Author Topic: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council" (Read 1807 times)

sedevacantist · « **Reply #15 on:** August 07, 2017, 05:16:59 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 07, 2017, 03:28:10 PM

Pax Vobis,
You said, "It's called a 'pastoral' council because Paul VI said it was not doctrinal but had a 'pastoral character'."

And yet, Paul VI says something completely opposite in the VII docuмent, "Ecclesium Suam (#30): "It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine of the Church and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and compliment of the first Vatican Council."

Oops.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #16 on:** August 07, 2017, 05:46:30 PM »

Oh, wow, Paul VI contradicted himself. Shocking! (Sarcasm alert). What's your point? You asked where the term "pastoral" came from; it came from Paul VI.

It's irrelevant how Paul VI, or anybody, described the council. The only thing that relevant is that V2 did not infallibly define or clarify any doctrinal statement, which fulfilled the REQUIREMENTS of V1, therefore it's not infallible, in a solemn way.

Certain of its statements, if they agree with "what has always been taught" would then be part of the universal and perpetual magisterium and would be infallible. But most of V2 is novel, and does not agree with Tradition, therefore we ignore it.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #17 on:** August 07, 2017, 10:39:13 PM »

It's not illegitimate for anyone to be upset or opposed to Vat.II because of what it is and because of what it has produced. The fruit of Vat.II is bad fruit and by that alone we can know that it was bad.
.
However, sedevacantism has likewise shown its character by the fruits it produces, namely, a lot of logically undisciplined followers who reject the Pope, using excuses. Therefore they part with Tradition by refusing to pray for the Pope and imagine how many graces the Pope is deprived of because of that bad fruit of sedevacantism.
.
Here this thread is a good example of how sedevacantists all too often do not want to pay attention and learn the facts of what has happened. They've made up their mind and they only dare to look at what will support their a priori conclusion. In that way they're a lot like the flat-earthers, really. It would come to me as no surprise to learn much sympathy sedevacantists hold with flat-earthism, even if they're unwilling to admit it. Yet.
.
Vat.II was a punishment on the Church allowed by God. And God would never allow something so detrimental to the Church unless He were also able to repair the damage it does. Therefore we must pray to God for His solution to the crisis, as it is beyond the power of mortal man to repair the damage.
.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #18 on:** August 07, 2017, 10:44:03 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 07, 2017, 03:28:10 PM

It's called a 'pastoral' council because Paul VI said it was not doctrinal but had a "pastoral character".

General audience given by Paul VI on January 12, 1966:

Quote
There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.

.
So apparently a direct quote is not sufficient for a die-hard sede who's doggedly determined to fight even the truth, if it's contrary to his pre-determined principles.
.
Fascinating.
.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #19 on:** August 07, 2017, 11:04:55 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 07, 2017, 05:46:30 PM

Oh, wow, Paul VI contradicted himself. Shocking! (Sarcasm alert). What's your point? You asked where the term "pastoral" came from; it came from Paul VI.

It's irrelevant how Paul VI, or anybody, described the council. The only thing that's relevant is that V2 did not infallibly define or clarify any doctrinal statement, which fulfilled the REQUIREMENTS of V1, therefore it's not infallible, in a solemn way.

Certain of its statements, if they agree with "what has always been taught" would then be part of the universal and perpetual magisterium and would be infallible. But most of V2 is novel, and does not agree with Tradition, therefore we ignore it.

.
It has now become known that the only reason they bothered to put a few things into Vat.II that "agree with what has always been taught" was to later be able to CLAIM that there are infallible pronouncements therein. Ironically, infallible definitions also fall under that umbrella, but with a difference. (We're not supposed to understand the difference according to the wiles of liberalism.)
.
This is true what you have written, Pax Vobis, and even so, even while you and I and others like us know that Vat.II made no infallible definitions nor contributed to clarify any doctrinal statement, that did not stop the liberals from attempting to attribute doctrinal authority to the (wayward) council. I recall seeing a priest giving a speech, claiming that Vat.II was "dogmatic" because of the English titles of the sections, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) and Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum).
.
Never before in the history of the Church had portions of a general council been characterized based on the vernacular translation of section titles into a foreign language. That's another "first" for Vat.II.
.
And such speeches were made without any responsible bishops stepping in to reel in the dissident because the bishops were dissidents, too. It's been a real mess.
.

sedevacantist · « **Reply #20 on:** August 08, 2017, 06:24:07 PM »

I trust that there are still some good-willed Catholics on this site – those who are sincerely trying to discern the truth in this age of such widespread deception. I would encourage them to spend more time in prayer regarding the subject matter of this particular thread than in reading the posts. That’s not to say that one shouldn’t weigh both sides of the issue in his search for truth, but that prayer absolutely MUST accompany that search. Prayer is the key. Without it, you will succuмb to the deceptions. That, I can promise you.

