Another of Kurgan's Vatican 2 "heresies" proven FALSE

We see on page 196 of Kurgan’s book that he believes that the statement,  “This power however is exercised in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.” means that the college of Bishops has an authority that rivals the Popes, and is therefore heretical. Let’s investigate….

The section of Kurgan’s book I will be analyzing is on pages 196 and 197. It reads as follows:

Kurgan - “But now we come to the poisoned seed (emphasis added):

This sacred synod, therefore, attentive to the conditions of human association which have brought about a new order of things in our time, intends to determine more exactly the pastoral office of bishops and, therefore, has decreed the things that follow:

Kurgan - There it is. The Freemasonic New order. Which in this case entails the following (emphasis added)

Together with its head, the Roman pontiff, and never without this head it exists as the subject of supreme, plenary power over the universal Church. But this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.” This power however “is exercised in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.” Therefore, this sacred synod decrees that all bishops who are members of the episcopal college, have the right to be present at an ecumenical council.

Kurgan - The heresy here is very subtle, but present nonetheless. In the first part it states that the power of the Bishops is never to be exercised without the agreement of the Pope…however…there is a little doubt-instilling word, the power is exercised and in a solemn manner, giving the sense of great dignity and importance, in an ecumenical council.

     And you can be sure that by ecumenical council they do not mean only all the Catholic Bishops. They mean a council that would have Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Satan knows what else, since the entirety of Vatican II is about equating all religions with each other under one giant,  fake, universal Church.

Kurgan thinks that this is heretical. There are two major problems with this:

1 - The word Ecumenical, as it is used in this Vatican 2 document, means “UNIVERSAL”

Ecumenical - Literally “universal” and commonly used to identify the general councils of the Church. With the rise of the movement for Christian unity, it has become synonymous with “striving for reunification among the separated Churches of Christendom.

Definition found here:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33274

How do I know that the “Ecumenical” when used in reference to a council means “universal”. That’s easy. If you google “ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church” you see that there have been 21 of them

21 Ecumenical Councils means:

21 Universal Councils

The 1917 Code of Canon law commentary by Dom Augustine also indicates that it is synonymous with the word “general”:

Kurgan has appeared to confuse Ecumenical with Ecumenism, which is 

Ecumenism - 1 - A movement promoting unity among Christian churches or denominations. 2 - A movement promoting worldwide unity among religions through greater cooperation and improved understanding.

How do I know these are separate terms? Because Vatican 2 has a stand-alone document that deals with ecumenism called “Decree on Ecumenism” it’s not part of the subject matter in the document “Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church”. 

Ecumenism is not an inherently bad thing. There are pros and cons for sure. But the goal of promoting some unity and dialogue between Christians, and cooperating and understanding other religions is certainly not heretical.

I said that Kurgan appeared to confuse ecumenical and ecumenism because you can tell that he doesn’t know the definition of ecumenism by how he describes it in the next paragraph at the top of page 197:

 Kurgan states, “And you can be sure that by ecumenical council they do not mean only all the Catholic Bishops. They mean a council that would have Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Satan knows what else, since the entirety of Vatican II is about equating all religions with each other under one giant,  fake, universal Church.”

What Kurgan is defining here is NOT ecumenism, but a possible heresy known as “Indifferentism”

Indifferentism - 1 - The believe that all religions are of equal validity. 2 - A belief that no one religion or philosophy is superior to another.

But that’s only the FIRST PART of his sentence (the “equating all religions with each other” part). In the second half of his sentence, he is describing what is known as “Universalism”

Universalism - 1 - The doctrine, held especially by some Christian groups, that all people will eventually be saved. 2 - The belief that a particular theory or religion has universal application and is not limited in scope.

In that one sentence, he combines two totally different terms with totally different meanings.

So, to summarize the mistakes in this first point, it’s that Kurgan mistakingly equates ecumenical with ecumenism, but then shows that he doesn’t know what ecumenism is by equating it with the concepts of indifferentism and universalism.

Kurgan, due to his lack of knowledge and study, conflates these four terms, with four separate definitions, into one big confusing mess. He did the same exact thing previously with the terms ecclesiastical office, clerical office, and clerical state. 

