The Church Of Satan

[MiserereNobis]

I find the spleen to be an outstanding example.

 

Catholics have them, don't they?

 

Good to see you!! 

 

You, too!  I recommended Varieties of Religious Experience on another thread and thought you might give confirmation that it's a good read, based on what you were saying:  experience is more important than fact and the pragmatic result of religion is more important than it's factual content.

 

Glad to see you can quote again, too

[mfbukowski]

You, too!  I recommended Varieties of Religious Experience on another thread and thought you might give confirmation that it's a good read, based on what you were saying:  experience is more important than fact and the pragmatic result of religion is more important than it's factual content.

 

Glad to see you can quote again, too

Oh I missed that!  Yep I think that is true.  What we accept as "fact" is largely a matter of having faith in the source anyway, and facts like the resurrection of Christ are impossible to prove anyway.  Yet it is clear that the belief in the resurrection has changed the lives of countless Christians.  The human impact comes from the experience of having the belief, not from facts.

 

I was in Europe recently and visited a Benedictine monastery church (more like a cathedral) and it was clearly one of the most beautiful churches I have ever seen.  What was fascinating is all the "marble" and "gold" was actually stucco painstakingly made to look like marble and gold, for the glory of God.

 

It was one of the most amazing evidences of love of the Lord I have ever witnessed.  Countless hours for the glory of God. 

 

Anyway I thought of you - seeing those Benedictines in their natural habitat. 

 

Hope all is well with you!

[jkwilliams]

You, too!  I recommended Varieties of Religious Experience on another thread and thought you might give confirmation that it's a good read, based on what you were saying:  experience is more important than fact and the pragmatic result of religion is more important than it's factual content.

 

Agreed. It's what belief does to us and how we act on that change that matters. All the doctrine in the world is of no use if there is no love or faith or positive action behind it. 

 

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

Edited October 12, 2015 by jkwilliams

[cinepro]

3. Should realize that the first edition of Mormon Doctrine was pretty much a disaster. Elder McConkie was always an impetuous type, but for all the good he did, in this case his presumptuousness was an embarassment to church leaders and his book was shot full of errors identified by Elders Stapley and Peterson (see David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Robert Wright and Gregory Prince).

For those who are unclear of what the first edition of "Mormon Doctrine" has to do with this thread, under the heading "Catholic Church", it merely (and merrily) said "See: Church of the Devil"

Edited October 12, 2015 by cinepro

[jkwilliams]

For those who are unclear of what the first edition of "Mormon Doctrine" has to do with this thread, under the heading "Catholic Church", it merely (and merrily) said "See: Church of the Devil"

 

When I was a missionary, I had a companion who, when we passed the Cathedral of San Roque, would say, "You know what church that is? La iglesia grande y abominable." 

 

Hopefully that kind of stuff is well in the past.

[Derl Sanderson]

If you read 1 Nephi carefully, you might come to the conclusion that the church in question predates the Catholic church, and spans far beyond the Reformation. What that church actually encompasses is a separate matter.

 

In short, it is likely not about what physical pew you happen to occupy.

 

Exactly. Or as expressed by Prof. Robinson in the essay I recommended:

 

"In either the apocalyptic sense or the historical sense, individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there are Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his lifestyle, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his lifestyle. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records."

[MiserereNobis]

Exactly. Or as expressed by Prof. Robinson in the essay I recommended:

 

"In either the apocalyptic sense or the historical sense, individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there are Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his lifestyle, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his lifestyle. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records."

 

Nicely said.

 

(but still, ya'll should get a legit Catholic baptism! )

Edited October 13, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

Oh I missed that!  Yep I think that is true.  What we accept as "fact" is largely a matter of having faith in the source anyway, and facts like the resurrection of Christ are impossible to prove anyway.  Yet it is clear that the belief in the resurrection has changed the lives of countless Christians.  The human impact comes from the experience of having the belief, not from facts.

 

I was in Europe recently and visited a Benedictine monastery church (more like a cathedral) and it was clearly one of the most beautiful churches I have ever seen.  What was fascinating is all the "marble" and "gold" was actually stucco painstakingly made to look like marble and gold, for the glory of God.

