Catholic Candle reminder: All Catholics have a duty to continually study the Catholic Faith their entire lives.  This involves more than spiritual reading to use in meditation and prayer (although that is very important too). 

 

We must study Catholic doctrine and the refutation of the principal errors against our Faith and Catholic morals.  Catholic Candle attempts to help you do this.  Therefore, we suggest you read articles such as the one below, even if you are already convinced of its conclusion, to help you to more thoroughly understand, and to better teach and defend, Catholic Faith and morals. 

 

 

 

Many confused and deceived “mainstream” Catholics (and also many sedevacantists) wrongly believe that all councils of the Catholic Church are infallible. 

 

Because of this error, confused and deceived “mainstream” Catholics conclude they must accept Vatican II’s liberal teachings because Vatican II is a council of the Catholic Church. 

 

Because of this same error, the sedevacantists conclude that, because Vatican II errs, it cannot be a council of the Catholic Church and the council fathers (including the pope) cannot be the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

 

The truth is that Vatican II was a real council of the Catholic Church but that none of its teachings are infallible.  Therefore, “mainstream” Catholics mistakenly conclude they must accept its errors, and sedevacantists falsely conclude that the Catholic Church has no hierarchy.

 

There are four ways to see that the Second Vatican Council is not infallible:

 

1.    It would be irrational and unjust if Vatican II were infallible because the council does not show it is infallible.

2.    Vatican II was (deliberately) made ambiguous and contradictory and so cannot be infallible.

 

3.    Vatican II is full of doctrinal novelties and it is impossible for any novelties to be infallible.

 

4.    Even the council fathers and popes during and after Vatican II knew that Vatican II is not infallible.

 

Below, we discuss each of these four reasons.

 

 

1.   It would be irrational and unjust if Vatican II were infallible because the council does not show it is infallible.

The Catholic Church only teaches doctrines infallibly so that Catholics know with complete certitude that those particular statements are true.  Thus, it would be irrational to suppose the Church teaches any doctrine infallibly if She does not clearly make known that it is infallible and that Catholics must believe it.

 

Further, Catholics are more culpable for denying (or doubting) an infallible teaching because that teaching comes to us with the highest certitude.  Thus, it would be unjust if the Church taught something infallible without clearly manifesting this infallibility, because Catholics would have no warning of the graver consequences of denying that teaching. 

 

Thus, reason and justice require the Church to clearly indicate when a particular teaching is infallible.  Even Vatican II authorities (the council’s Theological Commission and also its General Secretary) recognized this principle of reason and justice, when they declared:

 

In view of 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.[1]

 

The council never openly declared anything infallible.  (However, the council’s authorities phrased the above declaration in the way they did because the council was still ongoing and they allowed for the possibility – which never happened – that the council might teach something infallible before the end of the council’s final session.)

 

Even prior Church councils (which did teach infallibly), explained and taught many things non-infallibly, which then led up to defining certain, specific, infallibly-true statements.  Immediately below, we give examples of the language used to plainly declare an infallible truth, during the last two Church Councils before Vatican II.

 

Here is an example how the Council of Trent plainly showed the infallibility of one of its teachings:

 

[T]he sacred and holy, oecumenical and general Synod of Trent, … most strictly forbidding that any persons henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than as by this present decree is defined and declared: … If anyone saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.[2]

 

Here is an example how the First Vatican Council plainly showed the infallibility of one of its teachings:

 

[W]e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when,

 

1.    in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,

 

2.    in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,

 

3.    he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

 

he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.  Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.  So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.[3]

 

This infallible declaration of the First Vatican Council shows how clearly a pope or a Church council must manifest his/its infallibility if the Church is thereby binding all Catholics to profess the particular doctrine.

 

 

The contrast in the language of Vatican II shows it is not speaking infallibly.

 

Because of the gravity of denying such infallible teachings, the councils anathematized (condemned) anyone who denied such teaching.  By contrast, Vatican II specifically avoided condemning anyone. 

 

Pope John XXIII declared that Vatican II would condemn no one, stating:

 

The Church has always opposed … errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity.  Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity.  She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.[4]

 

Council Father, Bishop Rudolf Graber, declared that the Second Vatican “Council … refrained from … anathemas … [in contrast to what] previous Church assemblies have done”.[5]

 

All Church councils before Vatican II clearly indicated when they taught infallibly, as reason and justice require.  Vatican II never showed it taught infallibly.  Thus, reason and justice require that Vatican II’s teachings are not infallible.

