Replies

"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.<>

Last I heard catechisms were not infallible--certainly not the most recent one. Nor does the Holy Spirit assist popes to espouse new doctrines.

"What you cite is a protestant principle and it inverts right reason and reality and there is nothing traditional or customary about it."

Sorry CG, but I just wanted to illustrate the fact that sometimes you can be too quick to shoot off and start slinging charges of schism and heresy around, when in fact there are many areas about which it is quite legitimate to debate until matters are settled definitively.

The "protestant principle" that you are having problems with is actually based on a citation from the documents of Vatican II themselves:

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such." Appendix to Lumen Gentium.

As the Council did not in fact "expressly put forward" anything as binding on the Church, it is reasonable to assume that only its teachings which are declared binding in previous acts of the Magisterium (i.e. pre-conciliar dogma and definitions) are to be taken as such. Perhaps this is the point that Fr. Blet was trying to make?

Indeed the Council had other things to say about the limits of the Pope's and Church's infallibility and how far this extends:

"And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded....

Furthermore when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its ENTIRETY through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself,...

..but a new public revelation THEY DO NOT ACCEPT as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith." Lumen Gentium 25

Thus the Vatican II Council Fathers were equally concerned with setting the limits of infallibility (both for Pope and Council) as were the Vatican I Fathers in Pastor Aeternus.

This also shows in Dei Verbum which apparently gives goldhammer some difficulties (very unCatholic, tut tut!):

"The Christian economy, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await NO FURTHER new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13)." DV 4

DV7. "In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full INTEGRITY and be handed on to all generations." N.B. the Council sees God as an Integrist!! :O)

DV 10 "This Magisterium is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on."

DV 10 "It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others."

Consequently when the Vatican II Fathers enunciate a new teaching in Gaudium et Spes such as:

"Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordained to man as to their centre and summit." GS 12

which seems to contradict the will of God revealed in scripture that all things on earth should be ordained to Christ:

Eph 1:9 "That he might make known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in him,
10 In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him."

then we can hardly be obliged to consider the new teaching as binding - particularly as the Council itself makes no claim that this teaching is to be considered binding!

Sorry, you are wrong in your definition of V.II as "infallible." The Fathers of the Council defined it as "pastoral."

In all areas where the Council's teachings were in line with the Magisterium, the teachings are infallible. In areas where they are not, they are NOT.

Liturgical regulation, by the way, is NOT a matter of infallibility, OR the Quo Primum would still be standing, along with the UNMODIFIED Mass of Trent.

Do you see that you have an internal contradiction here?