 

It was one of the most amazing evidences of love of the Lord I have ever witnessed.  Countless hours for the glory of God. 

 

Anyway I thought of you - seeing those Benedictines in their natural habitat. 

 

Hope all is well with you!

 

This past summer I was in the Salt Lake City region (spending time in the Uintah Mountains!) and visited Temple Square.  I felt a similar feeling with the care and time and energy that the early LDS folk spent building that temple.  As you said, countless hours for the glory of God.  It was nice, too, to see in the visitors center a cross section of the temple to see what the actual rooms are, etc.  My family and I also enjoyed rolling around on the grass in the shade for a bit (ha! My baby was 11 months old at the time!).

 

And I'd like to add that, even though I saw many many many missionaries strolling around, no one came and tried to talk to us.  This, for me, was a positive thing.  I wanted to walk around and see everything without having to have a conversation about it all.  So, I really appreciated that there were people there if I had questions, but they allowed me and my family to just enjoy things as we wanted to.

 

(of course, we also visited the Cathedral there, just a little walk up from Temple Square -- beautiful!  Any of you SLC LDS folk been there?)

[3DOP]

All of the Church Councils fall under that claim, but it's not because the Pope so declares by himself (that is the Pope speaking ex cathedra, "from the chair of Peter"), but because the Pope together with the College of Bishops (all of the Bishops) so declare.

 

Vatican II is a wee bit fuzzy because it is a Council somewhat different than others.  It avoided the clear cut statements of previous Councils that declared what is anathema and is often referred to as a pastoral rather than a dogmatic Council.  This has given wiggle room for some strong traditional Catholics to argue that there could be error in the Council.

 

Personally, I think it is clear that the Council is infallible -- it was presided over by two Popes and every Pope since the Council has affirmed it.  My issue with Vatican II is that there is a lot of ambiguity in the statements and many people went beyond the actually Council documents and tried to implement change "in the spirit of Vatican II."  Alot of that nonsense has finally been reigned in, generally speaking (thanks to Pope Benedict, actually).

 

Anyways, a clear answer is yes, Church Councils are infallible.

 

And yes, Mormons and Catholics have some interesting things both inside and outside

 

Hi Miserere, Long time. Good to see you.

 

I think the faithful Catholic ought to be wary about giving the impression that every word of every ecumenical council is infallible. I tend to limit it to the canons. I have to speculate because in my opinion the Church has never defined when a Council is speaking infallibly. When has the Church ever said anywhere near as much about the infallibility of ecumenical councils as it did about the infallibility of the popes? And that only came in 1870. I don't think we know yet, but that the current crisis in the Church will eventually issue forth into some clarity. It appears to me that in its "Decree for the Armenians", Nov. 22, 1439, the Council of Florence made a dubious proclamation when it says the following: "The sixth sacrament is that of order, the matter of which is that through whose translation the order is conferred: just as the priesthood is transmitted through the offering of the chalice with wine and the paten with bread..."

 

It seems dubious that the matter for the priesthood is "the passing of the instruments" as it is customarily referred to. Vatican II reforms suppressed this beautiful, but in my opinion non-essential ceremony. If "the passing of the instruments" is the essential matter for holy orders, the New Rite Ordinal is invalid. I hold that the laying on of hands of the bishop is the essential matter for priestly Orders, as explained by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Sacramentum Ordinis. He argues in that document that the Fathers of Florence did not intend to limit the matter to the instruments and further contends that the Church has the authority to change the matter. Could be. This was not 1950 but 1947, and Pius XII's encyclical was fallible. I am on record as believing that there are errors in Vatican II, but it isn't just because I cannot reconcile teachings of Vatican II with Catholic Tradition. I also suggest that it might not be the first council to have made a boo-boo.

