Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)  (Read 10775 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AnthonyPadua

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2395
  • Reputation: +1235/-245
  • Gender: Male
Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
« on: February 25, 2024, 04:41:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • From what I understand, the council had a majority approval of the bishops, was led by a Pope (see title), used solemn language, and Paul 6th even said it was to be obeyed inside the council? Did I miss anything/get anything wrong?

    What exactly are the counterpoints? I've heard some say Paul 6th said the council wasn't binding, but this is in contradiction to the points aforesaid mentioned. And apparently these words were said outside the council, so I don't see how this would have more authority than the council...
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46873
    • Reputation: +27740/-5151
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #1 on: February 25, 2024, 12:35:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Paul VI stated that the extraordinary (solemn) Magisterium had not been engaged.  This is misinterpreted to mean that V2 was not binding and was not also Ordinary Universal Magisterium (which it is at the very least).  Now, this claim that the OUM requires a time component is what's used by R&R to get out of V2 constituting OUM.

    These are people playing games with technicalities.  Bottom line is that an Ecuмenical Council (which must have the approval of a legitimate pope) cannot teach such grave error to the entire Church at any given time.
    Logged

    Offline Soubirous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2109
    • Reputation: +1662/-44
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #2 on: February 25, 2024, 12:51:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: AnthonyPadua on February 25, 2024, 04:41:42 AM
    From what I understand, the council had a majority approval of the bishops, was led by a Pope (see title), used solemn language, and Paul 6th even said it was to be obeyed inside the council? Did I miss anything/get anything wrong?

    What exactly are the counterpoints? I've heard some say Paul 6th said the council wasn't binding, but this is in contradiction to the points aforesaid mentioned. And apparently these words were said outside the council, so I don't see how this would have more authority than the council...

    First... establish the parameters of what the council "was" and what exactly it said. :confused: The full-time professionals barely agree after all these years of hindsight. (Note that the NOM was not even a product of V2 itself but rather a backroom sequel.) If you can read ecclesial Latin at an advanced level and have lots of spare time and the inclination too :(, here are the official docuмents: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2023/04/the-acta-of-second-vatican-council-now.html

    The short answer is that the goal posts have moved repeatedly since the 1960s, and the eyewitness accounts don't match up.

    I'd ponder less as to what to think about V2 and more instead as to how to live the Faith (which had already been defined perfectly a long time before V2) simply and sincerely here and now.
    Logged
    Let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you, all things pass away: God never changes. Patience obtains all things. He who has God finds he lacks nothing; God alone suffices. - St. Teresa of Jesus

    Offline Soubirous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2109
    • Reputation: +1662/-44
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #3 on: February 25, 2024, 01:10:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on February 25, 2024, 12:35:18 PM
    These are people playing games with technicalities.  

    In effect then, Vatican 2 was actually double-binding....  
    Logged
    Let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you, all things pass away: God never changes. Patience obtains all things. He who has God finds he lacks nothing; God alone suffices. - St. Teresa of Jesus

    Offline CathSarto

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 101
    • Reputation: +93/-12
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #4 on: February 25, 2024, 02:18:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The principle of unity for the Catholic Church is the pope, as defined in Vatican I Council.  This is the Faith, as taught by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    The principle of unity for the Recognize & Resist movement is that Vatican II is not binding.  This is the faith of the novus ordo sect, as taught by sspx, Michael Davies, Athanasius Schneider, etc. 

    The R&R movement has destroyed the understanding of the Papacy for many, many souls.  It must be the work of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. 


    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46873
    • Reputation: +27740/-5151
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #5 on: February 25, 2024, 04:15:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: CathSarto on February 25, 2024, 02:18:13 PM
    The R&R movement has destroyed the understanding of the Papacy for many, many souls.

    Sad, but very true.  I see it at work here on CathInfo.

    Archbishop Lefebvre affirmed in principle that the Papacy is guided by the Holy Ghost from perpetrating such destruction on the Church, but wouldn't ultimately embrace sedevacantism because he didn't feel that he had sufficient certainty regarding how this all happened, but he did not embrace or teach R&R in the form into which it has morphed today, which is basically a very thinly-veiled form of Old Catholicism.
    Logged

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1390
    • Reputation: +1129/-88
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #6 on: February 25, 2024, 06:26:32 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • As far as I know, there was never before an Ecuмenical Council that was not binding. They developed all this not binding nonsense after the council, if I am not mistaken.

    If it was not meant to be binding, then it was more like a general bishops reunion, not a real council.

    There is no sense in calling a "non binding council".

    You use a council to create an entity (post-Vatican 2 Church) that says that a council is not binding. I cannot see a way out of it other than Paul VI being a herectic. Grave mistakes like those in Nostra Aetate were promulgated under his authority.

    First he uses the authority of a council to promulgate a "constitution" for the Church. This is Lumen Gentium. Then he says that the council is not binding...typical Jєωιѕн tactics.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46873
    • Reputation: +27740/-5151
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #7 on: February 25, 2024, 06:51:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Giovanni Berto on February 25, 2024, 06:26:32 PM
    I cannot see a way out of it other than Paul VI being a herectic.

    THIS ^^^ ... or just a non-pope for some other reason (illegitimate election due to Cardinal Siri being the rightful pope) or possibly blackmail (where he was not acting freely).
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6476/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #8 on: February 25, 2024, 07:19:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Giovanni Berto on February 25, 2024, 06:26:32 PM
    If it was not meant to be binding, then it was more like a general bishops reunion....
    :laugh1:

    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12377
    • Reputation: +7863/-2437
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #9 on: February 25, 2024, 07:59:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Paul VI stated that the extraordinary (solemn) Magisterium had not been engaged.
    True. 

    Quote
    This is misinterpreted to mean that V2 was not binding
    V2 officials have repeatedly said it's not.  I've never seen proof that it is.

    Quote
    and was not also Ordinary Universal Magisterium (which it is at the very least).
    You really have no idea what the OUM is, if you make this claim. 

    Quote
    These are people playing games with technicalities.
    No, the Modernists are the ones dealing in technicalities, just like the evil Pharaisees of old.

    Quote
    Bottom line is that an Ecuмenical Council (which must have the approval of a legitimate pope) cannot teach such grave error to the entire Church at any given time.
    This is debatable.  All previous Ecuмenical councils defined doctrines, which is why they were protected from error.  V2 is the only Ecuмenical council to not define anything.  It's an apples:pineapples comparison.  Ecuмenical councils are not protected from error because they are ecuмenical, but ONLY because they taught doctrine.  A council being ecuмenical just means it was universally attended; this is irrelevant to infallibility, or the magisterium, or truth.  The substance of infallibility or protection from error has to be connected with a teaching, not the attribute of ecuмenical-ness (i.e. who attended or not).  The pope could call a council of 5 people only, and define a doctrine.  The # of people who attend a council is meaningless, in the grand scheme of things, because the pope is the primary necessity for teaching to the universal church.  Without the pope, a teaching cannot be universal, nor protected from grave error.
    Logged

    Offline CathSarto

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 101
    • Reputation: +93/-12
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #10 on: February 25, 2024, 09:03:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • "And this is why, when we love the Pope, we do not dispute whether he commands or requires a thing, or seek to know where the strict obligation of obedience lies, or in what matter we must obey; when we love the Pope we do not say that he has not yet spoken clearly — as if he were required to speak his will in every man’s ear, and to utter it not only by word of mouth but in letters and other public docuмents as well. Nor do we cast doubt on his orders, alleging the pretext which comes easily to the man who does not want to obey, that it is not the Pope who is commanding, but someone in his entourage. We do not limit the field in which he can and ought to exercise his authority; we do not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of other persons — no matter how learned — who differ from the Pope. For whatever may be their learning, they are not holy, for where there is holiness there cannot be disagreement with the Pope.

    (Address to the Priests of the Apostolic Union - Pope St. Pius X


    One cannot read Church teaching on the Papacy and believe that the post V2 popes were true popes without being schismatic.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12377
    • Reputation: +7863/-2437
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #11 on: February 25, 2024, 10:00:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Thoughts from Vatican 1:

    The right meaning of the expressions ‘living tradition,’ ‘living Magisterium,’ ‘hermeneutic of continuity,’ and ‘development of doctrine’ includes the truth that whatever new insights may be expressed regarding the deposit of faith, nevertheless they cannot be contrary to what the Church has always proposed in the same dogma, in the same sense, and in the same meaning (see First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, sess. 3, c. 4: “in eodem dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia”).

