New Page 2

Vatican II's Document on Religious Liberty in Light of the defined traditions of the Church
Dignitatis Humanae, On Religious Liberty, contains a clearly false moral teaching, and 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 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:

Here is what is shown in this paper:

a) Vatican II contradicts the already infallibly defined teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject of religious liberty. This is a false moral teaching in Vatican Council II, and one that involves heresy.

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, as infallibly defined by Vatican I in 1870.

c) The Church's teaching on religious liberty was infallibly defined in the document, Quata Cura, issued by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Vatican II was concluded in 1965, and was ratified by Paul VI. Once a doctrine or moral teaching is infallibly defined, then it binds that Pope's predecessors, and cannot be contradicted by any later true Pope. It can, of course, be contradicted by antipopes, who do not have the protection of the Holy Ghost in these matter.

d) Purporting to be Pope, Paul VI used the most forceful language possible to bind all Catholics to everything "synodally decreed" in Vatican II, which included everything in all the Council documents.

e) 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.

f) There is no such thing as "merely a pastoral council" which can teach heresy or false morals -- but every true Council of the Church involves doctrine, morals, and a pastoral approach. "Pastoral" refers to how the true and infallible teachings of the Council are taught to the faithful and the world.

INTRODUCTION

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 Vatican II era can fairly be said to cover from 1959, when John XXIII (Roncalli) told the world he had an inspiration to call an ecumenical council, until 1965 when Paul VI (Montini) signed and promulgated the documents of Vatican II.

Three positions taken by Catholics attempting to be Faithful to the Church regarding Vatican II

There have been three positions taken 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. Christopher Harrison, Scott Hahn, by virtually all the men sitting in the Catholic Bishops’ chairs around the world, and in a letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 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.”

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.

The third position is held by John Daly, Gerry Matatics, John Lane, Patrick Henry Omlor, Gary Giuffre and a number of priests and bishops in the Thuc line.

The Word Pastoral as used by John XXIII in the Opening Address of Vatican II

1. 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.

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 a 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." So, there can be no doubt that Vatican II's document on Religious Liberty deals with both doctrine and morals.

2. 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 Church teachings for the care of souls.

It seems necessary to draw this point out, 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 false teachings on faith and morals.

The Baltimore Catechism addresses the infallibility of a General Ecumenical Council

3. 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

4. Further Teaching on the nature of an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. The Seal of Supreme Authority is attributing the Council to be the joint action of the Pope, the Council, and the Holy Ghost.

A thorough study of the doctrinal character of general councils of the bishops, organized under the under the authority of the pope, 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 seperate 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 the one or more documents of a General Council, then there is nothing preserving that documents or documents from errors on faith and morals. If an antipope signs one or more documents of an ecumenical council, there is, obviously, no guarantee of infallibility, or guarantee of freedom from errors on faith and morals.

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

5. Paul VI Invokes 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 binds all Catholics to religiously observe all that he has promulgated.

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

December 8, 1965, key excerpts of the closing document of Vatican Council II promulgated by Paul VI, and 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 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 imposed doctrine. The language of Montini’s closing statement was consistent with John XXIII’s original stated purposes for the council which had specifically called for the “penetration and formation of consciences.”

Therefore, 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, 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. Let's continue.

The Church consistently Taught that Only the true Religion had the RIGHT to Publish its Doctrine

6. 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 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, 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.”

Thus, we see Pope Pius IX condemning exactly what we will shortly see that Vatican II promulgated.

The teaching of “religious liberty” was condemned with 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.”

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Pius IX was re-affirming the Church’s constant teaching in this matter.

Pope Pius VII (1800 - 1823)

Here below is an example of this tradition, 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:

“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 attitude of a “right to religious liberty” embodied in the French Constitution of his day involves heresy – yet this 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 as expressed in Quanta Cura and in the Church’s entire tradition.

Let's continue:

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 in 2008).

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 lies ultimately contradict and even defame Our Lord Jesus Christ and His doctrines and 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.)

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." (Pope Leo XIII is condemning this notion.

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…”

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.

The distinction between “the internal forum” and “the external forum.”

10. The distinction 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 that the true Church and her true Popes have condemned over and over. (As we have seen from the quotes above.)

*** AND, as we shall see, it is this same RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN THE EXTERNAL FORM which Vatican II says is the moral right of each individual and of every religious association which MUST be protected by the law of the state. ***

Vatican II Contradicted the infallibly defined 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, 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 teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as unanimously expressed through many Popes prior to 1958.

Vatican II's False and Condemned Teaching on Religious Liberty

11. On to Vatican II and the Document of Religious Liberty:

Here is what Vatican II, in the document on Religious Liberty, 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 WAS A REITERATION OF CONSTANT CHURCH TEACHING, 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 1854.

