The labels which Vatican II gives to its documents

do not show that any of them teach infallibly.  These labels merely show the council’s intellectual sloppiness.

There are many superficial reasons for supposing that Vatican II infallibly teaches truth and does not teach error.  However, those suppositions are false.  There are many proofs that Vatican II’s teachings are not infallible.  For example:

• The council does not use the necessary language showing that it speaks infallibly.

• The council’s statements were deliberately made ambiguous and contradictory, whereas nothing which is ambiguous or contradictory can be infallible.

• The council’s teachings are novelties, whereas it is impossible for any novelties to be infallible.

• Even the council fathers and the popes during and after Vatican II agreed and declared that Vatican II is not infallible.

Read the full explanations of these proofs that Vatican II is not infallible, in this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/vatican-ii-is-not-infallible.html

Examination of another argument, viz., that certain documents of Vatican II are infallible based on their being designated as “dogmatic constitutions”.

There is another superficial argument sometimes given for supposing that Vatican II’s teachings are infallible (however much they plainly seem to contradict the truth).  

According to this argument, Vatican II must teach infallibly at least in those documents which are called “dogmatic constitutions”, e.g., the council documents called Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum.  This argument supposes that those documents are infallible because Catholic dogma is infallible and the council’s label shows (supposedly) that those documents teach dogma.

But this supposition contains an unsupported assumption.  Vatican II labeled these documents “dogmatic constitutions” but that label does not tell us that these documents infallibly define dogma.  Those documents could be labeled “dogmatic constitutions” because they discuss dogmatic subjects without themselves infallibly defining any dogma.  

On the other hand, other Vatican II documents which are not called “dogmatic constitutions” also discuss dogmas (and teach heresies against dogmas).  Why aren’t those other documents also called “dogmatic constitutions”?  What does that label tell us, if anything?

A prominent Protestant observer at Vatican II, Dr. Robert McAfee Brown, gave his eye-witness impression regarding the labels which the council placed on its documents:

In those early days of the Council there was much discussion about the relative degree of binding authority between, say, a ‘constitution’ and a ‘decree.’  It seemed fairly clear that a ‘constitution’ was of higher authority, and it would be a wise rule of interpretation to say that the ‘constitution’ On the Church [i.e., Lumen Gentium], for example, was the context in which to understand the ‘decree’ On Ecumenism, rather than vice versa.  As it actually worked out, however, there seemed little reason by the end of the Council why The Church in the World Today [i.e., Gaudium et Spes] should be a ‘constitution’ (albeit a ‘pastoral constitution’) while the document on Missionary Activity should be a ‘decree’ or the statement on Religious Freedom a ‘declaration’.^[1]

Our own research supports McAfee Brown on this historical point, viz., that there was not, and still is not, any authoritative clarity or any consistent and comprehensive rationale regarding the respective weights of the documents, based on their designated labels (viz., “dogmatic constitution”, “pastoral constitution”, “decree” or “declaration”).  This lack of clarity is exemplified in Pope Paul VI calling the Declaration on Religious Liberty “one of the greatest documents of the Council”^[2] even though it has what seems to be the lower status of a “declaration”.  

This uncertainty fits with the revolutionary character of the council (and of the conciliar church since then), viz., that just like in other revolutions, much that occurs is unclear and in flux.^[3] 

All Vatican II documents are evil.^[4]  But regardless of whatever authority the council might be supposed to give the documents, there is no reason to suppose that their labels designate any of them as teaching infallibly, i.e., by the fact that the council teaches in a document designated as a “dogmatic constitution”.

Nothing in the conciliar church is carefully done or well thought-out.

The fruits of the conciliar church are not only evil, but are shallow.  For example, the new mass is not only a sacrilege, but its inner emptiness is obvious from its banal outward manifestations, for example:

• Burlap vestments;  

• Guitar-strumming folk songs;

• Childish banners;

• Sports equipment and breakfast cereal used in “bringing up the gifts”^[5] (viz., at the new mass’s substitute for a real Offertory); and

• Countless other banalities.  

The conciliar church is empty of meaning and is being emptied of people.  

