Is Vatican II infallible under the Ordinary Universal Magisterium?

[St.Justin]

No one but no one can proclaim infallibly, either through the Ordinary universal magisterium or the Extraordinary, anything that is against the Faith and you can take that to the bank. So you don't have to worry about anything the NO says if it is against the Faith it is not infallible and you are in fact under a moral obligation to ignore such a thing.

[Mono no aware]

No one but no one can proclaim infallibly, either through the Ordinary universal magisterium or the Extraordinary, anything that is against the Faith and you can take that to the bank. So you don't have to worry about anything the NO says if it is against the Faith it is not infallible and you are in fact under a moral obligation to ignore such a thing.

Doesn't that only raise the question of how the laity are supposed to properly receive the magisterium's teachings?  Does the Church teach, and then the faithful sift through the teaching to inspect it for orthodoxy?  That seems to have the hierarchical paradigm completely backwards.

I thought the discussion here was whether Vatican II actually meets the traditional, established criteria for "infallible under the Ordinary Magisterium."  I'm honestly interested.  But if that criteria simply consists of, "it's infallible if I agree with it, fallible if I don't," then haven't we essentially arrived at some sort of Protestantism?  Doesn't that make everyone their own pope?

[Quaremerepulisti]

Unfortunately, this "gotcha" argument will bounce right back at you.  If Vatican 2 were of faith, then those who reject it, like the SSPX, would be heretics.  Now no one has accused the SSPX (whether Bishop, priests or laity) of heresy.  Schism, yes (John Paul II and the Bishops).  Heresy, no.  This constitutes proof that Vatican 2 is not regarded as of faith.

This presupposes that modern discipline would accuse anyone of heresy. I can flip the question back to you: show me bishops who've accused actual heretics of heresy? For example advocates of Women Priests? There are millions of WO advocates around the world, several thousand priests, and dozens of bishops worldwide that have expressed a favor for it. Where are their denunciations?

This is moving the goalposts. 

You say, show me this, and I show you this.  Then some other objection is trotted out.

So, now I'll show you that, yes, advocates of female ordination are accused of heresy.  By none other than then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

October 28, 1995

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

But you'll move the goalposts even further and refuse to accept that.

Why not? What would could as them believing it to be of faith, for you? You're practicing the No True Scotsman fallacy.

No.  I'm not saying no true Bishop believes DH to be a dogma of Faith, so that if you find one, he's not a true Bishop.

I'm saying you can't find anyone who claims thus.

These bishops and popes would advocate, militantly, aggressively, fanatically, that you must accept the supposedly "non-infallible" DH. They would use it to replace the actually infallible QC.

Because of the assent of obedience.  QC isn't infallible because it didn't issue a dogmatic definition either.

We can only go by empirical observation and inferences from practice. Obviously no one will come out and say that QC is wrong. Nor will anyone say that DH is wrong. All I'm pointing to is that people believe that without DH one cannot be catholic, "in full communion with the Church". Whether you agree with that or not, it gives insight into the subjective minds of the bishops and popes involved. They do believe it is of the faith.

This is mind-reading.  Unlike ordination of women, you can't find anywhere it being proposed as part of the Deposit of Faith.

[Michael Wilson]

I would like to add that the O.U.M. Can be infallible when teaching a doctrine of faith, not only "vertically" i.e. Over a period of time, but also "horizontally" i.e. If all the bishops of the world (or at least the overwhelming majority) were to teach a doctrine as belonging to the deposit of faith, then that would also be infallible, as otherwise the whole episcopate would have defected. I believe that Pius XII in his preamble to the declaration of the dogma of the Assumption, declared this to be the case when he ascertained by the near unanimous positive responses from the world's bishops on the belief of the Assumption of Our Lady.

[awkwardcustomer]

No one but no one can proclaim infallibly, either through the Ordinary universal magisterium or the Extraordinary, anything that is against the Faith and you can take that to the bank. So you don't have to worry about anything the NO says if it is against the Faith it is not infallible and you are in fact under a moral obligation to ignore such a thing.

Doesn't that only raise the question of how the laity are supposed to properly receive the magisterium's teachings?  Does the Church teach, and then the faithful sift through the teaching to inspect it for orthodoxy?  That seems to have hierarchical paradigm completely backwards.

I thought the discussion here was whether Vatican II actually meets the traditional, established criteria for "infallible under the Ordinary Magisterium."  I'm honestly interested.  But if that criteria simply consists of, "it's infallible if I agree with it, fallible if I don't," then haven't we essentially arrived at some sort of Protestantism?  Doesn't that make everyone their own pope?

Yes. And it also raises the question of how this comes across to a potential convert.

What is being said to an ordinary person thinking of becoming a Catholic, by those who insist that the teachings of a succession of popes in union with the bishops of the world can be ignored?

