Author Topic: Vatican II and "infallible safety" (Read 2517 times)

Nishant · « **on:** March 22, 2015, 08:47:43 AM »

Well, Ladislaus, this thread is to examine the criticisms/objections you have to the "R&R" position, especially on infallibly safety.

1. Traditional principles stated: Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterial teaching is infallible, requires the assent of divine and Catholic Faith.

Ordinary and Universal Magisterial teaching proposed as revealed doctrine is infallible, requires assent of divine and Cahtolic Faith.

Ordinary or merely authentic Magisterium, either pontifical or episcopal, is non-infallible, although infallibly safe, and requires a religious assent or submission called obsequium religiosum. You agree with this, of course, but I'm just docuмenting it for someone who may not.

Quote from: Hurter,Theol. Dogm. Comp, vol. I, p. 492 said

if grave and solid reasons, above all theological ones, present themselves to the mind of one of the faithful, against decisions of the authentic Magisterium, either episcopal or pontifical, it will be licit for him to fear error, assent conditionally, or even suspend assent...

Quote from: Diekamp, Theol. Dogm. Man., vol. I, p. 72 said

“These non infallible acts of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff do not oblige one to believe, and do not postulate an absolute and definitive subjecting. But it behooves one to adhere with a religious and internal assent to each decisions, since they constitute acts of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, and are founded upon solid natural and supernatural reasons. The obligation to adhere to them can only begin to terminate in case, and this only occurs very rarely, a man fit to judge such a question, after a repeated and very diligent analysis of all the arguments, arrives at the conviction that an error has been introduced into the decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum

2: Application to Vatican II: Vatican II is not infallible, and doesn't demand the assent of divine and Catholic Faith, but is non-infallible and requires the same religious assent due to a Papal Encyclical. The authentic Magisterium in this case is both pontifical and episcopal, and Vatican II is almost unique among Ecuмenical Councils in that it didn't invoke the Extroardinary Magisterial authority and protection that typically characterizes them. This religious submission does not preclude the possibility of error which cannot therefore a priori be absolutely ruled out, but an examination of the text, and a comparison with Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching is necessary. In cases where a discrepancy is apparent, Tradition and past Magisterium is the judge and criterion.

Quote from: Pope Paul VI

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility but it nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective docuмents."

and

Quote

"We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful"

It should be clear, therefore, that Vatican II does not require the irrevocable assent of divine and Catholic Faith, but is ordinary authentic Magisterium and requires the conditional assent of a religious submission, which can be suspended for grave and serious reasons.

3. What about "infallible safety"? Fenton says,

Quote

"It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous."

Infallible safety precludes that a Magisterial text, for example, could contain something formally heretical, strictly so called. It precludes that the text itself could be positively harmful, but it doesn't preclude that by grave omissions and derelictions of duty, the Magisterial authorities may fail to proclaim the truth they should in its entirety, pass over important points of Catholic doctrine in imprecision or error - nor other pastoral failures and personal scandalous behavior on their part.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2015, 11:31:09 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

3. What about "infallible safety"? Fenton says,
Quote
"It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility."

Infallible safety precludes that a Magisterial text, for example, could contain something formally heretical, strictly so called. It precludes that the text itself could be positively harmful, but it doesn't preclude that by grave omissions and derelictions of duty, the Magisterial authorities may fail to proclaim the truth they should in its entirety, pass over important points of Catholic doctrine in imprecision or error - nor other pastoral failures and personal scandalous behavior on their part.

I'll pass over the first two parts as irrelevant, since we're talking about infallible safety. I completed Msgr. Fenton's quote for you in italics above. There are other sections that I could also add.

So, then, you've reduced all of Vatican II to "omissions and derelictions of duty" and a "failure to proclaim the truth they should in its entirety"? So you're claiming now that Vatican II fails merely negatively and by omission? No positive error at all?

In that case, you're unquestionably in schism. No such negative omission could ever justify refusal of full communion with and subjection to the Holy See. You absolutely must remain in the Church and respectfully challenge the authorities through the appropriate channels.

And that's been my point regarding infallible safety. If the Magisterium could ever fail so miserably as to force Catholics to refuse submission to the Holy See on doctrinal grounds, then the Magisterium would have formally defected.

This is an epic FAIL, Nishant.

On a side note, Msgr. Fenton limits this infallible safety to things addressed by the Holy See to the Universal Church (he's dealing within the context of encyclicals for that reason).

On another side note, there's no such thing as "formally" vs. "materially" heretical in a Magisterial teaching; formal and material heresy pertain to dispositions of the will.