Protestant and conciliar intellectual bankruptcy

The conciliar church is merely “warmed over” Protestantism.  As a consequence, it has no serious intellectual content (as the Protestants have none either).  Before Vatican II, any large Catholic bookstore was replete with the riches and wisdom of 2000 years of the Church, e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas, the Imitation of Christ, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Augustine, Gregorian Chant, and so many other works from many centuries ago.  

By contrast, walk into a Protestant bookstore before or after Vatican II, and you would find it is full of “bestsellers” and new, short-lived titles, because Protestantism has no serious legacy to offer from its five centuries of revolutionary existence.

The conciliar church is like Protestantism.  Conciliar bookstores are full of new (post-Vatican II) offerings which are quickly replaced by the next fad-of-the-day and are forgotten.  The conciliar church has no deep and penetrating theology or philosophy.  Nothing conciliar is carefully done or well thought-out.

Under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the Catholic Church has comprehensively worked out true theology and philosophy.  In comparison, Protestant and conciliar thinkers are “lightweights” and amateurs (as well as revolutionaries).  The edifice of Catholic intellectual patrimony, compared to Protestant and conciliar thought, is like a magnificent cathedral compared to a few sticks leaning against each other.

 

The haphazard way in which the documents of Vatican II were labeled, is an example of intellectual sloppiness and was a harbinger of what would come (and now exists) in the post-conciliar church.

Conclusion

The conciliar church does not have the answers any more than Protestantism does.  They have nothing to add or give us except harm and evil.^[6]  Let us be ever grateful for the great spiritual and intellectual treasures of Catholic Tradition and enrich ourselves with them every day through study and prayer!

Catholic Candle note:

The conciliar church is Catholic in name only.  A Catholic will gradually lose his Faith if he fails to understand that.  When he hears the word “Catholic” outside of the context of genuine Traditional Catholicism, he should guard himself against conciliar poison by understanding that this word refers to anti-Catholicism.

Archbishop Lefebvre declared the conciliar church is a different, false church.^[7]  The “old” SSPX faithfully taught the same truth.^[8]  The “new” SSPX rejects its founder’s position and denies that the conciliar church is a separate (and false) church.^[9]  The N-SSPX priests and laymen will gradually lose their Faith under that delusion.

---

There are no good documents of Vatican II

Vatican II is a bad tree which cannot bear good fruit

One of the sixteen documents of Vatican II is a short decree On Priestly Training (called Optatam Totius).^[1] 

Although the decree is short – fewer than 5,000 words and roughly seven typed pages – the decree is also too long.  Like the other documents of Vatican II, it is full of trite, empty statements and the reader quickly experiences an almost overwhelming urge to either stop reading or to at least begin skimming.  

Here are a few mind-numbing examples from the decree, which we first summarize and then quote from the decree:

• Seminaries are important:

“[T]his sacred synod … proclaims the extreme importance of priestly

training.”^[2]

• The bishops must help:

“Bishops … must assist without stint those whom they have judged to be called to the Lord's work.”^[3]

• Be organized and use what is appropriate:

“The synod [viz., Vatican II] moreover orders that the entire pastoral activity of fostering vocations be methodically and coherently planned and, with equal prudence and zeal, fostered by those organizations for promoting vocations which, in accord with the appropriate pontifical documents, have already been or will be set up in the territory of individual dioceses, regions or countries.”^[4] 

• Use age-appropriate materials:

“In minor seminaries … the students should be prepared by special religious formation, particularly through appropriate spiritual direction … and …  their daily routine should be in accord with the age, the character and the stage of development of adolescence.”^[5]   

• Guide the youth with care:

“Teachers and all those who are in any way in charge of the training of boys and young men, especially Catholic associations, should carefully guide the young people entrusted to them so that these will recognize and freely accept a divine vocation.”^[6]

Optatam Totius is relatively unknown and seems to have had almost no impact

If the world is likened to a pond, Vatican II’s decree On Religious Liberty would be like a refrigerator-size rock plunging into the pond.  This is because, just as that huge rock would send violent waves throughout the whole pond, likewise the decree On Religious Liberty caused tremendous, revolutionary upheaval throughout the whole world.

By contrast, the decree On Priestly Training would be like a small pebble falling into the pond because the pebble would be hardly noticed, as seems true of that decree.

