Was Vatican II hijacked by the liberals?

[RSiscoe]

The following is an interesting article about Vatican II. It has many interesting quotes from the Vatican II “peritus” (experts), as well as from Pope Paul VI, John XXIII, and more.

Here is one interesting quote from the article:

“The liberal Council peritus (expert), Father Edward Schillebeeckx admitted ‘we have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards’.”

Did the liberals purposefully use ambiguous language in the Vatican II documents? Could this be why there has been such confusion since Vatican II?

Is it possible for the liberals to have worded the documents ambiguously? Is that even possible given the fact that it was a Church council?

Was Vatican II protected by infallbiliity? Pope Paus VI answers that question for us.

How many previous Popes had considered convening Vatican II? Why did they not do it?

Was Vatican II a “counter-syllabus”? That is, did it teach the exact opposite of what the infallible syllabus of errors taught? Cardinal Ratzinger answers that question.

Here is the link to the article that gives the answers:

catholiccitizens.org/press/pressview.asp?c=4476

%between%

 

[Catholic2003]

RSiscoe:

Was Vatican II protected by infallbiliity? Pope Paus VI answers that question for us.

The idea that “pastoral” councils are inferior to “dogmatic” councils is utter nonsense. All ecumenical councils are protected by the infallibility of the Holy Spirit.

 

[RSiscoe]

Catholic2003:

The idea that “pastoral” councils are inferior to “dogmatic” councils is utter nonsense. All ecumenical councils are protected by the infallibility of the Holy Spirit.

Then why did Pope Paul VI say that contrary?

Pope Paul VI: “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility" (Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966).

 

[mlchance]

RSiscoe:

Then why did Pope Paul VI say that contrary?

Pope Paul VI: “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility" (Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966).

He didn’t say “that contrary.” He said that Vatican II made no new dogmatic pronouncements. Please do perpetuate the error that the only time the Church is infallible is when she pronounces a dogma.

Vatican II is infallible insofar as the ordinary Magesterium of the Church is infallible.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[EddieArent]

Of coarse, when you interprete everything from a traiditional standpoint most is OK. But some things are written so vague that it can be perceived by the left and we have seen the destructive path following VII.

 

[rwoehmke]

Hey man! I read till I ran across the “Carbonari” a couple of times and said to myself,“The Italian National Guard is a secret society?” RSiscoe like I said before, I always get sucked in to reading your stuff, but well I guess it is important to you to believe some of this stuff so go in peace. For me it is incredible.

 

[TNT]

rwoehmke:

Hey man! I read till I ran across the “Carbonari” a couple of times and said to myself,“The Italian National Guard is a secret society?” RSiscoe like I said before, I always get sucked in to reading your stuff, but well I guess it is important to you to believe some of this stuff so go in peace. For me it is incredible.

JPII was an architect of VATII documentes. He knew as well as anyone what the Council intended to teach and he carried them out forthrightly. For instance:
From MESSAGE OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE ABBESS GENERAL OF THE ORDER
OF THE MOST HOLY SAVIOUR OF ST BRIDGET
Sept 2002:

Going back in mind and heart to her mystical experience that was completely focused on the Redeemer’s Passion, you are dedicated to discerning on the face of the Church reflections of the holiness of Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever “clad in a robe dipped in blood” (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation.

From LETTER TO FAMILIES, JOHN PAUL II:

by his incarnation the Son of God united himself in a certain way with every man.

From General Audience:

“Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.” (General Audience — July 28, 1999)

From Redemptor Hominis 5, 13:

We are dealing with “each” man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself for ever through this mystery. … The [Second Vatican] Council points out this very fact when, speaking of that likeness, it recalls that “man is the only creature on earth that God willed for itself”. Man as “willed” by God, as “chosen” by him from eternity and called, destined for grace and glory-this is “each” man, “the most concrete” man, “the most real”; this is man in all the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of his mother.”

