V2 was and "Ecuмenical" council.  People including Paul 6 used a novel term to describe it so the heresies taught in it would not be called heresies.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

This thread has been a pretty good example of how getting all caught up in
the docuмents of Vatican II cannot answer TKGS's simple questions.  Nor can
the Vat.II docs definitively answer anything at all.  Why? Because they are
not definitive.  

On October 11th, 1962, of which the 50th anniversary just snuck by us like
a thief in the night (I was announcing its arrival months ahead of time but
nobody wants to know, apparently), the reigning pope, John XXIII officially
gave up the power of the Keys inasmuch as he abandoned the practice of
the Church condemning error, from the infallible office of the Papacy.  And why
did he do that?

Well, the jury is still out on that one.  Was he put up to it by his Freemason
buddies?  Probably, but was that the only reason?  Well, perhaps something
in his childhood or seminary formation?  If so, then which, and how, and what
if......?   Bottom line, who knows?  But the fact is, he did it.  You can read the
text of his speech for yourself and see what he said, but you can't know WHY
he said it, unless he tells you (assuming he's telling the truth, that is).  Did he
ever explain himself to anyone?  Hey, if you know of an explanation, please,
please, please, post it here so we can finally make some progress.  

I don't know of any explanation, and I don't know of anyone else who knows
of an explanation.


Vatican II was not definitive by design, as TKGS has proposed.  I believe that is
true.  And definition per se, has been set aside, 'mothballed,' put on the
shelf, stuck in the deep freeze, thrown into prison, forced into a state of
'suspended animation' because the Modernists who are running the Church from
the precept of their SEWER OF ALL HERESIES, which they have imbibed with
much enthusiasm --  :barf: -- have a very different idea of how to run the
Church: different from the Apostles, different from the Fathers and Doctors,
different from every Pope Saint in the history of the Church, the last of which
was Pope Saint Pius X, and the one previous to him was some 330 years prior,
Pope Saint Pius V.  This sticking point is most bothersome to the sewer-drinking
prelates who sit on the top of the heap lately, so they're diligently trying to
square the circle by establishing a new parade of so-called Pope Saints starting
with the exhumed body of John XXIII which was found to have somehow turned
itself over inside the coffin (he 'rolled over in his grave' when they didn't "Stop
the Council!"), or the Most Regrettable Pope of Infalicitous Memory, Paul VI,
whose body when exhumed long after putrefaction should have long since
ceased, filled the distant confines of the building with a horrible stench the
moment the lid was opened (with such speed that it could not be explained by
any natural means!).  Not to mention of course the crippling exposee of Fr.
Luigi Villa that stopped the 'cause of beatification' of Paul VI dead in its tracks
the first time around -- but NNNNOOOOOOOO - not good enough for this time!

And through it all, no definition of "pastoral council" is offered.  No definition
of "dogmatic council" is offered.

But you can go back in history and see, every time a dogma has been defined
ex cathedra, with Papal infallibility, there has been an anathema attached.  That
is what arguably makes it infallible, and without which there is no protection of
the Holy Ghost.  Therefore, the Holy Ghost did not protect Vat.II,  --shudder--
and there is nothing that CAN be 'defined' in Vat.II as a consequence.  









Likewise, there will not be any infallible definition of
anything in the future until such time as a good
pope comes along and ABROGATES the abomination of
desolation sitting in the Holy Place (let the reader
understand) that the abandonment of condemnation of
error of J23 constitutes, on the opening day of Vat.II,
as of just now 50 years ago, this past October 11th.

This thread has been a pretty good example of how getting all caught up in the docuмents of Vatican II cannot answer TKGS's simple questions.  Nor can the Vat.II docs definitively answer anything at all.  Why? Because they are not definitive.  

That's not the question. The fact is the very docuмents of Vatican II say it's teachings require a religious assent.

25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the docuмents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecuмenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

The relevant portion is not about what they hand down but about the impossibility of a universal defection from what has already been handed down, i.e. "neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy". Does this not contradict what you or most sedes believe that Vatican II contains several heresies, formally and strictly so called?

I don't think the fact of the imposibility of a universal defection is incompatible with an erroneous council. Vatican II was not the common teaching of the epispocate, it was an ambiguous creation of liberals designed to obfuscate and deceive.

I don't think the fact of the imposibility of a universal defection is incompatible with an erroneous council. Vatican II was not the common teaching of the epispocate, it was an ambiguous creation of liberals designed to obfuscate and deceive.

Saying it contains ambiguities, or criticising some expressions it uses, or even lesser errors than strict heresy does not seem to pose a problem to me, for the reason I explained pertaining to the religious assent which is not beyond some reasonable criticism in some cases. Pope Benedict XVI himself has expressed such in the past. But, saying it was heretical does, and I think you don't say that, but most sedes do. Also, what do you mean, not the common teaching of the episcopate? More than a moral majority of Bishops approved the final docuмents.