On a final side note, please stop trying to imply that infallible safety is limited to there not being HERESY in the strict sense in the Universal Magisterium.

Quote from: Fenton

The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application.

You ignore this entire notion of the APD as above.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2015, 11:34:08 AM »

So, then, Nishant, do you consider Vatican II to be "radically erroneous" or simply a series of ommissions and derelictions of duty to teach the truth in its entirety? Is there positive error in Vatican II?

Nishant · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2015, 12:45:36 PM »

You continue to conflate two separate issues. We're talking now primarily about Vatican II, why do you return to the canonical status of the SSPX, especially as if I've never answered that before? You never attempted to respond to this, "Then there are painful cases that concern sins so severe they are penalized by excommunication reserved only to the Pope.” SSPX priests who confront these cases in the confessional absolve the penitent from the sin, and from the excommunication. According to Church policy, the priest must then send the case to Rome to be examined, and the excommunication formally lifted. Bishop Fellay says, “Every time – absolutely every time – we have received an answer from Rome that the priest who took care of this confession did well, that it was perfectly in order, and it was both licit and valid.” Rome would then comment on the penance, whether it was sufficient or not enough. In other words, Rome does not say the confession was invalid. Rome accepts the validity of the SSPX confession. Bishop Fellay asks, “So why is it said that our confessions are invalid if this is the way Rome deals with us in the case of these most serious matters?” So, if the priests are really suspended, as you think, how is it Rome acknowledges these absolutions, and even comments favorably on them?

It is a case of not accepting an unjust suppression, which theologians admit, (St. Robert, "When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See") and asking respectfully for its removal, while maintaining internal union with the Pope, and a very real desire for visible and external communion, which manifests itself, among other things, in readiness to accept a new canonical structure. Why was the suspension invalid? This is from Catholic Culture, In 1986 Pope John Paul II appointed a commission of nine cardinals to examine the legal status of the Old Mass. The commission consisted of Agostino Cardinal Casaroli, Bernard Cardinal Gantin, Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer, Antonio Cardinal Innocenti, Silvio Cardinal Oddi, Petro Cardinal Palazzini, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Alfons Cardinal Stickler and Jozef Cardinal Tomko and it was instructed to examine whether the New Rite of Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI abrogated the Old Rite, and whether a bishop can prohibit his priests from celebrating the Old Mass. The commission met in December 1986. Eight of nine cardinals answered that the New Mass had not abrogated the Old Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priest from celebrating Mass according to the Missal of St Pius V. So, all priests always had the right to celebrate exclusively the true Mass, and this injustice was finally corrected only after Summorum Pontificuм, and even then not fully. So, this is a separate issue, and since the injustice is now corrected, the SSPX is ready to accept the external removal of the unjust sentence as soon as the Roman authorities are willing to grant it. There is no question of your false accusation, which is refusing communion to the Pope. The Society was unjustly persecuted, but does not refuse communion with the Pope, which is impossible for any Catholic to do.

And let's drop the ridiculous accusation of schism. If sedevacantism is true, it is impossible to be in schism from a non-existent authority. And if it isn't, your objective state is much worse than ours, no matter your subjective conclusions, especially because no one has the right to drop the name of the one recognized as Pope by the Church by his own private judgment before the judgment of the Church.

I agree with Bishop Fellay's analysis, many years ago, that about 95% of Vatican II is only repeating past Magisterial teaching, whereas the Church's teaching was clear and explicit, Vatican II is ambiguous and unclear in talking about even doctrines like the Papacy, clouding it with a novel idea of "collegiality", which was only partially corrected in the Explantory Note. The major criticisms of the Council and the areas in which corrections are necessary are in the area of religious liberty and ecuмenism. These are mostly pastoral matters, and here the major errors are the failure to proclaim the Kingship of Christ, the duty of all states to be Catholic, that liberty in the strict sense can only exist for the adherents of the true religion, that the only true union of all Christians can be achieved by the return of the dissidents to the true Church of Christ, etc as was traditionally taught. I said error cannot be precluded a priori, because we are not talking about an infallible text, which gives that prior guarantee, yet you continue to misrepresent what I said, preferring to erect a strawman of your own making. Infallible safety, as applied to Vatican II, does not preclude a criticism and correction of some aspects of the Conciliar texts, and that's all that's relevant vis-a-vis Vatican II.

