Let's look at your quote from NA: “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”
1) This statement is not pronounced in solemn magisterial fashion. If it were an infallible pronouncement, it would need to be worded something along the lines of; "Whoever says that according to the Scriptures, the Jews are cursed by God, let him be anathema." - and this aside from the fact that it really is not even error because......
So you're changing the story now. So when faced with the proof that it meets the V I requirements, you now add something else that you require. Nowhere does it say the language must be like this.
I'm not changing any story, it is an historical, therefore indisputable fact that the popes came right out and said that V2 was not infallible. The reason that you cannot even name one dogma from V2, is because there were none defined.
It's regrettable that the sedevacantists believe the deceitful teachings from which they learned that all councils are automatically infallible, and that whenever there is a council in which the Pope is in union with the Bishops of the world, that no matter what, it is automatically infallible. It's regrettable because it helped lead them to hold the dangerous conclusion they hold as if this conclusion in itself was divinely revealed, and they do so, apparently without any regard whatsoever to the eternal risk they take in holding to this conclusion.
2) God never did curse the Jews, the Jews did what they could to curse themselves - when they said: "...his blood be upon us and upon our children", so if you want to get technical and dissect the issue, all you can say is that NA, like the whole of V2, is worded in such a fashion or uses a new language so that while what it says may be true, the propensity is for it to be interpreted the wrong way - further proof of non-infallibility. It is worded like this in the effort, as said in the OP, "to make a totally different approach to the non-Catholics, the non-believers."
That was a very V IIish thing to do there. Can something be rejected by God and not by the Church or vice versa? If the Church rejects anyone who holds opposing or contrary views, then so does God. The reason is He has revealed through his Magisterium whom He rejects.
Also, as Pope Pius VI declares that: "WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED."
Yes, I have renounced it, you have renounced it and so have a multitude of trads - what else is there to say?
The reason that the council veiled everything with ambiguity is because - brace yourself..... there was no protection from the possibility of error.
Whether the pope loses his office because of his public heresy, and obviously I agree that there is no doubt that the pope has committed the sin of public heresy, we are not allowed, as the pope’s subjects, to do anything about his status.
We don't have to do anything, such a heretic removes himself from the Church. If we have to do anything at all, it is not communicate with or follow him and consider him to be a non-Catholic.
We are not his judges. We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable. That’s just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy.
But you would still consider yourself in communion with such a person.
But the sedevacantists go a few steps further. They not only depose the pope in their judgement, they also try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore, we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.
But the alternative positions are ridiculous.
The dogma states it is altogether necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Please cease from accusing the dogma of meaning we are bound to be in communion with him when he wants us to do something sinful. It quite specifically says "subject" for a reason. See my earlier reply to Disputaciones about this.
There's a big difference between wanting you to do something sinful and something heretical, apostate or schismatic.
Sedevacantists invent the dilemma that that there is a question here between immunizing the pope of any heresy, or the Church is not indefectible.
We say that the pope can err in matters of doctrines and morality personally, and when he does so he commits a grievous sin and he may incur the censure, but the Church has not been destroyed by his doing so!
Yes, he has fallen into sin and he has abused his authority, but he does not lose his place as the pope, the only ways we know with certainty of faith which the pope can lose his office is, he can resign and the other is that he die.
In the mean time, we, his subjects, can recognize his heresy and keep clear of it, we can even expose his heresy to others for their sake. But this knowledge of his sins in no way qualifies us to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. It's nothing complicated, it's just basic Catholicism.
Topic: The Second Vatican Council (Read 29405 times)