From Redemptoris Mater 7:1:

"…his plan of man’s salvation in Christ. It is a universal plan, which concerns all men and women created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen. 1:26). Just as all are included in the creative work of God ‘in the beginning,’ so all are eternally included in the divine plan of salvation, which is to be completely revealed, in the ‘fullness of time,’ with the final coming of Christ…”

From Redemptoris Missio 4, 6, 9, 11

“for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.” …
“…namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ** for all mankind**.”

There is much more on the teaching of Universal Salvation for ALL mankind, but suffice for now.
Universal Salvation is a doctrine preached by the Pope. Unheard of in 2000 years of Catholic Teaching, except for lone Origen.

 

[Genesis315]

TNT:

There is much more on the teaching of Universal Salvation for ALL mankind, but suffice for now.
Universal Salvation is a doctrine preached by the Pope. Unheard of in 2000 years of Catholic Teaching, except for lone Origen.

I get the impression that he is saying everyone can be saved, not that everyone will be saved. Christ redeemed the whole world which means salvation is available universally. Whether we accept it or not is another story.

 

[TNT]

rwoehmke:

Hey man! I read till I ran across the “Carbonari” a couple of times and said to myself,“The Italian National Guard is a secret society?” RSiscoe like I said before, I always get sucked in to reading your stuff, but well I guess it is important to you to believe some of this stuff so go in peace. For me it is incredible.

Say What??
**Wikipedia (Or any other Encyclopedia)
**

 **Carbonari**  
The **Carbonari** ("[coal](http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Coal&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)-burners") were groups of [secret revolutionary societies](http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Secret+society&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) founded in early [19th century](http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=19th+century&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) [Italy](http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Italy&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1), and instrumental in organising [revolution](http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Revolution&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) in Italy in [1820](http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=1820&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1), [1830](http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=1830&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1)-[1831](http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=1831&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1) and [1848](http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=1848&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1).

They were organised in the fashion of Freemasonry, broken into small cells scattered across Italy. Idealistically, they sought the creation of a liberal, unified Italy through spontaneous rebellion by the working class, led by university students and intellectuals. There was also an anti-clerical element in their philosophy and program.

Silvio Pellico (1788-1854) and Pietro Maroncelli (1795-1846) were prominent members of the Carbonari; both were imprisoned by the Austrians for years, many of which they spent in Spielberg fortress in Brno, Southern Moravia. After his release, Pellico wrote a book Le mie prigioni, describing in detail his ten-year ordeal. Maroncelli lost one leg in prison and was instrumental in translating and editing of Pellico’s book in Paris (1833). Other prominent members of the Carbonari included Giuseppe Garibaldi and Giuseppe Mazzini.

 

[TNT]

Genesis315:

I get the impression that he is saying everyone can be saved, not that everyone will be saved. Christ redeemed the whole world which means salvation is available universally. Whether we accept it or not is another story.

In Chapter V, Rahner acknowledges that his emphasis upon the ubiquity and constancy of grace throughout history poses a problem. He expresses it this way:
If God as he is in himself has already communicated himself in his Holy Spirit always and everywhere and to every person as the innermost center of his [the individual person’s] existence, whether he wants it or not, whether he reflects upon it or not, whether he accepts it or not…

From JPII in General Audience — November 30, 1988:

“On the other hand in quoting the beginning of Psalm 22, which he perhaps continued to recite mentally during the passion, Jesus did not forget the conclusion which becomes a hymn of liberation and an announcement of salvation granted to all by God. The experience of abandonment is therefore a passing pain which gives way to personal liberation and universal salvation.

From K. Wojtyla, Segno di Contradizione, chap. 11:

"not only did Jesus Christ die for all men, but each and every human being is

whether he knows it or not, whether he accepts it or not, in the faith. Each is, from the very beginning, since his birth, in a state of effective redemption even if he is unaware of this fact. And this holds true for all men of all ages and places".
And quoted from the post:

…the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation.

 

[Sean_O_L]

TNT quoted:

“not only did Jesus Christ die for all men, but each and every human being is whether he knows it or not, whether he accepts it or not, in the faith. Each is, from the very beginning, since his birth, in a state of effective redemption even if he is unaware of this fact. And this holds true for all men of all ages and places”.

