Vatican II

[Dave]

Another thing, EENS -- that book I recommended to you, "More Catholic Than the Pope: An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism" by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere, has a chapter devoted to Vatican II and its pastoral aspects and why it's still important.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:09 PM']btw, i was under the impression that you decided to reject the sspx?
[right][snapback]833790[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


i don't know whats up anymore.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Dave' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:09 PM']Another thing, EENS -- that book I recommended to you, "More Catholic Than the Pope: An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism" by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere, has a chapter devoted to Vatican II and its pastoral aspects and why it's still important.
[right][snapback]833791[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Am I the only person that finds it bizarre a person would find reasons to try to reject an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church approved and presided over by the See of Peter and be Catholic?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:07 PM']Have you ever heard of something called the 'heirarchy of truths'?
[right][snapback]833788[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

no

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:11 PM']Am I the only person that finds it bizarre a person would find reasons to try to reject an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church approved and presided over by the See of Peter and be Catholic?
[right][snapback]833793[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It tears me apart inside, that i can not decide. I really wish Vatican II was good, but i really don't know what to believe anymore.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:10 PM']i don't know whats up anymore.
[right][snapback]833792[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You're on a spiritual journey, and of anyone, I can certianly appreciate and respect that. You're trying to figure out just where you stand, but consider; if you go to a Baptist website and listen to their rhetoric long enough, what they say will start to make sense on some levels.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

yes brother Adam that is very true.

maybe i should stop going to the trad site and phatmass and just pray about it, and reflect.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Myles Domini]

Doesn't the fact that the council framed its core documents as Dogmatic Constitutions settle this question?

INXC
Myles

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Myles' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:15 PM']Doesn't the fact that the council framed its core documents as Dogmatic Constitutions settle this question?

INXC
Myles
[right][snapback]833799[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Pope Paul VI, at the close of Vatican II on Dec. 7, 1965, confirmed that the Council did not make infallible pronouncements. He said that the Council

"as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic sentence."

Later, on Mar. 8, 1972, the same Pope repeated that

"it was one of the programmed items [of the Council] not to give solemn dogmatic definitions."

The most explicit confirmation that Vatican II was not infallible was given by Pope Paul VI on Jan.12, 1966, when he stated that:

"Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (A. de Lassus, Vatican II: Rupture or Continuity, (French publ.), p. 11).

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 10:58 AM']no. the SSPX says the NO mass is valid. [/quote]

My brother waffles in and out of whether it is valid or not. But you said trads. That includes those who do reject it such as the sedevacantists. I was answering in a more general way. Many trads do deny the validity of the NO.

[quote]It also does not deny the Primacy of the Pope. [/quote]

Implicitly anyone who attends an SSPX Mass does in fact deny it. The excommunication forbids participation in them. They reject the Popes authority. My brother does not see himself as excommunicated and therefore in fact is rejecting primacy. The article he sent me and much of what I have seen denies that they are excommunicated. So, yes they do. They have a solemn obligatoin to work with the Vatican to resolve the rift and restore communion. Until this happens anyone who participates in their Masses is in fact denying the Popes right to forbid participation and is implicitly denying Papal primacy. I stand by my words.

[quote]lets pretend Vatican II either taught heresy or was ambigious would you resist it?
[right][snapback]833778[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It didn't teach heresy so that is not the issue. The ambiguity I leave to those who are more knowledgable than me and to the authority of the Pope. The Bible is Ambiguous without sacred tradition so ambiguity is not an excuse for anything. It is not reason to remain separated from the Church. I may resolve some of the ambiguity in my own study but submit to the Church and the Pope if they deem my view incorrect. Anything else is pride and putting my own understandings ahead of the legitimate authority Christ has placed on this earth.

Edited December 22, 2005 by thessalonian

[philothea]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 11:14 AM']yes brother Adam  that is very true. 

maybe i should stop going to the trad site and phatmass and just pray about it, and reflect.
[right][snapback]833798[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You should definitely stop going to the Trad sites!!

If I want to believe something, I don't go consorting with the people who are going to try to convince me otherwise...

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:14 PM']yes brother Adam  that is very true. 

maybe i should stop going to the trad site and phatmass and just pray about it, and reflect.
[right][snapback]833798[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Perhaps that isn't a bad idea.

Look up information on the heirarchy of truths as well. It will help put the Second Vatican ecumenical council into perspective...I think it will make more sense. Also, if you haven't explored the development of doctrine, doctrine and discipline, and what Catholics are obligated to hold, what we should hold to because we are Catholic, and what is optional, it would be a good idea.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 12:13 PM']no
It tears me apart inside, that i can not decide. I really  wish Vatican II was good, but i really don't know what to believe anymore.
[right][snapback]833795[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'll give you some stuff on the subject then.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 22 2005, 11:16 AM']Pope Paul VI, at the close of Vatican II on Dec. 7, 1965, confirmed that the Council did not make infallible pronouncements. He said that the Council

    "as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic sentence."

Later, on Mar. 8, 1972, the same Pope repeated that

    "it was one of the programmed items [of the Council] not to give solemn dogmatic definitions."

The most explicit confirmation that Vatican II was not infallible was given by Pope Paul VI on Jan.12, 1966, when he stated that:

    "Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (A. de Lassus, Vatican II: Rupture or Continuity, (French publ.), p. 11).
[right][snapback]833802[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The mistake when people focus on this aspect is similar to those who say that some papal pronouncement is not infallibly declared. They then come to the conclusion that dissent is allowable. This is a very dangerous conclusion as it opens them up to denying previous declarations or dogma within ordinary magesterium such as contraception, which has no explicitly infallible declarations per sey associated with it. For that matter the majority of moral issues do not.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 22 2005, 11:20 AM']I'll give you some stuff on the subject then. 
[right][snapback]833808[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am sure you will and you will be leading him down the path to schism once again. You can decieve yourself and pull others in to your denial of Papal Primacy all you want I suppose. If you are participating with the trads you are a schismatic. I am sure the decrees of flourence make you wish this were not true but you know in your heart it is.

[Aloysius]

there was no extraordinary excercise of infallibility, no solemn dogmas declared.

there was ordinary infallibility, the kind of infallibility that has been binding the Church since the beginning before we even started defining infallibility. the council is free from doctrinal or moral errors.