Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Accepting Vatican II  (Read 16519 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NIFH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Reputation: +60/-30
  • Gender: Male
Re: Accepting Vatican II
« Reply #60 on: April 28, 2023, 08:40:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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'.
    Perhaps you could find for us the term for 'obliged to choose'.  The docuмents of Vatican II are incompatible with Tradition.  It's one or the other.

    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #61 on: April 28, 2023, 08:51:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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,
    This is one of the 586 million examples of Modernist clergy trying to call Vatican II 'magisterium'.  Remember the universality in time again.  The council contradicts the magisterium of 19 centuries, and is therefore not magisterium at all.


    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #62 on: April 28, 2023, 10:51:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Perhaps you could find for us the term for 'obliged to choose'.  The docuмents of Vatican II are incompatible with Tradition.  It's one or the other.
    Yes, it's one or the other.

    One Church or the other "church".

    Christ founded only One Religion.  There is only One God.

    If as you say, the docuмents of VII are incompatible with Tradition

    so is the post VII church since all involved apostatized.

    Pope St Pius X and other Popes clearly condemned the errors of Modernism, and put religious indifferentism on the same level as apostasy - not just heresy.

    It was the Great Apostasy.

    All who signed on apostatized.

    So why would we pay attention to what apostates are saying about the Church or the Catholic Faith?

    They have ipso facto fallen from office.

    We should treat them and their council the same as we would a Lutheran council or a Baptist council

    or a UN council since they allow for worship of all gods.

    It's a false church. 

    It's not the Catholic Church (despite what they say).

    If we obey the pre-Vatican II teachings of the Church, we can freely submit without needing to pick and "choose".

    In fact you are not free to "choose"...


    12. Can Catholics, in good conscience, withhold religous assent to the Pope’s ordinary universal teachings?

    No, they cannot. Pope Pius XII declared in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950):6 “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For, these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: ‘He who heareth you, heareth Me’ (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and the will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.”

    https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/a-primer-on-infallibility/
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #63 on: April 28, 2023, 11:05:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is one of the 586 million examples of Modernist clergy trying to call Vatican II 'magisterium'.  Remember the universality in time again.  The council contradicts the magisterium of 19 centuries, and is therefore not magisterium at all.


    Pius X would call "modernist clergy"

    "apostate clergy".





    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +401/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #64 on: April 29, 2023, 02:53:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • First off, that's wrong, he just must know what the Church teaches, he doesn't have to say it.

    But here's just a few of dozens of quotes where an antipope indicates what is the true teaching before he denies it.

    “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’. It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”


    “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 234: “Vatican Council I had said that the pope can make definitive decisions not only with the consent of the Church but also in his own right (‘ex sese’). Although many efforts were made during Vatican Council II to interpret this harsh and very ambiguous formula in such a way that its real meaning would be more readily apparent, they were not successfulat that time because of disagreement among those concerned. It is my opinion that what was then only a wish is again being attempted in this section of the ‘Declaration’ [a post-Vatican II docuмent]. It is no longer simply stated that the teaching ministry can make decisions on its own – ex sese. Now it is more accurately stated that, while the teaching ministry always acts against the background of the faith and prayer of the whole Church, ‘its office is not reduced merely to ratifying the assent already expressed by the latter…’”


    So do you now acknowledge Ratzinger is a formal heretic even by your own standards?


    Here's a bonus notorious heresy:

    “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 202: “But we can define the required action even more clearly in terms of the above diagnosis. It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality.”

    There's over 30 heresies in Principles of Catholic Theology alone. You can check out Ratzinger's hundreds of heresies by book on MHFM's site.



    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #65 on: April 29, 2023, 06:33:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • First off, that's wrong, he just must know what the Church teaches, he doesn't have to say it.
    If he knows, he is subjectively a heretic, in the state of mortal sin.  The Church cannot judge if he knows or not, only God can.  De internis non judicat ecclesia.  If he tells us he knows that he's contradicting the Church, he becomes a formal heretic.  This is what is needed for a pope to lose his office.

    Cardinal Ratzinger was famous for his mistaken concept of Tradition.  He thought Church teaching could grow and change under the influence of the people's studies and 'religious experiences'.  This is why he thought he could say, "The Church taught X and now She teaches Y."  This is different from formal heresy:  "The Church teaches X but I say Y."  He was materially a heretic, God knows whether subjectively or not, but not a formal heretic.

