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.
Those of Vat. II refused to define any of their schemes. Where is infallibility? NO where!
When infallibility is used, rarely, it must define.
As for indefectibility, it means what "Christ instituted", not what man made up.
So then, does Vatican II teach error?
It depends if it deals with faith or morals.
Agree?
Quote from: LadislausHad 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: HermenegildSo 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 (http://www.cmri.org/why-we-believe-the-chair-of-peter-is-vacant.shtml)
Quote from: SneakyticksIt 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: HermenegildQuote from: LadislausHad 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?
I believe that it does teach error.
Yes, yes, I know where you're trying to push this (I'm not a complete idiot), but that has nothing to do with the point I'm making.
When I say that I think Vatican II teaches error, I have come to that conclusion based on my PRIVATE JUDGMENT, which is not infallible. I consider it possible that I am mistaken. At the very least I cannot have the certainty of faith regarding my judgment, which is again why I hold to the "sede-doubtist" position.
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: HermenegildSo 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 (http://www.cmri.org/why-we-believe-the-chair-of-peter-is-vacant.shtml)
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.
I have never defended Archbishop Lefebvre's error; I just don't think he's a formal heretic. I think that we disagree about what constitutes formal (vs. material) heresy.
It's not about ignorance, Sneaky. It's about competing interpretations of Catholic dogma. He adhered to what he considered a correct interpretation, just as people on CI here do. I contend that the interpretation is heretical, but I do not presume to claim that people would continue to adhere to that interpretation were an unquestionably legitimate Pope to come out and condemn it. That docility to the Magisterium is the litmus test for distinguishing between formal and material heresy.
Quote from: LadislausIt's not about ignorance, Sneaky. It's about competing interpretations of Catholic dogma. He adhered to what he considered a correct interpretation, just as people on CI here do. I contend that the interpretation is heretical, but I do not presume to claim that people would continue to adhere to that interpretation were an unquestionably legitimate Pope to come out and condemn it. That docility to the Magisterium is the litmus test for distinguishing between formal and material heresy.
The only thing is that what you consider heretical is in fact Church teaching, and is not up for you to freely reject it without sin.
Pope Pius IX taught it, and you would have to call him a heretic and what he taught, heretical.
The rest of the things that theologians and Lefebvre and the rest taught is just what it would LOOK like when you get down to the details.
Quote from: SneakyticksQuote from: LadislausIt's not about ignorance, Sneaky. It's about competing interpretations of Catholic dogma. He adhered to what he considered a correct interpretation, just as people on CI here do. I contend that the interpretation is heretical, but I do not presume to claim that people would continue to adhere to that interpretation were an unquestionably legitimate Pope to come out and condemn it. That docility to the Magisterium is the litmus test for distinguishing between formal and material heresy.
The only thing is that what you consider heretical is in fact Church teaching, and is not up for you to freely reject it without sin.
Pope Pius IX taught it, and you would have to call him a heretic and what he taught, heretical.
The rest of the things that theologians and Lefebvre and the rest taught is just what it would LOOK like when you get down to the details.
Do you agree with Lefebvre's statement that a Hindu or non catholic can be saved?
Tell me, what is the longest time that you have followed the natural law PERFECTLY and remained without any sin?
Quote from: SneakyticksTell me, what is the longest time that you have followed the natural law PERFECTLY and remained without any sin?
In claiming that one can be saved by following the natural law and remaining without actual sin, you are a manifest Pelagian heretic and therefore not Catholic. See how easy this is, Sneaky? That statement of yours is every bit as heretical as anything Jorge Bergoglio has ever said.
Quote from: goochQuote from: SneakyticksQuote from: LadislausIt's not about ignorance, Sneaky. It's about competing interpretations of Catholic dogma. He adhered to what he considered a correct interpretation, just as people on CI here do. I contend that the interpretation is heretical, but I do not presume to claim that people would continue to adhere to that interpretation were an unquestionably legitimate Pope to come out and condemn it. That docility to the Magisterium is the litmus test for distinguishing between formal and material heresy.
