Replies

"Yes, including "it" and "the." "

Now you are just being extreme - Councils are not inspired as is scripture. Like the Pope they are only preserved from falling into error when teachings on faith and morals are declared binding on the faithful or are declared to be teachings of the supreme magisterium of the Church. Similarly when they restate the doctrine taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium they are preserved from error.

There is no guarantee that a Council will teach the full truth, or teach without ambiguity or with clarity. There is also no guarantee that a Council will state doctrine in a pastorally prudent way or that its canons and decrees will be enacted with wisdom at the prudent time.

Rather than your extreme position, I think the following quote is one of the most orthodox statements on the status of the teaching of Vatican II that I have seen and would challenge you to show where it is wrong!!

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of Vatican II, the Council defined as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it openly declared to be binding."

This makes sense because the fundamental basis of all our belief is the revelation of Jesus Christ - the Word of God. The Magisterium is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on. Sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others.

Thus if a non-binding teaching of a Council can be shown to be in opposition to either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, then it must be open to correction.

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of Vatican II, the Council defined as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it openly declared to be binding

<> Challenge accepted.

I am extreme - in insisting it is The Magisterium, and not me and thee, that has the authority and when that authority takes decisions, we are bound to accept them and adhere to them. For a Catholic, this is so fundamental that it used to be a tautology.

I will provide just a few quick citations but your response surprises me because you are an obviously intelligent and very well read man.

"Satis Cognitum" by Pope Leo XIII, 1896, teaches, "They who take from Christian Doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgements, not on faith, and not "bringing into captivity every understanding unto obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10-15), they more truely obey themselves than God."

Catechism #892 "Divine assistance is also given to the succesors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the succesor of Peter, and , in a particular way, to the Bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner, they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to bettter understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration.." there can be no other reponse than for individual Christians to accept the decisions of an Infallible Ecumenical Council and all Ecumenical Councils are infallible. What you cite is a protestant principle and it inverts right reason and reality and there is nothing traditional or customary about it.<>