The Contradictions of Catholic Dogma in Vatican II

Started by St. Cyprian, April 22, 2019, 12:10:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

St. Cyprian



A video containing several of the heresies that exist in Vatican II. Since Vatican II was an ecumenical council promulgated by what most consider a valid pope the existence of these heresies should raise some questions for those who are knowledgeable of the promise of infallibility.

St.Justin

It means nothing as it was not a Dogmatic Council. Just because it was ecumenical does not make its utterances infallible just as in previous ecumenical councils utterances are not infallible. Only those teachings which a council declares to be infallible are infallible. VII is the only ecumenical councils that made no infallible pronouncements.

St.Justin

Ecumenical councils are called ecumenical not to make them infallible but because they are councils to which all of the Bishops of the world are invited as opposed to a local Synod. A council is not infallible per se. Only those specific things which the Bishops in the council choose to be taught infallibly can become infallible when and if the Pope signs off on it

St. Cyprian

Pocket Catholic Dictionary by John A Hardon, S.J. on Episcopal Infallibility "They are infallible when... assembled in a general council... propose a teaching of faith and morals as one to be held by all of the faithful. They are assured freedom from error provided they are in union with the Bishop of Rome and their teaching is subject to his authority. The scope of this infallibility... includes not only revealed truths, but any teaching...  that are in any way connected with divine revelation."

Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): "The statements made by this Vatican synod on the right to religious freedom have their basis in the dignity of the person, the demands of which have come to be more fully known to human reason from the experience of centuries. But this teaching on freedom also has its roots in divine revelation, and is for that reason to be held all the more sacred by Christians."

If I am interpreting this correctly, a general council promulgated by a true pope would be protected from teaching error on all matters related to divine revelation, regardless of whether or not any new doctrine is declared. Since Dignitatis Humanae is claiming that its declarations are rooted in divine revelation, they should be protected from error, but as one can see they were not and that they contradicted traditional Catholic dogma declared by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura.

St.Justin

Quote from: St. Cyprian on April 22, 2019, 06:21:09 PM
Pocket Catholic Dictionary by John A Hardon, S.J. on Episcopal Infallibility "They are infallible when... assembled in a general council... propose a teaching of faith and morals as one to be held by all of the faithful. They are assured freedom from error provided they are in union with the Bishop of Rome and their teaching is subject to his authority. The scope of this infallibility... includes not only revealed truths, but any teaching...  that are in any way connected with divine revelation."

Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): "The statements made by this Vatican synod on the right to religious freedom have their basis in the dignity of the person, the demands of which have come to be more fully known to human reason from the experience of centuries. But this teaching on freedom also has its roots in divine revelation, and is for that reason to be held all the more sacred by Christians."

If I am interpreting this correctly, a general council promulgated by a true pope would be protected from teaching error on all matters related to divine revelation, regardless of whether or not any new doctrine is declared. Since Dignitatis Humanae is claiming that its declarations are rooted in divine revelation, they should be protected from error, but as one can see they were not and that they contradicted traditional Catholic dogma declared by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura.
Please see what I bolded and as to
"But this teaching on freedom also has its roots in divine revelation, and is for that reason to be held all the more sacred by Christians.""

Rooted in and actually there is two different things not to mention what they are putting forward is no where in Divine Revelation or even inferred. So again nothing infallible there nor was it meant to be or as in previous Councils it would have been clearly defined as such.

St. Cyprian

The dictionary says that "any teaching", not solemnly defined teachings (which could be what revealed truths refers to), "that [is] in any way connected to divine revelation", which the council says it is, it assured to be free from error.  Would you please explain how something that has roots in something is not connected in any way to what it has roots in? Also, I am pretty sure that the teachings of Dignitatis Humanae meet the level of a teaching on faith and morals that are binding on all of the faithful.

Miriam_M

You're incorrect, Cyprian.  Please see both my and Justin's recent posts about V2 (some time in the last couple of months), on SD.  My own comes from the SSPX, but they are by no means the only source that confirms the same non-binding publications of the Council. 

Stubborn

Quote from: St. Cyprian on April 22, 2019, 06:21:09 PM
Pocket Catholic Dictionary by John A Hardon, S.J. on Episcopal Infallibility "They are infallible when... assembled in a general council... propose a teaching of faith and morals as one to be held by all of the faithful. They are assured freedom from error provided they are in union with the Bishop of Rome and their teaching is subject to his authority. The scope of this infallibility... includes not only revealed truths, but any teaching...  that are in any way connected with divine revelation."

This is a novel teaching, one that came from among some of the 19th/20th century theologians, but it most certainly is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. Whenever you see words like: "They are infallible", that is your clue. There is no "they". There is only one person who is promised infallibility, that person is the pope, and only when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church ex cathedra.

