Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II  (Read 45427 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

This is actually not true.  But even if it were, why should we believe the same people who gave us Vatican II in the first place?

Pope Paul VI made it clear in a public audience of January 12th, 1966 that the decrees of Vatican II were never stamped with the note of infallibility as he openly declared: 

“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 Councilit 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)

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Seems relevant so I will re-post this......

Snip taken from an interview with Fr. Wathen:

"....There has never been a general council until the Second Vatican Council which did not have the purpose of gathering in order to deliberate on doctrinal matters.

The Second Vatican Council was unique in that, from the very onset, pope John XXIII said that this would be a different kind of council. He coined an altogether new expression, he said "this is a Pastoral Council" (Pope Paul VI on Jan 12, 1966 said the same thing).

People need to understand that anything that this council pronounced that is a part of Catholic tradition and belief, is no less true and no less binding. They also need to understand that in calling itself a "Pastoral Council", the Council was telling the Catholic faithful that "our deliberations will not be mainly on the subject of what is Catholic doctrines, our deliberations will be mainly regarding how the Church will approach the people", and the council said that "we are going to begin to approach the people in a different style".

We have to say that rather remarkably, the Second Vatican Council was rather unconcerned about the sanctification of the people, the Second Vatican Council  was mainly concerned with it's image, with how the people saw, or see the Church.

The second aspect of this matter is that the Church was going to present a new image to the non-Catholic world. It was going to make a totally different approach to the non-Catholics, the non-believers. No matter whether they were Protestants or Jєωs or Mohammedans, to non-believers the Church was going to present itself, not as an infallible body, but as an equal and the Church was going to present itself as being like them, searching for the truth.

This is a horrendous aspect and very often, since then, ecclesiastics, including the pope, have suggested that we Catholics are searching for the truth.

We're not searching for the truth at all - God has given us the truth, God has imposed the truth on us. And those who do not possess it, are bound under the pain of damnation to find it and to accept it.

We are in a totally different situation from those outside the Church. We have access to the truth, we know where it is, and we're bound by it - and any Catholic who does not know the truth should find someone who does know it and listen to him. And if there's any priest that doesn't know it, that priest should leave the priesthood. He has no business pretending himself as a priest if he does not know his Catholic theology.

The Church, since the Council, has been willing to discard everything that is recognizably Catholic, in order to fulfill this new preoccupation of presenting itself in a different fashion to the Catholic laypeople and to the non-Catholic world and for the sake of having a different image to the non-Catholic world, it has shown itself indifferent to the faith of the people so that the people are beside themselves with confusion. They no longer find anything recognizably Catholic, they don't know what to do in reaction. It is as if they simply no longer recognize their mother.

She has taken on a totally new makeup and garb and way of speaking, they don't recognize her, and in their heart of hearts they know this is a false image, and they are scandalized by it, but all those to whom they look for explanation assure them that they're not to be dismayed, that they're not to take scandal, not to take umbridge. It is the role of the traditionalists to say, don't listen to them, they are liars and deceivers, you have every reason to be scandalized by this new approach.....

....In order to present this totally new image to it's people and to the world, the conciliarists have been willing to discard everything - and that is not a careless statement.  There is absolutely nothing they will not concede to fulfill this image, to carry it out. There is absolutely nothing, not a single doctrine will they not compromise, they will discard not only the Mass, they will discard any appearance, any external, and any morality in order not to be inconsistent with this self imposed obligation of being a true ecuмenical. Of being all things to all men, there is nothing that they will not discard, there is no damage they will not do, there is no fixture they will not destroy, there is nothing holy they will not trample, even the Body of Christ, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that they will not do in order to fulfill this self imposed image.

And they have said in order to give weight to their resolve that the Holy Spirit has guided them to it, this is false. The Holy Spirit has guided them to nothing of it, we have every reason to know what spirit it is that has guided them to this...."


Pope Paul VI made it clear in a public audience of January 12th, 1966 that the decrees of Vatican II were never stamped with the note of infallibility as he openly declared:

“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)
Not infallible in an extraordinary,solemn manner, but according to the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium:

There are those who ask what is the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wished to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, committing the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and so clearly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and purposes of the individual docuмents. - Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966.



Yet again, the neo-Gallicans here deny proof when its right in their faces. No point in wasting my time on it anymore.

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.

Not infallible in an extraordinary,solemn manner, but according to the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium:

There are those who ask what is the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wished to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, committing the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and so clearly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and purposes of the individual docuмents. - Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966.

This is actually not true.   But even if it were, why should we believe the same people who gave us Vatican II in the first place?