Vatican II-Did it Stray from the Dogmas of the Church?

[BulldogCath]

TNT

Dont you know that whenever you refute a liberal it seems-they try to trap you to see if you use a quote from someone who may possibly have a connection with those big old bad "RAD TRADS"…Like -Look Mommy, he is a rad trad and is against this one and that one. But when Hans Kung, Greely, and known liberal heretics are quoted (and the sad part is MOST of these men, who were considered HERETICS BEFORE the Council-were now embraced by the Pope and actually CONTRIBUTED to the council. The issue is that the only people who have the guts to speak out against what is happening and destroying our church are the SSPX’s and the like-so what then. At least they have the guts.

God willing-as the saying goes, every "bulldog" has his day and the faith will be restored back to our church and these “RAD LIBS” will be put out to the Protestant fold where they belong. These **LIBS **were born Catholics so instead of converting to Protestanism they stick in the church and have changed her.

TNT:

RE:

If it was, or not…Would you agree or disagree with it ?
Even before you knew the source?

 

[kaimpls]

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieArent
Vatican II I don’t think changed anything. However, the supposed “spirit” following this council is something out of hell.

You get the hitting the nail right on the head award!

I still can’t figure out what this “spirit of V2” really is, other than an excuse for those with private agendas to impose their will over that of the Vatican (and ultimately, of Christ Himself).

**And I agree. I recently heard a Bishop here in Minnesota talk on this subject. His message was that we should shiver any time we hear “by the spirit of Vatican II” or "in the spirit of Vatican II. **

 

[HagiaSophia]

TNT

Dont you know that whenever you refute a liberal it seems-they try to trap you to see if you use a quote from someone who may possibly have a connection with those big old bad "RAD TRADS"…Like -Look Mommy, he is a rad trad and is against this one and that one. But when Hans Kung, Greely, and known liberal heretics are quoted (and the sad part is MOST of these men, who were considered HERETICS BEFORE the Council-were now embraced by the Pope and actually CONTRIBUTED to the council. The issue is that the only people who have the guts to speak out against what is happening and destroying our church are the SSPX’s and the like-so what then. At least they have the guts.

God willing-as the saying goes, every "bulldog" has his day and the faith will be restored back to our church and these “RAD LIBS” will be put out to the Protestant fold where they belong. These **LIBS **were born Catholics so instead of converting to Protestanism they stick in the church and have changed her.

And this from the same poster who says: “I call that something that I would rather not say as I am not a man to judge”…wow you sure had me fooled.

I hasten to add that all the name calling does not change the points of my earlier post "1) Plagiarism - This is not only self deafeating, it is morally and ethically wrong… When engaged in on a regular and consistent basis it leads those reading to make certain assumptions about such a poster – a) that they are dishonest in seeking to take credit for the work of another and b) they fear revealing their sources which are markedly not credible and thus seek to manipulate others without their being aware of it.

It is only fair when presenting someone else’s writing and exposition that credit for same be given to the author and website. This provides three things, it compliments the reading audience by allowing them to fully analyze, think on and read even more of the author’s writing. It projects from the writer a sense of honesty that he is presenting the thoughts of others and not his own, and he is thus offering credit where it is due. and it reinforces the integrity of the poster as open and willing for others to come to their own decisions about credibility, scholarship and knowledge without seeking to manipulate them."

At least those who quote others and name them have the common decency to give the authors their credit and let the readers discern for themselves as to credibiity and scholarship which is more than I can same for some here.

 

[BulldogCath]

Here is some more good stuff that is coming out of Vatican II-Some good old “Eucharistic Hospitality” from one of the Popes right hand Cardinals- a protestant Convert to boot. Not a change in teaching?

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=30301

***Cardinal Kasper backs “Eucharistic hospitality” ***

Vatican , Jun. 18, 2004 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio - news), the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, has said that “Eucharistic hospitality” is licit in some circumstances.

Speaking at a major conference of German Catholics in the city of Ulm on June 18, Cardinal Kasper said that “there are circumstances when a non-Catholic can receive Communion at a Catholic Mass.”

 

[bear06]

Dont you know that whenever you refute a liberal it seems-they try to trap you to see if you use a quote from someone who may possibly have a connection with those big old bad "RAD TRADS"…Like -Look Mommy, he is a rad trad and is against this one and that one. But when Hans Kung, Greely, and known liberal heretics are quoted

I’m starting to think that you read no posts but your own. The thing about us “liberals” (who are we supposed to think you’re talking about?) is that we hold rad-Trads and liberals both wrong. You on the other hand try to defend the rad-Trads by pointing to the liberals mistakes. They are both in error.

