FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

(02-05-2021, 05:46 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-05-2021, 05:10 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-05-2021, 05:06 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, David Nix blogposts, the Summa Theologica, and the Catholic Encyclopedia are all fallible documents. By the logic expressed by Mr. Chairman here, I have no reason to pay attention to any of those.

He criticizes us for using "fallible" magisterial sources for our position, then proceeds to use fallible sources that aren't even magisterial to begin with.  The irony is amusing.

Consider reading any one of them.  None of those documents are intended to stand as authoritative on their own.  All of them do cite actual authorities, some of them infallible.

Since I actually like you, Mr. Chairman, and you've made a good effort to engage us here, I give you my word that I'll read over these articles later today or tomorrow.

(02-05-2021, 05:51 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]Since I actually like you, Mr. Chairman, and you've made a good effort to engage us here, I give you my word that I'll read over these articles later today or tomorrow.

I think the levels of theological certainty--specifically how Papal teaching is categorized into each level, depending on the circumstances of its delivery/revelation--will be most useful. Remember that this is in Ott's Fundamentals (which predates The Council™), and the citations in the original will provide even more background if the authority of the compilation is in question.

Augustinian Wrote:

Clare Brigid Wrote:

SeekerofChrist Wrote:Clare's back to make another trollish post to put us scumbag sedes in our proper place in Hell!  So much fun!

Ive never called you any names, let alone "scumbag."  Ive admonished you not to sin by espousing sedevacantism and leading little ones astray.  That is a spiritual work of mercy

Is it not a spiritual work of mercy to attempt to show people that they are following a false shepherd? That they are adhering to a false doctrine and participating in (potentially) false worship? I'm sorry, but throwing out slurs and then passing them off as "admonishing" people while simultaneously appealing to get them banned is beyond a spiritual work of mercy.

What would be more appropriate is to engage in the argument and show us why we may be wrong, just like how we are trying to show you how you may be wrong. I'm sorry if I've been snide about this, but it's a little off-putting to be attacked by a group of people who think they know what's best for my soul. You may want to reassess your approach a bit.

I have not used any slurs and I have not tried to have you banned.  I have advocated banning the discussion of sedevacantism.

(02-05-2021, 05:59 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: [ -> ]

Augustinian Wrote:

Clare Brigid Wrote:

SeekerofChrist Wrote:Clare's back to make another trollish post to put us scumbag sedes in our proper place in Hell!  So much fun!

Ive never called you any names, let alone "scumbag."  Ive admonished you not to sin by espousing sedevacantism and leading little ones astray.  That is a spiritual work of mercy

Is it not a spiritual work of mercy to attempt to show people that they are following a false shepherd? That they are adhering to a false doctrine and participating in (potentially) false worship? I'm sorry, but throwing out slurs and then passing them off as "admonishing" people while simultaneously appealing to get them banned is beyond a spiritual work of mercy.

What would be more appropriate is to engage in the argument and show us why we may be wrong, just like how we are trying to show you how you may be wrong. I'm sorry if I've been snide about this, but it's a little off-putting to be attacked by a group of people who think they know what's best for my soul. You may want to reassess your approach a bit.

I have not used any slurs and I have not tried to have you banned.  I have advocated banning the discussion of sedevacantism.

But wouldn't banning the discussion of sedevacantism prevent you from being able to admonish the sinners and get them to rethink their position?  I offer my apologies for my past responses to you.  I let my anger and frustration get the better of me.  I hope that you will accept my apology.  But simply telling me that my belief is wrong and that I'll go to Hell for believing it isn't an effective way of admonishing.  The Southern Baptists tell me that I am wrong to believe in the intercession of the Saints and to pray to them for help.  I'm going to Hell for idol worship, according to some of them.  An actual discussion needs to be part of this admonishment if you're hoping to reach out to sinners (assuming you're right about sedevacantism).  Some food for thought, and again, I apologize for my own rudeness here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_in_t..._certainty

I'm reviewing this right now, overall it is sound, of course. I have to make a few points of note though. First, this isn't a criticism of the source itself but the article, namely, the reference to "full communion with the Catholic Church" which is a concept foreign to pre-V2 teaching. You either are or are not in the Church, there are not degrees of being a Catholic. But, that's beside the point.

I will quote Ott, which the article references, pertaining to the grades of Theological certainty. He states: 

Quote:With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (c£ D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obiequiosum." That is "reverent silence." does not generally suffice. By way of exception. the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error. -pp. 9. 10

Now what I am seeing here is the truth that not all teachings of the Pope are infallible, which is not something I ever argued to begin with. But, we are required to give assent to these teachings regardless due to the authority of their source. Now, it also mentions that this assent may cease once a "competent expert" arrives at a positive conviction that the teachings are erroneous. And again, agreeably, we see that this is also true among all "Traditionalists" who have since disputed and proven the errors present in the teachings of Vatican II.

