2nd Vatican Council

[CrusaderNY]

The spirit of Vatican II

---

---

**Potential Pope Declares Jesus Is Not the Only Way **

Cardinal Francis Arinze, who’s considered a possible successor to Pope John Paul II, has denied Jesus is the only way to heaven. In a recent interview the spirited 66 year-old deputy for outreach to other religions was asked, “So was Jesus wrong when he said he was the way, the truth and the life?” Arinze responed, "If a person were to push what you said a little further and say that if you’re not a Christian you’re not going to heaven, we’d regard that person as a fundamentalist…and theologically wrong. I met in Pakistan a Muslim. He had a wonderful concept of the Koran. We were like two twins that had known one another from birth. And I was in admiration of this man’s wisdom. I think that man will go to heaven. There was a Buddhist in Kyoto, in Japan. This man, a good man, open, listening, humble–I was amazed. I listened to his works of wisdom and said to myself, “The grace of God is working in this man.” The interviewer then repeated the question, “So you can still get to heaven without accepting Jesus?” “Expressly, yes [he laughs with the audience]” (Dallas Morning News, 3/20/99)

 

[CrusaderNY]

Probably, I dont know where it came from, want to find the site and the article as it looks very scary, but possibly true. I hope our Pope wakes up and smells the coffee as I love him dearly but appears to be misguided and or Old at this point
Rara Avis:

I too was sent this by a friend … do we have the same friends? LOL

 

[CrusaderNY]

That is beautifully stated, and better than I could have articulated
Rara Avis:

The words ecumenical and catholic both derive fromthe Greek language and mean universal. Thus, the General Councils of the Church were called ecumenical since bishops from around the world attended them. However, Vatican II taught a new form of ecumenism - dialogue and joint worship with all the religions of the world.

Throughout the centuries a strong Catholic Church has stood as an obstacle to the amalgamation of churches into a one world church. Therefore, the liberals needed to essentially change the Catholic Church - “modernize” it and make it “acceptable” to the world. Their type of ecumenism is founded on the false belief and hope that all religions may, without great difficulty, be brought to fraternal agreement and find a common spiritual basis. In effect, this places the Catholic Church on the same level as all other religions, thereby implying that it is not the one true Church, and consequently, that there is not one true church at all. To them, "ecumenism…seemed to mean Catholics and Protestants sitting down together to decide what Catholics were not going to believe anymore.

 

[CrusaderNY]

TNT

I am right behind you, have your back all the way!

TNT:

WELCOME TO THE TRADITIONAL COMEDIAN SOCIETY ORIENTATION.
Be very nuanced in what you post. Mix it up with church statements, for authenticity.
Otherwise you could get suspended…very bad. Like losing a soldier at Iwo Jima.
View the posts by CrusaderNY. He’s our current diplomat-in-training. When you see “suspended” under his name, then don’t use him for your model anymore. He rides the ragged edge.
Meanwhile, his posts can be viewed at:
forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=475498

We’re all one big loving family. I was one in a family of 11. It’s like being back home again. So, just because someone calls you liberal names, breaks your wrist or puts a knot on your head, doesn’t mean they don’t love you. It’s just that they can’t find any facts handy to refute what you say. Or they can’t find any facts to back up what they say. Or they’re just having a bad day. We just take a cold shower, say the Rosary, in Latin, get some sleep, and back fresh as a spider monkey.
One more thing, watch for mama Bear06. She’s with cubs and you end up being braodsided just when you think you’ve won.
Carry on.
TNT
Great leaders made great followers first.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

CrusaderNY,

If the Pope teaches something that is not in line with Traditional Catholic Teaching, then the Pope is speaking as a private theologian

Rubbish.

The magisterium is the “teaching authority” of the Church. It is not the competence of the taught Church to determine the orthodoxy or heterdoxy of the teaching Church . To do so is to reject traditional Catholicism.

According to Pope St. Pius X:

The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff. Catechism of Pius X]

Lefebvrists don’t obey the same Law or obey the lawful Pastors. The instead state:

“Vatican II adulterated Catholic teaching. We must, therefore, suspect the new legislation of codifying the same errors and be ready not to accept all its ‘laws’”

Do they have lawful Pastors? No. All of their bishops are excommunicated and none of their pastors are incardinated. So, by St. Pius X’s standards, they are not among what he calls the Catholic Church.

