Something interesting I noticed...

[SaintGeorge]

Many people say that ecumenical councils are infallible. While this is right to a degree, it should be more properly understood that ecumenical councils produce some articles that are infallible, others that aren't. Any document claiming to deal with dogma is infallible, but other documents, dealing with pastoral conditions and canon law, are not infallible. If you look back through the ages, you'll find rather odd things in the councils, such as:

Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.

That's right, kneeling was universally outlawed in A.D. 325. One will find other odd things in the councils, such as the act of urinating toward the east being forbidden (with strict penalties), and other such curiosities. Yet, no one claimed these parts of the council to be infallible. Also, all councils were to be interpreted in the light of previous ones, with statements having precedence of seniority (i.e. the older the statement, the more authority).

Taking this into consideration, we can split the documents of vatican II into three categories (Largely my opinion, but I bet someone on this forum can back this up with official Church teaching):

Infallible Affirmation
The following documents restate various dogmas under attack when the Second Vatican council was called. Their purpose was primarily explanatory. No new dogmas were defined. It is permissible to disagree with the phrasing used in them, but their content (the explained "de fide" truths of previous councils) must be accepted. Indeed, all the truths expounded in these documents were already infallibly declared before Vatican II. The dogmatic constitutions of Vatican II were primarily a symbolic gesture against heretics. They include:

Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution On the Church, 1964.
Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation, 1965.

Constitutions
Next come the constitutions. They are actually just disciplinary and pastoral objectives. Their weight is comparable to Nicea's prohibition on kneeling. Religious obedience is required though (in other words, you can criticize these documents, but you must implement them to the best of your ability. They are orders from superior officers in the Lord's army, and although they might occasionally be wrong, an army won't do so well unless soldiers obey their commanders). They include:

Sacrosanctum concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 1963.
Gaudium et Spes, Pastoral Constitution On the Church In the Modern World,1965.

Decrees and Declarations
These represent opinions and strategies for putting the constitutions into practice. They still require religious obedience, but to a lesser degree. They hold even less weight, because, unlike explicit legislations (such as the constitutions or prohibitions on kneeling), they are implicit. All other documents from Vatican II fall under this category.

Thus, the only infallible part of Vatican II were its references to other councils; the content of just two documents. The Second Vatican Council is not that big of a deal, the same faith remains without it. That is why the Vatican is negotiating with the SSPX, and has already declared the matter an internal affair of the Church (in other words, the SSPX accept Vatican II, but are worried about how it was distorted).

In the words of Pope Paul VI:

"Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. [...] 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.” (Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58)

In summary, the Second Vatican Council was a great symbolic gesture against heretics, and a good (and moderately successful) attempt to meet modern man where he is, and evangelize him to faith in Christ. The council also has good apologetical material in it for use against both modernism and monolithism (xenophobia taken to extremes, both culturally and religiously).

Please don't make Vatican II out to be more or less than it actually was.

 

[QuantaCura]

Ecumenical Councils tend to be primarily concerned with Church disciplines and pastoral issues with one or maybe a few (occasional zero) dogmatic statements as well. I think the fact that Vatican II was preceded by two exceptions that dealt almost exclusively with dogmatic decisions (Trent and Vatican I) kind of made people look at it through the wrong lens.

A great read to help understand the Council in context is Pope Paul VI's encyclical Ecclesiam Suam written during the Council.

As you said, what the Council did was lay out a plan for evangelization. It first defines what the Church is (Lumen Gentium). Then it defines what the word of God is (Dei verbum). Then it provides documents on how the Church in general should spread the word of God, bring people into the Church, and how to prepare its members to accomplish these ends (Gaudium et Spes, Dignitatis Humanae, and the decrees on social communication, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, the Eastern Churches, the liturgy, Christian education, and the training of priests). Then it provides documents for specific members of the Church outlining how they are to spread the word of God (decrees on bishops, priests, religious, missions, and laity).

It's very comprehensive. Sadly, very few people follow what the Council said we should do and how we should do it. But, such is often the fate of Concillar teaching.

 

[Globalnomad]

I think we need to take a more holistic approach to infallibility - as regards Vat2 and as regards all other Councils.

There is such a thing as "general" infallibility - the general trend of any Council would certainly be inspired by the Holy Spirit, but that does not mean that every detailed phrase or directive that comes out of it is right (like not kneeling at prayer).

There is also such a thing as infallibility in that particular historical context - we can be confident that it was the right thing for the Church to say at the time, but not necessarily five centuries later. For example, condoning slavery. This can extend also to the way a dogma is defined in the context of a particular culture, though of course not to the crux of the dogma itself. I mean, if we were to rewrite the Nicene Creed today, we would certainly write it differently. The seeming contradiction between Unam Sanctam and Gaudium et Spes on the salvation of non-Catholics is in the same category, I think.

 

[SaintGeorge]

I mean, if we were to rewrite the Nicene Creed today

No.

There is also such a thing as infallibility in that particular historical context - we can be confident that it was the right thing for the Church to say at the time, but not necessarily five centuries later.