But what it does not support is the notion that since these words are fallible that we may not assent to them simply because the Pope did not decree them ex cathedra or that a Council did not come to a solemn judgment. A pronouncement such as the following from Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus:

Quote:Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world….

Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff….So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Shows that we are not bound to just those infallible statements on faith and morals coming from the Pope, but also those which have to do with the discipline and government of the Church. So, when Francis declares that we need to faithfully follow Vatican II, this is not a statement that can just be dismissed even though it doesn't pertain to faith and morals; but rather, is something that we must abide by given his governance over the entire Church.

Yet, since we know that Vatican II contains errors and heresy (specifically religious liberty), and given that reputable authorities in the broad-spectrum of "Traditionalists" have proven this much, then it is impossible for us to follow such a command because it contradicts the promise of the Holy See being unimpaired by any error, as evidenced by this pronouncement from the fourth session of Vatican I:

Quote:‘For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)

“‘So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.

And herein lies the problem. If Francis is a legitimate Pope, then we are bound to obey his governance (such as declaring that we need to follow Vatican II). But, given the definitions by Vatican I of the Pope, "that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error" we run into the conundrum of a Pope trying to enforce a council that has been proven to contain error and heresy. Which contradicts the infallible pronouncement of Vatican I as quoted above, because this would be an example of the Pope attempting to feed his flock the "poisonous food of error". Therefore, doubt needs to be cast upon Francis' legitimacy as Pope, because his failure to abide by what has been infallibly outlined shows that either the Church was wrong in its declarations at Vatican I, or, that Petrine authority is simply absent from Francis.

These scenarios always tend to come down to a choice between the Church offering defective teachings or the Pope being illegitimate. Since we know that the Church is the spotless Bride of Christ which cannot give poison to Her children, then we have to admit there is doubt that this man is the true Roman Pontiff.

(02-05-2021, 05:59 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-05-2021, 05:51 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]Since I actually like you, Mr. Chairman, and you've made a good effort to engage us here, I give you my word that I'll read over these articles later today or tomorrow.

I think the levels of theological certainty--specifically how Papal teaching is categorized into each level, depending on the circumstances of its delivery/revelation--will be most useful.  Remember that this is in Ott's Fundamentals (which predates The Council™), and the citations in the original will provide even more background if the authority of the compilation is in question.

Okay, I've read both articles.  It looks like the Wikipedia link is based mostly on Ott's book.  I say that as a compliment, as Wikipedia is often unreliable and out of date.  I have a copy of that book on hand, so I'm going to dig it up and study it some more.  Fr. Nix's case for the death penalty was an easy one for me to accept.  His reasoning about the justification for rejecting the DP change despite a putative pope issuing it is one I'll mull over some more.

(02-05-2021, 06:40 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_in_t..._certainty

I'm reviewing this right now, overall it is sound, of course. I have to make a few points of note though. First, this isn't a criticism of the source itself but the article, namely, the reference to "full communion with the Catholic Church" which is a concept foreign to pre-V2 teaching. You either are or are not in the Church, there are not degrees of being a Catholic. But, that's beside the point.

I will quote Ott, which the article references, pertaining to the grades of Theological certainty. He states: 

Quote:With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (c£ D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obiequiosum." That is "reverent silence." does not generally suffice. By way of exception. the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error. -pp. 9. 10

Now what I am seeing here is the truth that not all teachings of the Pope are infallible, which is not something I ever argued to begin with. But, we are required to give assent to these teachings regardless due to the authority of their source. Now, it also mentions that this assent may cease once a "competent expert" arrives at a positive conviction that the teachings are erroneous. And again, agreeably, we see that this is also true among all "Traditionalists" who have since disputed and proven the errors present in the teachings of Vatican II.

But what it does not support is the notion that since these words are fallible that we may not assent to them simply because the Pope did not decree them ex cathedra or that a Council did not come to a solemn judgment. A pronouncement such as the following from Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus:

Quote:Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world….

Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff….So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Shows that we are not bound to just those infallible statements on faith and morals coming from the Pope, but also those which have to do with the discipline and government of the Church. So, when Francis declares that we need to faithfully follow Vatican II, this is not a statement that can just be dismissed even though it doesn't pertain to faith and morals; but rather, is something that we must abide by given his governance over the entire Church.

Yet, since we know that Vatican II contains errors and heresy (specifically religious liberty), and given that reputable authorities in the broad-spectrum of "Traditionalists" have proven this much, then it is impossible for us to follow such a command because it contradicts the promise of the Holy See being unimpaired by any error, as evidenced by this pronouncement from the fourth session of Vatican I:

Quote:‘For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)

“‘So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.