Basically they are saying - these popes and bishops are wrong about this, this, and this.  So ignore them and listen to us.

[Michael Wilson]

Yes. And it also raises the question of how this comes across to a potential convert.

What is being said to an ordinary person thinking of becoming a Catholic, by those who insist that the teachings of a succession of popes in union with the bishops of the world can be ignored?

Basically they are saying - these popes and bishops are wrong about this, this, and this.  So ignore them and listen to us.

That is what all the groups in the Church do now (trad, sed, cons.) that more or less reject Vatican II do today: "Don't listen to them, listen to us."

[awkwardcustomer]

Yes. And it also raises the question of how this comes across to a potential convert.

What is being said to an ordinary person thinking of becoming a Catholic, by those who insist that the teachings of a succession of popes in union with the bishops of the world can be ignored?

Basically they are saying - these popes and bishops are wrong about this, this, and this.  So ignore them and listen to us.

That is what all the groups in the Church do now (trad, sed, cons.) that more or less reject Vatican II do today: "Don't listen to them, listen to us."

Do the cons tell people not to listen to popes and bishops teaching in unison?  I've never heard a Conservative Catholic say that.

[St.Justin]

There is nothing taught from Vatican II on ward that requires a assent of Faith.. Infallibity only can come into play when it is dealing with the deposit of Faith, that is what the Church has always held. Any Catholic who doesn't know what the Church has always taught is ignorant of the Faith either vincible or invincible. So it is not a question of picking and choosing.
The council and the Pope and the Bishops can do and say as they please but only when it involves the Deposit of the Faith can it in anyway be considered infallible. If it is contrary to the deposit of Faith it can never be infallible.
Everyone in authority since the council has said that it did not teach infallibly. I would say that since they didn't specify Ordinary or Extra Ordinary they meant what they said.

[Mono no aware]

So, now I'll show you that, yes, advocates of female ordination are accused of heresy.  By none other than then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm

I think the female ordination thing is off-topic, because Cardinal Ratzinger, in that case, was appealing to a decree of John Paul II, and not to Vatican II.

Like I said, there's no good reason to assert that a heresy charge would settle this matter, since the very nature of Vatican II was to water down the gravity of heresy.  This was a council of ecumenism, not anathemas.  The closest you might get to an insistence that ignoring Vatican II is heretical is, again, if you look at certain quotes from Pope Francis, or someone like Cardinal Schönborn.  They don't come out and call anyone a heretic, but they do make it pretty clear that you have to get on board with Vatican II in order to be in perfect communion with the Church.  Cardinal Schönborn insisted that Bp. Williamson would have to retract his opinions on the Jews before his excommunication would be lifted; after all, John Paul II had referred to "the sin of anti-semitism."  The proper approach to Judaism, says the hierarchy, is to view the Old Covenant as still valid, and the Jews as Catholics' "elder brothers in the faith."

[Michael Wilson]

Do the cons tell people not to listen to popes and bishops teaching in unison?  I've never heard a Conservative Catholic say that.

They will tell them not to listen to the local bishop and when the Pope says something wrong, they will say "this is what he really said......"

[Mono no aware]

There is nothing taught from Vatican II on ward that requires a assent of Faith.. Infallibity only can come into play when it is dealing with the deposit of Faith, that is what the Church has always held. Any Catholic who doesn't know what the Church has always taught is ignorant of the Faith either vincible or invincible. So it is not a question of picking and choosing.
The council and the Pope and the Bishops can do and say as they please but only when it involves the Deposit of the Faith can it in anyway be considered infallible. If it is contrary to the deposit of Faith it can never be infallible.
Everyone in authority since the council has said that it did not teach infallibly. I would say that since they didn't specify Ordinary or Extra Ordinary they meant what they said.

Vatican II itself says otherwise.  The bishops, teaching in unison with the pope, are to be received with submission, not skepticism.  From Lumen Gentium, §25:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Also, I don't know who you mean by "everyone in authority since the council," but Paul VI himself indicated that Vatican II ought to be received with assent in his Apostolic brief In Spiritu Sancto:

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.

[LouisIX]

So, now I'll show you that, yes, advocates of female ordination are accused of heresy.  By none other than then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm

I think the female ordination thing is off-topic, because Cardinal Ratzinger, in that case, was appealing to a decree of John Paul II, and not to Vatican II.

Like I said, there's no good reason to assert that a heresy charge would settle this matter, since the very nature of Vatican II was to water down the gravity of heresy.  This was a council of ecumenism, not anathemas.  The closest you might get to an insistence that ignoring Vatican II is heretical is, again, if you look at certain quotes from Pope Francis, or someone like Cardinal Schönborn.  They don't come out and call anyone a heretic, but they do make it pretty clear that you have to get on board with Vatican II to be in perfect communion with the Church.  Cardinal Schönborn insisted that Bp. Williamson would have to retract his opinions on the Jews before excommunication would be lifted; after all, John Paul II had referred to "the sin of anti-semitism."  The proper approach to Judaism, says the hierarchy, is to view the Old Covenant as still valid, and the Jews as Catholics' "elder brothers in the faith."

