Vatican II's Document on Religious Liberty in Light of the defined traditions of the Church
"Dignitatis Humanae", or "On Religious Liberty", is an official document of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) which contains a clearly false moral teaching.
Therefore Vatican Council II is a false Council signed by an
antipope, namely, Paul VI
compiled by Jim Condit Jr.
(Some of the below passages may be direct cut-and-pastes from some of the writings of Mr. Gary Giuffre. The only purpose here is to make this material known to people searching for the truth about the Crisis in the Church in our time.)
FOREWORD TO THE FOREWORD:
Please be clear that the writer and compiler of this paper, Jim Condit Jr., myself, is not a theologian or a canon lawyer, or anything other than a Roman Catholic laymen who was born and baptized in 1953, and who received the sacrament of confirmation in the spring of 1962, both at St. Margaret of Cortona's Parish in Cincinnati, Ohio. In the sacrament of Confirmation, we receive the grace to be "Soldiers for Jesus Christ", in order to defend the Church from attack. All I claim to be is "kind of" a good reporter, and I hereby try to report and compare the research of many serious thinkers on the nature of the crisis of the Church as witnessed within the structures of the Church since the aftermath of the Vatican II era beginning circa 1965. Massive evidence indicates that the Church is under attack more so that at any other time since Christ Himself was laid in the tomb, and that this attack is all the more insidious and hard to recognize or combat because it emanates from usurpers who effectively are in charge of the Vatican itself.
Nothing should be accepted or believed merely because I report it here, or write about it here. All are encouraged to check and double check any of the facts or analysis contained herein.
Here is what is shown in this paper:
a) There is no such thing in the
Roman Catholic Church as "only a pastoral council" which can teach heresy or
a false moral teaching.
Every true General Ecumenical Council of the Church involves doctrine, morals, and a pastoral
approach to explain the Church's theology to the faithful, and to the world. "Pastoral" refers to how the true and infallible teachings of
a General Ecumenical Council are taught and explained to the faithful and the world.
b) A true Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, signed by a true Pope, is guaranteed to be free from errors on Faith and Morals under both the Church's extraordinary magisterium (solemn definitions) or the Church's "ordinary and universal magisterium" (anything else promulgated for the daily life of the Church), as infallibly defined by Vatican I in 1870. The relationship between the Church's "extraordinary magisterium", on the one hand, and her "ordinary and universal magisterium", on the other hand, are explained in paragraph 9 of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical, "On the Unity of the Church", or, by its title in Latin, "Satis Cognitum."
This existence of the "ordinary and universal magisterium" of the Church is so important that I ask you to please indulge me as I restate the above paragraph in slightly different words. Solemn definitions and teachings of a General Council may be infallible under the Church's extraordinary magisterium (i.e., comparable to an "ex cathedra" pronouncement); it General Councils these pronouncements often end with something like, ". . . let him be anathema." But this is not the only aspect of infallibility which protects the Church, and the documents of a true General Ecumenical Council which are signed by a true Pope. Everything -- every line -- in the documents of a General Council which touches on a matter of Faith or Morals is guaranteed to be free from error under the Church's infallible "ordinary and universal Magisterium", i.e. teachings, prayers, and laws promulgated for the daily life of the Church.
c) Purporting to be a true Pope, Paul VI used the most forceful language possible at the close of the 2nd Vatican Council on December 8, 1965 to bind all Catholics to everything "synodally decreed" in Vatican Council II. This included everything in all the Vatican II council documents. The idea that Paul VI purported to make anything in the Vatican II documents optional for Catholics is disproved by simply reading his concluding address to the Council. Here is the relevant paragraph in that closing document of Vatican II: "We decided moreover that all that has been synodally decreed is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquility and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on."
The first line of that final document promulgated by Paul VI read as follows: "The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church."
You can't get any
stronger than that. Paul VI (1963-1978) says that everything that is "synodally
decreed" by the 2nd Vatican Council is to be "religiously observed by all the
faithful." And, furthermore, that all this was done under the guidance of "the
Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary . . . and of St.
Joseph . . . and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul . . ." These are the words
that true Popes use to bind the faithful to true Catholic teachings. One
problem: Paul VI used these words in a futile attempt to try and deceive
Catholics into believing that they were bound by the false teachings of Vatican
II, one of which it the teaching on Religious Liberty for individuals or groups
in the external (or public) forum.
d) Vatican II contradicts the already infallibly defined teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject of religious liberty for individuals and groups in the external forum (public forum). The Church's clearly defined teaching on religious liberty in the external forum is that no individual or group has the RIGHT to spread false doctrines or false moral teachings in public. Vatican II's document on Religious Liberty states the opposite: that every individual and group has the right to spread false doctrines and false moral teachings in public, and that the state must protect this alleged right. This is a false moral teaching in Vatican Council II, and one that involves heresy according to Pope Pius VII, Pope Gregory XVI, and St. Augustine. (Naturally, all the true Popes from St. Peter to Pope Pius XII endorse the explicit teaching of these three Catholic authorities.)
(A note of explanation on this point: the civil authorities may, due to practical considerations, allow such individuals and groups the FREEDOM to publish their false teachings in public, but no person or group can ever be said to have the RIGHT to spread false teachings in public according to unmistakably clear and infallible traditional Church teaching.)
The problem, as we shall see, is that Paul VI attempted to bind Catholics to a false moral teaching which directly contradicts the already infallibly defined teaching of Pope Pius IX (among other Catholic authorities) on the issue of religious liberty in the external (public) forum. Since the Church is both infallible and indefectible in her teaching, then the only possible explanation is that Paul VI was not a true pope at the time he signed the Vatican II documents -- for no true pope could sign and promulgate a document of an Ecumenical Council which contained a false teaching on Faith or Morals.
e) The Church's teaching on religious liberty in the external (public) forum was infallibly defined in the document, Quata Cura, issued by Pope Pius IX in on December 8, 1864. Vatican II was concluded on December 8, 1965 (exactly 101 years later), and all the documents of Vatican II were ratified by Paul VI, who employed all the language which a true Pope would employ to exercise his full Apostolic authority. However, the teaching of Vatican II and Paul VI on religious liberty in the external forum contradicted the infallible teaching of Pope Pius IX promulgated 101 years earlier. Since the Church is indefectible, a later true Pope cannot contradict an earlier Pope on an infallible teaching. Therefore, Paul VI, even though he used the full force of Papal language to ratify Vatican Council II, could not have been a true Pope. Once a doctrine or moral teaching is infallibly defined, then it binds that Pope's successors, and cannot be contradicted by any later true Pope. It can, of course, be contradicted by antipopes (such as Paul VI), who do not have the special protection of the Holy Ghost in these matters.
f) When a man purporting to be Pope signs the documents of what purports to be an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, and those documents contain one or more errors on Faith and Morals, then it is certain that that man is not the Pope, and that such a Council is not a true Council of the Catholic Church.
It is because this above statement is so explosive and, for most, impossible to believe at first glance, that I add the following elaboration:
The only conclusion under such circumstances is that the man who is claiming to be Pope, and is signing and promulgating documents with such false teaching on Faith or Morals in an Ecumenical Council, must either be a true Pope who has fallen into heresy and defected from the Faith before he signed and promulgated the documents, -- OR -- he has somehow stolen onto the Chair of Peter illegally and is a usurper.
While St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, and the man who is often viewed as the foremost authority on Papal questions, speculated that a Pope might fall into heresy, he then stated his opinion that since no Pope had fallen into heresy from St. Peter until his day (circa 1600), that this was a strong indication that it could never happen, and that Christ's prayer for Peter in Holy Scripture would be efficacious throughout all time. It is my opinion that St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion is correct regarding that a true Pope will never fall into heresy.
(When we consider that, once the realities in this paper are understood, that it would be necessary to conclude that at least four "Vatican II Popes" have now been elected, and that each then would have fallen into heresy by endorsing Vatican II unreservedly shortly after being "elected" -- then this view becomes absurd. It would mean that no Pope from St. Peter to Pope Pius XII had fallen into heresy from 33 A.D. until 1958 -- but that we have now had at least four "Vatican II Popes" who were elected and who all fell into heresy -- in a row -- between 1958 and 2000!)