Well - did Jesus Christ die “for all men”?
A. Yes, He did and His death is sufficient for the Redemption of ALL.

Let’s put it in perspective: the old “native in the Kalahari argument”: the native has never heard of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, the Gospel - he is in a state of “not knowing”, “not accepting”, he is in a state of ignorance.

Do YOU NOT accept that he has been Redeemed?

Do YOU NOT accept that - if he lives his life in accordance with the conscience given him by God, and he lives his life morally in accordance with his conscience that he is ineligible for Salvation?

Please explain.

 

[TNT]

Sean O L:

TNT quoted:

“not only did Jesus Christ die for all men, but each and every human being is …** whether he accepts it or not**, in the faith. Each is, from the very beginning, since his birth, in a state of effective redemption even if he is unaware of this fact. And this holds true for all men of all ages and places”.

Well - did Jesus Christ die “for all men”?
A. Yes, He did and His death is sufficient for the Redemption of ALL.
Correct, so far.
Let’s put it in perspective: the old “native in the Kalahari argument”: the native has never heard of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, the Gospel - he is in a state of “not knowing”, “not accepting”, he is in a state of ignorance.
First of all, “not accepting” takes a positive act. Ignorance is not the equivalent of “not accepting” which is a positive act of rejection. Who in the Catholic Faith would say an ignorant person is in a state of rejecting?
Do YOU NOT accept that he has been Redeemed?
I am refering to final SALVATION, not redemption of mankind but EFFECTIVE redemption which points to Salvation, not its Potential or its availability to all. There is NOTHING objectively knowable about the Salvation of your example.
Do YOU NOT accept that - if he lives his life in accordance with the conscience given him by God, and he lives his life morally in accordance with his conscience that he is ineligible for Salvation?
**The “IF” makes this the straw man argument. The Quotes of JPII that I gave have no “IF’s”. So, what about the one who does not practice your “IF’S” or “AND’s”?
**
Please explain.
**Explained. And, Please include more than ONE quote, as I did. It is the Preponderence of the quotes in a variety of ways on Universal Salvation that make the point, NOT any 1 quote. So, address them all or none, please. If I haven’t given enough quotes to satisfy your requirements, let me know. I have pleny more, though it gets redundant.
**

 

[RSiscoe]

TNT:

Well - did Jesus Christ die “for all men”?
A. Yes, He did and His death is sufficient for the Redemption of ALL.
Correct, so far.
Let’s put it in perspective: the old “native in the Kalahari argument”: the native has never heard of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, the Gospel - he is in a state of “not knowing”, “not accepting”, he is in a state of ignorance.
First of all, “not accepting” takes a positive act. Ignorance is not the equivalent of “not accepting” which is a positive act of rejection. Who in the Catholic Faith would say an ignorant person is in a state of rejecting?
Do YOU NOT accept that he has been Redeemed?
I am refering to final SALVATION, not redemption of mankind but EFFECTIVE redemption which points to Salvation, not its Potential or its availability to all. There is NOTHING objectively knowable about the Salvation of your example.
Do YOU NOT accept that - if he lives his life in accordance with the conscience given him by God, and he lives his life morally in accordance with his conscience that he is ineligible for Salvation?
The “IF” makes this the straw man argument. The Quotes of JPII that I gave have no “IF’s”. So, what about the one who does not practice your “IF’S” or “AND’s”?

---

Please explain.
Explained. And, Please include more than ONE quote, as I did. It is the Preponderence of the quotes in a variety of ways on Universal Salvation that make the point, NOT any 1 quote. So, address them all or none, please. If I haven’t given enough quotes to satisfy your requirements, let me know. I have pleny more, though it gets redundant.

One point to ad: What I often say about certain writings of John Paul II is this: if you already know the truth, you may be able to twist the meaning so that you can somehow interpret it in a way that it is not contrary to the Catholic faith; but if a person does not approach the writings with the proper understanding, they will very often be misled. The “surface meaning” - the “obvious meaning” - is very often false.

There is a new heresy known as “universal salvation”, which means that all men will be saved. We are all familiar with this heresy. Now, not only does John Paul II give every indication that he believes (or is tempted to believe) in this heresy known as “universal salvation”, but he even explicitly uses the term “universal salvation”, when discussing salvation. And as TNT said, there are many more quotes that can be used to show this.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

So, if the Pope is teaching heresy, then Jesus Christ was a liar when He said He would be with His Church until the end of time and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, right?

And if Jesus Christ was a liar, then the rad trads are protecting the Traditions of a Church founded by a liar.

So…are you gonna try Hinduism, Islam, agnosticism…or what?

 

[RSiscoe]

Dr. Bombay:

So, if the Pope is teaching heresy, then Jesus Christ was a liar when He said He would be with His Church until the end of time and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, right?

And if Jesus Christ was a liar, then the rad trads are protecting the Traditions of a Church founded by a liar.

So…are you gonna try Hinduism, Islam, agnosticism…or what?

If a Pope taught heresy it would not mean the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church. Jesus never said “the Pope will never teach heresy”. What he said was “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church”.

Now, since the time Jesus made that statement, the Church has defined as dogma (in other words, God has revealed through the Church), that a Pope is protected by the charism of infallibility when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals, as long as all 4 conditions are met. (see Vatican I for the 4 conditions) This means that when any Pope defines a dogma, we can be 100% certain that what they say is correct. But, on the other hand, if they are not defining a dogma, it is certainly possible for a Pope to err - especially if they are teaching something that has never been taught before. But if a Pope did err, it would not nullify our Lord’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.

The Church is more than this or that Pope. The Church is a divine institution. The Popes are fallible human beings, just like the rest of us (unless they are defining a doctrine, in which they would be protected from speaking error).

The Pope has the highest position in the Church, but that does not mean they are always saints. We have had good Popes and bad Popes, but in spite of the bad ones the Church still remains, just like our Lord promised.

 

[marcus29]

Dr. Bombay:

So, if the Pope is teaching heresy, then Jesus Christ was a liar when He said He would be with His Church until the end of time and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, right?

ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, C.S.S.R. (1696-1787)
BISHOP AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH

    "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he

would at once fall from the pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a
pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact
cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant." (Verita della
Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII.9-10)

ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, S.J. (1542-1621)
CARDINAL AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH

“A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to
be pope and head of the Church, just as he ceases automatically to be a
Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and
punished by the Church. All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching
that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano
Pontifice, II.30)

ST. FRANCIS DE SALES (1567-1622)

“Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto
from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either
deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic
See.” (A Catholic Controversy, 1596)

THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1907)
Vol. VII, p. 261

    "It has been a common teaching of theologians that a validly

elected pope can fall into heresy and so vacate the See of Peter by
automatic tacit resignation."

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Ah, I get it. So the See of Peter has been vacant since…when? 1978? 1963? 1958? When did the Pope start teaching heresy and cease to be Pope?

 

[RSiscoe]

Dr. Bombay:

Ah, I get it. So the See of Peter has been vacant since…when? 1978? 1963? 1958? When did the Pope start teaching heresy and cease to be Pope?

I don’t think marcus29 was saying the See of Peter has been vacant since 1978, or 1963, or 1958… I think his point is that it is possible for a Pope to err in his teachings, when he is not defining a doctrine.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

RSiscoe:

I don’t think marcus29 was saying the See of Peter has been vacant since 1978, or 1963, or 1958… I think his point is that it is possible for a Pope to err in his teachings, when he is not defining a doctrine.

You said Pope John Paul II was teaching heresy. marcus29 posted quotes indicating in such a case, a man ceases to be Pope. Therefore, at what point did John Paul II cease to be Pope? And did his 3 immediate predecessors also teach heresy?

 

[Lovez4God]

Name one person outside the Catholic Church you are positive of salvation??

I rest my case…