Author Topic: Vatican II, was it Pastoral? (Read 2011 times)

Machabees · « **on:** March 01, 2014, 10:53:59 AM »

As Vatican II by tile is called an "Ecuмenical Council", it none the less is in its nature a Pastoral Council. However, I have heard many times over the years, mostly from Sedevacantists, that Vatican II was not a "Pastoral Council"; even to deny the nature of such a thing.

Now whether Vatican II was a valid Council is another subject; and there is ample proof that it was not. For sure, the Holiness of the Church will fix this problem when the Good God is finished his chastisements (La Salette).

I encourage those who may have some doubts on this, to go to your search engine (Startpage.com), and type in any combinations of words, like: Pastoral Council, Vatican II, and you will find a lot of references to that regard.

Here are a couple of them that includes a lot of quotes from the Vatican II Popes themselves:

- "Vatican II Was Just Pastoral - According To Popes":
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/02/vatican-ii-was-just-pastoral-according.html

- "On The Pastoral Nature Of Vatican II: An Evaluation":
http://centreleonardboyle.com/PastoralCVII.html

- "What Is The Authority Of Vatican II?":
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq08.txt

soulguard · « **Reply #1 on:** March 01, 2014, 11:16:00 AM »

When most of the bishops do something, that thing becomes an infallible act. This is why they are protected by the holy spirit from preaching heresy, so long as they are part of the church. If they preach heresy, they are not part of the church. Vatican 2 was made infallible by the unanimous assent of the bishops to it, but these bishops, having accepted the heresy of vatican 2, left the church, and became heretics, their assent to vatican 2 was heretics agreeing with other heretics, but the Catholic church was betrayed by such men.

songbird · « **Reply #2 on:** March 01, 2014, 11:22:38 AM »

Vatican II was a joke! The party of 5 became the majority and bullied the other 350 or more clergy, a complete take over by 5! Nothing defined by laws of Holy Mother Church. That's Marxist for you!

Cantarella · « **Reply #3 on:** March 01, 2014, 12:04:01 PM »

For those who defend that Vatican II is pastoral and 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)

Cantarella · « **Reply #4 on:** March 01, 2014, 12:08:30 PM »

Quote from: soulguard

When most of the bishops do something, that thing becomes an infallible act.

Not true.

The entirety of the bishops, including the Bishop of Rome or the Pope who is their head, compose or incorporate the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the whole Church, which is infallible. The magisterium consists of every bishop and not of each one of the bishops in isolation or separated from the others. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope alone is not and cannot be the Universal.

soulguard · « **Reply #5 on:** March 01, 2014, 02:43:06 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: soulguard
When most of the bishops do something, that thing becomes an infallible act.

Not true.

The entirety of the bishops, including the Bishop of Rome or the Pope who is their head, compose or incorporate the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the whole Church, which is infallible. The magisterium consists of every bishop and not of each one of the bishops in isolation or separated from the others. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope alone is not and cannot be the Universal.

Ok ms, perfectionist. So IF "ALL" of the bishops do a thing, it is infallible. But that is what happened with vatican 2. ALL but for two or three opposed the council. That almost unanimous consent to vatican 2 made it an act of the magesterium.

The only way to reject vatican 2 is to reject the conciliar popes, and also reject the bishops who adopted the counter catholic sect.

Bishop sanborn destroys the arguments of Bishop williamson.
Bishop williamson basically says that the church is infallible except when its not.
+Sanborn is right to call this recognise and resist position a creation of econe.
Nowhere in church history has such a thing been thought as far as I know.
If the pope is the pope and he proposes a new discipline, you must adopt it.
That is why the R&Rs are either in technical schism from the conciliar church OR they are in communion with non-Catholics in the vatican by recognising francis as a pope.
I know this much, if francis is no catholic then he is no pope.

soulguard · « **Reply #6 on:** March 01, 2014, 02:47:36 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

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)

BUT what is spoken on faith and morals by a pope is not the only thing that is infallible.
What is also infallible is what is associated with faith and morals but is described by something else.
The new mass is a new discipline, BUT it is associated with faith and morals by its substance.

Now because the pope and the bishops adopted this new discipline, it becomes an act of the magesterium, infallible in itself, BUT also infallible because the new mass and new sacraments are related to faith and morals and the infallibility of the pope is extended to them.

If people didnt believe vatican 2 was infallible then why did everybody adopt it, much to the dislike of many in the church.

Machabees · « **Reply #7 on:** March 01, 2014, 11:16:36 PM »

Quote from: soulguard

When most of the bishops do something, that thing becomes an infallible act. This is why they are protected by the holy spirit from preaching heresy, so long as they are part of the church. If they preach heresy, they are not part of the church. Vatican 2 was made infallible by the unanimous assent of the bishops to it, but these bishops, having accepted the heresy of vatican 2, left the church, and became heretics, their assent to vatican 2 was heretics agreeing with other heretics, but the Catholic church was betrayed by such men.

I have highlighted your above statements in red.

Soulguard, it is Truth that is infallible; not men, or the virtue of a Prelate. As God is Truth; and Truth comes from God, it is passed through men as Revelation; as Faith comes by hearing, no one can change it; nor make the Truth "more of a Truth"; only describe it more fully; as past Popes and Councils have done.

