Author Topic: Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO  (Read 4854 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23624
  • Reputation: +20715/-383
  • Gender: Male
Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
« on: April 27, 2015, 01:59:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm going to start this thread again. NO FEENEYISM or discussion of BoB and BoD here! I'll delete any violating posts without mercy.


    Careful, now. I'm not talking about de-facto, simplified, or "virtually". I'm not talking about any kind of imprecise, emotional, layman language, "close enough, or true enough to act upon".

    I'm asking, is it 100% accurate and juridically true that "Vatican II is heretical."

    I'm talking about simpliciter, literally, juridically, specifically. Can it be said with 100% accuracy, not in spirit and in truth, cutting through the smokescreen of ambiguity but rather in a court of ecclesiastical law.

    Ladislaus pointed out that Vatican II could teach heresy, even if it didn't DEFINE any new doctrine(s). Of course, one must realize that Vatican II declared itself a "pastoral council" (a novelty in itself), intentionally NOT invoking the protection of the Holy Ghost or pretending any way to be dogmatic.

    But would any self-respecting Canon Lawyer or theologian ever say, "Vatican II was heretical."

    I'll throw you a hint: Who can declare something heretical?

    To be clear: I believe Vatican II is gravely ambiguous, confusing, unclear, misleading, sometimes downright erroneous, and should be thrown in the trash. It served no purpose but to confuse, destroy the Faith of millions, and was the French Revolution in the Church. It defined no new dogmas, but certainly implied some new ones that are foreign to the Catholic Faith. De facto, or for the simple layman, you can treat the whole thing as a bunch of garbage. Heresy? Sure, whatever. Just ignore the whole thing and you'll be OK. (I'm talking to Joe Sixpack here)

    But in the original topic, I'm instead talking about an accurate censure. Keeping in mind the Theological Notes and the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church.

    For one thing, it could be said that any Catholic wielding the precise charge that "Vatican II is heretical" is Sedevacantist, whether or not he knows it or admits it himself. A valid Pope can convoke (and later on approve, condone) a heretical council?

    If the word simpliciter doesn't ring any bells with you, I would ask kindly that you refrain from posting in this thread.

    Archbishop Lefebvre signed off on all Vatican II documents.

    This fact is so problematic (and controversial!) that it was commonly believed that he didn't sign SOME of them, until Bishop Tissier de Mallerais brought this truth to light when he wrote his large biography of the Archbishop (the one published in 2003).

    "Vatican II was heretical", you say?

    So, basically, I just threw a monkey wrench in the works for any SSPX, Resistance, or SSPX-MC -supporting Catholic hoping to claim simply that "Vatican II was heretical."

    Because all of those groups hold that +Lefebvre was a good faithful bishop, a hero, etc.


    But if Vatican II were heretical (full stop) instead of ambiguous, confusing, diabolically disoriented, etc. then how could any good bishop sign off on it?

    Yes, we all know which heresy (Modernism) pervades the Conciliar Church today and since Vatican II. But the hallmark of Modernism is to twist and distort every truth of the Faith, often in a very subtle manner.

    I'm keeping an open mind on this. Perhaps we can say that most of the post-V2 hierarchy is acting heretical, perhaps we can say that Vatican II has one foot in error and one foot in wanting to stay Catholic, etc.

    All that matters to us laymen is that we avoid Modernism LIKE THE PLAGUE -- which is appropriate considering the virulence of this particular heresy -- and since it's evident that the entire Conciliar Church is infected, that even includes staying aloof of the Church hierarchy and structures in order to preserve our Faith.

    But it doesn't fall to us laymen to pinpoint what went wrong, place the blame, determine that status of individual bishops and popes, etc. Moral certainty is enough for us to act on, to make our prudential decisions on where to attend Mass for example. But moral certainty isn't enough to compel the conscience of others.

    When you see a man with a smoking gun next to a dead body, you can be morally certain that he committed murder. It would be moral to threaten or arrest that man, including with lethal force. But it's still circumstantial evidence -- the man with the gun might have been firing at the murderer as he fled away.

    We must distinguish moral certainty from the certainty we have that God is Three in One. Or that Jesus Christ became man, died for our sins, and will come again to judge the living and the dead.


