Author Topic: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia (Read 8004 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #30 on:** September 23, 2020, 10:25:27 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 23, 2020, 09:02:06 AM

I disagree, and believe theologians have used temporal universality as a necessary criterion to distinguish true from false teaching going all the way back at least to the 5th century (eg., St. Vincent of Lerrin’s famous Commonitorium):

“Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. (2.6)”

I'll put off whether I agree with you in the interpretation of this, since what we're dealing with here is obedience to authority and how the Church interprets it. In the words of the notorious Holy Office letter:

Quote

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Here's a link to an authoritative explanation of the canon by Cardinal Franzelin:

https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/franzelin-vincentian-canon.pdf

He says that universality is confirmed in either of 2 ways: a) the present consensus of the Church; or, b) the consensus of relative antiquity.

Now if you want to argue this interpretation of the canon wasn't the consensus of the Church pre-V2, I'd like to hear it.

As both Lad and I have pointed out, this definition or understanding of the canon accords with the purpose of the Magisterium: it is our assurance and safeguard, when the pope and the bishops teach something, that it is free from error, and certainly can't be harmful to our souls to go along with.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** September 23, 2020, 10:31:20 AM »

So I finally had a chance to read the entire text.

Here appears to be the crux of his argument.

Quote

if doctrine teaches us that the acts of the Magisterium do not contain error, the conclusion is not that these propositions are not erroneous, but that they cannot be part of the Magisterium

So he applies a modus tollentis argument. He concedes that Magisterium = no error, so his conclusion: error = no Magisterium. It's a circular argument which renders Magisterial authority entirely moot. It's a convenient way out that so many R&R have taken. There's a resistance to the possibility that the authority behind it was illegitimate because it shocks the mind to think that the See has been empty and taken over by infiltrators all these years.

So he wonders how this could have happened:

Quote

The central vice therefore lies in having fraudulently led the Council Fathers to approve ambiguous texts – which they considered Catholic enough to deserve the placet – and then using that same ambiguity to get them to say exactly what the Innovators wanted.

This happened, according to him, because the Council Fathers THOUGHT they were approving the Catholic sense of ambiguous texts. But this then contradicts his earlier (and consistent assertion) that there are texts which are straight out erroneous and cannot be understood in a Catholic sense.

So contradictions are beginning to appear ... all because +Vigano has an emotional aversion to the possibility that the See is vacant.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #32 on:** September 23, 2020, 11:12:47 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 23, 2020, 10:31:20 AM

So he applies a modus tollentis argument. He concedes that Magisterium = no error, so his conclusion: error = no Magisterium. It's a circular argument which renders Magisterial authority entirely moot. It's a convenient way out that so many R&R have taken.

Right. But then it sorts of mirrors the Sede argument:

1) the pope cannot exercise his office to teach heresy to the Church;
2) the "pope" is teaching heresy to the church via his office;
3) the "pope" is not pope.

We have a lot circles, and I'm waiting for a square.

Which is why I think the argument sound that this is a sui generis situation, one that is an anomaly, an exception to valid and universal rules that govern under normal times: we are in the end game, and the "son of perdition" is in the "temple of God." God made the rules, and tells us that He can and will break them at the appointed time.

As Our Lady said at Fatima, pray and do penance.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** September 23, 2020, 11:47:59 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on September 23, 2020, 11:12:47 AM

Right. But then it sorts of mirrors the Sede argument:

Precisely. And I've point this same thing out as one of the issues with sedevacantism. While with R&R you have Magisterium-sifting, with sedevacantism, you get into Pope-sifting. That was the title of a paper I wrote that was published (without my knowledge) by The Angelus in 1995.

... yet another reason why the Siri theory works very well. You're not relying upon a private-judgment examination of the Magisterium to argue backwards to the vacancy of the Holy See or non-Magisterium of the Magisterium. You're arguing a priori from an illegitimate election.

With this principle in place, the modus tollentis approach, what would stop a Catholic at the time of Vatican I from arguing backwards from the argument that Papal Infallibility was error to then claim that Pius IX was not a legitimate pope? Nothing really. In Father Cekada's rebuttal to my article, he claimed that the distinction is that Pius IX (and others were) "past" popes who were never disputed while they were alive. But that doesn't answer the hypothetical. If I were living during the time of Pius IX, what would have stopped me from so arguing? Does that mean I could not be sure whether infallibility was dogma to be received with divine faith until after Pius IX died? He based this argument on a misinterpretation of the term "historical" in the definition of dogmatic fact to mean "past". No, "historical" in the definition of dogmatic fact means ... in opposition to doctrinal propositions, we're dealing with historical facts. But I never published my rebuttal of his attack against my paper, because I didn't really intend for the original to be published in the first place.

