CathInfo.com

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.