The only thing is that what you consider heretical is in fact Church teaching, and is not up for you to freely reject it without sin.
Pope Pius IX taught it, and you would have to call him a heretic and what he taught, heretical.
The rest of the things that theologians and Lefebvre and the rest taught is just what it would LOOK like when you get down to the details.
Do you agree with Lefebvre's statement that a Hindu or non catholic can be saved?
None of them said they could be saved by following the Hindu or any other religion.
You are oversimplifying and need to be more specific.
All the time they said these things they were talking about invincible ignorance, not about any non-Catholic who knows about the Church and has been preached to.
There is a difference.
And there are always the other conditions like following the natural law PERFECTLY, and this alone, you must know, is extremely difficult even for a fully-instructed Catholic, so these cases must be pretty much remote or they probably never even happen.
It's not like "oh they're invincibly ignorant, they're going straight to Heaven!"
No.
Tell me, what is the longest time that you have followed the natural law PERFECTLY and remained without any sin?
Well, that is ONE of the conditions that the invincibly ignorant have to fulfill, so it's not like there's a wholesale denial of the dogma going on and "giving people a pass."
You have to remember that just because you are a Catholic and fully in the Church as a member will do you jack nothing if you're in sin when you die.
Quote from: songbirdThose of Vat. II refused to define any of their schemes. Where is infallibility? NO where!
Paul 6 claimed it was an act of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible.
If you believe in Catholic teaching that is.
And Paul 6 fulfilled all the conditions for ex cathedra language anyways.Quote from: songbirdWhen infallibility is used, rarely, it must define.
No, not necessarily.Quote from: songbirdAs for indefectibility, it means what "Christ instituted", not what man made up.
No.
This is what the Challoner Douay commentary on Matthew 16:18 says:
By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.
Well, you can say EXACTLY THAT about Vatican 2 and what has been going on ever since.
So, either the Church defected or SV is true.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: HermenegildQuote from: LadislausHad 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?
I believe that it does teach error.
Yes, yes, I know where you're trying to push this (I'm not a complete idiot), but that has nothing to do with the point I'm making.
When I say that I think Vatican II teaches error, I have come to that conclusion based on my PRIVATE JUDGMENT, which is not infallible. I consider it possible that I am mistaken. At the very least I cannot have the certainty of faith regarding my judgment, which is again why I hold to the "sede-doubtist" position.
Push? It was just a simple question. I'd assume that if you believed that Vatican II taught error then you would reject its status as a true Ecuмenical Council of the Church.
But it seems you can't be sure about that.
How can you be certain that an Ecuмenical Council is true or not? Are you certain about say, Vatican I?
Quote from: HermenegildQuote from: LadislausQuote from: HermenegildQuote from: LadislausHad 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?
I believe that it does teach error.
Yes, yes, I know where you're trying to push this (I'm not a complete idiot), but that has nothing to do with the point I'm making.
When I say that I think Vatican II teaches error, I have come to that conclusion based on my PRIVATE JUDGMENT, which is not infallible. I consider it possible that I am mistaken. At the very least I cannot have the certainty of faith regarding my judgment, which is again why I hold to the "sede-doubtist" position.
Push? It was just a simple question. I'd assume that if you believed that Vatican II taught error then you would reject its status as a true Ecuмenical Council of the Church.
But it seems you can't be sure about that.
How can you be certain that an Ecuмenical Council is true or not? Are you certain about say, Vatican I?
Regarding the question of the validity of Vat.II, or whether it is an Ecuмenical Council of the Church or whether any Ecuмenical Council of the Church could ever teach error:
The Church is guaranteed the protection of the Holy Ghost at an Ecuмenical Council.
What does that imply? That everything the Council produces is infallible? NO.
