Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Vatican II was not infallible

  1. #1
    Sideways to the Sun
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,745
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Vatican II was not infallible

    Vatican II Was Not Infallible


    By Br. Benedict Mary MICM Tert. (Thomas Sparks)





    Introduction


    In this study, we shall show that Vatican II (1963-5) was not intended to be an infallible council; rather it was conceived as a “pastoral” renewal of the Church which politically and ideologically subverted the Church into a willing and active agent of the formation of a pluralistic, secularised New World Order. To establish the non-infallible character of that council, we shall quote the opening and closing addresses of Popes John XXIII († 1963) and Paul VI († 1978), as well as other material from Popes, cardinals and bishops. We shall see that the liberal revolution within the Church, which was Vatican II, had long been planned by the Freemasonic enemies of Catholicism. And we shall place the Traditional Catholic counter-revolutionary movement within that overall context.



    The Testimony of John XXIII


    Pope John XXIII himself stated in his Opening Address at the beginning of Vatican II that the council was not intended to be a doctrinal council concerned with defining any articles of Faith; rather it was to a “pastoral” council which was concerned with representing the Catholic Faith in a manner acceptable to the modern world:



    “The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)



    However, it should be noted that John XXIII intended that the Council should, by this supposed new “presentation” of Catholic doctrine, bring the Church to change itself so as to fit in with the judaised New World Order of global One World Government and liberal pluralism, which NWO he claimed was from God. In the same address he said this:



    “Illuminated by the light of this Council, the Church - we confidently trust - will become greater in spiritual riches and gaining the strength of new energies therefrom, she will look to the future without fear. In fact, by bringing herself up to date where required, and by the wise organization of mutual co-operation, the Church will make men, families, and peoples really turn their minds to heavenly things. […] In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men's own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfilment of God's superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church. […] She opens the fountain of her life-giving doctrine which allows men, enlightened by the light of Christ, to understand well what they really are, what their lofty dignity and their purpose are, and, finally, through her children, she spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 712-3 , 716-7)



    So Vatican II was “pastoral” in so far as it intended to change the Church, “bring it up to date”, and incorporate it into the emerging pluralistic New World Order, “a new order of human relations”, so that the Church would, as the liberals say, ‘respect’ “human differences” like false religions and would work for a “brotherly unity of all” under a pluralistic global government. The Church was to become a vehicle of Freemasonic pluralism.



    This was admitted by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who is presently the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in his 1982 supposed treatise on Catholic theology. He stated that the council documents, including the text Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), were intended to revise the Church so that it would uphold and practice the Masonic supposed values of the French Revolution of pluralism and secularisation. Those values, such as “freedom of conscience”, “liberty” of false religions, a separation of Church from the state and many other basic tenants of liberal pluralism had been repeatedly condemned by the Church, in particular by Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Modern Errors. Ratzinger wrote this:



    “If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [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.” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, pp. 381-2, Ignatius Press 1987)



    Cardinal Ratzinger is quite open about that Vatican II reversed the teaching of the Church and adopted the revolutionary teachings of the so-called French Revolution.



    It is true that Vatican II assimilated the Catholic Church to the anti-Catholic, liberal revolution of 1789, but more immediately, that council must be placed within the context of World War II, the destruction of Germany and the fall of authoritarian Fascism, which was often pro-Catholic. Revolutionary liberalism was triumphant after that war and, particularly with their control of the new mass media, the forces of subversion set about rapidly transforming the First World into a completely secularised, pluralistic, morally degenerate condition under a One World Government of the international financiers and their allies. That is the post-war scenario in which the liberal revolution took complete control of the Church at Vatican II and subverted it for its own ends.



    The Freemasons openly boast of how they planned and executed the so-called French Revolution. They also planned Vatican II. A secret Masonic blueprint for the subversion of the Catholic Church, called the Alta Vendita, fell into the possession of Pope Gregory XVI († 1846); it was published upon the request of Pope Pius IX († 1878), who wanted Catholics to know what was going on. The goal was to subvert the Church to use it for their own ends; one Freemason declared: “the goal [of freemasonry] is no longer the destruction of the Church, but to make use of it by infiltrating it.” The Masons would spread their ideas within the Church until their supporters had reached to the top and then there would be a council which would revolutionise the Church. The Masonic Alta Vendita says this:



    “This reputation [as good Catholics attained by Masons] will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun all the functions; they will form the sovereign council, they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily more or less imbued with the [revolutionary] Italian and humanitarian principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation.”



    The Masons planned to subvert “the sovereign council” and the “Pontiff” to their “principles”. Vatican II was that council and the wartime triumph of liberal, secular, pluralistic international finance and the post-war domination of its forces provided the moment.



    The defined doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church for non-Catholics” obviously had to be changed to something more pluralistic and cooperative.



    After the Vatican II revolution, amid Masonic celebration at the new Masonic revolution, Yves Marsaudon of the Scottish Rite Freemasons wrote in his book, “Ecumenism Viewed by a Traditional Freemason”, that Masonic ideas had conquered the Church:



    “Catholics [...] must not forget that all roads lead to God. And they will have to accept that this courageous idea of free-thinking, which we can really call a revolution, pouring forth from our Masonic lodges, has spread magnificently over the dome of St. Peter's.”



