the decisions of the second Vatican Council, which were dictated by modernism) by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (for all controversial decisions dictated by liberals, there were always 250 votes against), the case was done. The Council turned out to be quite different from what John XXIII had intended it to be, or at least went much further than John XXIII had planned. According to some accounts, this was the indirect cause of the death of John XXIII in the midst of the Council meetings and, as they say, dying, he whispered: “Stop the Council.” But his

the successor, Paul VI, continued. Despite the fact that so much has been said and written about the second Vatican Council, there is probably no Council in the history of the Church that has been so misunderstood,

which is covered with so many myths and which, in fact, would know so little.

The first such myth is that this Council Was necessary. The former Ecumenical Councils were indeed called because they were necessary, in other words, in times of crisis. This was, for example, the famous Council of Trent. But, in the early 60-ies. for the convocation of the Council was not any significant reasons. On the contrary, as statistics show, the Catholic Church was experiencing a period of prosperity, growth, and not a crisis. Nor was there any mass movement in favor of convening a Council. Another mi-

Thomas II of the Vatican Council is the statement that this Council was similar in character to the previous Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church. However, this is not the case. The fact that the second Vatican Council was different from the other Ecumenical Councils of the Church is just a historical fact, not some attack on it. The second Vatican Council was not a dogmatic Council, like the previous Ones; its decisions were not

of a similar nature, and were disciplinary and pastoral (pastoral) character. Already in his Address at the opening of the Council sessions, Pope John XXIII said that the Council will only have a pastoral character. This was then repeated by his successor, Paul VI, after the closing of the Council (January 12, 1966), saying that he ” avoided the solemn dogmatic definitions that entail the infallibility of Church teaching.” Thus, formally, the II Vatican Council, according to many, can not have the weight of, say, the Trident or I Vatican Councils. Dogma, dogmatic definitions, the decisions of dogmatic Councils are always higher in value than the application and by not having a dogmatic character, which was the decision of Vatican II (the so-called “dogmatic Constitution” adopted by the Council, dogmatic really in name only, because their content (namely, in words, as SV said. Robert Bellarmine, one can determine if the fathers of the Council to use their prerogative of infallibility, or not) points to the contrary). The documents of the second Vatican Council are not binding because of the” pastoral ” rather than dogmatic nature of the Council. Thus, there is nothing illegal in quoting the decisions of previous Councils, “pre-election” documents and encyclicals and proceeding from them in their actions, because they have not been canceled and, moreover, can not be canceled. After all, not only the essence, but also the understanding of dogma does not change, can not change. But here we meet with a problem, which is that some of the decisions of the second Vatican Council contradict the Tradition and the same unchanging understanding of dogmas.