In the approved apparition in 1846 of Our Lady of Lasalette, Our Lady prophesied that, "The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay." This gives us a clue that we should consider the following: since 1958, the world has seen usurpers occupying the throne of Peter, with the Papacy and the true Church being eclipsed (obscured) from the world by these antipopes and their counterfeit church. In other words, the enabling act for this false church to usurp the Vatican and "eclipse" the true Church was a coup de tat at the 1958 conclave in which a true Pope was elected, shoved aside, and then replaced by the usurping antipope, John XXIII. This explanation leaves us with a mystery, but does not defile the indefectibility or the infallibility of the Church.
This would explain everything about the heterodox, heretical, and devastatingly destructive changes witnessed within the structures of the Catholic Church since 1958. For the best research available on this subject and investigation, see www.realnews247.com/crisis_in_the_church.htm . In addition to the article, "Comments on the Eclipse of the Church and the White Smoke of October 26, 1958", you will find links to four other important articles: "The Popes and the Dove", "Scripture Scholars, Ancient and Modern", "Warnings from Heaven Suppressed", and "An Ominous Anniversary." The latter article goes into some of the strong circumstantial evidence that the threat of the nuclear annihilation of the Vatican was used against the cardinals and the newly elected Pope shortly after 6 PM (Italy time) on October 26, 1958.
* Since John XXIII died in 1963, it might be argued that he was not tainted by the false moral teaching and heresy in the Vatican II documents (the heresy of the Vatican II documents is not covered in this paper). However, from all appearances, he was fully on board with the Vatican II demolition operation, and therefore called a Council without sufficient reason, based on a contrived and phony "inspiration", about which he put forth two contradictory stories. Thus, John XXIII would fall under the censure for calling a council for the purpose of overthrowing the traditions of the Church, which a number of keen observers believe will ultimately prove to be the case. It is far more logical and likely that all of the "Vatican II Popes" from John XXIII to Benedict XVI are in fact antipopes who were never truly elected; that it became possible for these usurpers to occupy the Vatican and implement the ongoing demolition operation against the Faith and the Church, only after the newly elected Pope was overthrown and suppressed under the secrecy of the conclave in 1958.
** While many urgent questions remain today if the above scenario is, in fact, what happened to cause the present, ongoing crisis in the Church, there is no doubt that God will answer all of these questions in His own providential time. What is certain, once the realities covered in this paper are grasped, is that Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI cannot be true popes, and that Vatican Council II cannot be a true General Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, for, since the Church is infallible and indefectible, no subsequent true Pope and no subsequent true Council can directly contradict a previous infallible teaching on a matter of Faith and Morals in either the extraordinary magisterium, or in the "ordinary and universal magisterium." In fact, Paul VI and Vatican II, purporting to engage the infallibility of the Church's "ordinary and universal magisterium" in a General Ecumenical Council, contradicted the already infallible moral teaching of the Church on religious liberty in the external (public) forum.
Is it possible for a true
ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church signed by a true Pope to contain
an error on Faith or morals?
The answer to this question holds the key to the nature of the crisis afflicting the Catholic Church since the Vatican II era. The period of the Second Vatican Council can fairly be said to cover from 1959, when John XXIII (Roncalli) told the world he had an inspiration to call an ecumenical council, to 1962 when the Council was convened, until 1965 when Paul VI (Montini) signed and promulgated the documents of Vatican II. (For clarity of thought, however, I must interject here that the enabling act of the "Vatican II Revolution" within the structures of the Church seems to be the hijacking of the conclave of 1958, complete with the unexplained white smoke of October 26, 1958, which emanated from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel from 5:55 PM to 6:00 PM on that fateful day. See Comments on the Eclipse of the Church and the White Smoke of October 26, 1958 .)
Three positions taken by Catholics attempting to explain the "crisis in the Church" which followed Vatican II
There have been three positions adopted by faithful Catholics regarding this question. All three positions have credible advocates. But only one of these positions can be right in the light of the unmistakable tradition and teaching of the Church.
The first position is that Vatican Council II has no error on Faith or Morals in its documents; that Vatican Council II was promulgated by a true Pope on December 8, 1965; and that therefore the teachings and documents of Vatican II are binding on the consciences of Catholics, as are the twenty councils of the Church held between 33 A.D. and 1870 A.D. This position is taken by the Wanderer, by EWTN, Fr. Brian Harrison, Dr. Scott Hahn, and by virtually all the men sitting in the Catholic Bishops’ chairs around the world. This position is also stated in the strongest possible terms in a letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre circa 1987 by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. This position is vigorously defended in the book, “The Pope, the Council, and the Mass” by James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead. Their book is subtitled: “An answer to the questions the Traditionalists are asking.” --- (It is the position of this paper that this first stance is wrong because Vatican Council II does contains errors on Faith and Morals, that Paul VI can, therefore, not be a true Pope, and therefore he has no standing to bind the consciences of Catholics on anything. However, this group does acknowledge both the Church's extraordinary magisterium and the Church's "ordinary and universal magisterium" as defined by Vatican Council I.)
The second position is that Vatican Council II does have errors on Faith and/or morals in it; that Vatican Council II was promulgated by a true Pope; but that Vatican Council II was a new kind of council because the Pope and the bishops had made it clear that they did not intend to define anything infallibly. Therefore, despite the errors on Faith and/or morals contained in Vatican Council II, it is still a true Council of the Roman Catholic Church, and the man who signed it and promulgated it, Paul VI (Montini) on December , 1965, in any case, was a true Pope when he promulgated these documents. This position was made famous by especially the late Michael Davies and the Society of St. Pius X under Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the bishops which succeeded him in running the SSPX after his death. This position is now held by Catholic Family News, the Remnant, Christopher Ferrera, Latin Mass Magazine, Robert Sungenis, and a number of other prominent, sincere, and able Catholic leaders. --- (It is the position of this paper that this position is wrong because a true Council of the Church cannot contain even one error on a matter touching on Faith and Morals; therefore, Paul VI, who promulgated the documents of Vatican II, was not a true Pope, and Vatican II was not a true Council. The group holding this second position has a false conception of the Church's "universal and ordinary magisterium", and narrow its application to the point of oblivion or non-existence. In fact, any rite of Mass, prayer, novena, canon law, canonized saint, encyclical, or Ecumenical Council document promulgated by a true Pope for Catholics to observe in the daily life of the Church is protected from errors engaging Faith or Morals by the Church's infallible "ordinary and universal magisterium", as defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870. )
The third position is held, with variations, by Mr. John Daly, Mr. Gerry Matatics, Mr. John Lane, Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor, Mr. Gary Giuffre and a number of older priests ordained before 1969, as well as by some priests ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and some bishops and priests emanating from Archbishop Ngo Din Thuc. This position is that a true Catholic Ecumenical Council cannot contain any errors on Faith and/or Morals; that any man signing the documents of such a council who purports to be the Pope cannot, in fact, be the Pope, even if he is dressed in white and occupying the Vatican -- and even if the worldwide newsmedia and 99.9% of humanity calls him "Pope." It is THIS third position that I am here arguing is unquestionably the correct position as already taught by the Church for 20 centuries. Let's continue.
Among those who hold the third position, most have seemed to be content to let things simmer and stagnate once they come to the conclusion that the "Vatican II Popes" are, indeed, antipopes, and that Vatican Council II was, indeed, a false council. Only Mr. Gary Giuffre, especially in the late 1980s and early 1990s, proceeded to the logical investigation of what happened "at the scene of the crime" in 1958 with a view to uncovering how this monstrous crime was perpetrated against the true Church, and what was the enabling act which allowed the Vatican Council II demolition operation to proceed against the Church directed from within the Vatican itself. The results of that investigation can be glimpsed, as stated elsewhere in this paper, at www.realnews247.com/crisis_in_the_church.htm . We know that the Church cannot contradict herself, as she is infallible and indefectible on essential matters regarding Faith and Morals. If we believe in Christ's promise to be with His Church always, then we know this for certain. Therefore, once the realities described in this paper are grasped, we know that the what happened since 1958 cannot be the work of true Popes or the true Church, or the Holy Ghost. So the answer must lie elsewhere. With that in mind, a quote from the fictional character, Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
I have included this possible
explanation that we are living n the eclipse of the Church as predicted by Our
Lady of LaSalette in 1846 -- from which the Church will surely emerge victorious
(no matter how bad it looks now), -- because I do not want the sincere reader to feel
despair or hopelessness when he or she recognizes that the "Vatican II Popes"
cannot be Popes and that Vatican Council II is a false council, in light of the
false moral teaching on Religious Liberty in the external (public) forum
contained in the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty.
