Message to Vigano and Burke....

[Aethel]

"Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God."

I've had this argument countless times with neo-Catholics. The quote you want doesn't exist.  No on is arguing that Vat. 2 wasn't promulgated.  No one is arguing that Catholics didn't accepted Vatican II.

This is like debating a Protestant.  You give a Calvinist multiple verses proving free will, then INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THE VERSE, they go rummaging through the Bible and try to prove... what?  That the Bible is wrong?

The issue you need to address is the fact that the council stated it is not binding.  This was approved, decreed, and established by Paul VI:  The council is not binding.

I'm not being Protestant, I'm citing Vatican I which says Ordinary Magisterial teaching is de facto binding, and nobody argues Vatican II is at least Ordinary Magisterial.

Question: Is the Catechism and Code of Canon Law, which was changed to reflect Vatican II, not binding? Is every Papal Encyclical post Vatican II that cites Vatican II, not binding? Is the fact that the Fathers of the Council who are now canonized Saints not binding?

I mean again, I don't get how you could interpret an Ecumenical Council which is promulgated to be believed by the whole Church as not binding, but even so, there has been so much objective irrefutable binding material which incorporates the theology of Vatican II that even if we grant your assertion, it would still be indirectly binding.

[Aethel]

Kind of interesting.  I started this thread in January, calling out prelates for writing another strongly worded letter.  It's May.

The formal organization calling itself the Catholic Church now regularly blesses sodomite couples.  It wasn't stopped, and people like Burke are the most guilty.

Let's bring it back to my main point, sorry for derailing:

What could Burke do that Lefebvre didn't do? Lefebvre already identified the rot right at the beginning and condemned the then sitting Pontiff, even with Pope Paul VI allegedly taunting him that he wouldn't be successful because he's opposing the Pope - it may even be the case that the infamous "smoke of Satan" quote was directed towards Lefebvre.

Like say Burke did rebel - wouldn't it just be Lefebvre 2.0, but with Neocon ideology,

[james03]

I'm not being Protestant, I'm citing Vatican I which says Ordinary Magisterial teaching is de facto binding, and nobody argues Vatican II is at least Ordinary Magisterial.

You've just gone Prot again.  We'll keep it basic:

Do you accept that Vatican II decreed it was not binding?

[james03]

What could Burke do that Lefebvre didn't do?

Do what Lefebvre didn't do:

I, Cardinal Burke state the following:

1.  We, the group of Cardinals did rebuke Bergoglio for his errors in Faith on 2 occasions (might be 3), making these known to the public.

2.  Other archbishops, bishops, priests and theologians have likewise publicly rebuked Bergoglio on multiple occasions for his errors in Faith.

3.  Bergoglio has never recanted from his heresies.

4.  Furthermore Bergoglio has called for the blessing of vile sodomite couples.

Therefore, we pronounce based on the writings of St. Paul the Apostle, and on the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Faith, that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic, is not Catholic and is not the Pope.

[Aethel]

I'm not being Protestant, I'm citing Vatican I which says Ordinary Magisterial teaching is de facto binding, and nobody argues Vatican II is at least Ordinary Magisterial.

You've just gone Prot again.  We'll keep it basic:

Do you accept that Vatican II decreed it was not binding?

No. It is an Ecumenical Council (which, every Ecumenical Council was infallible in the past), that is at least ordinary magisterium (all ordinary magisterium is binding per Vatican I). These ambiguous statements exist because the Vatican II hierarchy gaslights the Catholic population like it does today. It was 100% intended to revolutionize the faith in its essence from its very beginning, and be binding on the faithful, and Vatican II documents themselves say so: and ambiguous statements after the fact were clerical politicians downplaying the radical changes that took place. 

And it doesn't matter. Say you are right. Vatican II was made binding anyways by the Catechism changes which incorporated its doctrine, the Code of Canon Law which incorporated its doctrine, and the actually binding magisterial statements and changes that cite the doctrine of Vatican II. Most importantly, of course, the Novus Ordo which was built upon it.

If Pope Francis came out tomorrow and said "Vatican II is no longer an Ecumenical Council" but left the Church exactly the same in its praxis, morals, and doctrine, the Church would be exactly the same as if Vatican II already happened.

[Aethel]

What could Burke do that Lefebvre didn't do?

Do what Lefebvre didn't do:

I, Cardinal Burke state the following:

1.  We, the group of Cardinals did rebuke Bergoglio for his errors in Faith on 2 occasions (might be 3), making these known to the public.

2.  Other archbishops, bishops, priests and theologians have likewise publicly rebuked Bergoglio on multiple occasions for his errors in Faith.

3.  Bergoglio has never recanted from his heresies.

4.  Furthermore Bergoglio has called for the blessing of vile sodomite couples.

Therefore, we pronounce based on the writings of St. Paul the Apostle, and on the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Faith, that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic, is not Catholic and is not the Pope.

