[Question]{.underline}: Are all the texts of an infallible Council infallible?
[Answer]{.underline}: The infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium is a defined Catholic dogma that is of Faith. The general principle is clearly stated by Vatican I’s dogmatic constitution concerning the Faith (Dei Filius), namely that “the doctrine of faith…has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted” (Db 1800). This infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium can be exercised either in an extraordinary and solemn manner, such as by an ex cathedra definition, or in her ordinary teaching, on a day to day basis, without such solemnity, under the proviso that it be truly universal. This is in fact the clear teaching of the same document of Vatican I: “By divine and catholic Faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed” (Db 1792). Note that this can only apply to truths contained in Scripture or Tradition that she proposes as being divinely revealed.
This infallibility is exercised first and foremost by the Pope, in virtue of his primacy, as is formally defined by the Vatican I document on the Church (Pastor aeternus) for his extraordinary Magisterium: “The dogma has been divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra*, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church…operates with that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals”* (Db 1839). This definition lists the conditions for the note of infallibility to apply to any teaching: firstly, it must concern a question of faith or morals that is divinely revealed; secondly, it must be clearly defined, usually by the anathematization of the contrary condemned proposition; thirdly, it must be imposed as obligatory for all Catholics, and not just a part of the Church; fourthly, it must be taught by the Pope with his full authority as teacher and pastor as successor of the Apostles.
The conditions for the infallibility of the Pope’s Ordinary Magisterium have not been clearly defined. However, the universality that is inseparable from the Ordinary Magisterium is interpreted by the theologians before Vatican II as a universality in time and in place, namely “that which was believed everywhere, always, and by all” to use the well known fifth century formula of St. Vincent de Lérins.
The same principles can be applied to the teaching of the bishops gathered together in an Ecumenical Council, to whom, together with himself, the Pope communicates his supreme teaching power for the duration of the Council. In fact, both the Councils themselves and many of the Popes have frequently defined the supreme authority of such Councils, as for example St. Leo IX did for the first seven Ecumenical Councils, comparing them to the Gospels themselves: “Whatever the above mentioned seven holy and universal Councils believe and praise, I also believe and praise, and whomever they declare anathema, I declare anathema” (Db 349). In fact, the denial of the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils is one of the propositions of liberalism concerning the Church’s rights that was condemned by Bd. Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of errors. This is the condemned proposition (Prop. 23): “The Roman Pontiffs [and the Ecumenical Councils]{.underline} have trespassed the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals” (Db 1723).
This infallibility of Ecumenical Councils is both that of the Extraordinary and the Ordinary Magisterium. It is precisely the principal purpose of an Ecumenical Council to define doctrines of faith and morals definitively as being divinely revealed to be believed by all the faithful of the entire Church. In such cases the Pope gives the Council the supreme apostolic authority it needs to make infallible ex cathedra definitions as acts of the Extraordinary Magisterium.
However, it is manifestly obvious that not all the texts of the Councils consist in such definitions. There are many other texts that explain the Church’s teaching or apply it in the form of disciplinary decisions. Such teachings, however, can also be infallible. If not acts of the Extraordinary Magisterium, they can nevertheless be acts of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The problem is that it is not so easy to determine what teachings are really a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, having always been taught everywhere and by all Catholic authorities. It is precisely for this reason that the Church has to resort, from time to time, to solemn definitions. Statements of Councils that reiterate the Catholic Faith as has always and everywhere been taught are consequently infallible in virtue of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whereas statements that might simply give a theological explanation, or application, while orthodox and having to be respected as a part of the Authentic Magisterium, still would not have the quality of infallibility.
It is the whole work of Catholic theology to analyze the texts of a Council, and thus determine which definitions are infallible in virtue of the Extraordinary Magisterium, which is easy to determine, and which are infallible in virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium (propositions that are consequently of Faith---*de fide---*but not defined---de fide definita). Let us take, for an example, the decree of the Council of Trent on the sacrament of Penance. It defines infallibly in virtue of the Extraordinary Magisterium that penance is truly and properly a sacrament and that it is distinct from the sacrament of Baptism. It likewise defines that the words of Our Lord on Easter Sunday “Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” refer to the sacrament of Penance, and then declares that it is especially then that Our Lord instituted the sacrament of Penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood from the beginning. However, the object of the definition is not that Christ instituted the sacrament with these words, but that these words refer to Penance. Consequently, the teaching of the Council that it was by these words that Christ instituted this sacrament is infallible as a part of the Ordinary Magisterium inasmuch as it is what the Church has always and everywhere taught, not in virtue of the definition.
Then there are other teachings in the same Session xiv on Penance which are theologically certain conclusions, and not properly acts of the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium. An example is the teaching that the three parts of the sacrament of Penance are the three acts of the penitent that are the quasi-matter of the sacrament, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Such teachings cannot be rejected without temerity, but they are not of Faith.
The case with the Second Vatican Council is particularly confusing. For although it was an Ecumenical Council and could have used the charisma of infallibility to make solemn definitions of the Extraordinary Magisterium, it nevertheless refused to do so, as Pope Paul VI himself clearly declared just after the Council, on January 12, 1966, namely that the Counciil “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas having the mark of infallibility.” This means that only those statements that can clearly be shown to be a repeat of what has always and everywhere been taught by everybody in the Catholic Church can be accepted as infallible in virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium. Moreover, it is manifestly obvious that philosophical novelties such as the egalitarianism behind religious liberty, and contradictions of Catholic teaching such as Ecumenism, are no in way a teaching of the Church, let alone of the Ordinary Magisterium, and consequently can and must be rejected.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.