Vatican II

Vatican II is Not Infallible

Posted on by Catholic Candle

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.


[1]           March 6, 1964 declaration of the Council’s Theological Commission, repeated by the Council’s General Secretary on Nov. 16, 1964 (emphasis added).

[2]           Session Six, January 13, 1547, Decree On Justification, Proem., and Canon I.

 

Here is the longer declaration:

 

Whereas there is, at this time, not without the shipwreck of many souls, and grievous detriment to the unity of the Church, a certain erroneous doctrine disseminated touching Justification; the sacred and holy, oecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, — the most reverend lords, Giammaria del Monte, bishop of Palaestrina, and Marcellus of the title of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, priest, cardinals of the holy Roman Church, and legates apostolic a latere, presiding therein, in the name of our most holy father and lord in Christ, Paul III., by the providence of God, Pope, purposes, unto the praise and glory of Almighty God, the tranquillizing of the Church, and the salvation of souls, to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and sound doctrine touching the said Justification; which (doctrine) the sun of justice, Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, taught, which the apostles transmitted, and which the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost reminding her thereof, has always retained; most strictly forbidding that any 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.

 

(Emphasis added).

[3]           First Vatican Council, Session Four Chapter Four (emphasis added). 

[4]           Pope John XXIII’s Opening Speech to the Council, October 11, 1962 (emphasis added).

[5]           Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, Rudolf Graber, Van Duren (publisher), London, 1974, p.66 (emphasis added).  Here is the longer quote:

 

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.

 

(Emphasis added.)

 

[6]           Lumen Gentium Annotated is available at: scribd.com/doc/158994906 (free) & at Amazon.com (sold at cost).

[7]           Marie-Dominique Chenu, Jacques Duchesne interroge le Pere Chenu, Paris: Centurion, 1975, p. 17.


[8]           L’Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013 (emphasis added), also found here: http://www.christianorder.com/editorials/editorials_2015/editorials_augsep15.html


[9]           The Council of Trent Catechism teaches:

 

[The Catholic Church’s] doctrines are neither novel nor of recent origin, but were delivered, of old, by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the world.  Hence, no one can, for a moment, doubt that the impious opinions which heresy invents, opposed, as they are, to the doctrines taught by the Church from the days of the Apostles to the present time, are very different from the faith of the true Church.  

 

Council of Trent Catechism, under Creed; Apostolicity (emphasis added).

 

For more declarations of the Catholic Church that Her teachings are not new, go to this link: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/new-doctrines-are-heresy.html

 

[10]         Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, translator, Sr. Mary Frances McCarthy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press 1987), pp. 381-382; French edition: Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique – Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427 (emphasis added; bracketed words added; parenthetical words are in the original).


[11]         August 24, 1969 Declaration of Pope Paul VI, L’Osservatore Romano; (emphasis added).

[13]         Congar, in the Bulletin Etudes et Documents of June 15, 1965, as quoted in I Accuse the Council, Archbishop Lefebvre, p. 27, Angelus Press, 2009 (emphasis added; bracketed words added).

 

[14]         Yves Congar, The Council Day by Day: Second Session p. 215, (1964).

[15]         Quoted in the Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, Pt., 5, by Fr. M. Gaudron, SSPX, posted here: www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2640.

 

[16]         See, Lumen Gentium Annotated is available at: scribd.com/doc/158994906 (free) & at Amazon.com (sold at cost).

[17]         Pope Paul VI, “After the Council: New Tasks”, The Pope Speaks, vol. 11 (Winter, 1966), p.154.


[18]         Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; Acts of the Apostolic See, #58; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio_en.html (emphasis added).

 

[19]         Pope Paul VI, General Audience, 12 January 1966,
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112_it.html (emphasis added).

 

[20]         Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Santiago, Chile, July 13, 1988, http://sagradatradicion.blogspot.com/2009/03/alocucion-los-obispos-en-chile-1988.html (Spanish).

 

[21]         Pope John XXIII’s Opening Speech to the Council, The Documents of Vatican II, Abbott (general editor), p.715 (bracketed words in the original).


[22]         Council and Clergy, John Cardinal Heenan, London, 1966, p.7 (emphasis added; bracketed words added).

[23]         Giacomo Biffi, Memorie e digressioni di un Italiano Cardinale (Sienna, 2007).


