DR-


The validity of a pope is known and certain merely by the fact that his rule enjoys UPA, but this is not the foundation for a valid/true ecuмenical council.

Ever since Archbishop Viganò’s June 9 letter and his subsequent writing on the subject, people have been discussing what it might mean to “annul” the Second Vatican Council.

I see three theoretical possibilities for a future pope.

1. He could publish a new Syllabus of Errors (as Bishop Schneider proposed all the way back in 2010) that identifies and condemns common errors associated with Vatican II while not attributing them explicitly to Vatican II: “If anyone says XYZ, let him be anathema.” This would leave open the degree to which the Council docuмents actually contain the errors; it would, however, close the door to many popular “readings” of the Council.

2. He could declare that, in looking back over the past half-century, we can see that the Council docuмents, on account of their ambiguities and difficulties, have caused more harm than good in the life of the Church and should, in the future, no longer be referenced as authoritative in theological discussion. The Council should be treated as a historic event whose relevance has passed. Again, this stance would not need to assert that the docuмents are in error; it would be an acknowledgement that the Council has shown itself to be “more trouble than it’s worth.”

3. He could specifically “disown” or set aside certain docuмents or parts of docuмents, even as parts of the Council of Constance were never recognized or were repudiated.

Here are Kwasniewski's thoughts, from the article +Viganò was referencing.

Through some combination of these, and recognising the fact that V2 never declared dogma(and its errors were designed to be vague rather than explicit), it may be possible to effectively annul Vatican 2 by correcting its errors, condemning its false fruits, and simply overriding its constitutions. After reading back through it, I think there is a fair argument to be made that since Paul VI explicitly denied that the council taught anything with the "note of infallibility", the council's designation as "ecuмenical" is effectively meaningless. We take an ecuмenical council to be one that teaches infallibly, yet its own presiding pope denied that it did this, which opens the possibility that it could be erroneous without posing insurmountable problems for the integrity of the Magisterium.

I don't know that defining something infallibly is inherent in the definition of an Ecuмenical Council ... not in any of the theological definitions I've seen.  I think it's typically assumed that ECs do that, but I've never seen this articulated as an essential part of the definition.

But if it lacks universality, it is not magisterial at all (ie., such acts would all be at the level of authentic magisterium, which designation is actually a misnomer).
There is no such thing as a fallible ordinary magisterium.
Such acts would be on par with the writings of a private doctor.

If you redefine "Ecuмenical Council" and Vatican 2 doesn't fit the definition, you've explained why it's not. This is what he is doing. He is effectively saying that a council that is heterogenous with Tradition isn't a council. As I said, it's too convenient. One could simply remove an "obex" by changing the implicated terminology; this is what he is doing: an ecuмenical council is a universal council open to all the bishops of the Church which has been called by the pope and whose teachings are confirmed by the pope, as long as those teachings are not heterogenous with prior teachings of the Magisterium. That clause is his "why": V2 is heterogenous.  

It's a linguistic voila . . . and the problem is gone.  

Is that his argument?  There's a huge problem with this.  Magisterium is known a priori to any examination of its contents.  If I can reject teachings of the Magisterium based on my private judgment that it's incompatible with Tradition, then there's no such thing as a priori authoritative Magisterium.  It makes private judgment the ultimate rule of faith.  This is not acceptable.

As I said, he's grasping at straws.  But it's a step in the right direction.  He started by simply pointing out that V2 is filled with erroneous doctrine (not just ambiguous).  Now he's got to come to terms with HOW it's possible for V2 to have done this.  At least the question is stirring in his mind.