Father Cekada, you now know this was wrong. [wink]

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #34 on:** September 23, 2020, 11:54:14 AM »

I can’t take seriously the opinion of those who discard a teaching (universality of time) which goes all the way back to Scripture (“Though we or an angel from heaven preach to you a doctrine other than that which you have received, let him be anathema.”).

If you would discard antiquity as a criteria for magisterial teaching, why wouldn’t you discard the popes?

But there is little doubt that Viganò has hit upon something new: The idea of a false council.

In this regard, sedes appear not to notice (or simply disregard) the dangerous terrain they have entered:

1) A pope’s disavowal of infallibility amounts to nothing;

2) By jettisoning universality of time, they reject a teaching contained in Scripture, the Fathers (St. Athanasius, St. Vincent, et al), and countless popes and approved theologians, and pave the way for every novelty to be considered Catholic.

Contrarily, Viganò seems to have discovered the solution to the recovery of orthodoxy:

Lacking these two criterion, any alleged council would not be authentically ecuмenical.

This would be a substantial development of doctrine in ecclesiology (ie., How the Church understands or validates or rejects councils).

Now I am also considering a new argument:

Dogmatic fact:

All other councils were clearly dogmatic facts PRECISELY because they were infallible and universal (spatial AND temporal).

But Vatican II was neither.

Therefore, the teachings of Vatican II are not dogmatic fact.

But the manuals all list ecuмenical councils as dogmatic facts.

Therefore Vatican II was not a true ecuмenical council.

Ps: Please note I am still merely troubleshooting Vigano’s ideas here, not stating things as fact and conclusive.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #35 on:** September 23, 2020, 12:02:13 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 23, 2020, 11:54:14 AM

In this regard, sedes appear not to notice (or simply disregard) the dangerous terrain they have entered:

1) A pope’s disavowal of infallibility amounts to nothing;

I've never made this argument. I have always prescinded from debates regarding the limits of "infallibility in the strict sense" (as Msgr. Fenton calls it) and have appealed to the notion of the overall indefectibility of the Church. We're not talking with Vatican II about a single sentence or two of problematic teaching; we're talking about a thorough corruption and pollution of the Magisterium and of the Church's Universal Discipline and public worship. Otherwise, there would be no Traditional movement, but just a few Catholics within the Church respectfully raising concerns about those specific propositions.

forlorn · « **Reply #36 on:** September 23, 2020, 12:14:37 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 23, 2020, 11:54:14 AM

I can’t take seriously the opinion of those who discard a teaching (universality of time) which goes all the way back to Scripture (“Though we or an angel from heaven preach to you a doctrine other than that which you have received, let him be anathema.”).

It has to be universal in time in the sense that it concurs with what the Church has always taught, of course, but it's the Church that decides that--which it does when it issues the teachings of the council in the first place. By this standard that ecuмenical councils can be rejected entirely as false decades later because we decide that they didn't agree with past teaching, any and all ecuмenical councils could be brought into question.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #37 on:** September 23, 2020, 12:31:25 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 23, 2020, 11:54:14 AM

I can’t take seriously the opinion of those who discard a teaching (universality of time) which goes all the way back to Scripture (“Though we or an angel from heaven preach to you a doctrine other than that which you have received, let him be anathema.”).

And I can't take seriously those that purposely mistake an argument and retard it when it was moving forward nicely.

Here's what I said:

Quote

I'll put off whether I agree with you in the interpretation of this, since what we're dealing with here is obedience to authority and how the Church interprets it. In the words of the notorious Holy Office letter:

Quote
Quote
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Here's a link to an authoritative explanation of the canon by Cardinal Franzelin:

https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/franzelin-vincentian-canon.pdf

He says that universality is confirmed in either of 2 ways: a) the present consensus of the Church; or, b) the consensus of relative antiquity.

Now if you want to argue this interpretation of the canon wasn't the consensus of the Church pre-V2, I'd like to hear it.

As both Lad and I have pointed out, this definition or understanding of the canon accords with the purpose of the Magisterium: it is our assurance and safeguard, when the pope and the bishops teach something, that it is free from error, and certainly can't be harmful to our souls to go along with.

I'd still like to hear it.

That would move our discussion forward.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #38 on:** September 23, 2020, 12:41:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 23, 2020, 12:02:13 PM

...we're talking about a thorough corruption and pollution of the Magisterium and of the Church's Universal Discipline and public worship...

If you continue to refer to a non-magisterial council as magisterial, you are going to continue reaching faulty conclusions:

The magisterium has not actually been corrupted at all, because V2 is not part of the magisterium.

Vigano is saying this is all a mirage: That by using the Catholic "form" of an ecuмenical council, its teachings are fraudulently proliferated as magisterial, simply because true councils (which are magisterial) use this form.

But by shifting the gaze from the form to the substance of its texts, we see this cannot be so.

It is undeniable that Vatican II lacks essential components of true ecuмenical councils:

1) It is not infallible
2) It lacks universality (and is therefore not really magisterial at any level, except that of the authentic magisterium, which is a misnomer);
3) Because of 1 and 2, it i not a dogmatic fact.
4) But all councils are dogmatic facts.
5) Therefore, Vatican II is not an ecuмenical council.

Still working this out.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #39 on:** September 23, 2020, 12:49:26 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on September 23, 2020, 12:14:37 PM

It has to be universal in time in the sense that it concurs with what the Church has always taught, of course, but it's the Church that decides that--which it does when it issues the teachings of the council in the first place. By this standard that ecuмenical councils can be rejected entirely as false decades later because we decide that they didn't agree with past teaching, any and all ecuмenical councils could be brought into question.

This argument comes across as disingenuous for several reasons:

1) We all recognize the council contains errors, in which case, why are you declaring the necessity of waiting for the Church to concur?

2) Sedevacantists have no qualms about deposing popes on their own authority, but for a council in which there is unanimity as regards its containing error, we are told we must not reach such a conclusion until the Church concludes such. But we need no such confirmations from the Church regarding the deposition of popes?

3) Contrary to what you say, it is impossible to call the other councils into question, since those councils, being both infallible and universal, are dogmatic facts. Vatican II possesses none of those qualities.

4) Implicit in your rationale is the suggestion that Catholics cannot recognize deviations from tradition, yet the Scriptures say exactly the opposite ("Though we or an angel from heaven preach to you a doctrine other than that which you have received, let him be anathema").

forlorn · « **Reply #40 on:** September 23, 2020, 12:59:16 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 23, 2020, 12:49:26 PM

This argument comes across as disingenuous for several reasons:

1) We all recognize the council contains errors, in which case, why are you declaring the necessity of waiting for the Church to concur?

2) Sedevacantists have no qualms about deposing popes on their own authority, but for a council in which there is unanimity as regards its containing error, we are told we must not reach such a conclusion until the Church concludes such.

3) Contrary to what you say, it is impossible to call the other councils into question, since those councils, being both infallible and universal, are dogmatic facts.

4) Implicit in your rationale is the suggestion that Catholics cannot recognize deviations from tradition, yet the Scriptures say exactly the opposite ("Though we or an angel from heaven preach to you a doctrine other than that which you have received, let him be anathema").

1&2) Where did I say anything about waiting for the Church to concur? I'm saying that the fact that a new council is compatible with previous Church teaching is always implied in the Church's approval of it, and it's not down to laymen to determine whether or not it truly is.

3) Universal says who? Why would it have been any different for someone to have questioned Vatican I's universality? It's still people using their private judgement to determine that the Church broke with tradition, and that therefore it must've been wrong. Same principle.

4) Catholics cannot reject Church teaching based on their private judgement that it ruptures with previous Church teaching. A Protestant could've claimed Trent lacked "universality" and then rejected the "Tridentine-Conciliar Church" in much the same way, same with an Old Catholic and Vatican I.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #41 on:** September 23, 2020, 01:16:04 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on September 23, 2020, 12:59:16 PM

1&2) Where did I say anything about waiting for the Church to concur? I'm saying that the fact that a new council is compatible with previous Church teaching is always implied in the Church's approval of it, and it's not down to laymen to determine whether or not it truly is.

3) Universal says who? Why would it have been any different for someone to have questioned Vatican I's universality? It's still people using their private judgement to determine that the Church broke with tradition, and that therefore it must've been wrong. Same principle.

4) Catholics cannot reject Church teaching based on their private judgement that it ruptures with previous Church teaching. A Protestant could've claimed Trent lacked "universality" and then rejected the "Tridentine-Conciliar Church" in much the same way, same with an Old Catholic and Vatican I.

1&2) You said "its for the Church to decide" (but apparently, its not for the Church to decide if there's a pope);

3) What? You are suggesting a previous council taught novelty? No? Then you are not questioning its universality!

4) Catholics who reject Vatican II would not be rejecting Church doctrine (as you yourself will admit).

This is why I say your arguments come across as disingenuous.

You give the impression of trying to save sedevacantism, rather than arriving at truth. Yes, yes, you will protest!