In this thread, I have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that John XXIII never once called Vatican II a “Pastoral Council”. My enemies even agree on this. The “Pastoral” story is a bold-faced lie. Plain and simple. The facts are irrefutable. Even so, for some mysterious reason, this very lie has been perpetuated by the ENTIRE hierarchy in unison for over half a century. The question is WHY? What exactly was it they were trying so desperately to hide? And the answer is that they were trying to hide the fact that Paul VI “solemnly ratified (promulgated)” heretical doctrine. In other words, the Puppetmasters do not want anyone to know that Paul VI did something that a true pope cannot do.

In the end, the whole myth of the “Pastoral Council” was nothing but a clever smokescreen. The Puppetmasters do not want anyone to know that anything authoritative, or of a solemn character, was done at Vatican II. “It was just a Pastoral Council. Nothing infallible going on. Nothing solemnly defined. Just a bunch of bishops and theologians getting together over tea and crumpets; laughing at each other’s accents; revising the Sacraments; promulgating a whole new “Mass”. You know, just typical bishop stuff.” This is exactly what they want the Catholic world to believe. Nothing authoritative happened.

Isn’t it funny, then, that all of the rebuttals to my opening post, while admitting to the “Pastoral” lie, have nevertheless come out trying to argue that “nothing authoritative happened at Vatican II.” That’s right, these men who rail against my position are continuing to perpetuate the very same lie. They just omit using the term “Pastoral Council” when they do it. “Yes” they’ll say, “we know John XXIII never called Vatican II a ‘Pastoral Council’, but no doctrines were ever defined at the council. Nothing authoritative happened there. There was nothing stated at the council, or in any of its docuмents, that ever indicated the council was endowed with the mark of infallibility.”

You see, they will agree that it was not “Pastoral” per se, but then they will turn right around and continue the exact same lie – only without using the precise term “Pastoral”. As Pax Vobis, stated, "V2 did not define anything, in the formal, clear and authoritative sense that is REQUIRED by Vatican I's definition of infallibility. It’s almost as if these men are nothing more than mindless, brainwashed robots unconsciously and repeatedly spewing out exactly what has been drilled into their heads – with absolutely no regard for the facts whatsoever. They remind me of the soldiers brainwashed in the movie “Manchurian Candidate”, all of them repeating verbatim the same story that has been drilled into their minds.

Their position – that no doctrines were ever solemnly defined at the council – is not only a perpetuation of the same old lie, but is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the very teaching of Paul VI himself. Paul VI said that the task of Vatican II was precisely to deal with, and define, doctrine. In fact, this is why it was called “Vatican II” in the first place – because it was to be a continuation and compliment of the Vatican Council of 1870:

“IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine of the Church AND OF DEFINING IT, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.” (Paul VI, Vatican II docuмent “Ecclesiam Suam” (#30), Aug. 6, 1964)

No wonder Vatican II was repeatedly referred to as an “Ecuмenical Council”; and why it was called a “most authoritative assembly”, and an exercise in the Church’s “extraordinary teaching authority”; and why it was counted among the 20 solemn Ecuмenical councils of the past. Yes, Vatican II was intended to be just as authoritative as the Vatican Council of 1870; and the Council of Trent; and Florence, and Chalcedon, and Nicea. All of the solemn language used to ratify (promulgate) the docuмents of Vatican II was identical with language used to solemnly ratify Ecuмenical councils of the past. And it was precisely this language that endowed the docuмents of past councils with the mark of infallibility.

Let me explain…
There are three conditions that need to be met for a pope to teach infallibly:

“… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
1)When carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians

2)In accord with his Supreme Apostolic Authority
3)He explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church,

through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.” (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4)

As one can clearly see from this definition, there doesn’t have to be a formal condemnation of heresy in order for a statement to be infallible, as some have said in refuting my position. A teaching simply has to be explained. Let’s take, for example, the phrase from Lumen Gentium (#16) that declares Allah is the true God (we could use many other statements from other docuмents, however). This statement says that the Muslims worship, along with Catholics, the one true God. In other words, Allah is God. Now, if a true pope uses solemn language to ratify this council docuмent, then anything written within that docuмent which involves either faith or morals, and which is not clearly directed at a specific locale (Greece, for example), then that teaching is endowed with the character of infallibility. That is to say, if Paul VI were a true pope, and solemnly promulgated the docuмent Lumen Gentium, then Catholics must believe – under pain of eternal damnation – that Allah and the Most Holy Trinity are one and the same. If Paul VI is pope, then Allah is God. And you must believe this under pain of eternal damnation.

