The Indefectibility of the Catholic Church

[james03]

Really? Read Paul VI's comments again:

Yeah, really.  But I'll read it again.

it avoided pronouncing dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility in an extraordinary way;  but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary and so obviously authentic magisterium must be received docilely and sincerely by all the faithful

Conjuction junction, what's your function?  Hooking up phrases...

So what is "but" referring to?

it avoided pronouncing dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility in an extraordinary way;

[Baylee]

OK, here's Paul VI in 1976:


But there are also reasons for bitterness, which we certainly do not want to veil or minimize: and they arise especially from the relief of a polarity, often irreducible in some of its excesses, which manifests in different fields a superficial immaturity, or a stubborn obstinacy, in essence a bitter deafness towards appeals to that healthy balance, conciliator of tensions, Starting from the great lesson of the Council, it is now more than ten years.

On the one hand, here are those who, under the pretext of greater fidelity to the Church and to the Magisterium, systematically reject the teachings of the Council itself, its application and the reforms deriving from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, willed by Christ. The authority of the Church is discredited in the name of a Tradition, for which respect is attested only materially and verbally; the faithful distance themselves from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter as well as to their legitimate Bishops; Today's authority is rejected in the name of yesterday's. And the fact is all the more serious, since the opposition of which we speak is not only encouraged by some priests, but headed by a Bishop, whom We have always venerated, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

It is so painful to note this: but how can we fail to see in this attitude - whatever the intentions of these people may be - placing oneself outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore with the Church?

Because this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, that is, when it is argued that it is preferable to disobey on the pretext of keeping one's faith intact, of working in one's own way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, denying her at the same time effective obedience. And it is said openly! One dares to affirm that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that faith would also be in danger because of the post-conciliar reforms and orientations, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not the Ecumenical Council, that determines which of the countless traditions are to be considered as a norm of faith. As you see, venerable Brothers of ours, this attitude stands as the judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his legitimate Successors at the Head of the Church to strengthen their brethren in the faith, and to shepherd the universal flock (cf. Luc. 22:32; Me. 21, 15 ff.), which established him as guarantor and guardian of the deposit of the Faith.



https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html

Yep, it's binding.

[james03]

You provide nothing that says it is binding.  Yes, we dare to agree with the Council and say it is not binding.

As far as infallible, here we have Cardinal Ratzing, head of the CDF:

The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

What's a pastoral council?  Don't know, but they keep telling us it is not infallible, and presents no new dogma.

Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding

I am obedient and hold it is not binding.

[Baylee]

You provide nothing that says it is binding.  Yes, we dare to agree with the Council and say it is not binding.

Mmmmmkay.    There's none so blind as those who will not see.  That is not what he is saying.  Perhaps you should read the full document as the context is very clear. I've added some to the other post to help.

[awkward customer]

OK, here's Paul VI in 1976:

It is so painful to note this: but how can we fail to see in this attitude - whatever the intentions of these people may be - placing oneself outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore with the Church?

Because this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, that is, when it is argued that it is preferable to disobey on the pretext of keeping one's faith intact, of working in one's own way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, denying her at the same time effective obedience. And it is said openly! One dares to affirm that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that faith would also be in danger because of the post-conciliar reforms and orientations, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not the Ecumenical Council, that determines which of the countless traditions are to be considered as a norm of faith. As you see, venerable Brothers of ours, this attitude stands as the judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his legitimate Successors at the Head of the Church to strengthen their brethren in the faith, and to shepherd the universal flock (cf. Luc. 22:32; Me. 21, 15 ff.), which established him as guarantor and guardian of the deposit of the Faith.



https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html

Yep, it's binding.

Paul VI seems to be claiming Papal authority and therefore a Divine Mandate for Vatican II.

Vatican II may as well be infallible.  Vatican II is the public face of the Church.   

[james03]

Mmmmmkay.    There's none so blind as those who will not see.  That is not what he is saying.  Perhaps you should read the full document as the context is very clear. I've added some to the other post to help.

More rhetoric.  I quoted the Council saying it is not binding.  I quoted a Pope saying it is not infallible.  You've quoted nothing to the contrary.