(End of the Introduction)
The Word "Pastoral" as used by John XXIII in the Opening Address of Vatican II
What was the genesis of the word “pastoral” in relation to Vatican Council II? Here’s what John XXIII said about Vatican Council II, doctrine, and pastoral concerns in his opening address to the Council on October 11, 1962:
“The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
“For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.”
From this we can conclude the following:
a) John XXIII asserted at the beginning of Vatican Council II that the Council was to remain completely faithful to the doctrines of the Church, specifically the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council. (Whether he was sincere in this is another question.)
b) The term “pastoral” is used to refer, not to the coming Council exclusively, but to the Church’s magisterium. (The idea that the magisterium is predominantly pastoral in character seems to this writer to be a heterodox expression, and I doubt that anything like it was ever said by a true Pope in the history of the Church, but I would be glad to be proven wrong on this point.)
c) In any case, the word pastoral as used by John XXIII in his opening address to the assembled Fathers of Vatican Council II did not refer exclusively to the coming Council, and was not used to excuse false doctrinal or moral teachings in the coming Council, but rather was used in order to ostensibly urge the assembled Fathers to better explain and preserve the “teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness . . .”
d) Therefore, the opening address of John XXIII can in no way be used to justify the idea that Vatican II was to be a “pastoral council” only, or one which might, or would, include errors on Faith and Morals in its teachings. (If a true ecumenical council is signed by a true Pope, then it is protected by the Holy Ghost and will be free of errors in Faith or Morals, as we shall see.)
The 2nd Vatican Council engaged both matters of Faith and Morals – as well as pastoral concerns.
In fact, one proof that the 2nd Vatican Council engaged doctrine (faith and morals) as well as pastoral concerns, is that TWO of the documents of Vatican II are called “Dogmatic Constitutions” – The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum).
For our purposes, the only other citation that need be made here is that the document on Religious Liberty states that it is going to develop a doctrine of the Church in paragraph one: "Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society." (emphasis added)
So, there can be no doubt that Vatican
II's document on Religious Liberty deals with both doctrine and morals --
because the document itself clearly so states.
Pastoral does not mean “non-doctrinal”, nor does it mean you can have even one heresy, or many heresies, or all the heresies you want, in a true Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church.
The fact is, the word pastoral does not mean “fallible,” or “non-binding,” but rather, it refers to how the dogmatic teachings of the Church apply to the faithful in their daily lives. For instance, the Catholic Dictionary defines pastoral theology as:
“A branch of theology which has for its object the guidance of the clergy in the care of souls. It provides practical applications of the conclusions of moral theology to the problems of the pastor in preaching, directing souls, and administering the sacraments.”
So, far from being an excuse for having false teachings in a General Council or anywhere else, we see that the term "pastoral" refers to the proper practical application of the Church teachings for the care of souls.
It seemed necessary to explain this point at greater length, because those trying to resist the destruction of the Church have many times been lulled to sleep with the phrase, “ . . . Vatican II was just a pastoral council.” In fact, if any true council were or could be "just a pastoral council", even then the “pastoral” nature of it would never justify or allow even one false teaching on faith and/or morals.
The Baltimore Catechism addresses the infallibility of a General Ecumenical Council
Baltimore Catechism No. 2
(1933) -- "Pope, Council, Infallibility"
The very idea of a non-doctrinal ecumenical council of bishops under the guidance of the Pope (such as Vatican II was alleged to have been), is itself an erroneous concept. For, it is alien to the Church’s teaching regarding the infallibility and binding authority of general councils, as clearly stated on page 25 of The Baltimore Catechism #2 (1933), and memorized by Catholic grade-school students, for six decades:
“Question: When does the Church teach infallibly?
“Answer: The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and the bishops, united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims for all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia and the infallibility of true Ecumenical Councils
There is further Teaching on the nature of an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. The Seal of Supreme Authority is attributed to such a Council, as it is to be regarded as the joint action of the Pope, the Council, and the Holy Ghost.
A thorough study of the doctrinal character of general councils was published in 1908, by The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, pages 423-435, and is quoted below in part:
“. . .(VI: 3,c) . . . papal ratification formally promulgates the sentence of the council as an article of faith to be known and accepted by all the faithful . . . the oecumenical authority of the pope is sufficient to impart validity and infallibility to the decrees he makes his own by officially ratifying them . . ; (VIII) . . . All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis ( It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.) This formula and the dogma it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church . . . General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience. . ;(IX) . . . A council’s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. . .
. . . It should, however, be borne in mind that the council without the pope has no guarantee of infallibility, therefore, the conciliar and the papal infallibilities are not two separate and addible units, but one unit with single or double excellence . . .”
Comment: From this we should conclude that a Pope’s signature on the document of a General Council guarantees that it is free from error on matters of Faith and Morals. We can also conclude that if a true Pope does not sign one or more documents of a General Council, then there is nothing preserving that documents or documents from errors on faith and morals.
to say: If an ANTIPOPE signs one or more
documents of a purported ecumenical council, there is, obviously, no guarantee of
infallibility, or guarantee of freedom from errors on faith and morals. For an
antipope does NOT have the special protection of the Holy Ghost in such
The "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" and Ludwig Ott confirm the Baltimore Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia
“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, Ludwig Ott says the same thing about General
Councils as the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Baltimore Catechism.
Here is the relevant Ludwig Ott passage:
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (Translated by Patrick Lynch, Ph.D.) 1958; published by Mercier Press, page 300:
“The Bishops exercise their infallible teaching power in an extraordinary manner at a general or ecumenical council. It is in the decisions of the General Councils that the teaching activity of the whole teaching body instituted by Christ is most decisively exercised.
“It has been the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times that the resolutions of the General Councils are infallible.
“St. Athanasius says of the Decree on faith of the Nicean Council: ‘The words of the Lord which were spoken by the General Council of Nicea remain in eternity.” (The Ep. A.D. Afros II)
“St. Gregory the Great recognizes and honors the first four General Councils as much as the Four Gospels; he makes the fifth equal to them (Ep. I 25).
“In order that a council be a general one it is necessary: a) that all the ruling Bishops in the world be invited; b) that in point of fact so many Bishops from the various countries, that they may be regarded as being representatives of the whole episcopate; c) that the Pope summon the Council, or at least invest the assembly with his authority and preside personally or by his Representative at the meeting, and ratify the resolutions. From the Papal ratifications, which can be explicit or implicit, the resolutions derive general legal binding power.” End Ludwig Ott quote
Obviously, all these would seem to apply to Vatican II, but since the documents of that council contain a false moral teaching, then we know that something is missing, and the only logical conclusion is, namely, a true Pope did not sign the documents at the end.
Paul VI Invoked the Holy Ghost in Promulgating the Documents of Vatican II on December 8, 1965, and purported to Bind Every Catholic to EVERYTHING in the Council
Paul VI Invoked the Holy Ghost in promulgating the Document on Religious Liberty and all the other documents of the Council at the closing of the 2nd Vatican Council, and, furthermore, Paul VI binds all Catholics to religiously observe all that was decreed in the Vatican II documents.
On December 8, 1965, at the end of the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI ratified the conciliar decree, Dignitatis Humanae, and all the other decrees of Vatican Council II, by his “apostolic authority,” while invoking the Holy Ghost:
APOSTOLIC BRIEF ‘IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL
On December 8, 1965, key excerpts of the closing document of Vatican Council II, promulgated by Paul VI, were read at the closing ceremonies by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council:
"The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. . . . .
We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquility and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, . . . and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.
Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate. (END OF LAST ADDRESS OF THE COUNCIL)
(One source to find the entire
closing address is here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6CLOSIN.HTM -- we use the EWTN website
because it is favorable to Vatican II and the Vatican II 'Popes", and therefore
cannot be accused of publishing a translation unfavorable to what Paul VI
actually said in the closing address.)
The above was signed and promulgated by a man claiming to be “Pope Paul VI.”
Thus from all appearances, Paul VI (Montini) seemed to impart the same binding authority regarding the 2nd Vatican Council which was characteristic of the councils in the past, all of which had taught doctrine.
Therefore, from the above, it is clear that Paul VI invoked the Holy Ghost, and his alleged full Apostolic authority to bind ALL the faithful to EVERYTHING in Vatican Council II. This was not a mere pastoral council that anyone could take or leave. If Paul VI was a true Pope, then it follows that everyone is bound to everything in the Council. But it would be impossible for a true Pope to sign a council document that had an error on Faith or morals, because a true Pope and the true Church could never bind Catholics and the world to a false teaching regarding Faith or a false teaching in a matter of Morals. Let's continue.
The Church consistently Taught that Only the true Religion had the RIGHT to Publish its Doctrine
The Church had consistently taught that no individual or group has the right to promulgate false religious doctrine (heresies), or false moral teachings (which always involve a heresy) in public. The legitimate ruling power (civil government) may tolerate such activity, may allow those promulgating false doctrine to do so in public, but such activity can never be their "right", and the legitimate ruling power always has the right to suppress the promulgation of false religious teachings in public where it deems it possible and practical to do so. In other words, false and man-made religions may be granted the FREEDOM to publish their false doctrines by civil authorities, but they can never be said to have the RIGHT to do so.
Quanta Cura, Promulgated December 8, 1864 by Pope Pius IX (1846-1878):
“And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert . . . that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” (emphasis added)
Thus, we see Pope Pius IX condemning exactly what we will shortly see that Vatican II promulgated. To restate: Pope Pius IX condemned the idea or teaching that individuals and/or groups have a right to publicly teach false doctrines or false moral teachings by word of mouth or in print (the press). Again, this idea is CONDEMNED by traditional Church teaching, and here very explicitly and forcefully by the great Pope Pius IX.
Here is the language Pope Pius IX used to condemn the teaching of “religious liberty" and other heresies and false moral teachings at the end of Quanta Cura. This is an infallible and irrevocable declaration by a true pontiff, namely Pope Pius IX, in 1864, in which he forcefully asserted:
“Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.”
Quanta Cura is infallible from the Papal wording of the document itself, and, furthermore, was used as an example of an infallible Papal pronouncement by the Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary’s College, St. Mary’s, Kansas in 1955.
It is evident from the wording of the document itself, that we can know with moral certainty that this is an infallible decree, as it explicitly says it is defining faith and morals for all the faithful from the Chair of Peter (i.e., our Apostolic authority).. And, as stated above, four Jesuit scholars affirmed in 1955 that Quant Cura was an example of an infallible decree. Its wording is so clear, that this endorsement is unnecessary for anyone schooled in the basic catechism on how to recognize an infallible decree for what it is.
Why Quanta Cura is an
infallible Document as Promulgated by Pope Pius IX
Explanation of why Quanta Cura exemplifies an infallible document.
The following elucidation, provided by "The Catholic Encyclopedia", is one of the best and most succinct explanations available in print concerning when papal infallibility occurs, according to the teaching of the First Vatican Council in 1870, and by what criteria we can identify an infallible teaching of the Pope:
“... the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree: (a) The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Universal Church. (b) Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible. (c) Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense ... (d) Finally for an ax cathedra decision it must be clear that the Pope intends to bind the whole Church, to demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck [emphasis added] …” (“Infallibility,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Robert Appleton Company, New York, 1910,Vol.7, p.796)
Now, to summarize the above, the four requirements of an infallible pronouncement by a Pope are:
a) The pontiff must speak in his public and official capacity to all Christians, and not merely in his private capacity, nor simply as a preacher from his pulpit to the people of his local See in Rome;
b) He must teach some doctrine on faith or morals;
c) He must teach with the fullness and finality of his Apostolic Authority, in an irrevocable manner;
d) He must intend to bind the consciences of the all the faithful.
Now, let us examine the formula by which Pope Pius IX makes his decree, Quanta Cura, an infallible pronouncement: A) The Pope addresses his encyclical to “Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops having favor and Communion of the Holy See,” and makes it clear that his letter is also a command addressed to “all children of the Catholic Church”; B) In addition, he states unequivocally that his decree is concerned with the “sound doctrine” of “our most Holy Religion”; C) Moreover, he invokes his “Apostolic authority” when he issues this decree, and; D) He clearly commands all the faithful to accept his teaching.
Pius IX was re-affirming the Church’s constant teaching in this matter. Let's look at how this teaching was articulated by other Catholic Popes:
Pope Pius VII (1800 - 1823)
Here below is an example of this
tradition in the Church regarding the moral teaching on religious liberty, taken from Pope Pius VII’s letter,
Post tam Diuturnas, of 29 April,
1814, regarding the Masonic-inspired provisions that found their way into the
French Constitution following the French Revolution in 1789:
“We have been struck, first of all, by the fact that in the Constitution no mention is made of the Catholic religion.
“. . . But Our heart is more grievously and even most vehemently afflicted by the 22nd Article of the Constitution, by which We confess that We are pained, oppressed and grieved. By this Article, We see that liberty of worship and liberty of conscience, to use the words of the Article in question, are not only permitted, but that help and protection are promised to those who are called the ministers of the different forms of worship. . . . By the fact that the freedom of all forms of worship without distinction is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the holy and Immaculate Spouse of Christ, outside of which there can be no salvation, is placed on the same level as heretical sects and even as Jewish perfidy. Besides, when aid and protection are guaranteed to heretical sects and their ministers, not only are their persons tolerated and favored, but even their very errors. This attitude involves that awful and ever lamentable heresy referred to by St. Augustine in the ‘following terms: ‘This heresy affirms that all heretics are on the right path and that all teach the truth. This is so monstrous an absurdity that it seems to me to be incredible.’” (De Haeresibus, No. 72, as quoted by Father Denis Fahey, in The Kingship of Christ, pages 47-48, and, The Social Rights of Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ the King, Browne and Nolan, Dublin).
Notice that Pope Pius VII says that the idea of a “right to religious liberty” embodied in the French Constitution of his day involves heresy – yet this masonic command for all states to enshrine in their constitutions religious liberty as a right of all individuals and organizations to publish their teachings, in word or in print, – is exactly the teaching of Vatican Council II in the Document on Religious Liberty, as we shall see. In other words, the document of Religious Liberty in Vatican Council II directly contradicts the infallible teaching of the Church against Religious Liberty in the external forum (the public forum), as expressed in Quanta Cura by Pope Pius IX, as well as in the Church’s entire tradition regarding this point.
Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846)
These warnings were issued by
Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical Mirari vos, in which the Holy Father quotes
St. Augustine’s condemnation of “freedom of error”:
“… And from this most putrid font of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous view, or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience should be asserted and claimed for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. ‘But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws – in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. …
From this we can conclude with certainty that the matter of “religious liberty” is not some insignificant matter, but it a doctrinal and moral matter of the utmost importance, the violation of which on a wide enough scale will have dire consequences of Apocalyptic proportions (as we see around us everywhere today circa 2009).
Pope Leo XIII (1878 - 1903)
Pope Pius IX’s immediate successor, Leo XIII also continued the Church’s condemnation of the principle of unbridled “liberty” as a “right” of individuals, as if anyone should have the “right” to spread errors and lies in public, especially in those matters regarding religion – for such errors and lies contradict and defame Our Lord Jesus Christ and His doctrines, as well as cause once-Christian civilizations to self destruct, as we are unhappily witnessing in our own time:
“… We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this . . . For right is a moral power which – as We have before said and must again and again repeat – it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State …
“… From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. …” (Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, “On the Nature of Human Liberty,” 20 June 1888.) (emphasis added)
Again, Pope Leo XIII, echoing the
constant teaching of the Church, and logic itself, condemns exactly what we are
about to see Vatican Council II approve.