And herein lies the problem. If Francis is a legitimate Pope, then we are bound to obey his governance (such as declaring that we need to follow Vatican II). But, given the definitions by Vatican I of the Pope, "that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error" we run into the conundrum of a Pope trying to enforce a council that has been proven to contain error and heresy. Which contradicts the infallible pronouncement of Vatican I as quoted above, because this would be an example of the Pope attempting to feed his flock the "poisonous food of error". Therefore, doubt needs to be cast upon Francis' legitimacy as Pope, because his failure to abide by what has been infallibly outlined shows that either the Church was wrong in its declarations at Vatican I, or, that Petrine authority is simply absent from Francis.

These scenarios always tend to come down to a choice between the Church offering defective teachings or the Pope being illegitimate. Since we know that the Church is the spotless Bride of Christ which cannot give poison to Her children, then we have to admit there is doubt that this man is the true Roman Pontiff.

It seems to me that the principal difficulty is that of the Council itself.  We see teachings that have proven difficult, and maybe impossible, to reconcile with pre-Vatican II teaching.  From these conciliar documents, we see the various concerns about error and/or heresy in the teaching of post-Vatican II popes.  They seem to rely heavily on this Council, while at least paying lip service to traditional teaching.  At this point, my next course of action is to study each of the documents of Vatican II.  I want to see if I can find satisfactory resolutions to the apparent contradictions.  Dr. Pink, for example, has made a valiant (though I don't know if successful) effort to reconcile the Conciliar teaching with pre-Vatican II teaching.  This study will take some time, obviously, but as Bishop Sanborn has made clear, we must have certainty that Francis isn't the pope or else sedevacantism is not to be embraced.  I'll play "Devil's Advocate" and see if my certainty survives my best attempt to establish continuity between Vatican II and the traditional Catholic Faith.

(02-05-2021, 07:11 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me that the principal difficulty is that of the Council itself.  We see teachings that have proven difficult, and maybe impossible, to reconcile with pre-Vatican II teaching.  From these conciliar documents, we see the various concerns about error and/or heresy in the teaching of post-Vatican II popes.  They seem to rely heavily on this Council, while at least paying lip service to traditional teaching.  At this point, my next course of action is to study each of the documents of Vatican II.  I want to see if I can find satisfactory resolutions to the apparent contradictions.  Dr. Pink, for example, has made a valiant (though I don't know if successful) effort to reconcile the Conciliar teaching with pre-Vatican II teaching.  This study will take some time, obviously, but as Bishop Sanborn has made clear, we must have certainty that Francis isn't the pope or else sedevacantism is not to be embraced.  I'll play "Devil's Advocate" and see if my certainty survives my best attempt to establish continuity between Vatican II and the traditional Catholic Faith.

God speed. I truly wish I had the time to do the same.

This brand new discussion with Father Ripperger seems very topical to this thread. 
I haven’t gotten through it all yet. I’m about halfway I think:

Interesting, this.

via NovusOrdoWatch:

Quote:

Francis to Catechists: Vatican II is the Magisterium of the Church and non-negotiable

The traditionalist wing of the Vatican II Church is concerned. On Saturday, Jan. 30, 2021, their extremely valid “Pope” opened his mouth about the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and a Catholic’s supposed obligation to adhere to it.

In a flowery discourse to Italian catechists filled with blather about kerygma, encounter, journey, listening, the “dialect of closeness” and what not, the Argentinian apostate playing Pope said:

Quote:This is magisterium: the Council is the magisterium of the Church. Either you are with the Church and therefore you follow the Council, and if you do not follow the Council or you interpret it in your own way, as you wish, you are not with the Church. In this respect we have to be demanding, severe. No, the Council is not subject to negotiation in order to have more of these…. No, this is how it is with the council. And this problem that we are experiencing, the selectivity of the Council, has been repeated throughout history with other Councils. It gives me so much to think about a group of bishops that after Vatican I left, a group of lay people, other groups, to continue the “true doctrine” that was not that of Vatican I. “We are the true Catholics”…. Today they ordain women. The most severe attitude, to guard the faith without the magisterium of the Church, leads you to ruin. Please, no concessions to those who try to present a catechesis that is not in accordance with the Magisterium of the Church.

(Antipope Francis, Address to Members of Italy’s National Catechetical Office, Vatican.va, Jan. 30, 2021; edited translation via deepl.com.)

These words of the Jesuit pseudo-pope were important enough for the Vatican’s newspaper, Osservatore Romano, to print them on the cover page of its Jan. 30 edition:

We will now take a critical look at what Francis said and point out where he is right and where he goes wrong.

