What counts as infallible in a council?

[Lazerlike42]

When reading a council, what is infallible? Is it only the canons?

For instance, I have read that Vatican II is not infallible in the sense that it taught nothing new and contained no canons.

On the other hand, much of what is taught in prior councils do not hold corresponding canons. For instance, Trent said:

"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, [Page 233] but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ. But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses before the uneducated multitude. In like manner, such things as are uncertain, or which labour under an appearance of error, let them not allow to be made public and treated of. While those things which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks of the faithful. But let the bishops take care, that the suffrages of the faithful who are living, to wit the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety, which have been wont to be performed by the faithful for the other faithful departed, be piously and devoutly performed, in accordance with the institutes of the church; and that whatsoever is due on their behalf, from the endowments of testators, or in other way, be discharged, not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately, by the priests and ministers of the church, and others who are bound to render this (service). "

Yet I can find no canon regarding it or an anathemazation. What is it that makes this statement be regarded as infallible, and why are statements in Vatican II that do not also have a corresponding canon or anathemazation not considered infallible?

 

[bear06]

If I’m reading right, it seems that you are on track with your inquiries. I do think that people are still having a problem figuring out the organs and scope of infallibility from what I’ve seen posted lately.

I’d read these two entires in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

1. In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of fhe Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ’s teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church. This principle is expressly affrmed by the Vatican Council when it says that “the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching received the command to guard the deposit of faith, possesses also by Divine authority (divinitus) the right to condemn science falsely so called, lest anyone should be cheated by philosophy and vain conceit (cf. Colossians 2:8)” (Denz., 1798, old no. 1845).

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

 

[Lazerlike42]

According to what Jimmy Akin has written, that statement on Purgatory below is not infallible. He says that Trent’s infallible statements are contained in the canons, and that the decrees are only meant to explain what is elsewhere (in the canons) defined infallibly. So where is the infallible canon on Purgatory?

 

[Verbum]

Hi Lazer,

Of course there is obvious dogmatic teaching when a council anathemizes. But that does not mean that there is no infallible teaching in other cases. Don’t forget that the teaching of Vatican II is approved by the Pope, and whenever the Pope or a Council approved by the Pope finds that a teaching is universal and constant, it is considered infallible teaching. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church :

**

891

“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 he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.**

Robert