Replies

Link to Infallibility. Note it says that Ecumenical Councils are Infallible.

I'm quite familiar with your link. My concern isn't about the statement that Councils are infallible. It's the way you seem to be mixing the notion of a council being invested with infallible authority and a council making an infallible pronouncement.

The pope is also infallible. But that does not justify the notion that his every word and action is infallible. In fact the Church goes to great pains to specifically define HOW the pope is infallible. It does the same with Ecumenical Councils.

In other words, saying a council is infallible is not the same thing as saying a particular statement by a council in infallible. Councils make both infallible and "non-infallible" statements.

"In other words, saying a council is infallible is not the same thing as saying a particular statement by a council in infallible. Councils make both infallible and "non-infallible" statements."

I think you have hit the nail on the head Snuffington and the link that CG supplies is actually very useful in supporting what you say.

What we are all really discussing (ranting?) about here is not whether Ecumenical Councils are infallible or not - I'm sure most of us would agree that they are. What we are contesting here is the "subject matter of infallibility" and whether this devolves on every last "if" and "the" as Catholicguy has claimed.

The link that Catholicguy has provided to the Catholic Encyclopedia on General Councils has this to say on the matter:

"The subject matter of infallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the DEFINITIONS AND DECREES of councils, and IN THEM ALONE, TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE THEOLOGICAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR HISTORICAL REASONS UPON WHICH THEY ARE BUILT UP. THESE REPRESENT TOO MUCH OF THE HUMAN ELEMENT, OF TRANSIENT MENTALITIES, OF PERSONAL INTERESTS TO CLAIM THE PROMISE OF INFALLIBILITY MADE TO THE CHURCH AS A WHOLE; IT IS THE SENSE OF THE UNCHANGING CHURCH THAT IS INFALLIBLE, NOT THE SENSE OF INDIVIDUAL CHURCHMEN OF ANY AGE OR EXCELLENCE, AND THAT SENSE FINDS EXPRESSION ONLY IN THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE COUNCIL APPROVED BY THE POPE. Decisions referring to dogma were called in the East diatyposeis (constitutions, statutes); those concerned with discipline were termed kanones (canons, rules), often with the addition of tes eutaxias (of discipline, or good order). The expressions thesmoi and horoi apply to both, and the short formulae of condemnation were known as anathematismoi (anathemas)."

In answer to our dispute, one sentence above bears re-emphasis:

"The subject matter of infallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the DEFINITIONS AND DECREES of councils, and IN THEM ALONE".

I have spent the last two hours going through the documents of Vatican II looking for definitions and decrees, and have so far found no definitions (nothing even that may be vaguely construed as a definition), and only two of the documents contain specific decrees: Sacrosanctum concilium and Christus Dominus. Even the dogmatic constitutions Lumen Gentium and Dei verbum contain no definitions or decrees.

Most of the documents are pastoral in orientation and therefore you would not expect them to focus on definitions anyway. While they are replete with urgings and exhortations, I am surprised at how few decrees there are. Nevertheless, it is now apparent to me why Cardinal Ratzinger could say:

"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;"

IF THEN THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AND CARDINAL RATZINGER ARE CORRECT, the great majority of the subject matter in the documents of the Council comes under the heading of authorised teaching of the Church which is not protected by the note of infallibility. These teachings should be adhered to with religious submission of intellect and will, especially as they contain much of what has previously been declared "de fide" by Scripture, Tradition and the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

However, that does not mean that we should undergo a lobotomy when the non-infallible teaching sometimes appears to contradict Scripture, Tradition and the ordinary Magisterium. As rational human beings we are called to seek for the Truth, and so it must be legitimate to question apparent contradictions and seek clarification from our shepherds.

To do otherwise would be to reduce Catholicism to some mindless Fideism, which the Church has consistently condemned. We would also be doing less than worshipping God with all our mind.

I would contend therefore that it is quite consistent to defend the infallibility of Vatican II, vis a vis the Council's subject matter that pertains to infallibility, while still questioning ambiguities and apparent contradictions in those parts of the documents that are not infallible. It is simply a matter of justice that the Church should explain to her sons and daughters how these may be reconciled with Tradition, and thus far there are several issues which have never been authoritatively addressed.