    Since Vatican II, the Church has been completely subverted to pluralistic and ‘tolerant’ Masonic values. The present Pope, John Paul II, summed it up when he completely contradicted the pre-conciliar Popes as follows:


    “Freedom of conscience and of religion, including the aforementioned elements, is a primary and inalienable right of man.” (“The Freedom of Conscience and of Religion”, September 1, 1980)


    So, we see that from the very outset, John XXIII stated that Vatican II was not intended to be a doctrinal council but was intended: to bring the Church “up to date”; to initiate a pluralistic “wise organization of mutual co-operation”; to assist the creation of “a new order of human relations” which he believed God was bringing about; to spread pluralistic “concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.” That has been openly and publicly admitted by the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to be a rejection and contradiction of previous Catholic doctrine and an incorporation of the Church into the emerging pluralistic, secularised post-1789 Masonic World Order. The Popes of old warned us that the Masons were planning such a subversion of the Church through a council and the Freemasons openly boasted after Vatican II that their pluralistic, syncretist pseudo-religion had taken over the Church. John XXIII called that “pastoral” and not doctrinal; as such it was not intended to be an infallible council but rather a political alignment of the Church with the NWO. The Church’s old enemy had triumphed again and the Church had become a vehicle of a pluralist, secularist One World Government which wanted to use the Church as a structural ideological support. The Church has been thoroughly subverted and almost all Catholics have become docile lackeys of the NWO. For instance, over 90% of the quotes contained in the new, liberal so-called “Catechism of the Catholic Church” are from Vatican II. It is as if the Church did not exist before 1963, as far as these people are concerned and institutional Catholicism has become another front for a judaised NWO. Vatican II was a politically motivated apostasy.



    The Testimony of Paul VI


    It should be obvious to any Catholic that such a “pastoral” council could not possibly be infallible; indeed, the council documents are full of pluralistic heresy. However, we shall continue to give pertinent testimonies to that fact for the benefit of our more timid brethren.



    The Theological Commission of the Council made a declaration, a nota previa (preliminary note), concerning the theological note of Vatican II on March 6, 1964; Pope Paul VI had it read, by the council’s General Secretary, Pericle Cardinal Felici, who was the Prefect of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to the council participants on November 16 of that year, to assure them that it was not an infallible council, before they gave their approval to the first conciliar text, that on the Church, called Lumen Gentium. The declaration was published as an addenda to that text. It says that as the council was intended to be “pastoral”, it should not be understood to be infallibly defining any matter unless it openly says so (which it never did):



    “In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)



    Cardinal Felici elaborated on this to Archbishop Lefebvre († 1991), who narrated his experience as follows:



    “These events I was involved in. It is I who carried the signatures to Mgr. Felici, the Council Secretary, accompanied by Mgr. de Proenca Sigaud, Archbishop of Diamantina: and I am obliged to say there occurred things that are truly inadmissible. I do not say this in order to condemn the Council; and I am not unaware that there is here a cause of confusion for a great many Catholics. After all, they think the Council was inspired by the Holy Ghost.



    “Not necessarily. A non-dogmatic, pastoral council is not a recipe for infallibility. When, at the end of the sessions, we asked Cardinal Felici, “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.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 14, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church.”, p. 107)



    So, according to the General Secretary of Vatican II, distinctions must be made: the dogmatic definitions of the past must of course be adhered to; but “reservations” must be made regarding any doctrines of a “novel character”.



    Never before in the history of the Catholic Church had a council ever taken pains to declare that it was not teaching infallibly, unless it should “openly declare so”, which it never did. And that a General Secretary should confide that “reservations” must be made about its teachings of “a novel character” is quite ridiculous. Vatican II was clearly unlike any ecumenical council which preceded it.



    We may understand why the council was reduced to such a statement. The aim was to subvert the Church into being a vehicle of the NWO; heretical pluralistic Freemasonic doctrines were adopted and Catholic doctrine was contradicted: hence it was impossible that the council should have been infallible; God – Who is the guarantor of the accuracy of infallible teachings – would never have allowed it and would have stopped it in one way or another. So the only way that the apostates could give any appearance of promulgating their subversion at an ecumenical council was by formally stating that it was not intended to be infallible.



    It may be noted that it is likely that God shut down the First Vatican Council (1870) for just such a reason. The next schema for discussion was openly heretical, saying that the invincibly ignorant could be saved; St. Anthony Mary Claret († 1870) openly rebuked the council participants for their heresy and was so upset that he had a heart attack, collapsed and died, being the only canonised participant of that council. Vatican I was abandoned due to the Franco-Prussian War before the schema could be approved. It has often been claimed that Vatican II continued the disrupted work of Vatican I; it managed to promulgate volumes of heresy but only after it had been formally established that it was not an infallible council.



    Paul VI also stated that Vatican II was not infallible when he concluded it, as follows:



    “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.” (Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6tolast.htm)



    So, Vatican II did not “issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” at all; that refers to infallible definitions, none of which were made. That council was not infallible, did not claim to be and expressly said that it was not. Rather it claimed to “descend so to speak, into a dialogue with” man, “with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity” and to “express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach”. The council was intended to reorient the Church to the world, to be “accommodating” and “friendly”, “up-to-date” with the pluralistic, liberal New World Order. The very same, day, the council’s pluralist liberal “Declaration on Religious Liberty”, Dignitatis Humanae (Of the Dignity of Man), was finalised as addressed to the whole world; it said:



    “Over and above all this, in taking up the matter of religious freedom this sacred Synod intends to develop the doctrine of recent Popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and on the constitutional order of society. This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.” (Dignitatis Humanae, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 677-8)