Optatam Totius is seemingly a shrewd choice for pseudo-conservatives to use to claim the existence of a (supposedly) “good” document of Vatican II

Few Traditional Catholics have ever read the decree On Priestly Training.  Because it is so unknown and seemingly has had very little impact, the pseudo-conservative wing of the conciliar revolution (e.g., the N-SSPX) uses this decree as an example of a (supposed) “good” document of Vatican II.  

To support the N-SSPX’s position that “there is no doubt that many Vatican II texts are traditional”^[7], the N-SSPX needs an example of a document of Vatican II which is (supposedly) traditional.  Thus, the N-SSPX uses On Priestly Training as a supposed good (traditional) document.

Here are the N-SSPX’s words from its Catechism of the Crisis in the Church:

        [Q.] Should all of the Vatican II documents be rejected?

[A.] The documents of Vatican II can be divided into three groups: 1) Some are acceptable because they are in conformity with Catholic doctrine, as for example the decree on the formation of priests; 2) others are equivocal, that is they can be understood correctly, but can also be interpreted erroneously; and 3) some cannot be understood in an orthodox way ….^[8]

Notice that the N-SSPX asserts that the decree On Priestly Training is unequivocally (i.e., unambiguously) good; i.e., it is not in the second group of documents which are ambiguous.

Below, let us examine Vatican II’s decree On Priestly Training, which the “new” SSPX claims to be unambiguously good.  The principal errors of the decree On Priestly Training can be divided into nine types:

1. Vatican II’s decree On Priestly Training promotes the false, modern pseudo-science of sociology;

2. Vatican II’s decree On Priestly Training promotes the evil of modern psychology;

3. Vatican II’s decree On Priestly Training promotes false, modern pedagogy;

4. Vatican II’s decree On Priestly Training promotes the conciliar novelty of emphasis on the “paschal mystery” of the New Theology;

5. The decree On Priestly Training is evil by incorporating the errors of other documents of Vatican II;

6. Vatican II’s decree On Priestly Training promotes the conciliar novelty of permanent, standing conferences of bishops;

7. The decree On Priestly Training is evil because it orders seminarians be formed into men of dialogue;

8. The decree On Priestly Training is evil because it promotes conciliar ideas through promoting conciliar terminology; and

9. The decree On Priestly Training is evil because it promotes modern philosophy.

Below, we examine each of these nine types of errors.

1. Vatican II’s Decree On Priestly Training promotes the Modern Pseudo-Science of Sociology

The council declares that seminary training henceforth must use modern sociology.  Here are the council’s words:

 

“[N]o opportune aids are to be overlooked which modern psychological and sociological research has brought to light.”^[9]

Sociology is a social science that studies human societies, their interactions, and the processes that preserve and change them.^[10]  In a general way, this type of philosophical study has occurred for millennia and can be good and true.  However, modern sociology as a separate science (and given the new name “sociology”) was invented in the two centuries before Vatican II^[11] and is one of the false “sciences” arising out of the evil (so-called) Enlightenment.^[12] 

This modern sociology is a pseudo-science which was a fad at the time of Vatican II and was a darling of the modernists who ran the council.  One of modern sociology’s main theories is “Social Darwinism” which treats the behavior of people according to the false, anti-Catholic, evolutionary theories which Charles Darwin promoted for biology.^[13]

It is easy to see why the conciliar modernists would promote sociology because both modernism and sociology are evolutionary:

• sociology (“Social Darwinism”) embraces a false theory of social evolution; whereas

• modernism embraces the false theory of the evolution of truth (including, of Catholic dogma).

Besides all of Darwin’s other errors regarding biological evolution, sociology adds the further error of applying these false principles to the choices of man himself, who has a free will.

Sociology teaches that God and morals are invented by society and that all morals are relativistic.^[14]

Two of sociology’s other main theories are Karl Marx’s false economic determinism and inevitable class conflict.^[15]   Sociologists saw the 1960s civil rights movement and the 1970s anti-war movement as class conflicts that were part of sociology’s general, neo-Marxist, class-conflict theory.^[16]

Besides Vatican II promoting sociology for seminary training, the decree On Priestly Training implicitly promotes this false, corrupting, and anti-Catholic “science” not just for seminary training but for use in education more broadly throughout society (because sociology must be good to study more broadly, since the council directs that it be used for seminarians.)