Three years earlier, Pope Leo had clearly stated, in his encyclical, Immortale Dei, that it is a grave duty of the state to acknowledge and protect the one and only true worship of God:
“…it is a sin for the State not to have care for religion as if something beyond its scope, or as if no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will…”
. . . “And it is a part of this theory . . . that every one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks." (Please note: Pope Leo XIII is condemning this notion that anyone has the right to publish false doctrines or moral teachings in the public arena.)
The Holy Father then issued a warning to nations and their leaders against the suicidal path of separating civil society from the obligations imposed upon mankind by the Divine Redeemer, when the true Church and proper worship of God are relegated to the same level as that of false sects and their odious rites. The Pope taught that the confusion of the conscience of man and a darkening of his intellect typically follows:
“So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not … an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. . . . Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. … the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue…
“… Doctrines such as these, … Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs … have never allowed to pass uncondemned. Thus, Gregory XVI, in his encyclical letter, “Mirari vos” dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated—. . . and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the State . . ."
“From these pronouncements of the Popes it is evident . . . that it is not lawful for the State, any more than for the individual, either to disregard all religious duties or to hold in equal favor different kinds of religion; that the unrestrained freedom of thinking and of openly making known one's thoughts is not inherent in the rights of citizens, and is by no means to be reckoned worthy of favor and support…” (emphasis added)
It is clear from the above that one thing is asserted: the state has a duty to recognize the Catholic Church as the true religion, and the state should absolutely not recognize any right for individuals or organizations to a freedom of speech in which they were protected to say anything they want to say in public, or to publish whatever they wish in public.
between “the internal forum” and “the external forum.”
At the same time, the true Church has always taught that no one should be forced against his will to embrace the Catholic religion, for such would not be a true act of faith but coerced membership in the Church. This is known as “religious liberty” in the “internal forum,” and acknowledged by the Church.
However, “religious liberty” in
the “external forum” is a totally different concept, whereby “license” is
wrongly granted to “lying teachers” to promote their falsehoods openly,
including matters pertaining to religion, which are directly contrary to the
Laws of God and fatally injurious to Christian civilization. It is this latter
version of “religious liberty” IN THE EXTERNAL FORUM (or public forum) that the true Church and
her true Popes have condemned over and over. (As we have seen from the quotes
*** AND, as we shall see, it is this same RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN THE EXTERNAL FORM (in the public forum) which Vatican II says is the moral right of each individual and of every religious association that MUST be protected by the law of the state. ***
Vatican II Contradicted the infallibly defined moral teaching of the Church on religious liberty in the EXTERNAL FORUM
Thus, we will see, there is an irreconcilable difference between the traditional teaching of the Church and Vatican Council II on a moral teaching, namely, on the matter of religious liberty in the EXTERNAL FORUM. We should further remember that we have seen above that St. Augustine and Pope Pius VII specifically said that the error taught by Vatican II, namely religious liberty in the external forum as a right of individuals and organizations, involved heresy.
We have already seen that a man
using the name “Pope Paul VI” invoked the Holy Spirit at the end of the 2nd
Vatican Council to purportedly bind all Catholics all that had been synodally
decreed by the 2nd Vatican Council. We will see that one of the teachings which
he was attempting to bind all Catholics to was that states must constitutionally
protect the right of each individual or religious organization to preach and
publish their beliefs and doctrines in public, in word or in print.. And we have
seen above that this teaching is in direct contradiction to the infallible teaching of the
Roman Catholic Church in the arena of morals, as unanimously expressed through many Popes prior to 1958,
and especially in the infallible document, Quanta Cura, issued by Pope
Pius IX on December 8, 1864 -- exactly 101 years before Paul VI promulgated the
exact opposite Vatican II "teaching" on December 8, 1865.
Vatican II's False and Condemned Teaching on Religious Liberty
On to Vatican II and the
Document on Religious Liberty:
Here is what Vatican II, in the document on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, says about Religious Liberty in the EXTERNAL FORUM:
Paragraph 2: "This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."
NOTE INSERTED FOR EMPHASIS IN THIS ESSAY: THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE, if a bit inexact at points, WAS BASCIALLY A REITERATION OF THE CONSTANT CHURCH TEACHING THAT NO ONE WAS TO BE FORCED TO ENGAGE IN AN ACT AGAINST HIS CONSCIENCE (the internal forum). BUT HERE COMES THE FALSE MORAL TEACHING INVOLVING HERESY:
Paragraph 4: Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word." --- Comment: This is the false moral teaching contained in Vatican II, in direct contradiction to the infallible document, Quanta Cura, issued by Pope Pius IX in 1864, as well as in direct contradiction of Pope Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos, the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII quoted above, and the letter of Pope Pius VII, Post tam Diuturnas, quoted above.
As we will see below, Vatican II is referring to ALL religious communities, not just Catholic religious communities. They are referring to Baptist, Mormon, Methodist, Greek Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish etc., etc., etc., religious communities. In fact, there is nothing to exclude Satanist "religious communities" from the above Vatican II statement. It refers to all "religious communities" without any distinction.
*** Let's review for emphasis: Pope Pius IX's Quanta Cura says that it is a false moral teaching that any individual or group of individuals, such as religious communities, has a right to publish their false doctrines in public, whether by word or in print. On the contrary, Vatican II and Paul VI teach that religious communities (and, therefore, the individuals which comprise such communities) have the right to make known their false teachings in public, whether by word or in print. There could not be a more stark or direct contradiction on this moral issue. ***
Furthermore, if paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the document on Religious Liberty are taken together, Vatican Council II teaches that both the right to freedom from coercion in the internal and in the external forum, must be declared a constitutional right by the government, as revealed by God and founded in the very dignity of the human person. This is a total contradiction of the already infallibly defined teaching of the Church, which states that the individual does not have such a right to religious freedom in the EXTERNAL FORUM (the public forum).
Paragraph 2 of the document on Religious Liberty says: "The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."
Comment: This would be fine if the document only talked in such terms about the internal forum (i.e., man's right not to be coerced to do or believe things against his will). But, the document also includes the external forum (what people do in public) as a part of this right, and that is where the traditional teaching of the Church is contradicted on this point.
More from Paragraph 2 of the document on Religious Liberty: "Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature."
Comment: This would be fine if it addressed
only the internal forum, but it addresses also the external forum, and on that
point contradicts the infallible teaching of the Church.
Paragraph 2, continued: "In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed."
Comment: So here Vatican Council II specifically says that even those Protestant, Jewish, Moslem or pagan individuals and groups -- or even of Catholic individuals or groups - that do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth, or of adhering to it, have a RIGHT to freedom from coercion when spreading their false doctrine in public, by word or in print. Could there be a more blatant contradiction of the traditional and infallible teaching of the Church on this subject?
Paragraph 4 of the document on Religious Liberty: "The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community."
Comment: Again, Vatican Council
II says that people and communities have a right to freedom from coercion in
religious matters. As we have seen, this is true in the internal forum, but not
in the external, or public, forum. So we again, because of the impreciseness of
the above sentence, have a flagrant contradiction of
Church teaching in this passage regarding religious liberty in the external
forum (public forum).
Does the Phrase
"Within Due Limits" or "provided that just public order be preserved" save the
orthodoxy of the Religious Liberty Document of Vatican II?
Does the phrase “within due limits” save the document on Religious Liberty from promulgating a false moral teaching involving heresy?
Answer: No. The phrase “within due limits” is never precisely defined in the document, but whatever it means, it logically must include what the documents insists comes from God, namely religious liberty for those spreading false doctrines, by word or in print, in the external forum (public forum). So, therefore, whatever “within due limits” means must necessarily include this false moral teaching, involving heresy, of the religious freedom of persons and organizations to spread their false doctrine in public, by word or in print, as stated several times in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty:
The same goes for the vague and undefined phrase, "provided that just public order be preserved", a phrase that the freemasons were pushing in the time of Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846), and which he specifically refers to in Mirari Vos, his condemnation of a right to religious freedom in the public arena.
