Posted on 08/12/2015 5:32:54 AM PDT by piusv
All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost.
When has the Church ever convened a general council to chat it up about mere, fallible pastoral matters? Did you read the quote from Paul VI's encyclical "Ecclesiam Suam" describing Vatican II as the continuation of Vatican I in "dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia and of defining it"?
I get that claiming teachings were merely "pastoral" (as if pastoral can only be fallible) helps to make things much more palatable. Unfortunately, Catholic teaching tells us that general councils can not teach error.
What it all comes down to is that it is the pope who has the ultimate authority to make such determinations. Popes possess supreme power and jurisdiction over the universal Church. If a pope wants to convene a council for a chatfest and designate the output as non-binding unless specifically labeled otherwise, it's his prerogative to do so.
For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost.
Once again, if the pope decides to limit the council's infallibility to specific points (even if such an approach is without precedent), that's his prerogative as supreme legislator.
Did you read the quote from Paul VI's encyclical "Ecclesiam Suam" describing Vatican II as the continuation of Vatican I in "dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia and of defining it"?
"It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council."
It's a rather vague statement. Compare it with this statement (which specifies the parameters Paul VI formally established in regard to binding vs. non-binding teachings):
“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.”
The second statement is the more specific indication of his intentions.
Unfortunately, Catholic teaching tells us that general councils can not teach error.
Fortunately, the ambiguities and errors associated with VII are non-binding (per the Pope's clear directive).
---------
"Vatican II Was Not Infallible": http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2672260/posts?page=23
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.
Or this one:
The Council is a great act of the magisterium of the Church, and anyone who adheres to the Council is, by that very fact, recognizing and honoring the magisterium of the Church…
When I researched general councils and Church infallibility, I learned that general councils are infallible. Period. Not sometimes infallible; sometimes not. Anytime I did find such propositions, it was being promoted by some post-Vatican II Catholic using it to make sense of the resultant mess. In addition, as a side note, I could not find any such thing called a Pastoral Council in the history of the Catholic Church.
Stick with pre-Vatican II support. Anything else should be held with extreme suspect.
Are you referring to the statement “In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so" (which, btw, was not only read to the council participants, but also published as an addendum to Lumen Gentium)? The statement plainly indicates the Pope's intentions.
----------
57. Powers of the Pope
What are the chief powers of the Pope? --The Pope has supreme and complete power and jurisdiction to decide questions of faith and morals and to arrange the discipline of the universal Church.
The power of the Pope extends over every single church, every single bishop and pastor, every one of the faithful. He may appoint and depose bishops, call councils, make and unmake laws, send missionaries, confer distinctions, privileges, and dispensations, and reserve sins to his own tribunal.
The Pope is the supreme judge; to him belongs the last appeal in all cases.
The Pope is the "teacher of all Christians", the "chief shepherd of the shepherds and their flocks". "Peter, standing up with the Eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke out to them ..." (Acts 2:14). The word "Pope" is derived from the Latin term papa, which means "Father".
The Pope is independent of every temporal sovereign and of every spiritual power. He is responsible only to God. (My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis L. Morrow, 1949) http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc057.htm
As the Pope is "responsible only to God", it can't logically be claimed that he lacks the power and authority to set whatever parameters for a council which he deems fit.
-----------
Ecumenical: a council for the universal Church to which all bishops and others entitled to vote are called from the entire world to gather under the Pope or his legates to determine the interpretation of doctrines or laws for the Church. The decrees of such a council, after papal sanction, apply to the universal Church and bind in conscience. (The Concise Catholic Dictionary, Imprimatur Archbishop of Milwaukee, 1943).
Pope Paul VI, as supreme legislator, was the ultimate arbiter and interpreter of VII teachings, and as such, his intent to limit the infallibility of the council to those teachings which "the Synod itself openly declares" infallible could not be more relevant to this discussion. To ignore the parameters he had every right to set is to disregard the infallible teachings of Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus). Last time I checked, the only role the laity has in the governance of the Church is to pray for the prelates and the Pope. It's not within our purview to determine in what manner popes operate councils.
When I researched general councils and Church infallibility, I learned that general councils are infallible.
Only if that is the intention of the Pope. Obviously that was not the intention of Paul VI. Novelties were not taught infallibly.
