The Indefectibility of the Catholic Church

[Michael Wilson]

James,

The Church DID accept the Council documents.  The issue is obedience, not infallibility.

That in itself makes all the documents binding on Catholics; if not with the note of "de-fide" at least with the inward religious assent.
James:

none of them were covered by the note of infallibility; to state otherwise is to deny the obvious meaning of this Pope's very words.

That is overstating the case. Where the documents repeat already defined teachings from the past, these would be binding with the note that would already accompany them
Here is Lumen Gentium #2:

2. The eternal Father, by a free and hidden plan of His own wisdom and goodness, created the whole world. His plan was to raise men to a participation of the divine life. Fallen in Adam, God the Father did not leave men to themselves, but ceaselessly offered helps to salvation, in view of Christ, the Redeemer "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature".(2) All the elect, before time began, the Father "foreknew and pre- destined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that he should be the firstborn among many brethren".(3) He planned to assemble in the holy Church all those who would believe in Christ. Already from the beginning of the world the foreshadowing of the Church took place. It was prepared in a remarkable way throughout the history of the people of Israel and by means of the Old Covenant.(1*)

Here we have several dogmatic statements:
1.God created the world of His own wisdom and Goodness. De Fide. (Ott. pgs. 79 & 81)
2.He Created man. De Fide (Ott. pg.94.)
3."His plan was to raise men to a participation of the divine life" De Fide (Ott. pgs 102-103)
etc. etc. Can a Catholic reject any of these teachings of the Council, and still remain a Catholic? 
James:

"which ordinary and so obviously authentic magisterium must be received docilely and sincerely by all the faithful".....The Council's obvious words

Right: "Must be received docilely and sincerely by all the faithful".

[james03]

That in itself makes all the documents binding on Catholics; if not with the note of "de-fide" at least with the inward religious assent.

And in "all" of the documents, the Council said only those teachings it openly declares as binding are binding.  That's the hippo in the bathtub you refuse to acknowledge.

As far as inward assent, that happened.  No one is denying it.

And then some Catholics pointed out that the fallible pastoral council made errors.

[james03]

That is overstating the case.

In response to understating the case.  Sure, when the Council references Traditional Catholic teachings expressed which Traditional Catholic decrees contained concomitant anathemas, or in creeds, it is correct.  But that's not in dispute.  What is in dispute is the fallibility of novel doctrines and whether they are binding on Catholics.  The Council states that they are not binding. 

[Michael Wilson]

James:

And in "all" of the documents, the Council said only those teachings it openly declares as binding are binding.  That's the hippo in the bathtub you refuse to acknowledge.

The "Hippo" is that when the Church teaches something it is binding; this is what you refuse to acknowledge. Further, Paul VI stated explicitly that the documents of the Council were binding on all Catholics.

As far as inward assent, that happened.  No one is denying it.

O.K.

And then some Catholics pointed out that the fallible pastoral council made errors.

A Pastoral Council of the Catholic Church cannot teach harmful errors.

[Michael Wilson]

James,

In response to understating the case.
  Sure, when the Council references Traditional Catholic teachings expressed which Traditional Catholic decrees contained concomitant anathemas, or in creeds, it is correct.  But that's not in dispute.

O.K.

What is in dispute is the fallibility of novel doctrines and whether they are binding on Catholics.  The Council states that they are not binding. 

We agree that novel doctrine that contradicts Catholic doctrine is not binding and on the contrary must be rejected by Catholics.
We don't agree on the subject of a general Church Council being able to promulgate harmful doctrine and discipline as Vatican II did; you can read the quote from Paul VI where he is defending the traditional doctrine of the authority of the Universal Magisterium:

your clearly proclaimed refusal to recognize in its whole, the authority of the Second Vatican Council and that of the pope.....With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the popes and the ecumenical councils have acted in this common way.  And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did.  Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that we enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable.  We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter:  "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32).  The universal episcopate is guarantor with us of this.Again, you cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pastoral to accept certain texts of this Council and to refuse others.

It is the promised protection of the Holy Ghost by Our Divine Savior, which guarantees that the Pope in union with the bishops cannot promulgate harmful doctrine or discipline and their decrees demand inward and religious assent.

[AlNg]

All the errors which we have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the Church.

Yes. The statement here is relevant to this thread: The indefectibility of the Catholic Church.

[james03]

We don't agree on the subject of a general Church Council being able to promulgate harmful doctrine and discipline as Vatican II did;

This was a pastoral council at the Ordinary Magisterium level.  We have no idea what the heck that means.

you can read the quote from Paul VI where he is defending the traditional doctrine of the authority of the Universal Magisterium:

You are conflating obedience with infallibility.  And Pope Paul was wrong.  Servile obedience is not required.

The "Hippo" is that when the Church teaches something it is binding; this is what you refuse to acknowledge.

