Ah, but there IS positive proof that the 1962 council intended to "engage" its infallible teaching.  

The proof is in the fact that, upon ending the council, the bishops all over the world, as a body, immediately put into effect that spirit in which the council imbibed.  The fact that a new catechism that rests almost entirely upon the council was approved is evidence that the council intended to be authoritatively teaching.  The fact that a new canon law that positively permits and encourages sacrilege and apostasy was enacted to comply with the council's decrees is evidence that the council inteded to be authoritative.

The fact that nearly every bishop in the entire world suppressed the Mass and replaced it with a Protestant Last Supper Service because they saw it as the proper means of carrying out their own desires as expressed by the 1962 council is evidence that they intended the council to be authoritative to the degree of infallibility.

The popular claim that the 1962 council can still be a council of the Catholic Church since it really wasn't intended to be infallible is just wishful thinking.

Ah, but there IS positive proof that the 1962 council intended to "engage" its infallible teaching.  

The proof is in the fact that, upon ending the council, the bishops all over the world, as a body, immediately put into effect that spirit in which the council imbibed.  The fact that a new catechism that rests almost entirely upon the council was approved is evidence that the council intended to be authoritatively teaching.  The fact that a new canon law that positively permits and encourages sacrilege and apostasy was enacted to comply with the council's decrees is evidence that the council inteded to be authoritative.

The fact that nearly every bishop in the entire world suppressed the Mass and replaced it with a Protestant Last Supper Service because they saw it as the proper means of carrying out their own desires as expressed by the 1962 council is evidence that they intended the council to be authoritative to the degree of infallibility.

The popular claim that the 1962 council can still be a council of the Catholic Church since it really wasn't intended to be infallible is just wishful thinking.

That's true, but how does arguing from these general facts demonstrate that the entirety of a General Council is infallible, especially considering the complete lack of intrinsic evidence and the explicit denial that it invoked infallible authority?  You are arguing from mere appearances that doesn't touch the essence of the question.  Obiter dicta is obiter dicta, regardless of what follows as a consequence.  If I do A and B follows therefrom, B doesn't change the nature of A.  The Pope couldn't demand an assent of faith to a statement of mere opinion.  The statement itself must be vested with infallible authority.  The facts stand as they are; Berry's commentary stands untouched regardless of the grotesque revolution that followed.  Thus, if not all of the content of an Ecuмenical Council can be considered infallible, it necessarily follows that the possibility of error could coexist with its legitimacy.    

Just putting the following quotes on the table for discussion/consideration:

Lumen Gentium
"Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God."

...

Pope Paul VI closing speech of the council
"We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on."

...

Pope Paul VI address on 23 April 1966 to the Roman Curia
"Whatever were our opinions about the Council’s various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be wholehearted and without reserve[...]

[...] The council was something very new; not all were prepared to understand and accept it. But now the conciliar doctrines must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit."

These quotes are from the same man who stated the Council did not engage infallible authority in an extraordinary form.  As I said to TKGS, this language doesn't touch Berry's assertion that not everything in a Council is to be considered infallible.  In fact, Berry wrote before VII and was referring to truly dogmatic Councils of the past.  The official sounding words above notwithstanding, there is an ongoing discussion as to what level of authority each statement carries within the conciliar docuмents.  There are manifestly statements in the conciliar decrees which could in no way be construed as definitive statements of doctrine, or assertions which demand obedience, much less infallible statements.  It is metaphysically impossible to assent to a falsifiable, subjectivist proposition, of which there are many within the texts and serve as the foundation for other propositions.  And as also noted, it defies logic for a Pope to assert that we must assent with faith or true interior obedience to mere opinions.  This eloquent speech after the fact doesn't change the nature of the original statement, nor does it endow novel opinions with infallible authority.  And even supposing there were no controversial statements within the conciliar texts, complete with anathemas and the exercise of infallible authority, this still wouldn't affect Berry's assertion.    

That's true, but how does arguing from these general facts demonstrate that the entirety of a General Council is infallible, especially considering the complete lack of intrinsic evidence and the explicit denial that it invoked infallible authority?  You are arguing from mere appearances that doesn't touch the essence of the question.  Obiter dicta is obiter dicta, regardless of what follows as a consequence.  If I do A and B follows therefrom, B doesn't change the nature of A.  The Pope couldn't demand an assent of faith to a statement of mere opinion.  The statement itself must be vested with infallible authority.  The facts stand as they are; Berry's commentary stands untouched regardless of the grotesque revolution that followed.  Thus, if not all of the content of an Ecuмenical Council can be considered infallible, it necessarily follows that the possibility of error could coexist with its legitimacy.    

