This thread is for specifically discussing the issue of whether or not Vatican II and/or any of its documents or statements are infallible and/or binding. I started this thread because this debate has been going on in several different threads simultaneously, which is hard to track and to keep up with. Hopefully, those who have been posting about this topic on other threads will be able to get somewhere utilizing this "new" information on this thread dedicated specifically to discussing this issue. In the Catholic Encyclopedia I found an article on“Theological Definition”at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04675b.htm

This article basically states that four conditions are necessary to make a theological definition, in other words, an infallible statement of doctrine or dogma:

(1) It must be a decision by the supreme teaching authority in the Church

(2) The decision must concern a doctrine of faith or morals

(3) The decision must bind the Universal Church

(4) The decision must be irrevocable or, as it is called, definitive.

#4 has to do with specific language; please read the article (it is short).

By the definition given in that article, an entire document can not be made infallible; only a specifically stated doctrine/dogma can be made infallible, not arguments or incidental statements (the rest of the document).

In the discussion of Vatican II on this forum, only requirement #3Â’s fulfillment has not been challenged, to my knowledge.

I have scanned all of the documents of Vatican II (speed-read some, slowly read others) which can be found on the Vatican website (what better source, eh?) and these are my findings:

In Dei Verbum, #4 is totally missing.

In Lumen Gentium, the fulfillment of #4 is questionable, based not only on the wording, but also on the fact that according to the wording, it seems the entire document was being made “infallible” which is impossible (see above).

In Sacrosanctum Concilium, #4 is totally missing; #2 is questionable.

In Gaudium Et Spes, Dignitatis Humanae, Ad Gentes, Presbyterorum Ordinis, Apostolicam Actuositatem, Optatam Totius, Perfectae Caritatis, Christus Dominus, and Inter Mirifica, requirement #4 is totally missing.

In Gravissimum Educationis, #4 is totally missing, and #2 is questionable.

In Nostra Aetate, #4 is totally missing. Interestingly, this declaration also says that Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, and Jews all worship the One True God that Catholics worship. (Hmmm . . .)

In Unitatis Redintegratio, #4 is questionable for the same reasons as Lumen Gentium: the use of questionable language, as well as implying that the whole document is being made “infallible,” which is an impossibility according to “Theological Definition” in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In Orientalium Ecclesiarum, #4 is questionable for the same reasons as Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium, and #2 is questionable.

So, at the most, only Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Orientalium Ecclesiarum MIGHT contain infallible statements; and even this is questionable. Even if these three decrees do have infallible statements in them, it would not make the entire document infallible. And, by the very fact that the language necessary for requirement #4 to be fulfilled is of questionable nature in these three documents, it is by definition non-unquestionable, which logically seems to make it non-infallible.

However, since I am not a cannon lawyer (as I believe no one on this forum is) I can not definitively say (and neither, it seems, can anyone else on this forum) whether or not any of the statements in Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Orientalium Ecclesiarum are fallible or infallible.

What I can say is that every other document of Vatican II is fallible, and therefore non-binding in matters of belief.

Faced with these facts, it is impossible for anyone to say that Vatican II or the documents of Vatican II are infallible, or that they must be believed, or that they are binding.

I would like to know what Frank, Paul, Eugene, and others think about this. Comments?

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), October 31, 2003

Answers

Radio Replies, Vol. III.

[©1940, Frs. Rumble & Carty. Imprimatur: Joannes Gregorius Murray, Archiepiscopus Sancti Pauli. Die 27a Dec., 1941.]

Q. 345. There have been evil Popes. Was it God's will that they should be head of the Church?

It was at least God's permissive will. It was quite against God's positive will that the few unworthy Popes should have lived in a disedifying way. But we should quarrel, not with the fact that they were Popes, but with the fact that they did not live up to their obligations, and set a good personal example to the faithful.

Q. 346. Yet you have to believe that those Popes, sinful themselves, could do no wrong where the affairs of the Church were concerned?

Catholics certainly must and do believe that no Pope, whatever his personal character, has ever defined an erroneous doctrine to be true. But the gift of infallibility does not extend to matters of practical administration. And Popes have undoubtedly been guilty of imprudence in such matters. The Church, however, being indefectible in virtue of Christ's promise to be with her all days till the end of the world, has survived all such mistakes in management and policy on the part of the Popes.

-- Soapy (9999.@444.com), October 31, 2003.

In case you missed the August headlines, Bishop Vincent Malone of Liverpool thinks laywomen should hear Confessions, since it might be more appropriate for a woman to give absolution than a man in a society where it is "Common practice [to] expect equal access in many professions to either a man or a woman at the client’s choice."

No, this is not a Vicar of Dibley spoof. Although he does sound like a character from the BBC comedy, Bishop Malone actually exists and really did advocate the above. When you’ve stopped shaking your heads in disbelief, turn to Pat Phillips’ article in this edition for more on the abject ignorance of this veritable Vicar of Liverpool and the faithless feminist clique who work him and the rest of our Dibleyesque hierarchy like marionettes. And then, when you’ve said a few prayers for the deliverance of Holy Mother Church from the ruinous grip of these "diabolically disoriented" souls; after you’ve silently united your pain, disgust and frustration with the sufferings of Our Lord - feel free to seek out a quiet place… and scream!

