility of the Church in general. Can the Church habitually and universally put forth error as its own public doctrine? The answers is of course “no.”

Of course, the Council also makes a variety of other decisions, such as the practical application of the Church’s doctrine to some particular circumstances (see the first footnote for Gaudium et Spes for a discussion of this), reform of certain disciplines (like the liturgical reform), etc. These decisions can certainly be revised. Certain formulas used to explain a particular point of doctrine are not themselves absolutely irreformable either, even if the underlying truth is.

 

[friardchips]

Well I don’t think the church would of survived if not for the changes - it allowed the church to evangelize everyone in their own language - How would it be today if this one change was not made? - the priest facing away from you all mass mumbling in Latin and not involving the congregation

 

[thistle]

Well I don’t think the church would of survived if not for the changes - it allowed the church to evangelize everyone in their own language - How would it be today if this one change was not made? - the priest facing away from you all mass mumbling in Latin and not involving the congregation

In the first place the Mass in the vernacular has nothing to do with doctrine. The form of the Mass is a discipline. Disciplines can be changed. Doctrines can not be changed.

Second, what has the language of the Mass got to do with evangelisation? We don’t go out evangelising in Latin. Never have done.

 

[Abu]

jlhargus #3
Infallible only applies to doctrine concerning faith and morals. No teaching of faith or morals were defined by Vatican II. Vatican II was concerned mostly with pastoral issues.
R_H_Benson #5
Vatican II was purely a pastoral council. This was the stated intention of Pope St. John XXIII. No doctrinal definitions came out of Vatican II.

Incorrect.

In his book, *Sources of Renewal *Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (St John Paul II) wrote: “It may be said that every Council in the Church’s history has been a pastoral one, if only because the assembled bishops, under the Pope’s guidance, are pastors of the Church. At the same time every Council is an act of the supreme Magisterium of the Church. Magisterium signifies teaching based on authority, a teaching which is the mission of the Apostles and their successors, it is part of their function and an essential task.” The Cardinal goes on: “All this has been signally confirmed by Vatican II, which, while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment.” (Ibid, p 38-39).

In The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, by James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead:
"The term ‘pastoral council’ as applied to Vatican II is merely a popular description and does not refer to any specific type of council recognized by the authority of the Catholic Church (the teachings and decisions of which would presumably somehow not be as binding upon members of the Church as those of a ‘dogmatic’ council). In the Church there are traditionally councils, or synods, which are styled ‘national councils,’ ‘provincial councils,’ or ‘general (ecumenical) councils,’ but none styled specifically a 'pastoral council.’ ”(p 33).
[My emphases].

“Pope John XXIII, in calling the Council, stated that the reasons he was doing so were of a character that could be broadly termed ‘pastoral,’ although Pope John himself, in using the word, merely spoke of the need today of a Church Magisterium ‘which is predominantly pastoral in character.’ Pope Paul VI similarly spoke of the ‘pastoral nature of the Council’ in his Weekly General Audience of January 12, 1966, but he didn’t call it a ‘pastoral council’ as if this were some new species of Church gathering which the faithful might go along with or not, as they chose” (p. 33).
cuf.org/2006/11/the-pope-the-council-and-the-mass/

Pastorally inclined like all Councils, Vatican II also developed doctrine profoundly, as the revered Fr John a Hardon, S.J., affirms. Vatican II confirmed that even non infallible doctrine must be received with assent: “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra”…when doctrine is proposed or formulated. *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), 25].

Similarly, “collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

The *Dogmatic Constitution On The Church *#8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].

 

[R_H_Benson]

Incorrect.

In his book, *Sources of Renewal *Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (St John Paul II) wrote: “It may be said that every Council in the Church’s history has been a pastoral one, if only because the assembled bishops, under the Pope’s guidance, are pastors of the Church. At the same time every Council is an act of the supreme Magisterium of the Church. Magisterium signifies teaching based on authority, a teaching which is the mission of the Apostles and their successors, it is part of their function and an essential task.” The Cardinal goes on: “All this has been signally confirmed by Vatican II, which, while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment.” (Ibid, p 38-39).

In The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, by James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead:
"The term ‘pastoral council’ as applied to Vatican II is merely a popular description and does not refer to any specific type of council recognized by the authority of the Catholic Church (the teachings and decisions of which would presumably somehow not be as binding upon members of the Church as those of a ‘dogmatic’ council). In the Church there are traditionally councils, or synods, which are styled ‘national councils,’ ‘provincial councils,’ or ‘general (ecumenical) councils,’ but none styled specifically a 'pastoral council.’ ”(p 33).
[My emphases].