    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #66 on: April 29, 2023, 06:45:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • All who signed on apostatized.

    They have ipso facto fallen from office.
    They think they are following the evolution of Church teaching, which now embraces false religions.  Objectively it is apostasy.  Subjectively they proclaim to want to follow what they imagine to be the teaching of the Church.  This is not formal heresy, and does not make them lose office.

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #67 on: April 29, 2023, 07:36:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They think they are following the evolution of Church teaching, which now embraces false religions.  Objectively it is apostasy.  Subjectively they proclaim to want to follow what they imagine to be the teaching of the Church.  This is not formal heresy, and does not make them lose office.

    Ah yes, they are imaginary Catholics

    promoting the worship of false gods

    in an imaginary catholic church

    because they have been deposed by Divine Law.



    If somebody believes they are a dog

    do we go along and give them bones?

    Madness!

    Objectively they are human

    even though subjectively they believe they are a dog.

    Well these poor prelates are objectively NOT Catholic.

    We are not to play along with their delusion.

    We are to have nothing to do with them.

    We owe no obedience to any apostate much less

    delusional apostates

    or their church of Chrislam.

    "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".
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon


    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #68 on: April 29, 2023, 08:11:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If somebody believes they are a dog

    do we go along and give them bones?
    On the contrary, we keep a good distance, build our own emergency chapels, and condemn their errors loudly and unflinchingly.

    The supposed 'Church teachings' they follow are imaginary.  Whether or not they have subjectively left the True Church neither you nor I nor anyone but God can judge.  Objectively, however, there is no doubt about it.

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #69 on: April 30, 2023, 02:52:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • On the contrary, we keep a good distance, build our own emergency chapels, and condemn their errors loudly and unflinchingly.

    The supposed 'Church teachings' they follow are imaginary.  Whether or not they have subjectively left the True Church neither you nor I nor anyone but God can judge.  Objectively, however, there is no doubt about it.

    Why do you need to keep a distance from your own pope?


    Now you make yourself pope and try to judge which teachings you will submit to, whether they be Ex-Cathedra or

    Ordinary Magisterium,

    and which ones you won't

    and you are in schism:




    (emphasis on the word "legitimate")

    So the title of this thread could be

    "To schism or not to schism, that is the question!"

    Why do you resist their authority??

    Why would anybody need to keep distance from their pope?

    That's a very anti-Catholic notion!

    Didn't Jesus promise they would not fail?

    "He that heareth you, heareth me" Luke 10:16

    The pope and the bishops in union with the pope are the voice of the Church. This voice is used in order to teach each day. Listen to Pope Pius XI stating it with his authority:

    Quote
    “The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever intact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men.”
    https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/papal-infallibility-and-the-crisis-in-the-church-today/

    (Note:  Is the First Commandment part of revealed doctrines to remain intact forever???)


    Are you keeping your distance until the Church is "restored" to her former glory? 






    Restoration and Regeneration?

    I've heard conservative and trad priests and pundits talk about waiting for a

    a good pope

    a "Catholic" pope

    who will one day restore and regenerate the Church and its teachings.

    Yeah, that's not how it works. 

    There have been sinful popes but not heretical popes.

    Besides, how is it possible that you are qualified to judge magisterial teachings

    but you are not qualified to see that they are apostates

    who left the Catholic Church?

    You know Pius X and other popes declared indifferentism is apostasy, right?

    Didn't all those prelates at VII sign docuмents declaring indifferentism to the whole world?

    That really happened.

    They put their name on it.

    As you said, objectively there is no doubt they are apostates.


    The dangerous problem is, if we worship in union with apostates who promote the worship of false gods

    we also apostatize.

    Yikes!

    Therefore we must be qualified to know they are apostates or we cannot possibly avoid this mortal sin and our own removal from the One True Church.


    Quote
    The Council of Laodicea in 365 AD stated, “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.”

    But how do we know?  What if they worship demons in St Peter's Basilica but deep inside believe they are still Catholic?

    They might be a formal demon worshiper but not subjectively believe in their heart and mind that demon worship is not opposed the Catholic faith after all.

    What if they believe Allah is God the Father but inside their heart of hearts still believe they are Catholic?

    sniff, sniff...ugh!  ::)

    I wouldn't try that argument with God on judgement day.  smh


    Quote
    St. Cyril of Alexandria echoed these same sentiments when he said, “It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion.”

    Unite ourselves to their communion??  Like "una cuм"?

    Whoah...

    But St Cyril, how can we tell?  What if they say Hindu's believe in God the Father  but on the inside they subjectively still believe they are truly Catholic? We simply can't judge such things subjectively can we?    ::)


    Quote
    Council of Carthage in the fifth century decreed, “One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated.”

    That's scary!  Well, it's a good thing we are completely off the hook on this one because
    "Whether or not they have subjectively left the True Church neither you nor I nor anyone but God can judge."

    Well God will judge their internal forum but we know that Divine law causes them to be

    ipso facto removed from the Church,

    which means we should not continue to stay in communion with them and their false religion.


    Quote
    St. Thomas Aquinas, said, “To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls…Thus, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.”

    Forsaken the faith...yep we all saw that! 

    That makes them unbelievers?

    Hmm.."communicate with those unbelievers"

    as in worship "una cuм"?

    As in remain in communion with?

    As in celebrate Holy Mass "una cuм" the demon worshiper and his false church that promotes worshiping false gods?

    As in communion with those who say Allah is God the Father and Hindu's also worship God the Father?

    We are forbidden to communicate with those unbelievers?

    So all the V2 prelates

    publicly declared themselves to be unbelievers

    and we are forbidden

    to communicate with them

    or any of the esteemed prelates following in their footsteps with their false religion?

    Wait, but did they really leave?

    Aren't they just in partial communion?  Kind of, sort of...


    Quote
    They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule… to favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings, is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.”

    Quote
    Let us focus attention on the phrase “tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.” This phrase is another definition of the word “apostasy.” According to Pope Pius XI, to hold to false ecuмenism and to encourage it, is equivalent to apostasy.

    Yep.  They really left.  They left the Barque.

    Elvis...

    all the prelates who signed on to VII have left the building---

    they left the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    The Sedes didn't leave.  They left.

    It was the GREAT APOSTASY

    It really happened. :(

    It's sad. Really sad!  It requires processing the five stages of grief to accept.

    But it's the truth.

    Our Lord told us this was coming:


    Quote
    …for the day of the Lord will not come unless the

    Apostasy comes first

    and the man of sin is revealed… so that he sits in the temple of God… for the mystery of iniquity is already at work; provided only that

    he who is at present restraining it,

    does still restrain, until he is gotten out of the way” (II Thess. 2:3-4).

    So the Great Apostasy comes first and then the RESTRAINER

    is gotten out of the way.

    Who is the restrainer??  The Katechon.

    That would be the pope.

    He's gotten out of the way.

    Removed.

    Sede vacante...




    So anyway, we have to make judgements about whom we will pray

    in union with (una cuм)

    and are clearly qualified to do so

    lest we apostatize ourselves!

    We must not only distance ourselves from apostates,

    we must not worship in union with apostates.

    We must not obey apostates.

    We must not encourage others to worship in union with or obey apostates.

    We must not call them priests or bishops or popes.

    We must not recognize them as any kind of authority.

    We must see apostates for what they truly are.

    Apostates are no longer members of the Church.

    They are outside the Barque.



    It is our responsibility to protect our soul.

    God will judge their internal forum on the grounds of "subjectively"

    and Divine law automatically deposes them.



    Pope Innocent III:
    Quote
    “The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”

    already judged

    good for nothing



    A. VermeerschEpitome Iuris Canonici, 1949
    Quote
    “At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as

     a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any

     declaratory sentence
    (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he

     would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is

     no longer a member of the Church
    is unable to possess.”

    without declaratory sentence

    automatically

    ipso facto



    Edward F. RegatilloInstitutiones Iuris Canonici, 1956
    Quote
    “‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could he be its head.”

    ipso facto



    Billot
    De Ecclesia, 1927

    Quote
    “Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”

    by that very fact

    by his own will



    St. Francis de Sales:
    Quote
    “Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ”

    ipso facto

    out of the Church


    St. Robert Bellarmine:
    Quote
    “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

    ceases automatically

    not a Christian

    not a member of the Church

    lost all jurisdiction


    "But they haven't been declared heretics formally by the "false" church..."

    First why would the false church declare them heretics?  They won't.

    On the contrary, they declare them saints!

    But how can we be sure they really are heretics?

    It's not hard.


    "A manifest heretic is someone whose error or doubt in faith cannot be hidden by any excuse".

    It's certainly not hidden and there is no excuse.


    You don't need a degree in theology to know the First Commandment.

    Yeah, there is no excuse for worshiping false gods

    or encouraging others to worship false gods.

    and there is no excuse for those who are in communion

    with those who do so.

    It's just the Freemasonic One World Chrislam church of the nwo, Inc.

    Count me out!

    God counts them out of the True Church and I'm with Him:

    St. Alphonsus Liguori:
    Quote
    “If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

    by such fact

    cease to be pope

    at once

    chair vacant

    St. Antoninus:
    Quote
    “In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

    by that fact alone

    without any other sentence

    separated from the Church

    cut off!!

    You can see more quotes here:
    https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/quotes-from-theologians-supporting-the-sedevacantist-position/


    So it's really not very confusing at all.

    It's very, very simple and easy to see.

    It's just hard to accept...

    but it's GOOD NEWS!

    Why???

    Because otherwise, the popes and the Catholic Church are leading souls to Hell

    and Jesus was a liar.

    No.  Jesus was not a liar.

    The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is still here.

    The deposit of the faith is being preserved.

    That other thing is a false church and false religion of apostates.

    Time to get out!


    see this for more on the beauty of the true papacy:



    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #70 on: April 30, 2023, 03:45:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh and just to clarify,

    when I say this post could be called, 

    "To schism or not to schism"

    I'm referring to the Recognize and Resist position

    because it's clear that taking that position is schismatic:


    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon


    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #71 on: April 30, 2023, 09:07:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Now you make yourself pope and try to judge which teachings you will submit to, whether they be Ex-Cathedra or

    Ordinary Magisterium,

    and which ones you won't.

    Why would anybody need to keep distance from their pope?

    There have been sinful popes but not heretical popes.

    "A manifest heretic is someone whose error or doubt in faith cannot be hidden by any excuse".

    It's certainly not hidden and there is no excuse.
    Everyone chooses between Vatican II and the teachings of 19 centuries.  The two options exclude one another.  Try to understand the universality in time.  Vatican II is not magisterium even if you say so with bold font.

    We keep distance because of their heretical notions.

    Read about Pope Honorius.  He was a Monothelitist.  After his death he was denounced by the Church as a miserable pope.  You will find him listed in the Annuario Pontificio to this day.

    The recent materially heretical popes have a mistaken concept of Tradition.  This does not make their heresies true, but may very well excuse them subjectively.  They had false teachers in their seminary training, poor things.  Judge not that ye may not be judged.  Once they admit that they are contradicting the Church, we got 'em.

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #72 on: May 01, 2023, 06:57:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Everyone chooses between Vatican II and the teachings of 19 centuries.  The two options exclude one another.  Try to understand the universality in time.  Vatican II is not magisterium even if you say so with bold font.

    We keep distance because of their heretical notions.

    Read about Pope Honorius.  He was a Monothelitist.  After his death he was denounced by the Church as a miserable pope.  You will find him listed in the Annuario Pontificio to this day.

    The recent materially heretical popes have a mistaken concept of Tradition.  This does not make their heresies true, but may very well excuse them subjectively.  They had false teachers in their seminary training, poor things.  Judge not that ye may not be judged.  Once they admit that they are contradicting the Church, we got 'em.

    Vatican II is not magisterial because I say so, of course. 

    It's magisterial because of bold lettering!   lol :)

    No, it is magisterial because Paul VI declared it:

    Here it is again:

    Quote
    "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"

    If he is a legitimate successor then VII has to be accepted with docility and you have to give religious submission of mind, intellect and will.


    As posted above, resisting your pope has been declared to be schism by Pius IX.
    Do you also resist Pope Pius IX?

    If I'm not sure which pope to resist, can I ask you?



    With regards to Honorius:

    Unfortunately, there are some who would falsely claim that popes have officially erred in the past; they refer to Pope Honorius and Pope Liberius. However, this is simply not true. To refute this, we read from the book The Vatican Council and its Definitions by Cardinal Henry Manning (1870):
    Quote
    “I will, nevertheless, here affirm, that the following points in the case of Honorius can be abundantly proved from docuмents:

    • That Honorius defined no doctrine whatsoever.
    • That he forbade the making of any new definition.
    • That his fault was precisely in this omission of apostolic authority, for which he was justly censured.
    • That his two epistles are entirely orthodox; though, in the use of language, he wrote as was usual before the condemnation of Monothelitism, and not as it became necessary afterwards. It is an anachronism and an injustice to censure his language, used before that condemnation, as it might be just to censure it after the condemnation had been made.
    “To this I add the following excellent passage from the recent Pastoral of the Archbishop of Baltimore:
    “That case of Honorius forms no exception; for
    1st Honorius expressly says in his letters to Sergius, that he meant to define nothing, and he was condemned precisely because he temporized and would not define;
    2nd Because in his letters he clearly taught the sound Catholic doctrine, only enjoining silence as to the use of certain terms, then new in the Church; and
    3rd Because his letters were not addressed to a general council of the whole Church, and were rather private, than public and official; at least they were not published, even in the East, until several years later. The first letter was written to Sergius in 633, and eight years afterwards, in 641, the emperor Heraclius, in exculpating himself to Pope John II, Honorius’ successor, for having published his edict — the Ecthesis — which enjoined silence on the disputants, similar to that imposed by Honorius, lays the whole responsibility thereof on Sergius, who he declares, composed the edict. Evidently, Sergius had not communicated the letter to the Emperor, probably because its contents, if published, would not have suited his wily purpose of secretly introducing, under another form, the Eutcyhian heresy. Thus falls to the ground the only case upon which the opponents of Infallibility have continued to insists. This entire subject has been exhausted by many recent learned writers.”
    https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/on-the-vacancy-of-the-apostolic-see/




    Quote
    The recent materially heretical popes have a mistaken concept of Tradition.  This does not make their heresies true, but may very well excuse them subjectively.  They had false teachers in their seminary training, poor things.  Judge not that ye may not be judged.  Once they admit that they are contradicting the Church, we got 'em.
    Yes, God bless them for they have been deceived.

    The First Commandment is not hard to understand.

    Where in the Magisterial statements regarding avoiding communion with apostates (posted in previous comment)

    does it say "unless they are subjectively" not really apostates?  

    Do you have any Magisterial statements from that say we should remain in communion with heretics and apostates?  

    Did any saints ever say that?


    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Soubirous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2109
    • Reputation: +1662/-44
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #73 on: May 01, 2023, 01:00:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Never mind Vatican II. They're already galloping through Vatican III. That's what's really on the table for acceptance.

    Permanent synodality yet without even the facade anymore of decisions reached after debate and deliberation by bishops. Now, laypeople too will have equal standing in legislative say over the direction that conciliarism henceforth takes. Not just any laypeople, but progressive busybodies hand-picked by the least Catholic of the nominally Catholic hierarchy.

    Let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you, all things pass away: God never changes. Patience obtains all things. He who has God finds he lacks nothing; God alone suffices. - St. Teresa of Jesus

    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Accepting Vatican II
    « Reply #74 on: May 01, 2023, 06:05:07 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • No, it is magisterial because Paul VI declared it:

    If I'm not sure which pope to resist, can I ask you?
    Paul VI called Vatican II 'magisterium'.  He was wrong.  Popes can be wrong.  Pope Nicholas I said baptism "in the Name of Christ" is valid.  He was wrong.  He did not cease to be pope.

    Feel free to ask me.  I will try my best to give an answer based on traditional Church teaching.  Or skip me, I'm fallible, and consult Church teaching yourself.

    When a heresy rears its head, it is the pope's strict duty to fight it.  Honorius wrote about the very topic the contemporary heresy was concerned with, and failed to use the opportunity to fight Monothelitism.

    When St. Peter went along with the demands of the Circuмcisionists, he did not say they were right, but he did not use the opportunity to clearly put down the heresy.  That is why St. Paul resisted him publicly--to his face, and Holy Scripture says St. Paul was right.  We are right to resist these popes publicly-- to the face.