Answering possible objections:
Some will point to the fact that the beginning of the document on Religious Liberty claims it will leave untouched traditional Catholic doctrine. For instance, item #1 in Dignitatis Humanae says:
“Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. . . . Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.”
This statement does nothing to save the false moral teaching involving heresy reiterated in paragraphs #2 and #4 of Dignitatis Humanae.
The answer to this blatant contradiction is to be found in the words of Pope St. Pius X which is directed against the Modernists in his Encyclical against modernism, Pascendi, issued September 8, 1907. This line of the great Pontiff comes at the end of paragraph #36 in that great encyclical and refers to the Modernists::
“But when they justify even contradictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify?”
For, as is well known, just as even one heresy or false moral teaching attributed to the Blessed Mother by a visionary destroys the credibility of the alleged vision (such as happened at Bayside or Medjegordjie), so does one heresy or false moral teaching in a General Council destroy the idea that it is a true General Council of the Roman Catholic Church. One such heresy or false moral teaching in such a purported ecumenical council also destroys the idea that the man who signed the documents of such a Council could possibly be a true Pope.
Some have raised the fact that some footnotes to the council indicate that the Council did not intend to define every time it touched on doctrinal matters. As we have seen, this contradicts the very nature of a General Council. Let us look at the teaching of Vatican Council I:
From Vatican I: Session 3: 24
April 1870, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith; Chapter 3, On Faith,
"Wherefore, by Divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed
- which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
- and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
- whether by her solemn judgment
- or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."
Please note from the above: the Church is infallible in under two aspects:
a) she is infallible in her extraordinary magisterium, i.e., a solemn "ex cathedra" pronouncement from a Pope such as the defining of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pope Pius IX, or the defining of the doctrine of the Assumption in 1950 by Pope Pius XII.
b) she is also infallible in her "ordinary and universal magisterium", which encompasses the daily life of the Church; the daily life of the Church includes all rites of the Mass, all prayers and novenas promulgated for use by the faithful, the canonization of saints, and everything in the documents of an Ecumenical Council regarding matters touching on faith and/or morals, whether or not each statement is a solemn "ex cathedra" definition.
Let's recall what the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia says about this second type of infallibility regarding General Councils signed by a true Pope: “. . . papal ratification formally promulgates the sentence of the council as an article of faith to be known and accepted by all the faithful . . . the oecumenical authority of the pope is sufficient to impart validity and infallibility to the decrees he makes his own by officially ratifying them . . ; . . . All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis ( It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.) This formula and the dogma it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church . . . General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience. . ;(IX) . . . A council’s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. . . "
(end of quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908)
In other words, the decrees of a true General Council, once signed by a true Pope, are guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be infallible regarding matters of faith and/or morals, even when a particular statement is not an extraordinary "ex cathedra" pronouncement. This makes common sense also, because what good would be an infallible Church that could promulgate false teaching on faith or morals in one of her ecumenical councils? That would constitute a case of the Church misleading the faithful in ecumenical documents meant to guide the daily life of the Church, i.e., the "ordinary and universal magisterium", in which Vatican Council I teaches that the Church is infallible. Put another way: if the Church is not infallible when the Pope in union with the bishops of the world promulgate the documents and teachings of an Ecumenical Council -- when would she be in infallible????
*** We, as bishops, priests, and faithful of the disastrous Vatican II era (1965 to 2009, and counting) would have no standing whatsoever to challenge the teaching of Vatican II, except when we see that it directly contradicts the already established infallible teaching of the Church -- and in plain language. Having trust in the Church, we know that the prior centuries-old teachings of Popes and Councils must be true and infallible, so we must necessarily conclude that later "Popes and Councils" who contradict the previous infallible teachings are, in fact, anti-popes and false councils. In such a case, which we have here demonstrated regarding the 2nd Vatican Council and the "Vatican II Popes", the grace of our confirmation must "kick in", and we must, as Soldiers of Christ, defend the previous Popes and Councils and their teachings, which we know must be infallible, -- and challenge the vile usurpers of the Chair of Peter and of the Vatican, along with their false teachings, with a view to exposing them and ousting them from the Vatican, in anticipation of the restoration of a true Pope in the Vatican, and a return to the normal functioning of the Vatican and the Church as a whole. If it is not clear how this will be accomplished at present, all we can do is stand up for the Faith, with a firm trust that Christ will remain faithful to His promise to remain with the Church always and until the end of time, and that He will act in His own providential time. ***
The Catholic Encyclopedia, quoted above in regards to the General Councils, would be summarizing the teachings and explanations in scholarly books which were given an imprimatur by the Church before 1908.
For scholarly researchers, one reliable book on the Church's "ordinary and universal magisterium" is Dom Paul Nau's "The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically Considered." In French there is Fr Bernard Lucien's "Les degrés d'autorité du magistère", ( La Nef, 2007) which some say is as complete a work as there is. In Latin there is Fr. Cartechini's "De notis theologicis". (Thanks to Mr. John Daly for pointing me towards these scholarly books.)
Another recommendation from Mr. John Daly is contained in the following quote he gave during a speech in the USA circa 2005:
" ... De Valore Notarum Theologicarum – On the Meaning of Theological Qualifications" - by Fr Sixtus Cartechini. The special significance of this work is that it was written for the use of the Roman Congregations in evaluating the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of different doctrines. It was published at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome in 1951. ... It is based on the standard doctrines of the great theologians and of the Popes themselves on these topics, and it immediately became a standard work . . ."
Please note that the Fr. Cartechini work was imprimatured under Pope Pius XII for the express purpose of helping the Vatican congregations and bishops and priests determine what is orthodox and what is heterodox or heretical regarding doctrines and teachings. Mr. Daly tells us that the first three chapters of this book deals with dogmas that are taught by the extraordinary magisterium (solemn definitions). The fourth chapter deals with dogmas that can be deduced from the "ordinary and universal magisterium" as defined by Vatican Council I. As seen by the explanation of the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia, the highest manifestations of the infallible "universal and ordinary magisterium" would be the parts of documents of an Ecumenical Councils which touch on matters of Faith and Morals, but are NOT extraordinary definitions, i.e. ex cathedra pronouncements. The idea that an Ecumenical Council can teach anything false about Faith or Morals in any part of its documents -- is itself false. Everyone among sincere Catholics would agree that a solemn "ex cathedra" definition in a Council document would be binding. However, millions of sincere Catholics since Vatican Council II have been deceived into believing that the other parts of Council documents can err on matters of Faith and Morals. This is NOT TRUE. Every part of a Council document signed by a true Pope is guaranteed to be free from errors on Faith and Morals under the aspect of the Church's infallibility in her "ordinary and universal magisterium." Once we recognize that Paul VI has signed a false moral teaching regarding religious liberty in the external forum in the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty, i.e., Dignitatis Humanae, then we know that Paul VI is an antipope and that Vatican Council II is a false council.
Now, let us belabor the obvious and apply it to Vatican II's document on Religious Liberty:
-- Vatican I and Quanta Cura, which proceeded Vatican I, are part of the Church's tradition, and therefore, because of the specific status of both, must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith. Therefore, Vatican II in its document on Religious Liberty, because it contradicts the Church's already defined position, cannot be a true council of the Catholic Church, but is a robber council engineered by agents of Judeo-Masonry.
-- Quanta Cura by Pius IX in 1864
was a solemn judgement of the Church as well as an "ex cathedra" pronouncement
of the extraordinary magisterium, and Vatican II contradicts it in the
Document on Religious Liberty on the aspect of religious liberty in the external
(public) forum. Since everything in the document of a true Ecumenical Council
signed by a true Pope is guaranteed to be free from errors on faith and morals
under the aspect of the Church's "ordinary and universal magisterium", the we
know that Vatican Council II is a false Council and that Paul VI is a false
Now let us proceed to the
footnote #1 of one of the Vatican II documents named “The Pastoral Constitution
on the Church in the Modern World", or "Gaudium et Spes”. Does this footnote
allow the Council to teach false moral teachings? Here is the footnote:
1. The Pastoral Constitution "De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis" is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity.
By way of explanation: the constitution is called "pastoral" because, while
resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church
to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral
slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is
present in the second part.
