Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: TKGS on October 20, 2012, 03:58:19 PM
-
By now, I would think everyone on this forum knows that Benedict 16 has, in honor of "The Year of Faith", granted a plenary indulgence to any person who studies the "Cathechism of the Catholic Church" or "Vatican II". Of course, there are other criteria, but those aren't really pertinent to this discussion.
We are often told that Vatican II was a "pastoral council" and most definitely not a "dogmatic council".
Most people have a good idea what the difference is, or at least, most people think they have a good idea what the difference is and what these specific terms mean. But I wonder if anyone really does know.
The Conciliar church refers to docuмents of Vatican II often when discussing faith. If, by "pastoral", Vatican II was merely a new way of presenting the faith, why would Vatican II docuмents be helpful in explaining the doctrines of the Church from time immemorial? The Conciliar church isn't explaining old doctrines in new way, it completely re-invents and re-works doctrines in ways formulated at Vatican II and, frankly, goes way beyond those doctrines. Although not discussed at Vatican II, the so-called "Haulocaust" seems to be dogma today. Discussion of women's ordinations are being seriously entertained. One cardinal is on record calling for the his church to bless ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions.
I've been searching the internet trying to find an authoritative definition from church docuмents or officials of what, precisely, "pastoral council" and "dogmatic council" means. It seems to me that they have no official definition and are simply used because all can assign whatever meaning to the terms they wish for any given situation. In this way one can use Vatican II as an authority for what ever shenanigans one wants to wield by minimizing what it means to be "pastoral" while others can reject anything from Vatican II by simply declaring that, as "pastoral", it has no real authority.
The ultimate practical use of ambiguity was the use of terms that have no real definition as the very premise of what the Vatican II council was.
Am I wrong? Or were the terms as it relates to an ecuмenical council actually and authoritatively defined but I am too much of a Luddite to find it?
-
3 hour interview with Bishop Sanborn: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2012/10/20/restoration-radio from yesterday, Oct. 20th.
I've only listened to the first few minutes so far but seems like a good interview that talks about the title of this thread.
Some Catholics believe that the answer to all our present ills lies in the "problem of the Pope." They will even host entire so-called conferences on such a topic, thinking that the answer to the question of the Pope is the answer to everything. This is only partly true. The event that hatched an entire line of questionable claimants to the Papacy was the Second Vatican Council.
This Council has many troublesome docuмents, which, even more troublingly, many Catholics, even those purporting to be "Traditional," denounce but have never even read.
During a special 3-hour show with His Excellency, Bishop Donald Sanborn, we will discuss 6 docuмents from the Council, problems with those docuмents, and the implications for Catholics today. Those docuмents include: Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae, Unitatis Redintegratio, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Gaudium et Spes, and Lumen Gentium.
For those unfamiliar with Bishop Sanborn, he is currently Rector of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida, and was the first seminary rector for the SSPX in the early 1980s. We will not be taking calls during this show but we will be taking questions via twitter (@truerestoration). We hope that you will join us.
Today's show sponsor is Novus Ordo Watch, which you can visit at www.novusordowatch.org.
-
3 hour interview with Bishop Sanborn: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2012/10/20/restoration-radio from yesterday, Oct. 20th.
Excellent interview.
I always thought that Bishop Sanborn was an excellent speaker and for whoever wants to hear someone knowledgeable who finally itemizes what is wrong with the docuмents of V2, this is a must listen.
-
This is wonderful ! He explains so much and so well that even my little pea brain is beginning to understand. Definitely worth downloading and listening to several times. I will certainly be going back and taking notes.
Marsha
-
I'm with you on that Marsha!
It's taken a long time but thankfully someone *finally* - *FINALLY* comes right out and in plain english explains the heresies of the V2 docuмents!
Definitely worth listening to over again!
-
It seems to me that they have no official definition
I listened to a bit of Bishop Sanborn's interview, about 30 minutes, may listen to more later, and like he said, the distinction between pastoral and dogmatic is not new and has been used in former Councils. I suppose in the case of Trent, say, the fathers pronouncing on the true doctrine concerning indulgences and attaching anathemas to its denial would have been the dogmatic part, whereas their directions to bishops and priests on what to do about about it would have been the pastoral part.
Vatican II contained no dogmatic definition, therefore it appears it was entirely pastoral. There were 16 docuмents in all, 4 constitutions (On the Word of God, On the Church, On the Liturgy, On the Modern World), 3 declarations (Christian education, non-Christian religions, religious freedom), 7 decrees (On missionary activity, On the priestly life, On the apostolate of the laity, On priestly training, On the religious life, On the pastoral office of Bishops, On ecuмenism, On Catholic Eastern rite Churches, On media and communications).
