Belloc, do you not see the contradictions of ABL?  If you are to try to follow his logic, or rather illogic, then there are two Churches.  One Church that accepts and acts on a false Council, and another true Church within that Church, a breakaway unit known as the SSPX, yet sharing the same Pope...  Of course, he was far from consistent when it came to determining where the Church was.  I guess for him Rome had what you might call a "Conciliarity in flux," because sometimes it was Conciliar and false and an impostor, sometimes it was the real Church.  But it's all theological gruel, so it is quite possible that at some point "ABL no longer could see."

To get to your post, that VII was "pastoral" has been debunked numerous times.  Vatican II was an ecuмenical Council.  Ecuмenical Councils cannot err on faith and morals.

This is one of the times I'm glad I know French, because as I learned from a French tradi site, in the Catechism of Pius X, the French version, there is something called the Petite Histoire de Religion.  I don't know if it appears in the English version at all -- anyone else know?  But here is what the French one says:

St. Pius X Catechism:
"Le concile œcuмénique ou général est une auguste assemblée où sont appelés par le Pontife Romain tous les Évêques de l’univers et autres prélats de l’Église et qui est présidée par le Pape en personne ou représenté par ses Légats. A cette assemblée, qui représente toute l’Église enseignante, est promise l’assistance du Saint-Esprit, et ses décisions en matière de foi et de moeurs, une fois confirmées par le Souverain Pontife, sont sûres et infaillibles comme la parole de Dieu."

"The ecuмenical or general council is an august assembly where all the Bishops of the world and other prelates of the Church are called by the Roman Pontiff, and which is presided over by the Pope in person or represented by his legates.  To this assembly, which represents the entire teaching Church, the assistance of the Holy Ghost is promised, and its decisions in matters of faith and morals, once confirmed by the Sovereign Pontiff, are sure and infallible like the word of God."

I emphasize the legates since, I believe, Paul VI was often absent from VII proceedings.  

So you see, there is no such thing as a "pastoral ecuмenical council."  That's just another feint, a ruse, just like the idea that the Latin Mass was never abrogated.  Come on, man.  Use your Catholic sense.  Do you think God would allow a Council to be implemented and forced down everyone's throat but at the same time say it is technically optional, just because some phony Pope calls it "pastoral"?  

I have never understood this concept -- since when has the Church been in the business of putting together a Council that comes up with some optional doctrines, some teachings on faith and morals that we are free to take or leave?  That is nonsense.  Complete nonsense.  The Church teaches, it doesn't present you with a buffet and say "Take what you like, or nothing at all."  If we are to believe this idea that VII was just optional and not binding, you have reduced the Church to a teaching Church that doesn't teach, that merely suggests, like some stammering pimply teenager trying to work up the courage to ask the girl he likes if she'll go out with him. Like the Church is saying to the people "Hey guys, I came up with some new ideas today, what do you think?  Yes, no?"  

This is a complete inversion of roles.  The Church teaches; the people receive.  Yet if we're to believe SSPX, the Church only suggests; and the people either consent or they don't.  This is madness, complete absurdity.  Don't you see these "Popes" are just playing a game, they are completely phony!  Pull your head out of your SSPX, ha ha.  

Yes, but you think ABL is a great saint and your theology is SSPX-like.  What are you, a recognize-and-resister?  I rewrote the first paragraph of my post, by the way, to explain a little more about ABL's contradictions

What are you, a recognize-and-resister?

no idea what that means, but if we are going to slam SSPX, please do not singal me out-please also address to the forum owner,-and others-who is clear on the front page of this forum and in his posts that this forum is Pro-SSPX! despite it is heavy with those of the SV position, it is not a SV site per se.....

below these threads we see the statement:
"Please keep Bishop Williamson in your prayers! The forces of satan are waging all-out war against the Catholic Church, the SSPX, and Bishop Williamson in particular.'

so please expounded on your question "What are you, a recognize-and-resister? "-need to know your meaning and the use of it....

Depends on who you talk to.

Back in the old days, VII was a pastoral council.

Nowadays, the council was an infallible act and, even though there are only two dogmatic docuмents from it, a Catholic must assent to it since it is the will of the Church.

So I've been told.... :cool:

Belloc, do you not see the contradictions of ABL?  If you are to try to follow his logic, or rather illogic, then there are two Churches.  One Church that accepts and acts on a false Council, and another true Church within that Church, a breakaway unit known as the SSPX, yet sharing the same Pope...  Of course, he was far from consistent when it came to determining where the Church was.  I guess for him Rome had what you might call a "Conciliarity in flux," because sometimes it was Conciliar and false and an impostor, sometimes it was the real Church.  But it's all theological gruel, so it is quite possible that at some point "ABL no longer could see."

To get to your post, that VII was "pastoral" has been debunked numerous times.  Vatican II was an ecuмenical Council.  Ecuмenical Councils cannot err on faith and morals.

This is one of the times I'm glad I know French, because as I learned from a French tradi site, in the Catechism of Pius X, the French version, there is something called the Petite Histoire de Religion.  I don't know if it appears in the English version at all -- anyone else know?  But here is what the French one says:

Quote

St. Pius X Catechism:
"Le concile œcuмénique ou général est une auguste assemblée où sont appelés par le Pontife Romain tous les Évêques de l’univers et autres prélats de l’Église et qui est présidée par le Pape en personne ou représenté par ses Légats. A cette assemblée, qui représente toute l’Église enseignante, est promise l’assistance du Saint-Esprit, et ses décisions en matière de foi et de moeurs, une fois confirmées par le Souverain Pontife, sont sûres et infaillibles comme la parole de Dieu."

"The ecuмenical or general council is an august assembly where all the Bishops of the world and other prelates of the Church are called by the Roman Pontiff, and which is presided over by the Pope in person or represented by his legates.  To this assembly, which represents the entire teaching Church, the assistance of the Holy Ghost is promised, and its decisions in matters of faith and morals, once confirmed by the Sovereign Pontiff, are sure and infallible like the word of God."

I emphasize the legates since, I believe, Paul VI was often absent from VII proceedings.  

So you see, there is no such thing as a "pastoral ecuмenical council."  That's just another feint, a ruse, just like the idea that the Latin Mass was never abrogated.  Come on, man.  Use your Catholic sense.  Do you think God would allow a Council to be implemented and forced down everyone's throat but at the same time say it is technically optional, just because some phony Pope calls it "pastoral"?  

I have never understood this concept -- since when has the Church been in the business of putting together a Council that comes up with some optional doctrines, some teachings on faith and morals that we are free to take or leave?  That is nonsense.  Complete nonsense.  The Church teaches, it doesn't present you with a buffet and say "Take what you like, or nothing at all."  If we are to believe this idea that VII was just optional and not binding, you have reduced the Church to a teaching Church that doesn't teach, that merely suggests, like some stammering pimply teenager trying to work up the courage to ask the girl he likes if she'll go out with him. Like the Church is saying to the people "Hey guys, I came up with some new ideas today, what do you think?  Yes, no?"  

This is a complete inversion of roles.  The Church teaches; the people receive.  Yet if we're to believe SSPX, the Church only suggests; and the people either consent or they don't.  This is madness, complete absurdity.  Don't you see these "Popes" are just playing a game, they are completely phony!  Pull your head out of your SSPX, ha ha.  

Raoul, I understand that as a sedevacanist you aren't a follower of LeFebvre or the SSPX, but let's point out a few things here.

1.- There are two Churches. The real Church that Christ started (which has been reduced to a remnant) and the counter-fit Church.

2.- Vatican II is optional in the sense that we can't be forced to accept it even though the Paul VI tried to force it upon members of the Church. Facing facts, Vatican II can be more than one thing. And Vatican II was both a fallible and ecuмenical Council that reached out to false religions.

Raoul, if Archbishop LeFebvre had obeyed the commands from Paul VI to accept Vatican II, this forum probably would not even exist. God always appoints someone to preserve His Church, and He chose LeFebvre. Otherwise, the TLM would be pretty much extinct. I think you owe Archbishop LeFebvre more graditude than you think.

The great contradiction of Abp. Lefebvre was while he was rightly condemning Rome for liturgical vandalism and doctrinal reform, he was always prepared to deal with the conciliar church as the sole authority. Indeed, 1988 could well have seen the SSPX structure firmly approved by Rome and occuping a place on the traditional margins instead of acting like a naughty teenager living rough away from home. We now have to be grateful that doctrinal issues are maintaining the rift with the liturgy no longer occupying centre stage. And maybe there will come a point when the conciliar church ceases to be that sole authority in the eyes of the Society. It could be just a question of time.

The great contradiction of Abp. Lefebvre was while he was rightly condemning Rome for liturgical vandalism and doctrinal reform, he was always prepared to deal with the conciliar church as the sole authority. Indeed, 1988 could well have seen the SSPX structure firmly approved by Rome and occuping a place on the traditional margins instead of acting like a naughty teenager living rough away from home. We now have to be grateful that doctrinal issues are maintaining the rift with the liturgy no longer occupying centre stage. And maybe there will come a point when the conciliar church ceases to be that sole authority in the eyes of the Society. It could be just a question of time.

The conciliar Church is in Rome, though. So he meant the same thing. You need to elaborate on your viewpoint a bit more, if you could please.