 

Rory

Edited October 13, 2015 by 3DOP

[Maedros]

Elder Talmage in The Great Apostacy wrote that the history of the papacy is the condemnation of the Catholic Church; when one truly studies their history then its clear that Nephi saw the formation of that Church, check this out:

 

5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church (Constantine and the Councils of Nicaea) which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God (all those who did not confirm with the statutes of this new church were put to death and among them women and children), yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down (those who opposed were labelled heretics and tortured), and yoketh them with a yoke of iron (all had to conform with the teachings of the papacy or be killed), and bringeth them down into captivity (the RCC ruled the state and all had to be subject to it).

 6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it (through secret combinations he formed this Church under the pagan Constantine to unite the Roman empire).

 7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots (once again the history of the papacy is the condemnation of the Catholic Church).

 8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church (look at the attire of the Bishops and Cardinals of Constantine's church).

 9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.

This church is also referred to as the mother of harlots because from it spawned the many christian churches of today; however, the Catholic church has changed the negative image over the past 200 years or so and is a force for good in the world today. 

 

You need to provide a complete reference or link if you are quoting something.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Maedros

[Storm Rider]

I think each of us can cite many, many quotations that are incorrect, wrong, or even stupid.  I never let the humanity of an individual prevent me from both overlooking their weaknesses as well as appreciating their strengths.  

 

It is my humble, (okay, humble for me), prayer that we will be found being as charitable with the humanity of others as we would want the Savior to be charitable with our own frail humanity.  

[Derl Sanderson]

Sorry Maedros. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." (Possibly an annoying quote quote for you, coming as it does from a Catholic).

 

Your interpretation makes no sense in terms of the actual history of events. Stephen Robinson makes that abundantly clear in his essay:

 

"More often, some have suggested that the Roman Catholic church might be the great and abominable church of Nephi 13. This is also untenable, primarily because Roman Catholicism as we know it did not yet exist when the crimes described by Nephi were being committed. In fact, the term Roman Catholic only makes sense after AD 1054 when it is used to distinguish the Western, Latin-speaking Orthodox Church that followed the bishop of Rome from the Eastern, Greek-speaking Orthodox Church that followed the bishop of Constantinople.

 

In the period between Peter and the Roman emperor Constantine, there were many Christian churches besides the Orthodox Church: Ebionites, Syrian and Egyptian churches, Donatists, Gnostics, Marcionites, and so on. Even if we use the term Catholic for the church Constantine made the state religion in AD 313, the New Testament as we know it was already widely circulating. That is, the plain and precious parts had already been removed. The notion of shifty-eyed medieval monks rewriting the scriptures is unfair and bigoted. We owe those monks a debt of gratitude that anything was saved at all.

 

By the time of Constantine, the apostles had been dead for centuries. Furthermore, the early Orthodox Church can hardly be accused of immorality. It had, in fact, gone to the extremes of asceticism. In some areas of the world, Orthodoxy replaced an earlier, already corrupt form of Christianity. And during much of the period, members of the Orthodox Church were not in a position to persecute anyone, as they were being thrown to the lions themselves."

 

The breadth and complexity of Nephi's vision is much greater than what you want it to be. Additionally, Storm Rider's call to use a little charity as lens through which to view these things is well-taken.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

At the time he wrote it (the first edition). But you pose a good question, Steve, and I don't have the Wright/Prince book in front of me and it's been awhile since I read it. I want to be able to give the correct context of the episode, so let me put you off awhile until I get home (danged job!) and can pull the book off my shelf.

Here is Joseph McConkie's take on it (Bruce's son):

 

Question: How extensive was Elder Kimball�s list of things that needed changing?

Response: There were about fifty items that Elder Kimball wanted Elder McConkie to revisit.

Question: Were these doctrinal matters in which he differed with Elder McConkie?

Response: No. They dealt with tone and with the wisdom of including particular things.

Question: How did Elder McConkie feel about the suggestions made by Elder Kimball?

Response: He was very appreciative. Elder Kimball was a wise mentor who taught him the difference between being right and being appropriate. The fact that something is true does not necessarily mean one ought to say it.

Question: Elder Kimball�s list of things that needed changing sounds much less extensive than the changes that were made in the second edition. Does this suggest that a wiser Bruce McConkie did a lot of rewriting on his own?

Response: Yes, it does.

