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 5

Author Topic: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"  (Read 1982 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2017, 04:58:33 AM »
Quote from: sedevacantist on August 06, 2017, 04:46:44 PM
No Stubborn, your opening thread was exactly opposite of this opening thread. The point of this opening thread was that, according to the solemn, dogmatic teaching on papal infallibility from the Vatican Council of 1870, Paul VI could not possibly have been a valid pope. Ergo, everything he enacted, revised, or "solemnly ratified" was completely worthless - including the new Sacramental Rite of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration.
The whole point of posting the exact opposite of your post is to show 1) there is another side to the subject and 2) the side I posted is correct, which is to say the opposite of what I posted, i.e. your post, is exactly wrong.
 

Logged

Offline sedevacantist

Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2017, 01:37:03 PM »
Stubborn,
You said my post was wrong, but you give no examples whatsoever, nor do you make any arguments to support your position. Tell us, what exactly is "wrong"? John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council". This is a fact that anyone can verify by simply reading the text. Paul VI never called it a "Pastoral Council" either. Both men referred to it as an Ecuмenical Council. This is a fact. Moreover, Paul VI "solemnly ratified" all 16 docuмents using the exact same authoritative language that real popes have traditionally ratified true Ecuмenical Councils with in the past. This is a fact. Furthermore, those very docuмents were infected with heresy. This is a fact. The example I gave at the end of my opening post (from the "Dogmatic" Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium [#16]) says that Allah and the Most Holy Trinity are one and the same. This is not only heresy, but outright Apostasy because the Muslims absolutely reject the Holy Trinity. And Paul VI "solemnly ratified" this puke. This is a fact - and  something a true pope cannot possibly do. Ergo, according to the dogma of Papal Infallibility, Paul VI cannot be a true pope. This is a fact. This also means that any of his revisions, declarations, or "solemn ratifications" are completely worthless.  Unfortunately, that includes the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and the Rite of Episcopal Consecration. This is a fact.

Now, tell me, what did I say that is "wrong"?

Logged

Offline sedevacantist

Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2017, 02:11:41 PM »


Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 06, 2017, 05:23:18 PM
Just because it was a pastoral council doesn't mean it wasn't ecuмenical.  It's not one or the other.  V2 was ecuмenical because it was open/attended by all the Cardinals of the Church.  All of the ecuмenical councils in the history of the Church have DEFINED and explained doctrine (that's why you call a council; it's sorta its purpose).  However, V2 did NOT define any doctrine, it only discussed HOW doctrine should be applied 'to modern man' (which is a novelty).  Therefore it wasn't a doctrinal council but a pastoral one.

I don't know who first used the term 'pastoral', but Paul VI did use this term to describe it.

Finally, to answer your first post - yes, of course John XXIII didn't call V2 a pastoral council...because it started out to be a normal council, with normal doctrinal definitions.  Many cardinals wanted to define Our Lady as the Mediatrix of All Graces.  But their plans were hijacked by liberals, who lied, coerced and tricked many into voting on liberal schemas which became the council.  In the end, V2 defined no new doctrines it only discussed how to apply them.

Right off the bat, you claim Vatican II was "a Pastoral Council". Where did you get this from? No one ever called it a "Pastoral Council". In fact, there's no such thing as a "Pastoral Council". The term doesn't even exist. The phrase was concocted by the Puppetmasters in an effort to cover their tails. Did you even read the OP?

Secondly, you claim that Paul VI described Vatican II as a "Pastoral Council". This is absolutely not true. He referred to it 9 times as an Ecuмenical Council. Again, did you even read the OP?

Third, you claim that Vatican II began as a normal council, but was then "high-jacked". And yet, Paul VI clearly referred to the same council as an Ecuмenical Council in his closing speech - and this, after he had "SOLEMNLY RATIFIED" the heresies within its docuмents. You don't seem to understand the point. Let me spell it out for you: A TRUE POPE CANNOT SOLEMNLY RATIFY HERESY. How is it you don't understand this?

And finally, you contradict yourself numerous times. You said that Vatican II "did not define any doctrine". Then you said that it "started out with normal doctrinal definitions". So which is it? Furthermore, your statement that the council never defined any "new" doctrines would necessarily imply that the Church has always taught that Allah and the Holy Trinity are one and the same. One more time, this heretical vomit was "solemnly ratified" by Paul VI.  And that's merely one example. The docuмent Nostrae Aetate claims that the Hindus also worship God - all 330,000 of Him. And yes, this was also "solemnly ratified" by Paul VI.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2017, 03:28:10 PM »
Quote
Right off the bat, you claim Vatican II was "a Pastoral Council". Where did you get this from? No one ever called it a "Pastoral Council". In fact, there's no such thing as a "Pastoral Council". The term doesn't even exist. The phrase was concocted by the Puppetmasters in an effort to cover their tails. Did you even read the OP?
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.
If you prefer, instead of calling it a 'pastoral council' you can call it a 'non doctrinal' council.

