Author Topic: Accepting Vatican II (Read 16692 times)

NIFH · « **Reply #45 on:** April 27, 2023, 07:42:58 PM »

In agony over the evil docuмents being voted through by the council Fathers, Archbishop Lefebvre and others submitted a question to the Secretary of the council, asking, 'to what degree are these texts demanding our acceptance?' The Secretary issued a written response saying that 'only what the council explicitly labels as binding must be accepted.' In short, 'nothing in these texts requires your acceptance'.

Paul VI took this Note and inserted it into the official council text.

The Holy Ghost was not invited to the council, but no one can hold Him out by force.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #46 on:** April 27, 2023, 07:44:19 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on April 27, 2023, 04:53:55 PM

1. The question is what NEW doctrine did Vatican II define? How useful actually was it, which would prevent us from saying: THROW THE WHOLE THING IN THE FIRES OF HELL WHERE IT BELONGS.

2. As for the "nuggets of truth", remember that the devil, in his deceptions and lies, utters PLENTY OF TRUTHS in his overall scheme, in order to better deceive you. It's the proverbial lemonade that is perfectly good -- in which he inserts a bit of cyanide. Making the overall drink 99.9% good, but nevertheless FATAL. So percentages aren't everything in this case. Our intellect is attracted to the TRUE, just as our Will is directed to the GOOD. So the devil presents everything as true and good, or else we would never fall for his wiles.

Just as one would throw his mixed drink (99.9% good lemonade 0.1% poison) back in his face, tell him to go to Hell -- so also we must throw the WHOLE Vatican II into hell, because even the TRUTHS are made use of in such a way, that you are deceived into a whole new religion.

What if I like VII (I don't but just for sake of argument) but I want to throw out Trent.

Can I do that?

Why or why not?

songbird · « **Reply #47 on:** April 27, 2023, 07:53:52 PM »

Council of Trent is Infallible. Now can you throw that out?!

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #48 on:** April 27, 2023, 08:06:10 PM »

Quote from: songbird on April 27, 2023, 07:53:52 PM

Council of Trent is Infallible. Now can you throw that out?!

I don't want to throw out Trent, of course :), I'm just asking because I get asked these kinds of questions and would like a concise answer.

So Paul VI declared that we must accept VII with docility as part of the Ordinary Magisterium (requiring Religious Assent. Religious submission of mind, intellect, and will)

"it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful"

https://novusordowatch.org/2020/07/how-taylor-marshall-distorts-paul6-on-vatican2/

So why can I throw out VII but not Trent?

I guess I don't understand the difference between "Full assent of the Faith" and "Religious Assent-submission of mind, intellect and will".

Either way, if I accept Paul VI as pope I don't see how I can throw out either one. ::shrug::

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #49 on:** April 27, 2023, 08:37:40 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on April 27, 2023, 08:06:10 PM

I don't want to throw out Trent, of course :), I'm just asking because I get asked these kinds of questions and would like a concise answer.

So Paul VI declared that we must accept VII with docility as part of the Ordinary Magisterium (requiring Religious Assent. Religious submission of mind, intellect, and will)

"it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful"

https://novusordowatch.org/2020/07/how-taylor-marshall-distorts-paul6-on-vatican2/

So why can I throw out VII but not Trent?

I guess I don't understand the difference between "Full assent of the Faith" and "Religious Assent-submission of mind, intellect and will".

Either way, if I accept Paul VI as pope I don't see how I can throw out either one. ::shrug::

Does VII count as requiring "Full assent of Faith" or

"Religious Assent: religious submission of mind, intellect and will"?

And either way, how can we throw it out (if we accept Paul VI as pope)?