 

 

2.  Vatican II was (deliberately) made ambiguous and contradictory and so cannot be infallible.

 

No one is able to accept contradictory (i.e., opposite) teachings because the human mind cannot hold opposites about the same thing at the same time.  For example, no one can hold that the same man is both dead and not dead at the same time. 

 

No one is able to accept ambiguous teaching, i.e., teaching without one clear meaning, because the human mind cannot hold a statement without knowing which meaning the statement has.

 

Vatican II is full of such contradictory and ambiguous teachings, which are often called “time bombs” (viz., statements quietly inserted into the council’s documents, which the modernists later “detonated” when they were ready to use these statements to cause harm).  To see hundreds of these “time bombs” in one key Vatican II document, read Lumen Gentium Annotated, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, © 2013.[6]

 

Not only do the contradictions and ambiguities of Vatican II’s “time bombs” refute that Vatican II taught infallibly, but Vatican II participants admit that they knowingly inserted these “time bombs”.

 

 

The Bragging Testimony of Fr. Chenu

 

Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenu was an influential French “expert” at Vatican II.  After the council, he wrote a book explaining how the experts deliberately inserted ambiguities and contradictions into the council’s documents.  In his book, he recounted one particular example of this nefarious practice:

 

The gossip is that the experts directed the Council; indeed, this is not so wrong.  I recall a minuscule but revealing episode.  While the Decree on the Laymen [Apostolicam actuositatem] was being discussed, I noticed that it still had a paragraph entirely permeated with the notion of a ‘mandate’ given to laymen by the Hierarchy, inspired by a dualist conception – the Church on one side and the world on the other.  I met with another French expert and we agreed that this was bad.

 

But that paragraph had already been discussed and adopted by the commission.  It was impossible, therefore, to change it.  So, we wrote a text to be added that corrected it.  It was a second paragraph that said more or less the opposite of the preceding one.  The first in a certain way affirmed dualism.  But the second stated that the action of the Church must go beyond it.

 

The French Bishops presented our new text as their own, and it was

adopted.[7]

 

 

The Testimony of Cardinal Kasper

 

Cardinal Walter Kasper admitted that contradictions and ambiguities are “in many places” in Vatican II’s teaching.  Here are his words:

 

In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them.  Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, [and] open the door to a selective reception in either direction.[8]

 

Because (as was said above) no one is obliged to accept contradictory or ambiguous teaching, no one is obliged to accept Vatican II’s teaching because it is not clear and decisive, as is necessary for any infallible statement.

 

 

3.  Vatican II is full of doctrinal novelties and it is impossible for any novelties to be infallible.

 

New doctrines are heresy and are false.[9]  It is impossible for any new doctrine to be infallible Catholic teaching because the Church may only teach what Christ handed down through the Apostles.

 

Any of Vatican II’s teachings which are not part of Catholic Tradition are new and so cannot be infallible.

 

Below, we set forth the testimony of the hierarchy that the teachings of Vatican II are new.

 

 

The testimony of Pope John Paul II:

 

[W]hat constitutes the substantial “novelty” of the Second Vatican Council, in line with the legislative tradition of the Church, especially in regard to ecclesiology, constitutes likewise the “novelty” of the new Code [of canon law].

 

Among the elements which characterize the true and genuine image of the Church, we should emphasize especially the following: the doctrine in which the Church is presented as the People of God (cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 2), and authority as a service (cf. ibid., no. 3); the doctrine in which the Church is seen as a “communion”, and which, therefore, determines the relations which should exist between the particular Churches and the universal Church, and between collegiality and the primacy; the doctrine, moreover, according to which all the members of the People of God, in the way suited to each of them, participate in the threefold office of Christ: priestly, prophetic and kingly. With this teaching there is also linked that which concerns the duties and rights of the faithful, and particularly of the laity; and finally, the Church’s commitment to ecumenism.  …

 

[T]he Second Vatican Council has … elements both old and new, and the new consists precisely in the elements which we have enumerated ….

 

Pope John Paul II, Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, January 25, 1983 (emphasis added).

Pope John Paul II also admitted the council’s novelties in these words:

 

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.

 

Ecclesia Dei, (1988), ¶5.b.

 

 

The testimony of Pope Benedict XVI:

 

In the first year of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI said:

 

[W]ith the Second Vatican Council, the time came when broad new thinking was required.

 

December 22, 2005 Christmas address (emphasis added).