What if the SSPX had never been persecuted, Ladislaus, you know the Society was legitimately erected with a canonical structure. If the Roman authorities had acknowledged the right to offer the true Mass exclusively, which they were often close to acknowledging, and not trying to exaggerate the authority of the Council, which they sometimes tended to do, and the SSPX had always remained in "full communion" with Rome, would you still criticize them as you do above? If you say no, in that case, all you are saying is, the SSPX should get a canonical structure as soon as possible, that's all. What about this kind of criticism of Vatican II, by Gherardhini, de Mattei, Amerio and others? Is it acceptable or not acceptable according to you?

http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/petition-to-pope-benedict-xvi-for-a-more-in-depth-examination-of-the-second-ecuмenical-vatican-council/

Cantarella · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2015, 01:20:13 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

I agree with Bishop Fellay's analysis, many years ago, that about 95% of Vatican II is only repeating past Magisterial teaching, whereas the Church's teaching was clear and explicit, Vatican II is ambiguous and unclear in talking about even doctrines like the Papacy, clouding it with a novel idea of "collegiality", which was only partially corrected in the Explantory Note. The major criticisms of the Council and the areas in which corrections are necessary are in the area of religious liberty and ecuмenism. These are mostly pastoral matters, and here the major errors are the failure to proclaim the Kingship of Christ, the duty of all states to be Catholic, that liberty in the strict sense can only exist for the adherents of the true religion, that the only true union of all Christians can be achieved by the return of the dissidents to the true Church of Christ, etc as was traditionally taught.

I think this article on how Neo-Modernism operates perfectly illustrates what happens with Vatican II Text and most magisterial docuмents from later decades. It seems that we are not dealing with the heresy of Modernism any longer (which is in-your-face, radical, and evident), but neo-Modernism, which works implicitly, behind - the - scenes, and camouflages under "good" and orthodox appearances which are truly heterodox at the end, and whose only purpose is to undermine Catholic dogma, and revealed Truth, in a gradual, slow process.

Quote

And finally, neo-modernism tends to be present, mostly implicitly or behind-the-scenes in the Council, the Catechism, etc., even though it seldom comes out more explicitly. Things are done at this level under the pretext of 'aggiornamento', a euphemism for neo-modernism. That is usually all the justification provided since at this authoritative level, there is no need to justify things theologically. Hence, Vatican II and the Catechism are not outright neo-modernistic. Rather, they (like most of post-conciliar doctrine) tend in that direction and/or are inspired by that mentality. In other words, most of the time these docuмents do not explicitly teach neo-modernist errors (the kind of errors you hear explicitly from neo-modernist theologians and priests). Rather, they are full of dangerous ambiguities: statements that in a technical sense could be interpreted as being in harmony with the traditional faith, but that, in their natural, non-forced, interpretation are heterodox. One clear example of this is Dignitatis humanae, par. 2; entire monographs have been written in order to prove that, despite appearances, this docuмent does not contradict previous teaching. Maybe in fact it ultimately does not, but it is obvious that the prima facie meaning does; otherwise there would be no need to write so many volumes to prove it.

It must be noted that these are general tendencies, and that in some docuмents (cf. Gaudium et Spes) and every now and then in papal and episcopal statements neo-modernist principles rears come out more explicitly.

For a more detailed philosophical and theological critique of neo-modernism, and how it is nothing but a re-hashing of modernism, see Garrigou-Lagrange's Where is the New Theology Leading Us? and his The Structure of the Encyclical Humani Generis.

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html

Histrionics · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2015, 07:08:04 PM »

Due to the infallible safety vis-a-vis the teachings of Vatican II a Catholic should then have no worry with regard to his salvation in submitting to these. And while slightly unrelated, Ladislaus is correct to bring up the SSPX's canonical situation as it's inextricably intertwined; why would Cardinals affirming that the Tridentine Mass hadn't been abrogated somehow be equivalent to it being a-okay to consecrate bishops without papal mandate (not just without approval but explicit disapproval) as well as set up altars around the world against the will of the local ordinary of every respective diocese in which they operate? Anecdotal evidence that Rome gives the thumbs-up to excommunications being lifted in the confessional is hardly sufficient. Under these principles how can one justify NOT attending indult Masses, Nishant?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2015, 07:14:35 PM »

No, the questions are intimately related, Nishant. Vatican II errors are the justification for refusing to submit to the Holy See. That's the entire POINT of +Fellay's discussions with Rome and the whole POINT of the entire Resistance. BOTH groups would agree that if there aren't substantial errors in Vatican II, then there can be no grounds for refusal of submission if Rome were to grant them permission to offer the Mass.

