Vatican II didn’t bind the faithful to anything LOL and it couldn’t have because you can’t bind the Church to error and heresy.

https://t.me/GadoligNadzee/901

Vatican II has no more authority than a papal encyclical and is a part of the ordinary magisterium as per Paul VI’s closing statements and John XXIII’s opening statements. Which declare that the council does not wish to pronounce anything dogmatic, condemn any errors, abrogate anything, promulgate new doctrines or to make use of the extraordinary magisterium. I don’t know how people can say in good faith that Vatican II was infallible and a council of the Church after you read the documents, watch Fr. Hesse and read Abp. Lefebvre and other Vatican II critics.

And yet there are people going around here saying it did.

https://t.me/RacistCath/4980

Michael Lofton thinks Vatican II is binding when it literally says that Buddhists are on the right path and can be saved whilst being a Buddhist or Muslim

Vatican II isn’t infallible and can’t teach such a thing definitively, that’s why Paul VI said explicitly that the Council wasn’t infallible, nor did it make any use of the extraordinary magisterium.

https://t.me/GadoligNadzee/907

A Pope can say something erroneous and heretical in the ordinary, non-definitive sense since that would just imply what that Pope is saying is not binding and isn’t in continuity with Church teaching or tradition. Thus, what he has taught ordinarily is not to be followed since it goes against the extraordinary magisterium. When I say “teach” I mean it in the non-definitive and ordinary sense, not the infallible and extraordinary sense.

https://t.me/GadoligNadzee/905

You’re acting like a Pope can’t err and spur out heresy when speaking ordinarily. This would mean that Francis’ and John Paul II’s many encyclicals that said erroneous and heretical things are binding, but they are not for the reasons I have mentioned. Same with Vatican II. The Church can’t dogmatically pronounce error and heresy or teach it in the extraordinary and infallible sense, that’s nonsense.

Never knew the Church could infallibly teach something that goes against Catholic dogma and the Syllabus of Errors. You live and you learn I guess.

If Vatican II is infallible, the Church is defectible since the Church can’t definitively teach error and heresy. If Vatican II is fallible (it is), then the Church is indefectible still since Vatican II didn’t make use of the extraordinary magisterium at all.

I win the debate

You didn’t address anything I said

https://t.me/GadoligNadzee/915