[MiserereNobis]

Elder Talmage in The Great Apostacy wrote that the history of the papacy is the condemnation of the Catholic Church; when one truly studies their history then its clear that Nephi saw the formation of that Church, check this out:

 

5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church (Constantine and the Councils of Nicaea) which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God (all those who did not confirm with the statutes of this new church were put to death and among them women and children), yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down (those who opposed were labelled heretics and tortured), and yoketh them with a yoke of iron (all had to conform with the teachings of the papacy or be killed), and bringeth them down into captivity (the RCC ruled the state and all had to be subject to it).

 6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it (through secret combinations he formed this Church under the pagan Constantine to unite the Roman empire).

 7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots (once again the history of the papacy is the condemnation of the Catholic Church).

 8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church (look at the attire of the Bishops and Cardinals of Constantine's church).

 9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.

This church is also referred to as the mother of harlots because from it spawned the many christian churches of today; however, the Catholic church has changed the negative image over the past 200 years or so and is a force for good in the world today. One more thought: at the head of the true church is a prophet who receives direction from the Saviour and at the head of the RCC is the pope who may very well receive revelation from Lucifer (albeit unknowingly). 

 

It's this kind of stuff that doesn't bother me but makes me giggle because you are so far from the historical facts.  The Roman Catholic Church has warts, yes, which we readily accept, but this caricature is laughable.  You need a few history classes.

 

I like the claim that Pope Francis receives revelation from Lucifer.  Yup, all that love each other business, take care of the poor and marginalized, definitely satanic in origin

 

I also imagine that the current leadership would disavow such nonsense, so perhaps follow the current prophet would be in order, eh?

Edited October 13, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[Storm Rider]

It's this kind of stuff that doesn't bother me but makes me giggle because you are so far from the historical facts.  The Roman Catholic Church has warts, yes, which we readily accept, but this caricature is laughable.  You need a few history classes.

 

I like the claim that Pope Francis receives revelation from Lucifer.  Yup, all that love each other business, take care of the poor and marginalized, definitely satanic in origin

 

I also imagine that the current leadership would disavow such nonsense, so perhaps follow the current prophet would be in order, eh?

 

Those types of statements don't make me giggle, but it does make me sad.  When these types of things are said, regardless by whom or about whom, we must be charitable and overlook their humanity.  That was the purpose of my earlier edit on #61.  Talmage wrote and great number of things and most were truly outstanding.  However, he was human, and similar to other great men, was not perfect. As other great men, he said things that are not accurate or reflective of his love of God and/or his children.  

 

As has already been said, the Protestant Reformation came out with many beliefs about the Catholic Church.  Unfortunately, some of these concepts carried over into the thinking of LDS personal beliefs.  

[Calm]

Maedros, if you do not wish to be banned, you may want to consider a change of approach. From what I've seen mods are very serious about the below from the board guidelines:

"This is not a free speech board. It's a respectful speech board. We want participation from LDS and non-LDS people. Mocking LDS beliefs will drive away LDS members. This means:

Do not use offensive terms for things we hold sacred.

Do not post temple content or links to temple content.

Do not use nicknames for LDS leaders. Example: Calling Joseph Smith "Joe" is not acceptable

Do not post anything else you know is meant to do nothing more than push others' buttons.

Libel is not tolerated and you may be held legally accountable.

LDS members: You are expected to show the same level of courtesy to other faiths as we want participation from non-LDS people."

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/church/news/first-presidency-offers-warmest-wishes-to-newly-elected-pope-francis-i?lang=eng

On March 13, the conclave of Catholic Cardinals elected Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina, 76, as the new pope. Now known as Pope Francis, he is the first pontiff from the Americas and the first from outside Europe in more than a millennium, the Associated Press reported. He chose the name Francis, associating himself with St. Francis of Assisi, the 13th-century Italian Catholic friar who lived a life of poverty.

After the new pope was named, the First Presidency issued the following statement:

“On behalf of the leadership and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we extend our warmest wishes to His Holiness Pope Francis and pray he will feel the peace of the Lord as he serves as pontiff of the Catholic Church.  

