The Indefectibility of the Catholic Church

[Michael Wilson]

I agree with James, the Pope is saying that Vatican II does not teach with the note of infallibility, which would demand an "assent of faith" to its teachings; but its teachings (and errors) are part of its "supreme ordinary magisterium"; which can bind in an infallible way, but in this case did not. But these teachings are supposed to be "infallibly safe" and should be accepted with an interior and religious submission by all Catholics.

[Baylee]

I agree with James, the Pope is saying that Vatican II does not teach with the note of infallibility, which would demand an "assent of faith" to its teachings; but its teachings (and errors) are part of its "supreme ordinary magisterium"; which can bind in an infallible way, but in this case did not. But these teachings are supposed to be "infallibly safe" and should be accepted with an interior and religious submission by all Catholics.

When do the teachings of the supreme ordinary magisterium (the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium) ever not bind infallibly?  When are they only "infallibly safe"?

[Michael Wilson]

I agree with James, the Pope is saying that Vatican II does not teach with the note of infallibility, which would demand an "assent of faith" to its teachings; but its teachings (and errors) are part of its "supreme ordinary magisterium"; which can bind in an infallible way, but in this case did not. But these teachings are supposed to be "infallibly safe" and should be accepted with an interior and religious submission by all Catholics.

When do the teachings of the supreme ordinary magisterium (the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium) ever not bind infallibly?  When are they only "infallibly safe"?

I forgot to add that these teachings cannot contain any errors against faith or morals.
As to when are they infallible? I'm not 100% certain; I would venture to say, when they settle a question definitely; for example, Pope Leo's decision on Anglican Orders (even though this is the Ordinary Papal Magisterium); and Pius XII on the matter of orders. (ditto).
In vatican II the closest one comes to an infallible statement (and maybe it is supposed to be covered by infallibility) is D.H. #2; where it stated that the right of individuals not to be impeded in the practice of their own religion is found in Sacred Scripture and reason itself:

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2)

If a teaching is based on Divine revelation, then it has to be accepted with an act of faith.
That is a good question.

[Baylee]

I agree with James, the Pope is saying that Vatican II does not teach with the note of infallibility, which would demand an "assent of faith" to its teachings; but its teachings (and errors) are part of its "supreme ordinary magisterium"; which can bind in an infallible way, but in this case did not. But these teachings are supposed to be "infallibly safe" and should be accepted with an interior and religious submission by all Catholics.

When do the teachings of the supreme ordinary magisterium (the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium) ever not bind infallibly?  When are they only "infallibly safe"?

I forgot to add that these teachings cannot contain any errors against faith or morals.
As to when are they infallible? I'm not 100% certain; I would venture to say, when they settle a question definitely; for example, Pope Leo's decision on Anglican Orders (even though this is the Ordinary Papal Magisterium); and Pius XII on the matter of orders. (ditto).
In vatican II the closest one comes to an infallible statement (and maybe it is supposed to be covered by infallibility) is D.H. #2; where it stated that the right of individuals not to be impeded in the practice of their own religion is found in Sacred Scripture and reason itself:

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2)

If a teaching is based on Divine revelation, then it has to be accepted with an act of faith.
That is a good question.

Definitions are part of the Extraordinary Magisterium, not the OUM.  I have never heard that the OUM is only sometimes infallible.

I understand that you are still saying that there can be no errors in the faith and morals of these teachings, so we are still left with a question of the legitimacy of those who teach it.  But I still hold that teachings related to faith and morals in the OUM are always infallible (per Vatican I).

[Maximilian]

Also, most devout Catholics, including trads, are not ultramontanists, so analyzing the papacy to death is really not a priority in their daily lives.

Analyzing, no. But reflexively identifying their religion with the pope, yes.

This was certainly the case in the decades leading up to Vatican II, and it has not really diminished in the subsequent decades. If anything, it may have reached an all-time peak during the papacy of JPII.

So ultramontanists, yes, even hyper-ultra-montanists. Most Catholics associate their religion with someone "over the mountains," rather than what they have right here in their own backyard. This is the hallmark of the Wanderer-type neo-Catholics who constantly disparage their own local bishop while looking across the ocean to Rome for a salvation that never arrives.

[Maximilian]

It's a mess, but Vatican II clearly wasn't infallible.

Not infallible in the sense of being wrong, yes. But in the sense of meeting all the criteria for teachings that should be infallible, Vatican II checks more boxes than any other statement in the history of the Catholic Church.

[james03]

When do the teachings of the supreme ordinary magisterium (the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium) ever not bind infallibly?

When the "Council" states only those things it declares binding are binding.

Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding

The Pope says it is fallible.  The Council said it is not binding.  When you have to twist things and look for a loop hole to make it infallible and binding, your argument has a problem.

That this is bizarre? Yes.  That it calls into question about what the heck a "pastoral council" is, a complete novelty? Yes.  The whole mess needs to be put on the Index.

[Miriam_M]

Also, most devout Catholics, including trads, are not ultramontanists, so analyzing the papacy to death is really not a priority in their daily lives.

Analyzing, no. But reflexively identifying their religion with the pope, yes.