According to Pope St. Pius X:

we are obliged to believe all the truths the Church teaches us, and Jesus Christ declares that he who does not believe is already condemned. … we are obliged to do all that the Church commands, for Jesus Christ has said to the Pastors of the Church: “He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me.” (ibid)

Futhermore,

There is a very notable distinction between the members of the Church; for there are some who rule and some who obey; some who teach and some who are taught. (ibid)

Excommunicated Lefebvrist bishops and non-incardinated Lefebvrist priests and the laity in union with them are not among those who rule, but among those who are supposed to obey. They are not among those who teach, but among those who are taught.

According to Pope St. Pius X:

The Teaching Church is composed of all the Bishops, with the Roman Pontiff at their head, be they dispersed throughout the world or assembled together in Council.

According to St. Pius X, there’s no caveat, as you suppose, with regard to the taught Church’s competence to judge the orthodoxy of the teaching Church’s doctrines.

Instead, this is what St. Pius X asserts:

The teaching power in the Church is possessed by the Pope and the Bishops, and, dependent on them, by the other sacred ministers. … without doubt we are obliged under pain of eternal damnation to hear the Teaching Church; for Jesus Christ has said to the Pastors of His Church, in the persons of the Apostles: “He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me.” … exercise of this power belongs solely to the Hierarchy, that is, to the Pope and to the Bishops subordinate to him.(ibid)

Lefebvrists have no bishops subordinate to the Roman Pontiff, and as such are not vested with magisterial authority.

“Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.” (St. Pius X)

This is what traditional Catholics believe.

"Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father*: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. *And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil"
[St. Catherine of Sienna, Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza]

 

[Fogny]

Hi,

I would like to see how the Cardinal reconciles Christ’s words about his new covenent. Of course many at the time could not understand his words as this was the mystery of faith.

Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53).

The question I ask all the time is how can you be more Christian than Christ.

The Church’s Magisterium answers this question through teaching and tradition, but alas the church wrestles with this issue now more than ever.

Fogny

 

[TNT]

itsjustdave1988:

CrusaderNY,

Rubbish.

The magisterium is the “teaching authority” of the Church. It is not the competence of the taught Church to determine the orthodoxy or heterdoxy of the teaching Church . …

And to this rubbish we may dare to add:

"Goofy" Universal Teachers
1024/32: John XIX, {145th P.} Brother of Benedict VIII {144th P.} but a bad pope. He published first indulgence with alms as a condition.
1075: St Gregory VII {155th P.} In his Dictatus Papae (Mar. 1075): He decreed (xxiii) “That the Roman Pontiff, if he has been cononically ordained undoubtedly is made a saint by the merits of St Peter.”
John XXII taught firmly no beatific vision by anyone until the Last Judgement.
Sixtus IV P.{210th} (147184) Was first pope to decide** indulgences could be applied to the dead**. A Carmelite from Mantua wrote “your temples, priests, altars, rites …prayers, heaven and God too are for sale.”
Bull of Sixtus V (Aeternus Ille ), which was promulgated,"By the fullness of Apostolic power…this edition (of the Bible.)…is to be received and held true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned…(BUT):
" Being riddled with errors", it was certainly NOT infallible, and WAS corrected under Gregory XIV!
JPII Teaches against St Thomas when he teaches “Purgatory is NOT a place”
JPII teaches that :
"Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of** whether…human beings are effectively involved in it**. "

According to St. Pius X, there’s no caveat, as you suppose, with regard to the taught Church’s competence to judge the orthodoxy of the teaching Church’s doctrines.

See St Bellarmine, Doctor below.
See also The St Pius X Pascendi, Pius IX Syllabus of Errors

“Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.” (St. Pius X)

See “Goofy Universal Teachers” above.

"Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father

**: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. **And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil"
[St. Catherine of Sienna, Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza]*But then:

1352: Innocent VI {197th P.} St Bridget of Sweden turned against him and **denounced him as a persecutor of Christ’s sheep **because of harshness toward the Franciscan Spirituals.

