Was Vatican II Infallible?

[Ron_Conte]

Vatican II did not issue discrete infallible Canons with attached anathemas. However, the Council did teach infallibly. For example, the teaching of Vatican II on papal infallibility reiterates the infallible teaching of Vatican I. We cannot say that this teaching in Vatican II is anything other than infallible.

Also, Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium are both termed “Dogmatic Constitutions”, indicating that doctrine is being taught definitively.

One might argue that many teachings of Vatican II are non-infallible. But since the time of the Council, these teachings have continued to be taught by successive Popes and by the body of Bishops dispersed in the world. As a result, many teachings of Vatican II now fall under the infallible ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The Magisterium has taught that some of its teachings are non-infallible. This distinction between infallible and non-infallible teachings is implied by the dogma of papal infallibility: the Pope is only infallible when his teachings meet certain criteria. So when his teachings fall short of those criteria, what should we call them? John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the U.S. Bishops have all used the term non-infallible.

 

[Ignatius]

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.

Thanks you, that is precisely what I was trying to say.

 

[thinkandmull]

First Paul VI says no dogmatic definitions, than we have two “Dogmatic Constitutions”? Does that does mean “on dogmatic questions”? Who knows? Is it possible that pastoral (which means "by the shepherd) means "non-infallible? Who knows.

People try to say that solemn definitions merely imply a different level of censure and excommunication to the decenter, and that that alone was what was being avoided at VII.

 

[Gorgias]

People get all worked up asking “was 2VC infallible?!?!?!?”. Here’s the thing: you’re asking the wrong question. The right question is “was 2VC authoritative?” The answer, of course, is ‘yes’.

So… assent to what the magisterium taught at 2VC, and don’t get bent out of shape about ‘infallibility.’ (By the same token, make sure you’re listening to the teachings of the council, and not someone else’s spin on what it taught… )

 

[catholictiger]

It doesn’t matter if Vatican II was infallible, it is the ordinary teaching magisterium of the Church. We are bound to believe in what the Church teaches us with religious submission of mind and will.

 

[thinkandmull]

It matters because if its not infallible it could be in error. I find it really strange to accept something that could be wrong. If its infallible, than we know that its true. That’s why this discussion matters

 

[davidv]

It matters because if its not infallible it could be in error. I find it really strange to accept something that could be wrong. If its infallible, than we know that its true. That’s why this discussion matters

You could be wrong so I should not accept the statement above?

I believe that all teachings of the Church, infallible or not, will not lead us away from God. In that respect they can never be in error. They may not be the complete answer, however, that is true for nearly every statement of human knowledge.