Author Topic: Was Vatican II Infallible? (Read 1807 times)

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #5 on:** March 27, 2014, 10:31:02 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

If Vatican II really was intended to be infallible, and I don't say this lightly, then all of us are wrong.

Quote from: SSPX.org
Indeed, the sedevacantists think, in general, that the teaching of the Council should have been covered by the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and consequently should not contain any errors. But, since there are errors, for example, on religious liberty, they conclude that Paul VI had ceased to be pope at that moment.

Really, if one accepted this argument, then it would be necessary to say that the whole Catholic Church disappeared then, too, and that "the gates of hell had prevailed" against her. For the teaching of the ordinary, universal magisterium is that of the bishops, of the whole Church teaching.

It is simpler to think that the teaching of the Council and of the Conciliar Church is not covered by the infallibility of the ordinary, universal magisterium for the reasons explained in the article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., on the authority of the Council that appeared in Sel de la terre, "L’autorite du Concile," pp.32-63.

In general...

Anyone who becomes aware of the significant differences in the Catholic Faith before and after the Second Vatican Council is going to be faced with a decision. Right or wrong, a realization of the contradictions that are present will demand a choice. There are only four choices; Either one is right and the other is wrong, both are correct, or neither are true. How you decide is up to you... pray, fast, study, investigate, collaborate, withdraw... however we individually choose to deal with this situation is a personal choice - A choice we are responsible to God for. He alone knows the motives and reasons for the choices we make, and He alone will judge us for our choices. But most importantly, we should conduct ourselves with Christian charity among others. Our goal, first and foremost, should be in service to our Lord. God is providing for each of us. I trust completely that He sends graces to all that desire them, so that we might continue towards perfection in Him.

With regard to the SSPX quote, in my opinion, it appears obvious that Giovanni Battista Montini departed from the Catholic fold prior to the usurpation of the Holy See through his association with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, whereby, from my perspective, the Second Vatican Council teachings were never promulgated by a pope.

Nishant · « **Reply #6 on:** March 27, 2014, 11:42:19 AM »

JohnAnthonyMarie, right, I understand your perspective, that Pope Paul VI was never Pope to begin with.

The article raises the other question, if - as most sedevacantists argue - the promulgation of Vatican II was such as to cause the loss of office in those who promulgated it, (and that for this reason Pope Paul VI ceased to be Pope,) would that not mean not only the Pope but all the bishops also lost their office?

It also makes this second point - all the bishops of the world, even during a vacancy of the Holy See, constitute the whole Church teaching. Now if all the bishops, during a vacancy, actually intend to teach infallibly and without error, can they still promulgate together what amounts to heresy?

From the Society's perspective, it seems better to say that the Council was not and could not have been intended to be infallibly promulgated, and that that explains the possibility of ambiguity and error in the Conciliar docuмents.

crossbro · « **Reply #7 on:** March 27, 2014, 11:43:59 AM »

If you want to make sure that a project is not questioned on its infallibility, then don't invite the protestants.

TrueCatholic · « **Reply #8 on:** March 27, 2014, 03:20:58 PM »

Justification Debate - Bro. Peter Dimond vs Keith Thompson -

Ambrose · « **Reply #9 on:** March 27, 2014, 04:17:42 PM »

Did Vatican II Teach Infallibly, John S. Daly, 2008.

Posted in the CathInfo library found HERE