2. Vatican II’s Decree On Priestly Training promotes the Evil of Modern Psychology

The council declares that seminary training henceforth must use modern psychology.  Here are the council’s words:

 

“[N]o opportune aids are to be overlooked which modern psychological and sociological research has brought to light.”^[17]  …

In seminaries, the “norms of Christian education are to be religiously observed and properly complemented by the newer findings of sound psychology and pedagogy"^[18]   

Modern psychology arises from the false, so-called Enlightenment philosophers.^[19]

In the first half of the 20th Century, in the run-up to Vatican II, modern psychology was dominated by Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung,^[20] who have done incalculable harm by their false theories of psychology.  Freud was anti-Catholic (he despised organized religion^[21]) and promoted obsessive, anti-Catholic theories which attacked the Sixth Commandment.  Jung was an irreligious man^[22] who promoted many false ideas such as the “collective unconscious”.^[23]

The “science” of modern psychology accepts neither the existence of the immortal soul nor anything which is properly supernatural.  It reduces everything to one of the body’s biological functions or to some other material cause.^[24] 

Besides Vatican II promoting modern psychology for seminary training, the decree On Priestly Training implicitly promotes this false science not just for seminary training but for use in education more broadly throughout society (because modern psychology must be good, since the council directs that it be used for seminarians.)

3. Vatican II’s Decree On Priestly Training promotes False Modern Pedagogy

Pedagogy is the theory and practice of teaching and learning.^[25]

Whereas, the Council of Trent, wisely required the use of the traditional liberal arts among other traditional methods of education^[26], by contrast, Vatican II requires that seminaries use the new theories of education (pedagogy).  Here are the council’s words:

In seminaries, the “norms of Christian education are to be religiously observed and properly complemented by the newer findings of sound psychology and pedagogy”^[27] 

Thus, the decree On Priestly Training requires that seminaries use the new approaches or theories of teaching and learning.

The 20th Century theories of education (pedagogy) were heavily influenced by the same false philosophers of the so-called Enlightenment which influenced modern psychology.^[28]

The “newer” pedagogy contains much that is strange and a lot which was a fad in the years before Vatican II, some of which is so ephemeral that it soon fell out of fashion.  Although there is no definition of what constitutes “newer” pedagogy, here are some of the weird, fad theories which are included: 

The newer pedagogy called “progressive education” deemphasized praising students, and deemphasized giving academic grades and awards.  This new approach emphasized basing activities on the interests of the student rather than basing them on the traditional wisdom and the teachers’ own understanding of what is best for the students.^[29] 

John Dewey is one of the most famous (or infamous) proponents of new pedagogical theories.  His theories received much attention and were fashionable especially in the United States.^[30]  Dewey rejected moral absolutes in favor of pragmatism (which gave rise to the heresy of situation ethics).^[31]  According to Dewey, education is the “participation of the individual in the social consciousness of the race”.^[32]  Among Dewey’s innovations was his idea of having his students make breakfast as a means of learning biology, chemistry and physics.^[33] 

Another newer pedagogy was that of Helen Parkhurst.  In her ideas (which were implemented throughout the world):

[L]earning became the students’ own work; they could carry out their work independently, work at their own pace and plan their work themselves.  The classroom turned into a laboratory, a place where students are working, furnished and equipped as work spaces, tailored to meet the requirements of specific subjects.  Useful and attractive learning materials, instruments and reference books were put within the students’ reach.  The benches were replaced by large tables to facilitate co-operation and group instruction.  This second experiment formed the basis for the next experiments, those in Dalton and New York, from 1919 onwards.  The only addition was the use of graphs, charts enabling students to keep track of their own progress in each subject ….^[34]

There were many other new theories of pedagogy (education).  It is enough to see that there is much that is weird, bad, and experimental in the motley group of often-contradictory pedagogic theories which Vatican II broadly endorsed without distinction and blamably required to be used.

As with Vatican II promoting modern psychology and sociology for seminary training, the decree On Priestly Training implicitly promotes these false newer theories of pedagogy for use in education more broadly throughout society (because modern pedagogy must be good, since the council directs that it be used for seminarians.)