[24]         An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Ch. 14, entitled “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church”, p. 107 (bracketed words in the original).

[25]         The Tablet, (England) Nov. 25, 1967, p.1220 (emphasis added).


[26]         The Tablet, March 2, 1968, p.199.

[27]         Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, Rudolf Graber, Van Duren (publisher), London, 1974, p.66 (emphasis added).


[28]         Catholic World News, as quoted in its January 22, 1997 edition online.

VC II Set Up a Distinction of Compromises Without a Difference

Posted on by Catholic Candle

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.


[1]           Quoted from St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Third Sermon for Advent, entitled: On the Three Advents of the Lord and the Seven Pillars which we ought to Erect within us.

 

[2]           Listen to then-superior general Bp. Fellay’s exact words at the following link – listen at minute 1:25 of 6:00 at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY&feature=topics

 

[3]           Read the quote from Vatican II here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/religious-liberty-vatican-ii.html

[6]           Quoted from Bishop Fellay’s April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration (dashes are in the original).


[7]           Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/schmidberger-conciliar-ideas-jargon.html


[8]           Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-francis-eroding-marriage.html

[10]         Quotations, citations, and analysis of the Catholic teaching and of the “new” SSPX’s denial of the Catholic teaching, are here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/2014-01-14-bp-fellay-ltr.html


[11]         Nostra Aetate, §4.

[12]         Here is the longer quote: “Anyway, the Pope said that it is only a problem of canonical discipline. An act of Rome will suffice to say it is finished and we will return to the Church. It will come. I am very optimistic!” Bp. Fellay, Interview with Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes, 12/27/10.

“In Order To Remain Catholic, It Is Necessary to Become Protestant.”

Posted on by Catholic Candle

The above statement summarizes the results of the Second Vatican Council in a uniquely profound, and meaningful way.  In one statement, it brings to mind just how anti-Catholic the Council was and is.  In order to remain “Catholic” as far as Rome and the Council are concerned, one has to accept, think, and follow Protestant-type religious formulas.

 

What are those anti-Catholic religious formulas and beliefs – which are promoted by Satan, the Protestants, and the Conciliar church of the Second Vatican Council?  Here are some of them:

 

1.    “Eliminate” the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and replace it with a non-Catholic service designed with the help of six Protestant ministers and a Mason.

 

2.    “Eliminate” the Holy Sacrament of Penance and replace it with “reconciliation” with your fellow man.  God is not involved.

 

3.    “Eliminate” the truth that there is No-Salvation-Outside-the-Catholic Church and promote Religious Liberty.

 

4.    Disregard any facts and information against all false religions, and praise Martin Luther on the 500th anniversary of his heretical sect (i.e., promoting Religious Liberty).

 

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

 

6.    “Revise” the Sacrament of Holy Orders, causing real doubt of a valid ordination.

 

7.    “Eliminate” the Sacrament of Confirmation.

 

8.    Insist that we can live how we want and do not need to perform good works (i.e., Universal Salvation).

 

9.    “Eliminate” the primacy of the pope in favor of a democracy of bishops and

cardinals.

10. Reject the Christ-established one, united Church; (Christ never referred to His Churches, but to His Church.)  There are 200 different Protestant churches in the United States alone.[2]

 

11. “Eliminate” belief in Divine Tradition, with the false belief that the Bible holds all the truth.

 

12. Accept divorce as proper and necessary, (i.e., easy annulments).

 

13. Accept that it was necessary to kill Catholics in 1560 England to establish the Protestant faith.

 

14. Accept all faiths as the road to salvation (i.e., Religious Liberty).

 

15. When Pope Francis states, “Who am I to judge?” on the evils of unnatural lifestyles, he is suggesting that he agrees with the Protestants that private judgment is a rule of faith.

 

The above is a partial list of what it means to become Protestant in order to remain Catholic per the Second Vatican Council.  An additional result of the Council was the self-destruction of once-vital Catholic religious organizations.  There were great reductions in the number of vocations, priests, sisters, monks, churches, Catholic schools, convents, seminaries, and monasteries. 

 

What more could the leaders in Rome and the Conciliar church do to fulfill the requests of Satan?  Not much, if anything, with the complete destruction of the human element in the Catholic Church.

 

I believe that uncompromising traditional Catholics are experiencing a bloodless type of martyrdom – with a martyrdom of blood to follow in the future, as in 16th century England.  Satan is not going to change course now, after all his many current successes. Sixty years ago, who would have believed that it would be possible that the Catholic Church’s human element would be on “life support” by the year 2021?

 

Fear not; we are not alone.  Our Lord gave you all the graces needed to stand firm as an uncompromising Catholic fighting for Christ the King up until now.  You will get all the necessary graces to withstand what is coming. 

 


[1]              I Accuse the Council, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 1982, p. 79.

 

[2]              My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, ©1949, p. 102.

 

Vatican II Gave the Devil Everything He Wanted

Posted on by Catholic Candle

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]


[1]           Words of Pope John XXIII.

[2]           Quoted from a pamphlet entitled Remember Our Lady of Fatima Said, published by Franciscan Marytown Press, Kenosha, WI.

Vatican II does not teach anything infallibly

Posted on by Catholic Candle

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.

[1]          Robert McAfee Brown, Ecumenical Revolution, Doubleday, Garden City, 1967 (2nd ed., 1969), p.176 (emphasis in original; bracketed words added for clarity).

[3]          For an explanation why revolution is always wrong, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html#section-6

[4]          E.g., regarding the hundreds of errors in Vatican II’s document, Lumen Gentium, as they are compared to the consistent teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and popes throughout the ages, read this article: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGbzRhdmQ3X0Z6RFE/view 

There are about 19 errors per page in Vatican II’s document, Lumen Gentium.  Read this explanation here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-the-new-sspx-claims-archbishop-lefebvre-endorsed-vatican-iis-lumen-gentium,-as-free-of-all-errors-and-ambiguities.html#fn17


See also, e.g., regarding how Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae, teaches religious liberty for error and contradicts what the Catholic Church has always infallibly taught, read this article:  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/religious-liberty-vatican-ii.html

[5]          For example, Cheerios and Chex were brought up as “gifts” during the new mass for the so-called “beatification” of Fr. Solano Casey.  Watch at minute marker 1:53:40, at this link: https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=AwrBT74Jhx1aax4A8A1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyZWVzMmpzBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDQjQ0ODNfMQRzZWMDc2M-

[6]          The conciliar church has nothing good in it.  Read the explanation of this fact here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/nothing-good-conciliar-church.html

 

The conciliar church’s new mass never gives grace.  Read the explanation of this fact here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/new-mass-never-grace.html

[8]          Here  are the words of the “old” SSPX (cited back to its own sources), that the conciliar church is a different and false church: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-faithful-and-informed-catholics-reject-even-the-concept-of-recognition-by-modernist-rome.html

[9]          Read the “new” SSPX’s own words (cited back to its own sources) in this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/archbishop-lefebvre-the-conciliar-church-is-not-the-catholic-church-nor-a-mere-mindset-but-is-a-new-church.html

The Evils of Vatican II’s Decree On Priestly Training

Posted on by Catholic Candle

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;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. 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.)

  1. 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.)

  1. 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.)

  1. 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]

  1. 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]

  1. 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]

  1. 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]

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

[1]          Decree On Priestly Training, Optatam Totius, October 28, 1965, found at this link:

From http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_optatam-totius_en.html

[2]          Decree On Priestly Training, quoted from the introduction.

[3]          Decree On Priestly Training, ¶2.

[4]          Decree On Priestly Training, ¶2.

[5]          Decree On Priestly Training, ¶3.

[6]          Decree On Priestly Training, ¶3.

[7]          http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_3_12-11-2012.htm

Note that when the “new” SSPX says that there are “many” traditional documents of Vatican II, this is many out of the total of sixteen!  The truth is that there is not even one good Vatican II document.

Further, Bishop Fellay states that:

“to accept the Council is not a problem for us”.  

Emphasis added, quoted from Bishop Fellay’s May 11, 2001 interview by La Liberte which had been posted by the N-SSPX at this link: http://www.fsspx.org/fr/organisation/supgen/entretiens-mgr-fellay/a_une-interview-de-mgr-fellay/ but has since been removed.  This interview was in French.  Here are Bishop Fellay’s words, in his original French: “Accepter le concile ne nous fait pas problem.”

[8]          The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, Fr. Matthias Gaudron, Angelus Press, Kansas City, © 2014, p.51 (bracketed “Q.” and “A.” added for clarity).

[9]          Decree On Priestly Training, ¶2 (emphasis added).

[14]          A History of Philosophy, Frederick Copleston, S.J., vol. 9, part 1, p.145, Image Books, New York, ©1977.

[17]          Decree On Priestly Training, ¶2 (emphasis added).

[18]          Decree On Priestly Training, ¶11.

[24]          The theories of modern psychology often are contradictory and clash chaotically with each other as well as the Catholic Faith.  The aim of this article is not to discuss those theories in detail but to show briefly that it was evil for Vatican II to broadly declare (in the decree On Priestly Training) that seminarians should be trained using modern psychology.

[26]          In session 23, the Council of Trent commands that seminarians shall learn “grammar, … and the other liberal arts”.

[27]          Decree On Priestly Training, ¶11 (emphasis added).

[31]          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_education in the section about John Dewey.

For more about the heresy of situation ethics, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-teaches-situation-ethics.html

[34]          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_education

Regarding this fad in education, education author, Theodore Dalrymple, dryly comments:

Despising routine and rote … [the] educational theorists came up with the idea that children would learn to read better if they discovered how to do so for themselves. This is only slightly more sensible than sitting a child under an apple in the hope that it will arrive at the theory of gravity.

Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality, Theodore Dalrymple ©2010, quoted at: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/american-education-system-fails-our-children-and-its-getting-worse?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=5014a35b48-Daily%2520Headlines%2520-%2520U.S._COPY_343&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-5014a35b48-403889765

[35]          See, e.g., Decree On Priestly Training, ¶8.

[36]          Errors of Vatican II, published by Si Si No No, part II, March 2003, #51, found at:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2003_March/errors_of_vatican_II.htm

[37]          Commentary On "Ecclesia De Eucharistia", by Fr. Peter R. Scott, published in the August 2003 Angelus, found at: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2219

[38]          Decree On Priestly Training, introduction. 

[39]          Decree On Priestly Training, conclusion. 

[40]          See, e.g., Decree On Priestly Training, ¶16 (emphasis added).  Lack of capitalization of the word “Providence” is in the original.

It is a conciliar error is that there is good in all religions.  Pope Pius XI condemned this error:

[It is a] false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgement of His rule.  Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

Mortalium Animos, §2.

Heretical faith is purely human and natural.  Summa, St. Thomas Aquinas, IIa IIae, Q.5, a.3, Respondeo.  

All false “religions” are bad, simply speaking, because they do not have the good they should have.  The traditional teaching of the Church is that no heretical cult (i.e., false “religion”) has any truth of itself.  

A heretical cult is entirely false, except for any tiny bits of the truth and of the good which are a reflection of sound reason in the natural order or a residue of the original revelation or come from Catholic revelation.  Any such truths properly belong to the true Catholic religion and not to the false “religions” as such.  

[41]          See, e.g., Decree On Priestly Training, ¶16 (emphasis added).

[42]          See, e.g., Decree On Priestly Training, ¶9.  

For an analysis of Vatican II’s errors concerning the Catholic Church, see Lumen Gentium Annotated, by Quanta Cura Press, © 2013, especially beginning on page 47.  This book is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGbzRhdmQ3X0Z6RFE/view

for free, & at Amazon.com (sold at cost).

[43]          See, e.g., Decree On Priestly Training, ¶16 (emphasis added).

[44]          Pope John Paul II observed that Vatican II is the cause of this collegial innovation.  Here are his words:

Episcopal Conferences constitute a concrete application of the collegial spirit.  Basing itself on the prescriptions of the Second Vatican Council ….

Apostolos Suos, ¶14.

When the Bishops of a territory jointly exercise certain pastoral functions for the good of their faithful, such joint exercise of the episcopal ministry is a concrete application of collegial spirit (affectus collegialis),(51) which “is the soul of the collaboration between the Bishops at the regional, national and international levels”.

Apostolos Suos, ¶12 (emphasis added).

[45]          Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, ¶3.

[46]          Pope John Paul II makes clear the permanent, standing character of these bishops’ conferences in these words:

Every Episcopal Conference has its own statutes, which it frames itself. These must however receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See.  Among other things these are “to provide for the holding of plenary meetings of the Conference as well as for the establishment of a permanent council, of a general secretariat of the Conference, and other offices and commissions which in the judgement of the Conference will help it fulfil its aims more effectively”.

Apostolos Suos, paragraph 18 (emphasis added).

[47]          Decree On Priestly Training, ¶21 (emphasis added).

[48]          Decree On Priestly Training, ¶1 (emphasis added).

[49]          Ecclesiae Sanctae, ¶41(1).  We note that Pope Paul VI chose to issue this document on August 6, 1966, i.e., 8 6 66.

[50]          Pope John Paul II remarked on the greatly increased use of bishop’s conferences in these words:

Following the Second Vatican Council, Episcopal Conferences have developed significantly and have become the preferred means for the Bishops of a country or a specific territory to exchange views, consult with one another and cooperate in promoting the common good of the Church: “in recent years they have become a concrete, living and efficient reality throughout the world”.

Apostolos Suos, ¶6, the quotation marks show where Pope John Paul II is quoting himself in his Address to the Roman Curia, on 28 June 1986 (emphasis added).

[51]          St. Paul declared the necessity to:

Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.

2 Timothy 4:2.

[52]          See, e.g., Decree On Priestly Training, ¶19 (emphasis added).

[53]          See, e.g., Decree On Priestly Training, ¶15 (emphasis added).

[54]          See, e.g., Decree On Priestly Training, ¶4.

Although the Mass is worship, the term “worship” is more general than the term “Mass” and is the term used by the conciliar church and by protestants to name what they do at church.  “Worship” is a more ecumenical term because it appears to include the “prayer services” of the protestants, which are certainly not the Mass.  

[55]          See, e.g., Decree On Priestly Training, ¶2.

[57]         Because St. Thomas so magnificently surpasses all other Doctors and teachers, the Church calls him the Common Doctor, that is, the best teacher to learn from on any question. As Pope Pius XI declares, “the Church has adopted his philosophy for her own.”  Encyclical Studiorum Ducem, Pope Pius XI, 11 (emphasis added).

[58]         St. Thomas’ teaching is not only his, but he synthesizes the finest wisdom and the truth from all of the other Fathers and Doctors put together. Here is how Pope St. Pius X praises St. Thomas:

He [St. Thomas Aquinas] enlightened the Church more than all the other Doctors together; a man can derive more profit from his books in one year than from a lifetime spent in pondering the philosophy of others.

Motu Proprio, Doctoris Angelici, Pope St. Pius X, 29 June 1914, quoting Pope John XXII’s Consistorial address of 1318.

In his Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX infallibly condemned the error that the principles of St. Thomas are not suitable for our modern times. Here are his words:

Condemned:

The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors [viz., St. Thomas Aquinas and his disciples] cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences

Quanta Cura, condemned error #13 (emphasis added).

St. Thomas’ philosophy is the best one to refute the modernists:

Thomas refutes the theories propounded by Modernists in every sphere ….  Modernists are so amply justified in fearing no Doctor of the Church so much as Thomas Aquinas.  

Pope Pius XI, Studiorum Ducem, ¶27.

[59]          See, e.g., Decree On Priestly Training, ¶15.

[60]          See, e.g., Decree On Priestly Training, ¶15 (emphasis added).

[61]          Here is the fuller quote that the N-SSPX says came from the supposed “Archbishop Lefebvre”:

There are some conciliar documents that are obviously in conformity with Tradition, which pose no problem: I am thinking of Lumen Gentium, but also of other documents, such as the one on priestly formation and the seminaries.  Then there are some ambiguous texts, which nevertheless can somehow be “interpreted” correctly according to the previous Magisterium. But there are also some texts that are plainly in contradiction with Tradition and which can in no way be “integrated” [with it]: the Declaration on Religious Liberty, the decree on Ecumenism, the one on the Liturgy. Here, agreement becomes impossible.

Quoted from the SSPX, at this link: http://fsspx.org/en/%E2%80%9Cif-it-my-duty-i-will-consecrate-bishops%E2%80%9D (bracketed words in the original; bold emphasis added; italic emphasis in the original).

Notice that this supposed “Archbishop Lefebvre” also says that Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium is “obviously” without errors, despite the fact that it has hundreds of errors and even thirty (30) errors in a single paragraph.  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-the-new-sspx-claims-archbishop-lefebvre-endorsed-vatican-iis-lumen-gentium,-as-free-of-all-errors-and-ambiguities.html