Forgive me if I misunderstood your initial comments.  I do not claim that every single sentence in every single Ecuмenical Council is infallible.  I claim that, in a true Ecuмencial Council, everything concerning matters of faith and morals (i.e., doctrine) is infallible.  A true Ecuмenical Council cannot pronounce on doctrinal matters and then say it didn't really mean it.

This is what I thought you were suggesting in regards to the 1962 council at the Vatican.

Quote from: Caminus

That's true, but how does arguing from these general facts demonstrate that the entirety of a General Council is infallible, especially considering the complete lack of intrinsic evidence and the explicit denial that it invoked infallible authority?  You are arguing from mere appearances that doesn't touch the essence of the question.  Obiter dicta is obiter dicta, regardless of what follows as a consequence.  If I do A and B follows therefrom, B doesn't change the nature of A.  The Pope couldn't demand an assent of faith to a statement of mere opinion.  The statement itself must be vested with infallible authority.  The facts stand as they are; Berry's commentary stands untouched regardless of the grotesque revolution that followed.  Thus, if not all of the content of an Ecuмenical Council can be considered infallible, it necessarily follows that the possibility of error could coexist with its legitimacy.    

Forgive me if I misunderstood your initial comments.  I do not claim that every single sentence in every single Ecuмenical Council is infallible.  I claim that, in a true Ecuмencial Council, everything concerning matters of faith and morals (i.e., doctrine) is infallible.  A true Ecuмenical Council cannot pronounce on doctrinal matters and then say it didn't really mean it.

This is what I thought you were suggesting in regards to the 1962 council at the Vatican.

Vatican II didn't "pronounce" on anything.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Caminus

... how does arguing from these general facts demonstrate that the entirety of a General Council is infallible ...

Caminus, NOBODY is saying the entirety of a Council accepted by a true pope is infallible. This does not mean however, that a true council, accepted by the pope, can teach a multitude of serious errors along with an infallible definition or two.

Many argue from such premises and conclude that any kind of error is sufficinet evidence to indicate that the entire Council was false and the Popes that approved of it must therefore be false Popes.  That is the general line of thinking, at least around here.  

And a non-infallible utterance, no matter how unlikely or improbable, may be subject to some kind of deficiency or error.  That is what "not infallible" means.  But the primary errors in VII could be defined as "half-truths" or philosophical error or subjective statements that lead directly to error.  It contains rash, impious, offensive statements, and badly formed propositions.  The entire orientation of the docuмents are erroneous in a general sense, but this is not a textual matter.  

The Bishops abandoned the Holy Ghost and St. Thomas and chose to go their own way and we see the results of their lust for novelty and intoxication by a new, false spirit.  

I said serious error. You are in the wilderness with your legitimate council teaching doctrine being rash, impious, and offensive.

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Caminus

... how does arguing from these general facts demonstrate that the entirety of a General Council is infallible ...

Caminus, NOBODY is saying the entirety of a Council accepted by a true pope is infallible. This does not mean however, that a true council, accepted by the pope, can teach a multitude of serious errors along with an infallible definition or two.

Many argue from such premises and conclude that any kind of error is sufficinet evidence to indicate that the entire Council was false and the Popes that approved of it must therefore be false Popes.  That is the general line of thinking, at least around here.  

And a non-infallible utterance, no matter how unlikely or improbable, may be subject to some kind of deficiency or error.  That is what "not infallible" means.  But the primary errors in VII could be defined as "half-truths" or philosophical error or subjective statements that lead directly to error.  It contains rash, impious, offensive statements, and badly formed propositions.  The entire orientation of the docuмents are erroneous in a general sense, but this is not a textual matter.  

The Bishops abandoned the Holy Ghost and St. Thomas and chose to go their own way and we see the results of their lust for novelty and intoxication by a new, false spirit.  

I said serious error. You are in the wilderness with your legitimate council teaching doctrine being rash, impious, and offensive.

What part of "not infallible" don't you understand?