“Pope John XXIII, in calling the Council, stated that the reasons he was doing so were of a character that could be broadly termed ‘pastoral,’ although Pope John himself, in using the word, merely spoke of the need today of a Church Magisterium ‘which is predominantly pastoral in character.’ Pope Paul VI similarly spoke of the ‘pastoral nature of the Council’ in his Weekly General Audience of January 12, 1966, but he didn’t call it a ‘pastoral council’ as if this were some new species of Church gathering which the faithful might go along with or not, as they chose” (p. 33).
cuf.org/2006/11/the-pope-the-council-and-the-mass/

Pastorally inclined like all Councils, Vatican II also developed doctrine profoundly, as the revered Fr John a Hardon, S.J., affirms. Vatican II confirmed that even non infallible doctrine must be received with assent: “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra”…when doctrine is proposed or formulated. *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), 25].

Similarly, “collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See *The Catholic Catechism

, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

The *Dogmatic Constitution On The Church *#8 (Vatican II) teaches that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213].

Can you provide a list of the doctrines that were solemnly defined at Vatican II? To authentically interpret Vatican II’s effects on the Ordinary Magisterium, isn’t it necessary that the Council be viewed in light of the Tradition of the Church? The Council is only infallible in relation to the Ordinary Magiterium when looked at in this light. Especially with Vatican II, it is possible to fall into accepting innovation as infallible without first determining if the doctrine in question is indeed being interpreted in a way that grows organically from Tradition.

(Sorry, posting from my iPhone)

 

[Abu]

R_H_Benson #13
Can you provide a list of the doctrines that were solemnly defined at Vatican II? To authentically interpret Vatican II’s effects on the Ordinary Magisterium, isn’t it necessary that the Council be viewed in light of the Tradition of the Church? The Council is only infallible in relation to the Ordinary Magiterium when looked at in this light. Especially with Vatican II, it is possible to fall into accepting innovation as infallible without first determining if the doctrine in question is indeed being interpreted in a way that grows organically from Tradition.

Fr John A Hardon has already been quoted as to how Vatican II developed doctrine profoundly (post #12)… Here are the facts on Vatican II from Pope Pius IX and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

“Pope Pius IX taught on this subject in a letter to the Abbot of Solesmes: " '…the Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Spirit…it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what must be believed…’ **Not only what the Council ‘defines’ – it should be noted – but what it ‘proposes.’ **" (The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, by James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead, p 38-39). [My emphasis].

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger places Vatican II in its rightful place and wrote in The Ratzinger Report:
"I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the ‘true’ Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West: the success of the upper middle class, the new ‘tertiary bourgeoisie’, with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp. The cardinal exhorts all Catholics who wish to remain such “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 28-31].

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).

Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the required fidelity to Vatican II as: “to defend the true tradition of the Church today is to defend the Council…And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” (The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, 1985, p 31).

Fr William Most examined ten legitimate changes at Vatican II and found not one was a reverse of doctrine. All gave answers to previously debated points. Fr Most concludes: “It is obvious then that Vatican II did not create a revolution in theology. There are no reversals of teaching at all, and some…are only a little different or stronger than previous teachings, but all are in the same direction.” Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers To Modern Critics, Fr William G Most, TAN, 1986, p 200].

 

[thinkandmull]

Paul VI specifically said that the Church would not be “dogmatic”. So nothing it taught from Revelation was infallible, unless you are speaking of a previous infallible Church decree. Then we poor lay people are left to figure out what doctrines are based on revelation and which are not. Take religious liberty. Tradition or natural law? Who knows. The Church needs a Vatican III to clean up the mess of Paul VI

“collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233].

So before Vatican II people thought a Council was a Papal action done with a bunch of advisors? I don’t think so.

Also, papal infallibility was defined by a Council because there were people who believed only in Councils. It only makes sense for a Pope to define collegiality. Would it have made sense for Pius IX to have defined that he was infallible?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Errham it seems this thread just confirms your confusion!

If you want CAF’s view this Forum will not give it to you - try a personal request to the CAF Apologist.

But you will only get a human view - CAF is hardly an infallible authority afterall.

I agree with Abu, saying the VATII Council was only “pastoral” is silly.

Then real problem is:
(a) you need to specify a particular teaching if you want to guage “infallibility.”
(b) as is currently being discussed elsewhere the Church’s teaching on Infallibility is equally incredibly hard to get consensus/understanding on/of as well.

 

[DavidFilmer]

A Pope MAY teach infallibly (or not).

An Ecumenical Council MAY teach infallibly (or not).

The ONLY way we can know if either has taught infallibly is if the Church tells us so.

The Church maintains that

No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident. [Code of Canon Law (1983 CIC), #749 §3]

When the Church says that an understanding must be “manifestly evident” then I guarantee She is not talking about each of us getting out our Vatikan-1 Kaptian Kathlolic Dekoder Ring and deciding for ourselves what is infallible and what is not.

