Why do some still say that Vatican II is not infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Asimis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Asimis

Guest
There seems to be a never ending controversy regarding the status of the Second Vatican Council.

I extracted several paragraphs from some of the documents:

Lumen Gentium:

Paragraph 25:
Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. 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 in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.

Note: This document is called “Dogmatic Constitution of The Church, so it’s infallibility is obvious just by the title itself.

Unitatis Redintegratio
Paragraph 24:
Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.

Dei Verbum
Paragraph 25:
The entire text and all the individual elements which have been set forth in this Constitution have pleased the Fathers. And by the Apostolic power conferred on us by Christ, we, together with the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and enact them; and we order that what has been thus enacted in Council be promulgated, to the glory of God.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum
Paragraph 30:
Each and all these matters which are set forth in this decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And we, by the apostolic authority given us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.

Nostra Aetate
Last Paragraph:
The entire text and all the individual elements which have been set forth in this Declaration have pleased the Fathers. And by the Apostolic power conferred on us by Christ, we, together with the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and enact them; and we order that what has been thus enacted in Council be promulgated, to the glory of God.

Pope Paul VI’s Closing Speech:
*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 decided 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 and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. 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 whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.*

Now, there is indeed a lot of controversy going on today and much if not all of it is blamed on the council itself. But it seems that while The Church is indeed more open to “renewal” and “revision”, like for example on The Sacred Liturgy, she did not advance the abuses that go on today in the NO Mass. It would seem that the current problem is not with the council but with people abusing the openness and humility with which the Church has expressed herself in this council.

From the documents of the council themselves we can deduce that they are infallible and demand obedience from everyone.

Ecumenism has been causing a lot of confusion so here is a good document about it which was declared as infallible by the current Pope:

Dominus Iesus

Have a good one and God Bless,
Asimis
 
Hi Asimis,

Thank you for this reminder. Technically, there might not be any “infallible” declarations, such as the “anathemas” found in Trent and other councils. But the solemnity of the declarations and the unconditional sanction by the Pope leave no doubt as to their total conformity with Holy Tradition and Scripture.

By denying them one would certainly put their salvation in jeopardy.

Verbum
 
Just because “Dogmatic Constitution” is in the title of the document it does not necessarily follow that the document is dogmatic. Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council of the Church but it is not infallible. If anyone believes that VII is infallible then please cite the dogma defined by the Council.

James
 
40.png
James0235:
Just because “Dogmatic Constitution” is in the title of the document it does not necessarily follow that the document is dogmatic. Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council of the Church but it is not infallible. If anyone believes that VII is infallible then please cite the dogma defined by the Council.

James
Click to expand...
All documents that come from a Council are infallible.

It is not necessary for a Council to define dogma for it to be infallible.

This is the error that many take who hate Vatican II.

Please show where the Church Teaches that a Council is only infallible if it defines dogma.
 
40.png
James0235:
If anyone believes that VII is infallible then please cite the dogma defined by the Council.
Click to expand...
This post provides an example of an infallible act of teaching by Vatican II.
 
40.png
James0235:
Just because “Dogmatic Constitution” is in the title of the document it does not necessarily follow that the document is dogmatic. Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council of the Church but it is not infallible. If anyone believes that VII is infallible then please cite the dogma defined by the Council.

James
Click to expand...
The Church is infallible when defining and stating things about faith and morals, is this not what this council does? The Church does not needs to define a dogma in order to be infallible when it speaks.
 
Of course, one has to distinguish between matters of discipline and matters of doctrine. When, for example, the Council prescribes that Orthodox can receive communion in our churches, this is a matter of discipline. One can disagree and the discipline can change. But where, for example, the Council teaches that all men of good will following their conscience can be saved, then we are bound to accept this teaching.

Verbum
 
40.png
Verbum:
Of course, one has to distinguish between matters of discipline and matters of doctrine. When, for example, the Council prescribes that Orthodox can receive communion in our churches, this is a matter of discipline. One can disagree and the discipline can change. But where, for example, the Council teaches that all men of good will following their conscience can be saved, then we are bound to accept this teaching.

Verbum
Click to expand...
So, then the following in UR is infallible truth:
The brethren divided from us also use many (actually ALL in this case) liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

If so, then the SSPX 's “liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.”

SSPX liturgy must objectively have access to salvation, and is “by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them **as means of salvation”

Right?
Or are they exempted exclusively? If so, what exactly proves this infallibly?
**
 
40.png
James0235:
Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council of the Church but it is not infallible. If anyone believes that VII is infallible then please cite the dogma defined by the Council.
Click to expand...
You don’t seem to be aware of the difference between a teaching that is infallible and what it means to solemnly define a new dogma of the Church. An infallible teaching of the Catholic Church is a teaching that is true that has as its object a matter of faith or morals. It is quite correct to say that Vatican II did not solemnly define any new dogma, but that hardly means that what was taught about the faith at Vatican II are not infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.

Vatican II reaffirmed and further clarified existing dogmas of the Catholic Church, e.g. dogma regarding papal infallibility that was solemnly defined at Vatican I. The further clarifications of the dogma of papal infallibility are infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.

There are often matters involving church discipline that are promulgated at Ecumenical Councils. To properly discuss the teachings of Vatican II, we need to distinguish between matters involving disipline (changable) and matters involving doctrine (unchangable).
 
Just because “Dogmatic Constitution” is in the title of the document it does not necessarily follow that the document is dogmatic. Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council of the Church but it is not infallible. If anyone believes that VII is infallible then please cite the dogma defined by the Council.