    Am I as certain about matters touching on the Crisis (Vatican II, the Pope, etc.) as I am about these truths of the Faith? Heck no. And I'll be the first to admit it. Of course I have a slight doubt or hesitation in the back of my mind.

    Anyone who pretends to be as certain is not "more courageous in the Faith" as most of them claim, but instead he is foolhardy, or a fool. As the saying goes, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

    Or perhaps some of them are cynical demagogues, simplifying matters for the confused laymen in order to get their $upport and carve out a comfortable living for themselves.

    Survivors floating in a lifeboat don't need to figure out why the main ship went down. What's important to the simple men & women on the lifeboats is SURVIVING -- keeping body and soul together until they are rescued.

    And just like men floating on a lifeboat MUST rely on outside help if they are ever to see land again, we Catholics on the lifeboats of Tradition must wait for God's help if we are ever to see "normal times" again. There's not much we can do with our makeshift oars and inflatable life rafts to get from the middle of the Atlantic Ocean back to New York City or wherever in Europe the cruise liner left from.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline GottmitunsAlex

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 390
    • Reputation: +434/-36
    • Gender: Male
      • Youtube
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #1 on: April 27, 2015, 02:24:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Could it be that you are merely giving a bad interpretation to Vatican II?

     No. The heretical nature of this council is confirmed by:

    The doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul VI and his successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, etc.;
    the series of abominations perpetrated by John Paul II against the First Commandment of God, in the form of ecumenical ceremonies which constitute false worship, even to pagan deities in some cases;
    the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic Mass has been replaced by a Protestant supper service;
    the tampering with the matter and form of the sacraments so that many of them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, labor under doubt or invalidity;
    the promulgation of disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Ecumenical Directory, which approve of sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate heresies concerning the unity of the Church as their theoretical basis;
    the scandalous mockery made of the Sacrament of Matrimony by the granting of annulments for spurious reasons, constituting an abandonment of the sacred doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage;
    the fact that John Paul II is in communion with manifest heretics, has openly declared himself to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and has recognized an apostolic mission in schismatic and Lutheran bishops, all of which destroys the unity of faith. He has even kissed the Koran, which explicitly denies the Incarnation and the Trinity. He has also publicly prayed that St. John the Baptist protect Islam


     What false doctrine does it teach concerning the unity of the Church?

    Vatican II teaches heresy concerning the unity of the Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine is contained principally in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in the 1992 Statement concerning Church and Communion, and in the Ecumenical Directory.

     It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, contained principally in Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII, and in the condemnations of the "Branch Theory" made by the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX..

    What false doctrine does it teach concerning ecumenism?

    The teaching of Vatican II concerning ecumenism, which states that non-Catholic religions are a "means of salvation," is overtly heretical. This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, called by Pope Pius IX "a most well-known Catholic dogma." In addition, the ecumenical practices which have resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.

    5. What false doctrine does it teach concerning religious liberty?

    The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained in Dignitatis Humanae, nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, and by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty also contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI, and the constant attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society.

    6. What false doctrine does it teach concerning collegiality?

    The teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I.


    http://www.traditionalmass.org/issues/
    "As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise: The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people." -Pope St. Pius X

    "No Jew adores God! Who say so?  The Son of God say so."


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4626
    • Reputation: +3952/-395
    • Gender: Male
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #2 on: April 27, 2015, 05:13:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Look around you in the Conciliar church.  

    The bishops of that sect, including the past few bishops of Rome, all say that they are implementing the "teachings of Vatican 2".  Councils need not be interpreted; Councils are implemented.  The Word of God is subject to interpretation, Councils teach true interpretations of the Scriptures and sacred traditions.  This concept the one can "interpret Vatican 2" is itself a novelty that must be spurned by all Catholics.

    The Conciliar bishops are the Magisterium...of the Conciliar sect anyway.  If they are (and were) true Catholics and Vatican 2 was (and is) a true Council and did not contain heresy, then what the bishops teach today as a body is the true faith and no Catholic should resist their teachings.