Then there is:
St. Robert Bellarmine Doctor of the Church on how a pope can error and what we must do:

"Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. …(De Romano Pontifice. II.29.)

Finally, St Paul:

Galatians 1 :8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

And again:

2 Thessalonians 2 :14 Therefore, brethren, (that’s you and me) stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

If this is not thoroughly confusing, I have some more.

 

[TNT]

Finally the Papal Oath, in part:

"To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

"I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared. …"I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I. "If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

Now, how, pray tell, if a pope cannot error, would such an oath of 1,300 years duration not be completely superfluous***?*** The Oath admits he can and even gives consequences.

JPII refused to take this oath. I just wonder why? What is wrong with it? Or, is it so obvious he has no need to explain his reasons?

 

[CrusaderNY]

It is obvious why he would not take the oath, from the moment he was elected , and he was elected because the Cardinals wanted a “renegade Pope”, one who would do away with all traditions, and this is documented in his biography that I saw on a regular cable show, he would not allow the College when elected come and kiss his ring sitting in the chair of Peter and got up to greet them and shook their hands. He said from the first instance he was going to do away witha all of the traditions of the Papacy, the Church, and not be “Bound” by any Oath. And therefore, as many Traditionals and Sedavcationists state, there is enough , including the over 100 heresy’s (they are saying this and I have read them and they are deviations from all church dogma and teachings not to mention scripture) that they have a very very valid case for the seat being empty right now, but I would not go there as I dont want to belive that as a Church going Catholic.

Finally the Papal Oath, in part:

Now, how, pray tell, if a pope cannot error, would such an oath of 1,300 years duration not be completely superfluous***?*** The Oath admits he can and even gives consequences.

JPII refused to take this oath. I just wonder why? What is wrong with it? Or, is it so obvious he has no need to explain his reasons?

 

[TNT]

CrusaderNY:

… that they have a very very valid case for the seat being empty right now, but I would not go there as I dont want to belive that as a Church going Catholic.

1 . If the Church is the “Continuation Body of Christ on Earth”, then can this Body suffer from the unfaithfulness of its disciples, just as the fleshly Body did?
2 . Did Judas lose his authority of office the moment he sold out the Body of Christ?
3 . Does this Body of Christ dissolve when the Seat of its Vicar is vacant, which it is when a pope dies?
4 . Does the Body of Christ teach error when its vicar does so, as pointed out in my the earlier post?
5 . Can a pope lose authority when he allows others under his jurisdiction, to torment the Body of Christ through error, and inuendo?
Finally:
6 . How can anyone know, for sure, when an error is being taught or practiced?
7 . Must we withhold an objective judgement on that until a higher authority pronounces?
8 . What if the practitioner has no higher earthly authority?
9 . If we may judge at all, from where do we measure the criteria for judgement if there is no higher living authority?
10. If perennial traditons of the Body of Christ cannot be referenced, what good are they to the laity in the first place?
11. If dogmas can be developed where they appear to corrupt the original plain meaning to the average intellect, then are dogmas any good at all as something to ever be relied on as originally pronounced?
12. What if the earlier Church laity relied on the original sense, and knew nothing of a later “deeper understanding”, were they deficient in their Faith?

---

---

---

 

[Kevin_Walker]

otm:

For some reason, I have a problem with that statement. Vatican 2 stretched over two papcies, and the liturgical renewal came after the close of the Council. If half the church was empty the day or week after the Council ws announced, I would wonder why, as most catholics had no idea what really was even going to be discussed.

Hi,

I guess it was because action spoke louder than words.

All of a sudden one Sunday (while I was in the third grade of parochial school) in the Gate of Heaven church, the Priests said the Mass in English; the HOST was raised with the Priest facing the wide-eyed parishoners; a priest climbed into the pulpit and instead of reading from the Gospel, gave a loud “fire & brimstone” speach; and then later new instructions were given on the ‘new’ Mass.

The next Sunday at Mass was the first time I had ever seen the Church half empty during a Sunday Service. Today the Church is lucky that out of hundreds of benches in the cathedral size Church, if they get two full benches. That, without a doubt, is a result of Vatican II. (Forced busing and the Scandal in the Church hasn’t helped either).