In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which
is the enveloping context of man's existence, and on man's relations to his
fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various
aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to
those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater
urgency in our day. As a result, in part two the subject matter which is viewed
in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some
elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one.
Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind--especially in part two--the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves.
(End of footnote)
*** All this is fine, if confusing, and, it seems, impenetrable --- but by time Paul VI affixes his signature to this document or any of the others of the 2nd Vatican Council – they had better be free from error in matters of Faith and Morals – or he is not a true Pope at the time of the signing. And this is what transpired: false moral teaching in the document on Religious Liberty, indicating that at the time of December 8, 1965, Paul VI was not a true pope. ***
Some people cite various authorities who stated at one time or another that the Second Vatican Council was not meant to be infallible in all its teachings.
Answer: All of these cited authorities were talking in a forum that did not in any way engage the infallibility of a Council or of a Pope, and in fact were making a statement that contradicted the nature of an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church, as shown in this paper.
In his book, "The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty", the late Michael Davies argues that the Vatican II documents are not infallible because of various private comments, or press conference statements, or General Audience comments of Paul VI, or something from this or that Cardinal. One example he used was this one:
“ There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmata carrying the mark of infallibility.” -- Pope Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966
Answer: This was a speech to one group of people in a General Audience, and in no way engages Papal infallibility, even if Paul VI had been a true Pope, which he already revealed he wasn't by signing and promulgating the moral error on religious liberty in the external (or public) forum when he ratified and signed all of the Vatican II documents on December 8, 1965. Even a true Pope in a General Audience is not teaching from his position of Supreme Authority to bind all Christians. Certainly an anti-Pope impersonating a Pope can not engage infallibility. Furthermore, this General Audience took place over one month AFTER Paul VI had signed and promulgated the decrees of Vatican II.
Again, this citation is relevant to explain such contradictions: “But when they justify even contradictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify?” says Pope St. Pius X in the Encyclical against Modernism
Please note that Paul VI, like
Michael Davies, acts as if the Church is infallible ONLY under the aspect of her
extraordinary magisterium, and never mentions that the Church is ALSO infallible
under her "ordinary and universal magisterium", as infallibly defined at the
First Vatican Council in 1870.
Here are some others, not all from Davies book:
“In view of the conciliar practice and practical purpose of the Council, this sacred Synod defines as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such."
-- Pope Paul VI had this statement read to the Fathers as they prepared to vote on the Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, this declaration was from the Theological Commission of the Council, March 6, 1964 (Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Collection, I, p. 423).
Confusing – but since Paul VI attempted to bind every Catholic to all that was synodally decreed at Vatican II, the above statement, NOT included in the final documents of the Council, is totally irrelevant. The above statement was obviously a ploy by Paul VI to get approval of his heterodox formulation by telling Council Fathers that, in effect, none of it mattered that much. Quite ridiculous when we are talking about the documents of an Ecumenical Council of the Church.
“But when they justify even contradictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify?” Pope St. Pius X in the Encyclical against Modernism
"The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements.... --Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, December 7, 1965.
Again -- since Paul VI attempted to bind every Catholic to all of Vatican II a day later, this statement is off point. Again, Paul VI acts as if the Church is only infallible under her extraordinary magisterium, and remains silent on the other aspect under which the Church is infallible, namely, her "ordinary and universal magisterium." In any case, the statement is totally irrelevant, as the documents of a true council signed by a true Pope are guaranteed to be free from errors on Faith and Morals, no matter what form them take. Paul VI, perhaps nervous of a more open dissent than happened, was trying to have it both ways.
“But when they justify even contradictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify?” Pope St. Pius X in the Encyclical against Modernism
And here’s a later one from Paul VI:
“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.” --Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General Audience.
This has already been answered.
We have seen that pastoral is just the way in which true doctrine is
implemented, not a license to promulgate false doctrine or false moral teaching. The
above is a heterodox and nonsensical statement. What does "not directly
dogmatic" mean, when two of the documents are called Dogmatic Constitutions, and
all the rest of the documents engage doctrines of the Catholic Church through the subject matter
which those documents
Again: “But when they justify even contradictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify?” Pope St. Pius X in the Encyclical against Modernism
"There will be no infallible definitions. All that was done by former Councils. That is enough." -- John XXIII (apud Fr. Yves Congar) [quoted on www.tradio.com]
If this statement is accurate, then John XXIII’s private statement was contradicting the nature of a council that engages dogmatic matters, as we have clearly seen Vatican II did. Such a private statement obviously does not engage infallibility, even if you recognize John XXIII as a Pope rather than an anti-pope.
EXPLANATORY NOTE OF THE THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL
ADDENDA TO "LUMEN GENTIUM" (carried on www.traditio.com)
(Traditio.com comments): The nota previa (preliminary note) of March 6, 1964, of the Theological Commission of the Council concerning the authority of the Council was as follows:
"In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so. We have to distinguish according to the schemata and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; AS FOR THE DECLARATIONS WHICH HAVE A NOVEL CHARACTER, WE HAVE TO MAKE RESERVATIONS."
(Traditio.com returns to comment): "The Council never did openly declare any of its teaching as binding on the Church. Never in the history of the Catholic Church had a Council taken pains to declare that it was NOT teaching infallibly." End of Traditio.com Commentary
Our Note: Traditio.com does not understand the nature of an Ecumenical Council, and should have drawn this conclusion: The fabricators, and some caught up in the operation of error, of Vatican II were taking pains to declare that what they were teaching was not necessarily infallible – because this was a Robber Council – not an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. Again, we have seen that once a true Pope affixes his signature to a document of an Ecumenical Council and promulgates that document, -- that fact in itself guarantees that the Council document is free of false teaching on Faith and Morals. Again, Paul VI signed and promulgated a document with a false moral teaching that involved heresy, as shown earlier in this document. This means Vatican Council II is a false Council, and Paul VI was an antipope at least at the time of the signing.
Next: (And this one is used by the late Michael Davies in his book “Religious Liberty and the 2nd Vatican Council"):
The Council's General Secretary, Pericle Cardinal Felici, Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, the Church's highest theological tribunal, issued the "theological note" of the council, i.e., the level of theological authority of the particular council: "We have to distinguish according to the schemata and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations that have a novel character, we have to make reservations" (November 16, 1964).
This was obviously the attempt of a Cardinal to try and explain away the problems which were developing, and which he was keenly aware of, already in 1964 regarding the documents of the 2nd Vatican Council. Needless to say, a Cardinal cannot invoke infallibility and can in no way save the 2nd Vatican Council from its false moral teaching in the document on Religious Liberty. This statement by Cardinal Felici was not part of the final Council documents. .
The interesting thing about Michael Davies and others using this statement from a Cardinal in 1964, before the council was even over, to try and save Vatican II -- is that it shows the level of desperation reached by those trying to save the idea that Paul VI was a true Pope after he promulgated an erroneous moral teaching in the Vatican II document.on Religious Liberty.
The Importance of the Pope in promulgating true Council documents:
The Council of Constance proposed 4 documents to be signed by the Pope. This was directly after the resolution of “the three Popes" controversy (actually two antipopes and one pope) or the Great Western Schism as it is sometimes called, which ended in 1417.. The Council which straightened out the “Three Popes crisis” and elected Pope Martin V, also eventually presented 4 documents to the Pope. The new Pope signed two of them, and rejected two of them. These two (signed by the Pope) are the only recognized documents of that Council. The other two documents are NOT recognized precisely because the true Pope did NOT sign them. When a true Pope signs a council document, it is a guarantee that it is free of error on Faith and Morals. A document cannot be a document of a true Council unless signed by a true Pope. A man (such as Paul VI) who purports to be the Pope, but signs a council document with a moral error that contradicts an already infallibly defined doctrine or moral teaching of previous Popes, can not himself be a true Pope.
Paul VI’s final speech of the 2nd Vatican Council on December 8, 1965 made sure to attempt to bind every Catholic to the 2nd Vatican Council in all details, -- an announcement which this presentation asserts is proof that he was not a true Pope at the time of this declaration.
