Hah, you'll take any view that agrees with your own.  You've already demonstrated that time and again.  You admit having watched only a few minutes of the video but already "take" his view.  Would be funny if about 30 minutes in he denounces flat earthers.  Since you take his view over that of a layman, why don't you ask him what he believes about the flat earth, and if he rejects it, you need to follow his lead ... since you should take his view over yours.  Hypocrite.

Cantarella is absolutely correct the papal ratification is what defines an Ecuмenical Council.
  

You love to call people names, when you don't really have an argument. Oh well. You call me a hypocrite, but actually, I've just finished watching half the video. It's an hour long. Would you like to know what the rest of the first half of the video entails? Somehow I think not, but I'm going to highlight the main details. 

Fr. Hesse describes and explains that a Council must have the proper matter, form, and intention, and that it must intend to do what the Church does. Are you with me so far? Do you understand this?

Bear with me now, as I know this will be difficult for a sedewhatever to understand, but Fr. Hesse then goes on to explain that a purpose of a Council is to condemn error, and to clarify doctrine. Pope John XXlll specifically announced that the Council would not condemn anything, and that it would be a pastoral council. Fr. Hesse says that the other councils were all called to clear up doctrine and to destroy error. 

Fr. Hesse then goes on to explain a little known encyclical by Pope Pius Vl called, Auctorum Fidei, and that the docuмent addressed the issue of what a synod (council) does exactly. Pope Pius Vl said that..."The purpose of a synod is to clarify terms, not to complicate them." 
Fr. Hesse then goes on to explain that the higher a truth is, the simpler it becomes, because God is infinitely simple. A sedewhatever will not be able to relate to this, due to their (your) predilection toward everything being excessively wordy and complicated.

I'll watch the rest tomorrow and give an update. Not that you'll be interested, of course. 

So the authority of Fr. Hesse is equal to that of yourself, a mere layman?

And the "authority" of Fr. Hesse is greater than that of the men you claim to be POPES of the Roman Catholic Church?

So the authority of Fr. Hesse is equal to that of yourself, a mere layman? You remind me of the laypreachers on EWTN, who spout off their modern theology as if they are an authority with whom we must all agree.

No, I speak confidently when I see false arguments and emotional non-arguments.  They annoy me to no end.  I see bad will there rather than someone actually seeking the truth.  I've had people here I don't agree with but for whom I have a great deal of respect because I sense in them intellectual honesty and a desire to seek truth rather than to promote an agenda.  I'll be blunt, Meg, that I don't see this quality in you.

You may not have noticed but I've been attacked by BOTH SVs AND R&R.  I went after a number of dogmatic SVs on a different thread, and a few of them got so colorful in their language about me that Matthew banned them.  Now it's the R&R who are coming after me.  I've had both sides tell me they think I'm in the other "camp".  What I see is that there are both VALID and INVALID arguments on both sides, and I honestly acknowledge these ... and have personally landed in the "sede-doubtist" position (most similar to the one articulated by Father Chazal).  I try to go where faith and reason take me.  I have no dog in this fight and don't really care where the truth ends up.  I'm just trying to get as close to it as I can.

Perhaps you are not aware that Fr. Hesse is deceased?

We were discussing the issue as to whether or not the Vll Council was a true Council of the Church, or did you forget the subject that we were actually discussing? I think you did. Or you were never interested in the first place.

Father Hesse makes a good case for the Vll not being a Council of the Church. If you want to learn something, I suggest that you watch it.

I do not look to my own self for answers, as you do. I look to Fr. Hesse, who was a traditional canonist, and Archbishop Lefebvre, as well as other clergy and bishops. Who do you look to, who holds your exact sedewhatever position? It seems that only Fr. Chazal actually holds your particular POV. Otherwise, you have to cite other sources that do not hold your specific position, and then you are consigned to interpret any Church teaching with your own unusual POV. You are an authority unto yourself. I have no interest in that for myself.

I know only very little of Fr. Hesse but will hopefully have time later to watch that video.

Lad being formally Fentonized, looks to Fr. Fenton to maintain the opinion that the magisterium can err but only little isty bitsy errors. However, when the magisterium does what he says they cannot do, i.e. when they teach great big fat errors, well, though that's not possible, it is actually ok too, because as he said: "those who submit to erroneous teachings of the Magisterium are NOT guilty of sin; individual Catholics are not required as their duty of state to be theologians.  Sin is on those who issued said false teaching, and they bear the sins of all those whom they in turn have led into sin."