Whatever one thinks of the Council, and while some docuмents remain quite problematic, there's no doubt that some people took it for a pretext to deny everything the Church had ever believed, because they did this even with things which everyone agrees was expressly reaffirmed in the actual docuмents.
The Council didn't say everyone was saved, there is no hell, don't evangelize, do whatever you like, forget morality, Adam and Eve didn't exist etc but it was taken for all this and more.
-
It seems to me that they have no official definition
Vatican II contained no dogmatic definition, therefore it appears it was entirely pastoral.
Keep listening, he goes on to explain why they did actually address dogma.
Marsha
-
I'm listening to the Bishop Sanborn talk and he pointed out where V2
actually recommends a "nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr"
It is in Gaudium Et Spes, section 81, paragraph 4, second sentence. The context is avoidance of war but sounds like a global government to me. So much for Christ the King...
"This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority (aka NWO, emphasis mine) acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power (emphasis mine) to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights."
Knock me over with a feather... this was '65!
I think it was a year or two ago that B16 said something similar regarding economics.
Marsha
-
It seems to me that they have no official definition
Vatican II contained no dogmatic definition, therefore it appears it was entirely pastoral.
Keep listening, he goes on to explain why they did actually address dogma.
Marsha
oops! should have said HOW they addressed dogma, not why.
m
-
It seems to me that they have no official definition
...the distinction between pastoral and dogmatic is not new and has been used in former Councils. I suppose in the case of Trent, say, the fathers pronouncing on the true doctrine concerning indulgences and attaching anathemas to its denial would have been the dogmatic part, whereas their directions to bishops and priests on what to do about about it would have been the pastoral part.
I think you miss my point. You're saying that this "distinction" has been used in other councils and you specifically mention Trent.
I believe you think you understand the distinction, but I've read parts of an English translation of docuмents of Trent, but never did the council fathers stop and say, "OK, now this part is only pastoral." Further, and this is my main question, did Trent specifically define what it meant to have a "Dogmatic Council" or a "Pastoral Council"? I don't think so.
You, and virtually all of humanity, are claiming to know the difference when it comes to Conciliar docuмents. The problem seems to me to be that the Church that conducted and approved that council (i.e., Vatican II) doesn't seem to agree with anyone who says that the council did not actually define dogmas. It seems to me that the Conciliar church of Paul 6, John Paul 2, and Benedict 16 believes Vatican II most definitely did define new and exciting dogmas, albeit in a pastoral way.
These terms, pastoral and dogmatic, when used as adjectives describing an ecuмenical council mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. At least, it seems to me that these two terms have no absolute definition--no static definition--that all agree upon and they certainly have no definition that has been definitively established by the magisterium (whether that be Catholic or Conciliar). The terms are simply ambiguous.
So far, this topic has convinced me that there is no one definition. What sounds dogmatic to one person might just be pastoral to another and vice-versa. This gives the revolutionaries a free hand to do anything.
And this seems to be by design.
-
TKGS I agree with you. Vatican 2 as no leg to stand on. It was good for nothing! Those who made suggestions, refused to define. Why? Because "they" would be found as heretics! I have a question? Did Bishop Sanborn, once state, that this anti-Pope, if he repented, could be Pope? And did not Bishop Pivurunus (sp), did he not think that as questionable? My opinion is, IF this anti-pope was to repent, he could not, because in my opinion, the election was invalid.
-
Thanks Marsha, I intended to continue listening later, maybe I'll do it tomorrow.
You're saying that this "distinction" has been used in other councils and you specifically mention Trent.
Well, TKGS, you're right that there seems to be much confusion and disagreement about this point. But I think you might yourself agree with what Bishop Sanborn said. Did you watch the interview?
I believe you think you understand the distinction, but I've read parts of an English translation of docuмents of Trent
What of the example I gave earlier? If we take a look at Trent's sessions here (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html), in most of the sessions, we'll see after the dogmatic part, and usually immediately following the canons with anathemas attached, there is a portion entitled "decree on reformation" where the fathers get to work implementing what they prudently judge to be in the best interests of the flock committed to their pastoral care.
How's this for a working definition? What is dogmatic concerns mostly what is revealed and must be believed by faith whereas what is pastoral concerns mostly those prudential decisions that would best help the cause of the faith.