Eugene and friends, please explain this one. Well maybe one bad apple, or maybe a bushel full.

-- Soapy (9999.@444.com), October 31, 2003.

Well the explanation is really very simple - there's a flake in every crowd. "Allowing" women to hear confessions and grant absolution is in the same category as "allowing" men to have babies. You can "allow" anything you want to "allow", but what is impossible still won't actually happen, even if it is "allowed".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 31, 2003.

"Faced with these facts, it is impossible for anyone to say that Vatican II or the documents of Vatican II are infallible, or that they must be believed, or that they are binding."

Why then is it that it is a requirement for one who attedns and "indult" Mass to accept all of the changes of Vatican II including the New Order Mass, or if you prefer Latin, Novus Ordo Missae? †AMDG

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 01, 2003.

Question: Why is this flake, (heretic), still a bishop?

-- Soapy (9999.@444.com), November 01, 2003.

Soapy,

Why don't you reconcile Q.346 with Popes Liberius and Honorius, from a schismatic traditionalist's perspective.

Thanks,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 01, 2003.

The conflict is instructive insofar as it reflects the growing rift between conservatives and traditionalists in the Catholic Church. As the traditional movement has grown in strength and success, attracting the young and producing vocations and making converts, some conservatives have become increasingly militant in their defense of the Novus Ordo.

It has been most entertaining to watch the shift in rhetoric. Originally, proponents of the Novus Ordo wanted to make the liturgy "relevent" so as to attract a new generation of young people. Hence, the Mass was invaded by liturgical dance and popular music, trendy sermons and marshmallow morality, all for the sake of attracting the young. The young are fickle, and move on to something else, when the novelty wears off.

As for Q, 346. because a pope or bishop, speaks opinions, the faithful listen, and take that as gospel. The damage gets done, but those who spoke are covered by the "opinion" clause, and are protected from heresy, however trusting souls are still led astray, as though it was official teachihg.

-- Soapy (9999@444.com), November 01, 2003.

"the traditional movement has grown in strength and success, attracting the young and producing vocations and making converts"

A: There were 16 converts to the Holy Catholic Church in my parish this year. How many were there in your Tridentine assembly?

"their defense of the Novus Ordo"

A: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass needs no defense, except in response to attacks.

"proponents of the Novus Ordo wanted to make the liturgy "relevent" so as to attract a new generation of young people"

A: That is false. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been relevant at every moment in time since the Last Supper, and no-one has suggested otherwise. However, the Church in its wisdom did seek to make the liturgy easier to relate to, by the overwhelming majority of Catholics who have limited theological background, and who do not speak or understand Latin.

"The young are fickle, and move on to something else, when the novelty wears off"

A: So true - and therein lies the inevitable demise of the so-called "traditionalist" movement. A small minority of the young currently are drawn to the novelty, but that wears off quickly. And a small minority of the older folks are drawn by nostalgic feelings, but that too will pass as they themselves do. The same thing happened in the past whenever major liturgical change was introduced, especially when the traditional Greek Mass was changed to the Latin Novus Ordo. The minority of Catholics who couldn't change with the Church were not only granted an indult, but were even allowed the concession of retaining one prayer from the Greek liturgy in the New Mass - the Kyrie. After a couple of generations, the Greek Mass was gone and the Church again worshipped in unity and in truth. History repeats itself.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 01, 2003.

Why then is it that it is a requirement for one who attedns and "indult" Mass to accept all of the changes of Vatican II including the New Order Mass, or if you prefer Latin, Novus Ordo Missae? †AMDG

Jeff, I haven't attended an "indult" Mass for 15+ years. Do you mean that the parish priests or the dioceasan bishops require one "to accept all of the changes of Vatican II"? Because, objectively, no one can require submission to that which jeapordizes, contradicts, or corrupts the Faith.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 01, 2003.

I didn't think that Vatican Council II was ever considered "infallible." The last statement of infalibility had to do with the Mary things way back before Vatican II.

Don't you guys feel as though you have been kicking a dead horse for the last forty some years.

The church changed it's ways, but Christ hasn't changed in the least, in fact, I think "He" speaks through his church more truthfully than ever.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), November 01, 2003.

Well, Leon, by your comments you just showed that there is the full range of oppinions floating around about Vatican II -- from "all of Vatican II is totally infallible" to "none of Vatican II was ever infallible."

I think what needs to happen here is for the pope & those who compose important Church documents to go back and for clarity's sake scratch the documents that have caused so much confusion and unrest, and start fresh from now, being absolutely clear on what is defined and what isn't.

But then again, even if that happened, I think the American bishops (at least) would pay absolutely no attention and would continue on their merry way doing whatever they wanted, just like they are doing now.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 01, 2003.

"Do you mean that the parish priests or the dioceasan bishops require one "to accept all of the changes of Vatican II"? Because, objectively, no one can require submission to that which jeapordizes, contradicts, or corrupts the Faith."