“We have been honored and pleased as our two faiths have worked together on issues of faith, morality, and service to the poor and needy. We value the relationships that have been formed in these joint efforts and are grateful for the good that has been accomplished.

“We look forward to pursuing together, as the Apostle Paul wrote, all things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and of good report.”

[mfbukowski]

It's this kind of stuff that doesn't bother me but makes me giggle because you are so far from the historical facts.  The Roman Catholic Church has warts, yes, which we readily accept, but this caricature is laughable.  You need a few history classes.

 

I like the claim that Pope Francis receives revelation from Lucifer.  Yup, all that love each other business, take care of the poor and marginalized, definitely satanic in origin

 

I also imagine that the current leadership would disavow such nonsense, so perhaps follow the current prophet would be in order, eh?

Exactly.  I agree that that post was laughable.  For the record, since what it said is not worth a direct response.

[3DOP]

Miserere Nobis says:

<snip>Personally, I think it is clear that the Council is infallible -- it was presided over by two Popes and every Pope since the Council has affirmed it.  My issue with Vatican II is that there is a lot of ambiguity in the statements and many people went beyond the actually Council documents and tried to implement change "in the spirit of Vatican II."  Alot of that nonsense has finally been reigned in, generally speaking (thanks to Pope Benedict, actually).

 

Anyways, a clear answer is yes, Church Councils are infallible.<snip>

 

 

 

Miserere...Hey.

 

Sorry, I must demur with this for the sake of anyone who may be interested in the discussion. And for you too. We aren't enemies though we clearly have a different view of the Catholic faith today.

 

The problem here is with what the popes you mention affirm regarding Vatican II. You intimate that they affirm that Vatican II is infallible? But note what they said about it:

 

 

"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the church's infallible teaching authority."

 

---Pope Paul VI, Address of the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, Dec. 7, 1965

 

Is this affirming that Vatican II is infallible? I see it as a denial. Who believes the pope (Paul VI) who promulgated Vatican II? I do. Conservative Catholics reject the papal affirmation of Pope Paul VI on Vatican II.

 

Pope Benedict was also cited. But what has he said? "The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

 

---Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, Address to the assembled bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988.

 

Granted that he was not yet the pope. But considering that he upholds Pope Paul's denial of conciliar infallibility to Vatican II when he was Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems like one might wish for something other than silence to affirm that Benedict did a 180 degree turnaround as pope. I am aware that popes since the Council have affirmed their intention to support the policies of Vatican II. But none have ever contradicted what Paul VI and Benedict say about its "modest level". To support a policy is not to affirm a dogma as infallible. Not one pope has ever claimed that Vatican II is doctrinally infallible, while two have affirmed that Vatican II is NOT doctrinally infallible. Who do I believe? I believe the popes!

 

It is understood that nobody LDS cares much about this. Maybe calmoriah (Calm). Its just for the record. It is impossible for me to believe what the popes mentioned above actually say about Vatican II with what you affirm, Miserere Nobis, regarding Vatican II. I exceedingly wonder why conservative Catholics continue to reject what the popes have said about Vatican II. Sigh...

 

3DOP

Edited October 14, 2015 by 3DOP

[Calm]

You make me laugh. I am fascinated by the subject, having Catholic believers present their understanding of their faith is always an opportunity I want to take advantage of if possible...and I was just going to ask how one can determine that infallibilty applies to a pope's comment. Is it simply the pope at the time affirming such? Or is there a process of recognition of the tradition a statement is based on or something else?

PS: if you two are busy, I can certainly look it up and probably will anyway, but having someone familiar describe something is often helpful in picking out nuances I might miss otherwise.

[3DOP]

Cal...hey. Glad to amuse! Heh.

 

Here is the thing. Councils have been said to be infallible. Popes have been at times said to be infallible. I suggest that this occurs when the pope or the Council concurs with Catholic Tradition much more often than when something somewhat new is proposed that seems at odds with what has come before. They say the popes (Pius IX and XII) were infallible when they proposed the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. But the Church had already had feast days for centuries in honor of these two events! There was nothing new...nothing controversial. Churches had been named in honor the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. Who that would call themselves Catholics could doubt the dogmas before they were "infallibly defined"?

