I'm going to start this thread again. NO FEENEYISM or discussion of BoB and BoD here! I'll delete any violating posts without mercy.


Careful, now. I'm not talking about de-facto, simplified, or "virtually". I'm not talking about any kind of imprecise, emotional, layman language, "close enough, or true enough to act upon".

I'm asking, is it 100% accurate and juridically true that "Vatican II is heretical."

I'm talking about simpliciter, literally, juridically, specifically. Can it be said with 100% accuracy, not in spirit and in truth, cutting through the smokescreen of ambiguity but rather in a court of ecclesiastical law.

Ladislaus pointed out that Vatican II could teach heresy, even if it didn't DEFINE any new doctrine(s). Of course, one must realize that Vatican II declared itself a "pastoral council" (a novelty in itself), intentionally NOT invoking the protection of the Holy Ghost or pretending any way to be dogmatic.

But would any self-respecting Canon Lawyer or theologian ever say, "Vatican II was heretical."

I'll throw you a hint: Who can declare something heretical?

To be clear: I believe Vatican II is gravely ambiguous, confusing, unclear, misleading, sometimes downright erroneous, and should be thrown in the trash. It served no purpose but to confuse, destroy the Faith of millions, and was the French Revolution in the Church. It defined no new dogmas, but certainly implied some new ones that are foreign to the Catholic Faith. De facto, or for the simple layman, you can treat the whole thing as a bunch of garbage. Heresy? Sure, whatever. Just ignore the whole thing and you'll be OK. (I'm talking to Joe Sixpack here)

But in the original topic, I'm instead talking about an accurate censure. Keeping in mind the Theological Notes and the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church.

For one thing, it could be said that any Catholic wielding the precise charge that "Vatican II is heretical" is Sedevacantist, whether or not he knows it or admits it himself. A valid Pope can convoke (and later on approve, condone) a heretical council?

If the word simpliciter doesn't ring any bells with you, I would ask kindly that you refrain from posting in this thread.

Archbishop Lefebvre signed off on all Vatican II docuмents.

This fact is so problematic (and controversial!) that it was commonly believed that he didn't sign SOME of them, until Bishop Tissier de Mallerais brought this truth to light when he wrote his large biography of the Archbishop (the one published in 2003).

"Vatican II was heretical", you say?

So, basically, I just threw a monkey wrench in the works for any SSPX, Resistance, or SSPX-MC -supporting Catholic hoping to claim simply that "Vatican II was heretical."

Because all of those groups hold that +Lefebvre was a good faithful bishop, a hero, etc.


But if Vatican II were heretical (full stop) instead of ambiguous, confusing, diabolically disoriented, etc. then how could any good bishop sign off on it?

Yes, we all know which heresy (Modernism) pervades the Conciliar Church today and since Vatican II. But the hallmark of Modernism is to twist and distort every truth of the Faith, often in a very subtle manner.

I'm keeping an open mind on this. Perhaps we can say that most of the post-V2 hierarchy is acting heretical, perhaps we can say that Vatican II has one foot in error and one foot in wanting to stay Catholic, etc.

All that matters to us laymen is that we avoid Modernism LIKE THE PLAGUE -- which is appropriate considering the virulence of this particular heresy -- and since it's evident that the entire Conciliar Church is infected, that even includes staying aloof of the Church hierarchy and structures in order to preserve our Faith.

But it doesn't fall to us laymen to pinpoint what went wrong, place the blame, determine that status of individual bishops and popes, etc. Moral certainty is enough for us to act on, to make our prudential decisions on where to attend Mass for example. But moral certainty isn't enough to compel the conscience of others.

When you see a man with a smoking gun next to a dead body, you can be morally certain that he committed murder. It would be moral to threaten or arrest that man, including with lethal force. But it's still circuмstantial evidence -- the man with the gun might have been firing at the murderer as he fled away.

We must distinguish moral certainty from the certainty we have that God is Three in One. Or that Jesus Christ became man, died for our sins, and will come again to judge the living and the dead.


Am I as certain about matters touching on the Crisis (Vatican II, the Pope, etc.) as I am about these truths of the Faith? Heck no. And I'll be the first to admit it. Of course I have a slight doubt or hesitation in the back of my mind.

Anyone who pretends to be as certain is not "more courageous in the Faith" as most of them claim, but instead he is foolhardy, or a fool. As the saying goes, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

Or perhaps some of them are cynical demagogues, simplifying matters for the confused laymen in order to get their $upport and carve out a comfortable living for themselves.

Survivors floating in a lifeboat don't need to figure out why the main ship went down. What's important to the simple men & women on the lifeboats is SURVIVING -- keeping body and soul together until they are rescued.

And just like men floating on a lifeboat MUST rely on outside help if they are ever to see land again, we Catholics on the lifeboats of Tradition must wait for God's help if we are ever to see "normal times" again. There's not much we can do with our makeshift oars and inflatable life rafts to get from the middle of the Atlantic Ocean back to New York City or wherever in Europe the cruise liner left from.

Look around you in the Conciliar church.  

