Free Republic

I believe you are erroneous when you state "Ecumenical councils don't have to make definitive statements to be infallible". The statement which you introduce from Cardinal Ratzinger simply states that divine assistance is given. The very fact that he distinguishes this assistance from cases of an infallible definition shows that he doesn't consider this assistance to make the non-definitive statement infallible.
--gbcdoj

Divine assistance can never be fallible; on the contrary, it is Truth Itself. It is the long-standing belief of the Church that its infallibility is derived from the assistance of the Holy Spirit Who is within it. The belief that the Holy Spirit assists the apostles assembled in a council in union with Peter was there from the beginning. At the council of Jerusalem (a pastoral council), it is apparent that the apostles believed their decisions were guaranteed by the Holy Spirit:

For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication: from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well.
--Acts 15:28-29

Most of the individual truths that compose the infallibly taught deposit of faith have never been the subject of a statement made "ex cathedra" by a Pope or the subject of a canonical declaration. The distinction made by Cardinal Ratzinger is between the infallibility that is accompanied by a definitive statement and the infallibility that isn't. He is not saying divine assistance is fallible in one case and infallible in the other!

An excerpt from your Catholic Encyclopedia citation:

Arguments contained in conciliar definitions are proposed by the supreme teaching authority in the Church, they concern faith and morals, and they bind the Universal Church; yet they are not definitions, because they lack this fourth condition -- they are not definitively proposed for the assent of the whole Church.
--Catholic Encyclopedia

As you can see, I emphasized different phrases than you did. The citation is not saying that because a conciliar teaching is not, strictly speaking, a "definition" it is not "proposed by the supreme teaching authority of the Church," and does not "bind the Universal Church." On the contrary, the citation makes clear that non definitive conciliar teachings are still promulgated by the "supreme teaching authority of the Church" and still "bind the Universal Church."

Definitive statements are not the only teachings of the Church that are binding. Non definitive statements "bind the Universal Church," and, because they are non definitive, it is of course true that "they are not definitively proposed for the assent of the whole Church." This does not, as the quote make clear, lessen their authority as they are "proposed by the supreme teaching authority of the Church" and it does not lessen their binding nature as "they bind the Universal Church."

Another excerpt:

It should be noted that not everything contained in a definition is infallibly defined. Thus, arguments from Scripture, tradition, or theological reason, do not come under the exercise of definitive authority. Incidental statements, called obiter dicta, are also examples of non-definitive utterances. Only the doctrine itself, to which those arguments lead and which these obiter dicta illustrate, is to be considered as infallibly defined.
--Catholic Encyclopedia

This is saying that "not everything contained" in a definitive statement is infallible, not that only definitive statements are infallible. The Council of Jerusalem, which was obviously disciplinary rather than dogmatic, and therefore made no "definitive" statements, still explicitly claimed its decisions had the approval of the Holy Spirit. All officially assembled ecumenical councils can and do make this claim. That is why Ratzinger says you have to buy into Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II and that it is nonsensical to reject one council and accept others. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit assists and guarantees ecumenical councils.

Hi ultima,

I am going to be really busy for a while. But I will get back to you as soon as I can.

Say a prayer for me.

nika

Thank you for your calm and thoughtful remarks. Let
me consider them and I will get back with you.

I weasel out of nothing. You are the one who weasels. My position has been consistent--but yours is all over the place. I argue from a clear position and have not wavered one iota. You began by claiming Vatican II was infallible. When pressed to specify what definitions it had declared infallibly--you changed the subject.
--ultima ratio

Don't talk nonsense. When have I ever denied the infallibility of councils?
--ultima ratio, 12/28/2002

You are hilarious.

Ecumenical councils don't have to make definitive statements to be infallible and binding. I didn't change the subject. Here are a few of my citations and remarks in that regard:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement ...
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him ...
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

If you believe a legitimately assembled council can err and has erred, then you are to me as a heathen and publican.
--Eck in his debate against Luther at Leipzig, after Luther admitted he believed an ecumenical council was fallible

It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils ...
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope.
--GENERAL COUNCILS, Section VIII. INFALLIBILITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910

You are confused. You seem to think that a pastoral council has no authority. It does: the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. It has the authority to change the liturgy.