    If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema (Dei Filius c. 4).

    For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles (Pastor Aeternus, 4.6).

    ---

    V2 fails in this regard, as they used a "pastoral" approach to re-define dogma, because the Modernists knew they could not define error, nor could they infallibly teach error, or change Tradition/Revelation.  So the "pastoral" novelty was used to confuse, contradict and get around the clearly defined rules from Vatican 1.

    Vatican 1 clearly tells us that both the solemn magisterium and the ordinary magisterium are universal, in the sense that they don't change.  Divine Truths are universally (i.e. always and everywhere) true, because God is always and everywhere unchanging.  In the same way, Tradition cannot change because what was "handed down" is the same for all times, all peoples, and all nations.  God's truths don't change and every generation must abide by the same truths and rules.

    V2 cannot be binding in any way, for that would be a gross contradiction.  How can a pastoral, novel, non-doctrinal, non-infallible council have authority to change prior doctrines, prior infallible statements, and prior papal authority?  It cannot, in any way, shape or form. 

    The pope cannot change Tradition anymore than he can invent new doctrines.  
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14772
    • Reputation: +6102/-912
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #12 on: February 26, 2024, 05:05:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: AnthonyPadua on February 25, 2024, 04:41:42 AM
    From what I understand, the council had a majority approval of the bishops, was led by a Pope (see title), used solemn language, and Paul 6th even said it was to be obeyed inside the council? Did I miss anything/get anything wrong?

    What exactly are the counterpoints? I've heard some say Paul 6th said the council wasn't binding, but this is in contradiction to the points aforesaid mentioned. And apparently these words were said outside the council, so I don't see how this would have more authority than the council...

    From an interview with Fr. Wathen given by one of the Dimonds, who wholly agreed with everything here.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline ElwinRansom1970

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1062
    • Reputation: +808/-157
    • Gender: Male
    • γνῶθι σεαυτόν - temet nosce
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #13 on: February 26, 2024, 06:12:37 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 25, 2024, 07:59:23 PM
    All previous Ecuмenical councils defined doctrines, which is why they were protected from error.
    Here is presented your fundamental error!!!

    An ecuмenical (I prefer the term "general") council does not possess the charism of infallibility through the exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium in defining doctrines. A general council by its very nature possesses the charism of infallibility when exercising both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Universal Magisteria. A conciliar teaching need not be a formal, dogmatic definition (usually with an anathema attached) to enjoy the protection of infallibility.

    The problem of Vatican II runs much deeper ecclesiologically than most understand or are willing to concede, including Msgr. Lefebvre who it seems was both materially and chronologically too close to Vatican II to grasp the full horror of what had happened to the Church in the 20th century, namely that a prelate had come to claim falsely and invalidly the Chair of Peter so that the governing structures of the Church were ecclipsed by an ape of the Church. This is not a collapse of the Church as her charism of indefectibility protcts against this. Rather, we have witnessed the Church withdraw into the catacombs whilst her doppleganger masquerades in the public square.
    Logged
    "I distrust every idea that does not seem obsolete and grotesque to my contemporaries."
    - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46873
    • Reputation: +27740/-5151
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Vatican 2 actually binding? (assuming Paul 6 was Pope)
    « Reply #14 on: February 26, 2024, 06:28:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 25, 2024, 07:59:23 PM
    V2 officials have repeatedly said it's not [binding].  I've never seen proof that it is.

    No, you've mentally filtered out "proof".  Montini repeatedly stated both that 1) the solemn Magisterium had not been engaged and 2) that it was binding.  Every V2 docuмent concludes with the boilerplate that the teaching was to be held by all the faithful.  Both have been repeatedly cited, but you simply ignore them because you've decided that anything that's not "solemn Magisterium" is fair game for Catholics to reject, and so this is a mental contradiction to you based on your error, leading to your filtering out #2.

    Every single dialog/discussion with the SSPX by Vatican officials required a mandatory acceptance by SSPX to accept Vatican II, which +Lefebvre at one point said he was willing to do if V2 were interpreted in the light of Tradition, which was a bit of double-speak, where he knew well the Vatican officials means a "hermeneutic of continuity" while he mean that he would reject certain parts of V2 in light of Tradition.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2 3 4
    « previous next »