    On the other hand, Catholics absolutely must see that what is taught today by the body of the bishops is incompatible on so many fronts with what was received from the Church from the beginning until, oh, 1958 or so.  Doctrines contrary to the Catholic Faith is called "heresy".  From beginning to the end, Vatican 2 was a Robber Council.  While it does indeed contain truths, just as all false religions contain some modicum of truth in order to fool even the elect, it is, by its nature, an act of heresy.

    In answer to the opening post's question, not only can it be said that Vatican 2 is heretical, it must be admitted by Catholics that Vatican 2 is heretical.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20462
    • Reputation: +11232/-5525
    • Gender: Male
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #3 on: April 27, 2015, 06:47:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    I'm going to start this thread again. NO FEENEYISM or discussion of BoB and BoD here! I'll delete any violating posts without mercy.


    Define "Feeneyism" because there can be no discussion of any heresy or even error, for that matter, in Vatican II, without reference to the subjectivized soteriology that leads directly to the subjectivized ecclesiology.  My posts on the other thread were completely ignored when the anti-Feeneyites degenerated my discussion of soteriology into a discussion of BoD.  I wasn't even referring to BoD and had no interest in discussing it.

    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3577
    • Reputation: +1314/-104
    • Gender: Female
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #4 on: April 27, 2015, 07:40:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Heretical?  What makes a council of the Church that Christ founded, valid?  Hm?  I have read a lot of books.  First, was Vatican I finished?  I think it was not.  WHY?  War for one, 1870.  Cardinal Manning has great writings of Communism, weakening of Holy Mother Church.  He most definitely saw the workings throughout Europe and the Popes that followed sure spilled the beans, did they not!  From my understanding, the clergy knew, that if there ever was a council to come, THEY would not call for it, because they knew what was to come!  So, the council II began when it did, when communism knew she had the Vatican.  Your history of Hitler and Stalin/Lenin Cardinal Mindstenty they knew!!  They lived it every day!  Their clergy were put to prison and the clergy that supported Russia/communism were put in their place.  Where was the pope?  We had Pope Pius XII and his powers for on this earth were pretty much going.  The communist told Cardinal Mindstenty "The vatican is under a net, you know."  And they also were known to say, "Do You think you will have valid popes to follow?"

    How devious were the communist?!  We were weak in Europe after all the sects broke off from the Church.  Ridicule, murder, confusion and that for 300 years, made take over easy.  Less and less people wanted a Pope, no one to tell them what to do.

    So, when Vatican II council came on, what 1958-62.  My Grandmother knew, and she said, "There goes the Church".  When you read about the council, you will see the scheme of the communist and how the True Clergy tried and even Cardinal Mindstety and Cardinal Manning all did what they could to defend HER!  Millions of Catholics gathered for pilgrims in 1948 and such.  They did all they could to make a statement to the communist.  But the communist took over.  We had the infiltrators as we know.

    When we read about Vatican II, the communists are there!!  They are too smart to define.  If they were to define anything that they "suggested" it would show that they were who they truly are, communists! And someone had said, IF they were to define, it would show them to be heretical.  I say, just call them for what we know, Communists!  The True clergy of Vatican II were known to complain that nothing in the council mentioned anything against the Communist!  And nothing for Our Lady.  Heaven forbid, she was put on the back burner.

    We know that the Popes who knew of Communism and wrote on Communism stated that anyone, who supports them, follows them, are excommunicated. Well, of course!  Is Vatican II heretical?  It was certainly Communistic.  Was Vatican II taken over?  I don't think so.  I think it was well planned out by the Clergy who were wolves, communists.  Now, can anyone or any group, align themselves to this?

    Things were so slow and gradual with the communist.  They knew what they were doing and they did and are still doing a fine job for Satan!  You do it so slow to be able to confuse and of course it is hard to put a finger on where thing begin.

    Did Archbishop Lev, know?  Does one have the Mass of the 1962 missal, which makes me think, it is to show acceptance of Vatican II?  Maybe the Archbishop did not know how to handle the situation, but truth is, you can not, with a good mind, align yourself to a communist group.  Cardinal Mindstey and Cardinal Manning said, "No Compromise!" to the communist.  They certainly wanted their way and they have it!  We see communist Forced on Europe and we see and live the peaceful Communism.  That one is the hardest for us to see.  They come in with social and justice and charities and the money goes where?!  We know!  For us in the USA, it is the agenda of the Federal gov't for starts.  

