Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism

[Sin of Adam]

S.O.A. Stated:

A Roman Pontiff implicitly & indirectly condemned St. Augustine's doctrines, which were accepted Catholic doctrine for 1000+ years taught by the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium, by condemning Jansenism. This led to a revolution in the Church that still rages today.
Jansenism is Augustinianism, pure and simple.

Pure and simple Balderdash.

No amount of damage control, intellectual or otherwise, can disprove what is obvious documented history.

Blatant Revisionist history.

As for Arianism, it was condemned by a dogmatic ecumenical council ratified by a Roman Pontiff. Jansenism, on the other hand, was condemned by a Pope in a fallible manner who fell prey to political machinations. Mind you, the same authority which is used today to condemn Traditionalists & the Traditional movement. In other words, Popes outside of ex-cathedra pronouncements are entirely fallible.

Heresy! Condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of errors and Quanta Cura:

Syllabus of Errors: 22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
QUANTA CURA: “Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.”

I see nothing but empty denial, lack of evidence, and circular reasoning i.e using an annex to an encyclical and non-infallible Papal documents to demonstrate the authority of encyclicals or non-infallible documents.

Read "Rome Has Spoken . . .: A Guide to Forgotten Papal Statements, and How They Have Changed Through the Centuries" and see for yourself instead of regurgitating discredited nonsense.

[Maximilian]

I would agree with you 100%

Thank you for having an open mind.

if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not.

An ecumenical council ratified and solemnly promulgated by the pope is the very definition of "dogmatic." There can be no higher standard. You might as well say that Nicea or Chalcedon were not dogmatic councils.

The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

It would be appreciated if you quoted that part.

The reality, in any case, is that it defined many things.

and therefore is not infallible in those areas where it does not repeat previously infallibly defined pronouncements.

If Vatican II is not infallible, then nothing is. By the objective standards of the process, it is the most infallible. It's only because it taught things clearly erroneous that we desperately search for loopholes in the process. The hard fact of reality, however, is that it met every possible criteria of the definitions, but nevertheless managed to destroy the Catholic Faith.

[Maximilian]

I would agree with you 100% if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not. The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

Three of the documents of Vatican II are even titled "Dogmatic Constitution," including
   Sacrosanctum Concilium which destroyed the Catholic Mass and
   Lumen Gentium which is considered the most problematic by many traditional Catholics.

As for the third, Dei Verbum, I haven't given it much study, but this recent article examines its deleterious effects:

https://onepeterfive.com/dei-verbum-moral-theology/

Dei Verbum and the Collapse of Moral Theology

In a previous article, we discussed how the error of Limited Inerrancy was condemned by multiple popes as well as the original document [he means the pre-Council schema] on Revelation from Vatican II. Because Dei Verbum was vague on this point, it allowed liberal heretics to place themselves as authorities over the Word of God to pass judgement on its “errors” while pushing their feminist, Marxist, or other erroneous interpretations. In this article, we will discuss another related issue that the document helped to unleash: the collapse of moral theology.

[Sin of Adam]

I would agree with you 100%

Thank you for having an open mind.

if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not.

An ecumenical council ratified and solemnly promulgated by the pope is the very definition of "dogmatic." There can be no higher standard. You might as well say that Nicea or Chalcedon were not dogmatic councils.

The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

It would be appreciated if you quoted that part.

The reality, in any case, is that it defined many things.

and therefore is not infallible in those areas where it does not repeat previously infallibly defined pronouncements.

If Vatican II is not infallible, then nothing is. By the objective standards of the process, it is the most infallible. It's only because it taught things clearly erroneous that we desperately search for loopholes in the process. The hard fact of reality, however, is that it met every possible criteria of the definitions, but nevertheless managed to destroy the Catholic Faith.