Unjust suppression of what? If you want the Tridentine Mass, there's the Motu and the FSSP and Institute of Christ the King and Eastern Rite Liturgies? With Sumorum Pontificuм, furthermore, there's no longer any suppression in any sense whatsoever. Even an "unjust supression" would not suffice to refuse communion with and submission to Rome.

FAIL.

R&R is decidedly unCatholic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2015, 07:18:20 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

I think this article on how Neo-Modernism operates perfectly illustrates what happens with Vatican II Text and most magisterial docuмents from later decades. It seems that we are not dealing with the heresy of Modernism any longer (which is in-your-face, radical, and evident), but neo-Modernism, which works implicitly, behind - the - scenes, and camouflages under "good" and orthodox appearances which are truly heterodox at the end, and whose only purpose is to undermine Catholic dogma, and revealed Truth, in a gradual, slow process.

As you know, Cantarella, I have no problems at all in principle with your position. You see, unlike Nishant, you are in a state of canonical submission to the Holy See. And I honestly respect that. And if I adopted your and Nishant's stance vis-a-vis the V2 docuмents, then I too would absolutely make haste to put myself into full submission. I have no respect whatsoever for the straight R&R position; it's simply not Catholic.

Lest I be accused of attacking +Lefebvre, I have pointed out on numerous occasions that he was not a sedeplenist at all, but a sede-doubtist just like myself.

Matto · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2015, 07:20:22 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

R&R is decidedly unCatholic.

I agree. But I would add so is sedevacantism. The belief that people can declare popes antipopes based on their own private judgment. Also the belief that the entire hierarchy can defect from the faith and follow an antipope (even if there are one or two true Bishops who aren't heretics they all follow the antipopes). Also the belief that there can be no pope for three generations and no means to get a new one except for divine intervention.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2015, 10:05:22 PM »

Quote

For a more detailed philosophical and theological critique of neo-modernism, and how it is nothing but a re-hashing of modernism, see Garrigou-Lagrange's Where is the New Theology Leading Us? and his The Structure of the Encyclical Humani Generis.

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html

This website is a treasure - thank you Cantarella.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** March 23, 2015, 08:44:31 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ladislaus
R&R is decidedly unCatholic.

I agree. But I would add so is sedevacantism. The belief that people can declare popes antipopes based on their own private judgment. Also the belief that the entire hierarchy can defect from the faith and follow an antipope (even if there are one or two true Bishops who aren't heretics they all follow the antipopes). Also the belief that there can be no pope for three generations and no means to get a new one except for divine intervention.

As you know, Matto, I agree; that's why I call myself a sede-doubtist. And I content that +Lefebvre was a sede-doubtist himself. I can pull all the quotes where he speculates that the V2 Papal Claimants MIGHT be illegitimate and where he says it's OK to think that might be the case. I can get the quotes from +Tissier where he says that SVism can be OK to hold as a "private opinion" (language that once again suggests sede-doubtism). In order to be a sedeplenist in the true sense, one MUST HOLD WITH THE CERTAINTY OF FAITH that the Pope is legitimate; that would preclude any opinions that the contrary might be possible. That kind of stance suffices to justify a refusal of submission (per several Canonists whom I have also cited). But that's as far as we go. If I did believe with the certainty of faith that Francis is the legitimate Vicar of Christ, I would find some way to submit and to enter into full communion with him (Eastern Rite, FSSP, Motu, something).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 23, 2015, 08:50:45 AM »

It's really quite simple.

If the doctrinal errors of the "Magisterium" were to become so grave that Catholics CANNOT submit to the Holy See, then the Magisterium would have failed and the infallible safety of the Catholic Magisterium would have been compromised. As Msgr. Fenton points out, fallibility is limited to relatively small things, the so-called obiter dicta in the Universal Magisterium or else to lesser-authoritative acts of the Magisterium (non-universal things such as decrees of the Holy Office, allocutions, etc.). Msgr. Fenton was treating of Encyclicals because they're a somewhat lesser-authoritative form of Universal Magisterium (addressed as they are to the entire Church). What would he have to say about an Ecuмenical Council? What about all the post-V2 Encyclicals that have been entirely contaminated with the same "errors"? He would say absit! for a Catholic to think this way, that these can be substantially polluted with error, that the Magisterium itself could derail people from the Catholic faith.

When we speak about the limits to infallibility as a justification for R&R, we're missing the forest of indefectibility for the trees of infallibility.

Histrionics · « **Reply #12 on:** April 07, 2015, 06:25:07 PM »

Nishant, what are your thoughts on this?