    I say we have enough info to prove to ourselves over time, that Vatican II was the council of the Communist, flexing their muscles and letting the world know, that they were in place!


    Offline PapalSupremacy

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 115
    • Reputation: +89/-0
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #5 on: April 28, 2015, 12:02:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here is an attempt by John Daly and John Lane to identify some of the primary errors and heresies in Vatican II. I do not necessarily agree with everything they have written here, but it is a good place to start: http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html

    The Dimond brothers also have a document (copied by catholicapologetics.info) listing and refuting the principal errors and heresies of Vatican II, but I will not provide a link to it because the Dimond brothers are notorious Feeneyites, and because of that certain doctrines of Vatican II which they identify as heresies are not so, e.g. that "the life of grace; faith, hope and charity" "can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church" (Unitatis redintegratio #3), which is actually Catholic doctrine (at least that part of the quote, e.g. catechumens, who can have faith, hope and charity, are still not members of the Church - not within the visible boundaries of the Church). They also completely condemn NFP, which they also mention in the list.

    Here are only a few important quotes of Vatican II as examples of its teachings.

    Quote
    Unitatis redintegratio #12:
    "Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these Churches [referring to Eastern schismatics], the Church of God is built up and grows..."

    Unitatis redintegratio #3:
    "It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.  For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church."

    Unitatis redintegratio #3:
    "Those who are now born into these communities [i.e. today's members of heretical sects] and who are brought up in the faith of Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church looks upon them as sisters and brothers, with respect and love. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect... it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."

    Lumen gentium #16:
    "But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the Muslims are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they worship the One Merciful God who will judge mankind on the Last Day."

    Nostra aetate #2:
    "In Buddhism, according to its various forms, the radical inadequacy of this changeable world is acknowledged and a way is taught whereby those with a devout and trustful spirit may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest illumination."

    Nostra aetate #2:
    "Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence."


    Reviewing these quotes, it can be said that Vatican II professes a religion different than the Catholic Faith, and that it professes a church (the Conciliar Church) different than the Catholic Church. It does so by attacking one of the fundamental dogmas of the Catholic Faith - that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
    It first creates a heretical ecclesiology, in which all of today's heretics and schismatics are members of the Church, and in which heretical sects are means of salvation (a few examples being the first three quotes above). Then, although not explicitly, it professes the modernist heresy that all religions are fundamentally good and praiseworthy, and it does so de iure by religious liberty (an example in the link at the top, under 'a'), where it professes a supposed natural right of man to profess any religion whatsoever (which would mean either that all religions are good or that God gave man a right to profess evil, and even to deny Him), and de facto by ecumenism, encouraging communicatio in sacris with heretics (an example in the link at the top, under 'd') and blasphemously praising pagans and religions which deny Christ (a few examples being the last three quotes above).

    Thus the Church which Vatican II professes is one which includes every sect (and every member of every sect) which calls itself Christian, and the religion which Vatican II professes is one which acknowledges that "everything on earth is ordained towards man" and that every human religion is fundamentally good, which by consequence means that members of absolutely any religion can be saved, even while worshipping demons (such as the pagans) or denying Christ (such as the Muslims and the Jews).

    I am sure we can all agree that that is not the Catholic Church nor the Catholic Faith which Vatican II professes.


    He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's

    Offline bodbobii

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 44
    • Reputation: +10/-0
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #6 on: April 28, 2015, 12:05:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I just wanted to contribute this to the discussion because it seemed relevant:

    Execrabilis (On Appealing to a Future Council) Papal Bull of Pope Pius II

    "1. An execrable, and in former ages unheard-of-abuse, has sprung up in our time, namely that some people, imbued with the spirit of rebellion, presume to appeal to a future Council, from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, to whom it was said in the person of blessed Peter: "Feed my sheep" and "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven"; they do not do so because they are anxious to obtain sounder judgment, but in order to escape the consequences of their sins, and anyone who is not ignorant of the laws can realize how contrary this is to the sacred canons and how detrimental to the Christian community."