4. Vatican II’s Decree On Priestly Training promotes the Conciliar Novelty of Emphasis on the “Paschal Mystery”

Vatican II’s decree On Priestly Training declares that seminarians should be formed to “live His [i.e., Christ’s] paschal mystery themselves that they can initiate into it the flock committed to them”.^[35]

This is a reference to and a promotion of, the new conciliar theology of the “paschal mystery” which is promoted more fully in the council’s decree, Sacrosanctum Concilium.  Here is how Si Si No No explained this heterodox theology in 2003:

Vatican II officially adopted the obscurantist idea of the “Paschal mystery”, the battering ram of the “New Theology”.  Redemption is realized principally “in the paschal mystery of the passion, resurrection and ascension” of Christ (Sacrosanctum Concilium §5). Therefore, redemption is no longer principally the result from the Crucifixion’s value as an expiatory sacrifice by which Divine justice was satisfied.  Moreover, the Holy Mass is identified with the “Paschal Mystery”.  The Council declared that the Church, from its beginning, was always brought together in an assembly “to celebrate the Paschal mystery” [Sacrosanctum Concilium §6] and that she “celebrates the Paschal mystery every seventh day” [Sacrosanctum Concilium §106]”.^[36]

The “old” SSPX warned (in the words below) that the phrase “Paschal Mystery” promotes the heretical “new theology”:

• [T]his substitution of the paschal mystery for the Redemption, [is] taught by Vatican II, the New Mass, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, and every single one of Pope John Paul II's encyclicals.  …

• [T]he Redemption is simply the full manifestation of God's infinite love and mercy by the Passion and Resurrection, but mainly by the Resurrection. The Cross is thus simply “the sign of God’s universal love” (Nostra Aetate §4). Sin is not an injustice, nor is there any debt of punishment owed for it, nor must we do penance for it, nor is the Cross an act of satisfaction, nor consequently is the Mass a propitiatory sacrifice. The Eucharist is simply a manifestation of God's goodness, a “mystery of light” (§62) as the Pope is proud to call it.^[37]

5. The Decree On Priestly Training is Evil by incorporating the Errors of other Documents of Vatican II

In the decree On Priestly Training, the council requires that seminarians be taught the (false) doctrine of the other documents of Vatican II.  The decree incorporates those evil novelties by reference:

[T]his sacred synod … lays down certain basic principles … by which those new elements can be added which correspond to the constitutions and decrees of this sacred council^[38] … [to ensure that in the future, priests would be formed] in the spirit of the renewal promoted by this sacred synod.”^[39] 

The decree On Priestly Training specifically requires teaching seminarians to appreciate the good in non-Catholic religions:

Let them also be introduced to a knowledge of other religions which are more widespread in individual regions, so that they may acknowledge more correctly what truth and goodness these religions, in God's providence, possess, and so that they may learn to refute their errors and be able to communicate the full light of truth to those who do not have it.^[40]

The decree On Priestly Training specifically requires indoctrinating seminarians with ecumenism so they can be ecumenical change-agents:

The circumstances of various regions being duly considered, students are to be brought to a fuller understanding of the churches and ecclesial communities separated from the Apostolic Roman See, so that they may be able to contribute to the work of re-establishing unity among all Christians according to the prescriptions of this holy synod.^[41]

The decree On Priestly Training specifically incorporates Vatican II’s errors concerning the Church:

The students should be so saturated with the mystery of the Church, especially as described by this sacred synod,^[42]

The decree On Priestly Training specifically incorporates the errors of other documents of Vatican II:

[The] teaching of canon law and of Church history should take into account the mystery of the Church, according to the dogmatic constitution “De Ecclesia” promulgated by this sacred synod.  Sacred liturgy, which is to be considered as the primary and indispensable source of the truly Christian spirit, should be taught according to the mind of articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.^[43]

6. Vatican II’s Decree On Priestly Training promotes the conciliar novelty of permanent, standing conferences of bishops

The conciliar church promotes the novelty of permanent, standing conferences of bishops for each country.  This one innovation works two types of evil:

• it serves to weaken the traditional authority of the bishop in his own diocese by taking away (or appearing to take away) his authority; and

• it promotes the bishops collectively as a collegial^[44] or corporate authority, as does Vatican II’s declaration that the bishops collectively are a second supreme authority in the Church.^[45]

Here are the council’s words, giving authority to such standing conferences^[46] of bishops (which then required that such conferences must be created):

• “Since priestly training, because of the circumstances particularly of contemporary society, must be pursued and perfected even after the completion of the course of studies in seminaries, it will be the responsibility of episcopal conferences in individual nations to employ suitable means to this end.”^[47]