 

Before he became pope, Cardinal Ratzinger taught:

 

If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus.  …   Let us be content to say that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789 [by the Masonic French Revolution].[10]

 

Obviously, whatever “counters” the Catholic Church’s prior teaching, must be a new teaching which the Church did not previously teach.  Yet (former) Pope Benedict XVI described some of the main teachings of Vatican II as countering the Church’s prior teaching!  Thus, clearly, Vatican II’s new teachings could not be infallible.

 

 

The testimony of Pope Paul VI:

 

The new position adopted by the Church with regard to the realities of this earth is henceforth well known by everyone ….  [T]he Church agrees to recognize the new principle to be put into practice ….  [T]he Church agrees to recognize the world as ‘self-sufficient’; she does not seek to make the world an instrument for her religious ends …. [11]

 

Further, Pope Paul VI also referred to the “newness” of the doctrine of the Second Vatican Council, in a general audience on January 12, 1966.[12]

 

 

Statements Made by other Members of the Hierarchy

 

Other members of the hierarchy have also made clear statements concerning the novelty and rupture of the teachings of Vatican II.

 

Near the close of the council, Cardinal Congar stated:

 

What is new in this teaching [regarding religious liberty] in relation to the doctrine of Leo XIII and even of Pius XII, although the movement was already beginning to make itself felt, is the determination of the basis peculiar to this liberty, which is sought not in the objective truth of moral or religious good, but in the ontological quality of the human person.[13]

 

Pope John Paul II appointed Yves Congar as a cardinal to recognize Cardinal Congar’s lifelong dedication to the conciliar revolution.  Cardinal Congar likened Vatican II to the triumph of the communists in Russia, calling Vatican II the “October Revolution” in the Church.[14]  By this parallel, Cardinal Congar is telling us that Vatican II overthrew the established order in the Catholic Church.  Further, by making this particular parallel, Cardinal Congar saw fit to compare Vatican II to the triumph of the anti-God communists in Russia! 

 

Cardinal Suenens compared Vatican II to a different anti-God revolution.  He made the same parallel as (former) Pope Benedict XVI did (quoted above), between Vatican II and the anti-God, Masonic French Revolution, saying that Vatican II was 1789 in the Church.[15]

 

By comparing Vatican II with a communist or Masonic revolution, all three of these cardinals are stating that Vatican II’s teaching is revolutionary, new, and therefore fallible.

 

 

Conclusion Regarding the Non-Infallibility of Vatican II’s Teachings based on their Newness

The Catholic Church may only hand down the doctrines She received from the Apostles.  The Catholic Church has always condemned new doctrines as heresy.

 

Pope John Paul II, (former) Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Paul VI (as well as some cardinals), have all stated that Vatican II teaches new doctrines.  They are correct that Vatican II’s teachings are new, as is obvious when comparing those teachings to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.  See, e.g., the hundreds of new teachings contained in one of the key Vatican II documents, Lumen Gentium.  Lumen Gentium Annotated, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, © 2013[16] (comparing these new council teachings to the opposite teachings of the Catholic Church’s Fathers, Doctors, and popes). 

 

Because Vatican II’s teachings are new, they are fallible and the Church condemns them as heresy.

 

 

4.  Even the council fathers and popes during and after Vatican II knew that Vatican II is not infallible.

 

The popes and other members of the hierarchy not only considered Vatican II’s teachings to be new but also not infallible.

 

 

The Testimony of Pope Paul VI

 

Pope Paul VI, who presided over three of the council’s four sessions, denied clearly and repeatedly that the teachings of Vatican II are infallible. 

 

For example, Pope Paul VI stated shortly after the close of Vatican II:

 

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility.[17]

 

When concluding the council, Pope Paul VI plainly denied that Vatican II ever taught infallibly:

 

Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council.  …  But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.[18]

 

Pope Paul VI again highlighted the non-infallible, non-definitive character of Vatican II in a general audience in 1966: 

 

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 dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.[19]

 

 

The Testimony of (former) Pope Benedict XVI

 

(Former) Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, also stated that Vatican II was not infallible:

 

[T]here is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II ….  There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.  …  The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.[20]

 

 

The Testimony of Pope John XXIII

 

Pope John XXIII explained:

 

The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church, [but to study and expound doctrine] through methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought.[21]

 

 

The Testimony of Various Cardinals and Bishops

 

Below, is the testimony of all council fathers whose testimony we could find, unanimously denying that Vatican II ever taught infallibly.

