Why are you not Catholic? • Catholic Controversy • Danehy on Penance • The Papacy •
The Council • The New Order • The New Mass • The New Law • Cum Ex
Vatican II Versus Catholicism
We now compare words of Vatican II with established doctrines which they contradict. One self-styled theologian criticized this approach—I had failed to quote where Vatican II agreed with the Church! One swallow may not make a summer, but one heresy makes a heretic, however orthodox all his other beliefs.
Vatican I (Dogmatic Const. on the Catholic Faith, 34): The mysteries of faith cannot be fully grasped by natural reason, but revealed truth can never contradict the positive results of the investigation of reason. Contrariwise, however, every assertion is false that contradicts the truth of enlightened faith. Faith and true learning are not in hostile opposition; they rather support each other in many ways. Yet faith is not the same as a philosophical system of teaching that has been worked out and then turned over to the human mind to be further developed, but it has been entrusted as a Divine deposit to the Church for protection and for infallible interpretation. When, therefore, the Church explains the meaning of a dogma this interpretation is to be maintained in all future time, and it can never be deviated from under pretence of a more profound investigation.
Vatican II (Decree on Ecumenism, 6): Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has led to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (....) these should be appropriately rectified at the proper moment. (THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II, Abbott & Gallagher, American Press, 1966)
Vat II here states that the Church has previously erred in formulating doctrine, but that we shall not correct these errors now, though to be taken seriously we must know what they are, but at the “proper” moment. This blanket license for “correction” is no more to be trusted than the original “error.” Can we take the word of a group that has here destroyed its own authority? If the Church erred previously why can it not err now?
I omit the parenthesis which showed what the Council really meant? IN PARENTHESES? These words, “which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit itself of faith,” are supremely irrelevant. How is deficiency in formulation of doctrine anything but error? Even if not, the argument remains: If these people say their predecessors formulated deficiently, on whose authority shall we believe their own formulation? What can we then believe in the entire structure of Church doctrine? If these words stand our whole religion falls.
Vatican II (Decree on Ecumenism, 8) quotes John xvii, 21: “That all may be one,” but refrains from continuing the verse: “as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us,” because this would lead to unity also in doctrine, not mere outward organization. It is here used to introduce common worship with non-Catholics in the very phrase, communicatio in sacris, prohibited by Canon Law 1258 as formal co-operation in an evil act, forbidden by the natural law. (Canon Law, Bouscaren & Ellis, p. 704)
Leo XIII (Immortale Dei): .... absolutely bound, in the worship of the Deity, to adopt that use and manner in which God Himself has shown that He wills to be adored.
Vatican II in Ecumenism, 9 directly opposes Pius XI (Mortalium Animos): With this object, congresses, meetings, and addresses are arranged .... where all without distinction .... are invited to join in the discussion. Now such efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy .... Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God. They assert their readiness to treat with the Church of Rome, but on even terms, as equals with an equal. But even if they could so treat .... they would do so only on condition that no pact into which they might enter should compel them to retract those opinions which still keep them outside the one fold of Christ .... the Apostolic See can by no means take part in these assemblies, nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics to give such enterprises their encouragement or support. .... they would be giving countenance to a false Christianity quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall we commit the iniquity of suffering the truth, the truth revealed by God, to be made a subject for compromise? For it is indeed a question of defending revealed truth.
Leo XIII (Immortale Dei): The Church judges it not lawful that the various kinds of Divine worship should have the same right as the true religion.
Leo XIII (Libertas Praestantissimum): It is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.
Vatican II (Church in the Modern World, 50): Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children .... Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, etc. (Footnote: The Commission charged with drafting this text made every effort to avoid any appearance of wishing to settle questions concerning a hierarchy of the “ends” of marriage.)
So they pretended that no such hierarchy had been established—or reinforced by Canon Law (Canon 1013).
Decree of the Holy Office, April 1, 1944, approved by Pope Pius XII, March 30, 1944: Can we entertain the opinion of some modern authorities who deny that the primary end of marriage is procreation and education, or teach that the secondary ends are not necessarily subordinate to the primary one but are equally important and independent? The members of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office have decided to reply in the negative.
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, Supp III, q. 41, 1): .... for its principal end, which is the good of the offspring .... for the secondary end of marriage, which is devoted mutual compliance by the spouses in domestic matters.