The bishops of that sect, including the past few bishops of Rome, all say that they are implementing the "teachings of Vatican 2".  Councils need not be interpreted; Councils are implemented.  The Word of God is subject to interpretation, Councils teach true interpretations of the Scriptures and sacred traditions.  This concept the one can "interpret Vatican 2" is itself a novelty that must be spurned by all Catholics.

The Conciliar bishops are the Magisterium...of the Conciliar sect anyway.  If they are (and were) true Catholics and Vatican 2 was (and is) a true Council and did not contain heresy, then what the bishops teach today as a body is the true faith and no Catholic should resist their teachings.

On the other hand, Catholics absolutely must see that what is taught today by the body of the bishops is incompatible on so many fronts with what was received from the Church from the beginning until, oh, 1958 or so.  Doctrines contrary to the Catholic Faith is called "heresy".  From beginning to the end, Vatican 2 was a Robber Council.  While it does indeed contain truths, just as all false religions contain some modicuм of truth in order to fool even the elect, it is, by its nature, an act of heresy.

In answer to the opening post's question, not only can it be said that Vatican 2 is heretical, it must be admitted by Catholics that Vatican 2 is heretical.

Heretical?  What makes a council of the Church that Christ founded, valid?  Hm?  I have read a lot of books.  First, was Vatican I finished?  I think it was not.  WHY?  War for one, 1870.  Cardinal Manning has great writings of Communism, weakening of Holy Mother Church.  He most definitely saw the workings throughout Europe and the Popes that followed sure spilled the beans, did they not!  From my understanding, the clergy knew, that if there ever was a council to come, THEY would not call for it, because they knew what was to come!  So, the council II began when it did, when communism knew she had the Vatican.  Your history of Hitler and Stalin/Lenin Cardinal Mindstenty they knew!!  They lived it every day!  Their clergy were put to prison and the clergy that supported Russia/communism were put in their place.  Where was the pope?  We had Pope Pius XII and his powers for on this earth were pretty much going.  The communist told Cardinal Mindstenty "The vatican is under a net, you know."  And they also were known to say, "Do You think you will have valid popes to follow?"

How devious were the communist?!  We were weak in Europe after all the sects broke off from the Church.  Ridicule, murder, confusion and that for 300 years, made take over easy.  Less and less people wanted a Pope, no one to tell them what to do.

So, when Vatican II council came on, what 1958-62.  My Grandmother knew, and she said, "There goes the Church".  When you read about the council, you will see the scheme of the communist and how the True Clergy tried and even Cardinal Mindstety and Cardinal Manning all did what they could to defend HER!  Millions of Catholics gathered for pilgrims in 1948 and such.  They did all they could to make a statement to the communist.  But the communist took over.  We had the infiltrators as we know.

When we read about Vatican II, the communists are there!!  They are too smart to define.  If they were to define anything that they "suggested" it would show that they were who they truly are, communists! And someone had said, IF they were to define, it would show them to be heretical.  I say, just call them for what we know, Communists!  The True clergy of Vatican II were known to complain that nothing in the council mentioned anything against the Communist!  And nothing for Our Lady.  Heaven forbid, she was put on the back burner.

We know that the Popes who knew of Communism and wrote on Communism stated that anyone, who supports them, follows them, are excommunicated. Well, of course!  Is Vatican II heretical?  It was certainly Communistic.  Was Vatican II taken over?  I don't think so.  I think it was well planned out by the Clergy who were wolves, communists.  Now, can anyone or any group, align themselves to this?

Things were so slow and gradual with the communist.  They knew what they were doing and they did and are still doing a fine job for Satan!  You do it so slow to be able to confuse and of course it is hard to put a finger on where thing begin.

Did Archbishop Lev, know?  Does one have the Mass of the 1962 missal, which makes me think, it is to show acceptance of Vatican II?  Maybe the Archbishop did not know how to handle the situation, but truth is, you can not, with a good mind, align yourself to a communist group.  Cardinal Mindstey and Cardinal Manning said, "No Compromise!" to the communist.  They certainly wanted their way and they have it!  We see communist Forced on Europe and we see and live the peaceful Communism.  That one is the hardest for us to see.  They come in with social and justice and charities and the money goes where?!  We know!  For us in the USA, it is the agenda of the Federal gov't for starts.  

I say we have enough info to prove to ourselves over time, that Vatican II was the council of the Communist, flexing their muscles and letting the world know, that they were in place!

I just wanted to contribute this to the discussion because it seemed relevant:

Execrabilis (On Appealing to a Future Council) Papal Bull of Pope Pius II

"1. An execrable, and in former ages unheard-of-abuse, has sprung up in our time, namely that some people, imbued with the spirit of rebellion, presume to appeal to a future Council, from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, to whom it was said in the person of blessed Peter: "Feed my sheep" and "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven"; they do not do so because they are anxious to obtain sounder judgment, but in order to escape the consequences of their sins, and anyone who is not ignorant of the laws can realize how contrary this is to the sacred canons and how detrimental to the Christian community."

The question is that if Vatican 2 is not heretical, how can its errors be corrected without an appeal to a future council and contradicting this papal bull? Something along those lines.