• “a special ‘program of priestly training’ … must be set up by the episcopal conferences ….”^[48] 

Pope Paul VI implemented this novelty by ordering the bishops of every country or territory which has not already formed a bishops’ conference, to do so immediately.^[49] 

In the history of the Church, a bishops’ conference had been an occasional event usually responding to a special, grave problem that those particular bishops shared.  After Vatican II, bishops’ conferences became permanent standing bodies with regular and frequent meetings.^[50]

7. The decree On Priestly Training is Evil because it orders Seminarians be formed into Men of Dialogue

Dialogue is the exchange of ideas and opinions, not emphasizing the truth.  Truth is secondary to this exchange.  Instead of seminarians being prepared to teach the truth, in season and out of season^[51], the council orders that they be trained to dialogue.  Here are the council’s words:

In general, those capabilities are to be developed in the students which especially contribute to dialogue with men ….^[52] 

The net result should be that the students, correctly understanding the characteristics of the contemporary mind, will be duly prepared for dialogue with men of their time. The history of philosophy should be so taught that the students, while reaching the ultimate principles of the various systems, will hold on to what is proven to be true therein and will be able to detect the roots of errors and to refute them.^[53]

8. The Decree On Priestly Training is Evil because it promotes Conciliar Ideas through promoting Conciliar Terminology

The decree uses language of the modernist innovators, such as “ministry of the word” and “ministry of worship and of sanctification”.^[54]

The decree uses the phrase, the “People of God”.^[55]  This is an ecumenical term which the conciliar modernists obtained from a Lutheran heretic and is also a term used by the conciliar church to promote a non-hierarchical church.^[56]

By using such modern jargon of the New Theology, the decree is promoting those ideas.

9. The Decree On Priestly Training is Evil because it Promotes Modern Philosophy

The Catholic Church has only one philosophy, that of St. Thomas Aquinas.^[57]  It is especially suited for our times^[58].

Vatican II turns this upside down, by ordering that seminarians be taught modern philosophy.

Seminarians should take into account modern philosophy ….^[59] 

It would be naïve to think that the council merely intended the seminarians to be taught how to refute the errors of modern philosophy.  The council requires that the seminarians be taught the truth of the multiple philosophical systems (plural).  Here are the council’s words:

The history of philosophy should be so taught that the students, while reaching the ultimate principles of the various systems, will hold on to what is proven to be true therein and will be able to detect the roots of errors and to refute them.^[60]

It is not surprising that the council would give a broad endorsement to (false) modern philosophical systems.  Various council fathers themselves already adhered to false philosophies, e.g., Cardinal Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) adhered to the false philosophy of personalism.

There are so many false, contradictory, and anti-Catholic modern philosophies.  We don’t discuss them at length but merely show that it was evil for Vatican II to broadly endorse studying the (supposed) truth of the modern systems of philosophy.

The N-SSPX plays its Archbishop Lefebvre “trump card” to deceive its followers that Vatican II has good documents and that Optatam Totius is good.

As shown above, the decree On Priestly Training (Optatam Totius) is evil (like all documents of Vatican II).  

To “prove” the false, viz., that this decree is good, the “new” SSPX recently claimed Archbishop Lefebvre endorsed this decree as free of all errors and ambiguities.  Here are the words that so-called “Archbishop Lefebvre” supposedly said:

There are some conciliar documents that are obviously in conformity with Tradition, which pose no problem: I am thinking of … the one on priestly formation and the seminaries.^[61] 

Note that the interview of the supposed “Archbishop Lefebvre” says the decree on priestly formation is not simply good, but “obviously” good.

However, the “new” SSPX published this supposed interview without giving any information about its provenance, i.e.:

• without identifying the interview date;

• without identifying the interview location;

• without identifying the interviewer; and

• without identifying the media outlet where it was published.

The “new” SSPX published this supposed “interview” recently, many years after Archbishop Lefebvre’s death, as part of the N-SSPX’s liberal push to make a deal with modernist Rome.

Conclusion

The decree On Priestly Training is a bad fruit of Vatican II.  That council is a bad tree and so it cannot bear good fruit, nor has it borne any.  There are no good documents of Vatican II.  Each one is evil.

---