 

So are the dogmas infallible because they accord with Scripture and Tradition or because popes declared them to be true? On the other hand, what happens when Vatican II promotes novelty and the promulgating pope denies that it is infallible. I am the bad guy. I am the schismatic. I am the one who is held in suspicion as a "so-called Traditionalist" because I believe what the modern popes actually say about Vatican II. 

 

Just to be clear. I hold that probably 90% of Vatican II is infallible. But not because it is an ecumenical council. Not because popes have "affirmed it" as doctrinally infallible (because they have said the opposite) but because it often reiterates Catholic Tradition.

 

My brother recently thought he was saying how great this new church is that he is going to with his family. Some Russian Protestant thing where they don't even understand the language because he "agrees with 95% of the doctrine". Yikes. You disagree with 5%? My brother, you think you are right and the church to which you submit is wrong about 5%? Who could submit to a church that they knowingly admit makes mistakes about doctrine? I believe God has enlightened the Catholic Church or I wouldn't belong to it. I believe 100% of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I am convinced by Church Tradition as well as modern popes, that She teaches very clearly that Vatican II may be questioned and is definitely fallible.

Edited October 14, 2015 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................................

 

This must have been mauled over before but I don't remember of ever seeing an answer.

Mauled over or mulled over.  Pretty much the same thing for many of us.

[Calm]

"I submit to 100% of what the Catholic Church teaches. I think she teaches very clearly that Vatican II must be questioned."

So even though Vatican II took place under the authority of the Church, you do not see it as a Council as speaking for the Church because it has not been given that role in your view by the popes that have spoken of the Council's domain...if that is the right word to use...what it can be applied to.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Calm

[3DOP]

"I submit to 100% of what the Catholic Church teaches. I think she teaches very clearly that Vatican II must be questioned."

So even though Vatican II took place under the authority of the Church, you do not see it as a Council as speaking for the Church because it has not been given that role in your view by the popes that have spoken of the Council's domain...if that is the right word to use...what it can be applied to.

 

 

You are so quick. I softened what I first said. In editing I would rather say that the Catholic Church "teaches very clearly that Vatican II may be questioned and is definitely fallible."

 

So the popes say that its fallible. This has never happened before in 2,000 years. Is this not a sign of God's providence to those of us who are befuddled at trying to reconcile portions of Vatican II with Catholic Tradition? There is a reason why a famous prelate proclaimed that Vatican II was 1784 in the Church (The year of the French Revolution). Those who love Vatican II don't say that it is infallible. Those who are troubled with Vatican II as I am, don't say that it is infallible. We find ample justifications from those in authority who one would expect to be the most likely to defend Vatican II saying that it is different. That Vatican II is NOT infallible.

 

I doubt parts of Vatican II for two reasons. 1) Parts of it are completely at odds with pre-conciliar papal teachings. This is easily documented citing liberals or Traditionalists. Liberals praise Vatican II for finally breaking with Tradition as the French Revolution broke with the ancien regime. In that respect Traditionalists agree with the liberals. 2) There is not one pope in the fifty years since the Council who has denied what Paul VI and Cardinal Ratzinger clearly said regarding the fact that Vatican II refrained from making infallible dogmatic definitions. If Pope Francis or any future pope should ever say what conservative Catholics say about the Council, I would be in a difficult position. So far it has not happened even though it begs to be claimed.   

Edited October 14, 2015 by 3DOP

[Calm]

"Liberals praise Vatican II for finally breaking with Tradition"

Tradition with a capital T...isn't that one of the pillars the Church is built on though? Wouldn't that be similar to applauding dispensing with sacred scripture? Or are they using tradition more in the sense that LDS use "traditions of men", stuff that has been unwisely added to sacred teachings?

"This has never happened before in 2,000 years"

In regard to other councils? If so, does saying so open the possibility that previous councils are also fallible? What are the implications for other teachings outside of Vatican II created by the popes defining VII as fallible?

Edited October 14, 2015 by Calm