Some theologians distinguish between an assent of faith and an assent of prudence.
I understand there will be some necessary overlap between the two here and there, as in what we think of the necessity of the Church will affect how we regard the importance of the missionary endeavor, yet different Catholics who fully accept the faith on this point, may yet disagree as to the prudential decision of how best to go about this.
I think it's a very critical question you raise. Because the degree or nature of the Magisterium invoked has a lot to do with what level of protection is guaranteed, since everyone grants at least that the universal episcopate was assembled there, and what level of accuracy is to be expected in the docuмents.
It would be an error to expect the same exactness that we would expect from a dogmatic pronouncement in a purely pastoral docuмent.
As for the next point you brought up, here is Pope Paul VI,
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.
God bless.
-
I believe you think you understand the distinction, but I've read parts of an English translation of docuмents of Trent
What of the example I gave earlier? If we take a look at Trent's sessions here (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html), in most of the sessions, we'll see after the dogmatic part, and usually immediately following the canons with anathemas attached, there is a portion entitled "decree on reformation" where the fathers get to work implementing what they prudently judge to be in the best interests of the flock committed to their pastoral care.
How's this for a working definition? ...
I fully understand what you are saying. And I agree that your working definition of the difference between "dogmatic" and "pastoral" is a good one. I also agree that it appears that most legitimate theologians seem to generally grasp the same meaning of these two words.
But, before Vatican II, no one had ever suggested that a whole council could be "dogmatic" or "pastoral". One simply read the approved docuмents and, being a sentient being, saw that the statements concerning dogma and usually being summed up with canons were dogmatic while those statements explaining the dogmas or disciplines or background, etc., were more pastoral in nature.
All of this, however, is not relevant to my question. Since the term "pastoral" is generally applied to the whole council by Conciliar apologists, I want to know if the Church (or Conciliar church) herself has ever specifically defined the difference. Personally, I'm not aware of any such definition and I believe this ambiguity has been used by the revolutionaries (i.e., the heretics and apostates who now exercise control over the properties and name of the Catholic Church) as the excuse to do whatever they wanted.
I just want to know if I am in error as to whether or not this difference (i.e., between a "pastoral council" and a "dogmatic council") has ever been truly defined by the magisterium in a formal way. I don't think it was, but I may just just have missed the paragraph in a Vatican II docuмents that say, "A Pastoral Council is..."
As for the next point you brought up, here is Pope Paul VI,
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.
Then why is Vatican II constantly cited by Conciliar authorities as the justification for new and improved doctrines? Where did Paul 6 say this? Was it in an official docuмent or a Sunday sermon or a Wednesday audience? In any event, both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 clearly disagree with this assessment of the "pastoral nature of the Council".
As for Bishop Sanborn's conference on Restoration Radio, I could not download it at home (being on dial-up internet). I had to wait until I could get to the library to use the high-speed connection. I just obtained it yesterday evening and plan to listen to it as I have time.
-
I'm listening to the Bishop Sanborn talk and he pointed out where V2
actually recommends a "nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr"
It is in Gaudium Et Spes, section 81, paragraph 4, second sentence. The context is avoidance of war but sounds like a global government to me. So much for Christ the King...
"This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority (aka NWO, emphasis mine) acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power (emphasis mine) to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights."
Knock me over with a feather... this was '65!
I think it was a year or two ago that B16 said something similar regarding economics.
Marsha
re: the "global public authority" as suggested by V2 In Quas Primas (1925, just 40 years apart) Pope Pius XI said in paragraph one:
"...that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations."
My how quickly things change...
Marsha
-
Vatican II contained no dogmatic definition, therefore it appears it was entirely pastoral. There were 16 docuмents in all, 4 constitutions (On the Word of God, On the Church, On the Liturgy, On the Modern World), 3 declarations (Christian education, non-Christian religions, religious freedom), 7 decrees (On missionary activity, On the priestly life, On the apostolate of the laity, On priestly training, On the religious life, On the pastoral office of Bishops, On ecuмenism, On Catholic Eastern rite Churches, On media and communications).
Whatever one thinks of the Council, and while some docuмents remain quite problematic, there's no doubt that some people took it for a pretext to deny everything the Church had ever believed, because they did this even with things which everyone agrees was expressly reaffirmed in the actual docuмents.
The Council didn't say everyone was saved, there is no hell, don't evangelize, do whatever you like, forget morality, Adam and Eve didn't exist etc but it was taken for all this and more.