 

[BulldogCath]

Bear

I agree with you on that by the way-but you are a genuine individual who can debate your point-It gets quite horrible to be called a Rad Trad because you somehow think that the past teachings of the church are something to be maintained and worshipped and not discarded as not applicable to the Modern Man-As the Vatican II documents actually said which I placed on one of my prior posts

bear06:

I’m starting to think that you read no posts but your own. The thing about us “liberals” (who are we supposed to think you’re talking about?) is that we hold rad-Trads and liberals both wrong. You on the other hand try to defend the rad-Trads by pointing to the liberals mistakes. They are both in error.

 

[HagiaSophia]

bear06:

We’re being sarcastic. Sorry. Basically, the rad-Trads and the liberals are two sides to the same coin and often use the same tactics. It’s all about their own private interpretations of the Church’s teachings.

That is in MHO is one of the true tragedies of the entire matter - the movement for true liturgical reform has been hampered as much by the methods of the right as it has by the abuses on the left.

They don’t realize that the church they claim to want to “protect” is being damaged by how they comport themselves - they self defeat.

 

[HagiaSophia]

BulldogCath:

Here is some more good stuff that is coming out of Vatican II-Some good old “Eucharistic Hospitality” from one of the Popes right hand Cardinals- a protestant Convert to boot. Not a change in teaching?

Perhaps because the cardinal is a bit more familiar with what the canon law of the church teaches rather than what you personally think of it:

" The Vatican has issued guidelines concerning this.

For Eastern Orthodox, they can receive the Eucharist if they request them and are properly disposed (Code of Canon Law 844:3).

In cases of danger of death or grave necessity, Catholic ministers may (by the permission of their conference of bishops) give the Eucharist to Protestant Christians who (a) cannot approach a minister of their own community, (b) who ask for the sacraments, (c) who share the Church’s faith concerning the Eucharist, and (d) are properly disposed to receiving it (CIC 844:4).

Under no circumstances can the Eucharist be given to a non-Christian (an unbaptized person). (courtesy of cin.org)

 

[bear06]

BulldogCath:

Bear

I agree with you on that by the way-but you are a genuine individual who can debate your point-It gets quite horrible to be called a Rad Trad because you somehow think that the past teachings of the church are something to be maintained and worshipped and not discarded as not applicable to the Modern Man-As the Vatican II documents actually said which I placed on one of my prior posts

BD, I’d have to say that I think this is your interpretation of the documents. Nowhere do the teachings of VII say that we are to discard previous teachings. The docs of VII have said they are consistent with Tradition and are in no way meant to contradict. It just seems that everyone under the sun, that is, libs and rad-Trads feel that they are the ones who are to interpret ANY documents of the Church and not the Pope and the Magisterium. This is inconsistent with the teachings of the Church. Many people are trying to usurp authority that they do not have. This is what has happened all throughout history and this is why the document Pastor Aeternus ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6 is so very important and so often ignored by both sides of the spectrum. This is a document so important that it was made a dogmatic constitution and it’s there to teach us submission and obedience. Lack of submission and obedience is the root of all of our problems!

That is in MHO is one of the true tragedies of the entire matter - the movement for true liturgical reform has been hampered as much by the methods of the right as it has by the abuses on the left.

They don’t realize that the church they claim to want to “protect” is being damaged by how they comport themselves - they self defeat.

HS, this is something I’ve pointed out before too. I have no problem with the spreading of the TLM. In fact, I’d be happy to see it but many of the people who attend these masses (at least where I live) are rad-Trads and they are killing this effort by their disobedience.

Now I’ve suggested several times that we have a conversation to figure out how those who got the Indult obtained it instead of continuing to whine and debate a subject we will probably never agree upon. All I hear is that it’ll never work. We’ve got a bunch of Eeyores on this forum! If we were able to get it in my diocese, one of the more notorious dioceses, then I’m sure we can get it spread elsewhere! We all want at least part of the same thing. I’m sure we all want to get rid of the “Sunday Night Live” masses or the “Mass on the Grass”. We’ve been successful in getting a new bishop here who is making tremendous headway on quashing this goofy stuff.

 

[Catholic29]

bear06:

BD, I’d have to say that I think this is your interpretation of the documents. Nowhere do the teachings of VII say that we are to discard previous teachings. The docs of VII have said they are consistent with Tradition and are in no way meant to contradict. It just seems that everyone under the sun, that is, libs and rad-Trads feel that they are the ones who are to interpret ANY documents of the Church and not the Pope and the Magisterium. This is inconsistent with the teachings of the Church. Many people are trying to usurp authority that they do not have. This is what has happened all throughout history and this is why the document Pastor Aeternus ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6 is so very important and so often ignored by both sides of the spectrum. This is a document so important that it was made a dogmatic constitution and it’s there to teach us submission and obedience. Lack of submission and obedience is the root of all of our problems!

