What is also very important to understand in this crisis, is that Vatican II was a "Pastoral" council.
Which means:
- Everything "pastoral" that is in it, you are not bound to follow.
- Anything that is ambiguous, gets through out the window. The Church is Holy and clear. She does not speak with "two tongues"; only sinful man does. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that if a "law is unjust, it is not a law at all, and needs not be followed.
- Anything that comes out later as a "dogmatic" interpretation of a "pastoral" nature is false and also not to be followed (Lumen Gentium, Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, Collegiality, etc...).
Likewise, anything that a conciliar Bishop, Priest, or Pope wants to "promote" in this "false pastoral doctrine", is not obliged to follow, like Aaron in the Old Testament when he erred; however, it does not mean that they have no authority from God in the position that they were ordained in.
Vatican II by itself -is self condemned- and is waiting for God's Providence to manifest the "mysterious good" that will come out of that evil.
Until then, we need to have Faith in God, do our duties of state faithfully, and be patient for God's plan to work the way He is allowing it to happen.
There was an excellent article published by John Daly several years ago which studied the question about whether Vatican II taught in the manner in which the Church teaches infallibly. I would urge you to read the article, and then if you still believe that Vatican II did not teach in the manner in which the Church teaches, we could discuss it further. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267
Now, I am not arguing that Vatican II is the infallible teaching of the Church, but I am arguing that the man who approved it teaching could not have been a Pope.
I agree that Vatican II is self condemned. It is not part of the teaching of the Church. It could not be. The theology of Vatican II is divorced from the deposit of Faith. From the moment it was promulgated, December 7th 1965, new doctrine was taught not found and in conflict with the Sacred Deposit.
It is impossible that Vatican II came from the Church, and from that it is impossible that the "pope" who imposed it on the Church was truly a pope.
Ambrose?
Though I agree, however, you did say in two other posts:
"The Pope is the center of unity of the Church, his teachings are the rule of faith, and we are bound to believe him, even in his non-infallible teaching. We are bound to adhere to the laws he gives to the universal Church, also called Sacred laws, or Sacred Canons."
The Pope being the Supreme Teacher of all. When the Pope teaches the universal Church on matters of Faith and morals, all must believe what he says, even when he is teaching in a non-infallible manner.
Whenever the Pope teaches the universal Church all must believe what he teaches. They are bound the teaching, but the level of assent may differ. The Pope's non-infallible teaching to the universal Church binds Catholics under pain of sin to believe him and is always safe although it is not infallible.
The personal holiness of lack of holiness of the Pope does not bear on this. The Pope could be living in the state of sin, even public mortal sin, but his office would protect him from promulgating universal laws that are evil, that lead to impiety or sin. The Church must always be holy, her sacramental rites, ceremonies, and official prayers can only lead us to holiness and towards our salvation. The Church cannot give us stones rather than bread.
Machabees,
There is no such thing as "pastoral doctrine." When the Pope teaches on matters of the Faith and morals we are bound to what he teaches. I would ask you to explain "pastoral doctrine" using pre-Vatican II theology. It didn't exist and is a novelty used to explain away Vatican II.
Vatican II taught in the manner that the Church teaches. John Daly explains the point in great and accurate detail. If you have a chance to read this article, it would greatly advance discussion on this point. If you disagree with what he says, at least we could see the nature of our disagreement. http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8267&sid=c4d1062bd473677b487418e2caab7e3b#p8267
In my above post, I spoke of the Pastoral council -Vatican II's own words. Vatican II was in nature a Pastoral council, NOT a Doctrinal council, like Vatican I.
"Pastoral Doctrine". Those words are a well used phrase in reference to the ambiguity of Vatican II from their "pastoral" teachings. In this crisis of the Church, Post-Vatican II ever so tries to take their own declared Pastoral council and "spin" it into a "Doctrinal" dogma, as they see fit. For which they call it themselves -a "Pastoral doctrine".
Other than the usage of the modern day phrase of "Pastoral doctrine", to be more clear on the Pope, and his own pastoral advice, that when you go to confession to a priest, he gives you pastoral advise, you are not "bound" to follow it (catechism). Also, if you go to confession to a Bishop, or the Pope, they give you pastoral advice, you are not "bound" to follow it.
When the Pope speaks, of himself, such examples as his Angelus addresses, or writing a book, or an article in the Vatican newspaper, or an interview, they are pastoral, you are not "bound" to follow it.
If the Pope writes something on Morals, or Church teaching, it would be doctrinal. If it is in line with what the Church has always taught, we are bound to follow it. If it is NOT in line with what the Church has always taught, like Vatican II, we are NOT bound to follow it -Hence, the crisis.
God bless.
Machabees,
I ask you though, what is a Pastoral Council, as explained by the theologians of the Church? I have never come across such a distinction theology book I have ever read. The question here, is did Vatican II teach in the manner that would make it infallible. I think if you read John Daly's article on this that I posted that there is no other way to explain it.
When the Pope and the bishops all teach the same thing universally throughout the Church, it is passively infallible. It is impossible for the Teaching Church to universally profess heresy or error while teaching in union with the Pope.
Even if you want to argue that the actual docuмents of Vatican II was "pastoral," the teaching was imposed on the universal Church in every manner possible, catechisms, sermons, by the theologians, in official teachings of the bishops, etc. The teaching of Vatican II was imposed throughout the Church by the moral consensus of the bishops in union with Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis.
If these anti-popes were Popes, then the teachings of Vatican II are the teachings of the Church. If this is the case, then the Church has defected and failed.
The only way to throw Vatican II in the trash bin of history, is to also throw out the "pontificates" of the anti-popes.
Topic: A broader conversation on sedevacantism and the SSPX (Read 16147 times)