Except "some people" includes prelates of all sorts, and the facts dictate the council did do something, and it was very bad. Here is ABL, one year after the council:
Whereas the Council was preparing itself to be a shining light in today's world (if those pre-conciliar docuмents in which we find a solemn profession of safe doctrine with regard to today's problems, had been accepted), we can and we must unfortunately state that:
In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.
[...]
Doubts on the necessity of the Church, the sole source of salvation, on the Catholic Church as the only true religion, emanating from the declarations on ecuмenism and religious liberty are destroying the authority of the Church's Magisterium. In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis.
Thus, driven to this by the facts, we are forced to conclude that the Council has encouraged, in an inconceivable manner, the spreading of Liberal errors. Faith, morals and ecclesiastical discipline are shaken to their foundations, fulfilling the predictions of all the Popes.
The destruction of the Church is advancing at a rapid pace. By giving an exaggerated authority to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself powerless. What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church.
-
I just want to know if I am in error as to whether or not this difference (i.e., between a "pastoral council" and a "dogmatic council") has ever been truly defined by the magisterium in a formal way. I don't think it was, but I may just just have missed the paragraph in a Vatican II docuмents that say, "A Pastoral Council is..."
The title of Pastoral Council has not been defined. I recall learning long ago that a pastoral council was something normally held only locally or perhaps for particular dioceses - but it is not what a General Council of 1000s of bishops and cardinals - and which a pope presides over while being held in Rome was ever known as.
Welcome to the NO.
Then why is Vatican II constantly cited by Conciliar authorities as the justification for new and improved doctrines? Where did Paul 6 say this? Was it in an official docuмent or a Sunday sermon or a Wednesday audience? In any event, both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 clearly disagree with this assessment of the "pastoral nature of the Council".
V2 is constantly cited by NOers for different reasons but always keep in mind that, per Pope St. Pius X, audacity is the chief characteristic of modernists. . . . . and since audacity is their chief characteristic, (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html) there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. . . . and IMO, whether one adheres to SV or not, all can agree that the conciliar popes and hierarchy have been and remain modernists.
Like all things NO, a "Pastoral Council" was something new, it's title is new and makes no sense. It [the title] is part of the new vocabulary used since V2 as is the language of "Pauline speak" - which no one ever heard prior to V2, which on account of it's ambiguity no one really understands, but many pretend like they understand it because they can make it mean pretty much whatever they want- that's modernism, that's audacity for you.
-
I fully understand what you are saying. And I agree that your working definition of the difference between "dogmatic" and "pastoral" is a good one. I also agree that it appears that most legitimate theologians seem to generally grasp the same meaning of these two words.
Ok, TKGS.
I agree the enemies of the Church have tried, and to a great degree, succeeded, in manipulating doctrine and confusing Catholics who wish to remain faithful. The question is to what extent, and also, what can be done about it.
Personally, I think the best thing for Catholics who know their faith to do is simply for practical purposes to ignore the Council, and to believe all the dogmas the Church has ever defined. That's the approach of the FSSP and other Indult groups, I know sedes have a different point of view.
I don't think there has been any formal definition as to what "pastoral" means.
Regarding what you asked, Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, with Pope John Paul II's agreement said, "The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest"
SJB, while I agree with Archbishop Lefebvre's concerns, yet the necessity of the Church, the fact that hell exists and souls go there, are explicitly reaffirmed in the Council.
"In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
...
But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention."
I agree with Archbishop Lefebvre, but even a near-complete apostasy or confusion of faith among clerics and prelates, if you'll excuse the expression, poses no "dogmatic" problem, only a "pastoral" one. What I mean is, there's no guarantee something like that can't take place, but I do think there is a guarantee the universal episcopate assembled in Council even without a Pope, as you believe, cannot teach formal heresy.
Also, such a loss of faith happened once before during the Arian crisis, the majority of Bishops became heretics. Heretics will always find something to appeal to. If after Nicaea, Arianism could still pretend itself feasible, then heretics can always find an excuse. I don't deny they pretended the Council did away with hell, with missions, with morality, with the need for conversion from false religions etc, so the Council gave them a pretense, at least, so it has in that sense a "pastoral" failure.
-
I agree with Archbishop Lefebvre, but even a near-complete apostasy or confusion of faith among clerics and prelates, if you'll excuse the expression, poses no "dogmatic" problem, only a "pastoral" one. What I mean is, there's no guarantee something like that can't take place, but I do think there is a guarantee the universal episcopate assembled in Council even without a Pope, as you believe, cannot teach formal heresy.