    The question is that if Vatican 2 is not heretical, how can its errors be corrected without an appeal to a future council and contradicting this papal bull? Something along those lines.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20462
    • Reputation: +11232/-5525
    • Gender: Male
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #7 on: April 28, 2015, 08:16:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: PapalSupremacy
    It does so by attacking one of the fundamental dogmas of the Catholic Faith - that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.


     :roll-laugh1:




     :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20462
    • Reputation: +11232/-5525
    • Gender: Male
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #8 on: April 28, 2015, 08:18:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Daly's stuff is complete junk.  He has no clue about what the term "heresy" actually means.

    So, despite the fact that Pius IX calls Religious Liberty merely an "erroneous opinion" and "insanity", Daly concludes from this that it's heresy.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20462
    • Reputation: +11232/-5525
    • Gender: Male
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #9 on: April 28, 2015, 09:13:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: Matthew
    I'm going to start this thread again. NO FEENEYISM or discussion of BoB and BoD here! I'll delete any violating posts without mercy.


    Define "Feeneyism" because there can be no discussion of any heresy or even error, for that matter, in Vatican II, without reference to the subjectivized soteriology that leads directly to the subjectivized ecclesiology.  My posts on the other thread were completely ignored when the anti-Feeneyites degenerated my discussion of soteriology into a discussion of BoD.  I wasn't even referring to BoD and had no interest in discussing it.


    So, Matthew, why do you create these threads and then disappear (not joining in any of the subsequent discussion)?

    Offline misericordianos

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 187
    • Reputation: +31/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #10 on: April 28, 2015, 09:44:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Does it matter if there is heresy in Vatican II simpliciter?

    What is the point of such an inquiry?

    If the issue is could the Church adopt heresy in its teachings, the issue is rendered moot by the history of the Conciliar Church which implemented those teachings.

    What I mean to say is, the issue concerns the indefectibility and infallibility of the “Church.” Can the “Church” do such? That is the concern.

    The concern has been answered by the Conciliar Church.

    Does the issue become then “when” the Church defected? Does that matter? If the Conciliar Church has in fact defected, then it is a fact that an institution which appears to be the “Church” is capable of defecting.

    When did this Church which appears to be the Catholic Church defect? 1958? 1965? Does it matter?

    Identify the cause of the defection or the error. Identify when the error appeared in the Magisterium of the Church. This is an academic exercise, for reasons I expressed above.

    The point is we need to pray for the abjuration of the error and the restoration of a true Pontiff who, with the authority of Peter, proclaims the Catholic faith and truth to the world.

    We are spinning our wheels in these discussions until then. We reject the Revolution, seek priests who can administer the sacraments to us if possible, pray the Rosary and just pray period, and hold to the Catholic faith.

    The “error” is not preaching the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation. The Catholic faith, as a minimum, means faith in Christ, which requires, at a minimum, belief in His divinity (the Trinity) and His Incarnation. And with that must be an understanding of these in terms of their relation to the necessity for Redemption by a God who rewards and punishes.

    As Monsignor Fenton said regarding Suprema Haec:

    Quote
    Monsignor Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, February, 1951, pages 124-143

    The idea that a votum, that is a desire or an intention, of entering the Church can bring a man “within” the Church sufficiently to allow for the possibility of his salvation is one of the dominant factors in recent theological writing on the Church’s necessity. The notion itself is a part of Catholic doctrinal tradition, although this particular terminology, or, to be more exact, the application of this terminology to the thesis that there is no salvation outside the Church, goes back only to the latter part of the sixteenth century, to the time of Stapleton and St. Robert. [57] Now the idea, and to a lesser extent the terminology itself, is definitely a standard part of the scholastic treatment of this thesis.

