Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II (Read 45429 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #5 on:** June 14, 2022, 07:22:22 AM »

”The problem is precisely this: in some contexts, the Council has not yet been accepted. It is also true that it takes a century for a Council to take root. We still have 40 years to make it take root, then!”

Total nonsense, and a tactic to Buffalo Catholics into thinking this council was like all the rest, and therefore the dissension is perfectly normal.

But according to that nonsense, there was worldwide chaos and rejection of Vatican I until the 1970’s (whereas the reality is that the very same period gave us some of our best popes, and was a heyday of Catholic growth, conversions, and doctrinal and liturgical unity).

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #6 on:** June 14, 2022, 07:37:26 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 14, 2022, 06:04:34 AM

He’s not wrong that doubting the Council is tantamount to doubting that the Holy Spirit guides the Church ... if you believe that was a legitimate Council to begin with.

If John XXIII and Paul VI were legitimate Popes, then one has to accept the Council as legitimate and "infallible." The language of both Antipopes and the docuмents themselves prove as much.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/vatican-ii-infallible/
https://novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible-john-daly/
https://novusordowatch.org/2021/08/paul6-vatican2-is-binding/

The only way out of such a conclusion is to either accept the fact that they are Antipopes, or, fall into heresy by holding to Gallicanism and denying what Vatican 1 taught about papal infallibility.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** June 14, 2022, 08:00:41 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on June 14, 2022, 07:37:26 AM

If John XXIII and Paul VI were legitimate Popes, then one has to accept the Council as legitimate and "infallible."

Nope.

Both John XXIII and Paul VI explicitly denied its infallibility.

Vatican II was a unique breed of cat, and unlike all other councils (just as the new canonizations use the same terminology as traditional ones, but what is being “canonized” is a new conception of “sanctity”).

StLouisIX · « **Reply #8 on:** June 14, 2022, 08:01:04 AM »

Fr. Hesse argued (and I hold to this opinion) that the Second Vatican “Council” was not a true Council at all, since it lacked the formal definitions of actual Church Councils and the intentionality to define anything.

https://archive.org/details/FatherHesse/Fr.+Hesse+-+Why+Catholics+May+Doubt+Whether+Vatican+II+Was+a+Valid+Council+(Remastered).mp3

Moreover, the Francis’ condemnations should fall on deaf ears, especially considering this point: if traditional Catholics are really “Protestants” for not accepting Vatican II, then why is this condemnable according to V2 “theology”, which denies the dogma of EENS through and through?

TKGS · « **Reply #9 on:** June 14, 2022, 08:07:08 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 14, 2022, 06:04:34 AM

He’s not wrong that doubting the Council is tantamount to doubting that the Holy Spirit guides the Church ... if you believe that was a legitimate Council to begin with.

But can one doubt the Council but still believe that the popes who convened, ran, and implemented the Council were true popes?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II (Read 45429 times)

SeanJohnson

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

DigitalLogos

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

SeanJohnson

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

StLouisIX

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

TKGS

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II