Replies

No, the aritcle fallaciously used the term infallible. Applying it to councils without further clarification is straw man and you did it.

Moreover, your article concluded by quoting Paul VI on the smoke of Satan:

“the tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.” (Address on the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Fatima Apparitions, October 13, 1977)”

Then YOU went on to write: “But is that not what the Council was intended to do!”

This implies that Paul VI’s smoke of Satan statment said that the Council brought the smoke of Satan about. Paul VI did not attribute the smoke of Satan to the council but to what happened afterward.

Then you went on to your final claim:

“So we see that Vatican II was admitted to have been a disaster of immense proportions, initiating a process of destruction of the Church, even according to Paul VI who promulgated it – which of course begs the question of whether Archbishop Lefebvre was justly and prudently excommunicated.”

You blame the council for all that happened. You went far beyond merely saying it was not dogmatic. You say it “initiated a process of destruction.”

That’s classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Put your energies to work examining what happened after the council, distinguishing between good and bad, worse and best. To refuse to do that is to cease to be Catholic and become a “baby-with-the-bathwater” Protestant, which is the source of a lot of tragedy in human history.

The Roman Catholic Church capitulated to the Revolution of 1789 at the Second Vatican Council