Daly's stuff is complete junk.  He has no clue about what the term "heresy" actually means.

So, despite the fact that Pius IX calls Religious Liberty merely an "erroneous opinion" and "insanity", Daly concludes from this that it's heresy.

Does it matter if there is heresy in Vatican II simpliciter?

What is the point of such an inquiry?

If the issue is could the Church adopt heresy in its teachings, the issue is rendered moot by the history of the Conciliar Church which implemented those teachings.

What I mean to say is, the issue concerns the indefectibility and infallibility of the “Church.” Can the “Church” do such? That is the concern.

The concern has been answered by the Conciliar Church.

Does the issue become then “when” the Church defected? Does that matter? If the Conciliar Church has in fact defected, then it is a fact that an institution which appears to be the “Church” is capable of defecting.

When did this Church which appears to be the Catholic Church defect? 1958? 1965? Does it matter?

Identify the cause of the defection or the error. Identify when the error appeared in the Magisterium of the Church. This is an academic exercise, for reasons I expressed above.

The point is we need to pray for the abjuration of the error and the restoration of a true Pontiff who, with the authority of Peter, proclaims the Catholic faith and truth to the world.

We are spinning our wheels in these discussions until then. We reject the Revolution, seek priests who can administer the sacraments to us if possible, pray the Rosary and just pray period, and hold to the Catholic faith.

The “error” is not preaching the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation. The Catholic faith, as a minimum, means faith in Christ, which requires, at a minimum, belief in His divinity (the Trinity) and His Incarnation. And with that must be an understanding of these in terms of their relation to the necessity for Redemption by a God who rewards and punishes.

As Monsignor Fenton said regarding Suprema Haec:

Monsignor Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, February, 1951, pages 124-143

The idea that a votum, that is a desire or an intention, of entering the Church can bring a man “within” the Church sufficiently to allow for the possibility of his salvation is one of the dominant factors in recent theological writing on the Church’s necessity. The notion itself is a part of Catholic doctrinal tradition, although this particular terminology, or, to be more exact, the application of this terminology to the thesis that there is no salvation outside the Church, goes back only to the latter part of the sixteenth century, to the time of Stapleton and St. Robert. [57] Now the idea, and to a lesser extent the terminology itself, is definitely a standard part of the scholastic treatment of this thesis.

Likewise, and by force of the very content of Catholic theology, it is standard scholastic teaching that the votum or desire of entering the Catholic Church may be merely implicit and still sufficient to bring a man “within” the Church so as to make his salvation possible. Salvific faith must be explicit on four points. No man can believe in God as he must believe in order to possess the life of sanctifying grace without distinctly acknowledging the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God thus rewards the good and punishes evil, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the mystery of the Incarnation. The mystery of the Catholic Church is not one of these facts which must be believed explicitly in salvific faith.


http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=420&sid=18ce7ada68b9a368d56494eea4c56761

This faith can imply all the other elements of the Catholic faith for one who simply hasn’t been catechized and doesn’t know. It is lost as soon as one rejects a teaching of that faith culpably if merely interior or if one rejects it publicly and manifestly, thus rejecting the unity of the external profession necessary to the visible body, and rendering one outside that body.

As to Vatican II, it plays the old game of the Revolutionaries and heretics, who took over the institution and buildings of the Church:

Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei

They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words7 such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circuмstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such docuмents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine8 who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.


In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.

That there are “perverse meanings” and “errors” implied in Vatican II is clear by the actions of those who apply it, the popes and bishops of the Conciliar Church, who have expressed and acted as if salvation is possible and actually can be achieved in non-Catholic religions and without the Catholic faith.

Keep looking for heresy simpliciter, Matthew, but you’re basically asking that Satan admit he’s a liar, or looking for a clear admission of such, and effectively insisting for proof that he has laid down his arms and given us his major weapon.

If and when he does that or such proof appears to all and any reasonable man, we will all go “home,” for the game will be over, and the debate concluded forever.  

Quote from: Ladislaus

Daly's stuff is complete junk.  He has no clue about what the term "heresy" actually means.

So, despite the fact that Pius IX calls Religious Liberty merely an "erroneous opinion" and "insanity", Daly concludes from this that it's heresy.

No, he concludes that it is heresy because Pope Pius IX teaches that it contradicts Revelation.

Every error contradicts Revelation; it's the proximity of the contradiction that leads to the theological note.  Daly has no idea what he's talking about.

However, even if John Daly happened to be mistaken in this particular qualification of error, that does not mean that his other qualifications are also mistaken. You would have to refute each one, and even if only one accurate qualification of heresy remained, it would be enough to prove the existence of heresy in Vatican II.

Uhm, not even close.  If Daly's making the charge of heresy, the burden of proof rests squarely on him to prove it and not on me to disprove it.  I have to disprove nothing.

misericordianos and Ladislaus

are once again discussing doctrine relating to BoD and Feeneyism, so instead of forcing me to reply by quoting Catholic theologians again, I expect Matthew will delete those comments.

I'm going to start this thread again. NO FEENEYISM or discussion of BoB and BoD here! I'll delete any violating posts without mercy.