Had it been a legitimate Ecuмenical Council, then it would have been infallible.

While I don't believe, as some SVs do, that every utterance of the authoritative magisterium is infallible,

to say that an Ecuмenical Council could lead the Church into error would be to reject the entire indefectibility of the Church.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Had it been a legitimate Ecuмenical Council, then it would have been infallible.  While I don't believe, as some SVs do, that every utterance of the authoritative magisterium is infallible, to say that an Ecuмenical Council could lead the Church into error would be to reject the entire indefectibility of the Church.

So then, does Vatican II teach error?

Quote from: Sneakyticks

It depends if it deals with faith or morals.

Agree?

Vatian I defined additional "notes" for infallibility, not just that it deal with faith and moral but that it be defined as binding upon all Catholics in such a way as to at least imply if not explicitly state that one cannot be a Catholic without believing the particular point of faith or morals.

The (supposed) Vicar of Christ and the bishops of the world promulgate teachings and laws. Jersey lawyers (that word again!), excommunicated bishops and, well, anyone at all, get to pick which teachings and which laws are binding. Welcome to the magisterium as Country Buffet.

(b) The reading of St. Vincent's dictum that Mr. Ferrara and SSPX promote — you're not bound by anything a live pope or council teaches, unless it conforms to "tradition" (as understood by lawyers, excommunicates and sundry layfolk) — is dead wrong.

In a lengthy article, the pre-Vatican II theologian G. Bardy demolished this theory, because the right "to fix and define authentic tradition... belongs to the Church, as inheritor of apostolic succession." Without this, St. Vincent's dictum "appears to leave each individual free to seek out which dogmas are accepted everywhere, always and by everyone," thus leaving "to personal choice the right to judge in the last resort."

This, Canon Bardy noted, was the error of the Gallicans and of the proto-modernist Döllinger (later excommunicated), who opposed papal infallibility at Vatican I. (Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique 15:3051)

(c) To support his contention that the "novelties" of Vatican II are not universal ordinary magisterium and therefore not binding, Mr. Ferrara quotes Paul VI's January 12, 1966 audience: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility."

 This proves nothing. "Extraordinary" refers to solemn dogmatic definitions, which everyone agrees Vatican II did not make.

 But then we discover that Mr. Ferrara (whether through dishonesty or carelessness) has left out the rest of the sentence:

 "but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective docuмents."

 Ahem!

 If you accept Paul VI as a true pope, therefore, Vatican II is part of the universal ordinary magisterium. As a Catholic, you are then bound to adhere to it. And that was my point.

 Still not convinced? Here is the typical formula at the end of each Vatican II docuмent: "Each and every matter declared in this Dogmatic Constitution the Fathers of this Sacred Council have approved. And We by the Apostolic Authority handed down to Us from Christ, together with all the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Ghost approve, decree and establish these things; and all things thus synodally established, We order to be promulgated unto the glory of God...I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church. There follow the signatures of the rest of the Fathers." (AAS 57 [1965], 71)

 What part of "Apostolic Authority," "Holy Ghost" and "rest of the Fathers" don't you understand?

 Bottom line: The doctrinal buffet is now closed. If Paul VI was a true pope, there's only one dish on your menu: Vatican II.

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: Hermenegild

So then, does Vatican II teach error?

Yes.

"The Second Vatican Council’s heretical teachings were primarily in the areas of religious liberty and false ecuмenism." - CMRI

So in all of Vatican II we can point to two sentences that justify the entire SV thesis?  No, it's much more than that.  It's an entirely new ECCLESIOLOGY.  Bishop Williamson has long taught that the errors of V2 are rooted in the "subjectivism" that has been gaining momentum since the Renaissance.

No, the CMRI have this wrong.  Both Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty are merely application of THE core error in Vatican II, namely the false "subsistence" ecclesiology.  But the CMRI is blinded to this because they have the same ecclesiology as Vatican II.  But once you accept that underlying ecclesiology, Religious Liberty and Ecuмenism simply follow as logical consequences.  Bishop Sanborn even admitted that the core V2 error is ecclesiological.

So Bishops Williamson and Sanborn both correctly identify the foudational error of V2 as being a subjectivist ecclesiology and yet both fail to see that this subjectivist ecclesiology follows directly from Suprema Haec and misapplied Baptism of Desire.