Yet today, we see those who will simply not allow any such thought to enter their minds. The point isn't a technical one concerning the council, but the reality of what these clerics and prelates actually did after the council.
It seems you're willing to admit in a general way the majority of the episcopate could very well be heretical, yet the men you call popes have no real issue with them as evidenced by the fact that almost none have been excommunicated or even disciplined in any other way. The problem cannot be confined to some unnamed Catholics misinterpreting the council.
-
SJB, can you answer me one question, what is your understanding/opinion of what Catholic faith teaches about the authority of an imperfect general council, a council of the world's Bishops when there is no Pope? I ask because my response would depend on this.
-
SJB, can you answer me one question, what is your understanding/opinion of what Catholic faith teaches about the authority of an imperfect general council, a council of the world's Bishops when there is no Pope? I ask because my response would depend on this.
Vatican II was a general council convened by a pope and accepted by a pope.
ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, REV. S. B. SMITH, D.D., 1887
Vol. 1. ECCLESIASTICAL PERSONS, PP. 418-419
60. What are the essential conditions or requisites of an ecuмenical or general council?
We answer:
I. An Ecuмenical council must be convoked by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, or, at least, with his consent, and be presided over by him or his legates.
2. All the Catholic bishops of the world are to be called or invited, though it is not indispensable that they should all be present.
-
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*)
-
Vatican II was a general council convened by a pope and accepted by a pope.
Not to sedevacantists. And what, are you speaking of Pope John XXIII, whom I think you accept? But you don't believe Pope Paul VI was Pope, if I recall right, so I can't really understand your statement above.
Regarding the authentic magisterium, here is the SSPX website (http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm)
"Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:
Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592 ff);
Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645 ff);
Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659 ff)."
-
Vatican II was a general council convened by a pope and accepted by a pope.
Not to sedevacantists. And what, are you speaking of Pope John XXIII, whom I think you accept? But you don't believe Pope Paul VI was Pope, if I recall right, so I can't really understand your statement above.
Well, nobody was a sedevacantist going into or during Vatican II, which was at the time assumed by all to be a general council, convoked by a pope and then confirmed by a pope. Here's Lumen Gentium once again:
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*)
-
Yes, but now that they are sedevacantists, they say that there was no Pope. But what of the world's Bishops come together for at least an imperfect Council, don't they also possess some divine guarantee?
This is why it's not a mere technicality, as you say. It makes all the difference from a doctrinal point of view, even though all the practical problems remain, the crisis of faith remains, the need for doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis remains, but the explanation at least is a little better since it takes into account the character and nature of the episcopate, the teaching authority or magisterium they exercise, and the divine promises granted to it according to Catholic teaching.
... adhere to it with a religious assent ...
Indeed, that is the key phrase. Here is an explanation of the term, from some 30 years earlier.
The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church’s Magisterium. He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith.
In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one’s superior... Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question.
(Nicolas Jung, Le Magistere de l’Eglise, 1935, pp.153, 154)
-
This is the quote I was thinking of, but couldn't remember who had written it. His Eminence Cardinal Franzelin says what I said so poorly above about the entire episcopate, much more eloquently and precisely here,
Certainly there remains in the Church (during the time of the vacancy of the Apostolic See) not only indefectibility *in believing* (called passive infallibility) but also infallibility *in proclaiming* the truth already revealed and already sufficiently proposed for Catholic belief, even while she is for a time bereaved of her visible head, so that 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, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church *for all days* even to the consummation of the world. The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy.
-
Did the whole episcopate (morally speaking) hand down anything specific? What did they teach in unanimity?
What made the council "imperfect" in your view?
-
TKGS I agree with you. Vatican 2 as no leg to stand on. It was good for nothing! Those who made suggestions, refused to define. Why? Because "they" would be found as heretics! I have a question? Did Bishop Sanborn, once state, that this anti-Pope, if he repented, could be Pope? And did not Bishop Pivurunus (sp), did he not think that as questionable? My opinion is, IF this anti-pope was to repent, he could not, because in my opinion, the election was invalid.
Right!
If they said, "We decree, define, declare that God is the Devil" they would not be able to fool anyone. They would not be able to drag anyone else to Hell with them that way.
An Ecuмenical Council, approved by the "Pope" is binding on the Church and we must accept it. It taught and bound heresy. Therefore the one who approved it was not a valid Pope.