Quote
Secondly, you claim that Paul VI described Vatican II as a "Pastoral Council". This is absolutely not true. He referred to it 9 times as an Ecuмenical Council. Again, did you even read the OP?
See above quote.

Quote
Third, you claim that Vatican II began as a normal council, but was then "high-jacked". And yet, Paul VI clearly referred to the same council as an Ecuмenical Council in his closing speech - and this, after he had "SOLEMNLY RATIFIED" the heresies within its docuмents. You don't seem to understand the point. Let me spell it out for you: A TRUE POPE CANNOT SOLEMNLY RATIFY HERESY. How is it you don't understand this?
Again, it was ecuмenical because it was open to all Cardinals.  It could also be called a 'general' council because it is open to all Cardinals.  This term has nothing to do with the subject matter of the council itself.  It has to do with who is invited and if it's a local, diocesan, country-wide, or church-wide (i.e. general) assembly.

Quote
And finally, you contradict yourself numerous times. You said that Vatican II "did not define any doctrine".  Then you said that it "started out with normal doctrinal definitions".  So which is it?  
V2 did not define anything, in the formal, clear and authoritative sense that is REQUIRED by vatican I's definition of infallibility.  When I said it "started out" with doctrinal definitions, I explained that those conservatives in attendance started out the schemas with well-intentioned and good church teaching.  But, as the drafts were edited and voted upon and went through the different stages of review, they were changed from the typical clear, authoritative language which is normal for doctrine and they morphed into the ambiguous, long-winded, contradictory garbage we know today.

Council docuмents are not created out of thin air, with all the Cardinals meditating silently, while the Holy Ghost imparts wisdom into their minds all at the same time.  They are written like anything else in life - through hard work, outlines, drafts, edits, re-writes, voting, more edits, more re-writes, then finalized docuмent.  It's why councils take YEARS to finish.

If you want to read a journalist's account of the mayhem and hijacking that occurred, read the book:  "The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber". 

Quote
Furthermore, your statement that the council never defined any "new" doctrines would necessarily imply that the Church has always taught that Allah and the Holy Trinity are one and the same. One more time, this heretical vomit was "solemnly ratified" by Paul VI.  And that's merely one example. The docuмent Nostrae Aetate claims that the Hindus also worship God - all 330,000 of Him. And yes, this was also "solemnly ratified" by Paul VI.
All councils and all legal docuмents must be 'solemnly ratified' in order to become finalized, legally.  The council was called, it produced docuмents, it was ended.  Paul VI ratified it's docuмents as being legal and existing.  It is a legal term, not a doctrinal term.  It has nothing to do with doctrine, dogma or infallibility.  See Vatican I on infallibility for more info.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council"
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2017, 04:25:40 PM »
Quote from: sedevacantist on August 07, 2017, 01:37:03 PM
Stubborn,
You said my post was wrong, but you give no examples whatsoever, nor do you make any arguments to support your position. Tell us, what exactly is "wrong"? John XXIII never called Vatican II a "Pastoral Council". This is a fact that anyone can verify by simply reading the text. Paul VI never called it a "Pastoral Council" either. Both men referred to it as an Ecuмenical Council. This is a fact. Moreover, Paul VI "solemnly ratified" all 16 docuмents using the exact same authoritative language that real popes have traditionally ratified true Ecuмenical Councils with in the past. This is a fact. Furthermore, those very docuмents were infected with heresy. This is a fact. The example I gave at the end of my opening post (from the "Dogmatic" Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium [#16]) says that Allah and the Most Holy Trinity are one and the same. This is not only heresy, but outright Apostasy because the Muslims absolutely reject the Holy Trinity. And Paul VI "solemnly ratified" this puke. This is a fact - and  something a true pope cannot possibly do. Ergo, according to the dogma of Papal Infallibility, Paul VI cannot be a true pope. This is a fact. This also means that any of his revisions, declarations, or "solemn ratifications" are completely worthless.  Unfortunately, that includes the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and the Rite of Episcopal Consecration. This is a fact.

Now, tell me, what did I say that is "wrong"?
You obviously did not read my posts, he specifically stated in Mater Ecclesia that the Council was not assembled to discuss doctrine. It is the first sentence.

He said what was needed was a new way of presenting the faith to the world and that it was for this reason that the Council was called - it is right there in Mater Ecclesia and the link I provided at the bottom explains it in plain English.

You share the same dilemma, i.e. "pope problem" as most other sedevacantists, namely, you have yourself convinced that what happened did not happen as it actually did happen.

To read what actually did happen, read the link I supplied at the bottom of my first post. While he does not quote the popes word for word, what he says is entirely accurate.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
« previous next »