Another Q on V2

[goldenchild17]

Okie, so I'm going back through the CDD again to read the articles "targeting" my belief system. I'm hoping I'll be able to continually read them in new light in hopes of finding something I might have missed before.

Anyways in one of the articles (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3517/sedevac.html) it says:

[quote]There is no such thing as a "Pastoral Council." This is a cannard invented by ultra-Traditionalsits who want to dismiss its teachings. VCII was an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church and as such has the highest level of teaching authority: Extraordinary Magisterium. Not every document was intended to establish new doctrine. Some documents indeed were of pastoral or disciplinary intent. The same thing can be seen in every other Ecumenical Council. Nevertheless, there were teachings proclaimed at VCII which must be accepted
as definitive. The teachings of DH are included among them. [/quote]

I have heard different things from different groups regarding the level of infallibility attached to the council documents, personally I really wish it would be that the council documents are not on an infallible level of some sort, but at this point that does not seem to be the case. My question though, is if there are infallible documents in the council, and some that aren't, is it possible to know which ones are and which ones aren't? It would help if I could find out which of these demands a specific level of infallibility. Thanks.

[Dave]

Does it really matter? The fact is, regardless of the level of infallibility, NONE OF THEM permit dissent.

[goldenchild17]

I understand what you're saying, but for the purpose of my study yes it does matter. A number of concerns I have are regarding certain encyclicals and things of that matter, especially from V2. If they are infallible and commanding of our assent then it requires me to look into the matter further so that I can know with certainty whether they are errors or simply misinterpretations. If they are not infallible and not commanding of our assent, then there is no need to trouble myself overly in this area as they wouldn't necessarily be 100% protected. So for my inquiry I would like to know which of the Vatican II encyclicals the statement I gave was referring to as infallible. Thanks.

Edited June 20, 2006 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

Look, I'm not here to cause trouble. I just need answers to questions. That's all. I saw Cappie's answer to the question about encyclicals in the Q&A section. And I found this section from an article in the CDD. So all I'm looking for is for a way to know which encyclicals from Vatican II were considered infallible material and what wasn't.

[Dave]

Every encyclical -- whether from Vatican II or no -- is considered infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Dave' post='1009173' date='Jun 20 2006, 12:35 PM']
Every encyclical -- whether from Vatican II or no -- is considered infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium.
[/quote]

This is not correct. An encyclical is not, of itself, infallible, even by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium. A particular teaching within an encyclical may or may not represent the ordinary universal magisterium, but it is not necessarily so. That this is the case can be clearly seen from the fact that encyclicals can be used as a means through which the pope can speak on matters of [i]discipline[/i], which in principle cannot be infallible teachings.

Thus, encyclicals themselves are not infallible. Rather, we must take the particular teachings case by case in order to determine whether the [i]teaching[/i] is infallible by virtue of its participation in the ordinary universal magisterium.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1008899' date='Jun 20 2006, 02:43 AM']
I understand what you're saying, but for the purpose of my study yes it does matter. A number of concerns I have are regarding certain encyclicals and things of that matter, especially from V2. If they are infallible and commanding of our assent then it requires me to look into the matter further so that I can know with certainty whether they are errors or simply misinterpretations. If they are not infallible and not commanding of our assent, then there is no need to trouble myself overly in this area as they wouldn't necessarily be 100% protected. So for my inquiry I would like to know which of the Vatican II encyclicals the statement I gave was referring to as infallible. Thanks.
[/quote]

I understand what you are trying to do, but, what makes you qualified to decide if something is in error or a misinterpretation? I can understand you deciding to disagree with a teaching, but on those authority can you judge it error? There is no more public revelation and private judgement in such matters is pure opinion. Only the church has the guarentee of getting it right.