Why not? Well, it has never been, nor will it ever be the case that the Church cannot err in matters of faith or morals (inclusive) when going about its regular business even official, that is, when not invoking the protection of the Holy Ghost. This is why we need the protection of the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost must be invoked in order to assure His protection. But was the Holy Ghost invoked at Vat.II? What constitutes the invocation of the Holy Ghost? Is there any way that the Holy Ghost might protect such a Council without being invoked properly?
To answer these questions:
The Holy Ghost is normally invoked by the CONDEMNATION OF ERROR. For the Church (and by this we mean in this case, the Pope, as the Pope alone possessed the power of the Keys, which is papal infallibility, see Vat.I) is always infallible when the Church condemns heresy or error. Anything regarding faith or morals (inclusive) ONCE CONDEMNED by the Pope, is condemned in eternity. That is, it is the revelation of God, as exists in the mind of God, and it is therefore unchangeable truth. No future pope can reverse it or change it.
This is why, for example, the Syllabus of errors of Bl. Pius IX is so important, because it is a list of infallibly condemned errors. Each and every one of the errors it lists is condemned in the mind of God, in eternity, and cannot become less than heretical at any time in the future, even until the end of time. Then along comes the "counter-syllabus" of Vat.II........
On October 11th, 1962, in his Most Regrettable Speech (M.R.S.), John XXIII, "of infelicitous memory," dropped the ball and gave up on the power of the Keys, from the very start of Vat.II.
By that one official action, he accomplished two things: First, he divorced the Council from any positive protection of the Holy Ghost because without the condemnation of error, there would be no ordinary protection from the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity at the Council. Second, he opened the door to the Freemasons, тαℓмυdists, Communists and smoke-of-satanists, to promote error through the Council under the color of Church authority. This has elsewhere been aptly noted as "Satan's masterstroke, to attack the Church's authority by means of obedience of the faithful."
However, this is not to say that the Holy Ghost did not protect the Council. What? HOW CAN THAT BE? -you might ask. That's a good question BTW.
The Holy Ghost was not protecting the Council in a positive way by giving us infallibility for any defined dogma. There was no such definition at Vat.II, even if smarmy comments emerged years later saying that "Dogmatic Constitution" or whatever in the various titles of the objectively pernicious docuмents was enough to make them doctrinal or anything close to doctrinal. Nonetheless, the Holy Ghost did protect the Council in a NEGATIVE way, by PREVENTING the Council from teaching as if it were infallible something that was in fact erroneous. There is nothing in Vat.II that is given the form of infallibility, by meeting all the requirements. So we have been protected from that, and it is the negative protection of the Holy Ghost that does this.
Now, the problem is, that the errors of Vat.II have been longstanding, and the bad fruit of those errors are being harvested, and among those bad fruits are bad pastors and bad Newconsecrations, for example, that for all practical purposes have the appearance of being infallible. But we have everything we need to know that they cannot possibly be infallible, and therefore, something must be wrong.
This is why I cannot condemn sedevacantists for leaping to the conclusion they leap to -- at least they're leaping. They care about the faith. They're not sitting still and doing nothing about the nonsense.
But I do not go there, and instead, I see this current mess as a fulfillment of the prophesy that in the end times there shall be signs and wonders insomuch as to deceive even the elect. Notice the parenthetical (if possible) added after "deceive." The parentheses are there because this is a gloss, that is, two words added by some qualified Bible scholars in ancient times, when they agreed that such minor addition would be appropriate so long as it is given a set-off notation of some kind such that it would not be construed as original. They didn't have footnotes in those days.
.
Well, that is ONE of the conditions that the invincibly ignorant have to fulfill, so it's not like there's a wholesale denial of the dogma going on and "giving people a pass."
While the Challoner footnotes to the DR are helpful, it's important to remember that you're reading footnotes and you are not reading Scripture. There is a difference between the opinions of a commentator and the infallible word of the biblical author.
But Challoner is not writing as a prophet, nor is he pope, nor is he quoting any number of Fathers and Doctors. He is offering his own, private opinion as a Bible scholar, and a good one at that. His hopes, expectations and yearnings are virtuous and commendable. But they are not infallible.