    After that council, the Vatican ordered all Catholic countries to alter their constitutions so that they would no longer be Catholic countries but would uphold liberal pluralism and degeneracy instead. Francisco Franco of pro-Catholic Fascist Spain resisted and the Church attempted to undermine him. Before that council, Franco had been given by the Church the title of “Defender of the Church”. He had saved Spain, and western Europe, from military conquest by the atheistic forces of international Marxism in the so-called Spanish Civil War of the nineteen-thirties. Over 15,000 clergy and religious had been slaughtered by the revolutionaries in six months before Franco returned to Spain with his armies from Morocco, where he had been stationed, to lead the Catholic people in a Crusade to save Catholic Spain from revolutionary destruction. He saved western Europe from the sort of mass bloodbath which the Soviets had enacted in the east and which they were beginning in Spain. After Vatican II, he was demonised by the Church as nothing but an evil reactionary and after his death, Spain too fell to the forces of subversion. Not only the Church but all of its civilization now totters over the brink of total globalistic conquest and disintegration, with mass immigration and the globalisation of economies and of a media-fabricated liberal ‘culture’.



    The supposed theological note of the revolutionary council was given by Paul VI in his Apostolic Brief, “In Spiritu Sancto”, for the closing of the council, of December 8, 1965, which was read at the closing ceremonies of that day by Archbishop Felici, the General Secretary. Paul VI had already stated in his address concluding the council the day before that the council had not “wish[ed] to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and therefore was not infallible; Felici went on to explain that Paul VI was making the council a matter of religious submission, which is the assent given to non-infallible material, as we shall see. Felici stated as follows:



    “And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family. […] We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. […] Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.” (In Spiritu Sancto, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)



    Paul VI established at the council’s end that “all that has been established synodally”, every bit of the council’s documents, “is to be religiously observed”. None of the texts contained “extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and they were all made a matter of religious submission. Bearing in mind what Paul VI said about the council texts on those two final days, we shall use the 1983 Code of Canon Law to show the non-infallible character of Vatican II. The Code distinguishes the matter of religious submission from infallible, definitive teaching as follows:



    “Can. 752. While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”



    So, “religious submission” is given when the Pope, either alone or with his bishops in a council, does not intend to “proclaim doctrine by a definitive act”; but infallibility is engaged only when he does proclaim definitively; therefore the matter of religious submission is not infallible, which is why it does not require “the assent of faith”:

    “Can. 749. In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ's faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals. The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.”


    So, when Paul VI stated that “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed”, he was making all the council texts a matter of “religious submission” which is what is given to non-infallible matter. For the council did not “proclaim definitively” any doctrine, “not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements”.


    The non-infallible, non-definitive character of Vatican II was again highlighted by Paul VI in a general audience a year later; he stated:



    “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.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)



    That is plain: Vatican II “avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority”; it “avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility”. It was not an infallible council. The documents were intended to be of the ordinary but not universal magisterium, called the non-infallible and merely “authentic magisterium” in the 1983 Code.



    Paul VI confirmed again in 1975 that Vatican II was pastoral and not an infallible dogmatic council:



    “Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.” (General Audience, August 6, 1975, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pa...750806_it.html)



    Vatican II was a sui generis, a uniquely non-infallible ecumenical council unlike any other. It was a vehicle of anti-Catholic revolution and is to be resisted, as we shall soon argue.



    The Testimony of Other Council Participants


    The non-infallible character of Vatican II was also witnessed to by other council participants.



    John Cardinal Heenan of England stated as follows:



    “It 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.” (Council and Clergy, 1966)



    Bishop Butler of England publicly spoke to the matter twice:



    “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.” (The Tablet 26/11/1967)



    “Vatican II gave us no new dogmatic definitions.” (The Tablet 2/3/1968)



    Bishop Rudolf Graber wrote this in his book:



    “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.” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, 1974)



    Bishop Thomas Morris expressed his relief on the matter as follows:



    “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.” (Catholic World News 1/22/1997)



    Hence, the participants of Vatican II were effectively given to understand that it was not an infallible council.



    The Testimony of John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger


    Pope John Paul II is an extreme partisan of the Vatican II apostasy. He has been obsessed throughout his papacy with the imposition of the apostasy on the Church and with the furtherance of the New World Order. He hardly ever quotes anything except the documents of Vatican II and his earlier statements furthering the council. He is openly Modernist in his defence of its heresies. For instance, the day after he schismatically gave a bogus excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre for securing an opposition to his destruction of the Church by consecrating four bishops to continue the ordination of Traditionalist priests - whereby JPII schismatically refused communion with the Archbishop – he tried to justify himself as follows:



    “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)



    John Paul II admits the novelties of Vatican II and claims that they are “new points of doctrine.” That is Modernsist heresy. Pope Pius IX defined ex cathedra at the First Vatican Council as follows:



    “For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.” (Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4)



    So, Pius IX defined that a Pope cannot make known new doctrine but John Paul II claims that the Popes of Vatican II did just that, so he is an heretic condemned by Vatican I. Vatican II was heretical and so is John Paul II.



    John Paul II managed to admit that Vatican II was pastoral, not doctrinal:



    “Pope John conceived the Council as an eminently pastoral event.” (Angelus, October 27, 1985)



    John Paul II’s “number two”, Cardinal Ratzinger, stated that Vatican II was not infallible as follows:



    “Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. 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.” (Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 30/7-5/8/1988)



    The “opposition” of which he spoke continues. Vatican II will be reversed 100% and Catholicism will be gloriously restored along with its nations and eventually the whole world. We will win. Tomorrow belongs to us.