 

 

The Testimony of John Cardinal Heenan of England 

 

[The Second Vatican Council] deliberately limited its own objectives. There were to be no specific definitions.  Its purpose from the first was pastoral renewal within the Church and a fresh approach to the outside.[22]

 

 

The Testimony of Eugene Cardinal Tisserant, on Sept. 9, 1964:

We must also restate that this ecumenical Council, as the sovereign pontiff John XXIII has stated many times, has no intention to pronounce itself on … doctrinal issues; but its specific goal consists in giving to the pastoral zeal of the Church a new boost, so that it becomes more active and more fruitful in the dioceses, in parishes and in all mission territories, and also among all religious families and lay associations.

 

 

The Testimony of Cardinal Biffi

 

In his 2007 autobiographical work, Cardinal Biffi stated that:

 

John XXIII aspired after a council that … avoided formulating definitive teachings that would be obligatory for all.  And in fact, this original indication was continually followed.[23]

The Testimony of Cardinal Felici, through Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

 

[A]t the end of the [council] sessions, we asked Cardinal Felici [the Council’s General Secretary], “Can you not give us what the theologians call the “‘theological note’ of the Council?”   He replied, “We have to distinguish according to the schemas 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.[24]

 

 

The Testimony of Bishop B.C. Butler of England

 

Not all teachings emanating from a pope or Ecumenical Council are infallible. There is no single proposition of Vatican II – except where it is citing previous infallible definitions – which is in itself infallible.[25]

 

 Here is Bishop Butler again: “Vatican II gave us no new dogmatic definitions….”[26]

 

 

The Testimony of Bishop Rudolf Graber

 

Since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council.[27]

 

 

The Testimony of Bishop Thomas Morris

 

I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement of doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and likely to be reformed.[28]

 

 

Conclusion to this entire article

 

Vatican II is not infallible because:

 

1.    God does not “trick” us.  The Holy Ghost would not allow any infallible teachings which were unreasonable and unjust, as would be any infallible teaching which we could not clearly recognize as such.

 

2.    Vatican II was (deliberately) made ambiguous and contradictory and cannot be infallible because the human mind cannot hold opposites about the same thing at the same time and also cannot hold a statement which is ambiguous and so whose infallible meaning cannot be discerned.

 

3.    Vatican II cannot be infallible because its teachings are new (and new teachings cannot be infallible).

 

4.    The popes and council fathers repeatedly assure us that Vatican II is not infallible.

Catholic Candle note:  The article below refers to Rome’s betrayal of the Catholic Faith.  However, a reader would be mistaken if he assumed that Pope Francis’ betrayal somehow means that he is not the pope.

Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.  On the contrary, we published a series of articles showing that sedevacantism is false (and also showing that former Pope Benedict is not still the pope). 

We recommend a small book explaining the errors of sedevacantism.  It is available:

➢  Here, for free: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html  

or

➢  Here, at cost ($4): https://www.amazon.com/Sedevacantism-Material-Quanta-Cura-Press/dp/B08FP5NQR6/ref=sr_1_1

Here is what St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, teaches concerning the need to recognize and respect the authority of a superior – such as the pope – even when he is bad:

Even should the life of any superior be so notoriously wicked as to admit of no excuse or dissimulation, nevertheless, for God’s sake, Who is the source of all power, we are bound to honor such a one, not on account of his personal merits, which are non-existent, but because of the divine ordination and the dignity of his office.[1]

However, even while recognizing the pope’s authority and our duty to obey him when we are able, we know we must resist the evil he says and does.  Read more about this principle here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html#section-7

 

VC II Set Up a Distinction of Compromises

Without a Difference

Starting in 1965, most Catholics compromised their Faith and followed liberal leaders into what became the conciliar church.

In 2015, most Traditional Catholics compromised their Faith by following liberal leaders into a changed SSPX which accepted increasing liberalness.

After the Second Vatican Council, when the conciliar church of the ‘60s and ‘70s set out to destroy the traditional Catholic Church, they depended on the love and trust of most Catholics for their cardinals, bishops, and priests, plus the average layman’s love for his Church, plus their assumption that Church leaders neither would nor ever could do anything contrary to the welfare of Christ’s Church.  After all, the bishops confirmed them, and the priests baptized, instructed, and confessed them with a father-like affection. Why wouldn’t they accept and believe their pastor of many years?  And besides, everyone else went along (i.e., to get along). 

In addition to that, they were told repeatedly that the Catholic Church is old and slow and needs to keep up with the ever-changing world.  Their pastor said change is good and necessary to improve church attendance (and revenue), and that it was also necessary to be “open to the world”.  Moreover, (the pastor added) the Church has to be more like the world, more accepting of humanism, and more open to compromise, in order to be with the world.

