I will watch this video later today.   :cool:

I only wished that I have watched the video first.  I have been mislead
in believing that the Vatican 2 Council was not infallible.  I was not
aware of the solemn language used by John the 23, and Paul VI.
The only way to get around it is to believe that John the 23 and
Paul VI were anti popes.
How can we believe that these new doctrines set forth by Vatican
2 are protected by the Holy Spirit when they clearly contradict
previous Papal Teachings and 20 previous councils. It has been only
50 years since the close of Vatican 2, while the true doctrine of the
Faith goes back two thousand years.
How could that be!
Every Bishop at the Vatican 2 Council broke his solemn Ant-Modernist
Oath imposed by St. Pius X.

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each docuмent" (Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966).

If the Council of 1962-1965 was of the Catholic Church, then, even if it made no "extraordinary statements" it would still be a part of the "universal and ordinary magisterium" as Montini himself stated above.  If it is of the Catholic Church, then all conclusions it made--and only a fool can suggest it came to no conclusions--are infallible teachings of the Catholic Faith as the universal and ordinary magisterium is no less infallible that the extraordinary magisterium.

(It seems that the idea that the council avoided "extraordinary statements of dogma" stems from the fact that the council fathers did not make any specific declarative statements of dogma and anathematize all who hold contrary views.)

The problem is that what we see as apparently infallible teachings of this council are incompatible with absolutely infallible teachings of the Catholic Church prior to the Council.

The only viable conclusion is that the Council of 1962-1965 is not an action of the Catholic Church; for the suggestion that we can simply disregard and ignore the teachings of an Ecuмenical General Council (if it was truly a product of the Catholic Church) is, itself, contrary to the Catholic Faith.

Papal and conciliar infallibility

"Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council's decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council's infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff's ex-cathedra judgments, Ecuмenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecuмenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ's co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body — His own mystical body — gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops. The same presence strengthens the action of the pope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility.

Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope. The council's dignity is, therefore, not diminished, but increased, by the definition of papal infallibility, nor does that definition imply a "circular demonstration" by which the council would make the pope infallible and the pope would render the same service to the council. It should however, be borne in mind that the council without the pope has no guarantee of infallibility, therefore the conciliar and the papal infallibilities are not two separate and addible units, but one unit with single or double excellence. An infallible statement of Divine truth is the voice of Christ speaking through the mouth of the visible head of His mystical body or in unison, in chorus, with all its members. The united voice of the whole Church has a solemnity, impressiveness, and effectiveness, an external, circuмstantial weight, which is wanting in simple ex-cathedra pronouncements. It works its way into the minds and hearts of the faithful with almost irresistible force, because in the universal harmony each individual believer hears his own voice, is carried away by the powerful rhythm, and moved as by a Divine spell to follow the leaders. Again, the bishops who have personally contributed to the definitions have, in that fact, an incentive to zeal in publishing them and enforcing them in their dioceses; nay the council itself is an effective beginning of its execution or enforcement in practice. For this reason alone, the holding of most Eastern councils was a moral necessity — the great distance between East and West, the difficulty of communication, the often keen opposition of the Orientals to Old Rome made a solemn promulgation of the definitions on the spot more than desirable. No aids to effectiveness were to be neglected in that centre of heresies.

These considerations further account for the great esteem in which conciliar definitions have always been held in the Church, and for the great authority they universally enjoyed without any detriment to, or diminution of, the authority of the Apostolic See. From of old it has been customary to place side by side, in the rule of faith, the authority of the councils and that of the popes as substantially the same. Thus, we read in the formula, or profession of faith imposed by Pope Hormisdas (514-23) on the Eastern bishops implicated in the schism of Acacius: "The first [step towards] salvation is to keep the rule of orthodox [rectae] faith and in no wise to deviate from the constitutions of the Fathers [i.e. councils]. But the words of Our Lord to St. Peter (Thou art Peter . . .) cannot be passed over, for what He said has been verified by the events, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without spot or stain. Wishing by no means to be separated from this hope and faith, and following the constitutions of the Fathers, we anathematize all heresies, especially the heretic Nestorius, in his time Bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned in the Council of Ephesus by Blessed Celestine, Pope of Rome, and by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria . . . We declare and approve all the letters of Leo, Pope, which he wrote concerning the Christian religion, as we have stated before, following in all things the Apostolic See and professing [praedicantes] all its constitutions. And therefore I hope to be worthy to be with you [the pope] in the one communion which this Apostolic See professes, in which lies the entire, veracious, and peaceful solidity of the Christian religion. . . ." It should be noted that in this formula the infallibility of the Apostolic See is the centre from which radiates the infallibility of the councils."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

Dear Luker,


How thus do you explain the following?


"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each docuмent" (Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966).

For those who defend that Vatican II is not infallible, there seems to be two "proofs":

1.  The Testimony of John XXIII at the opening of the Council:

“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a
council was not necessary. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Docuмents of Vatican II, p. 715)

2. The testimony of Paul VI:

“Taking into account conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the Council Vatican II, this Sacred Synod intends to issue in matters of Faith and Morals only the definitions it openly declares as such.” (p. 155)

Because none of the docuмents of Vatican II explicitly states the intention to define matters of Faith and Morals, one could conclude that Vatican II was pastoral, not infallible.

Also Paul VI himself declared the Council as non-infallible, in an audience one year later, when he stated:

 “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 backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

.