Where Francis is Right (in Principle)
If Francis were a true Pope and Vatican II a genuine Roman Catholic ecumenical council promulgated by a true Roman Pontiff, then what Francis said would be entirely correct, for he is right in principle: A Catholic ecumenical council is not subject to private interpretation, and its teachings and decisions are not optional. The approval of the Roman Pontiff guarantees its orthodoxy and, in those parts where it does not teach infallibly, it guarantees at the very least spiritual safety so that one’s adherence to it cannot lead one to sin or other spiritual ruin.
Of course at no point could a council, whether fallibly or infallibly, teach something as true that contradicts a previously-defined dogma or anything that was taught at least as certain doctrine. If it could, the Church’s magisterium would not be credible but would be like unto Protestant sects, “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men” (Eph 4:14). In no sense could the Church then be relied upon as that which the Lord Jesus founded her to be, namely, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton (1906-1969), an outstanding and papally-recognized American theologian who knew about the dangerous Modernist atmosphere at the time of Vatican II, had no qualms about the council possibly going astray doctrinally, since he assumed it was being presided over by a true Pope:

Quote:It is absolutely beyond the bounds of possibility that the ecumenical council should proclaim, and that the Roman Pontiff should confirm and promulgate as the teaching of an ecumenical council, any doctrine at variance with the teaching of God which has been given to us through Jesus Christ our Lord. There never will be a time when the doctrinal decrees of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican will have to be corrected, either negatively or positively.

(Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, “The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council”, American Ecclesiastical Review 147 [Oct. 1962], p. 256.)

These lines were published as the council was just getting started. The fact that Vatican II ended up promulgating all kinds of dangerous errors and impious ideas can only be explained by presupposing that, despite appearances to the contrary, the man who solemnly ratified the council was not in fact the Roman Pontiff. (We are speaking here of Bishop Giovanni Montini, whose stage name was “Pope Paul VI”.)

Oftentimes it is claimed that Paul VI said Vatican II taught nothing infallibly and was only a “pastoral” council, by which is meant that it basically issued a bunch of “suggestions” we can ignore if we so choose. However, that is simply not true and is based on a false interpretation of Montini’s actual words, which are usually presented in truncated fashion:

• Did Vatican II Teach Infallibly? The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium by John S. Daly
  
  
• Busted! How Taylor Marshall distorts what Paul VI really said about Vatican II
  
  
• Video: Vatican II Not Binding? How Dr. Taylor Marshall Misconstrues What Paul VI Really Said
  

In a video on Francis’ most recent pronouncement on the council, philosopher and semi-trad YouTube icon Dr. Taylor Marshall argues that the full Paul VI quotes he truncates in his book do not contradict his position. We need not resolve that issue here and will simply observe that in his video he does not explain why he truncated them to begin with, nor why he did so without so much as indicating that they had been truncated, which would be standard practice.

In the same video, Marshall poses seven specific questions to Francis that he would like to have answered by him or by one of his high-ranking henchmen. They are:

Of course Marshall knows Francis will never answer these questions, and “Cardinal” Blase Cupich, whom he mentions, isn’t likely to make an appearance in his YouTube chat either. But seriously: Are we to imagine that if Francis answered “yes” to questions 5-7, Marshall would submit? It may be doubted. (Here we must mention that Marshall did in fact have a chance to ask Francis anything he wanted when he met and chatted with him on May 15, 2019. Apparently giving him a copy of his book Infiltration was of greater importance to him — hey, it made for a great photo op!)
Alas, the most crucial question of all Marshall did not ask: Is it spiritually safe to assent to everything Vatican II teaches and affirms? His questions focus mostly on infallibility and on the requirement to assent. Not a single question asks whether it is even permissible to assent, that is, if it is possible to assent without endangering one’s Faith or morals. Yet that is the ultimate litmus test. For even if Vatican II merely issued suggestions that, as such, would be optional, that would still leave people entirely free to embrace the conciliar ideas. But that would mean that a Catholic is perfectly entitled to adhere to religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, the novel “elements” ecclesiology, etc. — something none of the semi-traditionalists believe to be the case, precisely because these things contradict the 1900-year teaching of the Church before Vatican II.
Thus is demonstrated the utter spiritual toxicity of the council. The popular “not binding” claim (which is itself erroneous) is only a fig leaf that covers up the true position of the semi-trads, namely, that Vatican II is not only not binding but not even optional. That is, its errors must be rejected under pain of spiritual ruin! And that is a very far cry from simply saying that one does not have to hold what Vatican II says. We have made this point before in response to John Salza:

• Denying the Papacy to affirm Francis is Pope: John Salza’s Conundrum
  

So the semi-trads have a situation now in which the “Pope” tells them they must adhere to the council, whereas they know that they cannot do so without rejecting true Roman Catholicism. And so they tell themselves that by rejecting the errors of the council while at the same time affirming the Vatican II “popes” as valid, they are somehow being the true Catholics who are perfectly loyal to Jesus Christ and His holy religion. Nonsense! They have forgotten that true Catholicism includes submission not simply to the Papacy in the abstract but to every validly reigning Pope in the concrete:

Quote:By certain indications it is not difficult to conclude that among Catholics – doubtless as a result of current evils – there are some who, far from satisfied with the condition of “subject” which is theirs in the Church, think themselves able to take some part in her government, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. A misplaced opinion, certainly. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Church of God, in which, by the manifest will of her Divine Founder, there are to be distinguished in the most absolute fashion two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the head and the Supreme Shepherd of all.
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.
…
Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.
When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.
In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.
That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend.
(Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua; underlining added.)