Perhaps I should have worded my argument in more precise terms. Vatican II is infallible as an ecumenical council, but by the authority of those who convened it as an ecumenical council, it refused to define any new dogmas or matters pertaining to faith & morals. It is by the authority of those convening it, a pastoral council that was meant to rephrase already defined teaching in a manner acceptable to the modern world. Whether it succeeded in that is another question and what came out of it is another question as well, but that was the explicit intention of the council.

Oct. 11, 1962, Pope John XXIII characterized it as such. In his address that day, “Gaudet Mater Ecclesia,” he told the assembled prelates that the council was to be “predominantly pastoral in character.” Vatican II did not define a single doctrine. The council did not define any doctrines because it adopted a mode of discourse different from that operative in councils that produced definitions.

“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”
(Pope Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966, Pope Paul VI presided over the Second Vatican Council)

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. 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.”
(Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI, given 13 July 1988, in Santiago, Chile)

[Sin of Adam]

I would agree with you 100% if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not. The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

Three of the documents of Vatican II are even titled "Dogmatic Constitution," including
   Sacrosanctum Concilium which destroyed the Catholic Mass and
   Lumen Gentium which is considered the most problematic by many traditional Catholics.

As for the third, Dei Verbum, I haven't given it much study, but this recent article examines its deleterious effects:

https://onepeterfive.com/dei-verbum-moral-theology/

Dei Verbum and the Collapse of Moral Theology

In a previous article, we discussed how the error of Limited Inerrancy was condemned by multiple popes as well as the original document [he means the pre-Council schema] on Revelation from Vatican II. Because Dei Verbum was vague on this point, it allowed liberal heretics to place themselves as authorities over the Word of God to pass judgement on its “errors” while pushing their feminist, Marxist, or other erroneous interpretations. In this article, we will discuss another related issue that the document helped to unleash: the collapse of moral theology.

January 12th, 1966, Pope Paul VI:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

[Vetus Ordo]

An excerpt from the book, "God Owes Us Nothing" by Dr. Kolakowski

An excellent book that I've made reference to in the past.

Thought-provoking. Everyone should read it.

[Vetus Ordo]

I would agree with you 100% if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not. The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

Three of the documents of Vatican II are even titled "Dogmatic Constitution," including
   Sacrosanctum Concilium which destroyed the Catholic Mass and
   Lumen Gentium which is considered the most problematic by many traditional Catholics.

As for the third, Dei Verbum, I haven't given it much study, but this recent article examines its deleterious effects:

https://onepeterfive.com/dei-verbum-moral-theology/

Dei Verbum and the Collapse of Moral Theology

In a previous article, we discussed how the error of Limited Inerrancy was condemned by multiple popes as well as the original document [he means the pre-Council schema] on Revelation from Vatican II. Because Dei Verbum was vague on this point, it allowed liberal heretics to place themselves as authorities over the Word of God to pass judgement on its “errors” while pushing their feminist, Marxist, or other erroneous interpretations. In this article, we will discuss another related issue that the document helped to unleash: the collapse of moral theology.

January 12th, 1966, Pope Paul VI:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

Ecumenical Councils of the Church solemnly ratified by the Pope cannot teach heresy, otherwise the extraordinary magisterium of the Church would be a source of perdition. If you add to that a heretical Code of Canon Law and heretical encyclicals of 6 popes in a row, then the edifice crumbles to the ground in spectacular fashion. Vatican II is unnegotiable. No-one who wishes to remain in communion with Rome can ignore it or reject it. It's the major stumbling block preventing the regularization of the SSPX, for instance. The proof is in the pudding.

Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: “And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect. It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)

Paul VI and all his successors have treated Vatican II as binding. It is as infallible and binding as Vatican I, Trent or Nicea. In his book, The Ratzinger Report, the former cardinal and pope stated:

"It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms."

Was Vatican II Infallible?

[Sin of Adam]

I would agree with you 100% if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not. The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

Three of the documents of Vatican II are even titled "Dogmatic Constitution," including
   Sacrosanctum Concilium which destroyed the Catholic Mass and
   Lumen Gentium which is considered the most problematic by many traditional Catholics.

