Legal problems arose during the Council that have been pointed out by authors such as Romano Amerio (Iota Unum) and Ralph M. Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber).  Did it involve substantive canonical procedure such as to render the legality of the procedings at least suspect?  In civil jurisprudence, an appellate court examines a case in order to ascertain the rectitude lower court's trial.  When it finds an error that caused harm to one of the parties, the case is remanded for correction.  In the case of the legal framework of a Council, would it be possible for a legal problem of sufficient import to render it invalid (canonically speaking)?

A key principle to note before we reply, "Yes, the Pope promulgated it" is that the legislator judges the law when he acts as such, but when he is not legislating, he is subject to the law.  The Church is not a lawless society, with Popes and Bishops doing as they please because they are in authority.  Many actions, if not done according to the law, are to be considered invalid.  

Now, I wonder if the legal issues were such that the conciliar texts, decrees, constitutions, etc. were rendered legally invalid.  It's an interesting question that should be investigated.  

Caminus,

I'd love to see more in depth discussions like this about the crisis, Council, NOM, etc., but unfortunately it just isn't happening.

Such a large portion of posters in the Crisis subforum are Sedes. And why would Sedes waste time trying to figure out the legality of a Council they reject out of hand.

I HATE to say this, but AQ is actually capable of having intelligent debate on a question like this, however the problem is the thread could be locked without warning at any second and the clowns would come in making inane jokes every third post. However, at least the discussion got off the ground there and there were enough SSPX types to make it interesting (unlike FE where the Neo-Trads would flood the thread making it futile).

I'd like to find a way to get the NO/SSPX debate flowing on here. I think it would rake in new members and posters. But to do this you would have to create a new sub-forum.

Matthew, I plead with you to try it just ad experimentum! If Neo-Caths knew they could have ONE subforum where they could go one on one with SSPX type Trads with no scandalization from Sedes, I think they'd be much more willing to do it. You could even call it "Novus Ordo vs. SSPX" as FE used to have. Sedes could STILL post there, they just could not discuss sede-ism. Anyway, just a dream....  :idea:

Stevus, your right.  Tha's why it's so quiet.  Discussing any other possibility that would help to explain things according to the nature of things and concrete fact is impossible with one who has waived their magic wand and infallibly declared all is null and void.  Their approach to this mess has all the characteristics of an all too human tendency regarding complex matters of religion.  This tendency can be seen in heresies like Calvinism which bears the imprint of a hasty and superficial mind demanding a tangible and ready made solution to the mystery of predestination.  The mind falters at the mystery and resolves to find a neat solution.  Or like that of Huss who said that sinners simply fell from offices in the Church.  There's a thousand variations to this tendency of the mind  within the Church and SVism is one of them.  Anyone who calls for proper distinctions is met with disdain and charges of sophistry as they tenaciously cling to their man-made opinions.