And pray tell, what would Burke's Church be? Would we be going back to the good old days of praying in the Blue Mosque and singing Lord of the Dance?

I'm joking of course, I think that Burke would go to an FSSP style position, but that just shows its more emotional than principled: The distance between Pope John Paul II and Francis is less extreme than Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII.

[Bonaventure]

Bergoglio is not Catholic.  He's an heretic.  The other cardinals and bishops are modernists and will quickly blaspheme: "This is the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit!!".

Now you know why the SSPX shook the dust off their sandals and set up their own chapels to preserve the Faith.

It's sede, hardliner SSPX, or bust.

[Bonaventure]

The formal organization calling itself the Catholic Church now regularly blesses sodomite couples.  It wasn't stopped, and people like Burke are the most guilty.

This is extremely disturbing. I have yet to really digest it. How can they do something so wrong?

They have 0 faith and view Catholicism as nothing more than an institution to bring about fraternal, humanitarian, secular humanism.

In my experience, as one who grew up, lived, and worked in the Novus Ordo, 97% of priests don't give a shit about our Lord, or the Catholic faith.

It's like that old Bishop Williamson line. "Feeeeeelings," and feeling good, are all that matter.

They may say their Cranmer Supper Services, and do various ministries, but it is to keep their cush jobs, and have their lay orderlies (mostly grey haired women) marching under their drums.

I've heard a "conservative" NO priest tell a classroom of 6th graders that there was no Adam and Eve, that it's just a story.

Another presbyter infamously said that a husband who murdered his wife then off'd himself, were kissing and holding hands in heaven.

My own cousin, who was a degenerate, non practicing scoundrel, attempted to break into another man's car in the ghetto. The man emerged from his home and shot said cousin in the back. The new church presbyter said "we don't pray for ____, he's praying for us."

I was once at a NO, and I witnessed someone grab the sacred host and refuse to consume. I chased the person down and forced him to do so. Another priest and I investigated and saw a host chewed with gum in the little slot that holds the books. We informed the presbyter-pastor. This was a man ordained by Paul VI. When he heard, he literally laughed. Did not show any outrage or inquiry.

This is the sect posing as the Roman Catholic Church. Why does God allow this, I don't know.

[KreKre]

Why does God allow this, I don't know.

Clearly, we incapable of understanding His plan, but we are asked to have faith and hope, and not use the evil around us as an excuse to despair and hate. We can know for certain that for every evil that happens, God makes from it a great good that otherwise wouldn't happen. He lets the devils have their way, but only as long as that fits into His plan for great goodness.

And regarding us sinners who still have hope of redemption, the only reason why infinitely benevolent Father would ever punish us is to encourage repentance. His punishment is never cruel or too harsh, it is just sufficient for us to turn away from evil and save us from the eternal ruin (and most of the time, it consists merely of letting us face the consequences of our decisions). Given all of that, as I said before, I think God is teaching the Chruch a lesson (especially the hierarchy, but also us), and won't stop until the lesson is thoroughly learned, so that they will never again attempt such error as Vatican II. It seems that He is expecting the Church to fix this mess ourselves, and return to tradition, since it is the Church that caused it, and for that to happen, it seems that the lesson has to become very painful.

Yet God, being infinitely kind and merciful, didn't leave us alone in this mess. He sent us people like archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, and many other priests who are loyal to tradition. They have to carry their cross, too, it certainly is not easy for them, they are mocked and persecuted (so was our Lord), but they are here to guide us through this storm.

It's difficult not to notice the same pattern, repeating over and over again, like a lesson that a child repeats over and over again, until it is finally learned. It's really dull, I admit, but I guess that's the only way we can learn and become better. It's our fault anyway, we could have listened to popes like Leo XIII and St. Pius X when they warned us, well in advance. All of it was preventable, and it that case the lesson would have been easy.

[james03]

You've just gone Prot again.  We'll keep it basic:

Do you accept that Vatican II decreed it was not binding?

No. It is an Ecumenical Council

Delusional.  I quoted the actual text of what they decreed.  This is what I mean when I say you've gone full Prot.  You can't even accept reality so there is no starting point for a discussion.

Say you are right.

Say you are right?  There's no question in this matter.  I quoted the text of Vat. II and you can verify it for yourself.  Vat. II decreed that it was not binding.

Which rolls back to the original question, why did the bishops go along with it?

I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement of doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and likely to be reformed.

Since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council.

[james03]

Why does God allow this, I don't know.

Because The West decided to give up God and transformed into The Former West.  God said, I accept your terms.

Thus the Former West is a Godless, vile, $h!th0le culture.

[james03]

And pray tell, what would Burke's Church be?

If, arguendo, we presuppose he's hard core Trad and made the pronouncement I posted, then it would be the SSPX.  THAT Church already exists, and is the same Church for 2,000 years.

[Aethel]

Delusional. I quoted the actual text of what they decreed.