So, what did nearly all low-information “Sunday” Catholics do?  They accepted wholeheartedly the conciliar church because their Faith became more fun with clown masses, no more confession “box”, etc.  There was group reconciliation with our fellow man, etc.  And besides, everyone goes to heaven now.

A billion or so Catholics went along with the changes, placing their salvation in ever-greater danger.  They went along to get along.  They tried to avoid losing friends or family by not objecting to what was happening to their Church and by not fighting against the changes listed below.

➢  The “elimination” of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and its replacement with a non-Catholic service designed with the help of six Protestant ministers under the direction of a notorious Mason.

➢  The “elimination” of the Holy Sacrament of Penance and its replacement with “reconciliation” with your fellow man.

➢  The “elimination” of the truth that there is No-Salvation-Outside-the-Catholic-Church, and promotion of Religious Liberty for error.

➢  The “elimination” of the need for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction by promoting Universal Salvation (i.e., everyone goes to heaven)

➢  The “elimination” of the Sacrament of Confirmation (no need now with universal salvation).   There is no need in the conciliar church to fight for Christ the King.  There is only the “entrance into the [so-called] adult christian community.”

➢  The “elimination” of the primacy of the pope in favor of a democracy of bishops and cardinals, as well as the parish and diocesan councils.

➢  The rejection of the one true Church founded by Christ, in favor of a pan-religious aggregate of hundreds of protestant and other “churches” with “various degrees of communion” (as VCII and the conciliar church likes to say).

➢  The acceptance of easy (so-called) annulments which function as divorce on demand.

Archbishop Lefebvre fought hard against the errors of Vatican II and set up an uncompromising Traditional Catholic Society (i.e., SSPX) to help followers to fight against the evils of VC II that have deprived most Catholics of the usual sources of sanctifying grace which are so essential for salvation. 

The Society remained an uncompromising traditional Catholic haven throughout the world until the death of the Archbishop.  The new leaders of the Society were not opposed to compromise.  They were most interested in being in a “partnership” with the anti-Catholic conciliar church.  They wanted to be accepted by them and wield some influence in Rome, with the false dream of converting them.

In reality, Rome won’t convert until the pope and the bishops of the world consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

With the increasing liberalism in the SSPX, there is less and less difference between the positions of that group and the liberalism which has been promoted by the conciliar church for decades.

The following is a list of conciliar liberalism, showing that the distinction between the mainstream conciliar church and the “new” SSPX increasingly is a “distinction without a difference”.  The now-liberal SSPX and its compromised followers must now accept/condone: 

❖  That the religious liberty taught by Vatican II is “a very, very limited one, very limited”.[2]  The truth is that the scope of religious liberty which Vatican II teaches is unlimited as long as public order is not breached.[3]

❖  That there are no errors in the important Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium.  The SSPX now teaches that this document is free from errors/liberalism.[4]  The truth is that there are hundreds of liberal and false statements in Lumen Gentium.[5] 

 

❖  That Vatican II does good, because the “Second Vatican Council … illuminates – i.e., deepens and further makes explicit – some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church”.[6]  The truth is that Vatican II does not do good.

 

❖  That there are degrees of being in communion with the Catholic Church.[7]  The “new” SSPX indicates it accepts this conciliar theory by now using the term of “full communion”, as if there were any other kind.  Id.

 

❖  That Pope Francis’s exhortation on marriage “contains many things that are correct and beautiful”.[8]  The truth is that this is a vile, thoroughly-conciliar document.

❖  That Vatican II’s Optatam Totius is free from errors/liberalism.  The truth is that there are many liberal and false statements in it.[9] 

 

❖  That the Jews did not commit Deicide.  The truth is that, because Jesus Christ is God, the Jews committed Deicide because they killed a Person Who is God.  The “new” SSPX[10] joins Vatican II contradicting the traditional teaching from the time of the apostles, that the Jews committed Deicide.[11] 

 

❖  That by making a practical agreement with Rome, the “new” SSPX “will return to the Church”.[12]  The truth is that Traditional Catholics are in the Church and have no need to “return”.

The SSPX wants you to believe there can be necessary and good compromises to be made. That can never happen.  All compromises are bad when they are about the traditional Catholic Faith or morals.  The first compromise leads to the next one and a person becomes willing to accept progressively larger compromises. 

