… Vatican 2 was not [infallible].

Just wanted to note before signing out that there are presently 11 members signed in, of whom 6 are sedes.

Cathinfo is the de facto sedevacantist headquarters (which tolerates the Resistance).

Traditional Catholic Forum

A message board for SSPX, Resistance and other Traditional
Catholics to discuss news and matters pertaining to the Catholic Faith.

Since 2006

I’ve always had a problem with this theory as well.  Unless I misunderstand it, which is very likely, it seems like an impossibility, and a contradiction of Our Lord’s exhortation that a man cannot serve two masters.  Even so, it’s an interesting theory, because there clearly are two churches fighting for dominance.  The Catholic Church and the anti-Church.  I don’t believe that the Pope can be head of both of them.  That being the case, a true Pope must be the head of the Catholic Church and not of the Novus Ordo.  Does this make JPII and BXVI into anti-Popes?  Not in my opinion.  Just look at how much allegiance the modernists paid to them.  Read Fr. Malachi Martin’s book the Jesuits.  Read about how JPII was treated by his priests in Nicaragua.  Read about the open revolt against him by these communists.  They did not carry out his wishes.  They contravened them.  He was not their head.  Who supported him?  Catholics did.  Then look at BXVI.  You’ve got a similar thing going on.  Both of these Popes were confused on a lot of things, but it doesn’t seem clear to me that either of them knowingly and intentionally taught contrary to the Faith.  They were weak.  Even cowardly.  They convinced themselves somehow that they were being faithful sons of the Church.  But they were not hostile to the Faith.  Intention is important.  They allowed the modernists to make headway by being bullied by them - not by leading them.  That’s how this mess seems to me.  They were true Popes who were total cowards, that did not do what was necessary to defend the Church.  Always too little and always too late.  In the future, all if this will be clarified.  Right now it is unknown to us.  However, I do not believe that a man can be the Pope of two churches.

The argument still applies to Sedes too though.  Old Catholics could just as easily say "Well Vatican I wasn't a *real* ecuмenical council because Pius IX was an antipope!

I don't see how either side can point a finger here, at least on this point.

Mr. Johnson, that's top right on every page.

Why whine everytime you run out of arguments?

What can you say to defend the ideas of Tissier de Mallerais?

I stopped to listen to Tissier, when I heard him preach that the SSPX is the Church. That's why he didn't leave for the Resistance. He couldn't leave his Church.

Because it doesn't address the 2 churches concept, which is what this whole thread is about.

No one says V2 defined dogma. There's nothing to dispute there. The only point of contention would be can the Church as a body can even fallibly teach things dangerous to souls, but that's completely off-topic.

To state that a true pope presides over different churches is to say that there are different, contradictory beliefs which are true. This is heresy. The catholic faith is one, not many or divided. There is no division in the true church of Christ. It doesn't make sense.

870 Dz 468 "With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: "One is my dove, my perfect one. One she is of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her" (Ct 6,8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ep 4,5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect on one cubit had one ruler and guide, namely Noah outside which we read all living things on the earth were destroyed." [From the Bull "Unam Sanctam" November 18, 1302] (Ex Cathedra)

Furthermore, Vatican II was absolutely infallible. There are three main reasons.

First, Antipope John XIII convoked the council in solemn language, enacting the unfailing magisterium;

JOHN XXIII’S OPENING SPEECH AT VATICAN II, OCT. 11, 1962 (Translated by Timothy Johnson)

“The most recent and lowly successor of the same Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you, in convoking this most imposing Assembly, has proposed this for himself, that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, never failing and persevering even to the end of the times, be once again affirmed; which selfsame Magisterium, taking account of the errors, necessities and opportunities of our age, is, by means of this very Council, being presented to all men, as many as be in the world, in extraordinary form at the present time.”

Secondly, he even calls it "doctrinal in nature"

“These things having been established, sufficiently has been manifested, Venerable Brothers, the role that has been entrusted to the Ecuмenical Council in regard to what pertains to doctrine.” (IBID paragraph 6)

Lastly, Antipope Paul VI (who conferred Vatican II) wrote an encyclical to the entire church (meeting the criteria for infallibility, see Pius IX, Vatican I, Ch. 4, #9) teaching that the council dealt with "doctrine and defining it".

Antipope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam (# 30), Aug. 6, 1964: “It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.” (Ex Cathedra)

Furthermore, read how the council was closed.

Antipope Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:

“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 DECIDE, 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…

As to the reference that it was called "pastoral in nature", if we examine even just the full sentence, it shows that the application by heretics is incorrect.

"In other words, there will need to be introduced those methods of explaining things which are more in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral.” (Antipope John XIII, Opening Speech, 6)

He was stating that the way they wanted to PRESENT the doctrine in a modern way. In other words, they wanted to explain what was solemnly concluded to the world in a way that they believed it reflected how a pastor teaches his flock...

Also, even if I indulge you, saying something is primarily pastoral does not exclude it from also being doctrinal. It doesn't make sense. But he didn't even say this because as we read in the quote, he was referring to "methods of explaining things"  

Vatican II was definitely infallible, but it was done so by the devil so that people are led into nonsensical positions which end up in schism while still acknowledging and accepting Vatican II and the all the antipopes, including francis...

Think about it, if you reject Vatican II even though the majority of the clergy and laypeople happily accept it and endorse it fervently, including the "pope" himself, what are you to them by dissenting? You effectively schism from your own antipope. You cant reject Peter, you cannot judge him, so if francis is truly the successor, what logic do you use to reject him, his teachings and his hierarchy?

https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/vatican-ii-infallible/