You don't like Vatican II's liturgical changes, so you throw up this smoke screen claiming its being pastoral makes it non-binding. Its being pastoral does not inhibit its authority in any way.

What makes you think authorised liturgical changes have to be accompanied by dogmatic statements? Find me the dogmatic statements that accompanied the transition from a Greek liturgy to a Latin liturgy under Pope Damasus, or admit that according to your own logic the Latin liturgy was never authorised.
--nika

As for some of your other remarks:

Since when is it Catholic to believe that EVERYTHING popes and councils do and say is infallible? That is not a Catholic teaching.Once again you make dumb claims--and personally attack me for saying what is true ...
--ultima ratio

The reason you keep debating your straw man is because that is the only opponent you can successfully refute.

Was the Pope infallible, for instance, when he declared in a speech that human dignity prohibited capital punishment? Not for a second. He was dead wrong--and in saying what he did, he contradicted two thousand years of Church teaching.
--ultima ratio

I see you are among those who are actually think the Pope "reversed" Catholic teaching on capital punishment. Somehow I am not suprised.

Just a few more of your priceless remarks:

The Pope himself is heterodox, unclear, inconsistent--and liberal. He is in opposition to his preconciliar predecessors.
--ultima ratio

SSPX does not deny the Novus Ordo is valid! Of course it is valid! But what does it mean to say this? ... Even black Masses are valid.
--ultima ratio

keep your vitriol in check.
--ultima ratio

Hello pascendi,

I am sorry I have been so slow in responding to your post regarding the meaning of the "mystery of faith."

It is indeed a reference to the Eucharist: Christ becoming present in His humanity and in His divinity. The Mass makes present the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus as well. We are proclaiming that which has taken place before us when we say: "Christ has died, Christ is risen" and, since He is truly present among us, we could rightfully follow that with: "Christ has come again." (Not that I am suggesting we change the liturgy! ;o)

Popes and councils have all sorts of authority to do and say all sorts of things--not all of them wise or prudent. Yes, they should be given all due respect and adherence, even in non-binding matters. But such respect and adherence is predicated on their being faithful servants of the Catholic faith and protectors of Sacred Tradition. Once they cynically abandon that faith and Tradition, they open themselves up to our justifiable demurrals.
--ultima ratio

Once again, since you believe "Popes and Councils" have cynically abandoned faith and Tradition you have placed yourself outside of the Catholic faith. Sorry.

Attempting to weasel out of your admission of your non-Catholicism by nitpicking the definition of "Holy See" is ridiculous. Why do you now insist you really do belong to a Church you are convinced is run by a bunch of modernists who have abandoned faith and tradition? No matter why, you are still not a Catholic. Catholics believe "Popes and Councils" are protected by the Holy Spirit from abandoning faith and Tradition.

One more thing: Do you believe the Novus Ordo is valid and licit?

By the way, I really do pray for you. I know you don't believe it. That's OK.

I pray for ultima ratio and you at daily mass. God knows I don't really have time to be involved in these discussions at all. It is out of charity towards SSPXers and towards those who are being led away from the fullness of the faith that I take the time to do this.

Jesus keeps His promises. To claim the Holy See has been disconnected from Sacred Tradition is to deny that Jesus keeps His promises. Catholics believe in the promises of Jesus. That is just the way it is. I don't say so to be mean. I say so with the fervent hope that faith in Jesus and in the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church He founded might be restored.

ping

... what we've got now in the Novus Ordo is ... a modernist concoction having more to do with copying Martin Luther's rejection of Catholicism than with any authentic rite from antiquity. ...

Yes, they [ Popes and Councils ] should be given all due respect and adherence ... But such respect and adherence is predicated on their being faithful servants of the Catholic faith and protectors of Sacred Tradition. Once they cynically abandon that faith and Tradition, they open themselves up to our justifiable demurrals. ...

... the Holy See is itself at the root of the problem. ... and it is itself not even fully Catholic since it numbers in its personnel men who are openly apostate or ... heretical and hostile to the Catholic faith itself, along with its traditions.

In the final analysis, the bad situation in the Church was ... created ... by the men who lead the Church and seek to abandon Catholicism. Their failures in faith have in turn destroyed the faiths of countless millions who have walked away from the Church in disgust, and it is these leaders who are primarily at fault, not the rest of us.