That is called doctrinal subjectivism. It was condemned at Vatican I. By its very definition, an infallible statement is not only valid for a particular place and time, but for and in all circumstances, now and forever, and unto the ages of ages, even beyond the end of time.

For example, condoning slavery.

The Church still condones the ancient form of slavery. The kind we saw in the southern United States 200 years ago was not really slavery, but rather epic brutality. Slaves in the ancient world were government officials, teachers, doctors, and yes, some were brick-layers. But there was no discrimination according to race, and it was not seen as a permanent condition. The Church teaches:

Is slavery evil, and if so, surely the North was right in the American Civil War?
Slavery as an institution can be understood in two ways. The ancient pagans understood it as the right of ownership of one person over another, as over a thing or an animal, the slave entirely belonging in every aspect to his master, without any recognition of his free will. This is illicit and immoral, for one person can never have the right of control over another’s intellect and will, according to which he is made in the image and likeness of God. Such a pagan concept of slavery is manifestly opposed to the natural law, and a violation of every man’s duty to use his own intellect and will to freely serve God.
However, slavery need not be understood in this sense. It can be simply the ownership of a man’s ability to work, his abilities, his productivity. Understood in this sense, it does not violate a man’s free will, nor his duty to love and serve God, and is consequently not opposed to the natural law.
Furthermore, slavery is not opposed to the divine positive law, i.e., to the law promulgated by God Himself. We consequently find it in this sense allowed in the Old Law for the Jews. Slavery is also mentioned several times in the New Testament as something licit, slaves not being encouraged to revolt, but to maintain their faithful service, for example by St. Peter: "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (I Pet. 2:18). St. Paul says the same: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ" (Eph. 6:5). Also Col. 3:22. Likewise, masters are not told to free their slaves, but to treat them well: "Masters, do to your servants that which is just and equal: knowing that you also have a master in heaven" (Col. 4:1). Also Eph. 6:9. Consequently, it cannot be said that God forbids slavery in itself.
The fact that slavery is not in itself intrinsically wrong can also be established from the fact that it is licit for one man or for society to have power over a man’s services or his acts. If a man can hire his labor out for a time, he can hire it out for life, as was the case of the serfs in Christendom. Likewise, if society has authority over a man to impose imprisonment or capital punishment for crimes, then it has the authority to impose a lesser sentence, such as the ownership of a man’s services.
This being said, it is manifestly obvious that the rise of the Catholic Church little by little put an end to this institution, which it has many times condemned. The problem with slavery is that it is so open to abuse, the slaves having no protection against the infringing of their interior, personal freedom, nor having any guarantee of being treated with kindness, of being supplied with all the necessities of life, of not being overworked, and of respect for their person.

These abuses became horrifically apparent in the slave trade for the New World. Slave-hunting, selling of children into slavery, inhumane treatment in the transports and by slave traders, and some slave owners are but some of these immoral conditions. It is for this reason that the Popes again and again condemned this slave trade, starting with Pius II in 1462, including Paul III (1537), Urban VIII (1639), Benedict XIV (1741), Gregory XVI (1839) and Leo XIII (1888). Gregory XVI had this to say:

The Roman Pontiffs our predecessors of glorious memory have not at all failed to many times seriously reprehend slavery, as is their duty, as being harmful to their (the black peoples&#8217 spiritual salvation and bringing opprobrium to the Christian name…whence we admonish and order by our Apostolic authority all the faithful of every condition…not to reduce into slavery…or exercise this inhuman trade. (Dec. 3, 1839)​

Leo XIII was even more explicit in his letter In Plurimis on May 5, 1888, to congratulate the bishops of Brazil on the emancipation of slaves in Brazil on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his priestly ordination:

This decision was particularly consoling and agreeable to us because we received the confirmation of this news, so dear to us, that the Brazilians desire henceforth to abolish and completely extirpate the barbaric practice of slavery.…For in the midst of so much misery, we must particularly deplore that misery of slavery, to which a considerable part of the human family has been subject for many centuries, thus groaning under the sorrow of abjection, contrary to what God and nature first established….This inhuman and iniquitous doctrine that slaves must, as instruments lacking reason and understanding, serve the will of their masters in all things, is supremely detestable —so much, indeed, that once it has been accepted there is no oppression, no matter how disgusting or barbarous, that cannot be maintained uncontested with a certain appearance of legality and law.​

Consequently, there can be no doubt that the importing of slaves from Africa to the New World, so frequently condemned by the Church, as actually practiced was evil. This does not, however, mean that the Church condemned every slave owner. There were certainly Catholic slave owners, who took real care of their slaves, supported their families, provided for all their needs, gave them every facility to become Catholic and save their souls, and who consequently committed no sin, but rather acts of virtue. In practice, however, the multitude of evils and abuses far outweighed the good.
This being said, Catholic historians who have studied the Civil War point out that the real question was not one of slavery at all, but one of economic control. It was the capitalists of the North, with their factories, mines, means of production, forcing an industrial and economic revolution on the agrarian South. The Northerners had long had slaves of their own. However, the Industrial Revolution produced a new kind of slavery, that of the factory workers, who would sweat very long hours for little income, for the profit of their capitalist masters.
The struggles for the rights of workers demonstrate that despite their technical freedom, they were just as oppressed as the slaves of old, and very often more so, for the slaves at least were provided with all the necessities of life. The question of slavery is consequently of little importance in the discussion of right and wrong in the Civil War. It really is a question of economic revolution. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

 

[SaintGeorge]

The seeming contradiction between Unam Sanctam and Gaudium et Spes on the salvation of non-Catholics is in the same category, I think.