-
I think it's a very critical question you raise. Because the degree or nature of
the Magisterium invoked has a lot to do with what level of protection is guaranteed, since everyone grants at least that the universal episcopate was assembled there, and what level of accuracy is to be expected in the docuмents.
The universal episcopate is not infallible unless they are in union with a valid head. Anything they decreed needed to be approved by a valid Pope for validity.
-
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.
It proclaimed heresy in an ordinary manner.
-
http://www.friarsminor.org/xix4-17.html
-
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
-
I thought this was interesting as well:
Can a council depose the pope?
This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circuмstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds:
•ob mores (for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod)
•ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).
In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.
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.
-
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.
Yeah. You need a valid Pope before you can have an infallible definition.
Pius XII is the last sure Pope. Avoid anything after that including "canonizations". The false Church might get it right once in a while here but their canonizations are not infallible as they are when authorized by a valid Pontiff.
-
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*)
-
Everyone knows the enemies of the Church had been strong even much before the Council. Bella Dodd said they had put over a 1000 priests into the priesthood "to destroy the Church from within" in the 1930's. That's just one example. So, why should it be a surprise to anyone if suddenly the Church seemed to be overrun with bad priests? I refuse to react to bad priests in a kind of neo-Donatist way. The Church always has both saints and sinners.
Did the whole episcopate (morally speaking) hand down anything specific? What did they teach in unanimity?
What made the council "imperfect" in your view?
By an imperfect general council here is meant a council of the world's Bishops when there is no valid Pope. I don't think it was so, of course, I was saying this would be the case, if sedevacantism were true.
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?
The universal episcopate is not infallible unless they are in union with a valid head. Anything they decreed needed to be approved by a valid Pope for validity.
It proclaimed heresy in an ordinary manner.
If you mean that Papal convocation or at least the personal approval of the Roman Pontiff is necessary for it to be Ecuмenical, I grant. If you mean an imperfect general council of this sort can teach formal heresy, I deny. The universal episcopate as such also bears certain guarantees and divine promises. See Cardinal Franzelin explaining this, even when the See is vacant, this is so owing to indefectibility. Msgr.Van Noort if I recall right says something similar, I'll try to find it.
-
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 refuse to react to bad priests in a kind of neo-Donatist way. The Church always has both saints and sinners.
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.
-
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."
-
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 ...
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
It contains errors and leaves out stating tradition doctrine, which you say can't happen, even if it wasn't a true general council.
60. What are the essential conditions or requisites of an oecuмenical or general council?
We answer:
1. An Ecuмenical council must be convoked by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, or, at least, with his consent, and be presided over by him or his legates.
2. All the Catholic bishops of the world are to be called or invited, though it is not indispensable that they should all be present.
3. The acts of the council must be confirmed or approved by the Pope.
62. What is the canonical mode or method to be observed in the celebration of ecuмenical councils?
1. There must be freedom of discussion, or liberty in decisions and judgments. All acts extorted by fear and violence are (ipso jure) null and void.
2. No fraud or deception must be practised on the Fathers.
3. There must be, moreover, a sufficient examination into the questions submitted to the council. Once, however, the council has defined a question, no doubt can any longer be entertained as to whether the council used sufficient care and deliberation in its definitions.
In the end, I think it will be determined it wasn't a real council.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
If it's a Magisterial Docuмent. Isn't that what's at issue here? It was said to be merely pastoral, yet the actual docuмents say something entirely different. The council was meant to be confusing because that's how modernists proceed
I think you're trying to disprove sedvacantism instead of dealing with the reality of what Vatican II actually did and what the drafters of the docuмents actually meant.
-
If it's a Magisterial Docuмent. Isn't that what's at issue here? It was said to be merely pastoral, yet the actual docuмents say something entirely different. The council was meant to be confusing because that's how modernists proceed
I think you're trying to disprove sedvacantism instead of dealing with the reality of what Vatican II actually did and what the drafters of the docuмents actually meant.
In order to prove a docuмent purporting to be (and by all appearances so being) Magisterial to not in fact be so, the standards are higher than examining a random work and deciding what censure it would merit. Would you disagree? Saying it contains only errors though not heresies appears to me insufficient from the sedevacantist point of view.
From the non-sedevacantist point of view, the authentic Magisterium only requires an altogether prudential and conditional assent, as I quoted a source to prove, and in which the possibility of error is not altogether and absolutely excluded.
-
In order to prove a docuмent ...
Why do you think I'm trying to "prove" this? I merely said there have been official condemnations based on what was NOT clearly stated.