HS, this is something I’ve pointed out before too. I have no problem with the spreading of the TLM. In fact, I’d be happy to see it but many of the people who attend these masses (at least where I live) are rad-Trads and they are killing this effort by their disobedience.

Now I’ve suggested several times that we have a conversation to figure out how those who got the Indult obtained it instead of continuing to whine and debate a subject we will probably never agree upon. All I hear is that it’ll never work. We’ve got a bunch of Eeyores on this forum! If we were able to get it in my diocese, one of the more notorious dioceses, then I’m sure we can get it spread elsewhere! We all want at least part of the same thing. I’m sure we all want to get rid of the “Sunday Night Live” masses or the “Mass on the Grass”. We’ve been successful in getting a new bishop here who is making tremendous headway on quashing this goofy stuff.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_2_25.gif

 

[BulldogCath]

Ecumenism was one of the biggest changes on church teachings to come out of Vatican II-Are you for or against what Cardinal Kasper is doing and the World Council of Churches (Sort of like the One World Religion). Please let me know then

***Cardinal Kasper backs “Eucharistic hospitality”

***Vatican , Jun. 18, 2004 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio - news), the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, has said that “Eucharistic hospitality” is licit in some circumstances.

Speaking at a major conference of German Catholics in the city of Ulm on June 18, Cardinal Kasper said that “there are circumstances when a non-Catholic can receive Communion at a Catholic Mass.”

bear06:

I’m starting to think that you read no posts but your own. The thing about us “liberals” (who are we supposed to think you’re talking about?) is that we hold rad-Trads and liberals both wrong. You on the other hand try to defend the rad-Trads by pointing to the liberals mistakes. They are both in error.

 

[bear06]

***Cardinal Kasper backs “Eucharistic hospitality”

***Vatican , Jun. 18, 2004 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio - news), the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, has said that “Eucharistic hospitality” is licit in some circumstances.

If this is what Cardinal Kasper means by “Eucharistic Hospitality” then I agree with him although he never gives the circumstances.

From CA:
catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

However, there are circumstances when non-Catholics may receive Communion from a Catholic priest. This is especially the case when it comes to Eastern Orthodox Christians, who share the same faith concerning the nature of the sacraments:

“Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned” (CIC 844 § 3).

Christians in these churches should, of course, respect their own church’s guidelines regarding when it would be permissible for them to receive Communion in a Catholic church.

The circumstances in which Protestants are permitted to receive Communion are more limited, though it is still possible for them to do so under certain specifically defined circumstances.

Canon law explains the parameters: “If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed” (CIC 844 § 4).

It is important to remember that, under the rubrics specified above, even in those rare circumstances when non-Catholics are able to receive Communion, the same requirements apply to them as to Catholics.

Now, Cardinal Kasper could mean that any prot walking into a Catholic Church should be given Communion and this would be very, very wrong. We, however, don’t know what he means since he never defines it. We can only know what the Church teachings are on the matter.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

BulldogCath:

They did not attend the new mass-St Lucia was receiving the TLM in her convent. She was kept in seclusion and NEVER allowed to speak-Ratzinger supposedly “reinterpreted” her third secret-because it revealed the deep despair the of the church and the hold the devil has on her Priests and Bishops. Padre Pio hated the changes-the Vatican and the propaganda machine it possesses is good at spin, like they tried to do at Fatima allowing the Hindu ceremony-then blaming the Bishop-and the Bishop said no, I was TOLD By Kasper and the Pope to do this…I call that something that I would rather not say as I am not a man to judge

Oh, good grief. When you say, “They did not attend the new Mass” do you mean Mother Theresa and Sr. Lucia? A link to prove Mother Theresa and Sr. Lucia were rad trads would be most helpful. BTW, I find it curious that you would claim Padre Pio as one of your own. Wasn’t it just a few days ago that you attacked the Pope for canonizing too many saints? Here’s a secret: He canonized Padre Pio too. And for someone who was NEVER allowed to speak, Sr. Lucia sure is gabby in this article:

home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/sr_lucy_rejects_grunerites.htm

Please note:

With reference to the third part of the secret of Fatima, she affirmed that she had attentively read and meditated upon the booklet published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and confirmed everything that was written there. To whoever imagines that some part of the secret has been hidden, she replied: “Everything has been published; no secret remains.” To those who speak and write of new revelations she said: “There is no truth in this. If I had received new revelations I would have told no-one, but I would have communicated them directly to the Holy Father.”

