Patreon: www.patreon.com/classicaltheist Twitter: twitter.com/classicaltheis

Imagine walking through the woods, your lost and afraid for your life. You stumble upon a clearing, After pushing some bushes out of your way you see a dilapidated cabin and a a priest wearing sunglasses holding a book thats giving off an ethereal light just sitting there waiting for you(knowing full well he is at that very moment Starring deeply into your soul).How does one engage in the conversation that is soon to follow?

I'm a new Catholic in India, you have helped me understand the faith. I always look forward to your videos and hope to learn more. Thank you and God Bless. Also I am planning on naming my first son Thomas for Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Wow, you weren't kidding when you said weekly content. This will make for a very interesting summer!

Would love if you'd make a short series addressing arguments of the Eastern Orthodox; especially Petrine Primacy and other theological issues. I feel like this is very much needed.

great, level-headed video as always. By the way - will the "In Taberna" podcast continue? I loved the first four episodes and I hope it will continue, been a long time since the last episode though. Anyways - cheers, God Bless and keep up the good work ;)

Could you make a video on the process by which teachings are determined to be infallible and the different levels of authority of magisterial texts and level of assent required from the faithful. And why Vatican II did not meet the requirements of Infallibility.

i wish i could understand what you are talking about

At 6:20, you say that there exists some errors in the Second Vatican Council, will you be able to talk about what errors you see that are present and what this means for the council overall?

Thank you King

Question, if I may - what are your thoughts on the Nouvelle Theologie? Congar, de Lubac etc. Just for clarity, I'm not a Catholic, but I enjoy these authors and I'm curious as to how they are viewed within the Catholic Church.

Does anyone know what happened to Mathoma?

Figures that CT lives in a woodland hermitage.

Any plans to continue this series?

I have a feeling this is going to be awesome!🇻🇦*Laudetur Iesus Christus*

The friar in your picture looks like St. Nicholas of Tolentine.

Man I love you buddy but your pronunciation of Pasquier Quesnel was paiiiinfullllll :P! Amazing vid tho.