Nevertheless...

forlorn · « **Reply #42 on:** September 23, 2020, 01:31:28 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 23, 2020, 01:16:04 PM

1&2) You said "its for the Church to decide" (but apparently, its not for the Church to decide if there's a pope);

3) What? You are suggesting a previous council taught novelty? No? Then you are not questioning its universality!

4) Catholics who reject Vatican II would not be rejecting Church doctrine (as you yourself will admit).

This is why I say your arguments come across as disingenuous.

You give the impression of trying to save sedevacantism, rather than arriving at truth. Yes, yes, you will protest!

Nevertheless...

1&2) Yes, the Church decides that something is compatible with Church teaching when it decides to teach it. Otherwise it wouldn't teach it. Not sure what there is to argue here. The Council Fathers promulgated their teachings without any opinion as to whether or not it was Catholic or not?

3) The Old Catholics did. Why is their questioning of V1's universality any less legitimate? It's still private judgement determining that a council taught falsely, and that therefore it was a false council. Same principle applies.

4) Well yes, I abandoned my own hastily thought up theory of how one could reject V2 without rejecting the V2 popes because of corrections from Ladislaus and Decem, namely that it's still a problem for a council to teach falsely even if it wasn't defining dogma.

Now I'm offering issues I perceive with your own theory. It's a very easy cop-out to just accuse everything of being a blind roundabout defence of sedevacantism. Every ecuмenical council being fallible, by us having no infallible way of knowing if they had universality, is still an issue either way.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #43 on:** September 23, 2020, 01:47:14 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on September 23, 2020, 01:31:28 PM

1&2) Yes, the Church decides that something is compatible with Church teaching when it decides to teach it. Otherwise it wouldn't teach it. Not sure what there is to argue here. The Council Fathers promulgated their teachings without any opinion as to whether or not it was Catholic or not?

3) The Old Catholics did. Why is their questioning of V1's universality any less legitimate? It's still private judgement determining that a council taught falsely, and that therefore it was a false council. Same principle applies.

4) Well yes, I abandoned my own hastily thought up theory of how one could reject V2 without rejecting the V2 popes because of corrections from Ladislaus and Decem, namely that it's still a problem for a council to teach falsely even if it wasn't defining dogma.

Now I'm offering issues I perceive with your own theory. It's a very easy cop-out to just accuse everything of being a blind roundabout defence of sedevacantism. The issue of every ecuмenical council being fallible, by us having no infallible way of knowing if they had universality, is still an issue.

1&2) Which church are you referring to? It was the conciliar church which decided V2 was compatible with Tradition, via the hermaneutic, not the Catholic Church.

3) You are citing heretics in defense of your position?

4) Not if it isn't really an ecuмenical council.

Not sure why you are conjuring up the novel idea that there is no way to recognize universality: Both St. Paul and St. Vincent give us the key. If it isn't already contained in tradition (at least implicitly), it doesn't have universality (and this basically encapsulates every error of Vatican II).

forlorn · « **Reply #44 on:** September 23, 2020, 02:15:38 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 23, 2020, 01:47:14 PM

1&2) Which church are you referring to? It was the conciliar church which decided V2 was compatible with Tradition, via the hermaneutic, not the Catholic Church.

3) You are citing heretics in defense of your position?

4) Not if it isn't really an ecuмenical council.

Not sure why you are conjuring up the novel idea that there is no way to recognize universality: Both St. Paul and St. Vincent give us the key. If it isn't already contained in tradition (at least implicitly), it doesn't have universality (and this basically encapsulates every error of Vatican II).

1&2) So what, are you now saying that Vatican 2 was just a council of the "Conciliar Church" and not the Catholic Church at all then? Gee whizz, problem solved, I guess.

3) Showing how a line of reasoning is the same as what heretics used to reject the Church is a rather good way of showing how said line of reasoning is problematic, is it not?

4) And how do we know what an ecuмenical council is? Usually the presumption is just "if the Church says it is, it is". And then if the Church tells us it's ecuмenical, we can be sure its teachings are true. But with this universality argument, now the Church telling us it's ecuмenical isn't good enough, and we must judge for ourselves(with our fallible judgements) whether or not the council possesses universality. So we have no way of knowing for sure which councils are ecuмenical or not.

Author Topic: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia (Read 8004 times)

DecemRationis

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

Ladislaus

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

DecemRationis

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

Ladislaus

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

Ladislaus

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

forlorn

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

DecemRationis

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

forlorn

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

forlorn

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

SeanJohnson

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia

forlorn

Re: +Vigano Equates Vatican II with False Council of Pistoia