And, besides, the Church has never defined the conditions under which a Council may teach infallibly. This has been defined only for (and specifically for) Popes. It MAY be the same for Councils, but we really don’t know. Even if we accept the notion that V-2 was “only” pastoral, that doesn’t mean that V-2 didn’t teach infallibly, because we don’t really know what Conciliar infallibility looks like.

The Church has not said that Vatican-2 is infallible, so we shouldn’t say so either (this actually applies to most Councils, including Trent).

But the Church has not said that V-2 is NOT infallible (so we shouldn’t say so either). The Church could define the infallible nature of V-2 at any time.

There is NO SUCH THING as ANY Catholic Doctrine that is NOT infallible. There is only Doctrine which has not been defined as infallible. The Church has never said, “oh, by the way, this Doctrine is not infallible.”

But IT DOESN’T MATTER to the guy in the pew. Catholics are expected to observe ALL Church doctrine. Whether this-or-that has been promulgated infallibility is pretty much irrelevant to the guy in the pew.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Generally, those leaning towards the traditionalist/liberal sides have told me that it wasn’t, whereas those who are very much in favor of the changes made have told me that it was.

And those who have been traditionalist/liberal to the point that they left the Church because of Vatican II have also cited the fact that it’s considered “infallible” as a central reason.]

What teachings of Vatican II are these arguments about, specifically?

 

[Abu]

DavidFilmer #12
the Church has not said that V-2 is NOT infallible (so we shouldn’t say so either).

Incorrect.

Infallibility NEVER applies to Ecumenical Councils (e.g. Vatican II) or any other group, or to any Papal Encyclicals or other Papal documents, but ONLY to the specific definitive statement itself within the particular document.

No dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment for the whole Church, that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false. The words ex cathedra are never included.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

There is NO SUCH THING as ANY Catholic Doctrine that is NOT infallible. There is only Doctrine which has not been defined as infallible.

There is doctrine which has not been defined infallibly.

The three levels of teaching from Ad Tuendam Fidem are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Canon 752
“While the assent of faith is not required, **a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. **Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.” [My emphases].
ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/ADTUCANS.HTM

We note that:
“…infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium… is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church’s faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.”
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

But IT DOESN’T MATTER to the guy in the pew

To express the feeling that the Magisterium has wasted valuable time to take the trouble to carefully define the meaning and categories of infallible and other teaching for all of us, because “it doesn’t matter” indicates an unfortunate feeling of superiority over the Magisterium established by Christ.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Incorrect.

I think I am correct, but you got the wrong end of what I was saying.

Infallibility NEVER applies to Ecumenical Councils (e.g. Vatican II) or any other group, or to any Papal Encyclicals or other Papal documents, but ONLY to the specific definitive statement itself within the particular document.

Agreed. A Pope (or Council) MAY teach infallibly, but only one particular sentence of that teaching may be infallible. Or, mabye, none of it is. Or, maybe, all of it is.

At any rate, we don’t know about that sentence (or its status) unless the Church tells us.

No dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment for the whole Church, that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false. The words ex cathedra are never included.

Agreed. But, there is apparently a “code word” that is used in (modern) ex Cathedra teachings, and that “code word” is “define.” I thought that whole idea was absolutely silly, and I pretty much said so in this thread. Forum Member steveb corrected me. This is a guy that almost doesn’t believe in venial sin. So I made it my mission to show that he was wrong about this ALSO. Alas, my research showed that he was right, and I was wrong, and I retracted my objections and conceded the argument in this thread. (how many times have you seen THAT happen here?)

He got the whole “code word” thing correct. He’s still wrong about venial sin, though.

To my knowledge, nothing that ANY Ecumenical Council has taught has been acknowledged by the Magesterium as infallible. The Church has never defined the terms under which an Ecumenical Council teaches infallibly (it MIGHT be the same conditions as a Pope, defined in Vatican-1, but we really don’t know). But we know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, two things:

• We ought not call ANY doctrine “infallible” unless the Church has made this “manifestly evident”
• The infallible nature (or not) is pretty much irrelevant to the guy in the pew, who is expected to accept ALL Catholic doctrine, without any regard to infallibility.

By my count, the number of “infallible” doctrines of the Church (that we can rightfully call infallible) could be counted on the fingers of one hand (with some fingers left over).

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”
There is doctrine which has not been defined infallibly.

Yeah, that’s what I said. But, as I said, the infallible nature of the doctrine is pretty much irrelevant to the guy in the pew. Catholics are expected to adhere to ALL Church teaching.

Did you actually read what I said before you accused me of being wrong about it?