Vatican II is infallible act of the universal ordinary magisterium. Paul VI: “it [Vatican II] has fortified its teachings with the authority of the supreme Ordinary Magisterium”. Moreover in his letter of 21st September 1966 to Cardinal Pizzardo on this subject, Paul VI states that the teaching of Vatican II on matters of faith and morals “constitutes a proximate and universal norm of truth, from which it is never lawful for theologians to depart…”. That is evidently more than can be claimed indiscriminately for every encyclical or act of the Ordinary Magisterium falling short of the condition of universality. His second and “clinching” authority is the formal Notification published in March 1964 by Council secretary Archbishop Felici and later appended to the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. It states that “in view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” But once again this text only excludes solemn definitions, (since the Council never claimed to make any), but it in no way excludes the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which teaches without definitions. Paul VI: “Other matters that the Sacred Synod proposes, as being the doctrine of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, must be received and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful in accordance with the intentions of the Sacred Synod itself, manifested either by the subject matter or by the manner of expression, according to the norms of theological interpretation.” Thus we see that the Council in fact formally claims to have exercised the supreme Magisterium of the Church and refers us for the recognition of the status and authority of its various teachings to its own texts and to the traditional norms of theological interpretation. It made no “solemn definitions” (Extraordinary Magisterium), but its teachings possess the authority of the supreme Ordinary Magisterium and all the faithful are obliged, it claims, to receive and embrace them. It is very hard to see how the “supreme ordinary Magisterium” could be anything other than the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium” of Vatican I and of Pope Pius IX’s Tuas Libenter, which is necessarily infallible in all its teaching on faith and morals. This is so not only because non-infallible acts of the Ordinary Magisterium cannot be “supreme”, but also because the criterion that distinguishes the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium from non-infallible acts of the Ordinary Magisterium is precisely its universality, and never has this condition been so evidently fulfilled as at the Second Vatican Council when almost all the world’s bishops were gathered together and at the moment of promulgation of the decrees by the man recognised as pope, not a dissenting voice was heard. Heeding the 1964 Notification and Paul VI’s words, let us be instructed by the Council as to its own intentions regarding the status of its teachings. Two of its decrees are referred to as “dogmatic constitutions”, and “dogmatic” is an unusual word to use to identify fallible or non-obligatory doctrines. One of the dogmatic constitutions is Lumen Gentium, concerning the Church, which states the following theological rule: Although the bishops do not individually enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, yet when, even dispersed throughout the world, but keeping the bond of communion with one another and with the successor of Peter, they agree in authentically teaching a single doctrine of faith and morals as to be definitively held, they infallibly express the teaching of Christ. Even if it were not already certain Catholic truth, as being taught by every approved theologian, this statement quite definitely and undeniably declares the mind of the Second Vatican Council itself as to the conditions for the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. And since it is evident that the bishops of Vatican II agreed in teaching a great many doctrines of faith and morals as to be definitively held in virtue of the Council’s teaching, it follows that they certainly did attribute that infallibility to their own Council whenever it clearly gave such a teaching. Nor is there anything in any way novel about the above doctrine of Lumen Gentium. It is the standard doctrine of the theologians and is stated very clearly indeed by Pope Pius XII in an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium, the constitution Munificentissimus Deus defining the Assumption of our Blessed Lady. Referring to the statements of the world’s bishops made before the dogma was promulgated, the pope says: The outstanding agreement of Catholic prelates and faithful, affirming that the bodily Assumption of God’s Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church’s ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly. (…) Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church’s ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven (…) is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, “all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by its Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed.” (Italics added) We are thus entirely justified in our conclusion that the teachings of Vatican II on matters of faith and morals fulfil all the conditions necessary for the infallible exercise of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium if the promulgating authority was truly pope. And far from being contradicted by any text of Paul VI or Vatican II itself, this fact is unmistakably affirmed by both. 2. It is argued that the Council was “pastoral” and therefore not “dogmatic” - the two being allegedly incompatible. This claim, however, fails in (a) logic and (b) fact. (a) Logically it involves a straightforward category error for it is as absurd to oppose “pastoral” to “dogmatic” as to oppose “circular” to “yellow”. The incompatibility of the two qualities is entirely imaginary. “Pastoral” simply means “after the manner of a shepherd”. In Christian usage the metaphor of the shepherd representing the bishop or pope not only does not exclude the role of authoritative teaching but in fact primarily signifies that role, for the first duty of Christian pastors is to teach as the first duty of shepherds is to feed their sheep on wholesome pasture. There is therefore nothing un-pastoral about teaching religious truths infallibly. A “pastoral” council, if it teaches on faith and morals, is also doctrinal or dogmatic in character. (b) In plain fact two of the Council’s constitutions expressly describe themselves as “dogmatic” (viz. Lumen Gentium, the “dogmatic constitution on the Church” and Dei Verbum, the “dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation”). So the claim that the Council gave no dogmatic teaching directly contradicts the Council itself. Moreover, Paul VI himself, expressly reaffirmed the fact that a pastoral role rather implies than excludes doctrinal teaching in his “motu proprio” Pastorale Munus of 30th November 1963 according to which “Christ Jesus linked the pastoral office to the duty of teaching…” (“Pastorale munus, cum quo Christus Iesus gravissima coniunxit officia docendi...”) - a statement which is entirely traditional. 3. Some have claimed that the Council’s subject matter did not fall within the sphere of faith and morals. Those who make this claim seem never to have read the texts and are contradicting the express statement of the Council’s 1964 Notification and the September 1966 letter of Paul VI cited above. Vatican II’s doctrines covered such fields as the nature of the Church and her Magisterium, her relations with false religions, the correct conduct of missionary activity, the current status of the chosen people of the Old Testament, the means of obtaining grace and salvation, etc. All these concern faith and morals. Moreover in the case of religious liberty, concerning which Vatican II taught in, the Council insisted that its doctrine concerned a natural human right founded on the dignity of the human person as made known by divine revelation.