Plus all the absentee parishoners, some of whom were my friends parents, all said they left the Church because of Vatican II. Like the New Math in the 60s, Vatican II was forced upon us and not wanted.

So I am writing with direct experience of the fallout over Vatican II and from the statements of hundreds of friends and acquaintances over the years. But Vatican II produced instant results here in South Boston! It really polarized the Catholic Church in my neighborhood.

 

[CrusaderNY]

My honest answer is “I Dont Know the Answer to these questions”…I wish I did, confuses me, do you?

1 . If the Church is the “Continuation Body of Christ on Earth”, then can this Body suffer from the unfaithfulness of its disciples, just as the fleshly Body did?
2 . Did Judas lose his authority of office the moment he sold out the Body of Christ?
3 . Does this Body of Christ dissolve when the Seat of its Vicar is vacant, which it is when a pope dies?
4 . Does the Body of Christ teach error when its vicar does so, as pointed out in my the earlier post?
5 . Can a pope lose authority when he allows others under his jurisdiction, to torment the Body of Christ through error, and inuendo?
Finally:
6 . How can anyone know, for sure, when an error is being taught or practiced?
7 . Must we withhold an objective judgement on that until a higher authority pronounces?
8 . What if the practitioner has no higher earthly authority?
9 . If we may judge at all, from where do we measure the criteria for judgement if there is no higher living authority?
10. If perennial traditons of the Body of Christ cannot be referenced, what good are they to the laity in the first place?
11. If dogmas can be developed where they appear to corrupt the original plain meaning to the average intellect, then are dogmas any good at all as something to ever be relied on as originally pronounced?
12. What if the earlier Church laity relied on the original sense, and knew nothing of a later “deeper understanding”, were they deficient in their Faith?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

TNT,

You said:

St. Robert Bellarmine Doctor of the Church on how a pope can error and what we must do:

"Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. …(De Romano Pontifice. II.29)

It seems to me you have ripped St. Robert’s words from the hypothetical argument he was answering.

The hypothetical argument to which St. Robert Bellarmine is responding to is as follows:

Argument 7. Any person is permitted to kill the pope if he is unjustly attacked by him. Therefore, even more so is it permitted for kings or a council to depose the pope** if he disturbs the state**, or if he tries to kill souls by his bad example.

As you can see, the question does not pertain to the formal doctrine or the approved legislation of the Supreme Pontiff, but pertains to his hypothetical unjust actions, specifically, his “bad example.” The pope is not impeccable, and as such, I am not bound to obedience to his actions or bad example, or to even orders he may give apart from his scope of authority as pope, in his formal role as Supreme Judge, Supreme Magister, and Supreme Legislator of the Church. As such, things such as kissing a Koran do not bind me, but things universally promulgated as an Acta Apostolica Sedis, whether universal ecclesiastical discipline or universal doctrine in matters of faith and morals is divinely protected from being harmful to the faithful.

St. Robert’s reply ought to be understood in that context. He states:

I respond by denying the second part of the argument. For to resist an attacker and defend one’s self, no authority is needed, nor is it necessary that he who is attacked be the judge and superior of him who attacks. Authority is required, however, to judge and punish.

Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body **, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls [by his acts, bad example] or destroys the civil order [by his acts, bad example] or above all, tries to destroy the Church [by his acts, bad example]. I say that it is licit to resist him [that is, his acts, bad example] by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)

It should be clear that St. Robert is not speaking with regard to what the pope has not superior on earth, that is, as Supreme Legislator, Supreme Judge, and Supreme Magister. He expressly states that judgement of him is only proper to his superior. His superior in these matters is God alone. It is only licit to resist him in matters where he is not our superior, strictly speaking, to which we may proper judge, that is, his actions or bad example.

So, if the pope were to order me to kiss a Koran, for example, that would be an order that is neither an act of the Supreme Legislator, nor the Supreme Magister, nor Supreme Judge. Such an order is neither a binding judgement, nor a universally approved ecclesiastical discipline, nor promulgated universally as formal doctrine, thus, such it is not Divinely guided. As such, I may, as St. Robert correctly concludes, not do what he orders of me insofar is it it outside his scope of authority.

to be continued …

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

This is in agreement with what St. Thomas Aquninas affirms regarding obedience. I am bound only to obey my superiors within the scope of their authority.

a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. (ST, IIb, 104, 5)

We are not subject to the pope in all things. For example, he is not my superior in military matters. So, I am not subject to him with regard to the best way to defend our nation. Yet, the pope’s scope of authority does include legislation of the liturgy and canon law, as well as the authentic interpretation of both Scripture and Tradition, and the government of the Church and the censure and penalties proper to governing the Church.