I'd agree if I thought the reaction to Vatican II and the subsequent changes was equivalent to Catholics reacting to "bad priests." It was a reaction to very bad things happening, on an official level, like the changes to the law of prayer which obviously directly affected the law of belief.

Granted, but I still think the minimal basic protection guaranteed by Christ still applies even if Masons occupy high posts in the Vatican or substantially influence important decisions regarding the liturgy. That doesn't mean one need agree with the changes as such, or that one cannot hope for the universal restoration of the Tridentine Mass to every parish and diocese, merely that the new rites are valid and not explicitly heterodox, which can in any case be proved independently by examining them in detail, as Michael Davies and others have done.

Pope Benedict XVI personally approved many years ago the apparition of Our Lady of Akita which took place in 1973 where this was said quite frankly, "The work of the devil will infiltrate into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres. Churches and Altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord."

Except I'm not saying it merely contains some ambiguities or uses some questionable expressings.  It was an ambiguous creation of liberals designed to obfuscate and deceive.

Well, I understand that's your view. But I think it's an oversimplification. There certainly were liberals at the Council, some with malicious intent others with just a vain desire for novelty, but there were also orthodox Fathers and learned theologians, Cardinal Ottaviani and Msgr.Fenton come to mind, whose only desire and action was to follow the stated intent of the Council, to preserve and proclaim immutable Catholic doctrine in the present day.

While things would have been much better for us if these latter had had their way, and there were monumental struggles during the Council's proceedings between these two sides, on a variety of issues, still, most of these orthodox and learned Fathers did in the end accept the final docuмents. That is certainly worthy of consideration even on a human level, all divine guarantees apart for the moment.

Can you answer me this one thing, do you, personally, believe Vatican II contains heresies formally speaking, direct denials of dogmas strictly so called? Do you agree that what Cardinal Franzelin says, at least, precludes this?

Well, it's hardly an oversimplification because it looks into what the fathers who drafted the docuмents actually believed they meant. The very fact that the language of Vatican II was different, and that by design, and that there was a considerable effort to say the intention was to say nothing will change with respect to doctrine, then immediately after the council a multitude of doctrinal changes were made. There was a deception and the aftermath of the council makes it suspect.

Well, but you're only taking into account one side, aren't you? There clearly was a deep polarization into two sides, which I don't think you deny, as is evinced by the proceedings of the Council, the real question before us is, Did the liberal side really prevail as far as you seem to think they did at the Council itself, or only to a more limited extent? It is entirely granted that they prevailed after the Council.

Let's take one concrete example to illustrate. This is from the Great Facade by Chris Ferrara and Tom Woods, on collegiality,

" [Pope] Paul [VI] was alerted to this problem [on collegiality, and what was being planned for after the Council by these same liberals] by a group of conservative Council Fathers, who finally persuaded him of LG's destructive potential: 'Pope Paul [VI], realizing finally that he had been deceived, broke down and wept"

Now, nothing of what liberals did or did not do can prove anything about whether there truly exists a Catholic doctrine that describes the relationship between the Papacy and the episcopacy. They may have found this as a happy means to abuse episcopal power, but that does nothing to prove anything. There were significant competent ecclesiologists at the Council, you would recognize Msgr.Fenton as one, I would add Msgr. Journet, who did not think the description heretical at all.

But what were they accepting? That's why I say a morally unanimous episcopacy, in itself and as itself, taught absolutely nothing in the council.

Well, what of the above for example? There already were existing and common teachings about the Pope and the episcopal college, we see this in the pre-Vatican II theology manuals.

It contains errors and leaves out stating tradition doctrine, which you say can't happen, even if it wasn't a true general council.

I said only a strict falling away of the entire (morally unanimous, that is, yes) episcopate into heresy is precluded, not a mere omission of some particular doctrine.

That type of omission can and has been grounds for condemnation.

Interesting. So far we have mostly talked in generalities. If you could, I would appreciate examples, one will do, of what proposition or passage in particular you would condemn and what censure exactly you would attach to it.

Also, regarding grounds for condemnation, there is a fundamental flaw in your argument. It is this - a Magisterial docuмent stands in a certain unique relation to theological opinions, whereas the writings of a layman can and may be judged even on merely the common or more probable theological opinion, the docuмents of the Magisterium on the other hand are not judged by them but are, as was said in Humani Generis, their very judge. From this the conclusion follows that the contravention of theologically probable opinions is insufficient to prove the sedevacantist premise. That's why I said a mere error won't do it, only formal heresy will. But apparently, you don't think there is heresy strictly speaking in the docuмents of Vatican II.

What I mean is, if some doctrine is regarded by theologians as more probable, yet an Encyclical contains what was hitherto regarded as the opposite and less probable doctrine, by that very fact henceforth, it is theologians who will revise their estimation of the status of the opinion or teaching in question. This is standard procedure, and I think it rather weakens your argument.

God bless.