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.

Paragraph 2: "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 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.

Paragraph 2: "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: "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 individuals and groups that do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth, or of adhering to it, must be granted freedom fro coercion in spreading their 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: "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 have a flagrant contradiction of Church teaching in this passage.

Does the Phrase "Due Limits" or "provided that just public order be preserved" save the orthodoxy of the Religious Liberty Document of Vatican II?

12. Does the phrase “due limits” save the document on Religious Liberty from promulgating a false moral teaching involving heresy?

Answer: No. The phrase “due limits” is never precisely defined in the document, but whatever it means, it logically must include what the documents insists comes from God. 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 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, and which he specifically refers to in his condemnation of a right to religious freedom in the public arena.

Answering Objections

13. Answering possible objections:

First Objection:

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 items #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 item #36 in that great encyclical:
:
“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 teachings 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 in a general council destroy the idea that is was a council of the Roman Catholic Church, -- AND so does one heresy in a general council purporting to be a Catholic ecumenical council -- and it also destroys the idea that the man who signed such a decree containing false moral teaching, and promulgated it, could possibly be a true Pope.

2nd Objection:

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, section 8:

"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."

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 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 of the agents of Judeo-Masonry. (See October 1958, and the articles on the right hand column of the home page of realnews247.com -- to see how this happened, as we were warned by both approved prophecies and Catholic scholars throughout the centuries.)

-- Quanta Cura by Pius IX in 1854 was a solemn judgement of the Church, and Vatican II contradicts it in the Document on Religious Liberty.

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:

FOOTNOTES
PREFACE
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.

*** 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 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. ***

3rd Objection

Some people cite authorities stating that the Vatican Council was not meant to be infallible in all its teachings.

Answer: All of these people 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.

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 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.

“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

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 read to the Fathers as they prepared to vote on the Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, this declaration by 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, is totally irrelevent. 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.

“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. If this sentence appears in any of the official documents of Vatican II, I would like to know where. In any case, it is totally irrelevant, as the documents of a true council signed by a true Pope are guaranteed to be free of 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 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 engage doctrines of the Catholic Church by the subject matter they deal with.

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.

Next:

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 this 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.

Next (And this one, which I am going to repeat, is used by 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 teaching on morals 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 what he promulgated error in the Vatican II document.on religious liberty.

14. 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 reigning Pope signed two of them, and rejected two of them. These two (signed by the Pope) are the only documents of that Council. 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 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 the Pope, can not be a true Pope.

CONCLUSION:

15. 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 it on December 8, 1965, as well as claiming that he is binding all Catholics to it, -- Paul VI announced on that day to the world that he could not at that time have been a true Pope.

16. Ludwig Ott says the same thing as the Catholic Encyclopedia in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.”

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. (Those who visit October1958.com will see that it is the likely solution that the Second Vatican Council was not called by a true Pope either.)

Appendix One: 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 by 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:

from: http://www.dailycatholic.org/saticog3.htm

SATIS COGNITUM

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).

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..

2. They must show how the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty does not contradict the already infallibly defined teaching of the Church on religious liberty.

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 universal ordinary 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 universal ordinary magisterium of the Church, and the extraordinary magisterium as well?

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, in that case, whatever be the truth about his subsequent actions, his freedom or lack of freedom to act, the use of drugs and other means of duress on him, if any, the truth about the duress he was or was not under, whatever the reasons for his silence, whatever the reasons for his apparently contradictory actions to his election as the Pope on October 26, 1958 --, in any case, he never attempted to act as Pope in public to bind the entire faithful to anything, as far as is known.

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.

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

-- 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: mposing a New Mass with mistranslations of Christ's words which invalidate the sacrament is impossible for a true Pope cannot promulgate evil laws, liturgies, or devotions which lead the faithful into sin. 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.

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, insist that Vatican II was doctrinal.

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)

"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)

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 LETTERl "ECCLESIA DEI"; OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF; JOHN PAUL II; GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO; 2 July 1988

Appendix VII: Coming soon: Masonic declaration by a top Mason who about how Vatican II is supposed to impose Masonic teaching on the Church; this was carred in Catholic Family News in May 2008; also, 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; Rabbis and Jewish leaders constantly demanded that Catholics must pay attention to Vatican II when trying to minimize the influence of Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ." 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 spokesman so happy with "the Church" since 1958? Answer: Because it is a counterfeit church, created by them. It is the counterfeit church that eclipsed the Catholic Church in 1958, as predicted by Our Lady of Lasalette.

* The entire paper was compiled with a heavy debt for the references and documentation within it acknowledged to Mr. Gary Giuffre.