Talk:Dei Verbum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.

[edit] dogmatic

OK, this might be a stupid question, but is dei verbum dogma? The vatican II page says that Vatican II did not declare its work dogmatically infallible. Jonathan Tweet 03:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not dogma. Dei Verbum contains authoritative but non-infallible Church teaching. See Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium by Francis A. Sullivan for more details. -- Cat Whisperer 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It's called "Dogmatic Constitution" but is not dogmatic? Jonathan Tweet 00:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
That is correct. It seems to me that Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium are the dogmatic constitutions because they address the fundamental and universal issues of the Church, whereas the other documents of Vatican II address issues of current relevance that may change in a hundred years. But that's just my original research. -- Cat Whisperer 01:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, at one point I was curious about the possibility that Dei Verbum contained some dogmatic (i.e., infallible) definitions:
  • "The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin." (DV, para. 18)
  • "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)." (DV, para. 19)
So I wrote Fr. Sullivan an email and asked him about it, and he said that these were not dogmatic definitions, that is, they were not being promulgated infallibly by Vatican II. -- Cat Whisperer 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Cat Whisperer. I sure find the whold dogma issue to be slippery. Jonathan Tweet 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The dogma issue IS slippery. Fr. Sullivan who is cited above is a recognized expert, but among the experts he is a dogmatic minimalist. He seems to identify "dogmatic statements" with "infallible statements," and it is not clear that he believes that there are any specific statements taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium. One example of a recognized expert on the other side of the spectrum would be Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. I would argue that, not only are the understandings of dogmatic statements of these two highly regarded theologians in conflict, but that one has greater authority to set forth the authentic self-understanding of the Catholic Church, by virtue of his unique place in the heirarchy. I don't have statements regarding DV in particular from Ratzinger/Benedict easily at hand, so I can't tell you that he views them as dogmatic by virtue of their being part of the ordinary and universal magisterium, but I suspect that he might say something like that. (oops, forgot to sign earlier) The.helping.people.tick 14:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The Magestrium is protected from heresy. This is the view of Pope Benedict XVI. This means that Vatican II and its documents are not heretical and what they state is the truth. You may be interested in what the Pope has to say on [1] where he cites Dei Verbum. (Runwiththewind 16:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
The trick to understanding Catholic dogmatic theology is to ignore all the self-proclaimed experts on the subject (including Wikipedia editors such as myself) and only read peer-reviewed publications by credentialed Catholic theologians. If you do that, then things will quickly start to make sense. You will see which issues are seen as settled by the experts, and which issues are still subject to scholarly debate. It will be a completely different picture that what you would guess from reading people’s opinions on the Web. For example, there are tons of Web denizens who claim that a big issue in dogmatic theology today is whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an exercise of papal infallibility. However, if you read the experts, you will find that the magisterium has repeatedly stated that it is not, and that there are no credentialed Catholic theologians who disagree with this determination.
An excellent place to start is the book I mentioned above, Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium. I would personally characterize Fr. Sullivan’s writings as a solid, middle-of-the-road research (with theologians such as Richard Gaillardetz as minimalists), but it doesn’t matter, because his book surveys the entire range of scholarly viewpoints in Catholic dogmatic theology. There is an entire chapter devoted to the Second Vatican Council, and it explains the three schools of thought (“minimizer”, “maximizer”, and “moderate”) regarding the council’s infallibility. Ratzinger’s views are quoted and discussed in detail. (In my words, a summary of Ratzinger’s views are that the council teachings are not infallible, but are first among the Church’s non-infallible teachings, above even papal encyclicals). But you can read it for yourself, and if you follow the footnotes back to everyone’s research, you will have an excellent understanding of the field. -- Cat Whisperer 21:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Pope Benedict XVI disagrees with you. He states clearly that the Council Protected From Errors by Holy Spirit [2]. The council doesn't make heretical statements :) To prove this the Pope just quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council." ----Catechism of the Catholic Church. Since Vatican II is an ecumenical council its statements are infallible :) Have a nice day. (Runwiththewind 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
Runwiththewind, I am sure that you do not speak for Pope Benedict XVI. The sooner that you realize this fact, the better off we all will be here at Wikipedia. -- Cat Whisperer 23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Cat and Run, you've both said many true things. There is more than one way for a teaching of the Church to be infallible; most of the teachings of the Church do not rely on papal infallibility, but on the ordinary, universal (ie., always and everywhere) magisterium, which, per Catholic teaching, also enjoys the protective guidance of the Holy Spirit. Cat, I'll check out Creative Fidelity, sounds like an interesting read. But for the purposes of this our article, the point is that there is a scholarly debate about these things, and the NPOV will give the details of the debate, not only one conclusion or another. From your description, it sounds like Fr. Sullivan's book details different sides of the debate. I would like to see some amount of nuance find its way into the Dei Verbum article. The.helping.people.tick 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, the majority of the scholarly discussion regarding the infallibility of any teaching of Vatican II via the ordinary and universal magisterium is centered on the teaching in Lumen Gentium of the sacramentality of the episcopate. -- Cat Whisperer 23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all Cat. Please follow the form of using the discussion boxes properly. Inserting your views inbetween comments is actually not how the discussion boxes work. You are to follow after, not inbetween comments, under each header.