Vatican II (Ecumenism, 3 & 4): .... separated from full communion with the Catholic Church .... are born into these (separated) communities and are instilled therein with Christ’s faith .... into a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church .... obstacles to full ecclesiastical communion .... all those justified by faith through Baptism are incorporated into Christ (Footnote cites for corroboration the Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” which teaches exactly opposite.) .... Moreover some, even very many, of the most significant elements or endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church herself can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God (on whose authority?); the life of grace; faith (in heresy?), hope (or presumption?), and charity (let’s be charitable?), along with other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit and visible elements. .... The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly .... these actions can truly engender a life of grace, and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation.
(The Church has always tried to convert non-Catholics—not to soft-soap them with how well off they are. What they retain of truth they took with them when reprehensibly they rejected the rest. “Brethren divided” includes SOME [Orthodox] who “carry out sacred actions” and have kept genuine sacraments. Whether these greatly benefit them in their separation is a moot point. The Mass, for instance, belongs to the Catholic Church, and is either Catholic Mass or no Mass; to award the channeling of its graces to the schismatic Churches that kidnapped it when they left the Catholic Church is gratuitous nonsense. The ordinary means of grace, Mass and Sacraments, benefit all recipients solely through the Catholic Church.
We note that the innovators, and many priests who call themselves traditional and celebrate the true Mass, refuse us the spiritual goods because we recognize the fact that we have no pope, as against their opinion that they have one. We must have been divided further than the “brethren.” Here Vatican II advances an irrelevancy true in a limited sense, to be deceptively employed in its widest sense. The Council pretends to teach, but rather promotes a huge confidence game to deceive Anglicans—and Catholics—into setting aside Leo XIII’s infallible “Apostolicae Curae.”)
.... unity dwells in the Catholic Church .... and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time. (Can unity increase? Like Catholicity and Apostolicity it is an absolute—it either is or is not.)
Pius XII (Mystici Corporis Christi): 14 .... not only must it (Church) be one and undivided, it must also be something concrete and visible .... It is therefore an aberration from divine truth to represent the Church as something intangible and invisible, as a mere “pneumatic” entity joining together by an invisible link a number of communities of Christians in spite of their differences in faith.
21. Only those are to be accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism and profess the true faith, and have not cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority. .... Hence, as in the true community of the faithful there is but one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. .... It follows that those who are divided from one another in faith or government cannot be living in the one Body so described, and by its one spirit.
22. .... Schism, heresy, or apostasy are such of their very nature that they sever a man (and a Council?) from the Body of the Church.
102. .... invite them (non-Catholics) all .... to .... strive to extricate themselves from a state in which they cannot be secure of their own eternal salvation, for, though they may be related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by some unconscious yearning and desire, yet they are deprived of those great many heavenly gifts and aids which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.
The Church has no partial memberships. One is or is not Catholic.
Vatican II (Declaration on Religious Freedom, 11): In the end, when He completed on the Cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for man, He also brought His revelation to completion.
This bald statement, in no way modified by context, is unnecessary in and completely unrelated to context. It is either incredible stupidity or devious purpose, and opposes Catholic doctrine. It contradicts Christ Himself at the Last Supper: “I have yet many things to say to you but you cannot bear them now.” (John xvi, 12) It removes from His revelation (1) His resurrection, (2) His explanation of His fulfilment of the prophecies, (3) His establishment of the sacrament of Penance, (4) St. Thomas” skepticism and its dissipation, (5) John xxi, 15-17 (Feed My sheep), used to establish the primacy of St. Peter and the papacy, (6) His mandate and mission to His Church, (7) His Ascension, and (8) the descent of the Holy Ghost. Choosing revelation is heresy.
Vatican II (Religious Freedom, 2): .... the human person has a right to religious freedom .... all men are to be immune from coercion .... in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, .... alone or in association .... within due limits. .... right .... has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, .... known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right .... is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed (Is it, now?). Thus it is to become a civil right.
Pius IX (Quanta Cura, Dec. 8, 1864): .... from this wholly false idea of social organization they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, called by .... Gregory XVI insanity; namely, that “liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed.... by law in every correctly established society ....”
The Council appears to desire establishment of man’s legal right to go to hell.
OBJECTION: Religious liberty is essentially different from the liberty of conscience condemned in the nineteenth century. On this point the Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) does not contradict Quanta Cura.