That's because, even though the Council had the flair of being pastoral rather than doctrinal, it's held to be an ecumenical council all the same. I think that there is some significant wiggle room as to the proper interpretation of the Conciliar texts and there always has been given that it was not often (or perhaps ever) reaching for doctrine as a formal object. But that it spoke with the authority of the Church at all is clearly something that must be assented to.

[Mono no aware]

So, now I'll show you that, yes, advocates of female ordination are accused of heresy.  By none other than then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm

I think the female ordination thing is off-topic, because Cardinal Ratzinger, in that case, was appealing to a decree of John Paul II, and not to Vatican II.

Like I said, there's no good reason to assert that a heresy charge would settle this matter, since the very nature of Vatican II was to water down the gravity of heresy.  This was a council of ecumenism, not anathemas.  The closest you might get to an insistence that ignoring Vatican II is heretical is, again, if you look at certain quotes from Pope Francis, or someone like Cardinal Schönborn.  They don't come out and call anyone a heretic, but they do make it pretty clear that you have to get on board with Vatican II to be in perfect communion with the Church.  Cardinal Schönborn insisted that Bp. Williamson would have to retract his opinions on the Jews before excommunication would be lifted; after all, John Paul II had referred to "the sin of anti-semitism."  The proper approach to Judaism, says the hierarchy, is to view the Old Covenant as still valid, and the Jews as Catholics' "elder brothers in the faith."

That's because, even though the Council had the flair of being pastoral rather than doctrinal, it's held to be an ecumenical council all the same. I think that there is some significant wiggle room as to the proper interpretation of the Conciliar texts and there always has been given that it was not often (or perhaps ever) reaching for doctrine as a formal object. But that it spoke with the authority of the Church at all is clearly something that must be assented to.

I think I agree.  It would have to be the case that when an ecumenical council offers a definition of precisely who constitutes the Church (in a document subtitled "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," no less) that the council is teaching authoritatively.  It is not defining a dogma, but it is certainly offering a refinement, clarification, or development of some sort, which requires the understanding and assent of the faithful.  Lumen Gentium is describing "the Church" in the doctrine of "no salvation outside the Church" (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).  Correct?

[LouisIX]

So, now I'll show you that, yes, advocates of female ordination are accused of heresy.  By none other than then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm

I think the female ordination thing is off-topic, because Cardinal Ratzinger, in that case, was appealing to a decree of John Paul II, and not to Vatican II.

Like I said, there's no good reason to assert that a heresy charge would settle this matter, since the very nature of Vatican II was to water down the gravity of heresy.  This was a council of ecumenism, not anathemas.  The closest you might get to an insistence that ignoring Vatican II is heretical is, again, if you look at certain quotes from Pope Francis, or someone like Cardinal Schönborn.  They don't come out and call anyone a heretic, but they do make it pretty clear that you have to get on board with Vatican II to be in perfect communion with the Church.  Cardinal Schönborn insisted that Bp. Williamson would have to retract his opinions on the Jews before excommunication would be lifted; after all, John Paul II had referred to "the sin of anti-semitism."  The proper approach to Judaism, says the hierarchy, is to view the Old Covenant as still valid, and the Jews as Catholics' "elder brothers in the faith."

That's because, even though the Council had the flair of being pastoral rather than doctrinal, it's held to be an ecumenical council all the same. I think that there is some significant wiggle room as to the proper interpretation of the Conciliar texts and there always has been given that it was not often (or perhaps ever) reaching for doctrine as a formal object. But that it spoke with the authority of the Church at all is clearly something that must be assented to.

I think I agree.  It would have to be the case that when an ecumenical council offers a definition of precisely who constitutes the Church (in a document subtitled "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," no less) that the council is teaching authoritatively.  It is not defining a dogma, but it is certainly offering a refinement, clarification, or development of some sort, which requires the understanding and assent of the faithful.  Lumen Gentium is describing "the Church" in the doctrine of "no salvation outside the Church" (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).  Correct?

Yes, I would agree with you, but I fear that we would be in the minority here. I think that it is true that Vatican II was a pastoral council if by "pastoral council" one means that its aim was to speak to the relation between the Church and the world rather than setting itself up as a condemnation of certain heresies, clarifying orthodoxy alongside the anathemas. With that being said, insofar as it was a council that dealt with the Faith, it of course stated things of a doctrinal nature throughout the Conciliar texts.

[St.Justin]

From ADDRESS OF POPE PAUL VI
DURING THE LAST GENERAL MEETING
OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

7 December 1965 

"But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is."

Can't be any clearer than that.