So, it’s clearly shown that the term “ecumenical” in the context of the Vatican 2 document being discussed, is not equal with ecumenism, indifferentism, or universalism. 

NO HERESY

Now I will move on to point 2 in my issues with this supposedly “heresy” that is discussed on pages 196 and 197 of Kurgan’s book. Let’s revisit Kurgans quote from this document on page 196 not his book:

Together with its head, the Roman pontiff, and never without this head it exists as the subject of supreme, plenary power over the universal Church. But this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.” This power however “is exercised in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.” Therefore, this sacred synod decrees that all bishops who are members of the episcopal college, have the right to be present at an ecumenical council.

Now, comparing it to an original version on Internet Archive, we see the following:

Together with its head, the Roman pontiff, and never without this head it exists as the subject of supreme, plenary power over the universal Church. But this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.” This power however “is exercised in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.” (There is a footnote here that says, “Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, chap 3, no. 22)Therefore, this sacred synod decrees that all bishops who are members of the episcopal college, have the right to be present at an ecumenical council.

Aa footnote? That’s funny, the quote in Kurgans book doesn’t have a footnote. Let’s go to that Vatican 2 document and see what’s there (emphasis added):

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chapter 3, no. 22

“…In the college, Bishops, while they faithfully observe the primacy and leadership of their head, employ their own power for the good of their faithful, or rather, for the good of the whole Church, while the Holy Spirit continues to strengthen  its organic structure and its harmony. The solemn exercise of the supreme power over the universal Church, which this college enjoys, takes place in. An ecumenical Council. An ecumenical Council is never possible, if it has not been confirmed as such or at least accepted by Peter’s successor. It is a prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to summon these Councils, to preside over them, to confirm them (there is a footnote here that says,”Cf. Code of Canon Law c. 227”

OK, Let’s go the the 1917 Code of Canon Law canon 227:

Canon 227

The decrees of a Council do not have definitive obliging force unless they are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his command.

Commentary Canon 227 - Dom Augustine

“…it should be remembered that the father of the council are judges concerning all matters proposed to their acceptance or rejection…However, although these are regular judges, the final sentence remains with the Pope. He it is that ratifies the decrees either at the council itself, if he is personally present, or when they are submitted to him, generally by the secretary of the council. It may happen that some decrees are ratified, while others are rejected, as, for instance, the third canon of the I Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth of Chalcedon were rejected by the Popes. (Footnote here that says, “Also the conciliar decrees of the council of Basle (1431) were not all ratified by the Pope)

We see that by leaving out the footnotes that point us to other documents for clarification and commentary, only part of the picture is presented. As I have said in the past, no Catholic document, Vatican 2 or otherwise, is a stand-alone document. Because Kurgan left out the footnote trail, and failed to research the source documents, he reached a false conclusion.

The false conclusion (that of heresy) is in his final paragraph on page 197:

Kurgan, “As I said, [the heresy] is subtle, and plausibly deniable to a large extent, especially if you are not familiar with he precision of language normally used in official Church publication such as Papal Encyclicals, but the implication that this newly formed college of the Bishops has its own authority, rivaling that of the Pope, is the intent.” ( NO, it’s not the intent. If you would have bothered to follow the footnotes back to the 1917 Code canon 227 and read the commentary, you would know this).

IN CONCLUSION

1 - On page 196 of his book, Kurgan’s claim that the statement “This power however, “is exercised in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council”, from the Vatican 2 document “Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church” is heresy, is FALSE

2 - This is proven by his failure to realize the difference in the terms “ecumenical” and “ecumenism”, and also in his conflation of the terms “ecumenism”, “indifferentism” and “universalism”

3 - Kurgan might have discovered this if he had not neglected to include the footnotes from the original Vatican 2 documents. In this case, the footnotes take us to the 1917 Code of Canon Law canon 227 which, along with the other canons surrounding it, make the meaning and intentions of the statement under consideration perfectly clear. Canon law is clear that the Pope is the only one who can convocate an ecumenical council, preside over it, and ratify its documents. The Pope does indeed, have supremacy over an ecumenical council.

NO HERESY