Response:
A statement that is infallible does not have to be a “dogma.” Vatican 2 did teach new infallible teachings that are de fide tenenda. One example is the sacramentality of the episcopate. The Church ended the debate there and hence, case is closed. Another is the partim/partim issue. Before Vatican 2, theologians were permitted to believe that revelation came from two sources. Vatican 2 ended the debate by saying that there is one source with two transmission.

Anyone who thinks that Vatican 2 did not teach infallible teachings is probably ignorant of how the magisterium works, theology, and history.
 
40.png
Verbum:
Hi TNT,
Click to expand...
Would you re-state that, please?

Verbum

Thanks, yur the only one of 18k members who took the time.

Here’s the Q. restated:

In the recital of UR that I gave above, is the SSPX not part of those “separated…”?
If they are not part of those “separated…”, where in UR are they excluded, infallibly?
I realize you speculated that non-infallible Intro to the UR may be used for SSPX exclusion, but is their an Infallible content that excludes. The examples I gave were:
  1. One comes into the SSPX from a Prot sect.
  2. One is a child born into the SSPX by parents already in the SSPX group or fold or whatever the proper nomenclature.
  3. One who was in the VATII church, and by demand of their conscience, entered into the SSPX.
God Bless.

Verbum, the problem I have so many times is the posters’ declaration that VATII is infallible. So be it. YET, when I ask about specific content and the application of it, …dead silence.
It’s like all is in the theoretical, but nothing in the tangible.
 
40.png
James0235:
Just because “Dogmatic Constitution” is in the title of the document it does not necessarily follow that the document is dogmatic. Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council of the Church but it is not infallible. If anyone believes that VII is infallible then please cite the dogma defined by the Council.

James
Click to expand...
It is not a Dogmatic Council…correct. That means it did not respond to a particular error and define a Dogma in response ot that error. However, what is taught is still binding as it is a continuation of the constant teaching of the Church. Whatever is taught by the magesterium (faith and morals for all to believe) in union with the Holy Father I believe meets the criteria. Nothing new was taught but what was taught…faith and morals…is in line and does not contradict.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

PS some people are upset about the removal of the Trindentine mass and the replacement with NO…however, the Trindentine mass was Changed many times and was not the mass practiced for the first few hundred years in the church and not in the Eastern rites. These are no less valid…they emphasize different aspects and we can all have an opinion on their beauty.
 
40.png
TNT:
is the SSPX not part of those “separated…”?
Click to expand...
Yes they are…
  1. One comes into the SSPX from a Prot sect.
  2. One is a child born into the SSPX by parents already in the SSPX group or fold or whatever the proper nomenclature.
Click to expand...
No problem so far…but…
  1. One who was in the VATII church, and by demand of their conscience, entered into the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Here you err, you know that the Catholic Church is the true Church so you cannot reject her and then go on to join a group(the SSPX in this case) who is not in communion with The Church.

If you know The Catholic Church is the true Church then the demand of your conscience is to summit to The Church not to reject it.

If the problem is because of the TM, then why not inform the people who are attending the NO about the issue so that you can help make a change and bring the TM into a church in communion with Rome?
 
I’m not aware that the Church has challenged the validity of SSPX Sacraments, so I don’t understand your point, TNT. The licitness of the Sacraments is obviously not present, but that’s not what the document you cited is talking about.
 
Hi TNT,

Throughout Church history, a distinction has always been made between those who, of their own free will, left the Catholic Church and those who were, so to say born into heresy or schism.

Those who leave the Catholic Church are presumed to be in sin and to have incurred canonical penalties. Those who are born into heresy or schism are presumed to be sincere in their belief and, all things being equal on the way to salvation.

There is no indication that the documents of the Second Vatican Council refer to those who willingly, on their own, went into heresy or schism.

Verbum
 
40.png
Asimis:
Yes they are…

Here you err, you know that the Catholic Church is the true Church so you cannot reject her and then go on to join a group(the SSPX in this case) who is not in communion with The Church.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the answers. I did not err because I was posing a question, not a declaration.

The people are real, however, one my wife, the others are friends/ families.
The TLM Indult is available here. That is not their only objection, needless to say.
 
Yes, there are other objections, like Ecumenism and several things done and said by the current Pope(kissing the koran, promoting united worship between Catholics and non-Catholics, etc). But the things is, did Vatican II really said what is done today? It seems to me that what is doen goes against Vatican II.
 
40.png
Ghosty:
I’m not aware that the Church has challenged the validity of SSPX Sacraments, so I don’t understand your point, TNT. The licitness of the Sacraments is obviously not present, but that’s not what the document you cited is talking about.
Click to expand...
Correct! Licity does not matter for those born into SSPX or came to it from a Prot. sect when it says in:
VATII UR:
. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Click to expand...
If so, then the SSPX 's “liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.”

SSPX liturgy must objectively have access to salvation, and is “by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them **as means of salvation”

The point is, should I quit causing anxiety or frustration for my wife in trying to move her from SSPX (where she came from a Prot sect), if she is already in a “means of salvation”**? She does not want his subject of leaving SSPX in our conversation.
I even attend Weekday SSPX Mass with her as work permits, as an “ecumenical” gesture.
This may sound like a rare case, but it’s going to get much more frequent as SSPX and Traditional Catholics inter-marry.
In other words licity or any other objection is a moot point* toward salvation* for those who are in the SSPX by birth or from a Prot. sect.
Therefore, in about 2 generations from 1988, it will apply to nearly ALL SSPX, including its clergy. That being the case, the SSPX problem is pragmatically solving itself as the years go by.
Similar to the E-Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.
 
40.png
TNT:
Therefore, in about 2 generations from 1988, it will apply to nearly ALL SSPX, including its clergy. That being the case, the SSPX problem is pragmatically solving itself as the years go by.
Similar to the E-Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is among the problems with Ecumenism(salvation outside the church) movement it backfires on The Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top