Msgr. Lefebvre disobeyed in matters that were well within the scope of the pope’s authority. His disobedience was unjust, according to St. Thomas Aquinas’ (and St. Catherine of Sienna’s) view of obedience.

Futhermore, in context, St. Robert Bellarmine is answering a hypothetical question in regard to the Pope’s personal “bad example.” This has nothing to do with disobedience to what the pope universally and formally promulgates as canon law (within his authority). To misuse this quote out of its context is unconvincing.

Specifically, the passage justifies resistance by “kings and councils.” It does not address individual bishops, priests and laymen who disobey their superiors in matters they have full authority to establish and authentically promulgate. Consequently, it does assert the right of subordinate clergy to individually resist the pope in matters liturgical or doctrinal, and ignore his ecclesiastical judgement, still less that they can set up places of worship in opposition to diocesan bishops which a pope has lawfully appointed.

On the contrary, I assert that the proper context of this quote from St. Robert is far from your unconvincing implication. Instead I agree with Venerable Newman’s understanding of St. Robert’s teaching:

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.
[John Henry Newman “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26, http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html”]http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html]

 

[CrusaderNY]

**The council itself never defined dogma and hence the reasoning behind St Pius X not “obeying” and not, in mnay theologians minds, that they are Not schismatic. **

---

**It is interesting to note that the very pope who called the council insisted that it was to be a pastoral council which would not define any new dogma : **

*** The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: T**hat the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.... The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church. ***

**-Pope John XXIII, Opening Speech to the Council, 11 October, 1962 **

**The closing statement of the Council, given by Pope Paul VI clearly re-iterates that no infallible dogmas were defined : **

The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself **under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements..

**-Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965 **

**A few of the changes: **

*** canon 844, 4 allows the administration of penance, anointing of the sick, and even holy communion to non-Catholics who manifest “Catholic faith” in these sacraments. This used to be considered a mortal sin and was gravely forbidden (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 731, 21) because it implicitly denies the dogma, “Outside the Church, no salvation” . **

**This is an inadmissible surrender to modernist ecumenism. **

**These are but the most grave deficiencies; other defective points include the following: **

*** mixed marriages (canons 1125, 1127), **
*** diminution in censures (excommunication of freemasons, etc.), **
*** the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas is no longer strictly enjoined in seminaries (canons 251ff), and **
*** general absolutions are more readily available (canons 961-963, etc.). **

**Further innovations from the Second Vatican Council Include : **

*** new catechisms, **
*** new liturgy-in new churches, around a table, ****with communion in the hand, from lay ministers **aided by altar-girls, etc., **
*** new Bibles and Canon Law, **
*** involvement with non-Catholics, **
*** new orientations-world “justice,” “peace,” … **
*** laymen doing what priests did, … **
*** The New Mass

**

itsjustdave1988:

continued…

This is in agreement with what St. Thomas Aquninas affirms regarding obedience. I am bound only to obey my superiors within the scope of their authority.

**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

CrusaderNY,

What you and the other Lefebvrists apologists propose was condemned by Pius VI (Auctorem fidei, 78) in the 18th century when the Jansenists proposed it. You’ve failed to even attempt make a compelling argument to the contrary.

Well before the Lefebvrists schism, traditional Catholicism taught that approved ecclesiastical discipline, at least generally established by the Church, could not harm the faith.

For example, during Pope St. Pius X’s papacy (1903-1914), Catholic theologians unamimously asserted a negative and indirect disciplinary infallibility. Ironically, Lefebvrists reject this teaching, which was “undeniable” during St. Pius X’s papacy.

When Pius VI condemened the Jansenist proposition that "**the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is … even dangerous and harmful ", **(Auctorem fidei, 78) this meant that approved and universally promulgated ecclesiastical discipline, such as canon law and liturgical norms can never be harmful or dangerous.