There is your Fentonism and from it, Lad effectively shoots the whole sede argument, possibly the whole crisis argument right in the face, and doesn't even realize it - because if those who submit to the false teachings of the magisterium do not sin by submitting, then why did "the magisterium" ever bother to teach error at all? and what is the purpose of this crisis? and why did Our Lord warn us to beware of false teachings?

I know only very little of Fr. Hesse but will hopefully have time later to watch that video.

Lad being formally Fentonized, looks to Fr. Fenton to maintain the opinion that the magisterium can err but only little isty bitsy errors. However, when the magisterium does what he says they cannot do, i.e. when they teach great big fat errors, well, though that's not possible, it is actually ok too, because as he said: "those who submit to erroneous teachings of the Magisterium are NOT guilty of sin; individual Catholics are not required as their duty of state to be theologians.  Sin is on those who issued said false teaching, and they bear the sins of all those whom they in turn have led into sin."

There is your Fentonism and from it, Lad effectively shoots the whole sede argument, possibly the whole crisis argument right in the face, and doesn't even realize it - because if those who submit to the false teachings of the magisterium do not sin by submitting, then why did "the magisterium" ever bother to teach error at all? and what is the purpose of this crisis? and why did Our Lord warn us to beware of false teachings?

I've not herd of Fr. Fenton before this. It would seem that Fr. Fenton believes that the magisterium cannot err in large matters, but even if it does, it's not a big deal, and the faithful are not to be held accountable because it's the fault of those who issued the false teaching (if I understand this correctly). But you're right - since Our Lord warned us to beware of false teachings, then we may indeed be held accountable, especially these days, when we have access to true Church teachings.

I do hope that you get a chance to watch the Fr. Hesse video on the Vll Council not being a Council of the Church. He says himself that he's not infallible. He may not be correct about everything he says, but he knows Church teaching quite well.

I just finished watching it - that was a very informative video, I liked the way fr. Hesse compared Ecuмenical Councils to the sacraments, then bought V2 into the mix for the rest of the video - I liked his whole explanation. He hit on a lot of pertinent subjects. Good stuff!
    

Yes, I agree. He gave a good background as to why the Vll Council was not a Council of the Church. He backed it up with good explanations. Even though English is not his first language, he is fairly easy to understand.

I like his explanation at about the 37:00 minute mark. He says:

"There's no reason here to name all of the heresies that have been fought more or less successfully by the Councils, but that was the common intention, ever, and always, for calling a Council.

John XXlll wanted the contrary - 'We shall not condemn anything, we shall not pronounce a dogmas here,' so what actually happens was the same thing that would happen if I approach the altar to celebrate Mass. I tell John, "listen John, I'm gonna do everything that's required to celebrate Mass, but I've absolutely no intention of celebrating Mass. I want to pull a show." Now John would be the only one in that case to know that what happened here is not a Mass. That's how it's possible that something that looks as much as a Council as Vatican ll did, might not have necessarily have been a Council, as if fraud was a new thing.

I don't think there's much to add. We can clearly see that John XXlll as the first pope in the history of the Church had a contradictory intention of calling an Ecuмenical Council, and at the same time, not to condemn errors, and not to define doctrine."

I've not herd of Fr. Fenton before this. It would seem that Fr. Fenton believes that the magisterium cannot err in large matters, but even if it does, it's not a big deal, and the faithful are not to be held accountable because it's the fault of those who issued the false teaching (if I understand this correctly). But you're right - since Our Lord warned us to beware of false teachings, then we may indeed be held accountable, especially these days, when we have access to true Church teachings.

Fr. Fenton is one of those "well respected" 20th century theologians that I've mentioned in the past. 70 or 80 years ago, he was one of the USA's most well respected of theologians whose teachings (as Lad's post shows) helped otherwise faithful Catholics abandon their true faith altogether and / or embrace the new faith of V2.

Msgr. Fenton on the "negative infallibility" of the Church in Her ordinary teachings:
(The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Msgr Joseph Fenton,  American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949, pp. 136-150)

To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.

If one is convinced of this - as billions were and as Lad demonstrates still are, then V2 cannot harm anyone and there is no crisis - which makes the whole of sedeism and trads overall, at least a colossal farce.