    Likewise, and by force of the very content of Catholic theology, it is standard scholastic teaching that the votum or desire of entering the Catholic Church may be merely implicit and still sufficient to bring a man “within” the Church so as to make his salvation possible. Salvific faith must be explicit on four points. No man can believe in God as he must believe in order to possess the life of sanctifying grace without distinctly acknowledging the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God thus rewards the good and punishes evil, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the mystery of the Incarnation. The mystery of the Catholic Church is not one of these facts which must be believed explicitly in salvific faith.


    http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=420&sid=18ce7ada68b9a368d56494eea4c56761


    This faith can imply all the other elements of the Catholic faith for one who simply hasn’t been catechized and doesn’t know. It is lost as soon as one rejects a teaching of that faith culpably if merely interior or if one rejects it publicly and manifestly, thus rejecting the unity of the external profession necessary to the visible body, and rendering one outside that body.

    As to Vatican II, it plays the old game of the Revolutionaries and heretics, who took over the institution and buildings of the Church:

    Quote
    Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei

    They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words7 such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

    Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

    It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine8 who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.


    In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.




    That there are “perverse meanings” and “errors” implied in Vatican II is clear by the actions of those who apply it, the popes and bishops of the Conciliar Church, who have expressed and acted as if salvation is possible and actually can be achieved in non-Catholic religions and without the Catholic faith.

    Keep looking for heresy simpliciter, Matthew, but you’re basically asking that Satan admit he’s a liar, or looking for a clear admission of such, and effectively insisting for proof that he has laid down his arms and given us his major weapon.

    If and when he does that or such proof appears to all and any reasonable man, we will all go “home,” for the game will be over, and the debate concluded forever.  


    Offline PapalSupremacy

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 115
    • Reputation: +89/-0
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #11 on: April 28, 2015, 08:05:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Daly's stuff is complete junk.  He has no clue about what the term "heresy" actually means.

    So, despite the fact that Pius IX calls Religious Liberty merely an "erroneous opinion" and "insanity", Daly concludes from this that it's heresy.


    No, he concludes that it is heresy because Pope Pius IX teaches that it contradicts Revelation.

    From John Daly's article:
    Quote
    Almost the only label that Pope Pius IX does not attach to this doctrine is in fact that of "heresy", but he clearly thought the "insanity" he spoke of to be heretical for he says that it contradicts Divine Revelation.


    From Quanta Cura, the sentence before the one quoted by John Daly in his article:
    Quote
    And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require."


    However, even if John Daly happened to be mistaken in this particular qualification of error, that does not mean that his other qualifications are also mistaken. You would have to refute each one, and even if only one accurate qualification of heresy remained, it would be enough to prove the existence of heresy in Vatican II.
    He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20462
    • Reputation: +11232/-5525
    • Gender: Male
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #12 on: April 28, 2015, 08:07:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: PapalSupremacy
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    Daly's stuff is complete junk.  He has no clue about what the term "heresy" actually means.

    So, despite the fact that Pius IX calls Religious Liberty merely an "erroneous opinion" and "insanity", Daly concludes from this that it's heresy.


    No, he concludes that it is heresy because Pope Pius IX teaches that it contradicts Revelation.


    Every error contradicts Revelation; it's the proximity of the contradiction that leads to the theological note.  Daly has no idea what he's talking about.

    Quote
    However, even if John Daly happened to be mistaken in this particular qualification of error, that does not mean that his other qualifications are also mistaken. You would have to refute each one, and even if only one accurate qualification of heresy remained, it would be enough to prove the existence of heresy in Vatican II.


    Uhm, not even close.  If Daly's making the charge of heresy, the burden of proof rests squarely on him to prove it and not on me to disprove it.  I have to disprove nothing.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20462
    • Reputation: +11232/-5525
    • Gender: Male
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #13 on: April 28, 2015, 08:09:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • PS -- none of Daly's allegations of heresy are even ERRORS (not to the slightest degree) if you accept Suprema Haec as you do.

    Offline PapalSupremacy

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 115
    • Reputation: +89/-0
    Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? TAKE TWO
    « Reply #14 on: April 28, 2015, 08:18:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • misericordianos and Ladislaus

    are once again discussing doctrine relating to BoD and Feeneyism, so instead of forcing me to reply by quoting Catholic theologians again, I expect Matthew will delete those comments.

    Quote from: Matthew
    I'm going to start this thread again. NO FEENEYISM or discussion of BoB and BoD here! I'll delete any violating posts without mercy.
    He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16