According to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article, CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ecclesiastical Discipline, under the heading "Displinary Infallibility"…

Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

Likewise, according to P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .

“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

Now, Lefebvrism marks a rather untraditional shift in Catholic teaching on this matter. They assert the Jansenist proposition all over again, a teaching that is contary to the condemnation of Pius VI. If the theological conclusion that the church is negatively and indirectly infallible in her general discipline was erroneous as proposed under the papacy of St. Pius X, then St. Pius X failed in condemning as error such “undeniable” and “unanimous” teaching. On the contrary, such disciplinary infallibility correctly and necessarily follows from Pius VI’s condemnation in Auctorem fidei, 78.

 

[otm]

The spirit of Vatican II

---

---

**Potential Pope Declares Jesus Is Not the Only Way **

Cardinal Francis Arinze, who’s considered a possible successor to Pope John Paul II, has denied Jesus is the only way to heaven. In a recent interview the spirited 66 year-old deputy for outreach to other religions was asked, “So was Jesus wrong when he said he was the way, the truth and the life?” Arinze responed, "If a person were to push what you said a little further and say that if you’re not a Christian you’re not going to heaven, we’d regard that person as a fundamentalist…and theologically wrong. I met in Pakistan a Muslim. He had a wonderful concept of the Koran. We were like two twins that had known one another from birth. And I was in admiration of this man’s wisdom. I think that man will go to heaven. There was a Buddhist in Kyoto, in Japan. This man, a good man, open, listening, humble–I was amazed. I listened to his works of wisdom and said to myself, “The grace of God is working in this man.” The interviewer then repeated the question, “So you can still get to heaven without accepting Jesus?” “Expressly, yes [he laughs with the audience]” (Dallas Morning News, 3/20/99)

Where did you get your degree in theology?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In addition to the condemnation of Pius VI in Auctorem fidei, consider also the following:

**Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832): **

“Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced.”

**Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833): **

“…[they propose that] there are many things in the discipline of the Church … [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion … While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794**).** …** Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?**

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66 (1943):

“Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate;** in her sacred laws imposed on all**; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

CrusaderNY,

Let’s be clear as to what Lefebvre’s disobedience was …

The agreement signed by Msgr. Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger was later renounced by Lefebvre and his Lefebvrist movement.

Here is a link to the text:
fssp.org/en/protoc5mai.htm

Here are the agreed promises broken by Lefebvre and his Lefebvrist movement…

I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by me:

1. Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as Head of the Body of Bishops.
2. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that magisterium.
3. With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.
4. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yet, Msgr Lefebvre boke his agreed upon promises, instead continuing to assert “All these reforms [issued from Vatican II], indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church”

According to the SSPX web page,

“Vatican II adulterated Catholic teaching”…

“The new schemas, passed as the Council’s decrees, constitutions, and declarations, contain, more or less explicitly, … doctrinal errors.”

On the contrary, traditional Catholicism teaches that Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church are instructed by the Holy Spirit in what it declares. You can assert the decrees of Vatican II were not the “best” or not “prudent”, but the moment you assert that they contain doctrinal error, you become decisively NON-Catholic. The Council of Trent claims that Ecumenical Councils are instructed by the Holy Spirit even in it’s disciplinary declarations (Council of Trent, conclusion, Session XXI, July 16, 1562, Denzinger 930).

Pope Pius IX reminded Catholics “of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees” (Denzinger 1820, cf. 1722), to include those matters known by “express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiff” (Denzinger 1683) or even that which is “issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions.” (Denzinger 1684). He asserts that “opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure” (ibid).

Furthermore, according to Pope St. Pius X, “that all are bound by the duty of conscience to … the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which have thus far been published and those which will hereafter be proclaimed, just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations … approved by the Pontiff; and that all who impugn such decisions … cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on this account be free of grave sin…”

Ironically, contrary to the above, Lefebvrists join the so-called “progressives” in the modernist misuse of of the Jesuit casuistry called “probablism” to assert that they need not obey the non-infallible teachings of the Roman Pontiff or Sacred Congregations approved by the Pontiff, erroneously thinking that they can avoid the charge of disobedience.