As for the third, Dei Verbum, I haven't given it much study, but this recent article examines its deleterious effects:

https://onepeterfive.com/dei-verbum-moral-theology/

Dei Verbum and the Collapse of Moral Theology

In a previous article, we discussed how the error of Limited Inerrancy was condemned by multiple popes as well as the original document [he means the pre-Council schema] on Revelation from Vatican II. Because Dei Verbum was vague on this point, it allowed liberal heretics to place themselves as authorities over the Word of God to pass judgement on its “errors” while pushing their feminist, Marxist, or other erroneous interpretations. In this article, we will discuss another related issue that the document helped to unleash: the collapse of moral theology.

January 12th, 1966, Pope Paul VI:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

Ecumenical Councils of the Church solemnly ratified by the Pope cannot teach heresy, otherwise the extraordinary magisterium of the Church would be a source of perdition. If you add to that a heretical Code of Canon Law and heretical encyclicals of 6 popes in a row, then the edifice crumbles to the ground in spectacular fashion. Vatican II is unnegotiable. No-one who wishes to remain in communion with Rome can ignore it or reject it. It's the major stumbling block preventing the regularization of the SSPX, for instance. The proof is in the pudding.

Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: “And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect. It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)

Paul VI and all his successors have treated Vatican II as binding. It is as infallible and binding as Vatican I, Trent or Nicea. In his book, The Ratzinger Report, the former cardinal and pope stated:

"It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms."

Was Vatican II Infallible?

Dear Sir,

I think you misunderstand the crux of the argument.

No one is talking about the legitimacy of VII or its binding nature, but about whether or not it meets the criteria of previous ecumenical councils specifically as it relates to defining dogma.

Vatican II did not define new dogma

The very Popes who convened the council have confirmed this point.

What that means by logical necessity is that it cannot be compared to the previous councils. The very proof of this is that it did not cast any anathemas on those who would dare to refuse it.

In practical terms, if VII was in the same league as the previous ecumenical councils, then the SSPX would have to be seen by Roman authority as being in the same boat as Old Catholics, which is clearly not the case.

Even Pope Francis does not consider the SSPX to be heretical or in schism despite their aggressive and outright rejection of VII.

John Paul II only excommunicated Msgr. Lefebvre for illicit consecrations; not for rejecting Vatican II.

Some groups in full communion with Rome reject VII and Rome has not censured them.

Sum of the argument? VII is not the same as the previous councils, both theoretically and practically.

P.S.

It is possible to interpret even those areas of Vatican II which are contentious in an orthodox fashion.

As for Papal encyclicals then they are fallible without any doubt and contain/teach error, even heresy, in specific circumstances.

Even if the last six Popes were manifest and pertinacious heretics who taught heresies, it doesn't change the fact that Vatican II as an ecumenical council does not necessitate your conclusions.

[Vetus Ordo]

No one is talking about the legitimacy of VII or its binding nature, but about whether or not it meets the criteria of previous ecumenical councils specifically as it relates to defining dogma.

If Vatican II taught heretical doctrines, then it cannot be a Council of the Church.

Councils of the Church that promote heresy are a novel concept of 20th century "traditionalism."

Vatican II did not define new dogma

The very Popes who convened the council have confirmed this point.

"New dogma" is a misnomer. Dogmas are supposed to be logical propositions that exist in the deposit of faith delivered to the Apostles two thousand years ago.

Vatican II was lawfully convened and lawfully ratified by the pope. It defined doctrine, contrary to your claim, which is enough to be considered infallible. Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam,1964: "It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council."

Furthermore, Paul VI taught that Vatican II contained authoritative teaching, condemned errors, and passed down the Church’s doctrine. In the Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965, he stated that the council "has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity...Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth...This council hands over to posterity not only the image of the Church but also the patrimony of her doctrine and of her commandments, the ‘deposit’ received from Christ and meditated upon through centuries, lived and expressed now and clarified in so many of its parts, settled and arranged in its integrity."