Yes; I don't disagree.  I was more referring to the subject of discussing it (a hyper-focus on it).

This was certainly the case in the decades leading up to Vatican II, and it has not really diminished in the subsequent decades. If anything, it may have reached an all-time peak during the papacy of JPII.

I agree with the influence of JP2.  Further (in my view), the timing of his election at a moment of great confusion and devolution for the Church created for him a Perfect Storm which allowed Catholics to equate him with the deposit of faith, which is never the case.  It was during his reign that I heard the term papalotry most often.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/04/papalotry-is-real.html

So ultramontanists, yes, even hyper-ultra-montanists. Most Catholics associate their religion with someone "over the mountains," rather than what they have right here in their own backyard. This is the hallmark of the Wanderer-type neo-Catholics who constantly disparage their own local bishop while looking across the ocean to Rome for a salvation that never arrives.

And this has often been my point as well -- and not just the local bishop, by the way.  Before V2, your local go-to authority and trusted guide was your parish priest; your bishop was secondary but also trustworthy.  The idea of looking to the pope for your primary catechesis was a laughable idea. (It still is.) 

[Miriam_M]

It's a mess, but Vatican II clearly wasn't infallible.

Not infallible in the sense of being wrong, yes. But in the sense of meeting all the criteria for teachings that should be infallible, Vatican II checks more boxes than any other statement in the history of the Catholic Church.

...except for the critical missing anathemas characteristic of a council whose chief purpose is dogmatic (correcting heresies) and which is universally understood as binding.

[Maximilian]

Before V2, your local go-to authority and trusted guide was your parish priest; your bishop was secondary but also trustworthy.  The idea of looking to the pope for your primary catechesis was a laughable idea. (It still is.) 

Yes, good point. Your parish priest was the man in your life who spoke with the authority of God. He was a tangible, flesh-and-blood person who you saw every Sunday, if not more often. Now we get our Faith from interviews that Francis gives to reporters while flying from one continent to another on airplanes.

[Michael Wilson]

The Pope says it is fallible.  The Council said it is not binding.  When you have to twist things and look for a loop hole to make it infallible and binding, your argument has a problem.

That this is bizarre? Yes.  That it calls into question about what the heck a "pastoral council" is, a complete novelty? Yes.  The whole mess needs to be put on the Index.

Many trad Catholics assume that "not infallible" = "not binding"; but this was not the teaching of the Church before Vatican II. The Church requires assent to all of her teachings, whether proposed to the faithful in a solemn extraordinary manner or in her daily ordinary teaching; which would include the decrees from the Holy Office, that affirm certain doctrines being put in danger or errors which would also imperil the truths of the Catholic faith. Such as the Syllabus of Errors of both Pius IX & X; the decrees on the Mosaic origin of Genesis, and it being true history; etc. etc.
What causes us to call into question the decrees of Vatican II is not the level of doctrine or "doctrinal note" attached to its decrees, but the fact that many of its decrees contain teachings which are contrary to previous Catholic doctrines. Unable to resolve the conflict in a manner that is in accord with our Catholic faith, we must reject the novelties and adhere to the teachings that were transmitted to us by the Church up and until the Council. 

[james03]

Many trad Catholics assume that "not infallible" = "not binding";

Not me.  I read what they wrote.  It's not binding.

Unable to resolve the conflict in a manner that is in accord with our Catholic faith, we must reject the novelties and adhere to the teachings that were transmitted to us by the Church up and until the Council.

Yep.  I'd add, a copy of the council documents needs to be printed, and then burned in the middle of St. Peter's Square with much pomp and ceremony. 

[Baylee]

Many trad Catholics assume that "not infallible" = "not binding";

Not me.  I read what they wrote.  It's not binding.

Unable to resolve the conflict in a manner that is in accord with our Catholic faith, we must reject the novelties and adhere to the teachings that were transmitted to us by the Church up and until the Council.

Yep.  I'd add, a copy of the council documents needs to be printed, and then burned in the middle of St. Peter's Square with much pomp and ceremony. 

Really? Read Paul VI's comments again:

but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary and so obviously authentic magisterium must be received docilely and sincerely by all the faithful

And I can provide other instances where Paul VI states that Vatican II is binding.

[Maximilian]

It's a mess, but Vatican II clearly wasn't infallible.

Not infallible in the sense of being wrong, yes. But in the sense of meeting all the criteria for teachings that should be infallible, Vatican II checks more boxes than any other statement in the history of the Catholic Church.

...except for the critical missing anathemas characteristic of a council whose chief purpose is dogmatic (correcting heresies) and which is universally understood as binding.

Yes, true, the anathemas are missing. Which gives the whole proceedings an air of unreality, unseriousness. And yet these unserious documents were solemnly promulgated by 2,000 bishops in union with the pope.

Now if only Vatican I had limited itself to anathemas, we might be in better shape.

[awkward customer]

Whatever the status of its documents, Vatican II has been imposed throughout the Church.  The liturgical and theological revolution has left no corner of the Church untouched.  Vatican II is the public face of the Church.   The above arguments will continue, but so will Vatican II. 

There's only one question that really matters.  Is Vatican II Catholic?