In short: The do-it-yourself magisterium of the recognize-and-resist traditionalists has no chance. Each act of the papal magisterium, whether infallible or not, is always authoritative and binding on consciences, even if it hasn’t been believed “always, everywhere, and by all”.
Yes, it is true that there are some very limited circumstances under which submission to a non-infallible teaching may be suspended internally (but the doctrine may not be contradicted externally), but that is “extremely rare” and applies only to theological experts who are awaiting a judgment from the Holy See, “meanwhile keeping a reverential silence” (Mgr. Gerard van Noort, Dogmatic Theology III: The Sources of Revelation [Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1961], n. 254, p. 275). See the scanned pages here.
A Catholic’s duties with regard to the ecclesiastical magisterium are rather clear:

Quote:In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.
And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff.
Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.
(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 24; underlining added.)

What does this mean? It means that the Papacy has consequences. Yes, who is and isn’t a true Pope actually makes a difference. For a traditional Roman Catholic, that should be neither surprising nor hard to accept.

Having said all this, there are several points of criticism we must raise with regard to what Francis asserts in his Jan. 30 discourse concerning Vatican II and traditionalists’ dissent.

Where Francis is Wrong

[b]A merciless Double Standard[/b]
First, it is amusing to note that suddenly Francis discovers severity as a means of keeping people in line doctrinally. He says: “In this respect we have to be demanding, severe.” Demanding? Severe? Is Francis suddenly discovering the importance of rigidly clinging to one’s certainties after all?! What happened to his claim that “being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine”? All of a sudden it is! That’s because the only dogma he knows is his own progressivism, and from that dogma he tolerates no dissent.
We recall that this is the same Francis who wants to “accompany” every sinner in his sin, going so far as to claim that adultery and fornication are merely imperfect participations in the “ideal” of marriage. In fact, he has even gone on record stating that if fornicators cohabit long enough, their mortal sin eventually becomes a sacrament. But accompaniment for those who question or reject Vatican II? Those who stick to the pre-conciliar catechisms? Absolutely not. Mercy? Forget it! What about the god of surprises? Absent! Bergoglio pulls him out only when necessary to advance his soul-destroying agenda, never to hamper it. Duh!
When dissent comes from the left, Francis bends over backwards to be gracious and accepting. Recall that the Argentinian pseudo-pope has no problem whatsoever with Modernist “nuns” such as those of the U.S. Leadership Conference of Women Religious. In addition, he has more or less rehabilitated Marxist liberation theologians like Leonardo Boff, Ernesto Cardenal, and Gustavo Gutierrez. And Francis himself, of course, dissents from the Council of Trent, for example, on a number of dogmas, such as Transubstantiation, justification, merit, and the nature of Faith.
It was the “Pope” who called the council, John XXIII, who in his solemn opening address said that “at the present time, the spouse of Christ prefers to use the medicine of mercy rather than the weapons of severity…” (Address Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, n. 16). Not surprisingly, therefore, Bergoglio’s practice of mercy is highly selective. This confirms that it really isn’t about mercy per se. It is about abusing the concept of mercy by using it as a pretext to erode Catholic doctrine at every turn. Hence all who expose, reject, or resist this abuse of mercy must be dealt with harshly. Now it makes sense.
Although many wish they could return to the time of “Pope” Benedict XVI, he actually agrees with Bergoglio on the question of how to deal with traditionalists. In the early 1980s, as “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, he denounced traditionalists as proponents of “a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity”, adding that “[w]e cannot resist them too firmly” (Principles of Catholic Theology [San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987], pp. 389-90). And though it may appear that as Benedict XVI he showed great kindness to them by issuing his letter Summorum Pontificum to “free” the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, as we have shown, that was simply a clever ploy to placate traditionalists so as to keep them attached to the Vatican II Sect and its false Popes. It worked, didn’t it?
[b]The misleading “Old Catholic” Argument[/b]
Returning to Francis, we must take issue with his misleading reference to the First Vatican Council (1869-70) and the so-called “Old Catholics” who rejected it:

Quote:And this problem that we are experiencing, the selectivity of the Council, has been repeated throughout history with other Councils. It gives me so much to think about a group of bishops that after Vatican I left, a group of lay people, other groups, to continue the “true doctrine” that was not that of Vatican I. “We are the true Catholics”…. Today they ordain women. The most severe attitude, to guard the faith without the magisterium of the Church, leads you to ruin.