This Chart doesn't show up well, but the column headings from left to right are

Teacher Level of Magisterium Degree of Certitude Assent Required

1. Pope ex cathedra
Extraordinary and universal teaching of the Church
Infallible on matters of faith and morals
Full assent of faith[17][18]

2. Ecuмenical council
Extraordinary and universal teaching of the Church
Infallible on matters of faith and morals
Full assent of faith[19][20]

3. Bishops, together with the Pope, dispersed but in agreement, proposing definitively
Ordinary and universal teaching of the Church
Infallible on matters of faith and morals
Full assent of faith[21][22]

4. Pope
Ordinary teaching of the Church
Authoritative but non-infallible
Religious Assent. Religious submission of mind, intellect, and will [23][24]

5. Bishop
Ordinary teaching of the Church
Authoritative but non-infallible
Religious assent. Religious submission of mind, intellect, and will[25][26][27]

The chart can be viewed here if that is helpful:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

Would Vatican II come under Number 3? If yes then it would require full assent of the faith, right?

Kazimierz · « **Reply #50 on:** April 27, 2023, 09:15:18 PM »

How can one fill consent to a council clearly shown NOT to be Catholic?
How does one consent to error if one knows it to be error?

So much diabolical subterfuge both just pre V2 and post.

Christe eleison

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #51 on:** April 27, 2023, 09:21:06 PM »

Quote from: Kazimierz on April 27, 2023, 09:15:18 PM

How can one fill consent to a council clearly shown NOT to be Catholic?
How does one consent to error if one knows it to be error?

So much diabolical subterfuge both just pre V2 and post.

Christe eleison

Well, I would have to agree. We cannot consent.

So why do we need a pope or a magisterium then?

If we pick and choose which Councils we consent to, how are we any different than Luther?

Unless that isn't the pope or the magisterium but a False Church?

A false Church.

Not just a false Mass or invalid Mass or irreverent Mass...

A FALSE CHURCH

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #52 on:** April 27, 2023, 09:37:50 PM »

The orchestrators of this coup were very cunning.

They erected a false church (like a straw man) and then they went about destroying it by getting the "conservatives" and "traditionalists" to disobey their pope and their bishops and throw out whole councils according to their desires.

NIFH · « **Reply #53 on:** April 27, 2023, 10:34:13 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on April 27, 2023, 08:37:40 PM

Would Vatican II come under Number 3?

No.

Do not forget universality applies not only to space but time as well.

When Vatican II and Modernist clergy contradict their predecessors, they fall under no category of the magisterium whatsoever.

We do not discard conciliar docuмents out of our own little desires. By their nature they impose a choice: either this new garbage or the teachings of 19 centuries.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #54 on:** April 28, 2023, 01:14:18 AM »

Quote from: NIFH on April 27, 2023, 10:34:13 PM

No.

Do not forget universality applies not only to space but time as well.

When Vatican II and Modernist clergy contradict their predecessors, they fall under no category of the magisterium whatsoever.

We do not discard conciliar docuмents out of our own little desires. By their nature they impose a choice: either this new garbage or the teachings of 19 centuries.

Quote

"When Vatican II and Modernist clergy contradict their predecessors, they fall under no category of the magisterium whatsoever."

Yes, and not just the docuмents, but they themselves as well.

They have fallen OUT of the Church altogether.

They left the Barque:

Matthaeus Conte a Coronata — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950

Quote

“If indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.”

https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/quotes-from-theologians-supporting-the-sedevacantist-position/

Quote

"We do not discard conciliar docuмents out of our own little desires. By their nature they impose a choice: either this new garbage or the teachings of 19 centuries."

Yes, it's all up to us. We must carefully examine all of the docuмents because if we don't the Pope and the Church could teach us falsehood and lead our soul to Hell!

Wait, is that even possible?

From the Act of Faith:
"I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived."

Goodness, do each of us need to go through VI and Trent and study all the previous docuмents and see if those councils are really in line with what came before?

Then we have to buckle down and go through all the other Church Councils and decide for ourselves if they have contradicted themselves?

Whew! I know I can't do that. Who do we trust to study these things? Who do we obey? Didn't God provide us with somebody we could trust on these matters?

Do I ask you? Do I ask a priest? Do I ask folks on Cathinfo?

If the Church is indefectible then why do we have to go to all this trouble? Is this how Catholics treated the pope before the false church took over?

