Is Vatican Ii Infallible

[Skinzo]

Resurrexi maintains that Vatican II is not infallible. To quote him from another thread hes says: "the documents of Vatican II contain no infallible solemn judgments of the Magisterium."
Presumably this is based on a remark of Paul VI that Vatican II was a "pastoral" council.
But some theologians argue the contrary.
Reactions? Is there a definitive statement anywhere on the status of Vatican II?

[mortify]

Vatican II documents do contain statements reflecting the Ordinary Magisterium, such statements are infallible. For the most part however, Vatican II was a pastoral council.

[KnightofChrist]

Vatican II was pastoral not dogmatic.

[KnightofChrist]

he Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile


In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.
Pope Paul VI
General Audience, 12 January 1966

[kafka]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='07 February 2010 - 07:53 AM' timestamp='1265547208' post='2052433']
Resurrexi maintains that Vatican II is not infallible. To quote him from another thread hes says: "the documents of Vatican II contain no infallible solemn judgments of the Magisterium."
Presumably this is based on a remark of Paul VI that Vatican II was a "pastoral" council.
But some theologians argue the contrary.
Reactions? Is there a definitive statement anywhere on the status of Vatican II?
[/quote]
It is a matter of theological debate as you said. Vatican II was an Ecumenical council including pastoral, dogmatic, and disciplinary aspects. There is no doubt to this. There is no such thing as an Ecumenical council merely being pastoral. It clearly taught and asserted truths of faith and morals.

One of the problems in analyzing VII is that it took a more positive tone in teaching as opposed to Ecumenical councils in the past which expressed canons where infallible teachings were asserted negatively in defense of the faith, yet Vatican two took a different tone, so it is difficult to discern just where an infallible truth is being asserted to the Faithful. The ultimate question is under what criteria does an Ecumenical council teach infallibly? Once that is established then one can analyze the council much better, since infallible teachings do not depend upon mere verbal forms, rather fundamental criteria may be met and expressed in different verbal forms or even implicitly.

My opinion would be that the criteria of Ecumenical councils teaching infallibly is basically the same as the criteria of papal infallibility only under the first and second criteria a Pope and a gathering of Bishops is teaching in their official capacity as teachers and shepherds of all Christians in virture of their apostolic authority (bishops in union with the pope) as opposed to the Pope alone ex catheria.

Edited February 7, 2010 by kafka

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='07 February 2010 - 07:53 AM' timestamp='1265547208' post='2052433']
Resurrexi maintains that Vatican II is not infallible. To quote him from another thread hes says: "the documents of Vatican II contain no infallible solemn judgments of the Magisterium."
Presumably this is based on a remark of Paul VI that Vatican II was a "pastoral" council.
But some theologians argue the contrary.
Reactions? Is there a definitive statement anywhere on the status of Vatican II?
[/quote]

It is completely incorrect to state that I said that Vatican II did not teach infallibly.

I never said that Vatican II did not teach infallibly; I stated that it did not exercise infallibility by a solemn judgment.

There is a huge difference between saying that the "Council did not exercise its infallibility by a solemn judgment" (Resurrexi, [i]Catholic / Orthodox Dialogue - Working Document On Primacy[/i], [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=102530&view=findpost&p=2051969"]Post # 41[/url]) and saying that Vatican II did not teach infallibly at all.

I maintain that the Second Vatican Council did indeed teach infallibly, but only by the ordinary and universal Magisterium and not by any solemn judgment.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 February 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1265575383' post='2052642']
I maintain that the Second Vatican Council did indeed teach infallibly, but only by the ordinary and universal Magisterium and not by any solemn judgment.
[/quote]

Not to be too dense, but to what extent does it matter whether something is defined infallibly by the ordinary & universal Magisterium versus by solemn judgment. Is infallibility by any other name something other than infallibility?

Edited February 7, 2010 by Veridicus

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 February 2010 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1265575383' post='2052642']
It is completely incorrect to state that I said that Vatican II did not teach infallibly.

I never said that Vatican II did not teach infallibly; I stated that it did not exercise infallibility by a solemn judgment.

There is a huge difference between saying that the "Council did not exercise its infallibility by a solemn judgment" (Resurrexi, [i]Catholic / Orthodox Dialogue - Working Document On Primacy[/i], [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=102530&view=findpost&p=2051969"]Post # 41[/url]) and saying that Vatican II did not teach infallibly at all.

I maintain that the Second Vatican Council did indeed teach infallibly, but only by the ordinary and universal Magisterium and not by any solemn judgment.
[/quote]

I quoted you accurately.


S.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='07 February 2010 - 05:17 PM' timestamp='1265581077' post='2052728']
I quoted you accurately.


S.
[/quote]

But you completely misinterpreted that quote as saying something that it did not say.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 February 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1265581314' post='2052733']
But you completely misinterpreted that quote as saying something that it did not say.
[/quote]

I don't think any other interpretation is possible. Do you mean it taught infallibly but not in a solemn infallible manner??

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='07 February 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1265580718' post='2052714']
Not to be too dense, but to what extent does it matter whether something is defined infallibly by the ordinary & universal Magisterium versus by solemn judgment. Is infallibility by any other name something other than infallibility?
[/quote]

The ordinary and universal Magisterium is, to quote St. Vincent of Lerins, "that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all [in the Catholic Church]."

The first use of the language "ordinary and universal Magisterium" can be found in the Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, [i]Dei Filius[/i]: "Porro fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ab Ecclesia sive solemni judicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tamquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur."-"Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium." (First Ecumenical Vatican Council: Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3011). It should be noted that this statement from Vatican I is quoted verbatim in the [i]Professio Fidei[/i] promulgated by Pope John Paul II in [i]Ad Tuendam Fidem[/i].

The most complete and fully developed explanation of the ordinary and universal Magisterium can be found in the CDF Doctrinal Commentary:

"Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, [i]Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the[/i] Professio Fidei, 9)

"It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but 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." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, [i]Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the[/i] Professio Fidei, footnote 17)

Those truths which have been proposed as divinely revealed are all owed the the assent of theological faith; truths set forth as divinely revealed by the ordinary and universal Magisterium are owed the same assent as those defined as divinely revealed by a solemn judgment.

In a like manner, truths in regard to faith and morals that the Church has infallibly declared as certain by the ordinary and universal Magisterium are to be held definitively just like those which have been defined as certain by a solemn judgment.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='07 February 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1265581434' post='2052734']
I don't think any other interpretation is possible. Do you mean it taught infallibly but not in a solemn infallible manner??
[/quote]

I have already explained what I meant in post #6.

[Ziggamafu]

If V2 was a stand alone council, then it was not infallible; it merely proclaimed infallible teachings that were already defined.

If V2 was actually the conclusion of V1 (which never actually closed / ended), then it is part of an infallible council, but its teachings still belong to the pastoral realm.