Now that is just remarkable for a number of reasons.
Firstly, because the Vatican II Sect has more in common with so-called “Old Catholicism” than it does with Roman Catholicism. The Old Catholics were theological liberals. By no means were they practicing the Catholic religion as had been “on the books”, so to speak, before Vatican I, as Francis would have us believe. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that “in essential doctrines and worship they hardly differ from a liberal form of Protestantism.” They reject pre-Vatican I dogmas such as Transubstantiation and the Immaculate Conception, and they do not require their clergy to be celibate.
In 1873, Pope Pius IX warned against them, saying they

Quote:undermine the foundations of religion, overturn all its marks and properties, and invent so many foul errors, or rather, draw forth from the ancient store of heretics and gather them together and publish them. Yet they do not blush to call themselves Catholics and Old Catholics, while in their doctrine, novelty, and number they show themselves in no way to be either old or Catholic.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Etsi Multa, n. 23)

Does this not sound like Bergoglio and his pack of Modernists? How much more can one undermine the foundations of religion than by proclaiming that God has willed that many different religions should exist? What is left of divine revelation when someone affirms such a frightful and absurd blasphemy?

Liturgically, too, the Old Catholics were the forerunners of the Vatican II Sect in many respects:

Quote:The following features are common to the Dutch, German, and Swiss rites [of the Old Catholic liturgy]. They are all in the language of the country. They all omit the Filioque from the Creed. All of them are recited aloud, and the congregation is expected to join; though in Germany and Switzerland it is common for part of the rite to be said silently while the congregation is singing hymns. In all of them what is regarded as papal or Ultramontane is omitted.
…The follwing are the most prominent features peculiar to the Swiss liturgy.
The prayer “Oramus Te”, with its reference to relics, is omitted. The “Kyries” are replaced by a series of biddings for prayers for the Church, for the country, and for those in trouble.
…
The Canon differs considerably from the Roman one. There is an Epiclesis, which precedes the Words of Institution (as in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI).
(C. B. Moss, The Old Catholic Movement: Its Origins and History, 2nd ed. [Berkeley, CA: The Apocryphile Press, 2005], pp. 320-321)

Moreover, like the Old Catholics the Novus Ordo Church too claims to be “returning to antiquity” for many of its innovations (whereas at other times, curiously, they tell us that there is “no going backwards”) — a dangerous idea rejected by Pope Pius XII in 1947:

Quote: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. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. 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.
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. 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.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, nn. 61-62)

So who’s with the magisterium of the Church here?
Secondly, that Francis should complain about the Old Catholics ordaining women is just too funny — considering that it is he who has given so much impetus to the movement of women deacons within his own Modernist sect. Although he has stopped short of admitting women to holy orders so far, he has begun laying the premises for that to happen; for instance, in his infernal exhortation Querida Amazonia and most recently by officially admitting women to the “ministries” of lector and acolyte (in real Roman Catholicism, lector and acolyte are minor orders). Not to mention that he accepts Protestant women clergy.
Thirdly, who allowed the notorious apostate Fr. Hans Küng to dispute freely concerning the dogma of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I? You probably guessed it already: It was none other than “Pope” Francis! So much for his concern about going astray like the Old Catholics.
Fourthly, another dogma defined at the First Vatican Council is that of the provability of the existence of God from reason alone based on the created world: “If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema” (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius; Denz. 1806). Yet that dogma is denied by many Novus Ordos, who claim that God cannot be proved to exist. One of the most prominent heretics in that regard is “Abp.” Georg Gänswein, the private secretary of Benedict XVI and, until recently, the prefect of Francis’ “papal” household.
The heresy that holds that the existence of God cannot be proved is one of the hallmarks of Modernism, by the way. It is among the first errors repudiated in the Oath against Modernism instituted by Pope St. Pius X in 1910: “And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated” (Oath against Modernism).
Fifthly, who cordially met with the Old Catholic bishops of Utrecht in the Vatican for the sake of ecumenical relations on Oct. 30, 2014? You guessed it again: the Frankster! Not only did he receive them and exchange gifts with them, he also told them that Novus Ordos and Old Catholics ought to “walk together, to pray together [!] and to work together in a deeper spirit of conversion towards all that Christ intends for his Church… We must always be willing to listen to and follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth (cf. Jn 16:13)” (source). In other words, neither Francis’ own sect nor that of the Old Catholics possesses the truth, else there would be no need to search for it together. Isn’t that good to know! We couldn’t agree more.
Furthermore, in the same audience Francis told his Old Catholic brethren that “there are many areas in which Catholics and Old Catholics can collaborate in meeting the profound spiritual crisis affecting individuals and societies…. There is an urgent need for a convincing witness to the truth and values of the Gospel. In this we can support and encourage one another, especially at the level of parishes and local communities.” So it is clear that Bergoglio believes the Old Catholics he knocked in his Jan. 30, 2021 address to Italian catechists are nothing short of witnesses to the Gospel. That is remarkable. Whatever they’re doing wrong, it can’t be that bad if despite all their failings, they’re still helping souls by transmitting to them “the truth and values of the Gospel”.
Lastly, we must not fail to point out to Francis that the Old Catholics don’t accept Vatican II either. In fact, much like the Eastern Orthodox, they only accept the first seven ecumenical councils out of the 19 that preceded Vatican I. Somehow, though, that has never triggered severity on the part of the Novus Ordo Sect, which engages in friendly ecumenical dialogue with every heretic under the sun, not just Old Catholics but also Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Waldensians, Presbyterians, and Pentecostals, for instance.
In 2014 Bergoglio told Evangelical Brian Stiller candidly: “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community.” This was echoed by other Protestants whom the “Pope” had told the same thing. In a letter he wrote to Methodists and Waldensians on Aug. 10, 2017, Francis said: “May Jesus’ gaze also illumine our relations, so that they are not only formal and correct but fraternal and lively. The Good Shepherd wills us to be on the way together, and His gaze now embraces all of us, His disciples that He desires to see fully united” (underlining added). According to the fake pope, then, Catholics and heretics are Christ’s disciples. Nay, he is more specific still: Francis claims that Protestants “follow the true Faith” and are part of the Church, indeed “members of one and the same mystical body of Christ”!
That is in diametrical opposition to the teaching of Pope Pius XII:

Quote:Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 22)

But then that was 20 years before the almighty Second Vatican Council, a figurative golden calf if there ever was one.

When it comes to non-Christians such as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, Francis does not (yet) claim that they are part of the Body of Christ, but he does make clear that it really doesn’t matter what religion they are:

Quote:On the Day of Judgment we will not be judged for our ideas, but for the compassion we have shown to others.
(Antipope Francis, Tweet of July 14, 2020)
Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.
(Antipope Francis, Address to Refugees at Sacred Heart Basilica, Rome, Jan. 19, 2014)
…[W]e all have something in common, we’re all human. And in this humanity, we can get close to each other to work together … “But I belong to this religion, or to that one …” It doesn’t matter!
(“Pope Francis on Earth Day: ‘Transform deserts into forests!’”, Crux, April 24, 2016; Italian original here.)
I thank the members of different religious confessions who have joined us, and those who do not belong to any particular religious tradition. Thank you for encouraging one another to live and celebrate today the challenge of peace as the family that we are. You are experiencing that all of us are necessary: with our differences, we are all necessary. Our differences are necessary.
(Antipope Francis, Address at Interreligious Meeting with Youth in Maputo, Vatican.va, Sep. 5, 2019; underlining added.)
The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.
(Antipope Francis and Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyib, “A Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together”, Vatican.va, Feb. 4, 2019)
A journey of peace is possible between religions. Its point of departure must be God’s way of seeing things. “God does not see with his eyes, God sees with his heart. And God’s love is the same for everyone, regardless of religion. Even if they are atheists, his love is the same. When the last day comes, and there is sufficient light to see things as they really are, we are going to find ourselves quite surprised”.
(Antipope Francis, Encyclical Fratelli Tutti, n. 281)

Here we must remind Francis and all our readers that Jews, Muslims, and pagans don’t accept Vatican II either. Does that bother the fake pope? Not in the least. In his religion, even atheists make it to Heaven as long as they are “good” atheists. All religions are — so he thinks — “always looking to Heaven, looking at God”, and “God has permitted this” so that “[w]e must not be scared by the difference” in religions. Ah, but then God has also permitted some to reject Vatican II, and yet Francis tolerates no dissent from it!
The colossal double standard is as glaring as it is insufferable.
[b]Open for Business: the Bergoglian Concession Stand[/b]
Francis concludes his criticism of those who oppose the Second Vatican Council by exhorting his catechists not to budge: “Please, no concessions to those who try to present a catechesis that is not in accordance with the Magisterium of the Church.” This too is ironic and hypocritical, considering that it is he himself who has been making concessions to the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X, whose biggest claim to fame is the rejection of the errors of Vatican II and the “New Mass” that followed it:

• “Pope” Francis Grants Jurisdiction to SSPX Priests to Hear Confessions for Year of Mercy
  
  
• Francis’ “Apostolic Letter” Misericordia et Misera extends SSPX Faculties indefinitely
  
  
• SSPX Bp. Fellay: Francis considers us Catholics
  
  
• SSPX Bp. Fellay: ‘Rome has given me Permission to ordain Priests freely’
  
  
• Bp. Bernard Fellay: “I was appointed by Rome to Judge SSPX Priests”
  
  
• Vatican issues cunning Document on SSPX Marriages
  
  
• Vatican in 2016: SSPX Need Not Adhere to All of Vatican II for Canonical Recognition
  