[goldenchild17]

I have absolutely no right to make such a decision myself. God help us if we as individuals could make such judgments ! That would pure protestantism at its best. What a mess that would be. Without trying to break the rules I just wanted to know what could be considered infallible according to the universal magisterium and what wasn't. I suspect such a thing is not hard to determine. I would think such a matter has at one point or another been determined. Maybe in the CCC? I don't know.

Anyways, nothing makes me or any other individual qualified. I simply believe our Holy Church has already spoken on certain matters, making it impossible for future pontiffs to change teaching. Am I trying to determine on my own judgment what is and isn't truth? Absolutely not. I'm simply trying my hardest to listen to what has already been determined to be truth by the Church. What has already been laid out for us, I have no intention of deviating from, much unlike a Protestant who dismisses any and all revealed truths for no particular reason whatsoever. I truly believe I have not deviated from one single revealed truth of the Church, whether through the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium

Won't go into any more detail though, I don't want to cross any forbidden boundaries.

Edited June 20, 2006 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1009183' date='Jun 20 2006, 01:22 PM']
This is not correct. An encyclical is not, of itself, infallible, even by virtue of the ordinary universal magisterium. A particular teaching within an encyclical may or may not represent the ordinary universal magisterium, but it is not necessarily so. That this is the case can be clearly seen from the fact that encyclicals can be used as a means through which the pope can speak on matters of [i]discipline[/i], which in principle cannot be infallible teachings.

Thus, encyclicals themselves are not infallible. Rather, we must take the particular teachings case by case in order to determine whether the [i]teaching[/i] is infallible by virtue of its participation in the ordinary universal magisterium.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[/quote]

That makes sense, but what do you make of the following then?:

According to Cappie's response in the Q&A board, he said:

[quote]The authority of encyclicals was stated by Pius XII in the encyclical "Humani generis" Aug. 12, 1950:

"Nor must it be thought that what is contained in encyclical letters does not of itself demand assent, on the pretext that the popes do not exercise in them the supreme power of their teaching authority. Rather, such teachings belong to the ordinary magisterium, of which it is true to say: `He who hears you, hears me' (Lk. 10:16) (1); for the most part, too, what is expounded and inculcated in encyclical letters already appertains to Catholic doctrine for other reasons. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians."
—Humani Generis" [/quote]

So I guess I'm a bit confused. Do they belong to the ordinary magisterium or not? Or is Humani Generis referring to a certain kind of encyclical? or... Thanks.

[Aloysius]

anything doctrinal on faith and morals contained in an encyclical is part of the ordinary infallibility of the pope.

[goldenchild17]

And thus would be considered infallible. Okay thanks.

Another question if you don't mind. Is their an ecclesiastical definition as to what constitutes either a doctrinal matter or a disciplinary matter?

Also, the documents of V2 they don't exactly count as encyclicals correct? As they stem from the council? Do they have the same level of infallibility, if they deal with doctrinal matters?

And also again, is there a way to know what is to be considered doctrinal and thus infallible from the council and what is to be considered disciplinary, and thus not infallible? Or maybe this question would be answered with the answer to my first question in this post... Thanks.

Edited June 20, 2006 by goldenchild17

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1009231' date='Jun 20 2006, 04:17 PM']
Anyways, nothing makes me or any other individual qualified. I simply believe our Holy Church has already spoken on certain matters, making it impossible for future pontiffs to change teaching.
[/quote]

See but you are still doing the same thing when you decide whether the church has spoken definitely and closed a topic or not. The Church is both always the same and always renewed by the Holy Spirit. Our understanding of the fullness of truth is not static, so doctrine can develop and deepen over time. The Truth does not change, but our understanding does. You must also look at the culture during the time a certain truth was emphasized because usually the Church further defines a certain teaching in response whatever particular belief system or heresy it is currently combatting. We are not people of the fourth century or the 16th century, so our understanding of Truth must speak and teach in todays milieu, not theirs. Language,style, culture and emphasis must all be considered. Only the Church is qualified to explain the Church.