  • Your accusation that I am putting words in the Pope's mouth are unfounded. The Pope clearly speaks his own mind on [3] in the statement Council Protected From Errors by Holy Spirit and to prove this the Pope just quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here it is again... #891. "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council." This the Pope speaking. The one ruling today as Pope.
  • The statements made at the ecumenical councils are infallible, not fallible. Dei Verbum is infallible. It is Dogma. The idea that Vatican II is not dogmatic in any of its statements is rejected by Pope Benedict XVI who quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the source to varify this infallability.
  • A Catholic does not need to turn to any other documents for Vatican II Church Dogma except the Catechism and its footnotes which cite all the dogmatic documents needed to understand the Church position today. It is all inclusive. Seriously, what kind of researchers ignore this material directly from the Magesterium and yet seek out something else entirely? This type of tactic has all the hallmarks of the ultraconservatives that reject Vatican II as a valid council and thus reject the Pope. This brings me to the final point.
  • It would be terrible to say they who reject Vatican II are no longer Catholics but actually seeing the teaching of rejecting Vatican II as infallible is another thing. Does Cat believe that Vatican II is infallible? I believe that Vatican II is infallible. (Runwiththewind 09:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
First of all, Run, as I've already explained to you on Talk:Second Vatican Council, Stephen Hand (the person who actually quoted CCC 891 in your link) is not the Pope. Unfortunately for all of us here at Wikipedia, the rest of your original research is just as flawed. This is why original research is NOT ALLOWED!
You don't have the authority to make Wikipedia policy either, so please stop editing other people's talk page comments. Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages) states:
When you post a new comment, put it at the bottom of the talk page. The exception is that if you're responding to someone else's remarks, put your comment below theirs. You can indent your comment by typing a colon (:) at the beginning of a line.
You've already made it clear several times that you believe that you are much smarter that all those Catholic theologians with their ecclesiastical degrees and scholarly publications, and that what you personally have to say is much more important than anything they might have published. But Wikipedia isn't the place for your brilliance, so please take your original research somewhere else. -- Cat Whisperer 02:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
CCC 891 correctly states that Vatican II is infallible. Your view that it is fallable is not the view the Catholic Church. The Catechism contains a imprimi potest from none other than... Joseph Cardinal Raztinger who is the Pope. Also according to the Apostolic Constitution FIDEI DEPOSITUM [1] the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or CCC, is the official exposition of the teachings of the Catholic Church. That is from Pope John Paul II. Your claims that Vatican II is falliable is your error, not mine. (Runwiththewind 08:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
I claim that the majority scholarly opinion of credentialed Catholic theologians is that Dei Verbum contains no dogmatic definitions. (According to Lumen Gentium 25, ecumenical councils invoke their infallibility via the promulgation of dogmatic definitions.) I further claim that according to Wikipedia policy regarding notable secondary sources, this majority scholarly opinion merits inclusion in articles that discuss the infallibility of Dei Verbum and Vatican II in general. -- Cat Whisperer 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you joking? Your claim that the Catholic majority scholarly opinion is not the Magisterium is false. Attendance up to 2540 at Vatican II. That is 2540 Bishops who disagree with your view. In the Catholic Church the majority scholarly opinion is the Magisterium. Here it is again, the citation from the teaching of the Magisterium, which you reject as a minority view, all 2540 Bishops ... #891. "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council."
  • DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION <--- Dogmatic
  • ON DIVINE REVELATION
  • DEI VERBUM
  • SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED <--- promulagated by... as per Lumen Gentium.
  • BY HIS HOLINESS
  • POPE PAUL VI<--- The infallible Pope
  • ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965,
  • You reject that Vatican II is infallible yet cite Vatican II dogma like Lumen Gentium to support your own POV that other Vatican II dogmatic contitutions are not dogma. Your are wrong.
  • DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH <--- Dogmatic
  • LUMEN GENTIUM
  • SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HOLINESS <--- promulagated by... as per Lumen Gentium.
  • POPE PAUL VI<--- The infallible Pope
  • ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
  • You have also rejected Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Constitution that the Catechism represents the teaching of the Magisterium. Apparently this web sites above with Pope Benedict XVI rejecting your position don't matter either.(Runwiththewind 06:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC))
For the record, no, I am not joking. The difference is that I have actually provided solid secondary sources for the majority scholarly opinion, whereas you merely pretend that you have the authority to speak for all the fathers of the Second Vatican Council. Not that it matters here at Wikipdedia, but I do accept the actual teachings of the Catholic Church. What I don't accept is your delusion of speaking for the Church's magisterium. Your being mistaking regarding nearly every single point you have made here at Wikipedia is one thing, but your continued attribution of your mistakes to the Holy Father is just plain obnoxious. -- Cat Whisperer 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Runwiththewind, CCC 891 doesn't say that every council is dogmatic, only that being dogmatic is a trait special to councils (not explicitly every council). Jonathan Tweet 03:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, you might not be aware but Cat has rejected that Vatican II is infallible on [4]. You where told by Cat above that Dei Verbum is not dogma because Cat rejects that dei verbum is inerrant. (Runwiththewind 10:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
Looks like there's a difference of opinion by reasonable, learned people on whether V2 is infallible from the Catholic viewpoint. Jonathan Tweet 13:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, learned people don't express their opinions as either "Vatican II is infallible" or "Vatican II is not infallible". Everyone is pretty much agreed that ecumenical councils exercise their infallibility via the promulgation of dogmatic definitions, so the question really is whether Vatican II promulgated any dogmatic definitions. Even the famous Pope Paul VI quote that traditional Catholics always cite uses this terminology:
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)
-- Cat Whisperer 15:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Original document in Italian can be found here. -- Cat Whisperer 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Now just so everyone sees this. Read what Cat has quote mined for you and then read the next part which he omits... "but it (Vatican II) nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective documents." You can read about this quote mining tactic on [5]. Jonathan these people are calling themselves traditionalist catholics. You can learn about them on traditionalist catholics(Runwiththewind 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
Given that the "ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) magisterium" is the same thing as the non-infallible magisterium, the rest of the quote merely serves to provide further confirmation of my point. Thanks for providing additional evidence that I am correct! -- Cat Whisperer 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I can say anything else on this matter. You have pretty much invented something so brand new to me in your last reply that I cannot even begin to recognize what a non-infallible Magisterium is. In my mind there is no such thing as a fallible Magisterium. What you have described is a contradiction of a principle of Catholicism and not compatable with the faith I have been taught by the Magisterium in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that they issue to all Catholics as the truth. (Runwiththewind 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
This would explain a lot. You've linked to the article on the magisterium, but have you read Magisterium#The Levels of the Magisterium? One example of the non-infallible magisterium can be found in canon law. Canon 753 states, "Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops." -- Cat Whisperer 03:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
That article's discussion dispute those catagories which you have supported in your recent edits to that article. The Magisterium has never issued any such a position. You can't read Canon law. Bishops alone are not the Magisterium. It doesn't say the Magisterium. It discusses Bishops without the Pope. (Runwiththewind 08:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