Consistency, straightforwardness, and candor are sorely lacking in Francis. One can say that under him, the term “frank-ness” has acquired quite a different meaning.
As Argentinian philosopher Omar Bello demonstrated in his book El Verdadero Francisco (“The True Francis”), Bergoglio is two-faced as a matter of political strategy: He likes to tell different people different versions of the same story; he deliberately sends mixed signals; and he contradicts himself on purpose. The only principle governing his actions is attaining the end he has in mind at a given time.
Check out this dialogue Bello includes in his book regarding a Curial employee then-“Cardinal” Bergoglio wanted fired when he was “Archbishop” of Buenos Aires:

Quote:“You have to throw him out now!” Bergoglio demanded, raising his voice. The walls trembled. “Not one more day can this guy be here! Do you understand?”
He was referring to an employee of the Curia whom he couldn’t stand.
“Right away! Do you understand?”
“But he’s going to want to talk to you…”, one of the treasurers replied.
“I said to throw him out already. What language am I speaking?”
“Alright, Monsignor, we’ll throw him out right away.”
“Promoting to remove” is one of the most respected unwritten slogans of the Church. It sounds strange but someone who behaves badly can end up in a better position, yes, very far from the original place where he committed the offense. Of course, despite the motto, it is sometimes necessary to throw people out, and in those cases Bergoglio doesn’t abandon his tricks either. Once dismissed, the employee in question requested an audience with the cardinal and it was granted quickly, without asking questions.
“But I did not know anything about it, Son. You surprise me…”, the present-day Pope assured the dismissed employee when he told him of his troubles.
“Why did they throw you out? Who was it?”
The man left the cardinal’s offices without a job but with a brand new car as a gift, believing Francis to be a saint driven by circumstances beyond his control, dominated by a host of malicious assistants. The story of this dismissal is repeated even by the security officers of the Curia of Buenos Aires.
(Omar Bello, El Verdadero Francisco [Buenos Aires: Ediciones Noticias, 2013], pp. 36-37; our translation.)

Is it all starting to make sense now?

Here is another pre-Vatican II source on non-infallible matters, and how assent can sometimes be suspended. It is cited by Xavier Da Silveira in his study "Can the Pope go bad"? Note again that conditional and prudential religious submission we give to non-infallible documents, even documents of mere Bishops other than the Pope, because of a presumption in favor of their episcopal authority, is substantially different from the absolute and unconditional assent we give to infallible documents, because of the impossibility of error.

"“ (. . .) one must assent to the decrees of the Roman Congregations, as long as it does not become positively sure that they have erred. Since the Congregations, ‘per se”, do no furnish an absolutely certain argument in favor of a given doctrine, one may or even must investigate the reasons for that doctrine. And thus, either it will come to pas that such a doctrine will be gradually accepted in the whole Church, attaining in this way the condition of infallibility, or it will happen that the error is little by little detected.

For, since the religious assent referred to is not based on metaphysical certainty, but only on a moral and general one, it does not exclude all suspicion of error. For this reason, as soon as there arise sufficient motives for doubt, the assent will be prudently suspended; nevertheless, as long as much motives for doubt do not arise, the authority of the Congregations is sufficient to oblige one to assent.

The same principles apply without difficulty to the declarations which the Supreme Pontiff omits without involving his supreme authority, as well as the decisions of the other ecclesiastical superiors who are not infallible”

Wiki on the Obsequium Religiosum again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum

"The phrase appears in Lumen gentium 25a in the following context, here translated as both "religious assent" and "religious submission":

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

Withholding assent

Donum Veritatis also allows that even if, "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments...some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian, "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching." In such "even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions," and is to "refrain from giving untimely public expression to them," and "avoid turning to the mass media," but with a humble and teachable spirit it is his duty "to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented," with "an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him", prayerfully trusting "that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail."

Finally, here is Dietrich Von Hildebrand, whom 20th century Popes have called "20th century Doctor of the Church", "one of the greatest intellectual influences of our time" etc etc which arguably constitutes a Papal endorsement of his approach toward Vatican II.

""The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared in its Constitution on the Church that all the teachings of the Council are in full continuity with the teachings of former councils. Moreover, let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II are de fide;The Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature. Cardinal Felici rightly stated that the Credo solemnly proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Year of Faith is from a dogmatic point of view much more important than the entire Second Vatican Council. Thus, those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, because the former are de fide, the latter not." -Dietrich Von Hildebrand

"Dietrich von Hildebrand is the 20th century Doctor of the Church." -Venerable Pope Pius XII

“When the intellectual history of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century is written the name of Dietrich Von Hildebrand will be most prominent among the figures of our time.” –Pope Benedict XVI"

From: https://catholicismhastheanswer.com/vati...clarified/