Doesn't this very notion contradict this prior Church teaching:

(I added spaces to help with reading it)

"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason.

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances;

or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.

Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104)

That sounds a lot better. We can trust ourselves to the Roman Pontiff who is guided by Jesus.

Is that true? Did Pius XI get that wrong?

So if we take it upon ourselves to go through and decide what contradicts earlier teaching, that would contradict the earlier teaching of Pius XI wouldn't it?

Besides, wasn't he assuring us we didn't need to do that because we can put our trust in the Church and the Pope? Was he wrong?

As time went on did we discover that we can't trust the Church and the Pope to guide us so we don't need to obey?

What kind of a rotten Church is that? Sounds like a False Church.

So if we ignore Paul VI when he commanded ALL the faithful to accept VII with docility

do we only ignore modern docuмents or can we also ignore earlier ones too?

Here is another earlier docuмent we are ignoring:

“Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successsors.” Pope Pius XI encyclical, Mortalium Animos.

So we gotta obey Paul VI's authority when he says to assent to VII.

Legitimate successors...hmm

It sounds to me like anyone who recognizes Paul VI as a legitimate successor has to obey him or find themselves in schism.

Or can we be like Protestants and pick and choose which earlier docuмents we obey as well as which later ones we obey? Do we pick and choose which popes we obey and which ones we disobey? Isn't that making ourselves pope?

Or...

do we simply give full obedience and trust to the teachings of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as they were passed down to us until the death of Pius XII

rather than destroy the entire concept of the Papacy and Magisterium altogether while

twisting ourselves into pretzels

by trying to remain members of a false church which preaches a different gospel complete with false gods and a false heirarchy which is ipso facto outside the Church?

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
Gal 1:8

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #55 on:** April 28, 2023, 02:45:13 AM »

Great post Miser.

I think it is appropriate to remind people of the etymology of heretic, it comes from the Greek hairetikos meaning 'able to choose'.

The essence of heresy is that you choose what to believe. It all comes down to the motive of faith which we profess in the act of faith - we believe because God has revealed it through His Church.

Those who choose don't have the necessary motive of faith even if they chose all the correct doctrines.

songbird · « **Reply #56 on:** April 28, 2023, 03:22:20 PM »

Did Vatican II have definitions? No. So, we are ignorant if we do not read what makes a Council infallible. Mass that was changed, due to Vatican II, destroyed, went against Faith. The Mass is the Deposit of Faith. Even those of the Vat. II council stated there was nothing to define, there was suggestions, and they of the council said it was a "Pastoral council. It was a meeting. The last True Council is Vat. I. I highly suggest to read "The True Story of Vatican I, by Cardinal Manning.

You will get the Truth of what a True Council is, by definition.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #57 on:** April 28, 2023, 05:25:25 PM »

Quote from: songbird on April 28, 2023, 03:22:20 PM

Did Vatican II have definitions? No. So, we are ignorant if we do not read what makes a Council infallible. Mass that was changed, due to Vatican II, destroyed, went against Faith. The Mass is the Deposit of Faith. Even those of the Vat. II council stated there was nothing to define, there was suggestions, and they of the council said it was a "Pastoral council. It was a meeting. The last True Council is Vat. I. I highly suggest to read "The True Story of Vatican I, by Cardinal Manning.

You will get the Truth of what a True Council is, by definition.

Don't the docuмents use solemn language which makes it binding?

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #58 on:** April 28, 2023, 05:29:42 PM »

Quote from: songbird on April 28, 2023, 03:22:20 PM

Did Vatican II have definitions? No. So, we are ignorant if we do not read what makes a Council infallible. Mass that was changed, due to Vatican II, destroyed, went against Faith. The Mass is the Deposit of Faith. Even those of the Vat. II council stated there was nothing to define, there was suggestions, and they of the council said it was a "Pastoral council. It was a meeting. The last True Council is Vat. I. I highly suggest to read "The True Story of Vatican I, by Cardinal Manning.

You will get the Truth of what a True Council is, by definition.

The Mass is very, very important, but going round and round about the Mass and the changes made to the rites and sacraments is missing the big picture.