You are right that no one can "require submission" to that which corrupts the faith. However look at the FSSP. They are REQUIRED to attend the Chrism Mass according to the new order, yet they are called a traditional society of priests that follow the ways of the Church in 1962. This confuses me. I have also read that the incoming seminarians must sign papers in which they acknowledge the validity of Vatican II as a council and the validity of the new mass. Is this not requiring submission to that which corrupts the Faith? Also, the few times that I attended the "indult" the priest made it very clear that it was a privlige to hear the old Mass and that every Catholic is BOUND to accept the reforms of Vatican II or they are, in essence, not Catholic. Of course you and I both know that nothing could be farther from the truth. † AMDG

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 01, 2003.

I have also read that the incoming seminarians must sign papers in which they acknowledge the validity of Vatican II as a council and the validity of the new mass. Is this not requiring submission to that which corrupts the Faith?

Of course not. It's a way of keeping heretics and schismatics out of the Catholic priesthood. Anyone who refuses to submit to an ecumenical council like Vatican II is a schismatic or heretic, depending.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 02, 2003.

"Anyone who refuses to submit to an ecumenical council like Vatican II is a schismatic or heretic, depending."

Could you please provide us with an appropriate reference from the Holy See which makes absolutely clear that this is the case?

This way I could rest assured that this is not merely a layman's private interpretation.

Far be it from any one of us laity to condemn another to Hell.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 02, 2003.

Psyche; A noble thought, but it ain't gonna' happen. This is a single track train, heading in one direction, wherever that may be. God help us all.

-- Jackson (Toofie@yahoo.com), November 02, 2003.

Emerald,

What do you think ecumenical councils are called for, fun?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 02, 2003.

Oh, and btw, I wouldn't be condemning anyone to Hell, that's God's job, merely stating that obedience is required. Pope Eugene condemned schismatics to Hell, in the same time period the church told Christians not to associate or hire Jews, and to make them wear clothing that identified themselves.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 02, 2003.

Correct me if I'm off track here, Frank, but I believe the hidden premise in your post above is that I now need to jump up and prove to everyone that I'm not an anti-semite as well as not a heretic and not a schism, in addition to not disobedient not anti-Catholic.

Clearly, more heinous than smoking cigarettes is the dogmatically defined sin of anti-semitism. Why, one careless slip and one might find themselves accused of this most heinous of the heinous.

That's a tall order. All for Not.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 02, 2003.

"What do you think ecumenical councils are called for, fun?"

Oddly enough, generally they are called to clarify things.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 02, 2003.

Hi again, Jeff.

"They are REQUIRED to attend the Chrism Mass according to the new order, yet they are called a traditional society of priests that follow the ways of the Church in 1962."

I believe the bishops (especially in the US) had already started "doing their own thing" in 1962; in fact, they had started easing innovations into their parishes in the '50s. They were hailed by liberal Catholics in the 60s as the forward-thinking impetus of Vatican II. My point is, by their fruits you shall know them. If they call themselves "traditional" but they don't follow Tradition, then they are merely using double-speak to try to reassure squeamish Catholics that what they're doing must be OK since they are using all the right vocabulary.

"incoming seminarians must sign papers in which they acknowledge the validity of Vatican II as a council and the validity of the new mass."

This doesn't suprise me. We wouldn't want to let a Tradition-minded fellow become a priest, now would we? Innovation, not Tradition, rules in the Novus Ordo.

"Is this not requiring submission to that which corrupts the Faith?"

If I signed it out of free will, then yes, I would be knowingly submitting to that which corrupts the Fatih. If seminarians who don't know any better sign it, they are unknowingly submitting to that which corrupts the Faith.

Whoever wrote the document and requires it to be signed carries the heavy responsibility of the signers' souls.

"the few times that I attended the "indult" the priest made it very clear that it was a privlige to hear the old Mass"

Heavens to Betsy! What a gross inaccuracy on the part of that priest! Though I know that this misinformation is ridiculously common.

"and that every Catholic is BOUND to accept the reforms of Vatican II or they are, in essence, not Catholic."

*sigh* This is how people like Frank come to be the way he is: accusing everyone who does not "submit to Vatican II" or to every thing the pope says, ex cathedra or not, of being a heretic and a schismatic. It is amazing what 40 or 50 years of gentle indoctrination can do.

While thinking of confused, brainwashed people like Frank, I always have this sadness for them; not exactly pity, but more like a weeping of the heart and a little bit of fear that I could become like that. It is humbling. Remember the Simon & Garfunkle song that goes,

" . . . as I watch the drops of rain weave their weary paths and die I know that I am like the rain; there, but for the grace of you, go I."

The "you" being God, of course.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 03, 2003.

While thinking of confused, brainwashed people like Frank

Well thank you. If being a Catholic is your definition of being brainwashed, I'll take it over being a freethinking Protestant any day, especially with what Pope Eugene had to say on the subject.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 03, 2003.

Poor Frank. One day you will know the truth. I just hope you are still alive when it happens.

-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), November 05, 2003.