Take that comment a few short centuries into the future and assess why it would have been necessary to produce the Syllabus of errors by Pius IX, or Pascendi by St. Pius X, among other writings. If neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever could prevail over the Church, why would Pope Saint Pius X warn us all about the ominous umbrella hazard to the faith of Catholics that is Modernism? And why would his definitive encyclical make no mention whatsoever of how Challoner had assured us there is nothing to worry about because the Church is indefectible?
If "neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ," then why would Pope Saint Pius X not only warn us that Modernism is a threat to the Church, but that if allowed to propagate like the malady that it is, it would become the wreck and ruin of all religion?
Furthermore, why would Our Lord have said in Luke xviii. 8: "But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" And why would not Bishop Challoner have referenced or acknowledged this apparent contradiction to his footnote on Matt. xvi. 18?
Regarding the question of the validity of Vat.II, or whether it is an Ecuмenical Council of the Church or whether any Ecuмenical Council of the Church could ever teach error:
The Church is guaranteed the protection of the Holy Ghost at an Ecuмenical Council.
What does that imply? That everything the Council produces is infallible? NO.
Why not? Well, it has never been, nor will it ever be the case that the Church cannot err in matters of faith or morals (inclusive) when going about its regular business even official, that is, when not invoking the protection of the Holy Ghost. This is why we need the protection of the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost must be invoked in order to assure His protection. But was the Holy Ghost invoked at Vat.II? What constitutes the invocation of the Holy Ghost? Is there any way that the Holy Ghost might protect such a Council without being invoked properly?
To answer these questions:
The Holy Ghost is normally invoked by the CONDEMNATION OF ERROR. For the Church (and by this we mean in this case, the Pope, as the Pope alone possessed the power of the Keys, which is papal infallibility, see Vat.I) is always infallible when the Church condemns heresy or error.
On October 11th, 1962, in his Most Regrettable Speech (M.R.S.), John XXIII, "of infelicitous memory," dropped the ball and gave up on the power of the Keys, from the very start of Vat.II.
By that one official action, he accomplished two things: First, he divorced the Council from any positive protection of the Holy Ghost because without the condemnation of error, there would be no ordinary protection from the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity at the Council. Second, he opened the door to the Freemasons, тαℓмυdists, Communists and smoke-of-satanists, to promote error through the Council under the color of Church authority. This has elsewhere been aptly noted as "Satan's masterstroke, to attack the Church's authority by means of obedience of the faithful."
However, this is not to say that the Holy Ghost did not protect the Council. What? HOW CAN THAT BE? -you might ask. That's a good question BTW.
The Holy Ghost was not protecting the Council in a positive way by giving us infallibility for any defined dogma. There was no such definition at Vat.II, even if smarmy comments emerged years later saying that "Dogmatic Constitution" or whatever in the various titles of the objectively pernicious docuмents was enough to make them doctrinal or anything close to doctrinal. Nonetheless, the Holy Ghost did protect the Council in a NEGATIVE way, by PREVENTING the Council from teaching as if it were infallible something that was in fact erroneous. There is nothing in Vat.II that is given the form of infallibility, by meeting all the requirements. So we have been protected from that, and it is the negative protection of the Holy Ghost that does this.
If you mean to assert that God freely draws man FIRST, and because of observing the natural law and living a moral life this would eliminate the obstacles that would prevent this man from refusing the initial assent that was made, I would be in agreement with you.
Quote from: Sneakyticks
Well, that is ONE of the conditions that the invincibly ignorant have to fulfill, so it's not like there's a wholesale denial of the dogma going on and "giving people a pass."
God draws men freely, not because they have fulfilled anything. That is Pelagian/Novus Ordo talk.
If you mean to assert that God freely draws man FIRST, and because of observing the natural law and living a moral life this would eliminate the obstacles that would prevent this man from refusing the initial assent that was made, I would be in agreement with you.