[Khalid]

Whatever the status of its documents, Vatican II has been imposed throughout the Church.  The liturgical and theological revolution has left no corner of the Church untouched.  Vatican II is the public face of the Church.  The above arguments will continue, but so will Vatican II. 

There's only one question that really matters.  Is Vatican II Catholic?

Yes, this really cuts to the heart of my issue. I'm sure there are a dozen different ways one can fit all the pieces together and say that liturgy, doctrine, and morals have been perfectly preserved in a very abstract sense. "Oh, the New Mass in the original Latin is orthodox", "Oh, if you dig through the relationes of Vatican II and squint you can get dignitatis humanae off on a technicality", "Oh, yes the CCC (2298) says that the Church commanded something intrinsically evil (confession extracting torture, which is condemned as such in CCC 2297) for 800 years in its Canon Law and at Ecumenical Councils, but uh it doesn't strictly meet the criteria for "universal discipline" so the Church didn't defect".

The problem is that humans don't practice religions in abstract scholastic bubbles; we practice them in reality, in concrete space and linear time. When I go to my local parish and see women with barren heads dressed like prostitutes pawing out the Eucharist, I really don't care what the New Mass looks like in the original Latin. I care about the fact that in reality the Church is allowing public desecration in thousands of parishes around the world.

Does the exact doctrinal note of Vatican II really matter when soul destroying error in doctrine, liturgy, morals, and discipline is pumping out at industrial speeds from the Roman See? It's indefectibility thats at stake far more than infallibility.

[Baylee]

OK, here's Paul VI in 1976:

It is so painful to note this: but how can we fail to see in this attitude - whatever the intentions of these people may be - placing oneself outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore with the Church?

Because this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, that is, when it is argued that it is preferable to disobey on the pretext of keeping one's faith intact, of working in one's own way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, denying her at the same time effective obedience. And it is said openly! One dares to affirm that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that faith would also be in danger because of the post-conciliar reforms and orientations, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not the Ecumenical Council, that determines which of the countless traditions are to be considered as a norm of faith. As you see, venerable Brothers of ours, this attitude stands as the judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his legitimate Successors at the Head of the Church to strengthen their brethren in the faith, and to shepherd the universal flock (cf. Luc. 22:32; Me. 21, 15 ff.), which established him as guarantor and guardian of the deposit of the Faith.



https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1976/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19760524_concistoro.html

Yep, it's binding.

Paul VI seems to be claiming Papal authority and therefore a Divine Mandate for Vatican II.

Vatican II may as well be infallible.  Vatican II is the public face of the Church.

Sure he is.  A Divine Mandate, but ....it's not binding nor infallible. 

[Michael Wilson]

Pope Francis put an end to all arguing:
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html

This is magisterium: the Council is the magisterium of the Church. Either you are with the Church and therefore you follow the Council, and if you do not follow the Council or you interpret it in your own way, as you wish, you are not with the Church. In this respect we have to be demanding, severe. No, the Council is not subject to negotiation in order to have more of these.... No, this is how it is with the council. And this problem that we are experiencing, the selectivity of the Council, has been repeated throughout history with other Councils. It gives me so much to think about a group of bishops that after Vatican I left, a group of lay people, other groups, to continue the "true doctrine" that was not that of Vatican I. "We are the true Catholics".... Today they ordain women. The most severe attitude, to guard the faith without the magisterium of the Church, leads you to ruin. Please, no concessions to those who try to present a catechesis that is not in accordance with the Magisterium of the Church.

You are either with the Church and follow the Council or you are not with the (Conciliar) Church.

[awkward customer]

Whatever the status of its documents, Vatican II has been imposed throughout the Church.  The liturgical and theological revolution has left no corner of the Church untouched.  Vatican II is the public face of the Church.  The above arguments will continue, but so will Vatican II. 

There's only one question that really matters.  Is Vatican II Catholic?

Yes, this really cuts to the heart of my issue. I'm sure there are a dozen different ways one can fit all the pieces together and say that liturgy, doctrine, and morals have been perfectly preserved in a very abstract sense. "Oh, the New Mass in the original Latin is orthodox", "Oh, if you dig through the relationes of Vatican II and squint you can get dignitatis humanae off on a technicality", "Oh, yes the CCC (2298) says that the Church commanded something intrinsically evil (confession extracting torture, which is condemned as such in CCC 2297) for 800 years in its Canon Law and at Ecumenical Councils, but uh it doesn't strictly meet the criteria for "universal discipline" so the Church didn't defect".

