Author Topic: Pope Paul VI and Infalliblity of Vatican II (Read 3025 times)

romantheology · « **on:** November 06, 2011, 10:00:04 PM »

cf. the book by Dr. William DeTucci and Patrick Pollock

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/143570388X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=143570388X&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

Pope Paul VI clearly stated:

“But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronounce-ments, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity…”

(Address of Pope Paul VI during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, Dec. 7, 1965; See also: Closing of the Council Speeches by Daugthers of St. Paul, Boston, Mass., 1966).

And at the end of this docuмent stated:

“At last all which regards the holy ecuмenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecuмenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquility and peace of all men. We have approved and We established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the (seal of the) ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.”

(Taken from: The Apostolic Brief “In Spiritu Sancto”
For the Closing of the Council, Dec. 8, 1965 ; See also:
The Vatican II Docuмents, General Editor Walter M. Abbott, S.J., Published by: America Press [An Angelus Book], 1966, pp. 738-739).

Diego · « **Reply #1 on:** November 06, 2011, 11:31:27 PM »

It would take a Doctor of the Church to sort out the conflicting statements:

...DIFFERING FROM OTHER COUNCILS, THIS ONE WAS NOT DIRECTLY DOGMATIC BUT DOCTRINAL AND PASTORAL" -Paul VI, "Weekly General Audience" (8/6/1975)

"In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church ONLY WHEN THE SYNOD ITSELF OPENLY DECLARES SO." -W. Abbot, "The Docuмents of Vatican II" (1966)

" IT [VATICAN 2] AVOIDED ISSUING SOLEMN DOGMATIC DEFINITIONS BACKED BY THE CHURCH'S INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, IT AVOIDED PROCLAIMING IN AN EXTRAORDINARY MANNER ANY DOGMAS CARRYING THE MARK OF INFALLIBILITY." -Paul VI, "Weekly General Audience" (1/12/1966)

"Indeed, it would be most unfortunate if, for lack of sufficient information, or for lack of discretion and objectivity, a religious event of this importance [Vatican II] should be presented SO INEXACTLY AS TO DISTORT ITS CHARACTER AND THE VERY GOALS WHICH IT HAS SET FOR ITSELF." - John XXIII's address to journalists (1961) - Fr. R. M. Wiltgen, "The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber" TAN Books and Publishers (1967)

Who can claim the competence and the authority to sort it out?

DMorgan · « **Reply #2 on:** November 07, 2011, 10:37:54 AM »

I am not qualified to answer that question, but I can answer this: I can clearly tell you that the 20 Councils up to Vatican II were binding because THEY SAID SO! They stated clearly why they were called and stated CLEARLY what the wished to convey. No ambiguity, no interpretation, no hermenuetic of whatever.

AveMarisStella · « **Reply #3 on:** November 07, 2011, 12:28:16 PM »

+AB Lefevbre stated many times that it was made very clear to those in attendance at V2 that it was a "pastoral" Council -- NOT dogmatic. He likened it to an extended "homily". Because there is no dogma defined (as in all other Councils) there is nothing to obey/implement -- nothing "binding" on Catholics. Of course, we know that they DID, unfortunately, define new beliefs which has been foisted on the Church and, by extension, the World ever since.

Since +ABL was personally selected by Pope John XXIII to be on the Preparatory Committee, he was there BEFORE, DURING and AFTER the Council. He was an active member of this Council, not just a body taking up space in St. Peter's. His many attempts to intervene were smothered by the liberals or simply ignored. This can also be verified by statements/writings of other attendees, (some of whom are not allies of the SSPX nor have anything to do with Tradition, BTW), not just +ABL himself or his friends.

Because of this, I put great weight into what +ABL has to say about V2 - that it was NOT dogmatic and therefore, there is nothing for us to obey/implement.

At least that is my understanding of all of this. We all pretty much agree that a future Pope/Council will most likely condemn V2, etc.

will get off my :soapbox: now.

Diego · « **Reply #4 on:** November 07, 2011, 02:27:35 PM »

Quote from: DMorgan

I am not qualified to answer that question, but I can answer this: I can clearly tell you that the 20 Councils up to Vatican II were binding because THEY SAID SO! They stated clearly why they were called and stated CLEARLY what the wished to convey. No ambiguity, no interpretation, no hermenuetic of whatever.

Yes, "hermeneutic of whatever." Sidesplittingly funny!

CURRENTLY

hermeneutic |ˌhərməˈn(y)o͞otik|
adjective
concerning interpretation, esp. of the Bible or literary texts.
noun
a method or theory of interpretation.
DERIVATIVES
hermeneutical adjective,
hermeneutically |-(ə)lē|adverb
ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from Greek hermēneutikos, from hermēneuein ‘interpret.’

We know that English, being a living language, has shifted, so THE NEXT EDITION DICTIONARY WILL READ LIKE THIS:

hermeneutic |ˌhərməˈn(y)o͞otik|
adjective
concerning rabbinical falsehoods for suckers.
noun
1. a plausible, but absolutely untruthful, alibi or pretext.
2. pilpul
DERIVATIVES
hermeneutical adjective,
hermeneutically |-(ə)lē|adverb
ORIGIN mid 20th cent.: from Vatican 2 hermēneutikos, from hermēneuein ‘baloney, hogwash.’

:idea:

Diego · « **Reply #5 on:** November 07, 2011, 02:39:16 PM »

Quote from: AveMarisStella

We all pretty much agree that a future Pope/Council will most likely condemn V2....

Yes, I call for the next cadaver synod. I liked these paragraphs from a letter in Culture Wars so archived the language:

Quote

...Know this—in former times Catholic peasants with pitchforks and scythes would long ago have taken care of all these wolves. In such times the neo-Pharisees and perverts of the Novus Ordo would already have fallen or fled. “Let your loins be girt, and lamps burning in your hands” [Luke 12:35] then see if a future Pope does with the Pharisaical Popes what Popes Stephen VI and Sergius III did with Formosus —annul their acts, installations, and consecrations, damn their desacralized and blasphemous rites, defrock their cadavers, cut off the three fingers of their right hands used in their “installations” and “consecrations,” burn their works, and toss their rotten cadavers in the Tiber.

Wait for Our Lord and may God have mercy on us all.

Gregory I · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2011, 12:04:31 AM »

Really, if it is binding, where does it say so? Where are the anathemas? There isn't even a PENALTY attached for denial!

Lol. How can you carry more weight than the council itself? and you want us to accept it?

Nope. Death before dishonor to our Lord.

Gregory I · « **Reply #7 on:** November 08, 2011, 08:28:22 AM »

SO denying heresy, and condemning the council of assuming to itself protestantism and going by the WHOLE tradition of the church is Protestant?

Diego · « **Reply #8 on:** November 08, 2011, 08:38:08 AM »

Quote from: aquinasg

Read the first post on here. Paul VI said there and elsewhere that it is binding. Become a sede and be constistent if you want. Just don't have this disobedienc in the Church

And elsewhere the alleged sodomite is quoted as saying it is not binding

"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility." Paul VI, "Weekly General Audience" (1/12/1966)

"...differing from other Councils, this one [Vatican 2] was not directly dogmatic but doctrinal and pastoral" - Paul VI, "Weekly General Audience" (8/6/1975)

Diego · « **Reply #9 on:** November 08, 2011, 03:25:19 PM »

If anyone teaches what has always been taught, one teaches infallibly. My grammar school children can do that.

The novelties of "Vatican 2" are not "what has always been taught," but are satanic rubbish, brimstone belched from hell.

Further, I did not "throw around this 'pastoral' argument" —the alleged sodomite did.

Quote

“Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed at which are contained in the written Word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the church, either in a solemn pronouncement [ex cathedra extra ordinary Magisterium ], or in her ordinary and universal teaching power [a.v., “what has always been taught,” ordinary Magisterium ], to be believed as a divinely revealed.” Vatican Council, Session III Dogmatic Constitution Concerning the Catholic Faith (April 24, 1870) in Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, §1792

Get over that.

Diego · « **Reply #10 on:** November 08, 2011, 03:44:20 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

As any Catholic Gammar school child knows, the Pope is infallible and has authority regardless of his personal sinfulness. Nor is there any proof Paul VI was a practicing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. And if you can't provide one single heresy from the council, why waste your time posting

Don't play your smarmy straw man game with me.

I never claimed that impeccability affected an authentic Pope's very circuмscribed sphere of infallibility.

There is plenty of evidence that he was an active sodomite—buy it, read it. There are even inexpensive e-book versions.

Diego · « **Reply #11 on:** November 08, 2011, 04:10:26 PM »

We are not bound to assent to error—ever.

Novelties have no mark of infallibility no matter how many smarmy lemmings tout them.

Quote

Galatians 2:11
“But when Cephas [Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

Acts 5:29
“But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Papacy, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and to prevent his will form being executed; it is not licit however, to judge [canonically or temporal court], punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.

Francisco Suarez, 16th century theologian, never rebuked in times when rebuke was certain and swift, in De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16.
And in this…way the Pope could be schismatic, if he were unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church, as would occur of he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition… if [the Pope]… gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4: “There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), ‘St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5: “It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.”

Blessed Pius XI, Letter to Bishop Brizen: “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.”

St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Chapter 3, Section 7:“What then should a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once? Then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty.”

St. Athanasius, Epistle to the Catholics: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

St. Catherine of Siena, Letter to Pope Gregory XI: “Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.”

First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus §4: “For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.”

Diego · « **Reply #12 on:** November 08, 2011, 04:19:34 PM »

More smarmy straw man nonsense. You are so dishonest that you will not honestly characterize my arguments.

I am not putting my mind over a Pope, but quoting what has always been taught, quoting both Extraordinary and Ordinary Magisterium.

We have no duty to assent to error, but to resist it.

Quote

"Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend the truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them. " Pope St. Felix III

EXTRAORDINARY MAGISTERIUM:

Quote

First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus §4: “For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.”

A genuine Pope is circuмscribed by this, not according to me, but according to the infallible Magisterium.

Diego · « **Reply #13 on:** November 08, 2011, 04:32:02 PM »

I have every right to resist error, Pope or otherwise.

For example, it is error that Wojtyla the Worst claimed that those who follow the Pharisees are 'Elder Brothers in the Faith.'

Pharisees were not even followers of Moses, so the followers of Pharisees are, at best, 'distant cousins out of the Faith.'

Diego · « **Reply #14 on:** November 08, 2011, 04:36:53 PM »

None of the Doctors and Saints deny the right of the laity to resist error; they even encourage laity in resisting the errors of Popes, only deny the laity the authority to depose a Pope.

In technical terms, you are full of beans.