REPLY: An honest Declaration would have made such a point, if tenable. Its new “doctrine” was certainly phrased to be taken as correcting and updating Pius IX and Gregory XVI. By mistake? Aggiornamento was the name of the game, the reason for convocation of the council, which had already (Ecumenism 8) introduced common worship with non-Catholics in the exact phrase, communicatio in sacris, condemned and penalized with “suspicion of heresy” in Canon 1258. This objection takes no account of the Declaration’s applications in the Acts of the Council, published twelve years later. Nor of John Courtney Murray’s immediate reaction to its promulgation. He knew it directly opposed Quanta Cura, because he wrote most of it. So he left it openly to future theologians to explain. This Declaration has granted nothing whatsoever to Catholics. “All men” somehow excludes us, as we discovered immediately when requesting access to our traditional rights and rites under Article 2. These “rights” are granted only to those for whom the Church has never legislated—non-Catholics and anti-Catholics. We are discriminated against in favor of God’s enemies. (He that is not with Me is against Me.—Luke xi, 23) “The rights of the true religion are based, not only on merely natural rights, but also, and to a much greater degree, on the rights which flow from revelation,” said Cardinal Ottaviani in opposition to this Declaration. These new “rights” flow rather from freemasonry, not from revelation, are not part of revelation, and therefore cannot be dogmatically defined, as was Quanta Cura. Anyone can rephrase a heresy, but that has not, in this case, changed the concept. Human dignity is based on divine creation and redemption, neither of which is new. If freedom of action is essential to human dignity, why did the Apostles not campaign to abolish slavery in the Roman Empire?
Vatican II (Const. Sacred Liturgy): 34, The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions (of prayer?) ....
50. The rite of Mass is to be revised .... the rites are to be simplified .... Elements which, with the passage of time (but all more than four centuries ago), came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded. Where opportunity allows or necessity demands (!), other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history (and, presumably, the negligence of the Holy Ghost) are now to be restored to the earlier norm (?) of the Holy Fathers. (But all things were so restored, said Quo Primum, following the Council of Trent, with the outlawing of all new rites. We are now blessed with different, mutually exclusive restorations of the same Holy Fathers.)
Similar aims of the Synod of Pistoia, “recalling (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice” were condemned by Pius VI (Auctorem Fidei, Aug. 28, 1794): rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to charges of heretics against it .... As if the present order of the liturgy, received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated. The proposition asserting that “it would be against apostolic practice and the plans of God, unless easier ways were prepared for the people to unite their voice with that of the whole Church”; if this be understood to signify the introduction of the use of the vernacular language into the liturgical prayers, it is condemned as false, rash, disturbing to the order prescribed for the celebration of the mysteries, easily productive of many evils. (Q.E.D.?)
Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions is one long paean of praise for every kind of error, even ascribing holiness to these false religions. It waxes lyrical over Islam and post-Christian Judaism—religions founded on outright rejection of Christ.
The Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church propounds the nonsense that the living testimony of the devoted missionary will more easily achieve its effect if given in unison with other (heretical) Christian communities, according to the norms of the Decree on Ecumenism.
Gaudium et Spes (Church in the Modern World) tells us, contrary to all ages of Catholic teaching, that (16) “Christians are joined with the rest of men in the SEARCH for truth,” rather than differentiated from the rest of men by its possession. Paragraph 21 promotes “dialogue” and co-operation with God’s enemies. 41 proclaims the rights of man, and greatly esteems the dynamic movements of today by which these rights are everywhere fostered. No wonder we can now join the Freemasons! “The Church requires special help” (44), “particularly in our day, when things are changing very rapidly and the ways of thinking are exceedingly various.” 82 uses the threat of war to promote world government, signally refusing to recognize the probable atheistic or masonic character of such a government. “Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently” (93) “than to serve the men of the modern world ever more generously and effectively .... Christians have shouldered a gigantic task demanding fulfilment in this world. Concerning this task they must give a reckoning to Him Who will judge every man on the last day.”
Baltimore Catechism: God made me to know Him, to love Him and to serve HIM in this world, and to be happy with Him in the next.
Should you somehow not agree that Vatican II has erred, you can hardly deny that it has contradicted previously held doctrine, so the question of error is almost irrelevant. Contrary truths cannot exist. Can the Church support both sides of a contradiction and retain credibility?
Why are you not Catholic? • Catholic Controversy • Danehy on Penance • The Papacy •
The Council • The New Order • The New Mass • The New Law • Cum Ex