Author Topic: Vatican 2 was NOT a Council (Read 9375 times)

LordPhan · « **on:** April 04, 2012, 12:45:20 PM »

From Father Hesse Doctor of Theology and Doctor of Canon Law.

Jitpring · « **Reply #1 on:** April 04, 2012, 04:49:12 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Without listening to the audio (yet?), the principle is...if a true pope approves of some results of a doctrinal convention of bishops, then it is a legitimate council. In other words, if you accept Paul VI as a true pope, then you must accept Vatican II as a legitimate council. There is no via media.

Precisely incorrect. Listen.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2012, 05:11:10 PM »

Haven't listened yet, but if a Council defines no dogma, is pastoral, and non infallible, and doesn't bind the universal Church to any teaching, is it really a true Council, properly so called?

Sounds more like a conference that produced some general pastoral statements the Pope approved of.

Lemans · « **Reply #3 on:** April 04, 2012, 06:04:32 PM »

Quote

"is it really a true Council, properly so called? Sounds more like a conference that produced some general pastoral statements the Pope approved of."

I find it interesting that some people will quote inconspicuous allocations from Pope Pius IX or 1949 Holy Office letters as if they were infallible dogma, but then will argue that the Second Vatican Council not only was not a binding council, but did not even constitute a council! According to this logic, the first three Lateran Councils combined could not have formed a real council.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #4 on:** April 04, 2012, 06:05:59 PM »

The Dogmatic Constitutions that defined no dogma? :wink:

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #5 on:** April 04, 2012, 06:07:22 PM »

Quote from: Lemans

Quote
"is it really a true Council, properly so called? Sounds more like a conference that produced some general pastoral statements the Pope approved of."

I find it interesting that some people will quote inconspicuous allocations from Pope Pius IX or 1949 Holy Office letters as if they were infallible dogma, but then will argue that the Second Vatican Council not only was not a binding council, but did not even constitute a council! According to this logic, the first three Lateran Councils combined could not have formed a real council.

Why? How were the Lateran Councils similar to VCII?

finn · « **Reply #6 on:** April 04, 2012, 06:21:55 PM »

I just after reading this article about the popes saying that Vatican II was not Not Infallible

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/02/vatican-ii-was-just-pastoral-according.html

Here is another article saying the same thing

http://www.romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.htm

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #7 on:** April 04, 2012, 06:23:50 PM »

Even BXVI himself as Cardinal said it was merely pastoral.

Caminus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 04, 2012, 06:29:28 PM »

Many Catholics do not realize this great deception, that Vatican II was not an ecuмenical council in the strict sense. Vatican I and Vatican II are like apples and oranges. Not only did if fail in its end, it was also probably legally invalid due to certain violations that took place in session.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #9 on:** April 04, 2012, 06:35:29 PM »

Intriguing stuff! Curious to listen to the link now.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 04, 2012, 07:19:20 PM »

SO frustrating! I had to pause it twice and each time it started me over at the beginning.

I only listened to part of it. Will listen more later when I have time.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 04, 2012, 07:30:29 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

The point that is missed here is that the Church cannot teach errors.

The Church cannot. Churchmen acting outside their God-given authority, inventing new doctrine? That's another question. Churchmen are bound to follow Tradition. Their authority is to protect and pass on the deposit of faith. When they do that, they act on behalf of the Church. When they violate it they act outside their authority.

Imperfect analogy, but your boss has authoriy over you at work. If your boss demands that, at home, you are to make and eat a certain dinner, you can tell him to get bent. He's acting outside his authority. He is allowed to order you to do certain things at work. That's it.

Clerics have authority to pass down the Faith of the apostles and protect that faith, refute error, institute practices to build up the Faith, etc. They have absolutely no power to tell you to go worship at the ecuмenical prayer breakfast.

LordPhan · « **Reply #12 on:** April 04, 2012, 11:46:56 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Without listening to the audio (yet?), the principle is...if a true pope approves of some results of a doctrinal convention of bishops, then it is a legitimate council. In other words, if you accept Paul VI as a true pope, then you must accept Vatican II as a legitimate council. There is no via media.

This is your own made up theology. You should stop speaking about things you don't know anything about. The First is Catholic Theology, the Second is History. I will be correcting both in your various ill-informed posts.

What the CHURCH teaches, is what the church has always taught, it is Tradition. The Pope cannot create anything New and make it what the Church teaches. The Only time the Popes add to what the Church teaches is when they Clarify a Dogma which has always been believed and Define it Ex Cathedra on pain of not being a Catholic.

This is also the only time a Council speaks Infallibly aswell.

The Pope does have to promulgate those definitions of a Council to make them Ex Cathedra and Ecuмenical.

An Ecuмenical Council is a council which defines a Dogma and Condemns Heretics. If it doesn't condemn anyone it holds no Infallible markers whatsoever.

You'll note that The Council of Florence is only partially Ecuмenical, because the Pope did not Promulgate all of the Definitions.

LordPhan · « **Reply #13 on:** April 04, 2012, 11:48:58 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: stevusmagnus
Quote from: Hermenegild
The point that is missed here is that the Church cannot teach errors.

The Church cannot. Churchmen acting outside their God-given authority, inventing new doctrine? That's another question.

If Churchmen are inventing new doctrine for the faithful to believe then that is evidence that they are in fact not truly Churchmen.

You are making the Churchmen out to be Divine, your statement reeks of 1 part Calvism and 2 parts Donatism.

The Calvinists denied Free Will. You are denying the Free Will of the Churchmen.

The Donatists stated that the Pope could not be the Pope because he was a Sinner(They extended this to all Clergy). They were condemned.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** April 05, 2012, 12:59:03 AM »

Councils aren't Councils, the NO mass isn't official, Canon Law Codes aren't Canon Law, but the Pope is really the Pope, he's just faking us out with fake magisterium.

It's patently absurd reasoning.

Archbishop Lefebvre:

Quote

"On the other hand, if it appears certain to us that the faith which was taught by the Church for twenty centuries cannot contain error, we have much less of an absolute certitude that the Pope be truly Pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and invalid election are some causes which could make it happen that a Pope never was one or would cease to be one. In this obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which occurs after the death of a sovereign pontiff.