    The Council is to be Rejected and Resisted


    Now, we have shown that Vatican II was not an infallible dogmatic council but was a political council aimed at assimilating the Church into the emerging post-1789 Freemasonic pluralistic, secularised “new order of human relations”. It is not binding by Faith, as the Code of Canon Law states, canon 752, and so there is no question of heresy in refusing the council. Indeed, rather it would be heretical to go along with that council. Paul VI gave the council the “authority” of mere “religious submission” – it is a matter of mere obedience. Obedience is not absolutely binding. Authority is aimed at the common good and at leading the creature to its end, which for men is salvation; by the virtue of equity, Catholics resist whatever is perceived to be harmful to the Church. We have shown in another study that a Pope is to be openly resisted should he maintain heresy or enact policies destructive to the Church; the same goes for an ecumenical council; we shall not repeat all that here but will rather refer the reader to that study.



    Whole volumes have already been written chronicling the demise of the Church in the post-conciliar period and we shall not repeat that here either; rather we refer the reader to our own brief synopsis of the demise.



    Vatican II was a politically motivated apostasy. It destroyed all Catholic nations and incorporated them in to the Freemasonic New World Order. The Church has gone into open and manifold heresy. It has apostasised and very few have retained the Faith. We have chronicled some of John Paul II heresy elsewhere on this site. As such, Catholics are obliged to refuse and resist Vatican II and the post-conciliar apostasy. It is an exercise of the virtue of equity and it is a sin to fail to resist. God hates cowards and they get top of the bill in the lake of fire (Apocalypse 21:8). As the Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine of Sienna († 1380) put it:



    “Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.” (Letter to Pope Gregory XI)



    It is striking to see the witness of Paul VI, who promulgated the council, to its destructive fruits:



    “The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-destruction. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in the great sessions of the council. But one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church were destroying herself.” (Address to the Lombard Seminary at Rome, December 7, 1968)



    Indeed, half the priests in the world simply walked out within a decade of the council. The Church has been destroying itself ever since, and has adopted just about every harmful or scandalous policy it possibly could to hasten that destruction. But what was the purpose of the Vatican II revolution if not precisely to destroy the Church as it had formerly existed and to replace it with an heretical lackey of the NWO?



    Paul VI went as far as to state the following about the Church in the post-conciliar period:



    “We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation. […] We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.” (Sermon during the Mass for Sts. Peter & Paul in St. Peter’s Basilica, on the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation, June 29, 1972)



    “The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.” (Address on the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Fatima Apparitions, October 13, 1977)



    But is that not exactly what Vatican II was intended to produce? Indeed it is. It was itself the apostasy.


    So we see that Vatican II was admitted to have been a disaster of immense proportions, initiating a process of destruction of the Church, even according to Paul VI who promulgated it. Its fruits are exceedingly poisonous and, as Our Lord said:



    “Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.” (St. Matthew 7:19-20).



    That is our purpose: to cast Vatican II into the fire and to re-establish the true Faith within the Church and Catholic order within nations. God expects nothing less of us. The traitors have effected their Masonic pluralist revolution within the Church. It is for the loyal Traditionalist resistance to effect the counter-revolution, both within the Church and throughout the world.

    http://www.romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.html

  2. #2
    Account Inactive Chinaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, November 12th, 2004 @ 02:15 AM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Politics
    None
    Posts
    17
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Interesting article from MICM, St. Benedict Center if I remember correctly, the place where Fr. Leonard Feeney (bless his soul) was active. While it is true that Vatican II is not infallible, the modern day St. Benedict Center has been a bit weak in it's view of the modernist post-V2 church.

    I personally am a Feeneyite in regards to the question of salvation, but also a Sede Vacantist, which Feeney, I don't believe was even in 1978 after Vatican II. The problems with Vatican II and the magisterium of the modernists has so much troubling theology that one would have to assume cannot truly be in the Catholic Church and therefore certainly does not have any authority.

    Due to various formal, and blatant theological errors in direct contrast to the Catholic dogma promulgated in the infallible teachings of Trent and Pope Gregory, etc. and also at Florence, we must assume that they have defected from the faith and are no longer true Catholics.

    Eric


    Quote Originally Posted by Milesian
    Vatican II Was Not Infallible


    By Br. Benedict Mary MICM Tert. (Thomas Sparks)





    Introduction


    In this study, we shall show that Vatican II (1963-5) was not intended to be an infallible council; rather it was conceived as a “pastoral” renewal of the Church which politically and ideologically subverted the Church into a willing and active agent of the formation of a pluralistic, secularised New World Order. To establish the non-infallible character of that council, we shall quote the opening and closing addresses of Popes John XXIII († 1963) and Paul VI († 1978), as well as other material from Popes, cardinals and bishops. We shall see that the liberal revolution within the Church, which was Vatican II, had long been planned by the Freemasonic enemies of Catholicism. And we shall place the Traditional Catholic counter-revolutionary movement within that overall context.



    The Testimony of John XXIII


    Pope John XXIII himself stated in his Opening Address at the beginning of Vatican II that the council was not intended to be a doctrinal council concerned with defining any articles of Faith; rather it was to a “pastoral” council which was concerned with representing the Catholic Faith in a manner acceptable to the modern world:



    “The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)



    However, it should be noted that John XXIII intended that the Council should, by this supposed new “presentation” of Catholic doctrine, bring the Church to change itself so as to fit in with the judaised New World Order of global One World Government and liberal pluralism, which NWO he claimed was from God. In the same address he said this:



    “Illuminated by the light of this Council, the Church - we confidently trust - will become greater in spiritual riches and gaining the strength of new energies therefrom, she will look to the future without fear. In fact, by bringing herself up to date where required, and by the wise organization of mutual co-operation, the Church will make men, families, and peoples really turn their minds to heavenly things. […] In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men's own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfilment of God's superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church. […] She opens the fountain of her life-giving doctrine which allows men, enlightened by the light of Christ, to understand well what they really are, what their lofty dignity and their purpose are, and, finally, through her children, she spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 712-3 , 716-7)



    So Vatican II was “pastoral” in so far as it intended to change the Church, “bring it up to date”, and incorporate it into the emerging pluralistic New World Order, “a new order of human relations”, so that the Church would, as the liberals say, ‘respect’ “human differences” like false religions and would work for a “brotherly unity of all” under a pluralistic global government. The Church was to become a vehicle of Freemasonic pluralism.



    This was admitted by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who is presently the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in his 1982 supposed treatise on Catholic theology. He stated that the council documents, including the text Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), were intended to revise the Church so that it would uphold and practice the Masonic supposed values of the French Revolution of pluralism and secularisation. Those values, such as “freedom of conscience”, “liberty” of false religions, a separation of Church from the state and many other basic tenants of liberal pluralism had been repeatedly condemned by the Church, in particular by Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Modern Errors. Ratzinger wrote this:



    “If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [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.” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, pp. 381-2, Ignatius Press 1987)



    Cardinal Ratzinger is quite open about that Vatican II reversed the teaching of the Church and adopted the revolutionary teachings of the so-called French Revolution.



    It is true that Vatican II assimilated the Catholic Church to the anti-Catholic, liberal revolution of 1789, but more immediately, that council must be placed within the context of World War II, the destruction of Germany and the fall of authoritarian Fascism, which was often pro-Catholic. Revolutionary liberalism was triumphant after that war and, particularly with their control of the new mass media, the forces of subversion set about rapidly transforming the First World into a completely secularised, pluralistic, morally degenerate condition under a One World Government of the international financiers and their allies. That is the post-war scenario in which the liberal revolution took complete control of the Church at Vatican II and subverted it for its own ends.



    The Freemasons openly boast of how they planned and executed the so-called French Revolution. They also planned Vatican II. A secret Masonic blueprint for the subversion of the Catholic Church, called the Alta Vendita, fell into the possession of Pope Gregory XVI († 1846); it was published upon the request of Pope Pius IX († 1878), who wanted Catholics to know what was going on. The goal was to subvert the Church to use it for their own ends; one Freemason declared: “the goal [of freemasonry] is no longer the destruction of the Church, but to make use of it by infiltrating it.” The Masons would spread their ideas within the Church until their supporters had reached to the top and then there would be a council which would revolutionise the Church. The Masonic Alta Vendita says this:



    “This reputation [as good Catholics attained by Masons] will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun all the functions; they will form the sovereign council, they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily more or less imbued with the [revolutionary] Italian and humanitarian principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation.”



    The Masons planned to subvert “the sovereign council” and the “Pontiff” to their “principles”. Vatican II was that council and the wartime triumph of liberal, secular, pluralistic international finance and the post-war domination of its forces provided the moment.



    The defined doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church for non-Catholics” obviously had to be changed to something more pluralistic and cooperative.



    After the Vatican II revolution, amid Masonic celebration at the new Masonic revolution, Yves Marsaudon of the Scottish Rite Freemasons wrote in his book, “Ecumenism Viewed by a Traditional Freemason”, that Masonic ideas had conquered the Church:



    “Catholics [...] must not forget that all roads lead to God. And they will have to accept that this courageous idea of free-thinking, which we can really call a revolution, pouring forth from our Masonic lodges, has spread magnificently over the dome of St. Peter's.”



    Since Vatican II, the Church has been completely subverted to pluralistic and ‘tolerant’ Masonic values. The present Pope, John Paul II, summed it up when he completely contradicted the pre-conciliar Popes as follows:


    “Freedom of conscience and of religion, including the aforementioned elements, is a primary and inalienable right of man.” (“The Freedom of Conscience and of Religion”, September 1, 1980)


    So, we see that from the very outset, John XXIII stated that Vatican II was not intended to be a doctrinal council but was intended: to bring the Church “up to date”; to initiate a pluralistic “wise organization of mutual co-operation”; to assist the creation of “a new order of human relations” which he believed God was bringing about; to spread pluralistic “concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.” That has been openly and publicly admitted by the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to be a rejection and contradiction of previous Catholic doctrine and an incorporation of the Church into the emerging pluralistic, secularised post-1789 Masonic World Order. The Popes of old warned us that the Masons were planning such a subversion of the Church through a council and the Freemasons openly boasted after Vatican II that their pluralistic, syncretist pseudo-religion had taken over the Church. John XXIII called that “pastoral” and not doctrinal; as such it was not intended to be an infallible council but rather a political alignment of the Church with the NWO. The Church’s old enemy had triumphed again and the Church had become a vehicle of a pluralist, secularist One World Government which wanted to use the Church as a structural ideological support. The Church has been thoroughly subverted and almost all Catholics have become docile lackeys of the NWO. For instance, over 90% of the quotes contained in the new, liberal so-called “Catechism of the Catholic Church” are from Vatican II. It is as if the Church did not exist before 1963, as far as these people are concerned and institutional Catholicism has become another front for a judaised NWO. Vatican II was a politically motivated apostasy.



    The Testimony of Paul VI


    It should be obvious to any Catholic that such a “pastoral” council could not possibly be infallible; indeed, the council documents are full of pluralistic heresy. However, we shall continue to give pertinent testimonies to that fact for the benefit of our more timid brethren.



    The Theological Commission of the Council made a declaration, a nota previa (preliminary note), concerning the theological note of Vatican II on March 6, 1964; Pope Paul VI had it read, by the council’s General Secretary, Pericle Cardinal Felici, who was the Prefect of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to the council participants on November 16 of that year, to assure them that it was not an infallible council, before they gave their approval to the first conciliar text, that on the Church, called Lumen Gentium. The declaration was published as an addenda to that text. It says that as the council was intended to be “pastoral”, it should not be understood to be infallibly defining any matter unless it openly says so (which it never did):



    “In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)



    Cardinal Felici elaborated on this to Archbishop Lefebvre († 1991), who narrated his experience as follows:



    “These events I was involved in. It is I who carried the signatures to Mgr. Felici, the Council Secretary, accompanied by Mgr. de Proenca Sigaud, Archbishop of Diamantina: and I am obliged to say there occurred things that are truly inadmissible. I do not say this in order to condemn the Council; and I am not unaware that there is here a cause of confusion for a great many Catholics. After all, they think the Council was inspired by the Holy Ghost.



    “Not necessarily. A non-dogmatic, pastoral council is not a recipe for infallibility. When, at the end of the sessions, we asked Cardinal Felici, “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.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 14, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church.”, p. 107)



    So, according to the General Secretary of Vatican II, distinctions must be made: the dogmatic definitions of the past must of course be adhered to; but “reservations” must be made regarding any doctrines of a “novel character”.



    Never before in the history of the Catholic Church had a council ever taken pains to declare that it was not teaching infallibly, unless it should “openly declare so”, which it never did. And that a General Secretary should confide that “reservations” must be made about its teachings of “a novel character” is quite ridiculous. Vatican II was clearly unlike any ecumenical council which preceded it.



    We may understand why the council was reduced to such a statement. The aim was to subvert the Church into being a vehicle of the NWO; heretical pluralistic Freemasonic doctrines were adopted and Catholic doctrine was contradicted: hence it was impossible that the council should have been infallible; God – Who is the guarantor of the accuracy of infallible teachings – would never have allowed it and would have stopped it in one way or another. So the only way that the apostates could give any appearance of promulgating their subversion at an ecumenical council was by formally stating that it was not intended to be infallible.



    It may be noted that it is likely that God shut down the First Vatican Council (1870) for just such a reason. The next schema for discussion was openly heretical, saying that the invincibly ignorant could be saved; St. Anthony Mary Claret († 1870) openly rebuked the council participants for their heresy and was so upset that he had a heart attack, collapsed and died, being the only canonised participant of that council. Vatican I was abandoned due to the Franco-Prussian War before the schema could be approved. It has often been claimed that Vatican II continued the disrupted work of Vatican I; it managed to promulgate volumes of heresy but only after it had been formally established that it was not an infallible council.



    Paul VI also stated that Vatican II was not infallible when he concluded it, as follows:



    “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.” (Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6tolast.htm)



    So, Vatican II did not “issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” at all; that refers to infallible definitions, none of which were made. That council was not infallible, did not claim to be and expressly said that it was not. Rather it claimed to “descend so to speak, into a dialogue with” man, “with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity” and to “express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach”. The council was intended to reorient the Church to the world, to be “accommodating” and “friendly”, “up-to-date” with the pluralistic, liberal New World Order. The very same, day, the council’s pluralist liberal “Declaration on Religious Liberty”, Dignitatis Humanae (Of the Dignity of Man), was finalised as addressed to the whole world; it said:



    “Over and above all this, in taking up the matter of religious freedom this sacred Synod intends to develop the doctrine of recent Popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and on the constitutional order of society. This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.” (Dignitatis Humanae, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 677-8)



    After that council, the Vatican ordered all Catholic countries to alter their constitutions so that they would no longer be Catholic countries but would uphold liberal pluralism and degeneracy instead. Francisco Franco of pro-Catholic Fascist Spain resisted and the Church attempted to undermine him. Before that council, Franco had been given by the Church the title of “Defender of the Church”. He had saved Spain, and western Europe, from military conquest by the atheistic forces of international Marxism in the so-called Spanish Civil War of the nineteen-thirties. Over 15,000 clergy and religious had been slaughtered by the revolutionaries in six months before Franco returned to Spain with his armies from Morocco, where he had been stationed, to lead the Catholic people in a Crusade to save Catholic Spain from revolutionary destruction. He saved western Europe from the sort of mass bloodbath which the Soviets had enacted in the east and which they were beginning in Spain. After Vatican II, he was demonised by the Church as nothing but an evil reactionary and after his death, Spain too fell to the forces of subversion. Not only the Church but all of its civilization now totters over the brink of total globalistic conquest and disintegration, with mass immigration and the globalisation of economies and of a media-fabricated liberal ‘culture’.



    The supposed theological note of the revolutionary council was given by Paul VI in his Apostolic Brief, “In Spiritu Sancto”, for the closing of the council, of December 8, 1965, which was read at the closing ceremonies of that day by Archbishop Felici, the General Secretary. Paul VI had already stated in his address concluding the council the day before that the council had not “wish[ed] to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and therefore was not infallible; Felici went on to explain that Paul VI was making the council a matter of religious submission, which is the assent given to non-infallible material, as we shall see. Felici stated as follows:



    “And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family. […] We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. […] Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.” (In Spiritu Sancto, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)



    Paul VI established at the council’s end that “all that has been established synodally”, every bit of the council’s documents, “is to be religiously observed”. None of the texts contained “extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and they were all made a matter of religious submission. Bearing in mind what Paul VI said about the council texts on those two final days, we shall use the 1983 Code of Canon Law to show the non-infallible character of Vatican II. The Code distinguishes the matter of religious submission from infallible, definitive teaching as follows:



    “Can. 752. While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”



    So, “religious submission” is given when the Pope, either alone or with his bishops in a council, does not intend to “proclaim doctrine by a definitive act”; but infallibility is engaged only when he does proclaim definitively; therefore the matter of religious submission is not infallible, which is why it does not require “the assent of faith”:

    “Can. 749. In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ's faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals. The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.”


    So, when Paul VI stated that “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed”, he was making all the council texts a matter of “religious submission” which is what is given to non-infallible matter. For the council did not “proclaim definitively” any doctrine, “not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements”.


    The non-infallible, non-definitive character of Vatican II was again highlighted by Paul VI in a general audience a year later; he stated:



    “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.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)



    That is plain: Vatican II “avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority”; it “avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility”. It was not an infallible council. The documents were intended to be of the ordinary but not universal magisterium, called the non-infallible and merely “authentic magisterium” in the 1983 Code.



    Paul VI confirmed again in 1975 that Vatican II was pastoral and not an infallible dogmatic council:



    “Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.” (General Audience, August 6, 1975, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pa...750806_it.html)



    Vatican II was a sui generis, a uniquely non-infallible ecumenical council unlike any other. It was a vehicle of anti-Catholic revolution and is to be resisted, as we shall soon argue.



    The Testimony of Other Council Participants


    The non-infallible character of Vatican II was also witnessed to by other council participants.



    John Cardinal Heenan of England stated as follows:



    “It 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.” (Council and Clergy, 1966)



    Bishop Butler of England publicly spoke to the matter twice:



    “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.” (The Tablet 26/11/1967)



    “Vatican II gave us no new dogmatic definitions.” (The Tablet 2/3/1968)



    Bishop Rudolf Graber wrote this in his book:



    “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.” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, 1974)



    Bishop Thomas Morris expressed his relief on the matter as follows:



    “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.” (Catholic World News 1/22/1997)



    Hence, the participants of Vatican II were effectively given to understand that it was not an infallible council.



    The Testimony of John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger


    Pope John Paul II is an extreme partisan of the Vatican II apostasy. He has been obsessed throughout his papacy with the imposition of the apostasy on the Church and with the furtherance of the New World Order. He hardly ever quotes anything except the documents of Vatican II and his earlier statements furthering the council. He is openly Modernist in his defence of its heresies. For instance, the day after he schismatically gave a bogus excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre for securing an opposition to his destruction of the Church by consecrating four bishops to continue the ordination of Traditionalist priests - whereby JPII schismatically refused communion with the Archbishop – he tried to justify himself as follows:



    “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)



    John Paul II admits the novelties of Vatican II and claims that they are “new points of doctrine.” That is Modernsist heresy. Pope Pius IX defined ex cathedra at the First Vatican Council as follows:



    “For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.” (Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4)



    So, Pius IX defined that a Pope cannot make known new doctrine but John Paul II claims that the Popes of Vatican II did just that, so he is an heretic condemned by Vatican I. Vatican II was heretical and so is John Paul II.



    John Paul II managed to admit that Vatican II was pastoral, not doctrinal:



    “Pope John conceived the Council as an eminently pastoral event.” (Angelus, October 27, 1985)



    John Paul II’s “number two”, Cardinal Ratzinger, stated that Vatican II was not infallible as follows:



    “Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. 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.” (Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 30/7-5/8/1988)



    The “opposition” of which he spoke continues. Vatican II will be reversed 100% and Catholicism will be gloriously restored along with its nations and eventually the whole world. We will win. Tomorrow belongs to us.



    The Council is to be Rejected and Resisted


    Now, we have shown that Vatican II was not an infallible dogmatic council but was a political council aimed at assimilating the Church into the emerging post-1789 Freemasonic pluralistic, secularised “new order of human relations”. It is not binding by Faith, as the Code of Canon Law states, canon 752, and so there is no question of heresy in refusing the council. Indeed, rather it would be heretical to go along with that council. Paul VI gave the council the “authority” of mere “religious submission” – it is a matter of mere obedience. Obedience is not absolutely binding. Authority is aimed at the common good and at leading the creature to its end, which for men is salvation; by the virtue of equity, Catholics resist whatever is perceived to be harmful to the Church. We have shown in another study that a Pope is to be openly resisted should he maintain heresy or enact policies destructive to the Church; the same goes for an ecumenical council; we shall not repeat all that here but will rather refer the reader to that study.



    Whole volumes have already been written chronicling the demise of the Church in the post-conciliar period and we shall not repeat that here either; rather we refer the reader to our own brief synopsis of the demise.



    Vatican II was a politically motivated apostasy. It destroyed all Catholic nations and incorporated them in to the Freemasonic New World Order. The Church has gone into open and manifold heresy. It has apostasised and very few have retained the Faith. We have chronicled some of John Paul II heresy elsewhere on this site. As such, Catholics are obliged to refuse and resist Vatican II and the post-conciliar apostasy. It is an exercise of the virtue of equity and it is a sin to fail to resist. God hates cowards and they get top of the bill in the lake of fire (Apocalypse 21:8). As the Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine of Sienna († 1380) put it:



    “Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.” (Letter to Pope Gregory XI)



    It is striking to see the witness of Paul VI, who promulgated the council, to its destructive fruits:



    “The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-destruction. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in the great sessions of the council. But one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church were destroying herself.” (Address to the Lombard Seminary at Rome, December 7, 1968)



    Indeed, half the priests in the world simply walked out within a decade of the council. The Church has been destroying itself ever since, and has adopted just about every harmful or scandalous policy it possibly could to hasten that destruction. But what was the purpose of the Vatican II revolution if not precisely to destroy the Church as it had formerly existed and to replace it with an heretical lackey of the NWO?



    Paul VI went as far as to state the following about the Church in the post-conciliar period:



    “We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation. […] We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.” (Sermon during the Mass for Sts. Peter & Paul in St. Peter’s Basilica, on the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation, June 29, 1972)



    “The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.” (Address on the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Fatima Apparitions, October 13, 1977)



    But is that not exactly what Vatican II was intended to produce? Indeed it is. It was itself the apostasy.


    So we see that Vatican II was admitted to have been a disaster of immense proportions, initiating a process of destruction of the Church, even according to Paul VI who promulgated it. Its fruits are exceedingly poisonous and, as Our Lord said:



    “Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.” (St. Matthew 7:19-20).



    That is our purpose: to cast Vatican II into the fire and to re-establish the true Faith within the Church and Catholic order within nations. God expects nothing less of us. The traitors have effected their Masonic pluralist revolution within the Church. It is for the loyal Traditionalist resistance to effect the counter-revolution, both within the Church and throughout the world.

    http://www.romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.html

  3. #3
    Sideways to the Sun
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,745
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Chinaman
    Interesting article from MICM, St. Benedict Center if I remember correctly, the place where Fr. Leonard Feeney (bless his soul) was active. While it is true that Vatican II is not infallible, the modern day St. Benedict Center has been a bit weak in it's view of the modernist post-V2 church.

    I personally am a Feeneyite in regards to the question of salvation, but also a Sede Vacantist, which Feeney, I don't believe was even in 1978 after Vatican II. The problems with Vatican II and the magisterium of the modernists has so much troubling theology that one would have to assume cannot truly be in the Catholic Church and therefore certainly does not have any authority.

    Due to various formal, and blatant theological errors in direct contrast to the Catholic dogma promulgated in the infallible teachings of Trent and Pope Gregory, etc. and also at Florence, we must assume that they have defected from the faith and are no longer true Catholics.

    Eric
    Ah, you believe in the Feenyite definition of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus, excellent! :-D

    By being "soft" I think you mean that St Benedicts Centre and Fr Feeny still recognised the authority of the post-Vatican II popes. That is true, like the SSPX on the subject, they do. They are not Sedevacantists.

    If you look back through the Church's history, we see that there has been a heretical heirarchy in the past. Pope Adrian (I think) commented once that there had certainly been heretical popes before his time, yet he never argued that they weren't true popes. St Cyprian argued very bitterly with Pope St Stephen II over the validity of Non-Catholic baptisms to the extent of denouncing his Pope as a " publican and a heathen", yet never did he claim that this prevented him from being the Pope. St Athanisius suffered because almost alone he defended Catholicism from the Arian heresy that Pope Liberius and the bishops were compromising with, yet never did he claim that Liberius was not the Pope.

    It is our duty to obey the Pope in all things that are lawful, but we are not obliged to follow him into error. It is our duty to resist wayward prelates. But it is not our place to depose them.

    Here is an extract of the Feenyite perspective of Sedevacantism, followed by the link to the full article explaining the Church Laws which govern being Pope and the conditions on which a Pope could be theoretically removed from office-

    Fr. Brian W. Harrison OS: “Thus, if the Church's law required that a Cardinal be free from all ecclesiastical censure in order to be eligible for the papacy, the voters in general would have no guarantee that any given candidate was not in fact ineligible because of some secret crime by which he had incurred excommunication. They might unwittingly carry out an invalid election, in which case the "Pope" they elected would not be true Pope. The invalidity of his acts would then be a kind of spiritual cancer, quietly destroying the Church's vital structures from within: the Bishops appointed by him would have no true right to govern their respective dioceses; no laws he passed would be binding on the Church; and in particular, the Cardinals named by him would not be valid electors of a future Pope. How, then, could a true Pope be restored, if at all? Who would be competent to decide? When the fact of this hidden excommunication finally came to light, the resulting chaos would be unimaginable. Nobody would know with certainty who, if anyone, still had any real authority in the Church, and schism - perhaps a series of schisms - would seem almost inevitable. The Church's law therefore foresees and avoids the possibility of this catastrophic situation by allowing that even a secret heretic or apostate, if elected as Pope, would ascend the Chair of Peter with full juridical rights over the universal Church on earth“ (A Heretical Pope Would Govern The Church Illicitly But Validly, in, Living Tradition, May 2000).


    http://www.romancatholicism.org/agai...vacantism.html",
    Last edited by Milesian; Sunday, December 28th, 2003 at 07:29 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Vatican: Faithful Should Listen to Science
    By anonymaus in forum Catholicism
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, November 3rd, 2005, 07:18 PM
  2. Vatican condemns EU 'inquisition'
    By Tryggvi in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Tuesday, October 19th, 2004, 02:22 PM
  3. The Vatican's condom challenge
    By friedrich braun in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, November 28th, 2003, 08:07 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •