"The Church can teach no error"

[GloriaPatri]

How can a council of all the Churchmen that matter, supported by 99.9 percent of its bishops, five Pope's in a row and several dozen canonised saint be "not of the Church"?

Who else is there that represents "the Church"?

Imagine a corporation defending themselves in court like this.  "We fired the board, all the senior management, all the middle management most of the staff and brought back the son of the CEO who had been ousted in an illegal board room coup in 1966 and sold his stock by 1974.  There are just a couple of call centre operators, the tea lady and a janitor left in the new firm and we have rehired new staff, so we are not guilty of the fraud and theft committed in the name of the company between 1965 -2028.

Those people were not really "the company", "the company" was simply the memorandum of articles and the seal inside a lawyer's safe.  We motion the court to dismiss this case".

If you can retrospectively alter reality like this then everyone can be "infallible", just as long as they can find mugs to accept the new reality and forget the old reality.

One could argue that, in spite of the overwhelming support of the worlds bishops at the time, that the result of the Council did not engage with the Church's ordinary or extraordinary magisterium (the position of most canonical Trad groups, at least unofficially). One could argue that Pope St. John XXIII (who supposedly called for the dissolution of the Council on his deathbed) intended for a different finished product than the one Paul VI brought about. One could also argue, like most conservative non-trad Catholics, that the implementation of the Council was not faithful to the conciliar texts themselves and that a new interpretation and implementation in line with past councils (especially Trent and VI) is needed. One could also argue that the past few popes aren't even popes and thus VII and all it's fruits are really just the work of hell attempting to destroy the Church. But one should not let their Faith be destroyed by the Crisis. Recall Christ's chiding of St. Thomas. We must have faith in God's Providence, just as the apostles had to retain their faith even when Christ was put in the tomb.

As regards to the bolded, what "dozens of saints" are you referring to? At best we have 2, John XXIII and John Paul II.

[Greg]

The canonised saints who firmly supported the changes after Vatican II.

[LoneWolfRadTrad]

The canonised saints who firmly supported the changes after Vatican II.

Definitely not St. Padre Pio.

[RedCaves]

I've often wondered if it's even possible for a pope to change doctrine/dogma.

For example, you guys remember that Jim Carrey movie, "Liar, Liar"? Fletcher was physically incapable of lying. Every time he held a blue pen and tried to say out loud "This pen is red", he could never pronounce that last word.

Is that the type of guarantee of ecclesiastical infallibility when people say "The Church can teach no error"?

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAE7uOO_4v4[/yt]

[Michael Wilson]

I've often wondered if it's even possible for a pope to change doctrine/dogma.

For example, you guys remember that Jim Carrey movie, "Liar, Liar"? Fletcher was physically incapable of lying. Every time he held a blue pen and tried to say out loud "This pen is red", he could never pronounce that last word.

Is that the type of guarantee of ecclesiastical infallibility when people say "The Church can teach no error"?

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAE7uOO_4v4[/yt]

Pretty much. 

[Gardener]

In a recent sermon I heard... either Fr. Isaac Mary or Fr. Wolfe, FSSP, they talked about how some popes have tried to promulgate heresy and died before they could. God simply wouldn't let it occur.

[Maximilian]

In a recent sermon I heard... either Fr. Isaac Mary or Fr. Wolfe, FSSP, they talked about how some popes have tried to promulgate heresy and died before they could. God simply wouldn't let it occur.

So are you telling us that God has abandoned us?
If He wouldn't let it occur back in former centuries, why has allowed it for the last half dozen (with the exception perhaps of JPI, although there are more logical explanations for why he was struck down so soon).

JPII lived to a ripe old age, promulgated his "Theology of the Body" ever further and wider, not dying until the end of the third longest papacy in history, having carried to completion the transformation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church into the new-age "Conciliar Church."

John XXIII was struck down before he could officially sign off on the documents of Vatican II which he initiated, but his successor carried on even more strongly in his promulgation of heresy. So even if God did strike down John XXIII, it didn't stop the papacy from signing off on lots of heresy.

[Gardener]

In a recent sermon I heard... either Fr. Isaac Mary or Fr. Wolfe, FSSP, they talked about how some popes have tried to promulgate heresy and died before they could. God simply wouldn't let it occur.

So are you telling us that God has abandoned us?
If He wouldn't let it occur back in former centuries, why has allowed it for the last half dozen (with the exception perhaps of JPI, although there are more logical explanations for why he was struck down so soon).

JPII lived to a ripe old age, promulgated his "Theology of the Body" ever further and wider, not dying until the end of the third longest papacy in history, having carried to completion the transformation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church into the new-age "Conciliar Church."

John XXIII was struck down before he could officially sign off on the documents of Vatican II which he initiated, but his successor carried on even more strongly in his promulgation of heresy. So even if God did strike down John XXIII, it didn't stop the papacy from signing off on lots of heresy.

Since none of the examples you've given are ex cathedra, dogmatic/doctrinally binding, etc., I don't see your point.

The priest was speaking of binding statements, not personal or non-binding teachings.

I'm not saying anything as far as you've stated. But you have.

[Lynne]

In a recent sermon I heard... either Fr. Isaac Mary or Fr. Wolfe, FSSP, they talked about how some popes have tried to promulgate heresy and died before they could. God simply wouldn't let it occur.

So are you telling us that God has abandoned us?
If He wouldn't let it occur back in former centuries, why has allowed it for the last half dozen (with the exception perhaps of JPI, although there are more logical explanations for why he was struck down so soon).

JPII lived to a ripe old age, promulgated his "Theology of the Body" ever further and wider, not dying until the end of the third longest papacy in history, having carried to completion the transformation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church into the new-age "Conciliar Church."

John XXIII was struck down before he could officially sign off on the documents of Vatican II which he initiated, but his successor carried on even more strongly in his promulgation of heresy. So even if God did strike down John XXIII, it didn't stop the papacy from signing off on lots of heresy.

Since none of the examples you've given are ex cathedra, dogmatic/doctrinally binding, etc., I don't see your point.

The priest was speaking of binding statements, not personal or non-binding teachings.

I'm not saying anything as far as you've stated. But you have.

So the Conciliar Churchmen were brilliant. Just stop teaching doctrine, be exceedingly pastoral and don't make binding statements.

[Maximilian]

In a recent sermon I heard... either Fr. Isaac Mary or Fr. Wolfe, FSSP, they talked about how some popes have tried to promulgate heresy and died before they could. God simply wouldn't let it occur.

So are you telling us that God has abandoned us?
If He wouldn't let it occur back in former centuries, why has allowed it for the last half dozen (with the exception perhaps of JPI, although there are more logical explanations for why he was struck down so soon).

JPII lived to a ripe old age, promulgated his "Theology of the Body" ever further and wider, not dying until the end of the third longest papacy in history, having carried to completion the transformation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church into the new-age "Conciliar Church."

John XXIII was struck down before he could officially sign off on the documents of Vatican II which he initiated, but his successor carried on even more strongly in his promulgation of heresy. So even if God did strike down John XXIII, it didn't stop the papacy from signing off on lots of heresy.

Since none of the examples you've given are ex cathedra, dogmatic/doctrinally binding, etc.,

Vatican II is as dogmatic as it gets. You can't get any more "ex cathedra, dogmatic/doctrinally binding" than a full ecumenical council of the Church signed off by over 2,000 bishops and then "solemly promulgated" by the pope. By definition the documents were dealing with "faith and morals."

These documents are the very epitome of what should have been infallible even under the old pre-Pius IX standards. When there is some dispute about doctrine, there is no higher authority than the solemly promulgated teachings of a full ecumenical council.

[Gardener]

In a recent sermon I heard... either Fr. Isaac Mary or Fr. Wolfe, FSSP, they talked about how some popes have tried to promulgate heresy and died before they could. God simply wouldn't let it occur.

So are you telling us that God has abandoned us?
If He wouldn't let it occur back in former centuries, why has allowed it for the last half dozen (with the exception perhaps of JPI, although there are more logical explanations for why he was struck down so soon).

JPII lived to a ripe old age, promulgated his "Theology of the Body" ever further and wider, not dying until the end of the third longest papacy in history, having carried to completion the transformation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church into the new-age "Conciliar Church."

John XXIII was struck down before he could officially sign off on the documents of Vatican II which he initiated, but his successor carried on even more strongly in his promulgation of heresy. So even if God did strike down John XXIII, it didn't stop the papacy from signing off on lots of heresy.

Since none of the examples you've given are ex cathedra, dogmatic/doctrinally binding, etc.,

Vatican II is as dogmatic as it gets. You can't get any more "ex cathedra, dogmatic/doctrinally binding" than a full ecumenical council of the Church signed off by over 2,000 bishops and then "solemly promulgated" by the pope. By definition the documents were dealing with "faith and morals."

These documents are the very epitome of what should have been infallible even under the old pre-Pius IX standards. When there is some dispute about doctrine, there is no higher authority than the solemly promulgated teachings of a full ecumenical council.

V2 made no binding statements. Of what it did say, one can hardly call it clear. The Pontiffs have been clear V2 made no binding statements and that was not its purpose. It is claimed it merely portrayed the teaching of the Church, not binding under V2, but previous Councils and the Ordinary Magisterium.

If, then, there are incorrect elements, it's is hard to say what those are considering the documents are often so vague one can read a multiplicity of things in them.

I'd hardly call that "teaching" error. Crappy phrasing, perhaps, but teaching error? No. The error seems to come in the personal interpretation of the hierarchy, and that is not protected, even if the error is in the Pope himself, for his interpretation is not binding but under certain conditions heretofore unmet.

[Maximilian]

In a recent sermon I heard... either Fr. Isaac Mary or Fr. Wolfe, FSSP, they talked about how some popes have tried to promulgate heresy and died before they could. God simply wouldn't let it occur.

So are you telling us that God has abandoned us?
If He wouldn't let it occur back in former centuries, why has allowed it for the last half dozen (with the exception perhaps of JPI, although there are more logical explanations for why he was struck down so soon).

JPII lived to a ripe old age, promulgated his "Theology of the Body" ever further and wider, not dying until the end of the third longest papacy in history, having carried to completion the transformation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church into the new-age "Conciliar Church."

John XXIII was struck down before he could officially sign off on the documents of Vatican II which he initiated, but his successor carried on even more strongly in his promulgation of heresy. So even if God did strike down John XXIII, it didn't stop the papacy from signing off on lots of heresy.

Since none of the examples you've given are ex cathedra, dogmatic/doctrinally binding, etc.,

Vatican II is as dogmatic as it gets. You can't get any more "ex cathedra, dogmatic/doctrinally binding" than a full ecumenical council of the Church signed off by over 2,000 bishops and then "solemly promulgated" by the pope. By definition the documents were dealing with "faith and morals."

These documents are the very epitome of what should have been infallible even under the old pre-Pius IX standards. When there is some dispute about doctrine, there is no higher authority than the solemly promulgated teachings of a full ecumenical council.

V2 made no binding statements.

All of it's statements are binding, and they are treated so by the conciliar church.

Of what it did say, one can hardly call it clear.

They're mostly clear as day. We just don't want to hear what they have to say.

Take the example of Sacrosanctum Concilium, which is often considered the least offensive by many traditional Catholics. It stated that the Catholic Mass of all ages should be dramatically altered. And so it has transpired.

The Pontiffs have been clear V2 made no binding statements and that was not its purpose. It is claimed it merely portrayed the teaching of the Church, not binding under V2, but previous Councils and the Ordinary Magisterium.

No, they certainly have not made that clear. That issue is hotly debated, to say the least. But it doesn't really matter which way the debate comes out. Documents have their infallibility from their nature, not from the result of disputations or later clarifications.

If, then, there are incorrect elements, it's is hard to say what those are considering the documents are often so vague one can read a multiplicity of things in them.

It's not so hard. This has been hashed out ad infinitum. There are lots of references one can find on-line to "the errors of Vatican II."

I'd hardly call that "teaching" error. Crappy phrasing, perhaps, but teaching error? No. The error seems to come in the personal interpretation of the hierarchy, and that is not protected, even if the error is in the Pope himself, for his interpretation is not binding but under certain conditions heretofore unmet.

I disagree 100%.

1. Every word is error, because none of them are unmixed truth, and all of them are intended to serve the evil agenda of creating a new church to take the place of the Catholic Church.
2. There is nothing wrong with the phrasing. The documents are pretty straightforward.
3. The error is in the documents themselves, not in the interpretation. And in any case, the most liberal interpretation is the most accurate because that is the interpretation which the authors intended, as you can see by reading accounts of the sessions of Vatican II, starting with the Opening Speech of John XXIII.
4. Yes, the interpretation of the hierarchy should be protected from error. If the documents of Vatican II were as pristine as the those of the Council of Nicea, then the papacy should be infallibly protected from interpreting those documents to the faithful in a way that is heretical.
5. You present conditions for a mythical infallibility of which the conditions can never be met. "The pope is infallible, except when he's wrong, because then the conditions were not met, the conditions being that he must be right."

[Greg]

Maximilian is right.

Particularly on point 5.  That sort of infallibility is a total nonsense and utterly worthless.

[RedCaves]

In a recent sermon I heard... either Fr. Isaac Mary or Fr. Wolfe, FSSP, they talked about how some popes have tried to promulgate heresy and died before they could. God simply wouldn't let it occur.

I'd like to see this put to the test...

[LoneWolfRadTrad]

What the heck is going on here?  Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, Popes Paul VI and John XXIII were both very clear on that.  It was a pastoral council, capable of error.