[Aloysius]

the documents of the council, when speaking about a doctrinal issue on faith or morals, are infallible because of the universal extraordinary magisterium: they were agreed upon by all the bishops in union with the pope during an extra-ordinary meeting of the entire magisterium.

what is doctrine and what is discipline is very simple: doctrine is anything about what the faith and morals of the church are, discipline are how they are expressed. the magisterium could change a discipline in such a way that it no longer expressed the right faith and morals of the church correctly or as correctly as the previous discipline had done, because disciplinary actions are not infallible: they merely require our obedience.

so doctrine is "this is how it is"
discipline is "this is how it is to be expressed in this or that rite (liturgically, ritually, devotionally, theologically, et cetera)"

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1009474' date='Jun 20 2006, 08:40 PM']
See but you are still doing the same thing when you decide whether the church has spoken definitely and closed a topic or not. The Church is both always the same and always renewed by the Holy Spirit. Our understanding of the fullness of truth is not static, so doctrine can develop and deepen over time. The Truth does not change, but our understanding does. You must also look at the culture during the time a certain truth was emphasized because usually the Church further defines a certain teaching in response whatever particular belief system or heresy it is currently combatting. We are not people of the fourth century or the 16th century, so our understanding of Truth must speak and teach in todays milieu, not theirs. Language,style, culture and emphasis must all be considered. Only the Church is qualified to explain the Church.
[/quote]

Although I would dispute some of this(I won't , technically that is exactly what I'm doing. Letting the Church explain the Church. That is why I am here trying to understand what level of infallibility such things as Vatican II and encyclical letters actually have. With a better understanding this it will shed a lot more light onto other things. I myself am not attaching a certain level of infallibility to one thing and not to another. I am asking what authority the Church claims for these letters. If certain letters have a certain level of infallibility then how can they be changed? Can they be understood in new ways? Sure it's possible. But they cannot be contradicted. Now, as it is against the rules, I am absolutely not here to proclaim whether or not a specific document did or didn't actually make a certain contradiction. I am simply wanting to know what level of infallibility encyclicals have and what Vatican II has.

If encyclicals are protected from error under the ordinary magisterium then they cannot be contradicted(whether or not some people claim to have found some such contradictions). My other question was, has the Church given a definition as to what is disciplinary and what is doctrinal?

So I am not deciding whether the Church has spoken definitively and closed a topic. I am trying to learn what the Church deems protected by the ordinary magisterium and thus is closed by the Church. If it is under the ordinary magisterium then the Church has decided that the matter has been settled, I make no proclamation different from what the Church decides. In this I would differ from other groups, such as SSPX who tend to keep a deaf ear and say everything since the council is technically is not infallible. It is mainly they would would make such judgments without fully understanding the Church's regard for such documents. I do not wish to make such a rash decision as I have no power to do this. Which is why I am here asking you guys to explain to me what authority encyclicals and V2 has.

Edited June 21, 2006 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1009600' date='Jun 20 2006, 10:19 PM']
the documents of the council, when speaking about a doctrinal issue on faith or morals, are infallible because of the universal extraordinary magisterium: they were agreed upon by all the bishops in union with the pope during an extra-ordinary meeting of the entire magisterium.

what is doctrine and what is discipline is very simple: doctrine is anything about what the faith and morals of the church are, discipline are how they are expressed. the magisterium could change a discipline in such a way that it no longer expressed the right faith and morals of the church correctly or as correctly as the previous discipline had done, because disciplinary actions are not infallible: they merely require our obedience.

so doctrine is "this is how it is"
discipline is "this is how it is to be expressed in this or that rite (liturgically, ritually, devotionally, theologically, et cetera)"
[/quote]

Okay. Makes better sense, thank you.

Is the following a correct understanding?

1. What is Infallibility?
This is one of the three attributes of the Church, flowing from her very nature, whereby the Church is preserved from error when it teaches or believes a doctrine. The other two attributes are authority and indefectibility.

2. Why did Our Lord endow the Church with infallibility?
To have NOT given it to the Church would have voided His promises: “Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18) and “I will be with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:20).

3. In what matters is the Church infallible?
The Church, naturally, is infallible only in those matters that pertain to her mission of conducting souls to heaven: faith and morals.

4. What is included under “faith and morals”?
Theologians speak of the “Object” of Infallibility, i.e., those aspects of faith and morals which necessarily pertain to the Church’s Infallibility. According to Msgr. G. Van Noort,1 there are both primary and secondary objects.

The primary object is all of the truths explicitly contained in Scripture or Tradition. The secondary object is “all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperiled unless an absolutely certain decision could be made about them.” Hence, the following must be considered as guaranteed by the Infallibility of the Church:
a. theological conclusions
b. dogmatic facts
c. the general discipline of the Church — in other words, the Church’s laws and the Church’s liturgy cannot contain something harmful to faith and morals.
d. approval of religious orders
e. canonization of saints

5. In what ways is the Church’s teaching infallible?
In teaching us what God has revealed through Scripture or Tradition, the Church is infallible when she does so, “either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium.”2

6. What is meant by “a solemn judgment”?
A solemn judgment can happen in two ways: either a solemn pronouncement on faith and morals by the Holy Father or by the teachings of an ecumenical council gathered under his authority.

7. What is the “ordinary and universal magisterium”?
By this term is meant the day-to-day teaching of the Pope and of the bishops in union with him. Even though it does not consist of solemn pronouncements, it, too, cannot lead the faithful astray; it is necessarily infallible as well. To deny this would mean that the Church could lead astray on a regular basis, while remaining faithful only to those truths solemnly declared — and this is an impossibility.

8. Does anyone personally exercise infallibility in the Church?
The Pope alone has personal infallibility. Bishops share in the infallibility of the Church when they, gathered in General (Oecumenical) Council or scattered throughout the world, teach in union with the Pope.

9. What does “ex cathedra” mean?
“Ex cathedra” means “from the chair of the Pope’s teaching authority.” Theologians usually apply it to the solemn definitions which a Pope makes, such as Pius IX’s solemn definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, or Pius XII’s solemn proclamation of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950. “Ex cathedra” is defined thus by Vatican Council I: “when [the Pope] in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church.”3

10. How do we know whether a Papal teaching is “ex cathedra”?
Fr. Joseph Fenton4 explains the conditions for a solemn infallible declaration:
a. The Pope speaks in his capacity as Teacher and Ruler of all Christians.
b. He uses his supreme Apostolic authority.
c. The doctrine which he is speaking has to do with faith or morals.
d. He issues a certain and definitive judgment on that teaching.
e. He wills that this definitive judgment be accepted as such by the universal Church.
If the Pope declares that a doctrine was revealed by Christ (as known from Scripture or Tradition), then his teaching is a matter of “divine and catholic faith” (de fide divina et catholica). If it is not proposed as divinely revealed, then it is simply a matter of “catholic faith” (fides catholica).

11. Can a Pope err in his ex cathedra teaching?
It is impossible for him to err when his teaching meets the criteria outlined for ex cathedra teaching. The Vatican Council I declares that when he teaches ex cathedra, he is “possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals.”5

12. Can Catholics, in good conscience, withhold religous assent to the Pope’s ordinary universal teachings?
No, they cannot. Pope Pius XII declared in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950):6 “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For, these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: ‘He who heareth you, heareth Me’ (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and the will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.”

13. Does the Pope ever teach non-infallibly?
Yes, the Pope can employ a lesser degree of his teaching authority, and hence remove his teaching from the realm of infallibility. In such cases he does not intend to bind the consciences of the faithful by issuing definitive teachings. Even so, such teaching merits the greatest respect, coming as it does from the Chief Teacher of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Pope can teach even without invoking his Apostolic authority at all, i.e., as a private theologian, and in a private or individual circumstance. His teaching could then be weighed in the same manner as other theological opinions.