By the way, did you know that the quote you refer to also had an additional sentence?:
Other matters that the Sacred Synod proposes as being the doctrine of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church must be received and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful in accordance with the intentions of the Sacred Synod itself, manifested either by the subject matter or by the manner of expression, according to the norms of theological interpretation.”
Once again this offers similar evidence. Vatican II did not define matters of faith and morals (EM), but it did teach faith and morals via the OUM. Both of which are infallible. And, remember, pastoral doesn't preclude infallible.
Many of the errors in Vatican II were absolutely regarding faith and morals and should not have contradicted the OUM. And yet they did! We have errors in a General Council! When does the Holy Spirit allow errors in the teaching of faith and morals to enter a (supposedly, infallible) General Council of the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH!?
It's pretty clear you have dug your heels in on this one and we will never see eye to eye. As far as I'm concerned this is plain as day. This Council was meant to be infallible, meant to teach the Faithful via the OUM...and it failed. It contradicted previous Magisterium.
The question is why did it fail? Where was the Holy Spirit to protect the pope from teaching error to the universal Church??? The only answer that makes sense to me is that Paul VI was not a true pope.
OK, let's examine the definitions of the ordinary and of the extraordinary magisterium.
From the Concise Catholic Dictionary, 1943:
Magisterium: The authority of the Church, by divine appointment, to teach the truths of religious belief; the Commission of the Church to teach; the teaching office of the Church; the teaching and interpreting of the doctrines of Faith carried on by the Church through the Pope and bishops and those commissioned by them. It may be ordinary when a doctrine is proclaimed throughout the Church as part of divine revelation; or extraordinary when a general council defines a doctrine ratified by the Pope or when the Pope speaks as the official teacher of the Church (ex cathedra) proclaiming or defining a matter of faith or morals.
Note that ordinary magisterial teachings are proclaimed as "part of divine revelation".
From My Catholic Faith, 1949:
"How has Divine Revelation come down to us? -- Divine Revelation has come down to us through Holy Scripture, written down under divine inspiration, and through Tradition, handed down orally from Apostolic times...
...Divine Revelation was completed at the death of the last of the Apostles. Since that time no new revelation has been made for the instruction of the whole of mankind. Whenever the Church decides a point of faith, it does so according to Scripture or Tradition. It simply finds out what has been revealed from the beginning."
http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc007.htm
Vatican II did not define matters of faith and morals (EM), but it did teach faith and morals via the OUM.
That is impossible, because ecumenism, etc. contradict Divine Revelation and consistent magisterial teachings prior to VII, and thus by definition, can never be part of the ordinary magisterium, are not infallible, and neither pope nor council has the power to present them as such (unless one were to falsely believe that God empowers popes and councils to contradict Divine Revelation and bind His Church to error).
The question is why did it fail? Where was the Holy Spirit to protect the pope from teaching error to the universal Church??? The only answer that makes sense to me is that Paul VI was not a true pope.
It didn't fail. The Holy Spirit provided negative protection to the Church, such that the novelties and errors were never presented as infallible teachings by the EM nor do they qualify as OM teachings because such novelties are in opposition to Divine Revelation. The end products of VII are analogous to Laudato si' in that they are a mix of earlier infallible teachings combined with modernist opinions (the latter obviously not binding).
Consider this verse:
"Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord." Jeremiah 23:1
God warns of bad pastors. The Pope is the chief pastor of the Church. A pope who is a bad pastor and causes his flock to be torn and destroyed isn't necessarily an impostor pope. Jeremiah 23:1 indicates that bad pastors exist through God's permissive will.
Check out this mess: The nephew of his two immediate predecessors, Benedict IX was a man of very different character to either of them. He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter.
The current papacy is undeniably quite weird, with Francis running amok and Benedict, the "pope emeritus", sitting in the wings. If Francis were to cross the line and attempt to officially bind the Church to error at his Sin-nod, then in that case it seems to me that we would be looking at a true anti-pope.
If the Holy Spirit was protecting Vatican II and the pope from teaching error, those “novelties” that contradict true doctrine wouldn’t have entered the documents in the first place. The very fact that there are contradictions to the UOM and the fact that they are STILL being taught to this day shows that the Council was a false Council promulgated by a false pope. Even if Paul VI was just a “bad pope” (ie. sinful pope) the HS would have still kept those teachings from entering the Council documents.
At this point we are just talking past each other. Take care.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.