Sr. Lucia clearly rejected the rad trads, and their fellow travelers like the Grunerites as well.

As for Padre Pio, he may very well have “hated” the changes. That wasn’t my point. My point was he accepted the changes with** humble obedience.** We are not taught to only obey when we agree. We are taught to obey even when superiors place uncomfortable burdens on us.

St. Paul wrote to the Romans: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are are ordained of God.

“Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.” Rom 13:1-2

Did you even read the article on Michael Davies, God rest his soul, that I linked to in my earlier post?

*For these persons, for whom reality and history are simply too complex, neither the post-Nietzchean secular culture of moral transgression and death, nor anything else can explain widespread rebellion in the Church. They prefer to absurdly blame the Council and the Pope for it all. It is a principle for them to put the worst possible construction on every event. In this we see our true Catholic fundamentalists. Such Integrists live in unhinged time, unable to accept the “today” of the Church’s proclamation. If the Eucharist is not cloaked in their anachronistic, Gothic, Baroque, Tridentine daydreams, they would rather not see It/Him at all. Thus they turn away from Him, the Eucharistic Christ, and attach only to the outward and the accidentals of time-bound sacred rites, neglecting the Substance, Him Who is with us “even to the end ofthe world”.
*
Bulldog, I love the TLM. But the Mass is the Mass. It is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The same miracle takes place on the altar at a TLM as at what you derisively refer to as the NO Mass. You are focusing on the “outward” and “accidentals” and ignoring the Eternal who is there, right there on our altars, regardless of whether the Mass is in Latin, English, Japanese or Greek, regardless of whether the priest is a practicing homosexual, regardless of whether he believes women should be ordained priestesses or whether he believes any other modernist nonsense. As long as there is valid matter, valid form, a validly ordained priest and as long as that priest intends to do what the Church does in confecting the sacrament, Christ is there on that altar.

Our Lord does not make false promises. He promised he would be with us until the end of the world. He did NOT promise us we would always have it easy: “Take up your cross and follow me.” I’m convinced God is raising up some great saints in the midst of the chaos in our Church over the past 40 years. By their example of obedience and humility, these men and women are going to lead us to a glorious renaissance. All we have to do is keep the Faith and not despair. And pray, of course. Always pray.

 

[BulldogCath]

Vatican II was NOT Dogmatic-as much as the Rad Libs have tried to make it so since the end of the council-Our Holy Father Pope Paul VI knew better.

Doctor, I respect the New Mass and Love all by the way-I just feel that the church has used the TLM as some sort of barganing chip and the Bishops hold it back from us like we are doing something wrong and that adds fuel to the fire

God bless you

Was Vatican II Infallible?

The Cardinals knew that at a doctrinal Council the Modernist bishops would prolong the discussion of definitions endlessly and that such a Council would never end. It was decided that Vatican II would be a pastoral Council. The fact that Vatican II was a pastoral Council and all the other Ecumenical Church Councils in the Church were doctrinal, makes all the difference in the world.

In order that everyone might clearly understand what they have to believe, doctrinal teachings are always expressed in language that is clear, precise and unambiguous.

Pastoral guidelines and “teachings” cannot be judged to be either “true” or “false.” This is because pastoral pronouncements, such as whether books or tape recordings might be useful teaching tools to present the Catholic Faith more effectively, do not apply to all Catholics but are applicable only in those areas where they are pastorally helpful. Thus pastoral pronouncements, rather than being “true” or “false,” are instead considered to be “helpful” or “not helpful.” And so pastoral pronouncements must be interpreted by each bishop and implemented according to the local situation. The wording of pastoral pronouncements must necessarily be general and vague so that they can take into account the diverse pastoral situations of the whole world, from those of the poor agricultural nations to those of the rich industrialized ones.

The difference between doctrinal and pastoral teachings has great implications at an Ecumenical Council. To ensure that the teachings at doctrinal Ecumenical Councils are true and contain no error, the Holy Ghost is solemnly invoked at such Councils. As Pope Pius IX taught on March 12, 1870, at the time of Vatican Council I:

“The Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Ghost… it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what is to be believed.”
Doctrinal Ecumenical Councils form part of the Church’s solemn Extraordinary Magisterium. By the solemn invocation of the Holy Ghost, each and every doctrinal teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium is assured to be infallible.