The problem is that VII didn't just set the stage for changing the Mass.

It actually changed the Catholic Faith, replacing it with a false religion and false church.

What good is the Latin Mass if your church declares a false religion?

See, I was always told that VII was "just pastoral" and "didn't define anything", "Paul VI said so in his closing statements" and "there is nothing there binding on our conscience to follow".

Now I know that's not true.

Here is the closing statement from Paul VI. It's pointing out in blue what Taylor Marshall quotes in his video on the topic which leaves out half of the statements that make it clear VII

actually is binding on consciences:

But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.
(Paul VI, Closing Speech for the Last General Meeting of the Second Vatican Council, Vatican.va, Dec. 7, 1965; underlining added.)
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual docuмents.
(Paul VI, Audience of Jan. 12, 1966; English translation from The Pope Speaks 11, n. 2 [Spring 1966], pp. 152-154; underlining added. Italian original here.)

I had never learned what Ordinary Magisterium means. That's why I posted the chart in my post above. You can also see the chart halfway down this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

I was always told that if "it's not infallible we don't have to worry about it and if it's not ex-cathedra it's not infallible".

Nope. That's a lie!

Again, that chart makes it clear we have to give religious assent and submission of mind, intellect and will

to the ORDINARY Magisterium.

1870 Vatican Council taught:

Quote

All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.
(Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3, “Concerning Faith”, Denzinger 1792)

Okay, so we have to ask ourselves,

do I give religious assent, submission of mind, intellect and will

to the following teachings of VII which according to VI

are to be believed as divinely revealed?

Muslims worship the same god as Catholics
Hindus make a loving, trusting flight toward God
The Catholic Church promotes the good found in all religions
and on and on...
(CMRI site has good side by side comparisons of all the changes that are in direct opposition to Tradition)

No. I do not give religious assent. I do not submit my mind intellect and will to such blasphemy!

If we did that we would apostatize! We can't do that.

Likewise, since all of those docuмents are apostasy

anyone who signed them publicly apostatized.

Therefore, after they apostatized, (the GREAT Apostasy)

they left the Barque

and established a false church with a false hierarchy.

(Chrislam Universal Church of NWO

)

Any church which proclaims those things is clearly not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Now we have to decide if we want to be members of that false church

or of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We simply can't be in both churches.

NIFH · « **Reply #59 on:** April 28, 2023, 08:36:19 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on April 28, 2023, 01:14:18 AM

or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.

"Presumed." We cannot reject what the pope says simply because we presume he is wrong when not speaking ex cathedra. We must prove it, which is within the powers of a 5-year-old when dealing with recent popes.

Nobody leaves the Church by pronouncing material heresy alone. It must be formal. If by innocent misunderstanding or a mistake in speech I say a heresy, it is only material. To become a formal heretic I must say, "The Church says X but I say Y."

It is possible for a pope to lead souls to Hell, not the Church. There have been a few other miserable popes in Church history.

We are confronted with a false church. The True Church continues 'eclipsed' by it. We have a pope who is simultaneously the Vicar of Christ and the President of the false church. Unfortunately all his efforts seem to be put to the service of his masonic club while he neglects his duties to Christ's Immaculate Spouse.

Author Topic: Accepting Vatican II (Read 16692 times)

NIFH

Re: Accepting Vatican II

Miser Peccator

Re: Accepting Vatican II

songbird

Re: Accepting Vatican II

Miser Peccator

Re: Accepting Vatican II

Miser Peccator

Re: Accepting Vatican II

Kazimierz

Re: Accepting Vatican II

Miser Peccator

Re: Accepting Vatican II

Miser Peccator

Re: Accepting Vatican II

NIFH

Re: Accepting Vatican II

Miser Peccator

Re: Accepting Vatican II

Marulus Fidelis

Re: Accepting Vatican II

songbird

Re: Accepting Vatican II

AnthonyPadua

Re: Accepting Vatican II

Miser Peccator

Re: Accepting Vatican II

NIFH

Re: Accepting Vatican II