So when the Council stated it is not binding, that decree is binding.  Fair enough, I accept that the Council is not binding on me.  And when the Church teaches something, it is not always binding, especially at the Ordinary level of Magisterium.  It can contain error.  Otherwise there is no need to distinguish when the Church teaches infallibly.

[Miriam_M]

That is overstating the case.

In response to understating the case.  Sure, when the Council references Traditional Catholic teachings expressed which Traditional Catholic decrees contained concomitant anathemas, or in creeds, it is correct.  But that's not in dispute.  What is in dispute is the fallibility of novel doctrines and whether they are binding on Catholics.  The Council states that they are not binding. 

Precisely.  And for those who missed it, I explained in different threads what other priests have said about why teachings which do not conform to Sacred Tradition are not only fallible, not only heterodox, they -- if they purport or pretend to have theological/spiritual content but are radical novelties, are heretical and must be avoided.  If they are mere proposals and theories, they are not binding, inwardly or outwardly.  If they are Romantic prose, lacking directives or specificity, they can be ignored without sin. If they are about secular matters, they are irrelevant and no assent is required.

I apologize if James said this earlier and I'm repeating his remarks, but the audience for "pastoral" documents is the episcopate.  The Council documents were intended to be (unhelpfully) broad guidelines for bishops in [somehow, mysteriously] "bringing the Church into the modern age."  Of course, there is a huge difference between turning Catholics into modernists and helping Catholics to navigate the perils inherent in the modern age and modernism, while remaining faithful to tradition.

The proof that the documents were intended for the episcopate and not for laymen on a future discussion forum is that it was the bishops who melted down when the See abandoned them after 1962.  And why did the See abandon them?  Because it had created its own internal chaos, resulting in massive departures from the priesthood and religious life, and because confusion reigned in Rome.  Nobody in leadership positions had any idea what to do with such vague and often self-contradictory documents which utterly lacked concrete instructions.

Typically, Councils are summoned to clarify teachings not to create chaos. This one set an opposite precedent.

So when the See says or implies today that their reference points for Catholic teaching begin with 1963 and end with whatever the current calendar year is, what they're actually saying is admitting that they're "teaching" is merely evolved anarchy.  The documents never explicitly said, "Teach whatever you want, bishops."  But the vagueness of the language, combined with the vacuum created after the Council, resulted in the same: an invitation to heterodoxy, by default. Importantly, also, it was an invitation to decentralization -- otherwise recognizable as -- wait for it --Protestantism.

[Khalid]

While the discussion on infallibility is important, it doesn't really address the OP or my difficulties. Regardless of how binding Vatican II is or is not, the issue remains that the disciplines, doctrine, liturgy, and moral teaching of both the Roman church and the rest of the Church have undergone substantial corruption since 1958; which is supposed to be impossible according to the dogma of indefectibility. Now, the way I see it there are three ways to resolve this issue:

1) Demonstrate that no such corruption has occured or that any corruption has been accidental rather than substantial (what I've seen called the "Conservative NO" or "Indult" approach).

2) That substantial corruption has occured but the body it occured in was not the Catholic Church but rather an imposter anti-Church (sedevacantism essentially, which is a topic to be discussed in another thread. This view seems the most sensible option to me at the present time but I have some reservations regarding whether it really preserves indefectibility)

3) concluding that the Church has in fact defected by the standards of pre-conciliar theology (this in turn can lead to a number of different positions, such as redefining indefectibility [which would seem to require rejecting portions of Vatican I, Trent, Constance, and Nicaea II, along with any kind of Episcopal infallibility], or deciding in favor of some brand of non-Catholic Christianity [the heretical/schismatic view], or judging that the Gospels are forged/at least corrupted such that the accounts are false wherein Christ promised indefectibility for his Church [basically the Islamic view], or rejecting Christ as a liar [the Jewish view])

2) can't really be discussed here, so that leaves either demonstrating why no substantial corruption has occured (such as, for example, when the New Mass was promulgated) or possibly digging into the weeds and showing the pre-conciliar view of indefectibility was at least partially false and proposing a revised understanding that doesn't fall foul of some theological censure. Unless there's some option I'm missing.

I hope that I don't come across as obtuse or needlessly pedantic, but finding some resolution to settle on is something I consider crucial as it directly effects where I can recieve the sacraments, if the sacraments I'd be recieving are valid, and if the body I'm joining myself to is really the Catholic Church or not (and that's prescinding from the question of what an apparent defection of the Church implies regarding the veracity of Catholicism; awkwardcustomer made a good point in favor of overlooking this aspect of the question).The stakes seem fairly high.

[Bonaventure]

Thread is locked.

"Khalid" is simply a sock puppet for a user that was previously banned, Justin Martyr. "Jean Carrier" was another sock puppet of this individual, who perhaps has mental health issues he ought to address (making threads ultimately attempting to cast doubt on the Catholic Faith, or asking what he ought to do as he "entered the wrong vocation by marrying."

A lot of intellectual energy was wasted, and even a prayer thread started, for an individual not interested in posting in good faith.