Because pastoral pronouncements are neither “true” nor “false”, and because they must be expressed in language that is vague and ambiguous, they cannot be the subject of infallibility. Thus it follows that the Holy Ghost simply cannot be solemnly invoked at a strictly pastoral Council, because the pastoral pronouncements could not be infallible anyway. All pastoral pronouncements, even those of Ecumenical Councils which are partly doctrinal and partly pastoral, form part of the Church’s day to day Ordinary Magisterium. Thus, what is taught in a pastoral pronouncement is not assured to be infallible.

It is a consequence of the Church’s infallibility that the doctrine contained in any new teaching must not contradict doctrine that had previously been taught “always and everywhere” in the Church. If a new “teaching” does contradict what was taught before, then the new teaching is obviously not infallible. This is confirmed by the infallible proclamation of Vatican Council I on July 18, 1870:
Dr. Bombay:

home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/sr_lucy_rejects_grunerites.htm

Bulldog, I love the TLM. But the Mass is the Mass. It is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The same miracle takes place on the altar at a TLM as at what you derisively refer to as the NO Mass. You are focusing on the “outward” and “accidentals” and ignoring the Eternal who is there, right there on our altars, regardless of whether the Mass is in Latin, English, Japanese or Greek, regardless of whether the priest is a practicing homosexual, regardless of whether he believes women should be ordained priestesses or whether he believes any other modernist nonsense. As long as there is valid matter, valid form, a validly ordained priest and as long as that priest intends to do what the Church does in confecting the sacrament, Christ is there on that altar.

 

[Asimis]

Really?

Taking the words of the Second Vatican Council by themselves, it seems obvious that the council does bear the mark of infallibility.

** Lumen Gentium:**

Paragraph 25:

• Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.*

Note: This document is called “Dogmatic Constitution of The Church”, so it’s infallibility is obvious just by the title itself.
**
Unitatis Redintegratio**

Paragraph 24:
*Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.

---

Dei Verbum**

Paragraph 25:
The entire text and all the individual elements which have been set forth in this Constitution have pleased the Fathers. And by the Apostolic power conferred on us by Christ, we, together with the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and enact them; and we order that what has been thus enacted in Council be promulgated, to the glory of God.

** Orientalium Ecclesiarum**

Paragraph 30:

• Each and all these matters which are set forth in this decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And we, by the apostolic authority given us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.

** Nostra Aetate
**
Last Paragraph:
The entire text and all the individual elements which have been set forth in this Declaration have pleased the Fathers. And by the Apostolic power conferred on us by Christ, we, together with the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and enact them; and we order that what has been thus enacted in Council be promulgated, to the glory of God.

** Pope Paul VI’s Closing Speech:**

• At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.*

Now, there is indeed a lot of controversy going on today and much if not all of it is blamed on the council itself. But it seems that while The Church is indeed more open to “renewal” and “revision”, like for example on The Sacred Liturgy, she did not advance the abuses that go on today in the NO Mass. It would seem that the current problem is not with the council but with people abusing the openness and humility with which the Church has expressed herself in this council.

Many are indeed pushing things “in the spirit of Vatican II” which are harmful to The Church, They are not unlike everyone who take advantage of whatever chance is given to them and abuse all opportunity and liberty. This is what seems to be happening today, the Church has allowed her children to play freely, but within the restrictions set forth by her, the children however have crossed their limits.

Have a good one and God Bless,
Asimis

 

[bear06]

Because pastoral pronouncements are neither “true” nor “false”, and because they must be expressed in language that is vague and ambiguous, they cannot be the subject of infallibility. Thus it follows that the Holy Ghost simply cannot be solemnly invoked at a strictly pastoral Council, because the pastoral pronouncements could not be infallible anyway. All pastoral pronouncements, even those of Ecumenical Councils which are partly doctrinal and partly pastoral, form part of the Church’s day to day Ordinary Magisterium. Thus, what is taught in a pastoral pronouncement is not assured to be infallible.

Well, now we know what sspx-asia says, how about giving us one document fromt he Church that says Vatican II was not infallible.

I wholeheartedly recommend reading the docs of Vatican I because much of it had to do with stopping the likes of an SSPX, Jansenists, etc. Please, please don’t take the docs out of context in SSPX articles.

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

Q:Vatican II-Did it Stray from the Dogmas of the Church?

A:* No*& anyone that would entertain such an idea is an agent of satan, the father of lies. Such a person lacks faith, lacks intelligence, & will ultimately lack eternal life.

Vatican II = the pruning of the Great Tree.
May all the barren fruit be thrown into the fire for it’s uselessness.