Quick Q

[goldenchild17]

I know this could come off as an attack on it, but it isn't I just want to get Rome's answer if it exists. Was VII ecumenical and an infallible council? Or was it simply pastoral? Or what's the deal? I hear many things from many different sides, and have read the documents from Paul VI seemingly claiming they are not to be considered infallible(thus not binding us to adhere to them). But I would like to clear this up, before I continue too much further in my search.

[Era Might]

The Second Vatican Council did not undertake any formally dogmatic definitions, that is, it didn't issue a definition which is infallible [i]in itself[/i]. This would have constituted an exercise of the "Supreme Extraordinary Magisterium", which is the specific authority spoken of at the First Vatican Council; also known as "Ex Cathedra".

Vatican II was an exercise of the "Supreme Ordinary Magisterium", which although not infallible in itself, is nevertheless binding on the faithful; first, because it is the highest teaching authority of the Church without specifically invoking her infallibility, and second, because of the reasons enumerated by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Letter "Humani Generis": He who hears the Magisterium, hears Christ.

The Council was, in a sense, a "pastoral" council, in that it was primarily aimed at the rejuvenation of the Catholic faith. But it would be erroneous to oppose "pastoral" and "doctrinal". A Priest who advises a penitent is giving pastoral advice, but part of that pastoral advice will probably include the imparting of doctrine.

The Council did explicitly develop the doctrine of the Church in Dignitatis Humanae and elsewhere:

[quote]Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.[/quote]

So the doctrinal teaching of the Council, although not infallible in itself, must be received and given assent by the faithful. It does not admit of dissent, particularly now that the teaching has been confirmed by multiple Popes.

All Councils have some disciplinary elements, aside from their doctrinal concerns. The Council of Trent, for example, decided not to introduce the vernacular in the Mass. This was a disciplinary norm, and it must be accepted as fully legitimate and Catholic, although one can propose other avenues. This would be true of some of the disciplinary norms of the Second Vatican Council, such as the reform of the cycle of readings. But even behind disciplinary norms lies a doctrinal foundation, and we must be careful that we don't attack that foundation. Our proposals are moreso different ways to express the foundation, and not a dissent from it.

Edited April 8, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

The Holy Father explains better than I can in "The Ratzinger Report":

[quote]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 the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points . . .

Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called 'traditionalism,' also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.

To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the 'right' and 'left' alike) to view Vatican II as a 'break' and an abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them . . .

I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one's own already-established convictions?[/quote]

Edited April 8, 2006 by Era Might

[Dave]

To add to what Era Might has already said, councils are NOT either doctrinal or pastoral; they're either local or ecumenical.

[Era Might]

*Just to clarify what I said, we often think of things in terms of "Fallible/Infallible", so that anything which isn't specifically infallible is open to dissent. This is not how the Church approaches her ecclesiology. There's a lot of nuance here, which I couldn't really capture in my previous post, so I don't want to give any impression that because Conciliar texts are not infallible IN THEMSELVES, they can be dissented from, or that they have no relationship to the rest of the Church's doctrine. We must receive the teaching of the Council because it has been given to us by the Magisterium, and confirmed many times over by recent Popes. Technical questions about theological weight are left to the wrangling of theologians, who have been given that task. As lay faithful, we must humbly receive the teaching of the Council according to the mind of each document.

Edited April 8, 2006 by Era Might

[phatcatholic]

era........ur pimp 'ish bro

[goldenchild17]

k, thanks...

[thessalonian]

I think the question is mistaken. The implication is that because a council makes no dogmatic decrees it has a lesser authority or lacks authority. That we can then look for errors or explain things that were misconstrued after the councils as errors by the council. I hate to tell you but anytime the Churches bishops come together the Holy Spirit is there and you better not be picking at the corrners and you better listen up. Popes have few dogmatic declarations yet they are still the Supreme Pontif and to be listened to. Likewise councils have authority regardless of what level their declarations are to be taken. This mincing of words and posturing on what the decrees of the council were is ultimately about excusing disobedience.

[goldenchild17]

I know that. A council doesn't have to make a dogmatic decree of it's highest authority to be considered infallible. I wasn't asking if it did that. I was asking simply if it was to be considered infallible, regardless of the level of dogmatic decree? If it is a true council one should listen no matter what. But there is something more serious when it is considered infallible on any level.

[goldenchild17]

k, so while not declaring any specific doctrine at the highest level, V2 was still an infallible ecumenical council with which a Catholic may not disagree? Does this mean then that the council is protected from teaching any heresy and that a Catholic does not need to worry about it being there, because it can't exist within such a council? Thanks.

[Dave]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 11 2006, 10:05 AM']k, so while not declaring any specific doctrine at the highest level, V2 was still an infallible ecumenical council with which a Catholic may not disagree?  Does this mean then that the council is protected from teaching any heresy and that a Catholic does not need to worry about it being there, because it can't exist within such a council?  Thanks.
[right][snapback]943345[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes and yes.

[Era Might]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 11 2006, 12:05 PM']k, so while not declaring any specific doctrine at the highest level, V2 was still an infallible ecumenical council with which a Catholic may not disagree?  Does this mean then that the council is protected from teaching any heresy and that a Catholic does not need to worry about it being there, because it can't exist within such a council?  Thanks.
[right][snapback]943345[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

"Infallibility" is a specific charism that is invoked at certain times. No Ecumenical Council is made up entirely of infallible teachings. There's a difference between saying a document is infallible IN ITSELF, and saying that the teaching a document imparts is infallible. None of the Conciliar texts are infallible IN THEMSELVES, although I think it can be said that after fourty years of affirmation, the teaching of the Council is infallible by way of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium.

In "Lumen Gentium", a note is affixed reminding everyone that the theological weight of each document is determined by the common rules of theology (which it assumes Bishops and theologians know). It says that each document must be received by the faithful according to its mind.

So, for example, the mind of "Dignitatis Humanae" is to develop the Church's doctrine, and it expects the faithful to assent to this teaching, whereas much of "Sacrosanctum Concilium" is focused on disciplinary renewal, and the Council doesn't intend to say that "This is the only way things can be done", but, "This is how the Church is going to renew herself, and your humble deference is requested." It doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with the decision to reform the cycle of readings, for example, although you must acknowledge this as a legitimate decision and accept the reform.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Era Might

[goldenchild17]

Okie, couple more questions if you don't mind(good answers so far). Are any whole documents from the council to be considered infallible(ie. any document not dealing with just discipline)? Can we know which documents are infallible?

[Era Might]

No, I would say none of the documents are infallible IN THEMSELVES, because there are no dogmatic canons.

Pope Pius XII explained the deference we owe to the teaching of the Church even if it is not defined dogmatically:

[quote]Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

--Encyclical Letter "Humani Generis"[/quote]

The documents of an Ecumenical Council far surpass in theological weight a Papal Encyclical, because it is a collegial act of all the Bishops. If we owe assent to Encyclicals, even though they are not infallible IN THEMSELVES, how much moreso do we owe assent to the teaching of an Ecumenical Council?

[goldenchild17]

True, makes sense.

I guess what I'm getting at is, if we are to give our assent to such documents, does this mean then, that there can be no doctrinal error in it? And thus nothing that might be considered a heresy will be found in it, thereby giving peace to a person's faith?


EDIT: Also, does this mean that if the documents carry weight such that we must give our assent to them, do we also defend them from those who would claim heresy within them? Or simply say that they aren't infallible and thus no point in trying to find heresy as it will not prove anything? Does that make sense?

Edited April 11, 2006 by goldenchild17