"this was not an impediment given that the Council had not promulgated any binding dogmatic definition."
Actually, to get a bit picky, I believe there may have been some binding dogmatic definitions that were promulgated by the Council. It's just that those particular dogmas had also been declared binding by previous Councils, and are not in dispute by the traditionalists.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going from memory here.
<>I am glad you are backing away from\m supporting it in its entirety.<>
Father Blet noted that members of the Society had been very warmly received during the Holy Year, but that things have slowed down a little since then due principally to the question of accepting Vatican II. He added that "this was not an impediment given that the Council had not promulgated any binding dogmatic definition. Everyone therefore has the right to examine what he feels able to accept..."
<> That IS pure protestantism.<>
Resolution: "The documents of Vatican II are not infallible" Negative - Roman Catholic
My opponent continues to mount a generic argument against the infallibility of VCII because it did not use traditional definitive formulas from EM or OUM. As I have pointed out though, that is not at issue in this debate. The question is whether the documents of VCII taught anything infallibly. I have singled out certain specific issues on which VCII spoke authoritatively and which settled long-standing disputes. This is the crux of matter and so I will concentrate on these issues.
The experts – including Paul VI, Cardinal Ratzinger, and Yves Congar – say that the teaching in LG III on the sacramentality of the episcopate settled a question that until then was a matter of open dispute among theologians. My opponent denies that there was any such issue. He claims:
If this were true, some orthodox Catholics would have believed there were eight sacraments rather than seven before LG. Nonsense. The only belief held before the Council was that the episcopate was the fullness of the priesthood, as any preconciliar treatment of the episcopate will affirm. There was a dispute in the middle ages over whether bishops had greater sacramental power than priests, but that was definitively settled at Trent in the affirmative.
These incautious remarks confirm his amateur status and his ignorance of Catholic theology. Note the following:
New Advent Online Catholic Encyclopedia (1908): Holy Orders- Most of the older scholastics were of opinion that the episcopate is not a sacrament; this opinion finds able defenders even now (e.g., Billot, "De sacramentis", II), though the majority of theologians hold it is certain that a bishop's ordination is a sacrament.
Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, Vo.l IX: Sacraments IV(1917)-
Pg 75-76 – Speaking of the episcopal and sacerdotal characters, Vasquez expresses the opinion that the two are substantially identical and that the only difference is that the former bestows greater power than the latter. This hardly solves the problem at issue, for the reception of episcopal power must be based on some intrinsic quality of the soul and consequently postulates a character distinct from that of the priesthood. Such is indeed the common teaching of theologians. A few …hold that the episcopal character consists in a purely modal extension of the sacerdotal character…. Whether the episcopal character can be imprinted on a soul that has not yet received the sacerdotal character is open to debate.
Tanqueray, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II (1959)-
Pg 355 – There has been some discussion as to whether the episcopate is an order fully distinct from the priesthood or an extension of, and a compliment to, the priesthood; whether the episcopal character of itself embraces only strictly episcopal power…or rather includes also the entire priestly power…in such a way that if a deacon should receive episcopal consecration he would become at the same time a priest and a bishop. Many theologians assert that the episcopal character embraces only strictly episcopal power; so no bishop can be validly consecrated unless he is first a priest.
Donlan, Cunningham, Rock, Christ and his Sacraments (1958)- Pg 488 – [The] older theologians regarded the episcopacy as the fulfillment of the priesthood, whereas recent theologians see it as a distinct order. Neither opinion is certain, although the Council of Trent in defining that holy orders is truly a sacrament makes no distinction between the various orders.
The sacramentality of the episcopate was indeed an open question prior to VCII. In LGIII, Para 21 the matter was settled authoritatively. Therefore, VCII taught infallibly on this.
On the matter of the subdiaconate, my opponent says:
Before the Council, it was held that the subdiaconate was a sacramental, not a sacrament. Pius XII makes this truth clear in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. Dr. Ludwig Ott affirms it, and so does the Catholic Encyclopedia. The Council of Benevento under Urban II declared the same.
Once again, we consult the experts:
New Advent Online Catholic Encyclopedia (1908):
Holy Orders-
In the Latin Church the priesthood, diaconate, and subdiaconate (q.v.) are the major, or sacred, orders, so-called because they have immediate reference to what is consecrated (St. Thom., "Suppl.", Q. xxxvii, a. 3). The hierarchical orders strictly so-called are of divine origin (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXIII, can. 6). We have seen that our Lord instituted a ministry in the persons of His Apostles, who received fullness of authority and power. One of the first exercises of this Apostolic power was the appointment of others to help and succeed them…
All agree that there is but one Sacrament of Order, i.e., the totality of the power conferred by the sacrament is contained in the supreme order, whilst the others contain only part thereof (St. Thomas, "Supplem.", Q. xxxvii, a. i, ad 2um).
Subdeacon-
At the Council of Benevento (A.D. 1091), Urban II says: "We call sacred orders the deaconship and priesthood, for we read that the primitive Church had only those orders" (Can. I). Gratian (Dist. 21) says: "In the course of time, the Church herself instituted subdeacons and acolytes". It is true that the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, cap. 17, de ref.) says that "The functions of Holy orders from the deaconship to the ostiariate were laudably sanctioned in the Church from the times of the Apostles"; but these words simply indicate that the "functions" were so exercised (that is as part of the diaconate); it was only in the course of time that they were separated from the office of deacon and committed to inferior ministers. This explains why some theologians (e. g. Thomassinus, p. I, lib. II, cap. xl) speak of the subdiaconate as of Divine institution, that is they look on it as made up of functions proper to deacons… The subdiaconate is most probably, some say certainly not a true sacrament, but a sacramental instituted by the Church.
Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, Vo.l IX: Sacraments IV(1917)-
Pg 106- That the subdiaconate … [is] ecclesiastical orders has never been denied. The only question is whether [it is] sacramental and divinely instituted by Christ. The Church not having defined anything on the point, theologians are free to debate it pro and con. In matter of fact there is a long-standing controversy, which cannot, however, be decided on dogmatic grounds but must be fought out in the arena of history…
Pg 110- Cardinal Bellarmine holds that the subdiaconate is a Sacrament…
Tanqueray, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II (1959)- Pg 356 – It is controverted whether the subdiaconate and minor orders have the ratio of a sacrament and produce grace ex opere operato. The important question is whether sacramental grace is joined to these orders. Many, in particular some of the modern theologians, say no… St. Thomas and Thomassin think that these orders in their source, or in the diaconate, are of divine institution; that Christ left to the Church the power to divide the diaconate into various inferior orders through which grace could be conferred.
The above quotations make it clear that the question of the sacramental status of the Subdeaconate was open prior to VCII. Urban II’s teaching did not prevent St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine – both Doctors of the Church – from accepting the sacramentality of the subdiaconate because they saw it as a participation in the diaconate. Pius XII made no mention of the subdiaconate in the aforementioned constitution and so he did not address this matter at all. As to Ludwig Ott, he indeed opines against the sacramentality of the subdiaconate on page 452 of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, but says it is sententia communior. This meant that it was widely held at the level of common teaching but still belonged to the field of free opinions. Thus Ott specifically excluded the opinion that the Church had taught definitively on this matter.
There is also the problem of the Decretum pro Armenis by Pope Eugene IV (DS 1310). It stated that :
The Sixth Sacrament is Order, of which the matter is that by which the giving of the order is conferred…the subdiaconate by the giving of the empty chalice with an empty paten resting upon it.
While it was widely held in recent times that this was not an infallible teaching, this would only be confirmed by the Magisterium during VCII.
So this matter was not settled prior to VCII. The Council’s work indeed confirmed the opinion of modern theologians and authoritatively settled the question. On that basis, the subdiaconate and the minor orders were suppressed. Such a momentous decision inexorably altering the Church’s discipline must therefore be considered infallible.
On the matter of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, Tanqueray makes the following statement (vol. I, p 173):
Indeed, Tradition is more extensive than Scripture, and embraces truths are not at all contained in Scripture or are contained there only obscurely; also Tradition is more essential to the Church than is Sacred Scripture… Consequently, the principle source of Revelation is Tradition.
One could see how some theologians might use this opinion to say that the study of Scripture is not necessary for the pursuit of Catholic theology. VCII contrarily stated that Scripture and Tradition form a single source and it definitively settled the dispute as to how to interpret Trent and VCI on this matter.
My opponent rejects the idea that VCII taught infallibly via the OM. He says "I have already proven there can be no such teaching since the pope who promulgated the Council declared that it taught nothing definitively." I point out again that Paul VI said the Council "avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." This only excludes EM. OM teaching – as the Catholic Encyclopedia said – can be infallible. The vast majority of historic papal teaching falls into this category. The special conventions of EM and OUM were developed just to clarify when the Magisterium was teaching definitively to prevent confusion. The Pope is under no obligation to abide by these conventions in order to teach infallibly. Whatever he says goes. He sets the norms; the conventional norms do not constrain him. If the pope wishes to use the norms of the OM to teach something authoritatively and will require strict acceptance of and obedience to what he teaches thereby, that is his prerogative. Paul VI said that the role of the council was to settle disputed questions, "with its certain authority, which may not be called into doubt." Why would he say that if he thought it never did?
My opponent claims that the teaching concerning the infallibility of the OUM was not given definitive form at VCII:
While these documents refer to LG25, they do not have to as the truth of the infallibility of the bishops in union with the pope was generally accepted long before VCII, and no Catholic contested it. The Catholic Encyclopedia, which Sippo quoted, says the same thing as LG25, and it was issued in 1913. Any preconciliar dogmatics textbook will contain it as well. Ludwig Ott in 1952 classified it as de fide.
Since when does "generally accepted" mean "defined infallibly"? My opponent has not named a single magisterial document that teaches what LG25 does because there isn’t any! LG25 gives the Church’s definitive word on infallibility and was used by Cardinal Ratzinger to prove this point about OS. Ratzinger’s reception of LG25 indicates that he considers it to be definitive and thereby infallible. I defy my opponent to produce any EM/OUM document that contains the same teaching as in LG25.
My opponent claims that the concepts of material/formal infallibility are "incoherent.’ I am surprised. Material infallibility means that a statement does not contain errors. Formal infallibility means that a statement cannot contain errors. The fact that most of VCII repeated previously defined teachings means that VCII was for the most part materially infallible. We are debating whether there were any parts that were formally infallible. I submit that I have proven that there were several sections that met this criterion
<> So, were there Infallible decisions taken by this Merely Pastoral Council? <>