R
RobNY
Guest
I agree with Gottle of Geer. I’m surprised people really feel free to say that an ecumenical council erred.
-Rob
-Rob
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
TRAD FOLK: LUMEN GENTIUM "subsistit in" issue FORCEFULLY clarified on JULY 10
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Make sure you saw what I said. I said that Cardinal Ratzinger said that Vatican II taught the error, which he did. He did not say “Vatican II erred” using those words. What he did was to articulate the reason Vatican II used the word “subsists” rather than “est” (is). The explanation he gave is the error that some in this thread were claiming that Vatican II did not teach. But Cardinal Ratzinger himself admitted that this was precisely why Vatican II used that word.I agree with Gottle of Geer. I’m surprised people really feel free to say that an ecumenical council erred.
-Rob
Remember, since Vatican II did not engage the extraordinary magisterium, it was not protected from error. It was infallible to the extent that it taught what the Church has always taught, but certainly not infallible when it deviated from that.
Since the Church has never taught that the Church of Christ is larger than the Catholic Church, and in fact actually condemned that proposition, Vatican II was not infallible in the least when, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, that is what it implied (and even intended) by using the term “subsists”.
K
KofC660
Guest
People need to face reality:
“Vatican II” was never declared to be infallible.
The history of the Catholic Church begins at the beginning of time, and you could say the first “council” was in 33 AD, either at the Last Supper, or at the Descent of the Holy Spirit.
The documents produced by “Vatican II” are ambiguously written (to say the least) and they can be construed to mean just about anything. If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, it’s best to read those documents from “Vatican II” with a VERY SOLID background in what all the previous councils taught.
Starting the clock on the Church’s history in 1960 leaves you celebrating such things as “clown Masses” and whatnot.
“Vatican II” was never declared to be infallible.
The history of the Catholic Church begins at the beginning of time, and you could say the first “council” was in 33 AD, either at the Last Supper, or at the Descent of the Holy Spirit.
The documents produced by “Vatican II” are ambiguously written (to say the least) and they can be construed to mean just about anything. If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, it’s best to read those documents from “Vatican II” with a VERY SOLID background in what all the previous councils taught.
Starting the clock on the Church’s history in 1960 leaves you celebrating such things as “clown Masses” and whatnot.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.