Some groups in full communion with Rome reject VII and Rome has not censured them.

List them, please.

If you're thinking about the late Ecclesia Dei groups and things like the Institut du Bon Pasteur, they all accept the validity and legitimacy of Vatican II and the magisterium of all subsequent popes.

[Sin of Adam]

No one is talking about the legitimacy of VII or its binding nature, but about whether or not it meets the criteria of previous ecumenical councils specifically as it relates to defining dogma.

If Vatican II taught heretical doctrines, then it cannot be a Council of the Church.

Councils of the Church that promote heresy are a novel concept of 20th century "traditionalism."

Vatican II did not define new dogma

The very Popes who convened the council have confirmed this point.

"New dogma" is a misnomer. Dogmas are supposed to be logical propositions that exist in the deposit of faith delivered to the Apostles two thousand years ago.

Vatican II was lawfully convened and lawfully ratified by the pope. It defined doctrine, contrary to your claim, which is enough to be considered infallible. Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam,1964: "It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council."

Furthermore, Paul VI taught that Vatican II contained authoritative teaching, condemned errors, and passed down the Church’s doctrine. In the Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965, he stated that the council "has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity...Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth...This council hands over to posterity not only the image of the Church but also the patrimony of her doctrine and of her commandments, the ‘deposit’ received from Christ and meditated upon through centuries, lived and expressed now and clarified in so many of its parts, settled and arranged in its integrity."

Some groups in full communion with Rome reject VII and Rome has not censured them.

List them, please.

If you're thinking about the late Ecclesia Dei groups and things like the Institut du Bon Pasteur, they all accept the validity and legitimacy of Vatican II and the magisterium of all subsequent popes.

1) As mentioned in my previous posts, it is possible to interpret Vatican II in an orthodox fashion. One does not have to hold to the position that Vatican II taught heresy if the evidence points to the impossibility of a pastoral, non-dogmatic council teaching heresy. We do not need to go down the road of false dichotomies.

2) A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined as "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declares as binding." New dogma would mean in this case, a truth revealed by God that just now being proposed by the Catholic Church as binding. Hence Papal Infallibility not being a dogma for nearly 1900 years.

3) Yes, Vatican II was convened and ratified by two valid Popes. So what?

4) I don't understand why it is difficult for you to grasp the rather obvious point here. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966) Hence by its infallible nature as an ecumenical council, it declared infalliblly, that it did not proclaim any new dogmas.

What does that mean? That means religious liberty and the rest of what was novel as interpreted by modernists in Vatican II are new ideas that did not exist in the Church before except as condemned errors. Hence these novelties are not infallible and thus can be rejected if one holds to the view that Vatican II cannot be interpreted in an orthodox fashion.

5) Correction: not full communion; rather "imperfect communion"; groups that reject VII.

[Michael Wilson]

S.O.A. Stated:

I see nothing

The only true statement that you have made.

[Sin of Adam]

S.O.A. Stated:

I see nothing

The only true statement that you have made.

Please spare me the self righteous, elitist, one line zingers best reserved for advertisements and use your God given reason to make something resembling an argument.

[Michael Wilson]

S.O.A. Stated:

I see nothing

The only true statement that you have made.

Please spare me the self righteous, elitist, one line zingers best reserved for advertisements and use your God given reason to make something resembling an argument.

Everything you have posted so far demonstrates that you are not capable of understanding a logical argument.

[Sin of Adam]

S.O.A. Stated:

I see nothing

The only true statement that you have made.

Please spare me the self righteous, elitist, one line zingers best reserved for advertisements and use your God given reason to make something resembling an argument.

Everything you have posted so far demonstrates that you are not capable of understanding a logical argument.

Edit: I apologize for my Ad hominem. Please forgive me as I was in the heat of the moment.

[Michael Wilson]

No problem, there is always room to hope for somebody who admits they are not perfect; my apologies also; I have little patience for the depressing Jansenist position on grace and God's "justice".