Prooftexting to support Eseigetical reading of Scripture or other Magisterial documents is the very essence of the Protestant spirit.

Meanwhile, I'll go to the Bishop of Rome, who destroyed widespread usage of the Tridentine Rite because it gave people the impression they were free to reject Vatican II.

From: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html

It comforted Benedict XVI in his discernment that many desired "to find the form of the sacred Liturgy dear to them," "clearly accepted the binding character of Vatican Council II and were faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops" . . .

But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the "true Church". The path of the Church must be seen within the dynamic of Tradition "which originates from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit" ( DV . A recent stage of this dynamic was constituted by Vatican Council II where the Catholic episcopate came together to listen and to discern the path for the Church indicated by the Holy Spirit. To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, [14] and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.

. . .

A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the "true Church."

And also Pope Benedict XVI, who said that the SSPX must accept Vatican II to be in communion with Rome.
https://religionnews.com/2012/09/27/pope-tells-sspx-traditionalists-they-must-accept-second-vatican-council/



Meanwhile, Catholic answers, supported by EWTN and therefore the Vatican, lists it as an Ecumenical Council:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-21-ecumenical-councils

Wikipedia (with citations to official sources) says this:
"Support for aggiornamento won out over resistance to change, and as a result the sixteen magisterial documents produced by the council proposed significant developments in doctrine and practice: an extensive reform of the liturgy; a renewed theology of the Church, of revelation and of the laity; and new approaches to relations between the Church and the world, to ecumenism, to non-Christian religions, and to religious freedom."

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

The Second Vatican Council, also known as Vatican II, was convoked by Pope John XXIII and met from 1962 to 1965. Unlike most previous councils, it did not issue any condemnations, as its objective was pastoral. Despite this, it issued 16 magisterial documents:

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


Magisterial documents are binding per Vatican I.

[Aethel]

I wish we didn't live in a reality where the seat of the essential spirit of Western Civilization, the seat that united Europe into a family where Scandinavians could joke with Italians about their different romantic proclivities, the seat of such historically great figures like Pope Leo, Pope Gregory, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius X; is no more, and is now a cesspool of horribly corrupt, ridiculous chutzpah elitists filled with a spirit of 1960s Modernism and now Marxist metanarratives, but unfortunately that's the timeline you live in.

The more you prop the Vatican II Popes up, the more you will enable his destructive tendencies.

He (Pope Francis) hates you, and he is willingly destroying the Catholic Church because he hates you. He makes it very clear every day he hates you. He does specific things that are antagonistic to you that he knows will get the attention of devout Catholics but will be avoided by the secular media, like worshipping the Marxist Mother Earth idol in Rome or saying that Jesus was a human who became God in a private, unverified (but not denied) interview that "got leaked" to the press.

If any rational good faith Catholic actor was in the Pope's seat had good faith intentions about Vatican II, they would look at current trends and try to find newer ways to engage the faithful in apostate countries, like Benedict did (whom I believe had good intentions, despite being a Modernist) - Benedict embraced traditional liturgy and Summorum Pontificum because it returned good results, he did the same with the Anglican Ordinariate. He even tried to make a good show by correcting the Novus Ordos missal of "per multis"

Pope Francis, on the other hand, doubles down on his ineffective policies, triples down, and silence dissent through belittlement and purity spiraling. They don't give a damn about Catholicism failing or the West burning down - in fact, it seems like that's what they want.

There's enough casuistry to trick people into thinking Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II were secretly fans of Lefebvre, we can do enough to find an explanation as to why Vatican II is invalid. I've thought of several - Every Papal doctrinal declaration that overtly overturns previous doctrine is de facto null and void, the See becomes vacant if the Pope overly overturns previous doctrine, etc.

Although it's more cognitively freeing to accept the fact that perhaps the traditional hypermonastic doctrine the Papacy embraced is wrong, and move forward from there. Maybe we can preserve the High Liturgical Latin Catholic heritage in a newer way, while not letting the enemies of Western Civilization mock us while running these institutions to the ground.

[Aethel]

You've just gone Prot again.  We'll keep it basic:

Do you accept that Vatican II decreed it was not binding?

No. It is an Ecumenical Council

Delusional.  I quoted the actual text of what they decreed.  This is what I mean when I say you've gone full Prot.  You can't even accept reality so there is no starting point for a discussion.

Say you are right.

Say you are right?  There's no question in this matter.  I quoted the text of Vat. II and you can verify it for yourself.  Vat. II decreed that it was not binding.

Which rolls back to the original question, why did the bishops go along with it?

I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement of doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and likely to be reformed.

Since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council.

Also, I'll say that dirty politics doesn't overturn the Ecumenical nature of a council. Almost all of the Ecumenical Councils after Nicaea were dirty - the Council of Florence was done under pressure because Turks were about to conquer Orthodox Constantinople, so Catholics took advantage of that.