Are you getting nervous yet? Let’s see exactly what terminology Paul VI used to “solemnly” promulgate the 16 docuмents of Vatican II. Every single one of Vatican II’s docuмents began with these words:

“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY."

Now, this is the identical language (almost word for word) used to begin the dogmatic decrees of past Dogmatic/Ecuмenical councils. Moreover, each docuмent ended with the phrase written below (or in some cases, very similar words):

“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the fathers. We, too, by the APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.” (Walter M. Abbott, The Docuмents of Vatican II, The America Press, 1966)

And so, it is clear that each Vatican II docuмent is a solemn act of Paul VI. Each docuмent is signed by him; each one is begun with him speaking as “pastor and teacher of all Christians”; and each one finished with him “approving, decreeing and establishing” all of the docuмent’s contents in virtue of his “Apostolic Authority.” In ratifying the 16 docuмents of Vatican II, Paul VI used the IDENTICAL language used by popes of the past to solemnly ratify their decrees. Ergo, if Paul VI was a real pope, then everything written in those 16 docuмents which involved either faith or morals, is infallible. And no wonder at this, for as he himself said, the council was merely an extension of the Vatican Council of 1870 – the infallible and dogmatic character of which no one doubts.

And so, it is beyond dispute that Paul VI “solemnly ratified” the heresies of Vatican II. There’s no getting around it – though Masons infiltrating this site such as “Pax Vobis” and “Neil Obstat” will try their best to cook up some professional sounding rebuttal. And unfortunately, most of you will swallow their puke hook, line, and sinker. And why? Because you refuse to get on your knees and pray. It's the same reason that despite all of the Red Flags surrounding Vatican II and its ensuing insanity, you nevertheless bought into the “Pastoral Council” lie. You didn’t pray. Obviously. And as long as you continue to neglect prayer (and I'm not talking about just throwing out words during your Rosary), you will remain in your illusion. It’s your soul, not mine. I’ve done my job. The rest is up to you. I am no longer going to write anymore rebuttals on this thread after today. I would only answer one more deceptive argument the Masons infiltrating this sight are using repeatedly (Pax Vobis in particular) – that is, to bring up the General Audience speech by Paul VI.

Paul VI stated in his General Audience on Jan. 12, 1966, that Vatican II “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility.” The answer to this seemingly perplexing argument is actually quite simple: So what? He made this statement after the fact. He had already "solemnly promulgated" all 16 docuмents over a month earlier. Ergo, his statement, and the argument in general, is completely irrelevant.

I'll say it again, one last time - pray.

DZ PLEASE · « **Reply #21 on:** August 08, 2017, 06:34:24 PM »

It's pretty fishy when, after an easily demonstrable point is dismikssively ceded only to be spam slammed with matter for other threads.

The upside is that it shows us who and what we deal with. Not everyone under colors is really on that side.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #22 on:** August 08, 2017, 06:49:57 PM »

I'm a secret Mason because I disagree with you? Wow. It only took 2 posts of mine to get labeled an infiltrator. Impatient, are we?

Look, just because V2 did not define any doctrine, nor did it bind any catholic to believe anything under pain of sin, nor did it formally teach errors as matters to be believed with certainty of faith, nor did it invoke the apostolic magisterium and authority - i.e. it did not fulfill ALL the requirements for 'teaching faith and morals' as outlined by Vatican I, therefore it's not infallible. Because it didn't do these things, it means it carries no moral weight! It means that it has no moral bite, with which to bind ANY catholic to believe its errors. THIS IS A GOOD THING! Why do you argue the opposite, even after Vatican I spelled out the requirements of infallibility in GREAT detail?

I can only suppose that you WANT Vatican 2 to be doctrinal so that you can use this as an excuse to say that Paul VI was not a true pope. Ok, I get the argument. All I'm saying is that you can use MANY other reasons for saying that Paul VI lost his office, but V2 'teaching error as doctrine' isn't one of them. It was not infallible. It did not formally teach doctrine, as matters of faith, to be believed under pain of sin. Didn't happen. So, look to the other reasons for your sedevacantism support. That's all I'm saying.

If your case for sedevacantism rests on V2, it's quite unstable...

Author Topic: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council" (Read 1807 times)

sedevacantist

Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"

Pax Vobis

Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"

Neil Obstat

Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"

Neil Obstat

Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"

Neil Obstat

Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"

sedevacantist

Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"

DZ PLEASE

Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"

Pax Vobis

Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"