The distinction between 1960 and 2015 is merely a difference in time.  Both groups – not only the then-soon-to-be Novus Ordo Catholics of the 1960s but also the increasingly liberal SSPX followers of 2015 – had (have) to accept the evil changes of VC II.  But between the two groups, there is little actual difference.  Through these compromises, both groups increasingly jeopardize their salvation.

What a victory for the devil, sending so many people to hell!  The devil could not have planned a better Second Vatican Council to achieve his goals.  So it is reasonable to believe that he and Rome’s Masons were partners in the planning (in secret) of the Second Vatican Council.  For the past 50-plus years VC II has helped the devil ensnare souls and start their trip to hell.

It is time to understand just how much of a disaster it was for those foolish souls who cared so little for their salvation that they willingly went along with the evils of VC II.  And we must fight today against those who are willing to accept even a part of those evil results, (i.e., the liberal N-SSPX which openly accepts 95% of VC II.)

A review of just what the devil gained should concern and motivate a traditional Catholic living in the catacombs to fight against the results of VC II.  The following list will demonstrate just how much the devil achieved during and after the Council.

1.    Loss of the Tridentine Mass, the main source of grace.  Replaced by an anti-Catholic service (i.e., Novus Ordo) that does not give grace.  Without grace you cannot avoid sin and will lose the Faith.  And if you lose the Faith, you lose everything, since there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  And which group accepts 95% of VC II?

2.    Religious liberty is now taught and accepted – thanks to Vatican II.  That is, you can be saved no matter what faith you prefer.  Perhaps one that will overlook your sinful life.  Thus, there is no need for the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council.  And which group accepts 95% of VC II?

3.   Universal Salvation is another evil of Vatican II, (i.e., everyone goes to heaven).  Thus, there is no need for penance, religious fervor, sacrifice, prayer for yourself or others, etc.  Your somewhat-sinful lifestyle will be overlooked by a merciful God at your personal judgment.  You no longer need to consider God as all-just (i.e., people must do penance for their sins).  Universal Salvation is so anti-Catholic that only someone who has lost the Faith would believe it.  For one thing, most want to believe that they and their loved ones will be happy in heaven for all eternity.  When you think about it, if everyone goes to heaven, there is no real need for the Catholic Church.  But to keep the Novus Ordo parishes viable, they are made into entertainment destinations (e.g., clowns, folk masses, kissing, handshaking, etc.)  And which group accepts 95% of VC II?

 

4.    The Council shattered traditional grace-giving sacraments with its destructive changes to these basic building blocks of the Catholic Faith.  Demonstrating complete arrogance, it more than “tampered” with them – it altered meanings and words – as if Christ needed help in correcting His “mistakes.”  And which group accepts 95% of VC II?

5.    “Catholic divorce” – an annulment based on very doubtful reasons – was another product of VC II.  Almost anything goes, as long as you can pay what it “costs.”  With low church attendance, they have to keep the money coming in.  And which group accepts 95% of VC II?

6.   Rome stated that the Second Vatican Council was necessary and needed to update the Catholic Faith to make it more relevant in our modern age.  “Open a window and let in some fresh air.”[1]  As it turned out, even Pope Paul stated that the “smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary,” (in lieu of fresh air).  It is obvious that if you want to change, update, modernize the Catholic religion, you have already lost the Faith.  As the Blessed Virgin warned at La Salette, “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ.”  And which group accepts 95% of VC II?

7.    The greatest victory for the devil was to replace the Catholic Church with the anti-Catholic conciliar church, joined and accepted by most Catholics in the 1960s and ‘70s with little regard or concern for their salvation.  Archbishop Lefebvre then made it clear that this new religion of Vatican II was a new church, and warned that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  And which group accepts 95% of VC II?                                    

I’m sure the above is not a complete list of the devil’s total goals, (i.e., to reduce or eliminate the need for the Catholic Church).  What it does illustrate is that most people will continue to go to hell.  With no graces coming from the Novus Ordo, it is not possible to keep the Faith and avoid sin.  Thus, the leaders in Rome will not come back to tradition (before Russia is consecrated to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart), no matter what the liberal N-SSPX claims will happen after a deal is signed. 

What are we to do?  Stand up fearlessly for the uncompromising traditional Catholic faith, and follow Christ’s instructions to Lucy at Fatima in 1943:

The sacrifice required of every person is the fulfilling of his duties in life and the observance of My laws.  Be an example of religious fervor, helping others to keep the traditional Catholic faith, love God, strive to be an ordinary saint, eternally happy.[2]