Had the Holy See itself obeyed Sacred Tradition and passed-on what had been transmitted through the centuries by the Church, the destruction might have been avoided. But it was careless about its own patrimony and severed its connection to Tradition. As a result, what the Church has now in the Novus Ordo is a rite that DESTROYS Catholic faith rather than upholds it. And it suffers under a Vatican bureaucracy that is no longer committed to Catholicism.
--ultima ratio

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever: The Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive ... He shall abide with you and shall be in you. ... the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. ... when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will teach you all truth. ... And behold I am with you all days, even to the consumation of the world.
--Jesus, Matthew 15:18-19, John 14:16-17,26, 16:13, Matthew 28:20

You are telling us that you don't believe that Jesus keeps His promises. You can't believe that the Holy See has not "obeyed Sacred Tradition and passed on what had been transmitted through the centuries by the Church" and that it has "severed its connection to Tradition" and also believe the promises of Jesus to His Church and to St. Peter and his successors in the Holy See.

You aren't Catholic. Catholics believe in Jesus and in His promises. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit has always been in the Church, is in the Church presently and remains there forever. We have that on the authority of Jesus. Catholics know that a belief that the Holy See has severed it connection with tradition is incompatible with the very essence of Catholicism. You don't believe in Jesus, you believe in your own limited, narrow, fallible judgment and place it above that of the Church, the Successor of St. Peter and above Christ Himself.

There's no need to cite anybody, since everybody knowledgeable knows that Paul VI introduced the Novus Ordo, not Vatican II
--ultima ratio

When did anyone say the Novus Ordo was initiated directly by Vatican II? You are often debating a straw man instead of anyone on this forum. You might argue that there is no connection between the liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, that one is completely independent of the other. You would be wrong, but you could at least argue that and be saying something pertinent to the discussion.

Your first citation of Mediator Dei, the one that starts:

Indeed, though we are sorely grieved to note, on the one hand, that there are places where the spirit, understanding or practice of the sacred liturgy is defective, or all but inexistent ...

also has nothing to do with anything being discussed here, except that it points out that there were abuses of the liturgy long before Vatican II and that even then there were people like yourself who were disobedient to the Holy See. Whose side are you on? Yours or mine?

Your other citations condemn your own position even more clearly. Here they are with some of the context restored which you conveniently left out:

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See. [ Hmmm.... The sacred liturgy is ENTIRELY SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION AND APPROVAL OF THE HOLY SEE.... Who around here acknowledges JP II is the legitimate successor of St. Peter yet refuses to accept his authority in matters concerning the sacred liturgy??? --nika ]

61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. [ Yes. It most certainly is. The liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II brought the church nearer to the liturgy of the early church, whose Christianity converted the known world. "All veneration" includes your veneration, ultima. --nika ] But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. [ Right. Its being worthy of "all veneration" isn't based on its being old. No problem there. --nika ] The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. [ Like liturgical rites brought about by the reforms initiated by Vatican II. --nika ] They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man. [ Yes they certainly do owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, Whom you resist, ultima. --nika ]

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. [ Amen!!! And that is exactly what was done by the liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II. --nika ] But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See. [ Of course. As was mentioned above, "The sacred liturgy is entirely subject to the descretion and approval of the Holy See." The legitimate successor of St. Peter at that time did not allow those things. Therefore those practices are forbidden until the legitimate successor of St. Peter allows them. It is all really very simple, ultima, if one possesses the basic virtue of obedience. --nika ]

The problem has always been disobedience, whether it be by modernists or by so-called "traditionalists." If both sides would just obey the Holy See in liturgical matters we wouldn't need to have these discussions.

Thanks for a thoughtful response. Let me absorb that and I will get back to you.

I am tired of these exclusively cut-and-paste responses of yours.
--ultima ratio

I'll bet you are! You make dogmatic-sounding statements with your laughable, pretended "expertise" as your only real authority for making them and then I demonstrate that they are totally wrong by citing authoritative sources. Of course you are tired of that!

Why don't you back up your position with some citations instead of making your ridiculous proclamations with your pathetic "expertise" as your only authority? That is the whole problem. Your disobedience to the Church founded by Christ is without authority and without expertise.