The First Vatican Council clearly teaches what the Church's infallibility consists of and it has nothing in there about the unanimity of the episcopacy in a council - or dispersed throughout the world for that matter. The only place you will find that idea passed off as an official teaching of the Church, is as a dogma of the new church in Lumen Gentium 25. It is strictly a dogma of the new church, the new church whose birth with it's new pentecost at V2, not the Catholic Church.

A few things that this new church dogma was, and apparently still is necessary for, is to snare the sheeple to just go along with the travesty because whatever the popes and bishops teach is infallible......which if actually a true teaching of the Church, then there is no crisis except in the minds of trads.


 
Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent

awkwardcustomer

Quote from: St.Justin on April 22, 2019, 01:12:39 PM
VII is the only ecumenical councils that made no infallible pronouncements.

That's because VII is the only ecumenical council that had no valid Pope.
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.

St.Justin

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on April 23, 2019, 06:42:12 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 22, 2019, 01:12:39 PM
VII is the only ecumenical councils that made no infallible pronouncements.

That's because VII is the only ecumenical council that had no valid Pope.

Good comeback...

awkwardcustomer

Quote from: St.Justin on April 23, 2019, 08:00:57 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on April 23, 2019, 06:42:12 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 22, 2019, 01:12:39 PM
VII is the only ecumenical councils that made no infallible pronouncements.

That's because VII is the only ecumenical council that had no valid Pope.

Good comeback...

On second thoughts, maybe it wasn't clear enough.

Because if there was no valid Pope at VII, then VII wasn't an ecumenical council in the first place.

No valid Pope = no ecumenical council.

VII was not an ecumenical council because no valid Pope was present.
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.

tradical

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on April 23, 2019, 10:00:19 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 23, 2019, 08:00:57 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on April 23, 2019, 06:42:12 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on April 22, 2019, 01:12:39 PM
VII is the only ecumenical councils that made no infallible pronouncements.

That's because VII is the only ecumenical council that had no valid Pope.

Good comeback...

On second thoughts, maybe it wasn't clear enough.

Because if there was no valid Pope at VII, then VII wasn't an ecumenical council in the first place.

No valid Pope = no ecumenical council.

VII was not an ecumenical council because no valid Pope was present.

How do you know that there was no valid Vicar of Christ to either call or close the First Vatican Council?
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience

My Blog: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/

awkwardcustomer

Quote from: tradical on April 23, 2019, 05:59:19 PM
How do you know that there was no valid Vicar of Christ to either call or close the First Vatican Council?

You mean - how do I know there wasn't no valid Vicar of Chirst at Vatican I, meaning how do I know there was a valid Vicar of Christ at Vatican I?  Of course, the same question could be asked of any Council. 

Vatican I was Catholic and its documents contain no heresies.  Therefore we can asssume that a valid Vicar of Christ opened and closed that Council.

Whereas, Vatican II wasn't Catholic and its documents contain heresies. Therefore we can, or should, assume that there was no valid Vicar of Christ at that gathering.
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.

GloriaPatri

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on April 24, 2019, 03:01:58 AM
Quote from: tradical on April 23, 2019, 05:59:19 PM
How do you know that there was no valid Vicar of Christ to either call or close the First Vatican Council?

You mean - how do I know there wasn't no valid Vicar of Chirst at Vatican I, meaning how do I know there was a valid Vicar of Christ at Vatican I?  Of course, the same question could be asked of any Council. 

Vatican I was Catholic and its documents contain no heresies.  Therefore we can asssume that a valid Vicar of Christ opened and closed that Council.

Whereas, Vatican II wasn't Catholic and its documents contain heresies. Therefore we can, or should, assume that there was no valid Vicar of Christ at that gathering.

So in other words ecumenical councils and the popes who preside over them are only valid if they measure up to your standards of catholicity. In other words, the authority of the Church is subject to your personal approval. What a wonderfully subjective religion  ::)

Stubborn

Quote from: GloriaPatri on April 24, 2019, 04:51:50 AM

So in other words ecumenical councils and the popes who preside over them are only valid if they measure up to your standards of catholicity. In other words, the authority of the Church is subject to your personal approval. What a wonderfully subjective religion  ::)

Yes, this is what it boils down to, isn't it. It's all part of the same old wrong idea that "all councils are infallible", that so many people wrongfully believe is a teaching of the Church.

The thing that is really crazy, is that if in fact the Church ever taught that all councils are infallible, which it never did, but if in fact it did, then all trads who reject V2, are sinning because no matter what, we all would be bound to accept V2 as being an infallible council - because that's what the Church teaches, period. But the Catholic Church teaches no such thing. 

So, as far as trads rejecting V2 while insisting that the Church teaches that all Councils are infallible, what we have here are disobedient people because they reject a Church teaching, proving they have no faith whatsoever in what they wrongfully say the Church teaches. To crawfish out of it, they claim popes are not popes, usually as if they are eyewitnesses to the fact and always as if the Church supports them in this additional wrong idea.
Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent