The Vatican Ii Plot

[mortify]

The following is taken from an article written by Fr William Most (link provided at bottom.) Is anyone familiar with this part of Vatican II history? Can anyone elucidate where more can be read about it?

[b][color="#000080"][quote]There was an actual plot in the Theological Commission at Vatican II to cut
down the power of the Pope. For that purpose, the plotters had designed
several lines to work into chapter 3 of Lumen gentium. Naturally, one of
the plotters had written out what he wanted to do. But not naturally - it
was the Holy Spirit protecting the Church - the plotter lost the paper, and
it was picked up by a sound Bishop, who took it to Pope Paul VI. He
literally wept when he read it. As a result, we now have what is marked
"Preliminary Explanatory Note" at the end, rather than at the start of
Lumen gentium. It carefully counters, point by point, the very things the
plotters had tried to put over.[/quote][/color][/b]

From: http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/HIERARCH.TXT

[thessalonian]

Most likely is. There has always been bishops who want to reduce papal power and quite frankly there have been times when the power has needed to be balanced. The spirit wins out in the end.

[MithLuin]

It should not surprise anyone that there were various 'factions' at Vatican II. But...the important thing is what [i]resulted[/i] from the council (ie, the actual version of Lumen Gentium), not what some subset of bishops [i]wanted[/i] the result to be. A Council is unlikely to please the extremists on any position.

Papal authority has certainly been abused historically, but it's currently in a good place. It helps that the temporal authority of the pope in state matters has been drastically reduced in the past few centuries (though there are bishops who were sad to see that change, as well).

[rkwright]

the rest of that article is really great. I get so tired of people exclaiming - Its not infallible! I don't have to believe it!!

This is from the article.. Its not that long....

[quote]Sadly, not a few Catholics who consider themselves orthodox, fall into the
error of saying that if a thing is not defined, it is free matter: we can
take it or leave it as we will. Not so, says the new catechism, echoing
Vatican II. in # 891 we read: "The Roman Pontiff chief of the college [of
Bishops] actually enjoys this infallibility when, as supreme shepherd and
teacher of all the faithful, in charge of confirming his brothers in the
faith, proclaims by a definitive act, a point of doctrine on faith or
morals."

Before continuing, let us note that word definitive. It means a teaching
that is presented as final, with no change possible. But there is nothing
in Scripture or Tradition that specifies what wording the Pope must use in
order to make a teaching definitive. All that is needed is that in some
way, whatever way he may choose, he makes clear that a teaching is
definitive. So this section of the new catechism does not add the words "ex
cathedra". Rather, it refers to LG #25.

Now Vatican II in that #25 provides us with a very large example of when
things can be infallible without the use of the special form of a
definition: "Although individual bishops do not have the prerogative of
infallibility, they can yet teach Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is
true even when they are scattered around the world, provided that, while
maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with the successor of
Peter, they concur in a teaching as the one which must be definitively
held." Again the key word is definitive. No special way need be chosen to
make that clear, provided that in some way it is made clear.

Hence the catechism adds, repeating the same thought: "The infallibility
promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops when it
exercises its supreme Magisterium in union with the successor of Peter,
especially during a general Council." We note the word "especially." For
even things not done in a general council can be infallible, under the
conditions we have just seen in the quotations above, namely, when the
Bishops remain united with each other and with the Pope and then, even when
scattered around the world, they present to the people truths as
definitive, that is, flatly, as part of the belief of the Church.

A very special case of definitive teaching was pointed out by Pius XII in
his Encyclical Humani generis of 1950: "Nor should one think that the
things taught in encyclical letters do not demand assent, on the plea that
in them the Popes do not use the supreme teaching authority. These things
are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, in regard to which it is
also correct to say: "He who hears you, hears me." Now of course, that
promise of Christ cannot fail. So such things are infallible, even when not
given in the solemn ceremony of a definition. Such things can be found even
in Encyclicals . Of course, not everything in an Encyclical meets these
requirements. Hence Pius XII went on to clarify: "If the supreme pontiffs
in their acta expressly pass judgment on a matter debated until then, it is
obvious to all that the matter, according to the mind and will of the same
pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a matter open for discussion
among theologians." If it is not open to discussion, it is of course
definitive, and then it falls under the promise of Christ, "He who hears
you hears me."

[/quote]

Edited January 4, 2011 by rkwright

[ThePenciledOne]

A Church Council is a Church Council, so if you follow the Church....you follow teh Council as well. I know a lot of people have beefs with Vatican II (As I have learned going to Franciscan University), but the point is that it was still a legitimate Council and the Church hasn't collapsed because of it. End of story.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1294153665' post='2196528']
I get so tired of people exclaiming - Its not infallible! I don't have to believe it!!


[/quote]

I've heard that from people not regarding Vatican II but regarding homosexuality and perhaps NFP (from traditional-minded Catholics who are against contraception but think that NFP is a form of contraception as well.)

[CatherineM]

I always want to ask them why they wouldn't want to believe.