You were aware that the Novus Ordo Mass did not come from Vatican II, right?
--pascendi

Here is a link to a page with links to the official instructions for the correct implementation of Vatican II's reforms of the liturgy. Cardinal Ottaviani sent his letter of criticism of the "Novus Ordo Missae" to Paul VI about 2 1/2 years after the second instruction which was issued in May of 1967:

St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology

What liturgical changes do you imagine Vatican II mandated? It made a few harmless suggestions ...
--ultima ratio

So, I can safely assume that you completely approve of all of the following excerpts from SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM:

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: ... to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; ... The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

...

4. ... The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.

...

21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

...

22.

1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

...

25. The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world. ...

36.

1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

...

37.Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.

38. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.

...

40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should then be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

...

50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

...

54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

...

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

First, you seem to equate dogmatic councils, which deliberately set forth a set of definitions, with a council which is solely pastoral.
--ultima ratio

You are confused. You seem to think that a pastoral council has no authority. It does: the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. It has the authority to change the liturgy.

You don't like Vatican II's liturgical changes, so you throw up this smoke screen claiming its being pastoral makes it non-binding. Its being pastoral does not inhibit its authority in any way.

What makes you think authorised liturgical changes have to be accompanied by dogmatic statements? Find me the dogmatic statements that accompanied the transition from a Greek liturgy to a Latin liturgy under Pope Damasus, or admit that according to your own logic the Latin liturgy was never authorised.

only those truths of faith which have been clearly defined are divinely protected
--ultima ratio

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement ...
--Cardinal Ratzinger

Traditionalists don't question the right of the pope and bishops to call a council into session. That is not the issue.
--ultima ratio

I see you knocked over a straw man.

The issue is whether its declarations--which were not binding and not infallible--were consistent with past Magisterial teachings.
--ultima ratio

Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him ...
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

You are really saying Vatican I and the Council of Trent were "not binding and not infallible," according to Cardinal Ratzinger, since "Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent."

I will leave you to ponder two items. First, the remark of Eck in his debate against Luther at Leipzig, after Luther admitted he believed an ecumenical council was fallible:

"If you believe a legitimately assembled council can err and has erred, then you are to me as a heathen and publican."

Second:

Between heresy and schism there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church.
--St. Jerome

I propose the following remarks of Cardinal Ratzinger as defending the authority of Vatican II, in particular in its authority over the liturgy, even if Vatican II did not make any "definitive" statements.

Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him ...

It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils ...
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Ratzinger Report

17. Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching.

One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian

Hello, I wonder if it would be fruitful to introduce them to the Church Fathers A study of the letters of St. Ignatius (St. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John), for example, might be enlightening. Here is an excerpt from The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans:

Do ye, therefore, notice those who preach other doctrines, how they affirm that the Father of Christ cannot be known, and how they exhibit enmity and deceit in their dealings with one another. They have no regard for love; they despise the good things we expect hereafter; they regard present things as if they were durable; they ridicule him that is in affliction; they laugh at him that is in bonds. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Hi pascendi,

My daughter is in the hospital. Life has been busy. I can't keep up with all the posts and have just been throwing in what I can. Why don't you start off by letting me have it with both barrels and then I will respond as I find time.

God bless!
nika

Vatican II today stands in a twilight. For a long time it has been regarded by the so-called progressive wing as completely supassed and, consequently, as a thing of the past, no longer relevant to the present. By the opposite side, the 'convervative' wing, it is, conversely, viewed as the cause of the present decadence of the Catholic Church and even judged as an apostasy from Vatican I and from the Council of Trent. Consequently demands have been made for its retraction or for a revision that would be tantamount to a retraction ... Over against both tendencies, before all else, it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points. ...

Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils. ... It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils [ "Vatican II, after all, was a failed council." --ultima ratio ] and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called 'traditionalism', also in its extreme forms. [ this would be ultima ratio and pascendi --nika ] Every partison choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church ) which can only exist as an indivisible unity.
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, On the tenth anniversary of the close of Vatican II

All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope.
--GENERAL COUNCILS, Section VIII. INFALLIBILITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910

"John Paul II is the legitimate Successor of Peter."
--ultima ratio

You are hilarious. I am going to bed. I might find time to respond tomorrow.