I've highlighted where it says magisterium. If you really want to learn about this topic, I recommend the Achacoso article cited in Magisterium. The link is [6], and the non-infallible magisterium is classified as the 3rd category of truths (bottom of page 7). If you don't wish to learn about this topic, then would you please stop disrupting Wikipedia with your deliberate ignorance? -- Cat Whisperer 12:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
In APOSTOLOS SUOS[7] Pope John Paul II adds to this that Apart from this general norm the Code also establishes, more concretely, some areas of doctrinal competence of the Conferences of Bishops, such as providing “that catechisms are issued for its own territory if such seems useful, with the prior approval of the Apostolic See”,(80) and the approval of editions of the books of Sacred Scripture and their translations.(81) Fidei depositum instructs you then to use the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the teachings of the Magisterium. Quoting from sources outside of the Catechism, in place of it, or above the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as teachings of the Magisterium is contrary of this directive by the Pope. (Runwiththewind 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
Look, if you want to ignore the opposing viewpoint of every single credentialed Catholic theologian, and instead insist that you alone are correct, that's your personal life choice. However, until you convince Wikipedia to adopt a WP:We don't need no stinkin' scholars policy, I don't see how you can productively contribute here at Wikipedia. But you obviously aren't listening to me, so I will hold back and see if there are any other Wikipedia editors who can interact with you more effectively. -- Cat Whisperer 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It's difficult to jump into such a long conversation, and although I am a theologian-in-training the issue of dogma is not my specialty, but I think I can help direct this some. A large part of the problem is that the wrong questions are being asked, and the fine details of theological/dogmatic language are being overlooked. In theology, slight differences are enough to prevent the equation of two similar expressions. For example, "protected from error" is NOT the same as "infallible." Yes, it's similar; but remember that in English, at least, "protected" is not necessarily absolute. It could mean "completely free from error," but it could also mean, "bearingsome gravitational force away from error, to an uncertain extent." Now, without the original language of that quote I can't determine whether such a nuance in intended, but for now judgment must be suspended that would desire to equate the two phrases. Second, the lack of formal "infallibility" does not mean that any error actually exists in the document; it just does not preclude error. An actual error may, perhaps, also take the form of unclarity that must be removed by later declaration. Although people will debate this, good theologians (including Ratzinger) see councils as moving as a continuity forward. Dei Verbum actually describes this development of doctrine stating that "there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down." Detailed study of Trent will show that Vatican II does not really disagree with it at all, but of course, that is an issue that divides so-called "traditionalists" who are not in communion with Rome from the rest of the Church. Lastly, in the quote, "it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority," the word "dogmatic" is not used in the way that it has been understood in this discussion. People do tend to say that Vatican II was not dogmatic, but this is a statement of means more than content. If previous councils are read, a "dogmatic" genre is found wherein authoritative statements are made and usually accompanied by anathemas. The statements state the issue positively, saying what is held to be true, and the anathemas state it negatively, saying what as a consequence cannot be held to be true. Anathemas usually do not target individuals, but rather ideas (they are not the same as excommunications). Vatican II, on the contrary, was a "pastoral" genre, which speaks with the voice more of a friendly pastor. As such it's more poetic, and perhaps more easily understood in the current age. If you want to know how much you are bound in faith to Vatican II, the answer is entirely. For a Catholic, there is not room to pick and choose statements from it. Theologians may discuss it, and maybe even disagree on some level, but in the end they are morally bound to it. It is discussion within adherence, because theology is faith interacting with reason. If you want to know how much authority, technically, Vatican II's documents have, the key is to look at the way the documents are classified. The Council Fathers carefully assigned them names such as "constitution" ad "decree"; these designations carry a certain level of authority. Now, once again, care must be taken with theological and Church-legal language. Authority is NOT the same thing as infallibility. However, if the issue of infallibility is difficult to reach, perhaps you will find that Authority was really what you were looking for all along. Infallibility is an ability of the Pope, so look for it there. Also, note that according to dogma, not everything the Pope puts his name on bears his infallibity. --Michael Anthony Abril 18:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)