If there is a false moral teaching involving heresy in the Religious Liberty Document of the 2nd Vatican Council, as this presentation claims to have proven, then, by invoking Apostolic authority when promulgating the Vatican II documents on December 8, 1965, as well as claiming that he is binding all Catholics to everything that was "synodally decreed" at Vatican II, -- Paul VI, in effect, announced on that day to the world that he could not at that time have been a true Pope.
Appendix I: POPE LEO XIII and Satis Cogitum, On the Unity of the Church.
I have produced only a part of section 9 from Satis Cogitum, even though sections 9, 13, and 15, and perhaps other sections, have relevant passages to the subject under discussion.
I remember how confused I was after reading a Michael Davies' article in the late 1970s comparing St. Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre – and then seeing the below passage in section 9 from Pope Leo XIII. I remember thinking, “Maybe Pope Leo XIII didn’t foresee the situation we are in.” It is just this type of wrong thinking, advanced consistently by the late Michael Davies, that causes a person to begin to hold two contradictory views at once, and thus begins mental breakdown.
In fact, Pope Leo XIII, and all the other true
Popes, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, did foresee our situation in the principles they laid down.
And these principles demand that we draw the conclusion that the "Vatican II Popes" are anti-popes,
from John XIII beginning in 1958, to Benedict XVI in 2008 as this is written.. See below:
Encyclical by Pope Leo XIII on the
Unity of the Church
given on June 29, 1896
From section 9. of Satis Cogitum, all are encouraged to check the context of what is reproduced here, Pope Leo is referring in the first sentence to Vatican Council I:
"For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: "All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium" (Sess. iii., cap. 3).
(End of quote from Pope Leo XIII
in Satis Cognitum )
Now, here is the burden of those who wish to call Vatican Council II a true Council:
1. They must explain how Paul VI, despite the clear language in his closing speech to the Council, did not bind all Catholics to everything in Vatican Council II. Remembering that he also asserted that the entire Council was assembled and closed under the protection of the Holy Ghost, and that the entire Vatican Council II teaching was coming down to us all from Christ and the Apostles, everything to the contrary notwithstanding. In fact, such could never be proved, for he could hardly have used words more forceful or more clear to state these things in an attempt to bind all Catholics to everything that was "synodally decreed" at Vatican Council II.
2. They must show that the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty does not contradict the already infallibly defined teaching of the Church on religious liberty as found in Quanta Cura by Pope Pius IX..
3. If they cannot accomplish #2,
then it is necessary to explain how this one Council was not under the very
definition of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, but that it did not even
qualify as part of the
Church’s ordinary and universal magisterium. How is it possible that a true Council,
signed by a true Pope, in which that Pope explicitly binds all Catholics to
everything in the council – is not part of at least the infallible "universal
and ordinary magisterium" of the Church as defined at the First Vatican Council?
This is why it must be said that the SSPX position and the Michael Davies position that Vatican Council II has errors but is still a true Council, in effect, objectively speaking, denies both the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church.
Appendix II: The Siri Thesis vs. the Michael Davies Thesis
(See www.october1958.com if you are not familiar with The Siri Thesis.) “The Siri Thesis”, while leaving us with unanswered questions, does not implicitly or explicitly deny the infallibility or the indefectibility of the Church. For, if Siri was the truly elected Pope on October 26, 1958, then, such will eventually be brought out with clarity to the universal Church. Furthermore, if Siri was elected and shoved aside, then certainly questions remain about his subsequent actions, his freedom or lack of freedom to act, the possible use of drugs and other means of duress to control and subdue him, the truth about the duress he was or was not under, the reasons for his silence, the reasons for his apparently contradictory actions after his purported election as the Pope on October 26, 1958. However, these are secondary questions to the primary question: what happened on October 26, 1958 which allowed the enemies of the Church to seize control of the Vatican and implement the ongoing anti-Catholic revolution within the structures of the Church which Catholics have witnessed since 1958.
Therefore, to repeat::
“The Siri Thesis”, while leaving us with unanswered questions, does not implicitly or explicitly deny the infallibility or the indefectibility of the Church.
On the contrary, trying to save
Paul VI and the subsequent "Vatican II Popes" as true Popes -- does deny both
the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, as explained in this paper.
Appendix III: To fill in the documentation on subjects alluded to in this paper, but not fully explained, see the following articles on the right hand column of realnews247.com :
-- The New Mass in English is
Invalid Because of Substantial Change in Christ's Words
-- False Moral Teaching in Vatican II: Religious Liberty (Note: this is the document you are reading)
-- Prophecies for Searching Souls regarding the crisis in the Church
-- Proof that Paul VI Invalidated the rite of the consecration for Bishops in 1969
Appendix IV: Imposing a New
Mass with mistranslations of Christ's words which invalidate the sacrament is
impossible for a true Pope. A true Pope cannot promulgate evil laws, liturgies,
prayers or devotions
which lead the faithful into sin, because these things fall under the aspect of
the Church's infallible "ordinary and universal magisterium.". A valid Catholic Pope cannot do this, according to Auctorem Fidei, 78;
Mirari Vos, 9; Quo Graviora, 4-5; Mystici Corporis Christi, 66; Paenitentiam
Agere, and Vatican I: Session 3: 24 April 1870, Dogmatic Constitution on the
Catholic Faith; Chapter 3, On Faith, section 8.
Appendix V: In Ratzinger's letter to Lefebvre in 1986, Ratzinger states that the entirety of Vatican Council II is infallible and binding. Also, the letter issued after the Lefebvre Bishop consecrations in 1988, from John Paul II, insists that Vatican II was doctrinal. (I include this for those who recognize John Paul II and Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) as true Popes, but also believe that Vatican Council II can be viewed as "just a pastoral council" that can contain errors on Faith and Morals.)
Appendix VI: "Counter Syllabus" Remarks by Ratzinger
That such contradictions exist between Vatican II and the previous teaching of the Church has been admitted by Joseph Ratzinger, when he was Fr. Ratzinger circa 1967 (Ratzinger is now Benedict XVI.) The following quote has never been withdrawn, modified, or repudiated in any way by Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
"If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) [Gaudium et spes] is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-syllabus . . . Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a counter syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789..." 7 7. J. Ratzinger, "Principles of Catholic Theology" Ignatius Press (1987)
In my opinion, the above is clearly
the sophisticated statement of a high level operative of Judeo-Masonry, and not
the statement of a Catholic. No Catholic would ever reverentially refer to the
diabolical French Revolution of 1789, replete with all of its unjust and
excessive beheadings, as inaugurating a "new era" that the true Church must
Appendix VII: "Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences what they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.
APOSTOLIC LETTER "ECCLESIA DEI"; OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF; JOHN PAUL II; GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO; 2 July 1988
Comment: here we have John Paul II talking about points of doctrine which are "new" in the Second Vatican Council. Strange, since it is continuous Church teaching that there are no new doctrines since the death of St. John the Apostle in 91 A.D.
Appendix VIII: Check back for full information on the following:
a) The Masonic Lodge of Mexico issued a newspaper ad congratulation to John XXIII and Paul VI for their service to Freemasonry; this appeared in Mexico shortly after Paul VI's death in 1978;
b) Rabbis and Jewish leaders constantly demanded that Catholics must pay attention to Vatican II when they were trying to minimize the influence of Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ" circa 2003. This is because they recognized that the Vatican II Church was not the Catholic Church, but was a counterfeit church that was created by them, the wirepullers of Judeo-Masonry worldwide.
c) Rabbi Schmuley Boteach said on MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Show in 2004 that the Catholic Church was "an evil Church" before 1958. Why are all these antichrist spokesmen so happy with "the Church" since 1958? Answer: Because it is a counterfeit church, created by them. It is the counterfeit church which usurped the Vatican through the coup de tat at the 1958 conclave, and, brought about the eclipse of the Catholic Church in 1958, as predicted by Our Lady of Lasalette ("The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.")
The enemies of the Church will be thwarted at the end of this era, as prophesied by many Catholic saints and holy persons. (See the article: "Prophecies for Searching Souls" on the right hand column at realnews247.com ).
* The entire paper was
compiled with a heavy debt for the references and documentation within it acknowledged to Mr. Gary