The problem is that humans don't practice religions in abstract scholastic bubbles; we practice them in reality, in concrete space and linear time. When I go to my local parish and see women with barren heads dressed like prostitutes pawing out the Eucharist, I really don't care what the New Mass looks like in the original Latin. I care about the fact that in reality the Church is allowing public desecration in thousands of parishes around the world.

Does the exact doctrinal note of Vatican II really matter when soul destroying error in doctrine, liturgy, morals, and discipline is pumping out at industrial speeds from the Roman See? It's indefectibility thats at stake far more than infallibility.

I agree completely.  I also sympathise with your experiences of the Vatican II parish, having been there myself in the early days after my conversion and having to witness the endless assaults on the Faith that take place routinely in the Conciliar Church.  This is the reality today, whatever status the Council enjoys.     

The Vatican II revolt didn't happen overnight though.  It was a long time in the making.  The Modernists were in the "very bosom of the Church seeking Her destruction" in 1907 according to Pope Pius X.  Which means they must have been in the Church for a while by then.   IMO, we are witnessing the revolt that St Paul warned about in 2Thess2, but that is best discussed in the Sede subforum.  I also agree with the posters above who suggest that we are living in the 'end times'.

Oh, I nearly forgot.  The Church cannot defect.  It is impossible.  This should be the starting point of any explanation for the current situation.

[Michael Wilson]

On the argument that the V-II docs do not contain "anathemas" and therefore they are not binding:
Both the "Chapters" of Ecumenical Councils are binding as well as the the "canons" i.e. Those that contain the condemnation. It is easy to prove from Trent, the "Chapter" on "Justification" is considered a masterpiece of theology and is the "go to" document for all those treating on "actual" grace.
The same for the "Chapter" on Papal Infallibility at Vatican I.
It is Christ that is speaking through his ministers in both cases.

[Baylee]

Whatever the status of its documents, Vatican II has been imposed throughout the Church.  The liturgical and theological revolution has left no corner of the Church untouched.  Vatican II is the public face of the Church.  The above arguments will continue, but so will Vatican II. 

There's only one question that really matters.  Is Vatican II Catholic?

Yes, this really cuts to the heart of my issue. I'm sure there are a dozen different ways one can fit all the pieces together and say that liturgy, doctrine, and morals have been perfectly preserved in a very abstract sense. "Oh, the New Mass in the original Latin is orthodox", "Oh, if you dig through the relationes of Vatican II and squint you can get dignitatis humanae off on a technicality", "Oh, yes the CCC (2298) says that the Church commanded something intrinsically evil (confession extracting torture, which is condemned as such in CCC 2297) for 800 years in its Canon Law and at Ecumenical Councils, but uh it doesn't strictly meet the criteria for "universal discipline" so the Church didn't defect".

The problem is that humans don't practice religions in abstract scholastic bubbles; we practice them in reality, in concrete space and linear time. When I go to my local parish and see women with barren heads dressed like prostitutes pawing out the Eucharist, I really don't care what the New Mass looks like in the original Latin. I care about the fact that in reality the Church is allowing public desecration in thousands of parishes around the world.

Does the exact doctrinal note of Vatican II really matter when soul destroying error in doctrine, liturgy, morals, and discipline is pumping out at industrial speeds from the Roman See? It's indefectibility that's at stake far more than infallibility.

I actually agree with you that indefectibility is the bigger issue (although I also believe that infallibility is also at issue because if Vatican II was a true Catholic Council promulgated by a true pope, then it should have been infallible wrt teachings on faith and morals...but we have numerous errors in faith and morals). 

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

You are either with the Church and follow the Council or you are not with the (Conciliar) Church.

The accompanying letter of a motu proprio now demands the same level of assent as everything else?  Pull the other one.

[AlNg]

You provide nothing that says it is binding

The quote speaks against the idea that it is not binding.

[james03]

Do you accept that the Council put this in their document?

Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding

Willfully blind.