Regardless of “groups” of men, groups of Bishops, or Popes, and having all of the bishops together with the pope agreeing on something, does NOT make something infallible. That would be no different than a bunch of elephants getting together and agreeing on lunch. Truth stands by itself; groups of men only proclaim it. To say what you said makes it humanistic and tribal; and would be definitely a cult. Vatican II was in error from its past; and in error from Revelation; it was not infallible.

Please read Bishop Williamson's latest Eleison Comments (TRUTH FIRST, Number CCCXLVI (346) 1st March 2014). He discusses this very thing.
http://www.dinoscopus.org/#thisweek

Cantarella · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2014, 11:44:26 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

Soulguard, it is Truth that is infallible; not men, or the virtue of a Prelate. As God is Truth; and Truth comes from God, it is passed through men as Revelation; as Faith comes by hearing, no one can change it; nor make the Truth "more of a Truth"; only describe it more fully; as past Popes and Councils have done.

Regardless of “groups” of men, groups of Bishops, or Popes, and having all of the bishops together with the pope agreeing on something, does NOT make something infallible. That would be no different than a bunch of elephants getting together and agreeing on lunch. Truth stands by itself; groups of men only proclaim it. To say what you said makes it humanistic and tribal; and would be definitely a cult. Vatican II was in error from its past; and in error from Revelation; it was not infallible.

Very well said :applause:

soulguard · « **Reply #9 on:** March 01, 2014, 11:51:09 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Machabees

Soulguard, it is Truth that is infallible; not men, or the virtue of a Prelate. As God is Truth; and Truth comes from God, it is passed through men as Revelation; as Faith comes by hearing, no one can change it; nor make the Truth "more of a Truth"; only describe it more fully; as past Popes and Councils have done.

Regardless of “groups” of men, groups of Bishops, or Popes, and having all of the bishops together with the pope agreeing on something, does NOT make something infallible. That would be no different than a bunch of elephants getting together and agreeing on lunch. Truth stands by itself; groups of men only proclaim it. To say what you said makes it humanistic and tribal; and would be definitely a cult. Vatican II was in error from its past; and in error from Revelation; it was not infallible.

Very well said :applause:

:judge:He is wrong because he is corrupted by +williamson and his customized theology.
The bishops ARE the church, when they proclaim a thing in unison, that thing is infallible because the church is infallible. You hardly think that they can all proclaim error and the truth be something different do you? O yes you do! I forgot that some of you follow the econeian customized catholicism of lefebvre where you recognize an antipope and an apostate church but resist them because, well, you feel like it. It is you who is in communion with an apostate church, and if you are not, then you lie to yourself, but also you are in schism from your own false church. That is where +Williamsons fix nothing solutions gets you. +Sanborn has better theology. :judge:

fast777 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 02, 2014, 12:07:47 AM »

Vatican II was a Pastoral Council it corrected no error,nor was it a teaching council.

First Constitution of Vatican II: Sacrosanctuum Concillium 12/4/63

In paragraph 1 it states “It is the goal of this most sacred Council…to make more responsive the requirements of our times those Church observances which are open to adaptation; to nurture whatever can contribute to the unity of all who believe in Christ”.

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

It was a Heretical Council from the beginning and to say different is in error.

fast777 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 02, 2014, 12:20:00 AM »

It's the same foolishness as the Protestant Evangilicals believe that truth changes by individual interpretation and experiences of man by man. This heresy has been condemmed by the Church.

But what do you expect from the New Church?

TKGS · « **Reply #12 on:** March 02, 2014, 12:02:06 PM »

A friend of mine who splits his time between an SSPX chapel and the Archdiocesan indult parish sends a lot of questions to one of the priests at the indult parish and, for reasons that I have been unable to fathom, forwards the responses from this priest to me and to a large number of other people with whom he has in his address book.

Since I'm not really sure how public this priest wishes his responses to be made, I think it best that I not disclose his name. However, this priest is a priest in good standing with the Archdiocese of Indianapolis. While I don't know what they mean, he has a lot of titles that follow his name: "STB, BA, SLL, PHL" so I presume he must be pretty smart and is well versed in the teaching of the Novus Ordo church.

This is what he said with regards to the status of Vatican II (i.e., "dogmatic" or "pastoral") according to the Conciliar church in response to an article that was forwarded to him concerning the dogmatic/pastoral question:

Quote from: Novus Ordo Priest who says the Indult Mass

I do not know who the slow-witted author is, who thinks himself traditional by distinguishing between "pastoral" and "dogmatic" ecuмenical councils. The distinction is specious, unknown to the Fathers and Doctors, and smacks of capriciousness, like (per FI) crypto-Lefebvrianism.

With such a ps.-distinction, it is little wonder that the other so-called distinctions of this piece (thanks be to God that no trees have to give their lives anymore for such an ilk thanks to the internet) are invalidated by the first and most-false premise, viz., that the dogmatic integrity of a dogmatic constitution or universally promulgated docuмent of the Universal Church approved by the Pontiff, touching on faith and morals, is somehow "pastoral" and therefore may be errant in faith and morals.

Based on everything I hear the popes, bishops, priests, and theologians of the Conciliar church say about Vatican II, it seems to me that this is an accurate characterization of what they think is the status of Vatican II.

JPaul · « **Reply #13 on:** March 02, 2014, 01:02:49 PM »

A prerequisite to asking what the nature of the council was should be was it Catholic? The answer to that seems to be self evident.

BTNYC · « **Reply #14 on:** March 03, 2014, 12:06:08 PM »

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/VPlYS49p1ZM[/youtube]