There is no contradiction. One deals with men who live in ignorance of the Gospel, the other with those who have heard it. The Baltimore Catechism (A.D. 1891) explains it in a question and answer format, drawing its material directly from the Council of Trent:

166. Are all obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved?
All are obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved.
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me." (John 14:6)
167. What do we mean when we say, "Outside the Church there is no salvation?"
When we say, "Outside the Church there is no salvation," we mean that Christ made the Catholic Church a necessary means of salvation and commanded all to enter it, so that a person must be connected with the Church in some way to be saved.
168. How can persons who are not members of the Catholic Church be saved?
Persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if, through no fault of their own, they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but they love God and try to do His will, for in this way they are connected with the Church by desire.

 

[zhilan]

The Orthodox Church still follows the no kneeling on Sunday rule. Although you do still see people kneeling anyway influenced from western customs.

 

[gitlance]

I love the Baltimore Catechism. So simple to understand.

 

[winsome]

That's right, kneeling was universally outlawed in A.D. 325. One will find other odd things in the councils, such as the act of urinating toward the east being forbidden (with strict penalties), and other such curiosities.

Gosh, do I need to get my compass out and see which way the toilet faces?

 

[SaintGeorge]

LOL! My point exactly. Not everything is infallible. No doubt, there are parts of Vatican II that irk me, but thank God they aren't the infallible parts! Although I agree with the actualy spirit of the council (not the false spirit induced by narcotics) and the contents of most of its documents, I do find some of the criticisms leveled against it by the SSPX to be merited. I like the Novus Ordo Missae and most modern Catholic evangelization initiatives, but they both could still use a lot of work.

 

[Globalnomad]

No.



That is called doctrinal subjectivism. It was condemned at Vatican I. By its very definition, an infallible statement is not only valid for a particular place and time, but for and in all circumstances, now and forever, and unto the ages of ages, even beyond the end of time.



The Church still condones the ancient form of slavery. The kind we saw in the southern United States 200 years ago was not really slavery, but rather epic brutality. Slaves in the ancient world were government officials, teachers, doctors, and yes, some were brick-layers. But there was no discrimination according to race, and it was not seen as a permanent condition. The Church teaches:

Re infallibility: sorry, I was not clear. I am not talking about actual infallible statements that are defined as such. I was actualy extending the realm of infallibility, observing that even a Council that issues no specific infallible statements should be considered infallible (a) in its general direction, (b) in the historical context.

Re the Nicene Creed: sorry, slip of the hand. I mean "if we were to write...". Of course we would not want to rewrite it.... even if it takes three Catechism lessons these days just to explain all the Hellenistic philosophical categories behind its statements!

Re slavery: rubbish. Slavery defined as "It can be simply the ownership of a man’s ability to work, his abilities, his productivity. Understood in this sense, it does not violate a man’s free will, nor his duty to love and serve God.... " is NOT slavery, it's a normal worker-employer relationship. The whole point of slavery is to own a man's whole being, and not only his working power. And AFAIK slaves were given specialised jobs in the South as well, or trained for them, if they showed talent - that's not humanity, it's simple economic efficiency.

 

[SaintGeorge]

You really don't understand ancient slavery. Please, read about it. It was very different than American slavery. Often, slaves had better living qualities than freemen.

Slavery defined as "It can be simply the ownership of a man’s ability to work, his abilities, his productivity. Understood in this sense, it does not violate a man’s free will, nor his duty to love and serve God.... " is NOT slavery, it's a normal worker-employer relationship.

That's ancient slavery, except there was no pay-check. Everything you needed in life was given to you by your master, and your obedience to him was mandatory at all times until the contract was up. If you were a slave due to warfare, your children would be freed as soon as they reach maturity in most cases.

The whole point of slavery is to own a man's whole being, and not only his working power.

That is modern or American slavery. The only other comparison in history is the Roman Gladiators. This kind of slavery has always been universally condemned by every religion and culture, across the board. Only truly morally depraved or power hungry people support it. A current example of such slavery is forced prostitution and sex slaves, which are common in Europe, the US, China, Japan, and other industrialized nations. It is also widespread in some developing nations as well.

 

[anawim]

It should be noted that ecumenical councils issue both dogmatic statements, and what is known as "canons". For instance, at the Council of Nicea, in addition to the dogmas of the Trinity, and the Theotokos, there were canons issuing statements governing the ordination of bishops, as well as the Pascal celebration (Easter).

So, yes, an ecumenical council is infallible, but not all it's decisions are on matters of faith or morals, and so that would not come under the heading of what could even be considered as being infallible, or not.