First off, you can embed the video right here, as follows:

Was Vatican II Infallible? - Video

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/pF-F-TgB2dI[/youtube]

This video contains facts that people need to see.  Among other things, it covers quotes from John XXIII’s opening speech at Vatican II that will certainly surprise or even shock many.

Second, it's interesting you don't mention the fact that this is Brother Peter Dimond giving another one of his one-sided presentations, which typically ignore everything that is inconvenient for his own agenda.  

By the time you hit minute 5, he already has two straw men erected which he presumes to attack.  

He quotes his own translator (the accuracy of which I'm not questioning), that

John XXIII said:

"The most recent and lowly successor of the same Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you, in convoking this most imposing Assembly, has proposed this for Himself, that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, never failing and persevering even to the end of the times, be once again affirmed; which selfsame Magisterium, taking account of the errors, necessities and opportunities of our age, is, by means of this very Council being presented to all men, as many as be in the world, in extraordinary form at the present time."


I duplicated every character as it shows in the video, for discussion's sake.  Mr. Dimond then goes on to proclaim his immediate judgment on the quoted text, by saying that when John XXIII said the Ecclesiastical Magisterium is never failing, he affirms that Vat.II is an act of the Magisterium.  Mr. Dimond then says, "In fact, he identifies Vatican II as an act of the unfailing and therefore infallible Magisterium."  

Reading this, seeing the bold/italics there (which appear in Mr. Dimond's own book on the YouTube screen) you would think, most likely, that the words, "infallible Magisterium," were contained in the speech of John XXIII.  But they were not.  Those are Mr. Dimond's words, not the other pope's.  Sorry, not the Pope's words.

What did John XXIII actually say?  He said the Magisterium is never failing and persevering even to the end of times, and is once again affirmed.  Does that mean infallible?  All it says is the Magisterium is not failing and is affirmed as not failing.  But in what way does the Magisterium not fail?  

Elsewhere in this same speech, John XXIII proclaimed that no more would the Church condemn error, but would apply instead the "medicine of mercy."  Well, here in the very same speech, where he had just a minute before proclaimed that the Magisterium is never failing, he then introduced the failing of the same Magisterium.  

How could that be?  Oh, maybe Mr. Dimond forgot to quote that part.  We'll see about that.  But first off, mercy is not medicine.  So how could John XXIII in this key speech, that Mr. Dimond is so eager to re-translate and examine with a fine tooth comb (not a microscope, after all), be the same self-proclaimed man of utter infallibility who would then GIVE UP on the Church's infallibility, by saying the Church would no longer condemn error?  IN THE SAME SPEECH!?!?

News flash:  if the Church no longer condemns error, the Church cannot be infallible in that failing to condemn error.  Mercy cannot displace the condemnation of error.  And mercy is not medicine, so who knows what this "mercy" was that John XXIII was talking about?  

But as for the Magisterium not failing, there is one way that the Magisterium of Vat.II did not fail.  It did not proclaim any false doctrine as INFALLIBLE.  There is nowhere anyone has ever or can ever point out that an infallible dogma was defined at Vat.II.  It didn't happen.  If it HAD happened, you can be sure it would have been noticed by now, 50 years after the fact.  When the Pope (Pius XII) defined the Assumption of Our Lady in 1950, on November first, before it was November second, the news media worldwide was abuzz with the news that the Pope had defined a dogma of the Faith that all Catholics must now believe.  It's that simple.  There was no such thing at Vat.II, regardless of how Mr. Dimond wants to twist the facts, this time.  

The Ecclesiastical Magisterium of the Church did not fail at Vatican II inasmuch as it did not proclaim any FALSE doctrine as if it is infallibly TRUE.  Other than that, Vat.II was a gross miscarriage of Ecclesiastical authority.  But it did not fail in ONE respect.  

A half truth is a whole lie.  Therefore, Vat.II is a whole lie, since they love to say how it was authoritative, and it did not fail, however, they conveniently forget to say that the authority was FALSE (it can still be authoritative but in a BAD way) because it promoted error AS IF it were infallible, but it was NOT infallible.

There is another way these slick weasels got away with saying this stuff.  The Magisterium is unfailing how, that is, what are the two different categories of BEING that apply here?  There is being in esse, which is objective and substantive, and it's the one everyone presumes is the one being used.  But the Magisterium can be unfailing in another way, while it is NOT UNFAILING in esse.  That is, the Magisterium can be unfailing in posse, while it goes right ahead FAILING in esse.  If you're not familiar with the Latin or if you haven't studied philosophy in a good class, then you might have no idea what I'm talking about.  

But I have no idea if anyone with a question is reading this, so I won't go on for another 300 words explaining it.  The point is, you can have a Ecclesiastical Magisterium that is BOTH unfailing AND failing at the same time, it's just a matter of how you define the verb to be (esse).

If you have any doubts that they could have done such a thing, just remember that they said that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.  That is a practical application of this same weasel-wording.  The Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church, in esse, but by saying that it subsists, they're saying that OTHER religious bodies can be in posse as well as the Catholic Church.  This is an outgrowth of the heresy of indifferentism, which has been condemned many times, but here it is, creeping into Vat.II like a snake in the grass.  Where's St. Patrick when you need him?  I'm quite sure that if St. Patrick had been at Vat.II we would have had an entirely different outcome.  He would have banished all the SNAKES and the room would have been a lot more empty.  

.